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 Enrico Bisogno UNECE Moscow.
Download ReportTranscript 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 Enrico Bisogno UNECE Moscow.
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 Enrico Bisogno UNECE Moscow State Lomonosov University 1 Overview 1. Collected data and actors involved 2. Main findings: comparability, coverage, possibility of compilation 3. Concluding remarks (thinking of future activities) 2 Why CIS: high ratio of intra-regional migration; focus of migration policies, need in correct population size estimates etc. EMIGRATION IMMIGRATION 87% Total Uzbekistan 13% 97% Ukraine 3% 85% Tajikistan 15% Russia 95% Moldova 5% 52% 48% 98% Kyrgyzstan 2% Kazakhstan 90% 10% Georgia 88% 12% 89% 11% Belarus Azerbaijan 97% Armenia 3% 68% 0% 20% Within CIS 40% 80% Outside CIS 28% 90% Uzbekistan 100% 10% 61% 39% Tajikistan 99,6% 0% 52% Russia Moldova 48% 70% Kyrgyzstan 30% 93% Kazakhstan 7% 73% Belarus 27% 62% 38% Azerbaijan 97% Armenia 32% 60% Total Ukraine 1% 99% 72% 3% 79% 0% 20% Within CIS 40% 21% 60% 80% 100% Outside CIS 3 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) 4 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 Stocks of foreign-born • 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 5 missing • 8 } 8 Census based, except 2 countries 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 6 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 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 7 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 8 Method of comparison: 1) Matrix “Immigrants” 2000-2006 COUNTRY OF ORIGIN Ameni a Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Moldova Russia Tajikistan Ukraine Uzbekistan COUNTRIES Uzbeki stan 6 446 187 66 324 12 5 240 433 55 625 47 010 34 9 136 268 59 000 233 406 088 217 10 153 12 385 447 317 25 26 87 135 750 1 394 2 530 109 767 53 208 3 27 708 65 83 836 6 618 168 351 22 206 442 947 1 675 5 032 57 894 1 717 283 631 Moldo va CSB Azerbaija n Belaru s Kazakhs tan 121 1 167 952 26 169 141 57 278 6 1 149 1 657 114 203 173 46 489 2 120 104 86 128 4 501 151 358 Kyrgy zstan 10 COUNTR IES (Moldov a- PR data) Moldo va PR Russia Tajikis tan Ukrain e 77 123 95 685 12 960 19 110 996 16 807 29 43 2 297 458 25 0 0 5 318 10 843 70 137 139 349 17 434 5 814 2 691 22 54 639 2 920 3 851 29 24 43 677 486 1 110 19 097 5 380 306 4 631 2 749 252 655 131 96 676 2 814 200 475 3 279 116 128 194 601 1 285 21 166 0 424 520 6 500 13 765 111 256 370 118 29 640 11 224 6 293 1 188 141 9 056 251 269 44 823 2 030 861 6 500 13 765 111 256 370 118 29 640 11 224 6 293 1 188 141 9 056 251 269 44 823 9 2) Matrix “Emigrants” 2000-2006 DIRECTION OF EMIGRATION Ameni a Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Azerbaija n 0 0 Belarus Kazakh stan Kyrgyzs tan Moldo va CSB Moldov a PR Russia Tajikis tan Ukraine Uzbe kistan 10 COUNT RIES (Moldova - PR data) 103 125 23 1 20 7 053 22 553 237 8 136 132 732 219 11 56 12 808 101 679 863 15 590 10 547 1 174 1 076 1 029 58 319 451 17930 2 549 93 812 24 768 84 127 97 944 2 264 2699 229 058 359 448 5 12 6 963 4 370 177 3 973 18 588 8 845 24 5687 161 15 493 57 008 239936 312 053 1 345 859 108 1 309 7 947 18 167 188 055 1 095 718 598 1 030 960 28 97 37 2 931 126 47 221 349 33 50 311 28 394 45 094 440 085 153 774 21 343 19 204 8 8 51 341 806 0 9 5 307 3 153 1 670 6 588 8 477 1 548 12 800 12 432 134 637 1 383 110 136 120 6 157 3 861 5 42 9 550 7 028 860 55 429 32 100 53 306 469 744 186 206 35 325 32 931 341 426 72 651 268 629 568 370 55 429 32 100 53 306 469 744 186 206 35 325 32 931 341 426 72 651 268 629 568 370 Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Moldova Russia Tajikistan Ukraine Uzbekistan 10 COUNTRIES 27 864 2 080 792 10 3) Matrix “Net migration” 2000-2006 COUNTRY OF DATA ORIGIN “Partner” country of migration exchange Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Armeni a Azerbaija n Belarus Kazakhs tan Kyrgyzst an Moldov a Moldov a PR Moldova CSB Russia Tajikistan Ukraine Uzbekistan Tajikista n Ukrain e Uzbekista n 10COU NTRIES 0 121 1 064 827 3 168 121 50 225 -16 5 893 -50 58 212 358 0 1 017 925 -105 192 117 33 681 -89 4 561 -430 39 894 -1 018 -595 0 -8 427 -1 070 -990 -901 -11 309 -417 -8 794 -2 281 -34 348 -503 -345 12 000 0 -20 267 67 106 308 144 -2 047 7 454 -216 673 88 101 -9 13 959 13 876 0 20 14 80 172 -3 620 1 217 -1 443 91 187 -97 -4 2 076 109 -8 0 0 44 363 -21 22 021 -96 68 392 -44 993 -17 551 25 043 -300 736 -136 340 -15 529 -16 513 0 -50 390 -71 585 -289 847 -879 924 14 46 588 2 579 3 045 29 15 38 370 0 1 567 3 723 49 947 -2 667 -560 12 509 -3 097 -1 242 -8 169 -9 683 118 018 -1 252 0 -16 450 97 667 -14 540 2 694 194 318 -582 111 86 185 051 -5 743 20 306 0 396 676 -49026 -18339 60 026 -99517 -156574 -24101 -26638 891 078 -63616 4 661 -523643 44 194 -48 929 -18 335 57 950 -99 626 -156 566 -24 101 -26 638 846 715 -63 595 -17 360 -523 547 Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Russia 10 COUNTRIES Total net migration 11 -47 394 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) Armenia Ratio 2 - emigrants (sending country data) to immigrants (CIS aggregated data on immigrants from this country) 0,8 0,84 Azerbaijan 0,88 0,58 Belarus 1,19 0,9 Kazakhstan 1,03 1,05 Kyrgyzstan 1,6 1,7 0,73 0,42 0,9 0,77 Tajikistan 1,14 1,26 Ukraine 1,35 0,94 Uzbekistan 1,61 1,34 Moldova CSB Russia 12 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 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 -523547 396681 13 -1,3 Belarus Uzbekistan Some more evidence from comparison of data on flows of immigrants and emigrants : results to be discussed -case of Moldova and the RF Arrivals from Moldova (RF data) 14000 12000 Departures to RF (Moldova CSB data) Departures to Moldova (RF data) 2 500 Net migration RF data 12 000 Arrivals from Russia (Moldova CSB data) 2 000 Net migration (CSB) 10 000 8 000 10000 1 500 8000 6 000 4 000 6000 1 000 2 000 4000 500 0 2000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 -2 000 0 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 -4 000 14 Some more evidence from comparison of data on flows of immigrants and emigrants: rather good results – case of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan 60000 50000 Arrivals from Uzbekistan (Kazakhstan data) 2500 Departures to Uzbekistan (Kazakhstan data) 60000 Net migration (Kazakhstan data) Arrivals from Kazakhstan (Uzbekistan data) Departures to Kazakhstan (Uzbekistan data) 44029 Net migration (Uzbekistan data) 40000 2000 35117 32012 30209 23667 20000 40000 1500 17751 11533 0 30000 2000 -6295 1000 20000 -20000 10000 -40000 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 -18410 -25119 500 0 2001 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 -60000 -36712 -35583 -39922 -54632 15 Some more evidence from comparison of data : need in annual data for comparison. Paradox of positive net migration both in Ukraine and the RF 50 000 80000 40 000 35 000 departures to Ukraine (RF data) 70000 30 000 arrivals from Russia (Ukrainian data) 60000 arrivals from Ukraine (RF data) 40 000 departures to Russia (Ukrainian data) 30 000 25 000 50000 20 000 20 000 40000 10 000 15 000 30000 0 10 000 20000 5 000 10000 0 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 net migration (RF data) net migration (Ukrainian data) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 -10 000 -20 000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 -30 000 Ukraine- decrease of emigration, RF- increase of immigration 16 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 17 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 Ratio of nationals and foreigners among immigrants in selected CIS countries (RF2002-2006, Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus -2000-2006) 100,0% 100% 90,0% 1 7 , 2 % 1 8 , 7 % 80,0% 90% 80% 70,0% 5 3 , 4 70% % 60,0% 50,0% Ratio of nationals and foreigners among emigrants in selected CIS countries (RF- 20022006, Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus -2000-2006) 60% 89,7% 50% 82,8% 40,0% 81,3% 95,4% 85,6% 88,2% 40% 30% 30,0% 43,8% 20,0% 20% 10% 10,0% 8,2% 0% 0,0% RUSSIA UKRAINE Foreign immigratns BELARUS Nationals MOLDOVA 3,2% Russia 14,4% 10,1% Ukraine Foreign emigrants Moldova Nationals 18 If the number of naturalized persons can exceed the number of migrants ? Immigration and citizenship acquisition in Russia (2003-2006) by years, persons Immigration and citizenship acquisition in Russia (2003-2006), persons by selected coutnries, persons 500000 350000 450000 300000 400000 350000 250000 300000 200000 250000 150000 200000 100000 150000 100000 50000 50000 0 0 2003-2006 Citizenship acquired Armenia Uzbekista Kazakhst Kyrgyzst Azerbaija Moldova Tajikistan Ukraine Belarus n an an n 2003 2004 2005 2006 25814 290236 447024 324607 2003-2006 Citizenship acquired 99051 84330 31604 306664 100754 34185 39964 218851 172278 224564 2003-2006 RP holders in RF 147192 233599 257705 215263 2003-2006 RP holders in RF 92852 61018 16997 105791 27095 40400 33432 251610 Total immigrants (9 CIS ) 107 822 101 754 158 997 166 762 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 174333 158892 148938 121418 2003-2006 Emigrants to RF 23687 10080 25333 156392 83122 12768 26743 100124 Foreign immigrants in RF 15658 8779 9720 9135 In 2007 in the RF 362 thousand persons were naturalized, only 157 persons- via 19 an ordinary procedure , 255 thousand via a simplified way, 107 thousand – via the international agreements 165332 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. 1400000 1200000 Immigrants total Citizenship acquisition 1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 20 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. • • • 21 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 22 Lessons learnt (3) Further analysis of data is needed Importance to invest on Population Census 2010 23 Thank you for your attention 24