done before a court to obtain a jugement supplétif).217 The results revealed that that the births of 78.5% of the overall population have been registered.218 No comprehensive initial mapping of a country’s statelessness situation is complete without conducting in-depth consultations with stateless persons or those at risk of statelessness regarding their protection needs. These can take the form of what UNHCR calls a “participatory assessment,” an exercise that is part and parcel of its protection work and has been described as being relevant to its statelessness mandate as follows: “Mainstreaming age, gender and diversity considerations requires the meaningful participation of girls, boys, women and men of all ages and backgrounds in the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of all UNHCR policies and operations so that these impact equitably on stateless persons and address all causes of statelessness.”219 In many respects, the Ivorian government and UNHCR have been able to highlight the importance of addressing statelessness in Côte d’Ivoire as a result of publishing the estimated figure of 700,000. Yet it is important to be cautious with statistics that have not been subject to rigorous qualitative and statistical analysis. Furthermore, the precise nature of how an individual or group is identified will influence how to speak about and measure the outcome of a response. Some responses are best qualified as efforts to prevent statelessness, or address the risk of statelessness, while others can be qualified as aiding in the reduction of statelessness, or resolving statelessness. Much more needs to be done with respect to better understanding how the causes of statelessness identified in this report apply to populations in Côte d’Ivoire so as to craft the most effective response to statelessness in the country. 6. Conclusion This report has demonstrated how Côte d’Ivoire’s nationality laws evolved to represent one of the most restrictive schemes for conferral of nationality in West Africa, but also that its nationality system – as implemented in laws and practical policies related to nationality, civil status, and identification – has essentially functioned quite arbitrarily since independence. Many historical migrants and their descendants born in Côte d’Ivoire have developed deep roots and ties to the country. A conundrum of the Ivorian context is that some were led to identify as Ivorians under Houphouët-Boigny’s liberal immigration and integration policies, maybe even obtained Ivorian identification documentation, but without any legal foundation for acquiring Ivorian nationality. The best way forward is to consider how to address two issues: developing an effective system to legally integrate long-standing migrants and their descendants into the Ivorian citizenry on the one hand, while reducing and preventing statelessness on the other. With respect to the first issue Côte d’Ivoire can consider various ways it can facilitate the acquisition of Ivorian nationality of longstanding immigrants and their descendants. One way would be to adopt legal rules espoused by other countries in the sub-region, such as the double jus soli provision whereby a child born in the country to parents also born there (regardless of nationality) automatically acquires nationality. Another approach would be to expand the simplified procedure for acquiring Ivorian nationality through declaration. This avenue could be extended beyond the original beneficiaries of the procedure as available between 1961 and 1973 to include those born in Côte d’Ivoire to foreigners after 1973 who remain resident in Côte d’Ivoire at majority. At the very least the Ivorian naturalization procedure must be galvanized and finally rendered effective, as was foreseen in the 217 Comité National de Recensement, Institut National de la Statistique (Côte d’Ivoire), Questionnaire : Recensement Général de la Population et de l’Habitat 2014 (on file with author). 218 INS, supra note 2, p. 3. A further breakdown of the percentages with respect to national origin is not yet published. 219 UNHCR, supra note 7, para. 21. 59