statelessness. This is particularly concerning because strong State commitments in these areas are already set out in existing treaties, some of which are almost unanimously ratified. For example, the final draft does not acknowledge the international law commitment for States to offer citizenship to those children born in their territories who would otherwise be stateless. The position of international law relating to statelessness with respect to key aspects of the GCM is presented in detail (though non-exhaustively) in the annexed Table 2. Understanding the final document in the context of this trajectory and its non-binding nature has implications for advocacy efforts. For example, while municipal registration cards have remained in the GCM, their nature has changed. In the zero draft the focus was on the possibility that such cards could facilitate access to services, engagement in business and participation in community life irrespective of status. In the final draft, explicit reference to this aspiration has been removed and been replaced with the requirement that such cards provide no entitlement to citizenship or residency. Advocates using the GCM might find it useful to reference the original intention behind this provision as set out in the zero draft. In addition, while the zero draft advocated the abolition of requirements to prove citizenship at service delivery centres, by the final draft this had become the need instead to 'review and revise’ the requirements to prove nationality. While this ostensibly represents a weakening of the commitment, the non-binding nature of the compact means that the change need not impair advocacy efforts, which can continue to focus on reviewing existing practice and advocating revision where it compromises rights. Finally, the discussion of statelessness in the GCM is found in Objective 4, on legal identity and documentation, but not in other objectives. This risks obscuring the fact that statelessness is important to consider explicitly across the migration governance agenda. The annexed Table 3 provides a list of the objectives of the GCM. For example, stateless persons are often absent from official data (Objective 1), may be forced to move involuntarily (Objective 2), and yet also lack pathways for regular migration (Objective 5). Stateless persons are often particularly at risk of being trafficked (Objective 10) and being detained (Objective 13), often indefinitely. And at the same time, without citizenship of any country, they lack access to consular protection (Objective 14). Moreover, in broader terms, a lack of regular migration pathways (Objective 5), access to status determination (Objective 12) and consular protection (Objective 14) for example can also put those migrating at risk of statelessness. Hence, it will be important that future advocacy efforts make explicit the relevance of statelessness to all dimensions of global migration governance and all objectives of the GCM. Influencing Implementation Advocacy around and monitoring of the implementation of the GCM will need to build on the positive opportunities and developments that it represents, while being alert to the need for vigilance to ensure that it does not lead to a watering down of existing state obligations or practices. The GCM is non-binding, but there is possibility that it may lay the basis for hard law in the future. It is crucial that this process does not formalise retractions from key and well-established international norms. 1. Mainstreaming a recognition of the relevance of statelessness to UN migration governance discussions Statelessness is now on the global migration governance agenda. It is addressed in both compacts and in the New York Declaration. It will be important to build upon this in the implementation of the GCM to ensure that the new UN Migration Network continues to address: the protection of stateless persons, including those who move; and the prevention and reduction of statelessness. Civil society must play an important role in 4 of 10