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

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

4. 4 Actors involved: 1. 11 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. 5 Data requested (years 2000-2006, 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. 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. 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. 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. 9 Method of comparison: 1) Matrix “Immigrants” 2000-2006 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 1211 1679522616914157 27866 44618766 324 Azerbaijan358 1 1491 65711420317346 489125 24043355 625 Belarus 77123 2 1201048612847 010349 13626859 000 Kazakhstan 9568512 960 4 501151233406 08821710 15312 385447 317 Kyrgyzstan 1911099616 807 252687 1357501 3942 530109 767 Moldova29432 297458250053 208327 7086583 836 Russia5 31810 84370 137139 34917 4345 8142 691 6 618 168 35122 206442 947 Tajikistan22546392 9203 851292443 677 1 6755 03257 894 Ukraine4861 11019 0975 3803064 6312 749252 655131 1 717283 631 Uzbekistan966762 814200 4753 279116128194 6011 28521 1660424 520 COUNTRIES6 50013 765 111 256370 11829 64011 2246 2931 188 1419 056 251 26944 823 2 030 861 6 50013 765 111 256370 11829 64011 2246 2931 188 1419 056 251 26944 823

10. 10 2) Matrix “Emigrants” 2000-2006 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 0103125231207 053225532378 136 Azerbaijan0 132732219115612 80810167986315 590 Belarus 1 095718 10 5471 1741 0761 02958 319451179302 54993 812 Kazakhstan 5981 030960 24 7688412797 9442 2642699 229 058359 448 Kyrgyzstan 2897372 931 5126 9634 3701773 97318 588 Moldova1264722134933 8 84524568716115 493 Russia50 31128 39445 094440 085153 774 21 34319 204 57 008239936 312 053 1 345 859 Tajikistan8851341806095 307 1081 3097 947 Ukraine3 1531 6706 5888 4771 548 12 80012 432134 6371 383 18 167188 055 Uzbekistan1101361206 1573 8615429 5507 028860 27 864 10 COUNTRIES55 42932 10053 306469 744186 206 35 32532 931341 42672 651268 629 568 370 2 080 792 55 42932 10053 306469 744186 206 35 32532 931341 42672 651268 629 568 370

11. 11 3) Matrix “Net migration” 2000-2006 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 01211 064827316812150 225-165 893-5058 212 Azerbaijan 35801 017925-10519211733 681-894 561-43039 894 Belarus -1 018-5950-8 427-1 070-990-901-11 309-417-8 794-2 281-34 348 Kazakhstan -503-34512 0000-20 26767106 308 144-2 0477 454-216 67388 101 Kyrgyzstan -91395913 8760201480 172-3 6201 217-1 44391 187 Moldova CSB -97-42 076109-80044 363-2122 021-9668 392 Russia -44 993-17 55125 043 -300 736 -136 340-15 529-16 5130-50 390 -71 585-289 847 -879 924 Tajikistan 14465882 5793 045291538 37001 5673 72349 947 Ukraine -2 667-56012 509-3 097-1 242-8 169-9 683 118 018-1 2520-16 45097 667 Uzbekistan -145402 694194 318-58211186 185 051-5 74320 3060396 676 -49026-1833960 026-99517-156574-24101-26638 891 078-636164 661-52364344 194 10 COUNTRIES -48 929-18 33557 950-99 626 -156 566-24 101-26 638 846 715-63 595 -17 360-523 547 -47 394 Total net migration

12. 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. 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-4892958235-0,8 Azerbaijan-1833540110-0,5 Belarus57950-34901-1,7 Kazakhstan-9962687830-1,1 Kyrgyzstan-15656691185-1,7 Moldova CSB-2410168343-0,4 Russia846715-901928-0,9 Tajikistan-6359549961-1,3 Ukraine-1736097090-0,2 Uzbekistan-523547396681-1,3

14. 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. 15 Some more evidence from comparison of data on flows of immigrants and emigrants: rather good results – case of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan

16. 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. 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. 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. 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. 20 Impact of historical context: migration – in 1990-ies, naturalization – in 2000-ies.Case of the RF

21. 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. 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. 23 Lessons learnt (3) Further analysis of data is needed Importance to invest on Population Census 2010

24. 24 Thank you for your attention