Assessing the impact of the Global Statelessness Fund on resourcing and decision-making power for affected communities in the Asia-Pacific

Statelessness remains a serious and widespread human rights challenge globally. Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms that everyone has the right to a nationality and that no one should be arbitrarily deprived of it. Yet conservative estimates suggest that at least 15 million people are stateless globally, with tens of millions more living at risk of statelessness. Stateless individuals are often denied access to basic rights and services including education, healthcare, employment, housing and political participation, leaving them among the most marginalised populations worldwide.

The Asia-Pacific is home to some of the world’s largest affected populations, including communities such as the Rohingya, Bajau Laut in Malaysia, and hill tribe populations in Thailand. Statelessness in the region is often rooted in entrenched patterns of discrimination, including exclusion of minority ethnic groups, gender-discriminatory nationality laws, and the legacy of colonial borders and state succession. Despite the scale and complexity of the issue, the global statelessness field remains significantly under-resourced, with many civil society organisations, particularly those led by affected communities, operating with limited funding and institutional support.

As a result, grassroots organisations advocating for stateless communities often rely on short-term project funding or sub-grants from larger non-governmental organisations (NGOs), limiting their ability to pursue long-term strategies or respond flexibly to community needs. At the same time, there is growing recognition that efforts to address statelessness must be led by affected communities themselves, whose lived experiences provide critical insights into effective solutions. Against this backdrop, initiatives such as the Global Statelessness Fund (GSF) have emerged to channel flexible, multi-year funding directly to stateless activists and impacted-person-led organisations while promoting participatory decision-making. This article examines the early experiences of organisations supported through the Fund in the Asia-Pacific region, exploring how this model influences organisational capacity, advocacy, and the role of affected communities in shaping responses to statelessness.

The Global Statelessness Fund: a participatory model for resourcing stateless communities

Despite being closely connected to many of the major global challenges of our time including migration, discrimination, conflict and democratic governance, stateless people and those affected by discriminatory nationality laws have often remained on the margins of international policy discussions. Their voices are frequently absent from decision-making spaces or included only symbolically, with limited opportunities to shape the strategies intended to address the injustices they face. At the same time, statelessness itself has historically been an under-addressed issue within the philanthropic sector, often falling between the thematic priorities of donors focused on human rights, migration, refugees, gender equality or development.

The GSF was established in response to long-standing concerns about the chronic underfunding of statelessness advocacy and the marginalisation of affected communities within global policy discussions. Developed through consultations among stateless activists, civil society organisations and philanthropic donors, the Fund aims to address these challenges simultaneously by increasing resources for grassroots advocacy while transforming how funding decisions are made. The initiative forms part of broader efforts within the Global Movement Against Statelessness to centre the leadership, knowledge and priorities of stateless people themselves in efforts to address statelessness.

The GSF provides flexible, multi-year and unrestricted funding to organisations and activists working to address statelessness and discriminatory nationality laws. Unlike traditional grant-making models that often favour large international organisations, the Fund prioritises grassroots initiatives, including informal groups and organisations that may lack formal registration or access to conventional funding channels. 

Since launching its grantmaking activities, the GSF has supported 56 initiatives across 29 countries, committing US$3.35 million in flexible funding as of November 2025. These grantee partners work on a range of initiatives including nationality law reform, legal assistance, research and documentation on statelessness, community mobilisation and advocacy for equal nationality rights. The Fund aims to maintain geographical balance in its support, as illustrated in Figure 1. 

Figure 1. Geographical representation of GSF initiatives

Beyond financial support, the Fund provides a tailored Accompaniment Programme offering capacity-strengthening, peer-learning opportunities and networking platforms to help grantee partners build leadership, strengthen partnerships and advance advocacy strategies. The Fund also prioritises initiatives led by women and young people, recognising their important role in driving change. Governed through a participatory structure involving leaders impacted by statelessness alongside civil society and donor allies, the Fund seeks to shift power within the statelessness ecosystem. It also works to overcome structural barriers to funding by supporting organisations without formal registration; currently 20 supported initiatives are unregistered groups, many operating in challenging contexts. Together, these approaches aim to strengthen a more inclusive and community-led movement to address statelessness and discriminatory nationality laws.

Experiences of grantee organisations

To better understand how the GSF operates in practice, the author conducted a short survey with four organisations from the Asia-Pacific region that were selected as part of the Fund’s first cohort of grantee partners. Although their operating environments vary significantly, several common themes emerged from their experiences with the Fund’s grant-making model.

Flexible funding and organisational stability

A key theme highlighted by respondents was the importance of flexible, multi-year funding. All four organisations reported that support from the GSF provided a level of financial stability that is rarely available through traditional funding mechanisms. In all cases, the funding supported core organisational needs such as staff salaries, operational expenses and administrative systems.

Three of the four organisations emphasised that the flexibility associated with the funding allowed them to allocate resources according to evolving priorities rather than predetermined project outputs. This flexibility enabled organisations to respond more effectively to changing political contexts, emerging advocacy opportunities and urgent community needs.

Strengthening institutional capacity

Beyond supporting programmatic activities, the funding also contributed to strengthening organisational capacity – building on extant skills, expertise and structures. Three organisations reported that the GSF enabled them to improve financial management practices, strengthen administrative procedures and invest in organisational sustainability. In some cases, organisations were able to build modest financial reserves or establish development funds aimed at supporting future activities.

Two organisations also noted that strengthened organisational structures enhanced their ability to engage with government institutions, international organisations and other civil society actors. Increased institutional capacity contributed to greater credibility in policy discussions related to nationality rights and statelessness.

Expanding advocacy and community engagement

Survey responses also indicated that the funding enabled organisations to expand their advocacy and community engagement activities. All four organisations reported that support from the Fund enabled them to undertake expanded advocacy initiatives. These included research and documentation on statelessness, public awareness campaigns, legal advocacy and engagement with policymakers. Three organisations also reported that the funding enabled them to strengthen networks within affected communities and provide information on legal rights and documentation processes.

Participatory and supportive grant-making

Another theme that emerged from the survey was the participatory and supportive nature of the Fund’s grant-making process. All four organisations described the application and selection process as accessible and collaborative, with opportunities for dialogue and feedback throughout the process.

In addition, three organisations highlighted that the Fund’s reporting requirements were relatively light compared with those of many international donors. Simplified reporting requirements reduced administrative burdens and allowed organisations to focus more fully on programmatic activities.

Two organisations also emphasised the value of engagement opportunities facilitated by the Fund, including town hall discussions and peer-learning spaces that enabled them to connect with other organisations working on statelessness.

Continuing structural challenges

Despite the positive experiences described by respondents, all four organisations emphasised that significant structural challenges remain. In several Asia-Pacific countries, regulatory restrictions limit the ability of civil society organisations to receive foreign funding or impose complex approval procedures for externally funded activities.

Two organisations also noted that activists working on nationality rights sometimes face political sensitivities, public criticism or security risks in their operating environments. These challenges highlight the broader political and regulatory contexts in which stateless-people-led organisations operate.

Shifting power: from token participation to community leadership

A central ambition of the GSF is not only to increase financial resources for grassroots organisations but also to address long-standing power imbalances within the statelessness field. One such mechanism is the Peer Review Committee, which works alongside the Fund’s Steering Group to help develop criteria and processes for selecting future cohorts of grantees.

One of the surveyed organisations reported that a representative from their organisation participated in the Peer Review Committee and was also involved in the Fund’s Steering Group, providing a direct opportunity to contribute to discussions related to grant-making and the broader direction of the Fund. While the other surveyed organisations were not directly involved in these governance bodies, respondents emphasised the importance of initiatives that seek to strengthen the leadership of stateless and impacted communities within the broader movement.

Overall, the survey findings suggest that the GSF has contributed positively to strengthening grassroots advocacy and organisational capacity among its partner organisations in the Asia-Pacific region. At the same time, the experiences of these organisations illustrate that while innovative funding models can play an important role in supporting community-led initiatives, they cannot fully overcome the broader political and structural barriers faced by stateless communities and the organisations that represent them.

Challenges and limitations

While the experiences of partner organisations supported by the GSF highlight several positive outcomes, important challenges and limitations remain. The scale of available resources remains modest when compared to the global scope of statelessness and the large number of organisations working to address it. Although the Fund has provided critical support to selected grassroots initiatives, many civil society organisations in the statelessness sector continue to operate with extremely limited resources and rely on short-term or project-based funding. Expanding the availability of flexible funding for stateless-people-led organisations therefore remains an ongoing necessity.

The respondents also highlighted the broader structural and regulatory environments in which they operate. In several countries in the Asia-Pacific region, civil society organisations face complex regulations governing foreign funding, organisational registration and advocacy activities. These restrictions can limit the ability of grassroots groups to expand their work even when financial support is available. In addition, activism related to nationality rights can be politically sensitive, particularly where questions of citizenship intersect with issues of migration, minority rights and national identity. As a result, organisations and activists may face public criticism, political resistance or security risks.

The GSF itself is also continuing to evolve. As an emerging initiative, its participatory grant-making and accompaniment programmes require ongoing reflection and adaptation. Lessons from the experiences of grantee partners will be important in shaping the future development of participatory funding mechanisms within the statelessness sector.

Conclusion

The experiences of partner organisations in the Asia-Pacific region supported through the GSF illustrate the potential of new funding approaches to strengthen community-led advocacy. Flexible, multi-year funding has enabled grassroots organisations to stabilise their operations, expand advocacy initiatives and respond more effectively to the needs of stateless communities. Participatory elements within the Fund’s governance structure have also created opportunities for affected individuals to engage more directly in decision-making processes.

At the same time, the findings of this article highlight that funding alone cannot overcome the structural and political barriers faced by stateless communities and their advocates. Restrictive regulatory environments, political sensitivities surrounding citizenship policies and broader patterns of discrimination continue to shape the context in which advocacy takes place. Nevertheless, initiatives such as the GSF demonstrate how flexible funding and participatory governance can contribute to strengthening a more inclusive and community-led movement to address statelessness.

Subin Mulmi is a human rights lawyer and researcher based in Nepal. He currently serves Nationality For All as the Executive Director. He is also a member of the South Asia Working Group of the Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network.