87. The evaluation is able to confirm the reported achievements in Table 6 related to the four country case studies, and has some independent evidence of the overall achievements reported from reports published by expert organizations61, media stories related to changes in laws and practice, and interviews with knowledgeable internal and external regional and global key informants, but has not systematically verified results in all countries for all GAP actions. It should be noted that these achievements, or lack thereof, are not solely attributable to UNHCR, but are often the result of activities in partnership with other actors and ultimately decisions by States. The table has been color-coded according to the evaluation team’s assessment, with red representing no progress made; yellow representing partial achievement of the targets in the GAP, and green representing achievement of the targets. Cells that are not colored represent GAP actions for which there is insufficient data to assess progress against global targets. Annex 10 presents the same information alongside the baselines, 2017 and 2020 milestones and targets articulated in the GAP. 88. The breadth of the GAP provides adequate scope for adaptation to different country contexts. Key informants frequently noted the usefulness of the GAP as a guiding framework for conceptualizing, planning, monitoring and reporting efforts to end statelessness at national level, including the development of National Action Plans (NAP). In the Philippines the government used the GAP as the base framework to develop its NAP, and in Cote d’Ivoire a government official noted that the GAP gave them a framework to engage the ministerial cabinet in developing and approving the country’s action plan. It was described as practical and actionable, providing a useful way of structuring activities, and has served as a tool for advocacy and overall engagement with stakeholders. 89. Political sensitivity is noted as a significant hinderance in making progress on statelessness (see Section 5.2). On particular GAP actions – for example, Action 4 to prevent denial, loss or deprivation of nationality on discriminatory grounds – UNHCR has had to strike a balance of encouraging and supporting governments to take action without jeopardizing the relationships with national authorities, which are key to making progress on other issues and maintaining access for protection of other PoC. "It’s a delicate balance that we need to strike. We could do more, yes, but at what cost? These are some of the dilemmas that we face at the country level when we try to advocate more robustly on statelessness. Especially when you approach the same ministry that deals with refugee protection issues – it may compromise the whole approach” – Key informant interview 90. The level of emphasis and investment in different GAP actions by UNHCR needs to be determined based on needs in different contexts, as discussed further in section 5.2. The Statelessness Section maintains a regularly updated mapping of the challenges for each GAP action for 194 countries, based on updates compiled by RB in consultation with country offices and uses this information when updating its triennial GSIP, including a summary of planned activities for each country per year for relevant GAP actions. 91. The evaluation found that case study operations were focused on context relevant GAP actions but resource constraints led to some deferred work on different initiatives. Analysis of the relationship between the official statelessness statistics published in UNHCR’s annual Global Trends Report with expenditures and RBM reporting showed that almost all of the top 20 situations of statelessness are covered by UNHCR, though with varying expenditure levels and selected indicators. Brunei Darussalam is an exception, with 20,863 reported persons of concern under UNHCR’s statelessness mandate, but with no Pillar 2 budget or reporting on statelessness-related indicators. According to UNHCR’s website 62, Brunei Darussalam is covered by the RB for Asia and the Pacific, and the country is included in the GSIP and GAP Map. In some other top 20 statelessness countries, budgets and reporting on statelessness indicators are aggregated at the level of a multi-country office or regional office. Based on 2019 official UNHCR statistics on stateless populations and Pillar 2 expenditure data the per-capita expenditure63 in these 20 countries varied from USD 0.17 in the Syrian Arab Republic to USD 21.81 in Myanmar. 92. Outside of the top 20 reported situations of statelessness, there are instances where it is difficult to analyze whether UNHCR has been doing enough to achieve the different GAP actions due to aggregation of country level information under multi-country offices and regional offices. Roughly half of all countries appear not to report statelessness statistics. This analysis showed that Albania, Austria, Lithuania, the Republic of Moldova, and Slovakia all have over 1,000 officially reported stateless persons but their Pillar 2 budgets and reporting on statelessness-related indicators were combined under regional 61 62 63 Such as the Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion, the European Network on Statelessness, and the Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights See: https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/brunei-darussalam.html Not taking into account countries where budgets cannot be isolated as they are aggregated at MCO or regional office level. UNHCR / May, 2021 27