1 COMPARABILITY AND EXCHANGE OF INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION STATISTICS IN CIS COUNTRIES Olga Chudinovskikh Moscow State Lomonosov University Enrico Bisogno UNECE Joint UNECE/Eurostat Work Session on Migration Statistics Geneva 3-5 March 2008

2 Overview 1. Collected data and actors involved 2. Main findings: comparability, coverage, possibility of compilation 3. Concluding remarks (thinking of future activities)

3 Why CIS: high ratio of intra-regional migration; focus of migration policies, need in correct population size estimates etc.

4 Actors involved: CIS countries and agreed to provide data for the templates prepared by UNECE Statistical Division 2. National Statistical Offices and Migration authorities were the data providers ( i.e. - the objective: to compare data from different countries and different sources, international and national level)

5 Data requested (years , males and females) and available Immigration and emigration flows by country of origin/destination 11 and 10 countries Immigration and emigration flows by citizenship (no data on direction of migration) 6 and 4 countries Stocks of foreigners 8 Stocks of foreign-born 8 Citizenship acquisitions (no data on year of arrival and direction of migration) 8 Population balance (births, deaths, immigrants, emigrants) 11 Not all data were available by sex or some years were missing Census based, except 2 countries }

6 Sources and definitions (1) Stocks – Census round 2000 Population with usual residence foreign and foreign – born; 3 states used additional sources, only 1 used a household survey; lack of MOI data on foreign residents (RP holders). Citizenship acquisition – MOI data. As a rule, not available even by sex. Population balance: except Georgia all countries utilize data on migration flows. Georgia used border statistics for net migration estimation. - Need in improvement of data collection through the next census and through regular systems as well

7 Flows – data are collected in authorized agencies when a person is de-jure registered and de-registered in a place of residence. Primary forms are used in 9 countries, Moldova uses the Population register. A foreigner must have a residence permit. Time criterion to define place of stay and place of residence is applied in some countries only; may differ for foreigners and nationals. As a rule - 6 months, “1 year” criterion is not applied. Belarus and Russia do not apply (big underestimation of long-term migrants registered in a place of stay). 2007, RF : 7,6 mln. foreigners were registered in a place of stay and only 183 thousand – in a place of residence Sources and definitions (2)

8 Important limitations of an adequate comparison: An expected but underestimated problem: some countries registered persons, while the others – hundreds and thousands Aggregated data mask important details by years and composition of flows Citizenship of migrants : no data on direction of migration Citizenship acquisition : no data on year of arrival, type and year of application

9 Method of comparison: 1) Matrix “Immigrants” COUNTRY OF ORIGIN Ameni a Azerbaija n Belaru s Kazakhs tan Kyrgy zstan Moldo va CSB Moldo va PRRussia Tajikis tan Ukrain e Uzbeki stan 10 COUNTR IES (Moldov a- PR data) Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Moldova Russia Tajikistan Ukraine Uzbekistan COUNTRIES

10 2) Matrix “Emigrants” DIRECTION OF EMIGRATION Ameni a Azerbaija nBelarus Kazakh stan Kyrgyzs tan Moldo va CSB Moldov a PRRussia Tajikis tanUkraine Uzbe kistan 10 COUNT RIES (Moldova - PR data) Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Moldova Russia Tajikistan Ukraine Uzbekistan COUNTRIES

11 3) Matrix “Net migration” COUNTRY OF DATA ORIGIN “Partner” country Armeni a Azerbaija nBelarus Kazakhs tan Kyrgyzst an Moldov a Moldov a PRRussia Tajikista n Ukrain e Uzbekista n 10COU NTRIES of migration exchange Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Moldova CSB Russia Tajikistan Ukraine Uzbekistan COUNTRIES Total net migration

12 Some more evidence from data comparison: “Coverage” of immigration and emigration Ratio 1 - immigrants (receiving country data) to emigrants (CIS aggregated data on emigrants to this country) Ratio 2 - emigrants (sending country data) to immigrants (CIS aggregated data on immigrants from this country) Armenia0,80,84 Azerbaijan0,880,58 Belarus1,190,9 Kazakhstan1,031,05 Kyrgyzstan1,61,7 Moldova CSB0,730,42 Russia0,90,77 Tajikistan1,141,26 Ukraine1,350,94 Uzbekistan1,611,34

13 Some evidence from data comparison: net migration Data collected in the country (1) Data collected in the CIS states (2)Ratio 1/2 Armenia ,8 Azerbaijan ,5 Belarus ,7 Kazakhstan ,1 Kyrgyzstan ,7 Moldova CSB ,4 Russia ,9 Tajikistan ,3 Ukraine ,2 Uzbekistan ,3

14 Some more evidence from comparison of data on flows of immigrants and emigrants : results to be discussed -case of Moldova and the RF

15 Some more evidence from comparison of data on flows of immigrants and emigrants: rather good results – case of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan

16 Some more evidence from comparison of data : need in annual data for comparison. Paradox of positive net migration both in Ukraine and the RF Ukraine- decrease of emigration, RF- increase of immigration

17 Impact of legislation and historical context on statistics of migration and naturalization is obvious Legislation on data collection procedures (impact on definitions of a migrant) Legislation on naturalization – simplified procedures for major part of migrants Stock of non-naturalized migrants of the earlier years of arrival

18 Impact of legislation on statistics: foreigners are not included into statistics, or acquire citizenship soon after arrival (reason of low % of foreigners in case of the RF) % of foreigners and nationals in flows of immigration and emigration

19 If the number of naturalized persons can exceed the number of migrants ? In 2007 in the RF 362 thousand persons were naturalized, only 157 persons- via an ordinary procedure, 255 thousand via a simplified way, 107 thousand – via the international agreements

20 Impact of historical context: migration – in 1990-ies, naturalization – in 2000-ies.Case of the RF

21 Lessons learnt (1) Data collection and exchange is possible and very promising, should be done on a regular basis Extreme richness of data on flows, scarcity of stock data Interpretation of data is much more efficient when data from both countries are available, more variables are used in analysis and legislation is taken into account.

22 Lessons learnt (2) Scarcity of administrative (MOI) data (on stocks of foreigners, on residence permit issuance and holders), Deficit of variables in administrative data - stimulus to search for other sources and ways to develop data by some important variables Availability and exchange at a national level should be developed as well Need of data on short-term/labour/irregular migration This experience shows that it’s necessary to pool together different capacities and institutional actors. Involvement of national statistical offices is crucial- experience, traditions, official status

23 Lessons learnt (3) Further analysis of data is needed Importance to invest on Population Census 2010

24 Thank you for your attention