Table 4: USG and PRM Presence in Nepal, the Dominican Republic, and Thailand
Country
Statelessne
ss Funding
for
UNHCR
UNHCR
Staff
Nepal
Low
Medium
Dominican
Republic
High
High
U.S./PRM Support
Working
Group
Engagement
High-level
diplomacy
Workinglevel
diplomacy
USG
prioritization
RefCoord
Assistant at 10%
Only engaged
in refugee
groups
Low
Low
Tibetan focus
Political-Economic
Section at 20%
No stateless
coordination
group
High
High
High
RefCoord at 5%
Very engaged
in working
group
Low
Medium
Rohingya
focus
Thailand
Medium
Low
Table 5, below, demonstrates how PRM’s
multilateral engagement, funding, and
diplomacy interrelates demonstrating good
coordination between PRM’s different
initiatives at the global level. There was
especially good coordination with U.S.
diplomacy on Action 3 as highlighted in
Box 38.
Box 38: Gender Equality
“I did go back to some of the U.S. statements on the statelessness
issue. In doing the High-Level Segment last year I remembered the
U.S. delegation mentioned gender equality. I think that’s one of the
particular goals within the Campaign. I think that would also
signify the importance that the U.S. [places on] and is trying to
push for in some countries, the [issue] that nationality cannot be
confer by the mother and all those gender aspects."
Another interviewee recognized PRM’s support for the GCENR as complementary to the GAP. She said,
“One thing that I would say that I’ve seen as being very effective and it sits alongside the Global Action
Plan has been the very specific work around gender equality. And I know that PRM has also separately
supported the Global Campaign so dedicated support to an initiative which is able to bridge civil society
and the UN because the global campaign is the steering committee, I think it is”. However, with the possible
exception of Action 3, the Evaluation Team identified a gap between efforts being made at the global level
and work at the country level. In particular, the Statelessness Section lacks clout within UNHCR and plays
only an advisory role at the country level. The evaluation also found similar gaps with RefCoords, as they
lack guidance from Washington on how best to assist UNHCR on statelessness. There is also a gap in
funding, as the very small amount of earmarked funding on statelessness means that funding must always
come from the Global Appeal. As a result, statelessness always falls to the bottom of the priority list for
country-level UNHCR staff dealing with budget shortfalls and urgent, humanitarian emergencies.
Table 5: Engagement, Funding, and Diplomacy
Multilateral Engagement
Global Action Plan
#IBelong Campaign
Group of Friends
HLS
Funding
PRM contribution to the UNHCR
Global Appeal
PRM contribution to the UNHCR
Global Appeal
PRM introduced the GCENR to Group
of Friends for possible support
Allotted S571,000 to follow up on
pledges for five projects.
Diplomacy
Through the Group of Friends and bilaterally at
country level
Through the Group of Friends and bilaterally at
country level
Strong role from 2015–2017
Made statements on Action 3 and made pledges
on diplomacy, funding, and gender
discrimination in nationality laws and to review
USG work on statelessness to date.
Within U.S. Embassies. The research from the three countries revealed gaps in mainstreaming and
coordination between RefCoords with statelessness in their portfolio and other U.S. Embassy offices and
missions, such as the Political-Economic Section or USAID mission. Although there was some information
27