COMPARABILITY AND EXCHANGE OF INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION STATISTICS IN CIS COUNTRIES

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

2. Overview • Collected data and actors involved • Main findings: comparability, coverage, possibility of compilation • 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: • 11 CIS countries and agreed to provide data for the templates prepared by UNECE Statistical Division • 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 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. 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. Sources and definitions (2) 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 defineplace 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

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” 2000-2006

10. 2) Matrix “Emigrants” 2000-2006

11. 3) Matrix “Net migration” 2000-2006

12. Some more evidence from data comparison: “Coverage” of immigration and emigration

13. Some evidence from data comparison: net migration

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