Table 3: Outcomes Evidenced in three countries on GAP Actions 1, 8 and 10 Highlighted Example Type of Outcome Evidenced Country Nepal Dominican Republic Thailand Type 1, Type 2, Type 3 Type 1, Type 2, Type 3 Type 1, Type 2 Actions 8 and 10: UNHCR’s implementing partner FWLD has carried out research highlighting that 6.7 million people in 2021 are without citizenship certificates which is the most reliable figure available. In addition, FWLD carries out legal reform and legal assistance, and training with Parliamentarians Actions 1 and 8: In 2020, President Medina issued a Presidential Decree to naturalize 750 cases of Group B individuals. This is the first in the available legal pathway to nationality for Group B2. Of these, 708 were supported by UNHCR and partners to compile documents. Advocacy from civil society and U.S. diplomacy were considered key catalysts for the decree. Actions 1 and 8: Through UNHCR funding of its implementing partner, ADRA, thousands of stateless persons in the Chiang Rai region have been supported to access their citizenship documents despite a complicated and difficult to understand legal environment. Through engagement with the #IBelong Campaign, there has been consistent high-level attention to the issue. Table 3, above, highlights country-level outcomes on GAP Actions 1,8, and 10 in the three countries. Action 8 featured prominently in all the countries. PRM’s strategy through its implementation at the country level, is where the evaluation saw the most concrete outcomes. While in Nepal and the Dominican Republic there was limited engagement with the #IBelong Campaign and PRM’s multilateral diplomacy, the Dominican Republic showcased the strength of U.S. bilateral diplomacy coupled with UNHCR’s actions, while Nepal showcased how UNHCR can continue to make progress in a politicized environment. However, UNHCR has not made significant progress on these GAP Actions. Some common reasons for this lack of progress evident in the three countries are (1) CSOs are generally underfunded, both for legal aid and advocacy, which impedes progress on both Actions 1 and 8. On legal aid, UNHCR’s reach in Thailand is in one region despite the scale of the problem and in Nepal CSOs are the only ones taking up the issue despite the huge needs. (2) Discrimination around race, caste, or ethnic minority status features heavily as a core underlying issue, particularly for Action 1, but there is little to no programming to address it. (3) Coalition-building and raising public awareness was considered critical to addressing statelessness but insufficient funding or diplomatic initiatives were evidenced to support this work. (4) There is little data on statelessness in Nepal and insufficient, independent data on statelessness in Thailand, impeding progress on Action 10. Impact of COVID-19. Most informants highlighted the concern about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on vulnerable stateless and at-risk of statelessness populations, given that they are not prioritized to access needed health support, relief, and social protection programs, nor is it clear that they will be vaccinated. Paradoxically, COVID-19 was seen as yet another emergency to be prioritized above the statelessness issue. In all the three countries, there was evidence of UNHCR, either on its own, through partners, or through advocacy with the government, providing stateless persons with short-term support such as hygiene kits or access to government programs. 23