Panellists discussed how SDG16.9 has resulted in a new entry point for talking about statelessness, birth registration and nationality law. Whereas the terminology of ‘statelessness’ and ‘nationality’ has historically often led to reticence to engage by States that view these as sovereign issues, ‘legal identity’ can be more accepted, and is therefore an important and useful tool to the statelessness agenda. Nevertheless, the general ambiguity around the wording of the target was also discussed and related to the potential for misuse of the term ‘legal identity’, with governments approaching it from a control, rather than rights-based perspective. Panellists clarified that legal identity is ‘inclusive’ of birth registration and is not solely birth registration; but whether the notion of legal identity could also be understood to include nationality was deemed a more challenging question. Ultimately, in practice, it can be more effective to make the wider case that preventing and resolving statelessness is consistent with SDG16.9 and ‘leaving no one behind’, than it is to urge states to include nationality as a component of legal identity. There was a strong call to action for actors with expertise on citizenship/statelessness to engage with the development of digital identity systems which will be rolled out over the next five to ten years. The time to be building coalitions and working towards a rights-based perspective in the implementation of these systems is now, to ensure that efforts in pursuit of SDG16.9 do no harm. Grand Challenge 8 The development legacy of statelessness Moderator: Megan Price Knowledge Platform Security and Rule of Law Panelists: Dawn Chatty University of Oxford Amanda Flaim Michigan State University Diana Gichengo Kenya Human Rights Commission Rehana Mohammed Verite Research Christophe Sperfeldt Peter McMullin Centre on Statelessness/ University of Melbourne 8 The discussion of legal identity was prominent throughout the Conference, in particular in the following sessions: 1. ‘Documentation and legal identity formation’ where panelists considered the importance of legal documents in the context of SDG16.9. 2. ‘Legal identity under rebel governance’ where the panel explored both legal and political understandings of the identity of people living within rebel-controlled areas in civil war. This session followed a two-day closed-door workshop held in Utrecht in June, which brought together a group of scholars and was supported by the Melbourne University Statelessness Hallmark initiative. 3. ‘Citizenship in unrecognised states’ where the panel discussed the issue of obtaining a nationality in unrecognised states and the numerous problems associated with this. “Discussions are mostly state-centric, how should we help individuals and those from non-recognised states?” Ramesh Ganohariti Leiden University Another question that is prompted by the Sustainable Development Agenda’s aim to “strive for a world that is just, equitable and inclusive” is what inclusive development means and what is needed to achieve it, in the context of statelessness. This was the focus of Grand Challenge 8 ‘The development legacy of statelessness’. Encouraging the participants to question whether there are viable models for development operating outside the framework of the nation state, the speakers questioned how we reach people who are not recognised by states when applying a development agenda in a state-centric world. They then discussed how to get statelessness on the agenda of the major development actors, problematising the approach by discussing how these actors may be exacerbating the problem by campaigning to secure nationality for stateless persons but not adequately addressing access to social welfare needs, for example to education and healthcare. They may remain inaccessible due to the structural barriers these communities face when stateless and possibly even after securing nationality. In these circumstances, the acquisition of a nationality may not be enough to improve the quality of life of those who are, or have been, stateless. The long enduring legacy of statelessness was considered with the example of Sri Lanka and the ‘Hill-Country Tamils’ who continue to face structural discrimination and disadvantage today as a result of the enduring effects of statelessness.