1

COMPARABILITY AND EXCHANGE OF INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION STATISTICS IN CIS COUNTRIES

Olga Chudinovskikh Moscow State Lomonosov UniversityEnrico Bisogno UNECE

Joint UNECE/Eurostat Work Session on Migration StatisticsGeneva 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.

IMMIGRATION

68%

97%

89%

88%

90%

98%

52%

95%

99%

85%

97%

32%

3%

11%

12%

10%

2%

48%

5%

15%

3%

13%87%

1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Armenia

Azerbaijan

Belarus

Georgia

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan

Moldova

Russia

Tajikistan

Ukraine

Uzbekistan

Total

Within CIS Outside CIS

EMIGRATION

79%

97%

62%

73%

93%

70%

52%

61%

90%

21%

3%

38%

27%

7%

30%

48%

39%

10%

28%

99,6%

72%

0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Armenia

Azerbaijan

Belarus

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan

Moldova

Russia

Tajikistan

Ukraine

Uzbekistan

Total

Within CIS Outside CIS

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

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

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” 2000-2006

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN

Amenia

Azerbaijan

Belarus

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan

Moldova CSB

Moldova PR Russia

Tajikistan

Ukraine

Uzbekistan

10 COUNTRIES (Moldova- PR data)

Armenia   121 1 167 952 26 169 141 57 278 6 6 446 187 66 324

Azerbaijan 358   1 149 1 657 114 203 173 46 489 12 5 240 433 55 625

Belarus 77 123   2 120 104 86 128 47 010 34 9 136 268 59 000

Kazakhstan95 685 12 960   4 501 151 233 406 088 217 10 153 12 385 447 317

Kyrgyzstan19 110 996 16 807   25 26 87 135 750 1 394 2 530 109 767

Moldova 29 43 2 297 458 25 0 0 53 208 3 27 708 65 83 836

Russia 5 318 10 843 70 137 139 349 17 434 5 814 2 691   6 618168 351 22 206 442 947

Tajikistan 22 54 639 2 920 3 851 29 24 43 677   1 675 5 032 57 894

Ukraine 486 1 110 19 097 5 380 306 4 631 2 749 252 655 131   1 717 283 631

Uzbekistan 96 676 2 814 200 475 3 279 116 128 194 601 1 285 21 166 0 424 520

COUNTRIES 6 500 13 765111 256 370 118 29 640 11 224 6 293 1 188 141 9 056

251 269 44 823

2 030 861

  6 500 13 765111 256 370 118 29 640 11 224 6 293 1 188 141 9 056

251 269 44 823  

10

2) Matrix “Emigrants” 2000-2006

DIRECTION OF EMIGRATION Amenia

Azerbaijan Belarus

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan

Moldova CSB

Moldova PR Russia

Tajikistan Ukraine

Uzbekistan

10 COUNTRIES (Moldova- PR data)

Armenia   0 103 125 23 1 20 7 053 22 553 237 8 136

Azerbaijan 0   132 732 219 11 56 12 808 101 679 863 15 590

Belarus 1 095 718   10 547 1 174 1 076 1 029 58 319 451 17930 2 549 93 812

Kazakhstan

598 1 030 960   24 768 84 127 97 944 2 264 2699229 058 359 448

Kyrgyzstan28 97 37 2 931   5 12 6 963 4 370 177 3 973 18 588

Moldova 126 47 221 349 33     8 845 24 5687 161 15 493

Russia 50 311 28 394 45 094 440 085 153 77421

343 19 204   57 008 239936312 053

1 345 859

Tajikistan 8 8 51 341 806 0 9 5 307   108 1 309 7 947

Ukraine 3 153 1 670 6 588 8 477 1 54812

800 12 432 134 637 1 383  18

167 188 055

Uzbekistan 110 136 120 6 157 3 861 5 42 9 550 7 028 860   27 864

10 COUNTRIES 55 429 32 100 53 306 469 744 186 206

35 325 32 931 341 426 72 651 268 629

568 370

2 080 792

  55 429 32 100 53 306 469 744 186 20635

325 32 931 341 426 72 651 268 629568 370  

11

3) Matrix “Net migration” 2000-2006

  COUNTRY OF DATA ORIGIN  

“Partner” country

Armenia

Azerbaijan Belarus

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan

Moldova

Moldova PR Russia

Tajikistan

Ukraine

Uzbekistan

10COUNTRIES

of migration

exchange

Armenia 0 121 1 064 827 3 168 121 50 225 -16 5 893 -50 58 212

Azerbaijan 358 0 1 017 925 -105 192 117 33 681 -89 4 561 -430 39 894

Belarus -1 018 -595 0 -8 427 -1 070 -990 -901 -11 309 -417 -8 794 -2 281 -34 348

Kazakhstan-503 -345 12 000 0 -20 267 67 106

308 144 -2 047 7 454 -216 673 88 101

Kyrgyzstan-9 13 959 13 876 0 20 14 80 172 -3 620 1 217 -1 443 91 187

Moldova CSB -97 -4 2 076 109 -8 0 0 44 363 -21 22 021 -96 68 392

Russia -44 993 -17 551 25 043-300 736

-136 340 -15 529 -16 513 0 -50 390

-71 585 -289 847

-879 924

Tajikistan 14 46 588 2 579 3 045 29 15 38 370 0 1 567 3 723 49 947

Ukraine -2 667 -560 12 509 -3 097 -1 242 -8 169 -9 683118 018 -1 252 0 -16 450 97 667

Uzbekistan -14 540 2 694 194 318 -582 111 86185 051 -5 743 20 306 0 396 676

  -49026 -18339 60 026 -99517 -156574 -24101 -26638891 078 -63616 4 661 -523643 44 194

10 COUNTRIES

-48 929 -18 335 57 950 -99 626-156 566 -24 101 -26 638

846 715 -63 595

-17 360 -523 547 -47 394

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)

Armenia 0,8 0,84

Azerbaijan 0,88 0,58

Belarus 1,19 0,9

Kazakhstan 1,03 1,05

Kyrgyzstan 1,6 1,7

Moldova CSB 0,73 0,42

Russia 0,9 0,77

Tajikistan 1,14 1,26

Ukraine 1,35 0,94

Uzbekistan 1,61 1,34

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 -48929 58235 -0,8

Azerbaijan -18335 40110 -0,5

Belarus 57950 -34901 -1,7

Kazakhstan -99626 87830 -1,1

Kyrgyzstan -156566 91185 -1,7

Moldova CSB -24101 68343 -0,4

Russia 846715 -901928 -0,9

Tajikistan -63595 49961 -1,3

Ukraine -17360 97090 -0,2

Uzbekistan -523547 396681 -1,3

14

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

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Arrivals from Moldova (RF data)

Departures to RF (Moldova CSB data)

0

500

1 000

1 500

2 000

2 500

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Departures to Moldova (RF data)

Arrivals from Russia (Moldova CSBdata)

-4 000

-2 000

0

2 000

4 000

6 000

8 000

10 000

12 000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Net migration RF data

Net migration (CSB)

15

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

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Arrivals from Uzbekistan(Kazakhstan data)

Departures to Kazakhstan(Uzbekistan data)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Departures to Uzbekistan (Kazakhstan data)

Arrivals from Kazakhstan (Uzbekistan data)

11533

17751

23667

3020935117

44029

32012

-6295

-18410

-25119

-36712-39922

-54632

-35583

-60000

-40000

-20000

0

20000

40000

60000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Net migration (Kazakhstan data)

Net migration (Uzbekistan data)

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

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

30 000

35 000

40 000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

departures to Ukraine (RFdata)

arrivals from Russia(Ukrainian data)

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

arrivals from Ukraine (RFdata)

departures to Russia(Ukrainian data)

-30 000

-20 000

-10 000

0

10 000

20 000

30 000

40 000

50 000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

net migration (RF data)

net migration(Ukrainian data)

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

Ratio of nationals and foreigners among immigrants in selected CIS countries (RF- 2002-2006, Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus -2000-2006)

8,2%

43,8%

82,8% 81,3%

89,7%

53,4%

17,2% 18,7%

0,0%

10,0%

20,0%

30,0%

40,0%

50,0%

60,0%

70,0%

80,0%

90,0%

100,0%

RUS S IA UK RA INE B E LA RUS M OLD OV A

Fore ign im m igra tns Nationa ls

Ratio of nationals and foreigners among emigrants in selected CIS countries (RF- 2002-2006, Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus -2000-2006)

3,2%10,1% 14,4%

95,4%88,2%

85,6%

0 %

1 0 %

2 0 %

3 0 %

4 0 %

5 0 %

6 0 %

7 0 %

8 0 %

9 0 %

1 0 0 %

Russia Ukra ine M oldova

Fore ign em igrants Nationa ls

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 ?If the number of naturalized persons can exceed the number of migrants ?

Immigration and citizenship acquisition in Russia (2003-2006), persons by selected coutnries, persons

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

2003-2006 Citizenship acquired 99051 84330 31604 306664 100754 34185 39964 218851 172278

2003-2006 RP holders in RF 92852 61018 16997 105791 27095 40400 33432 251610 224564

2003-2006 Total immigrants 28 711 20 361 23 375 160 253 47 720 26 425 19 925 104 598 103 967

2003-2006 Emigrants to RF 23687 10080 25333 156392 83122 12768 26743 100124 165332

Armenia Azerbaija

n Belarus

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan

Moldova Tajikistan Ukraine Uzbekista

n

Immigration and citizenship acquisition in Russia (2003-2006) by years, persons

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2003-2006 Citizenship acquired 25814 290236 447024 324607

2003-2006 RP holders in RF 147192 233599 257705 215263

Total immigrants (9 CIS ) 107 822 101 754 158 997 166 762

2003-2006 Emigrants to RF 174333 158892 148938 121418

Foreign immigrants in RF 15658 8779 9720 9135

2003 2004 2005 2006

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

Immigration and citizenship acquisition in the RF in 1992-2006, persons.

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Immigrants total Citizenship acquisition

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