current legal framework and may be realised if underpinned by assistance efforts and met with political willingness. First, public acknowledgement that Khmer Krom residents of Cambodia are Cambodian nationals needs to be followed up with concrete action to facilitate access to proof of nationality, including for individuals who struggle to comply with evidentiary requirements. More flexibility in the way administrative requirements are applied would ensure that Khmer Krom can regularise their legal status and access proof of Cambodian nationality, including by recording their true name and place of birth in identification documents. Again, this requires clear instructions, targeted awareness-raising and capacity development among local authorities. Second, it is important that pathways to Cambodian citizenship are enacted in a non-discriminatory manner for longterm, often multigenerational residents, as stipulated under Cambodian laws. Many individuals may already qualify for Cambodian nationality and should gain access to proof of their nationality. Prominent examples include children of mixed marriages with at least one Cambodian national parent, who may struggle to get their citizenship confirmed, especially if they have Vietnamese names or live in predominantly Vietnamese communities. Moreover, children born to parents who were also born in Cambodia and hold the new resident cards are Cambodian nationals by birth, in accordance with Article 9(2) of the Nationality Law, and should be recognised as such. Finally, the first cohort of those who received the new resident cards will soon reach the seven-year mark, whereupon it is said they become eligible to apply for naturalisation. In response, the procedures for naturalisation need to be made more transparent and accessible. Additional measures may be considered to ensure that children born in Cambodia who would otherwise be stateless have the ability to acquire nationality and have access to identity documents. The ratification of the two statelessness conventions could also be considered, as they provide an already existing framework not only for the protection of stateless persons but also for the reduction and prevention of statelessness. This report has shown that much of the phenomenon of statelessness in Cambodia is in situ and relates to historical exclusion from citizenship. This situation requires broader, deeper and more context-specific strategies in furtherance of local solutions for the reduction and prevention of statelessness. Responses need to consider the root causes of social exclusion and tackle the public sentiments and sociopolitical conditions sustaining this exclusion, including raising awareness and learning from creative communitylevel solutions to some of these issues. Careful engagement with public concerns with respect to the inclusion of particular groups is necessary, but so is building wider country-level coalitions of actors and listening to the voices of affected people themselves. 30