EVALUATION OF UNHCR-LED INITIATIVES TO END STATELESSNESS – FINAL REPORT – VOLUME I 5.1 Overall UNHCR contribution to results 55. This section highlights key findings and supporting evidence regarding UNHCR inputs and the results of its efforts to address statelessness. UNHCR financial inputs for statelessness activities Finding 1: UNHCR has made substantial investments in its work on statelessness, with a high rate of expenditure against approved budgets. However, the ambitious goals of the campaign have not been met with a significant increase in Pillar 2 budgets and the overall share of UNHCR’s budget devoted to Pillar 2 has decreased considerably since 2012 due to increased expenditures on refugee assistance. Budget allocation decisions have deprioritized some regions and objectives linked to GAP actions more than others, including work on civil registration and civil status documentation, individual documentation, and identification of statelessness cases. 56. From 2012 to 2019 UNHCR offices requested a total of USD 553.54 million for Pillar 2 in their Operations Plans (OP). Approved Operation Level (OL) budgets over this period totaled USD 300.61 million. Expenditures totaling USD 281.84 million were recorded over the same period for a 94 percent expenditure rate against approved budgets. 57. Total Pillar 2 expenditures have remained relatively flat since the launch of the campaign, while the proportion of UNHCR’s overall expenditures allocated to Pillar 2 has decreased over time, from 1.6 percent in 2012 to 0.9 percent in 2019 as shown in figure 2. The rate of growth in statelessness expenditures from 2012 was much lower than for refugees and IDPs. When compared to the growth rates in populations of concern we see the number of refugees increased 95 percent, roughly equivalent to the expenditure increase. But known stateless populations grew by 25 percent, outpacing expenditure growth. Even more dramatically, the number of IDPs grew by 146 percent whereas the Pillar 4 expenditures only grew by 87 percent. Figure 2 – UNHCR expenditures by Pillar 4,000 81.8% 3,500 Expenditures (USD Millions) 3,000 2,500 2,000 72.1% 1,500 1,000 21.6% 500 14.5% 4.8% 0 1.6% 2012 2013 P1 - Refugees 2014 2015 P2 - Stateless 2016 2017 P3 - Returnees 2018 2.8% 0.9% 2019 P4 - IDPs 58. Possible changes in country operation budgeting and planning practice may partly explain the limited budgets for Pillar 2. Following the introduction of the pillar budgeting system in 2010 there was initially a directive to create separate Pillar 2 budgets and ‘ring-fence’ related funding to protect it. This practice only seems to have lasted two to three years and the evaluation team could not determine whether the directive was officially rescinded. Many regional and country-level UNHCR key informants noted that statelessness activities have been covered under other pillar plans and budgets. There appear to be both programmatic and administrative factors that incentivize this. Some key informants noted that many activities supporting work on statelessness are cross-cutting and have benefits across pillars, particularly in refugee contexts, such as work on birth registration and vital documentation. Others noted that statelessness activities are not comparatively costly and there is an administrative burden associated with creating a Pillar 2 plan and budget (increased planning narrative, indicator reporting, and financial management work), which can be a disincentive, especially for smaller operations or operations with more limited work on statelessness, and combining budgets can give operations more flexibility. 59. A few key country operations outliers heavily influenced overall statelessness expenditures. Just 10 out of 83 UNHCR offices with statelessness related budget entries in Focus make up 62 percent of all 16 UNHCR / May, 2021