A Statelessness as a cross-cutting issue. Informants spoke at length about the interplay of statelessness as a humanitarian, human rights, and development issue. Informants also raised the links between statelessness and gender, racial, ethnic, and religious discrimination. As illustrated in Graph 2, most informants agreed that statelessness can be framed within three or more issue areas. In Box 29, one informant articulated how statelessness can be considered a development issue. Box 29: Statelessness Is Cross-Cutting “There is a development dimension in the sense that individuals who are stateless actually have obstacles in terms of access to services—access to education in some countries and whatnot. There is clearly a development dimension.... But citizenship is a right to have rights. If you turn that around, statelessness is the denial of rights and the denial of access to a whole variety of services but also opportunities.” Graph 2: Perceptions as a Cross-Cutting Issue Three or more issues framings Two issues framings One issue framing In Nepal, there was much agreement that statelessness could be framed as a gender, human rights, or development issue. There was a view that having such a large portion of the population undocumented and unregistered is a development issue, as stateless persons and undocumented individuals have limited possibilities to participate in the economic and social life of the country. Informants opined that development actors could take a greater role in resolving documentation challenges for those with nationality claims. It was also agreed that it was UNHCR’s role to take the lead on those considered stateless or at-risk of statelessness. In the Dominican Republic, civil society firmly and unequivocally felt the need to emphasize statelessness as a human rights issue first, linked to colorism and racism, but felt that it ultimately affected the countries’ development trajectory, which can be a powerful talking point for diplomacy. As expressed by one FSO, “In the Dominican Republic, the economic development argument makes the most sense with ‘nonbelievers.” In Thailand, multiple informants raised the link between statelessness and the right to own land, the need in Thailand for migrant workers and the need for young families to balance Thailand’s aging population. Stateless persons in Thailand also spoke movingly of the discrimination they have faced. Yet, the cross-cutting nature of statelessness is not well-addressed by either PRM or UNHCR, nor is discrimination, apart from gender discrimination, a major focus of either PRM or UNHCR’s strategies. 5.1.9 Links Between the GAP and PRM’s Strategy The Evaluation Team’s analysis revealed that interviewees most frequently discussed activities related to Actions 1, 3, 8 and 10, likely due to the relevance of those actions to Thailand, Nepal and the Dominican Republic, and the focus on gender in PRM’s strategy, which led the evaluation to look particularly at Action 3. It is important to note that both Thailand and the Dominican Republic are Action 1 countries hosting major situations of statelessness. Action 8 on issuing documents is relevant in all three countries and Action 10 is particularly relevant in Nepal, where the extent of the statelessness problem is not known. Table 2 highlights key funding and diplomatic engagements at the global level and in the three countries and how they link to various GAP Actions. 21