BORDER DATA COLLECTION: SYSTEMS, RECOMMENDATIONS, EXPERIENCES IN MED COUNTRIES

1. BORDER DATA COLLECTION: SYSTEMS, RECOMMENDATIONS, EXPERIENCES IN MED COUNTRIES ESCWA Workshop on Migration Statistics Cairo, 30 June – 3 July 2009 G. Cantisani / S. Farid

2. OUTLINE • Key distinctions • Border data collection systems • International recommendations • Border data collection in MED countries • MEDSTAT II experience: a main lesson?

3. Key distinctions (1) • Border crossing data collection systems based on border cards filled in by international travellers • Border crossing data collection systems based on border registration, i.e. manual data entry or optical reading of passports of international travellers at time of border crossing

4. Key distinctions (2) Therefore, statistics on arrivals/departures (or, better, migration flows) may be compiled as follows, depending on cases: • Manual computations based on border cards • Electronic elaboration of border cards data • Electronic elaborations based on border registration

5. Border data collection systems (1) • PROS • Reflect actual moves with a high degree of accuracy in terms of timing, mode of transport and place • Continuous or regular and fairly exhaustive data collection systems for administrative purposes • Cover arrivals/departures irrespective of people's legal status • Provide main demographic characteristics • May provide detailed data and data on small population groups, including information immediately useful to distinguish international migrants (case of detailed border cards)

6. Border data collection systems (2) • CONS • Burden to travellers, so prevailing option of asking limited information only (it mostly applies to border cards systems) • There may be a minimal verification of cards filled in by the travellers, with consequent low reliability • Only covers arrivals/departures through official border posts • Difficulties to distinguish between migrants and other categories of peoples (depending on detail of border cards, where applied); migrants are usually a minority of all people crossing a given border

7. Border data collection systems (3) • CONS (2) • May collect only people's intention which may differ from subsequent reality • Degree of control and registration may depend on the citizenship of travellers, mode of transport and border post • Maintenance and updating of systems may be a heavy burden (e.g. data entry of detailed / long border cards) • Registered data may not be available in a useful form, e.g. as an electronic database • Linkage of entries and exits at individual level may be difficult or not possible, even due to the use of different travel documents by a same person

8. Border data collection systems (4) • A number of alternative strategies have been introduced to reduce the data-collection load at the border and/or the data-processing load: • Collecting data from a representative sample of the passengers only • Collecting data only from certain categories of passengers, such as foreigners, or temporary visitors • Collecting data from travellers at air- and seaports only (it mostly apply to countries with long land borders)

9. International Recommendations (1) Identifying migrants at the border The following information is crucial to identify migrants: 1. (intended) duration of stay 2. country of (usual) residence 3. country of citizenship 4. purpose of stay

10. International Recommendations (2) • The (intended) duration of stay in the country of destination is one of the key items of information necessary to distinguish migrants from other travellers, and long-term migrants from short-term ones • In the case of foreigners, declared intentions may be checked against the validity of visas or permits • For arriving citizens, information on intended duration of stay in their own country provides the only means of identifying incoming long-term migrants on a prospective basis

11. International Recommendations (3) • Various options for recording duration of stay: • Asking the traveller to fill in intended duration of stay, and code afterwards. • Asking the traveller to fill in intended duration of stay, in pre-coded answers, for which the UN then recommend: • • less than three months • • at least three months but less than one year • • one year or more, but a limited duration • • an unlimited duration • • uncertain or unknown duration • Inferring expected duration of stay from the permit or visa.

12. International Recommendations (4) The traveller’s country of usual residence is the country where the migrant lived during the year preceding his or her arrival in the receiving country. The UN suggest to do this by establishing in which country the traveller has last lived for a period of at least 12 months.

13. International Recommendations (5) Concerning the country of citizenship, a traveller may have dual citizenship, but usually only the one corresponding to the passport presented by the traveller is recorded.

14. International Recommendations (6) Information on the purpose of stay is one of the means by which the various categories of travellers may – at least partially - be identified. The UN strongly recommends that international migrant foreigners are classified according to the reason for their admission as established by the receiving state (the intentions, desires or expectations of the migrant foreigner involved should not be the basis for classification). Departing citizens may be classified either according to the formal reasons for their admission by the receiving state or according to their own stated purpose of stay abroad (the latter is clearly more practical).

15. International Recommendations (7) • Characteristics of migrants • The UN recommendations include other variables to be recorded for every arriving and departing international migrant (irrespective of citizenship): • date of arrival/departure • sex • date of birth • country of birth • marital status (all migrants 15 years and over) • address • as well as information on education and occupation and employment

16. Border data collection in MED countries (1) • Most MED-countries require all travellers, • both nationals and foreigners, to complete border cards, upon both arrival and departure. • These countries now have fully computerised data entry at the borders for administrative purposes.

17. Border data collection in MED countries (2) • Border cards have been abolished in Jordan in 2005 • All other countries use different cards, which have no direct use for measuring migration, except in Syria, which decided to modify the cards and extend their use to all foreigners under MED–Migr I. • Sometimes, slightly different versions of cards are in use within the same country (e.g. Morocco, Tunisia) or are only used for foreigners (Syria). • Only Egypt and Lebanon fully register the data available from border cards

18. Border data collection in MED countries (3) • Finally, border cards are primarily seen as a burden for travellers and registration is seen as a complex and expensive operation. • Concerning registration at borders, in all countries register electronically arrivals and departures • Countries are seeking to facilitate arrivals and departures with systems for optical reading of passports and recognition of biometrical characteristics, which could mean even less detail in the data collected.

19. Border data collection in MED countries (4) • Statistics on arrivals and departures are periodically compiled through registration of border card data, manual computation or border registration. • The breakdown of variables is limited and varies from country to country. In any case, it does not distinguish international migrants from the other categories of travellers. • However, in overall the reliability of counts based on both border cards or border registration is improving.

20. MEDSTAT II experience: a main lesson? The approach under MEDSTAT I • Changing the systems, i.e. the border cards • So long negotiations with national partners, pilot works, adding and/or pre-coding of variables, detachable cards for statistical purposes, … • The results achieved were controversial from a technical point of view, especially due to the time and money consuming. • However, some border cards were introduced in Syria as the best tool, for statistics on both migration and tourism

21. The Syrian border card

22. MEDSTAT II experience: a main lesson? The proposals under MEDSTAT II • To produce annual tables on arrivals/departures according to different combinations of variables (e.g. nationality, sex and reason of travel) • To change the systems / tools, if possible • To introduce a simple, innovative solution based on what is normally and easily available(main lesson / good practice?)

23. MEDSTAT II experience: a main lesson? • The responsible services of Ministry of Interior were generally able to show to the MEDSTAT experts their border passages as registered, eventually based on different, or renewed, passports • NAME, SEX, DATE OF BIRTH, COUNTRY OF BIRTH and CITIZENSHIP, i.e. the basic data available from passports, may be already very relevant for producing migration statistics according to international recommendations

24. MEDSTAT II experience: a main lesson? A possible migration path

25. MEDSTAT II experience: a main lesson? A possible entry / exit sequence

26. MEDSTAT II experience: a main lesson? The suggestion of linking and studying the single passages of the travellers over a three year period in order to produce statistics on yearly migration flows >>> The suggestion and development of a new methodology >>> A pilot work for its application and validation in Lebanon (see next presentation and room documents)

27. THANK YOU