Addressing statelessness in Europe’s refugee response who demand documentation from countries of origin that people do not have or should not be asked for (such as documentation that would require refugees to approach the embassy of their country of origin). UNHCR said this was a problem facing all refugees in Greece, not just those affected by statelessness. FRA reported issues with birth registration in Greece, saying that its observers had identified barriers to birth registration and documentation faced by the children of refugees. Regional actors said more could be done to draw attention to statelessness in Europe through raising awareness of the relevance of the EU Charter, and strategic litigation at the European Court of Justice as well as at national level. Engagement on the ground with refugee communities was also felt to be critical, as people affected by statelessness are often not aware of their rights and no one is currently providing that kind of information. It was recognised that in the current political context, statelessness is not on the agenda and unlikely to be so soon. However, policy and practical solutions at a ‘technical level’ are more feasible, such as regional collaborations to deliver capacity-building to frontline officials, information sharing and engagement with working groups in the Commission responsible for operationalising EU policy commitments and legal obligations. EU agencies said they would welcome engagement to share tools and information on statelessness, saying there was a need to ensure members states and other stakeholders were aware of statelessness issues and available resources. The potential for future collaboration to address the lack of training and regional guidance available on identifying and recording statelessness was noted. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is evident from the emerging findings as well as difficulties the project team has faced in engaging key actors in the project, that there is a broader challenge of lack of focus and attention on the nexus between statelessness and forced migration by almost all stakeholder groups interviewed across the research sites. There appears to be a fundamental lack of knowledge and limited interaction between stakeholder groups on these issues: refugees are often unaware of their own rights; settled communities may have knowledge about their own situation but lack awareness of other stateless groups and don’t appear to be organising around the issue; civil society organisations lack a comprehensive understanding of the issues and are not delivering programmes to address the challenges faced by stateless refugees; and State authorities often appear not to perceive statelessness as relevant to their mandate, be aware of its impact, or fully grasp their responsibilities to protect the rights afforded stateless people under international law. Some regional actors are clearly beginning to recognise these challenges and the relevance of statelessness to their work, but, although emerging recognition is welcome, there is clearly a need for institutional capacity-building and coordinated reform at national and regional levels. There is currently a lack of procedural clarity, with little transparency in the way statelessness is or is not being identified and addressed in refugee populations. In Greece, for example, civil society organisations say they do not know how authorities are recording nationality; Greek officials are routinely correcting mistakes made by those responsible for nationality screening; and cultural mediators appear to be playing a role in nationality assessment. In the Serbian context, statelessness often goes unidentified and is not perceived to be relevant to the refugee response. In the Netherlands, the knowledge and treatment of statelessness is inconsistent and bureaucratic varying from municipality to municipality and between different state authorities. Other stakeholders the 17