how. The good practices discussed in this paper illustrate some of the impressive strides taken in the ASEAN region to deal with statelessness. Extracting lessons from these good practices is of value to the region as well as to the broader international community. At the same time, this paper uncovered several areas in which there is presently a gap in stakeholders’ response to statelessness and more work is needed. In the ASEAN region, the nexus between migration and statelessness presents a particular challenge – where statelessness has clearly been both a cause and a consequence of the movement of people.194 Migration looks set to be a significant socio-political feature in the region in years to come and, especially as the region takes further steps towards the free movement of persons,195 finding ways to pre-empt problems of statelessness from arising in the migration context must be a priority. For instance, areas in which the region’s nationality laws can conflict and lead to statelessness among migrants and their families need to be further identified and addressed. Sending and receiving states will also need to invest more in promoting birth registration for children born within migrant communities. Moreover, greater effort is needed to identify statelessness among populations whose nationality status is presently unclear or disputed, such as undocumented migrants and victims of smuggling and trafficking. Having found this group to be at risk of statelessness, states need to put in place procedures to confirm and document nationality in order to prevent statelessness and identify stateless persons. An appropriate framework will then be needed to protect the rights of those persons who are found to be stateless – one that moves away from ad hoc policies towards a more encompassing approach, taking into account the particularities of statelessness and providing stability and legal certainty for individuals. The same framework is also invaluable to guaranteeing the rights of stateless persons outside the migration context. In this regard, it is important to recall that many stateless persons have lived their whole lives in the country in which they were born, with no ties to any other state, and are reliant on that country for the enjoyment of rights and a resolution of their situation. States therefore need to renew efforts to identify all stateless persons within their territory, for instance by tailoring data collection exercises accordingly or implementing dedicated surveys. In fact, this paper has shown that strategies for the prevention and reduction of statelessness and the protection of stateless persons could all be improved by placing a greater emphasis on the comprehensive mapping of statelessness. This includes making a clear differentiation between stateless persons and persons at risk of statelessness, establishing the profile of persons affected, identifying underlying causes and protection concerns and assessing the role that different stakeholders can play in a response.196 As the situation of statelessness in the region comes into clearer focus with further identification efforts in the future, good practices such as those presented in this paper will help to point the way forwards. The year 2011 marks the 50th year since the adoption of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and this anniversary will be commemorated with activities across the world to raise awareness of the plight of stateless persons and to discuss ways to more effectively address the issue. This is an opportune moment for assessing progress made to date and setting out future strategies. A spotlight on good practices can help to foster a constructive debate on the issue in the ASEAN region and beyond. 194 Recall, for instance, that statelessness has been shown to heighten the risk of trafficking and that statelessness is one of the factors that underlies the forced displacement of Muslim residents of northern Rakhine State in Myanmar. Statelessness has meanwhile been identified as a consequence of migration where, for example, nationality is lost due to long-term residence abroad or in the lower rate of birth registration for children of migrant workers. 195 See, for instance, the Roadmap for an ASEAN community 2009 – 2015, Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat, April 2009. 196 Again, the following tool can guide stakeholders in drawing together and analysing information: UNHCR, Statelessness – An analytical framework for prevention, reduction and protection, 2008. 30