Adapting border card systems in the Mediterranean region to measure international migration and international tourism new initiatives and technical guidelines.
Date: 2006-05-11
Institutions: Eurostat
Subjects: Mediterranean third countries, migratory movement, population statistics, statistical method, technical cooperation, tourism statistics

PRIMA.pdf   24-02-2006   12:46:14

C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

S

E

I

D

U

T

S

D

N

A

S

R

E

P

A

P

G

N

I

K

R

O

W

ISSN 1725-065X

N
O

I
T
I

D
E

6
0
0
2

MEDSTAT Programme

Adapting border card systems
in the Mediterranean region
to measure international
migration and international
tourism: new initiatives
and technical guidelines 

E U R O P E A N
C O M M I S S I O N

THEME
Population
and social
conditions

 
 
 
 
 
 
SECONDA.pdf   21-02-2006   18:54:37

C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union

Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int).

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2006

ISBN 92-79-01528-1
ISSN 1725-065X

© European Communities, 2006

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

MEDSTAT – Migration
International migration statistics

Adapting border card systems in the Mediterranean region 
to measure international migration and international tourism:
new initiatives and technical guidelines

Jeannette SCHOORL
In collaboration with Ibrahim ALI and Samir FARID *

The views expressed herein are those of the authors. Therefore they do not reﬂ ect
any ofﬁ cial opinion of the European Commission.

*  Lebanon and Syria: paragraphs produced by Ibrahim Ali.

Jordan: paragraphs produced by Samir Farid.

3

 
MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

Acknowledgements

This document is the result of a work that was carried out over a long time span in close collaboration with the 
MED-Migr  National  Co-ordinators:  Hassan  Souaber  (Algeria),  Mohamed Al-Assaf  (Jordan),  Nader  Keyrouz 
(Lebanon), Said Chahoua (Morocco), Sumaya Saad-El-Deen (Syria), and Habib Fourati (Tunisia); with ofﬁ c-
ers of the Ministry of the Interior: Ali Cheniki AND Rabah Boucenna (Algeria), Mekhaimer Abu-Gamous and 
Atef Hashem and Sobhi Moussa Al-Abadi (Jordan), Jameel Al-Said (Lebanon), M’hamed Naïm El Khatib and 
Thami Belcaid (Morocco), Hani Ismaeel and Fakhri Abdun (Syria) and Chedly Berber (Tunisia);  the Directors of 
the Central Statistical Ofﬁ ces: Mohamed Boumati (Algeria), Maral Guidanian-Tutelian (Lebanon), Hassan Sha-
khatreh (Jordan), Abdelaziz Maalemi (Morocco), Ibrahim Ali (Syria), Khelifa Ben-Fkih (Tunisia); and with the 
MED-Tour National co-ordinators: Bedria Derkouche (Algeria), Abdelwadoud Matouk (Jordan), Nader Keyrouz 
(Lebanon), Aniss Cherkaoui and Maria Benabdennbi (Morocco), Abdelhamid Rajeh  (Syria), Younes Kamoun 
and Ridha Benzarti (Tunisia). We owe thanks to them as well as to many other ofﬁ cers and executives involved 
in this work within the National Statistical Institutes, the Ministries of the Interior and the Ministries of Tourism. 
Despite their very busy schedules, they did not spare any efforts in carrying out all the work needed for the suc-
cess of the project of which this report presents the results. We take this occasion to thank all.

We would also like to thank the staff at CESD-Roma responsible for the implementation and the technical co-
ordination of the project and Eurostat for the supervision of the MED-Migr Sub-programme, last but not least, 
Samia Kouider, for performing the onerous task involved by the technical co-ordination of the work on which this 
document is based, as well as for writing the section on the background of MED-Migr.

4

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

Table of contents

Executive summary ............................................................................................................................................... 7

1     Background ................................................................................................................................................. 11

2     Introduction: statistics in international migration and tourism ............................................................. 11

3     International recommendations................................................................................................................. 13

3.1   Migration statistics ...................................................................................................................................... 13
3.1.1   Definitions .......................................................................................................................................... 13
3.1.2   Classification of travellers ................................................................................................................. 13
3.1.3   Identifying migrants at the border ..................................................................................................... 14
3.1.4   Characteristics of migrants ............................................................................................................... 19

3.2   Tourism statistics .......................................................................................................................................... 20
3.2.1   Definitions .......................................................................................................................................... 20
3.2.2   Measuring inbound and outbound tourism ........................................................................................ 21
3.2.3   Other relevant variables for tourism statistics .................................................................................. 22

4     Current border card systems and available border statistics ................................................................. 23

4.1   Algeria .......................................................................................................................................................... 23
4.1.1   Data collection and processing procedures ....................................................................................... 23
4.1.2   Contents of border cards.................................................................................................................... 23
4.1.3   Production and dissemination of statistics ........................................................................................ 23

4.2   Jordan .......................................................................................................................................................... 24
4.2.1   Data collection and processing procedures ....................................................................................... 24
4.2.2   Contents of border cards.................................................................................................................... 25
4.2.3   Production and dissemination of statistics ........................................................................................ 25

4.3   Lebanon........................................................................................................................................................ 25
4.3.1   Data collection and processing procedures ....................................................................................... 25
4.3.2   Contents of border cards.................................................................................................................... 25
4.3.3   Production and dissemination of statistics ........................................................................................ 25

4.4   Morocco ....................................................................................................................................................... 26
4.4.1   Data collection and processing procedures ....................................................................................... 26
4.4.2   Contents of border cards.................................................................................................................... 26
4.4.3   Production and dissemination of statistics ........................................................................................ 26

4.5   Syria ............................................................................................................................................................. 27
4.5.1   Data collection and processing procedures ....................................................................................... 27
4.5.2   Contents of border cards.................................................................................................................... 27
4.5.3   Production and dissemination of statistics ........................................................................................ 27

4.6   Tunisia .......................................................................................................................................................... 27
4.6.1   Data collection and processing procedures ....................................................................................... 27
4.6.2   Contents of border cards.................................................................................................................... 28
4.6.3   Production and dissemination of statistics ........................................................................................ 28

5     Recent developments in border card data collection systems: MED-Migr initiatives ......................... 28

5.1   Pilot studies .................................................................................................................................................. 28
5.1.1   Jordan ................................................................................................................................................ 29
5.1.2   Morocco ............................................................................................................................................. 31
5.1.3   Syria ................................................................................................................................................... 32

5.2   Non-pilot countries ...................................................................................................................................... 34
5.2.1   Algeria ............................................................................................................................................... 34
5.2.2   Lebanon ............................................................................................................................................. 35
5.2.3   Tunisia ................................................................................................................................................ 35


MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

6     Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................... 35

6.1   Data collection and processing .................................................................................................................... 35
6.1.1   Jordan ................................................................................................................................................ 36
6.1.2   Morocco ............................................................................................................................................. 36
6.1.3   Syria ................................................................................................................................................... 37

6.2   Production and dissemination of statistics .................................................................................................. 37

6.3   Integration of data sources .......................................................................................................................... 38

7     References .................................................................................................................................................... 39

8     Annexes ........................................................................................................................................................ 41

8.1   Table:Information on border cards in the project countries, arrival cards and departures card ................ 41

8.2   Existing border cards ................................................................................................................................... 43
8.2.1   Algeria ............................................................................................................................................... 43
8.2.2   Jordan ................................................................................................................................................ 45
8.2.3   Lebanon ............................................................................................................................................. 46

8.3   Border cards in selected other countries: Australia, New Zealand, Singapore ........................................... 47
8.3.1   Australia............................................................................................................................................. 47
8.3.2   New Zealand ...................................................................................................................................... 49
8.3.3   Singapore ........................................................................................................................................... 49

8.4   Overview of available statistics ................................................................................................................... 52
8.4.1   Algeria ............................................................................................................................................... 52
8.4.2   Jordan ................................................................................................................................................ 52
8.4.3   Lebanon ............................................................................................................................................. 52
8.4.4   Morocco ............................................................................................................................................. 52
8.4.5   Syria ................................................................................................................................................... 53
8.4.6   Tunisia ................................................................................................................................................ 53

8.5   UN recommendations on international migration statistics: definitions of the categories included in the        
revised taxonomy of international outflows according to entry status established by receiving state ........ 55

8.6   Recommendations on tourism statistics: definitions and classifications ..................................................... 57

8.7   Pilot border cards ........................................................................................................................................ 59
8.7.1   Jordan ................................................................................................................................................ 59
8.7.2   Morocco ............................................................................................................................................. 61
8.7.3   Syria ................................................................................................................................................... 63

8.8   Adapted cards ............................................................................................................................................... 64
8.8.1   Algeria ............................................................................................................................................... 64
8.8.2   Lebanon ............................................................................................................................................. 65
8.8.3   Syria ................................................................................................................................................... 67
8.8.4   Morocco (proposal under discussion) ............................................................................................... 68

8.9   Recommendations: tabulations .................................................................................................................... 69
8.9.1   UN Recommandations for tables on international migration ........................................................... 69
8.9.2   Tables for Eurostat database ............................................................................................................. 70


MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

Executive summary

Background and purpose (section 1)

This report describes the results of the work carried out within the framework of the MEDSTAT/MED-Migr pro-
gramme, on the enhancement of statistics on international migration and international tourism based on existing 
border card systems. 

Many of the participating countries in the Mediterranean region operate a system of border cards, for administra-
tive and security purposes. Where a border card system is already in existence for administrative purposes, an 
extension of that system for purposes of migration and/or tourism statistics may be effectuated with relatively 
limited effort and cost. 

The exploitation of border cards systems for statistical use was one of the main actions carried out under MED-
Migr 1 and has been developed in synergy with MED-Tour, the MEDSTAT sub-programme on tourism statistics. 
Countries opting to participate in this action were Algeria, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Syria, and Tunisia. 1 

Although some general statistics are produced from the border card systems in most countries, at the beginning of 
the project none allowed for the derivation of statistics on migration or tourism. Nevertheless, in many Mediter-
ranean countries, the border card system is currently the principal existing source for measuring general inﬂ ows 
and outﬂ ows.

The goals of this phase of the MED-migr project on border card systems were:

• 

• 

• 
• 
• 

to study the existing systems of border data collection, data processing and production and dissemination of 
statistics, 
to propose adaptations of the existing systems, taking into account goals of harmonisation and international 
comparability, and furthermore without interfering in security matters, and respecting national priorities and 
laws,
to enhance inter-institutional collaboration,
to test adapted cards, and data collection and processing procedures in pilot tests, and
to make recommendations for future action.

Existing border card systems and available statistics (section 4)

The three participating Maghreb countries (Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia), and Lebanon require all travellers, 
both nationals and foreigners, to complete border cards, upon both arrival and departure. Jordan has a compu-
terised system for all arrivals and departures (the use of paper cards has been phased out in 10 of the 13 border 
posts). But in Syria only non-Syrian Arabs and foreigners are required to ﬁ ll out border cards.

Most of the countries concerned now have fully computerised data entry at the borders, for administrative pur-
poses. However, statistics are often still produced manually, and are therefore limited and not easy to adapt to 
changing user needs. Furthermore, although all border card systems contain data relevant for both administrative 
and statistical purposes (such as nationality, place of birth, sex, date of birth, etc.), most systems lack crucial data 
needed to derive migration and tourism statistics, in particular information on (intended) duration of stay, purpose 
of visit, and in some cases on country of usual residence.

Given that existing border card systems do not allow for the distinction of migrants or tourists speciﬁ cally, sta-
tistics are mostly limited to the total number of arrivals and departures, at best distinguished by nationality and 
residency status of the traveller.

1  The other six Mediterranean partners, that were not active in the border card project are: Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Malta, the Palestinian Authority, and 

Turkey.

7

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

Towards the adaptation of cards: international recommendations (section 3)

In order to improve the potential of border card systems for statistics on migration and tourism, within the frame-
work of the MED-Migr project proposals were prepared to add crucial variables to the existing cards, to slightly 
adapt wording, use pre-coding of variables, etc. In all countries, this was done in close collaboration between the 
authorities concerned: in particular the Ministry of the Interior (as the main responsible organisation), the Central 
Statistical Ofﬁ ce, and the Ministry of Tourism. 

As a major goal was to work towards statistics that are harmonised and internationally comparable, international 
recommendations on migration and tourism statistics were taken as guiding principles for the proposals to adapt 
data collection systems. Furthermore, proposals for revised cards were developed based on the principle that ex-
isting cards and existing procedures should be altered as little as possible, and that additional data collection was 
to be kept to a minimum, given the high costs involved. In general, this meant that basic information on intended 
duration of stay, purpose of visit, and sometimes other information, such as country of usual residence, or sex was 
added to the test card, while pre-coding was applied to facilitate data processing.

Pilot studies (section 5)

The decision about the countries to be selected for the pilots depended mainly on the feasibility of carrying out 
the pilot successfully within the limited time available. In particular, a strong commitment to inter-institutional 
co-operation within the country to improve the border card system that is already in existence was considered 
essential. The countries which accepted to carry out  the pilot studies were Morocco, Syria, and Jordan. 

Although harmonisation of data was an important guiding principle, different cards were tested in the three pilot 
countries. The largest difference in this respect was between Jordan and Syria on the one hand, both of which 
tested a so-called ‘integrated’ card (combining data collection for administrative and statistical purposes), de-
signed to minimise the burden for the traveller and minimise data entry, but requiring an adaptation of existing 
data entry systems and procedures; and Morocco on the other hand, which tested a card with a detachable stub, 
allowing for separate data entry for administrative and statistical purposes. 

Actual ﬁ eld work for the pilots was carried out in 2002. In all cases, there was close collaboration between the 
Central Bureau of Statistics, the Ministry of the Interior, and the Ministry of Tourism and, where relevant, other 
authorities  involved  in  security,  administration  and/or  the  production  of  statistics.  Sample  sizes  were  around 
10,000 in Morocco and Syria, and 12,000 in Jordan, and in each country two or three important land, air, and/or 
sea border posts were chosen for the test.

In all three countries, for the purpose of the pilot, data entry was carried out by the Central Bureau of Statistics, 
using IMPS software. In this respect, pre-coding of items is preferred, as it considerably facilitates data entry.

The main conclusions from the tests were the following:

• 

• 

• 
• 

the pilots using an integrated card (Jordan, Syria) showed a higher completion rate of the cards than the pilot 
using a detachable statistical stub (Morocco);
the questions on intended duration of stay and purpose of stay were less well completed than the other ques-
tions. This may be attributed to non-familiarity with these new questions, including confusion about who was 
required to answer these questions, a lack of time (especially among one-day excursionists), and refusal;
a higher non-response among nationals of the country than among foreign citizens;
as  expected,  tourists  form  a  much  larger  group  among  the  travellers  than  both  long-  and  short-term  mi-
grants.

These ﬁ ndings suggest, not unexpectedly, that statistics based on the border card system will probably produce 
more reliable ﬁ gures on tourism than on migration.  As far as migration statistics are concerned, they will prob-
ably provide a reasonable impression of legal migration (professionals, marriage and family reuniﬁ cation, study, 
etc.) but also suffer from underestimation due to the following:

8

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

• 
• 
• 

undocumented travellers avoiding the border posts;
travellers who will overstay their short-term visa or permits, whether intentionally or not;
travellers who are effectively changing their country of residence but are also frequent travellers (and there-
fore may report short durations of stay).

Although the visa has a duration of two years, it should be noticed that some country nationals may obtain a per-
mit valid for ten years. This is the case of Tunisian, French and Moroccan citizens.

Conclusions and recommendations: data collection and processing (sections 5 and 6)

Jordan: the recommendation is to add to the computerised border record the four items piloted, in order to meet 
international recommendations for migration and tourism statistics, namely: country of birth, country of current 
residence, intended duration of stay, and occupation. These four items should also be added to the traditional 
border card still in use in three border posts, until these posts are covered by the national computerised system.  
It is to be expected that response rates would be much higher than those obtained in the pilot study, especially in 
view of the fact that, under the computerised system, information is gathered and entered by the border police. 
The Ministry of Interior, in principal, has no objections to the addition of these questions to border cards and 
to adapting the border card system in Jordan to meet international recommendations to measure international 
migration and tourism. However, a decision to adapt the border card system in the way suggested above would 
have important ﬁ nancial implications. The cost associated with the modiﬁ cation of the computerised border card 
system would be substantial. The current system, therefore, could be modiﬁ ed only when sufﬁ cient funding is 
made available.

Morocco: for both budgetary reasons and reasons of data quality, an integrated system (i.e., joint data collection 
and data processing for administrative and statistical purposes) is undoubtedly preferable. But given the impor-
tant ﬁ nancial implications of such an integration for the data collection authority, this could only be envisaged 
if the ﬁ nancial means to support the additional data processing form part of the plans. At the same time, such a 
system would allow the data collecting authority to fully computerise its manual production of statistics. Towards 
the end of 2002, considering the results of the border card pilot, the Direction de la Statistique, the Ministry of 
the Interior, and the Ministry of Tourism decided to draft a renewed proposal for an integrated border card. A 
committee consisting of representatives of the authorities concerned will be set up to study the possibilities for 
the adoption of such a card. 

Syria: the card tested in Syria was slightly further adapted, based on the pilot experience. The new card then 
was adopted and distributed for use starting the beginning of 2003. As the border card system does not cover the 
movement of Syrians, further work remains on the feasibility of optical passport reading in combination with ad-
ditional questioning (as tested in the pilot study in Syria) for the production of statistics.

Algeria and Lebanon: considerable progress was made in adapting border card systems. Fruitful co-operation 
between the authorities concerned has been set up, and this has resulted in proposals to adapt the existing cards, 
with a view to harmonisation and international comparability. In Algeria, an adapted card, including items on 
duration of stay, purpose of visit, and sex of the traveller has been issued by the Ministry of the Interior in August 
2002. The new cards imply still important future work on data processing systems, and on improving the potential 
of the computerised administrative system to incorporate the production of statistics, in particular because pre-
coding has not been incorporated in the new cards. In Lebanon, the Central Administration of Statistics and the 
Ministry of the Interior agreed to add reason of entry/exit to the existing card, and there are plans to start using 
the new cards early in 2003. 

Tunisia: an adapted version of the border card was proposed. Considerable work remains for the future in further 
enhancing inter-institutional collaboration, and assessing the options for adopting a revised card and for the pro-
duction of statistics.

9

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

Conclusions and recommendations: production and dissemination of statistics (section 6)

With the adapted data collection, tables may be produced on both migrants and tourists, depending on the require-
ments for policy planners within the country. In addition, some of the tables as recommended by the United Na-
tions and/or the European Union may be produced. The reliability of such data is likely to be higher for tourism 
than for migration statistics. 

Lessons learned and future steps

Several of the participating countries have set up inter-institutional committees or a regular series of meetings, 
to adapt their border card systems (Algeria, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Syria), and some have already adopted 
revised cards that open the possibility for the production of statistics on migration and tourism (Algeria, Syria), 
while other countries are seriously considering adaptation of their systems. 

Thus, the MED-Migr border card activities have surely contributed to increase the awareness of the Mediterra-
nean counterparts (National Statistical Institutes, Ministries of Interior-General Directorates for Public Security) 
that the border data collection system is particularly useful for the following objectives:

• 
• 

good management and monitoring of entry/exit ﬂ ows;
production of statistics on ﬂ ows of tourists, visitors, migrants, and other existing international typologies to 
meet various users needs such as national policy makers, National Statistical Systems, neighbouring  coun-
tries, economical sectors, international organisations, and European and Mediterranean partners, etc.

Nevertheless, to reach these goals, human and ﬁ nancial resources should be provided in several countries in order 
to develop the I.T. hardware and software capacities in order to:

• 
• 
• 

link all borders (air, sea and land) to a main central server and database;
computerise data entry and data collection and link individual entry/exit;
cover movement of both nationals and non-nationals for providing emigration data.

10

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

1 - Background

The  present  study  was  carried  out  within  the  framework  of  the  MEDSTAT  programme,  in  particular  its  sub-
programme on international migration statistics (MED-Migr). The Mediterranean partners participating in the 
programme agreed amongst others that their border card systems were to be exploited and enhanced to measure 
immigration and emigration. This was consequently one of the main actions carried out under MED-Migr 1 and 
has been developed in synergy with MED-Tour, the MEDSTAT sub-programme on tourism statistics.

The detailed work plan adopted by the participating countries in January 2001 consisted of experts’ missions, 
meetings/workshops and pilot studies. The decision about the countries to be selected for the pilots depended 
mainly on the feasibility of carrying out the pilot successfully within the limited time available. In particular, a 
strong commitment to inter-institutional co-operation within the country to improve the border card system that 
is already in existence was considered essential. 

Since the regulation of circulation of people and border control lies within the competence of the states, and 
given the heterogeneity of situations and the sensitivity of this issue, the main objective of this phase of MED-
Migr was to encourage the use of harmonised and International standards variables, which could accommodate 
statistical demands without interfering in security matters and in the respect of the national priorities and laws. 
Changes or improvements in either the physical support (the border card), the data collection, data entry and data 
processing have been, and should be in the future, fully discussed and agreed upon with the Ministry of Interior, 
the competent Institution.  

Although each step achieved in the implementation of the work plan was closely linked to the political, 2 ﬁ nan-
cial, and administrative circumstances, the MED-Migr sub-programme could exert a limited inﬂ uence over some 
administrative procedures pertaining to the border card systems in recommending some changes to the border 
card itself in term of contents, especially in those countries (Morocco, Syria, and Jordan) where pilot tests have 
been carried out and an integrated and pre-coded pilot card (for both administrative and statistical use) was the 
option ofﬁ cially approved (Jordan and Syria).

The present report is organised as follows. After an introductory section on migration and tourism statistics (sec-
tion 2), the international recommendations with regard to statistics on international migration and on international 
tourism are summarised in section 3. The current state of affairs on border data collection and the production and 
dissemination of statistics on international migration and international tourism in the countries participating in the 
project is describe in section 4.  A description and evaluation of the adaptation process under way in the various 
countries forms the focus of section 5, whereby special attention is given to the three pilot countries – Jordan, Mo-
rocco, and Syria - that have tested potential adaptations. Section 6 completes the main body of the report with a se-
ries of recommendations on border data collection and the production and dissemination of statistics based on it.

2 - Introduction: statistics in international migration and tourism

Statistics  on  international  migration  and  on  international  tourism  may  be  derived  from  various  sources.  The 
source discussed in this report concerns data collection at the border, at the time of travellers’ entry into and/or 
departure from the country. Where a border card system is already in existence for administrative purposes, an 
extension of that system for purposes of migration and/or tourism statistics may be effectuated with relatively 
limited effort and cost. Nevertheless, given the high cost of data collection from all passengers by border control 
systems, if these are to be used to gather international migration and tourism statistics, an effort needs to be made 
to distinguish between international migrants, tourists, and other travellers at the time of data collection so that 
the gathering of information can be targeted more effectively and the resources available can be spent on record-
ing data of better quality (see e.g., Bilsborrow et al., 1997).

The data collected through border systems may provide inputs for planners and policy makers, as well as for 
marketing purposes. Although the detail of the information is limited, it may be made available at the level of 
small areas, given the high coverage of data collection. Furthermore, border information may be combined with 

2   Activities with Egypt and the Palestinian Authority could not be implemented for security matters due to the situation in the sub-region.

11

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

data from other sources, such as censuses, labour force surveys, tourism expenditure surveys, etc., to produce a 
broad picture of migration and tourism. In addition, the border data may serve as a sample frame for surveys on 
for instance tourism. 

The collection of statistics at the border can be based on administrative or statistical criteria. According to the 
former, the status of persons arriving and departing is established on the basis of documentary evidence (passports, 
visas, residence permits and so forth). The use of statistical criteria requires the recording of information that is 
gathered by means of  standardised forms ﬁ lled in by arriving and departing passengers (UN, 1998, p. 23).

Data may be collected at arrival and/or upon departure of travellers. In some countries all travellers have to ﬁ ll 
in a card, in others only speciﬁ c categories, e.g. foreign citizens or temporary visitors. Some countries use du-
plicate forms. In that case, foreigners (or non-residents) hand in one copy of the form to immigration authorities 
upon arrival and return the duplicate at the time of departure. Citizens (or residents) ﬁ ll out duplicate forms at 
the time of departure, submitting the ﬁ rst to immigration authorities as they leave the country and handing in the 
second when they return. Provided the second form is stamped with the date on which the ﬁ rst part was removed 
as well as with the date on which the second form is handed in, an accurate assessment of actual length of stay 
or absence of the persons returning the forms can be obtained. In order to allow for the measurement of migra-
tion, it is crucial that this procedure is combined with information on the country of usual residence (UN, 1998, 
p. 24). Countries such as Singapore and Syria for instance use duplicate forms (Singapore has one form with a 
detachable stub, Syria uses two separate forms). Another option (Eurostat, 2000, p. 187) is to use two sheets, one 
of which is a carbon copy; while the original is handed in upon arrival the carbon copy is kept in the passport 
until departure.

An analysis of matched data may provide useful information on the functioning of the data-collection system, 
on the likelihood that travellers overstay their visas, and the actual extent of long-term migration. However, the 
results will depend on the degree of success in matching the forms and on the extent to which duplicate forms are 
retrieved (UN, 1998, p. 24).

Data collection by means of border cards has the advantage of reﬂ ecting actual moves with a high degree of accu-
racy in terms of timing, mode of transport and place (Bilsborrow et al., 1997, pp. 136-137; also UN, 1998, p. 23). 
However, to the extent that people enter a country or depart from it without passing through the ofﬁ cial border 
posts, there will be underestimation of travel in general, and of migration in particular.

Apart from its advantages, the border card system has a number of drawbacks too. Firstly, as the aim is to avoid 
any hindrance to visitor ﬂ ows by ﬁ lling in ofﬁ cial forms, border cards can provide only limited information. 

Secondly, if there is minimal veriﬁ cation of the forms ﬁ lled in by the travellers, the reliability of the information 
gathered may be low. On the other hand, if the information is checked by the border control authorities against 
other documentary evidence, the independence of the statistical information from administrative considerations 
may be compromised. In any case, it is unlikely that foreigners requested to report their intended length of stay 
would state that it is longer than that allowed by the visa or permit they hold, and this may affect their statistical 
classiﬁ cation as migrants versus other travellers (Bilsborrow et al., 1997, p. 138; UN, 1998, p. 23). The same 
may apply to the purpose of the visit: someone holding a tourist visa is unlikely to report that the purpose of the 
visit is actually work/employment.

Thirdly, not all the collected information is recorded or eventually processed. In addition, the data may not be 
available in a useful form, e.g. as an electronic database. 

A number of strategies have been used to reduce the data-collection load at the border and/or the data-processing 
load. For instance, some countries collect data from a representative sample of the passengers only. Other coun-
tries collect data only from certain categories of passengers, such as foreigners, or temporary visitors. Countries 
with long land borders sometimes limit themselves to collecting data from passengers at air- and seaports only 
(Bilsborrow et al., 1997, p. 137; UN, 1998, p. 23). Furthermore, sampling the forms collected may reduce the 
burden on data processing.

12

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

3 - International recommendations 3

3.1 - Migration statistics

In  order  to  enhance  comparability  between  countries,  as  well  as  to  help  devise  country-speciﬁ c  strategies  to 
improve the quality and comparability of available data, the United Nations recommendations on statistics of in-
ternational migration adopted in 1976 have been revised in 1998. In these revised recommendations, the concept 
of changing country of usual residence is the key factor in distinguishing migrants from other travellers (UN, 
1998, p. 25). Both the 1976 and the 1998 recommendations require that questions be asked from travellers on 
their intended stay in (or absence from) the country of arrival (or departure), and on their previous presence in it 
(UN, 1998, p. 23). In this section the main aspects of the recent UN recommendations are summarised, in so far 
as relevant for data collection and statistics based on border cards.

3.1.1 - Deﬁ nitions

According to the most recent set of recommendations by the UN, an international migrant is deﬁ ned as “any 
person who changes his or her country of usual residence”. The country of usual residence is the country in which 
the person lives, that is, the country where the person has a place to live where he/she normally spends the daily 
period of rest (UN, 1998, p. 9). The concept of country of usual residence is also used to determine who is a 
‘visitor’ for purposes of international tourism statistics. According to the recommendations on tourism statistics 
(UN/WTO, 1994), “a person is considered a resident in a country if he/she: (a) has lived there for most of the 
past 12 months, or (b) has lived there for a shorter period but intends to return to live there within 12 months” 
(UN/WTO, 1994, para. 24; also UN, 1998, p. 9).

Duration of stay is a crucial factor in determining a person’s status as a traveller. A “long-term migrant is a person 
who moves to a country other than that of his/her usual residence for a period of at least 12 months, so that the 
country of destination effectively becomes the new country of usual residence. A short-term migrant is a person 
who moves to a country other than that of his/her usual residence for a period of at least 3 months but less than 12 
months except in cases where the movement is for purposes of recreation, holiday, visits to friends and relatives, 
business, medical treatment or religious pilgrimage. For purposes of migration statistics, the country of usual 
residence of short-term migrants is considered to be the country of destination during the period they spend in it” 
(UN, 1998, p. 10).

Thus, the purpose of stay is important in distinguishing between categories of travellers, in particular short-term 
migrants and international visitors. For the deﬁ nition of the latter we refer to section 3.2.1. 

3.1.2 - Classiﬁ cation of travellers

The UN devised a fairly detailed taxonomy of international inﬂ ows and outﬂ ows (see table 3.1 and annex 8.5), 
outlining the categories of travellers for which data collection is recommended. The taxonomy is constructed ir-
respective of data collection procedures. It lists 19 categories of travellers, most of whom are classiﬁ ed based on 
information on citizenship, residence-status, intended duration of stay, and purpose of visit. For some categories, 
however, additional information would be needed on  type of work (in particular, categories 1, 6, 7, 8, 12).

Due to ambiguity about their usual place of residence, several groups are usually excluded from statistics on 
international migration: border workers (category 1), members of the diplomatic and consular forces and their 
dependants, members of the armed forces stationed outside their country of citizenship (and their dependants), 
and nomads (categories 6, 7, and 8 respectively). Also transit travellers (category 1) are not-relevant for migration 
statistics. Categories 3, 4 and 5 are relevant for international tourism, while categories 9 through 18 are relevant 
for international migration statistics.

All travellers should be assigned to only one category, according to their main purpose of admission or departure.

3 

 Based on: J.J. Schoorl and L. Ruiz (2001), Towards adapting the border card system in the Maghreb region: integrating migration and tourism statistics. 
Paper prepared for the MED-Migr Workshop on administrative and statistical sources for migration statistics, Paris, 25-27 April 2001.

13

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

3.1.3 - Identifying migrants at the border

Basically, four groups of arrivals can be distinguished, depending on travellers’ (intended) duration of stay in 
the country and the duration of their prior absence from the country; see table 3.2 (Bilsborrow et al., 1997, pp. 
139-140):

1.  commuters or short-term movers: persons who have been absent from the country for a short time only 

2. 

(less than t months), and who now intend to stay in the country for a short time only too.
returning insiders: persons who have been absent from the country for a short time only and who now 
return, intending to stay in the country for a longer period (at least t months). Returning tourists fall into 
this category, but also persons returning from business trips, and e.g. those who have tried to gain access 
to another country but who have been refused;

3.  arriving outsiders: persons who have been absent from the country for at least t months and who arrive 
in the country with the intention to stay for a short time only. In this category we ﬁ nd (foreign) tourists 
and other short-term travellers, such as persons on business trips;

4.  outsiders settling: persons who have been absent from the country for at least t months and who enter the 
country with the intention to stay at least t months. It is this latter category that is labelled ‘(long-term) 
immigrants’. These immigrants may be foreigners who come to settle in the country, or citizens who 
have worked/lived abroad and now return to resettle back home. 

Table 3.1:  Revised taxonomy of international inﬂ ows and outﬂ ows according to entry status established by 

receiving state

14

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

Table 3.1: 

continued

Source: United Nations, 1998, pp. 11-12.
© copyright 1998 United Nations. Reprinted with permission.

15

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

Table 3.2  Schematic classiﬁ cation of arrivals and departures by duration of absence from and presence in a 

given country

Arrivals

Intended duration of stay in country of arrival

Duration of past absence

less than t months
t months or longer

Departures

less than t months
commuters
‘insiders’ returning

t months or longer
‘outsiders’ arriving
‘outsiders’ settling

Duration of stay in country of departure

Intended duration of stay abroad

less than t months
t months or longer

Source: Bilsborrow et al., 1997, p. 139

For departures, the categories are analogous:

less than t months
commuters
‘insiders’ departing

t months or longer
‘outsiders’ departing
‘insiders’ emigrating

1.  commuters: having spent a short time in the country only, they intend to stay abroad for a short time only as 

well;

2.  departing insiders: those who have lived in the country for at least t months and intend to stay away for a 

short period only; tourists going on holiday abroad are among them;

3.  departing outsiders: persons who have been in the country for a short period and who intend to stay abroad 
for at least t months. (Foreign) tourists returning to their country fall into this category, as well as other short-
term visitors;

4.  emigrating insiders: persons who have stayed in the country for at least t months and who intend to stay 

abroad for at least t months. These qualify as ‘(long-term) emigrants’.

Thus, insiders are persons who have been living in a country for at least t months, in other words, long-term 
residents (whether citizens of that country or not). The United Nations recommend 12 months as the cut-off point 
for time t. Other time limits could be used, but it is essential to use the same time limits to distinguish the various 
categories of arriving and departing persons.

With only the information on intended duration of stay, it is not possible to distinguish between returning insid-
ers and settling outsiders (arrivals), and between departing outsiders and emigrating insiders (departures). In that 
case, migration ﬂ ows cannot be deﬁ ned properly. Thus, it is necessary to distinguish ‘insiders’ from ‘outsiders’. 
This can be done in two ways: either by asking about the duration of the past stay abroad (arrivals) or of the past 
stay in the country (departures), or – less precise but generally requiring less cumbersome questioning - by asking 
about the country of residence or of usual residence, a solution that is often opted for.

From the discussion above, and taking into account the requirements of the UN-taxonomy of travellers (table 
3.1), it appears that, at a minimum, the following information is crucial to identify migrants:

(intended) duration of stay;

1. 
2.  country of (usual) residence;
3.  country of citizenship;
4.  purpose of stay.

These are among the variables recommended for data collection by the UN, which are  presented in tables 3.3a/b 
below. Note that the recommendations refer to migrants only, and that they are not necessarily compatible with 
border card information asked from all travellers, migrant or not. 

16

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

Table 3.3a:  UN recommendations on information to be recorded for arriving migrants

All categories of arriving migrants

Citizens

Foreigners

Country of citizenship
Sex
Date of birth
Date of arrival
Intended duration of stay
Previous country of usual residence
Country of birth
Marital status
Expected location of place of usual
Residence in receiving country 
(address)
Educational attainment*

Duration of stay in previous country
of usual residence
Purpose of stay abroad

Those who worked abroad:

Occupation in previous country of 
usual residence*
Industry of employer  in previous 
country of usual residence*
Status in employment in previous 
country of usual residence*

Type of visa or permit

Duration of validity of current visa 
or permit

Those allowed to work in the 
receiving country:
Occupation in previous country of 
usual residence*
Industry of employer  in previous 
country of usual residence*
Status in employment in previous 
country of usual residence*
Occupation in receiving country*
Industry of employer  in receiving 
country*
Status in employment in receiving 
country*

*:   Optional information.
Source: UN, 1998, pp. 63-64.

(Intended) duration of stay 

(Intended) duration of stay in the country of destination is one of the key items of information necessary to dis-
tinguish migrants from other travellers, and long-term migrants from short-term ones. Border card systems rely 
heavily on intended duration of stay as indicated by the traveller. In the case of foreigners, declared intentions 
may be checked against the validity of visas or permits (although it will be rare that someone will write down an 
intention that overstates the duration of a permit or visa). 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 (UN, 1998, p. 67).  If duplicate forms are used, actual duration of stay may be established through matching 
the cards, provided that errors due to matching or coverage problems are low.

The likely length of stay in the country of arrival may also be inferred from information on the  duration of vali-
dity of current visa or permit (to be asked from arriving foreigners only). Furthermore, the expiration date of the 
current visa or permit (to be asked from departing foreigners only) provides an indication if a foreigner is likely 
to return to stay in the country of departure within a year of current departure.
Information on duration of stay in the country of departure is used to establish whether the departing migrant 
foreigner’s stay in the country was shorter than a year or not. The question may focus on the duration of stay per 
se or on the date of ﬁ rst arrival.

17

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

Table 3.3b:   UN recommendations on information to be recorded for departing migrants

All categories of departing migrants

Citizens

Foreigners

Country of citizenship
Sex
Date of birth
Date of departure
Intended duration of stay abroad
Future country of usual residence
Country of birth
Marital status
Location of place of usual 
Residence in country of departure (ad-
dress)
Educational attainment*

Type of visa or permit
Expiration date of current visa or per-
mit
Duration of stay in country of 
departure (date of arrival)

Those  who  worked  in  the    country  of 
departure:
Occupation in country of departure*
Industry of employer  in country of 
departure*
Status in employment in country of de-
parture*

Purpose of stay abroad

Those intending to work abroad:

Occupation in country of departure*
Industry of employer  in country of 
departure*
Status in employment in country of
departure*
Occupation in future country of
usual residence*
Industry of employer  in future 
country of usual residence*
Status in employment in future 
country of usual residence*

*:   Optional information.
Source: UN, 1998, pp. 65-66.

In sum, there are various options for recording duration of stay:
1. 
2. 

Asking the traveller to ﬁ ll in intended duration of stay, and code afterwards
Asking the traveller to ﬁ ll in intended duration of stay, in precoded answers, for which the UN then recom-
mend:
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

3. 

Inferring expected duration of stay from the permit or visa.

Country of usual residence

Implementation of the UN recommendations would require questions establishing the traveller’s country of usual 
residence, that 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. 

18

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

For instance: a person arriving in country A would be asked:
1. 

In which countries have you been living during the past 12 months?

……..  Country A [Go to 5]
……..  Country B [Go to 5]
……..  Two or more countries [Continue]

1.  Where are you living now (up until this trip)? …..
2.  Will you complete 12 months in [country mentioned in Q2]
……  Yes [Go to 5]  ……  No [Continue]
1.  Which is the country you have lived in for 12 months or longer? ……..
2. 

How long do you plan to stay in country A?

……  Less than 3 months
…… 
……  One year or more

3 months or more but less than one year

A similar set of questions would have to be posed to persons departing, except that question 5 would inquire about 
the intended length of absence from the country of departure (UN, 1998, pp. 23, 26).

The use of the Standard Country or Area Codes  for Statistical Use (UN, 1996b) is recommended (UN, 1998, 
p. 67). However, consistency of coding practices within a country may be an important consideration to opt for 
another classiﬁ cation.

Country of citizenship

A traveller may have dual citizenship, but usually only the one corresponding to the passport presented by the 
traveller is recorded. In order to avoid confusion, the country should be listed, rather than an adjective (that is: 
‘United States of America’, instead of ‘American’).

Purpose of stay

Information on the purpose of stay is one of the means by which the various categories of travellers listed in the 
taxonomy (see table 3.1) may – at least partially - be identiﬁ ed. The UN strongly recommends that international 
migrant foreigners are classiﬁ ed 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 classiﬁ cation 
(UN, 1998, p. 32). Departing citizens may be classiﬁ ed either according to the formal reasons for their admission 
by the receiving state, or according to their own stated purpose of stay abroad. For border card systems the latter 
is clearly more practical.  
In addition, according to the UN recommendations, arriving/returning citizens should be asked about the purpose 
of their past stay abroad as well, if possible to be checked against supporting documents.
Another way of identifying the relevant migrant category is to record information on the type of visa or permit 
(arriving and departing foreigners only). If no visa or permit is required from the traveller, the information should 
be asked from the travellers themselves.

3.1.4 - Characteristics of migrants

In  addition  to  the  data  necessary  to  distinguish  migrants  from  other  travellers  described  in  section  3.1.3,  the 
UN recommendations include other variables to be recorded (see tables 3.3a/b), for every arriving and depart-
ing international migrant (irrespective of citizenship), by category (purpose of stay). In particular, this concerns 
information on sex, date of birth, date of arrival/departure, country of birth, address, as well as information on 
education and occupation and employment (UN, 1998, pp. 64-71). These are brieﬂ y discussed below.
Information on sex should be recorded explicitly; not be derived from names or other circumstantial evidence. 
Easily checked against passport. 

Date of birth is one of the items that may be easily checked from the passport presented by the traveller. 

19

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

Information on the date of arrival/departure is needed for data compilation; if both are available (matched cards, 
actual duration of stay in the country/abroad may be calculated.

The UN recommends that information on country of birth be obtained in accordance with the national boundaries 
existing at the time of data collection. In the context of border data collection, where this is an impractical request, 
it is preferable to record the name of the country of birth as it existed at the time of birth, and make corrections as 
appropriate at the time of data entry. 

According to the UN recommendations, marital status is to be asked from all migrants 15 years and over. Re-
quested codes (minimally) are: never-married, married, separated or divorced, widowed.

(Expected) location of place of usual residence in country of arrival/departure: address, or locality plus province/
state/department. 

Educational  attainment  is  recommended  by  the  UN  as  an  optional  variable  only. This  type  of  information  is 
difﬁ cult to collect, due to the large differences world-wide in educational systems. There are two more or less 
universal measures: either asking the number of years of schooling completed (<6 years, 6-8, 9-11, 12-15, 16 or 
more), or alternatively asking the highest level of education completed (precoded, at least the following catego-
ries: primary, secondary, technical school, university). The UN expresses a preferences for the ﬁ rst measure.

Duration of stay in previous country of usual residence (returning/arriving citizens only): duration of stay should 
be measured in terms of the time elapsed (in years and/or months) since the migrant ﬁ rst established a place of 
usual residence in the previous country of usual residence.

Finally, some data collection on occupation, industry, and employment-status is recommended. As recording and 
processing of this type of data is difﬁ cult, the UN labels it optional information. Coding using international clas-
siﬁ cations is recommended.

3.2 - Tourism statistics

Following up on a set of provisional recommendations dating back to 1976, the United Nations Statistical Com-
mission in 1993 adopted the recommendations contained in a report of the World Tourism Organisation (WTO) 
on tourism statistics; at the same time, the Standard International Classiﬁ cation of Tourism Activities (SICTA) 
was adopted as a provisional classiﬁ cation for use by countries. Both were published by the UN and WTO in a 
joint publication in 1994.

These recommendations aim at simplicity and clarity, world-wide practical applicability, and consistency with in-
ternational standards and classiﬁ cations in related areas such as demography, transportation, business, international 
migration, balance of payments, national accounts, etc., to the maximum extent possible (UN/WTO, 1994, p. 3): 

Comparable recommendations were published by the European Communities in 1998 (Eurostat, 1998). These 
recommendations were the result of co-operation between Eurostat, the OECD and WTO, and take into account 
the UN/WTO recommendations mentioned above.

3.2.1 - Deﬁ nitions

According  to  the  recommendations,  “tourism  comprises  the  activities  of  persons  travelling  to  and  staying  in 
places outside their usual environment for not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business and other 
purposes” (UN/WTO, 1994, paras. 9-10).

Three forms of tourism can be distinguished (UN/WTO, 1994, para. 11): domestic tourism, involving residents 
of a given country travelling only within the country; inbound tourism, involving non-residents travelling in the 
given country; and outbound tourism, involving residents travelling in another country. Obviously, only the latter 
two are relevant for international travel; data for both forms may be collected by means of border cards.
UN/WTO deﬁ nes the general concept of international traveller as “any person on a trip outside his/her own coun-

20

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

try of residence (irrespective of the purpose of travel and means of transport used, and even though s/he may be 
travelling on foot)” (UN/WTO, 1994, paras. 15, 16). 

For the purpose of tourism statistics (international) travellers are subdivided into ‘(international) visitors’ and 
‘other (international) travellers’. As all types of travellers engaged in tourism are described as visitors, the latter 
term represents the basic concept for the whole system of tourism: an international visitor is “any person who 
travels to another country than that in which he/she has his/her usual residence but outside his/her usual envi-
ronment for a period not exceeding 12 months and whose main purpose of visit is other than the exercise of an 
activity remunerated from within the country visited.” (UN/WTO, 1994, para. 29; also cited in UN, 1998, p. 9). 
The concept includes tourists (overnight visitors), that is visitors who stay at least one night in a collective or 
private accommodation in the country visited; and same-day visitors, who do not spend the night in such accom-
modation (UN/WTO, 1994, para. 30). Cruise passengers and crew members are included in the latter category 
(see annex 8.6).

Excluded from the concept of tourism are ﬁ ve categories of international travellers (UN/WTO, 1994, para. 31), tying 
in with the categories distinguished in the UN-taxonomy on international travellers as described in section 3.1.2:

1.  persons entering or leaving a country as migrants, including dependants accompanying or joining them;
2.  border workers, residing near the border in one country and working in another;
3.  diplomats, consular ofﬁ cers and members of the armed forces when travelling from their country of origin to 
the country of their assignment or vice versa, including household servants and dependants accompanying 
or joining them;

4.  persons travelling as refugees or nomads;
5.  persons in transit who do not formally enter the country through passport control, such as air transit pas-
sengers who remain for a short period in a designated area of the air terminal or ship passengers who are 
not permitted to disembark. This category includes passengers transferred directly between airports or other 
terminals. Other passengers in transit through a country are classiﬁ ed as visitors.

3.2.2 - Measuring inbound and outbound tourism

As  follows  from  the  deﬁ nition  of  the  (international)  visitor  given  above,  three  key  elements  are  necessary  to 
distinguish them from other travellers: usual environment/usual country of residence; length of stay; and purpose 
of trip (UN/WTO, 1994, para. 21):

1. 

2. 

3. 

the trip should be to a place other than that of the usual environment, which would exclude more or less 
regular trips between the place in which the person carries out his/her work or study and the place in which 
s/he has his/her domicile;
the stay in the place visited should not last more than 12 consecutive months, beyond which the visitor would 
become a resident of the place (from the statistical standpoint);
the main purpose of the visit should be other than the exercise of an activity remunerated from within the 
place visited, which would exclude migratory movements for work purposes.

Each will be discussed in turn.

Country of usual residence

The country of usual residence is one of the key criteria to determine whether a person arriving in a country is a 
visitor or falls into the category of ‘other travellers’. For purposes of international tourism statistics, “a person is 
considered to be a resident in a country if the person: (a) has lived for most of the past year (12 months) in that 
country, or (b) Has lived in that country for a shorter period and intends to return within 12 months to live in that 
country.” (UN/WTO, 1994, para. 24).

Note that in this case, nationality is not a relevant criterion. “Foreign nationals residing in a country are assimi-
lated with other residents for the purpose of domestic and outbound tourism statistics, while nationals of a country 
residing abroad who return to their home country on a temporary visit are included with non-resident visitors (…)” 

21

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

(UN/WTO, 1994, para. 23). In other words, a traveller is considered either an international or domestic visitor on 
the basis of his/her residence, not of his/her nationality. It may well be, however (especially in the case of countries 
characterised by large-scale emigration), that travellers qualifying as visitors are foreigners in the country of de-
parture and citizens of the country of destination. Thus, UN/WTO recognises that for international visitors, it may 
be of interest to collect data on nationality in addition to country of residence (UN/WTO, 1994, para. 54).

Duration of stay

The duration of stay or trip is the second key criterion to statistically distinguish between migrants and visitors, 
and between tourists and same-day visitors (UN/WTO, 1994, para. 47). According to the UN/WTO recommenda-
tions, the duration of a visit should be measured in the following units: the number of hours for same-day visits, 
and the number of nights for overnight visits. 4 The slightly different concepts of ‘duration of stay’ and ‘duration 
of trip’ are used for inbound tourism and outbound travel respectively (UN/WTO, 1994, para. 49).

Purpose of visit

The third key item to identify tourists is the purpose of visit. It is recommended to collect data on the main pur-
pose of visit deﬁ ned as “the purpose in the absence of which the trip would not have taken place.” For many 
purposes (for instance to estimate the demand for services), asking about the secondary purpose of the visit may 
be important as well, e.g., combined leisure and business, combined visiting friends and relatives and recreation 
(UN/WTO, 1994, para. 43). 

The classiﬁ cation recommended by UN/WTO serves for both inbound and outbound tourism, and is designed 
to provide information for planning, marketing and promotion purposes (UN/WTO, 1994, para. 44). A more de-
tailed description of the activities included within each major purpose category is included in annex 8.6. 

leisure, recreation and holidays;

1. 
2.  visiting friends and relatives;
3.  business and professional;
4.  health treatment;
5. 
6.  other.

religion/pilgrimages;

3.2.3 - Other relevant variables for tourism statistics

Apart from the three key variables discussed above, there are several others for which data collection is recom-
mended by UN/WTO. In so far as they might have potential relevance for data collection by means of border 
cards, they are discussed below.

In order to determine the most recent origin-destination ﬂ ows among ports of entry, recording the last port of 
embarkation (for arriving passengers) and the next port of disembarkation (for departing passengers) is consid-
ered useful (Eurostat, 2000, pp. 72, 187). This information is usually asked on border cards, but it is not listed as 
a separate recommendation by UN/WTO (1994) or Eurostat (1998).

As the means of transport used by the visitor has a strong bearing on visitor behaviour and expenditure and, for 
international tourism in particular, this information is important for planning the national transport system, it is 
recommended that all countries classify the statistical results of tourism according to the means of transport used 
(UN/WTO, 1994, para. 58).

For tourism statistics, the means of transport refers to “the means used by a visitor to travel from his/her place 
of usual residence to the places visited.” UN/WTO provides a classiﬁ cation in three major groups (air, waterway 
and land) as well as a more detailed one in 11 subcategories (see annex 8.6). Where several modes of transport 
are used, the main mode may be recorded, followed by any minor modes (UN/WTO, 1994, paras. 59-62). 

4  UN/WTO includes a proposal for a speciﬁ c classiﬁ cation of durations of tourist visits (para. 51).

22

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

There is no universally accepted deﬁ nition of tourism accommodation but, as UN/WTO (1994, para. 64) suggest, 
it may be regarded as any facility that regularly (or occasionally) provides overnight accommodation for tourists. 
The concept is divided into two main categories: collective and private tourism establishments, with a number of 
subdivisions. The classiﬁ cation is included in annex 8.6.

Regarding  the  country  of  usual  residence  and  on  registration  of  country  of  origin  and  destination,  UN/WTO 
recommends to use identical geographical classiﬁ cations of countries, for instance based on the ‘UN standard 
country or area codes for statistical use’ (UN/WTO, 1994, paras. 53, 56).

In addition, each country should develop a classiﬁ cation system of important cities, resorts, and regions of desti-
nation, as tourism statistics are particularly relevant at he small are level. In this respect, comparability with other 
data sources (e.g., census and labour force statistics) is worth aiming at (UN/WTO, 1994, para. 57).

4 - Current border card systems and available border statistics

4.1 - Algeria

4.1.1 - Data collection and processing procedures

Since 1962, information is collected from all travellers at the border, both upon arrival and at departure, under 
the responsibility of the Ministry of the Interior (Ministère de l’Interieur et des Collectivités Locales), general 
Directorate of National Security (Direction Générale de la Sûreté Nationale, DGSN). The border cards are cen-
trally  produced  and  have  a  standard  format  and  content. They  have  to  be  ﬁ lled  in  by  each  traveller  having  a 
passport. Information for children travelling on the passport of a parent is ﬁ lled in on the card of the parent. The 
completed cards are checked the data against information from the passport by the border police (Bourchachen, 
1999; Mokhtari, 2000). 

The 43 border posts are organised into seven regional centres (sièges régionales). The cards are transferred from 
the border posts to four centres (Algiers, Constantine, Oran, and Souk Ahras) where they are processed for admin-
istrative purposes, in a computerised system. All cards pertaining to foreigners are processed in this way. The cards 
relating to Algerian nationals remain locally, for later reference if needed, whereby the larger border posts process 
the data in computerised systems and the smaller border posts use the actual cards for administrative referral.

4.1.2 - Contents of border cards 

A copy of the border cards is included in annex 8.2. Annex table 8.1 provides an overview of the information 
collected in the project countries concerned.

Part of the key variables required to distinguish between (long- and short-term) migrants and tourists are not 
available on the border cards for Algeria: (intended) duration of stay, and purpose of stay. The information on 
permanent address might perhaps be interpreted as a proxy for country of usual residence.

4.1.3 - Production and dissemination of statistics

Statistical tables are produced manually by the border posts. All local tables are assembled at DGSN, Direction 
de la Police Frontalière (DPF), Service Fichiers, which then produces monthly tables for the country as a whole. 
In principle, there are three types of tables. One covers the number of arrivals and the number of departures by 
country of nationality and by type of visit (tourists, residents, international co-operation visitors (‘coopérants’), 
and travellers on business visits or on mission). Other tables provide information by sex, residence-status, port of 
entry, number of minors (ages under 15), etc. 

The information on purpose of visit is derived from the information on the visa stamped into the passport, and 
probably  additional  questions  asked  by  the  border  ofﬁ cial  in  cases  where  no  visa  is  required.  The  group  of 
‘coopérants’ refers to persons working in Algeria on governmental/international contracts/exchanges (e.g., teach-
ers); ‘residents’ include foreigners working in Algeria privately, or for private companies. 

23

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

The monthly tables are transmitted to the Central Bureau of Statistics (Ofﬁ ce Nationale des Statistiques, ONS) 
and to the Ministry of Tourism. Since 1996 ONS does not actually publish information from the tables received 
directly, although some of the information received via the Ministry of Tourism appears in the Statistical Year-
book (see annex 8.4). Re-introducing the tables produced earlier would improve data dissemination. Neverthe-
less, no statistics on long-term migration can be derived from the current border card system. 

The data on arrivals of visitors at the borders transmitted monthly by DGSN to the Ministry of Tourism concern 
the number of arrivals and departures per month, of foreigners by nationality and of Algerian citizens, by mode 
of transport, by border post, by reason for visit. Departures of Algerian citizens are also available by country of 
destination (the latter based on possibly ambiguous information provided by the traveller, as it may refer to the 
ﬁ nal destination or to the transit destination).

Bourchachen (1999) reports that until July 1996, DGSN monthly transmitted statistics to ONS), on the following:

•  monthly number of arrivals and departures, in comparison to the month before;
• 

detailed tables, by amongst others means of transportation, nationality, residence-status.

However, these data were not published regularly by ONS. In particular, publication by the combination of resi-
dence-status and nationality is lacking. 

The Ministry of Tourism publishes a periodical report, including both tables and analyses (in Arabic). The report 
is disseminated to the internal and external services of  the Ministry of Tourism, to other governmental organisa-
tions and, on demand, to others. The Ministry disposes of the following tables (Derkouche, 2000; CESD/Euro-
stat, 2001):

•  monthly and annual number of arrivals and departures by nationality;
• 
total number of arrivals (published in the Statistical Yearbook, ONS)

In 2001 the number of arrivals was 901.4 thousand and the number of departures 1.19  million, including accom-
panying children, implying ﬁ gures at present considerably lower than in other Maghreb countries such as Tunisia 
and Morocco. 

4.2 - Jordan

4.2.1 - Data collection and processing procedures

Border information in Jordan has been collected since 1973, at 13 border posts, from all travellers upon arrival and 
departure, under the responsibility of the General Directorate of Public Security (GDPS), Ministry of Interior.

Up to 1995, the border cards were centrally produced and had a standard format and content. The cards had to be 
ﬁ lled in by each traveller having a passport. Information on children travelling on the passport of a parent was 
ﬁ lled in on the card of the parent. The border police checked the information provided by the traveller against 
the passport.

In 1995, the use of border cards was phased out in 10 out of a total of 13 border posts in the country, and a new 
computerised system was introduced. Under this new system, a computerised border record is assigned to each 
traveller having a passport, and information needed for administrative and security purposes is entered into a 
computerised system directly at the border, by the border police.

In the 10 border posts using this system, the local computers are connected directly to GDPS central computer. In 
the remaining 3 border posts, where border cards are still in use, information provided on the cards is entered, at 
a later stage, into local computers which are connected to GDPS.

Information is processed centrally at GDPS central computer, where daily, weekly, and monthly statistics are pro-
duced for internal use. Detailed tabulations on numbers of arrivals and departures are supplied each quarter and 

24

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

annually to the Department of Statistics (DOS), Ministry of Tourism (MOT), Ministry of Labour and Ministry 
of Interior.

4.2.2 - Contents of border cards

Both the computerised border records (used in 10 border posts) and the border cards (used in the remaining 3 
border posts) have a standard format and content, (see Annex table 8.1 which provides an overview of the infor-
mation collected in Jordan).

Information on most of the key variables required to distinguish between (long and short-term) migrants and tour-
ists is not collected on the border cards for Jordan: country of birth, country of usual residence, and (intended) 
duration of stay.

4.2.3 - Production and dissemination of statistics

The tables produced by GDPS are transmitted to DOS and MOT every quarter and annually.  Various tabulations 
are published by DOS in the annual statistical yearbook, and by MOT in the annual tourism yearbook.  Statistics 
on numbers of arrivals and departures are available by month of arrival/departure, nationality, border post and 
(by deﬁ nition) mode of transport.

In 2001, a total of 5.2 million persons entered the country, while the number of departures amounted to 4.5 mil-
lion.  The distribution of arrivals/departures by nationality in 2001 was as follows:

Nationality
Arab countries (including Jordan)
Asian countries
European countries
Other countries

Total

4.3 - Lebanon

Arrivals
87.6
6.6
3.9
1.9

100.0

Departures
88.0
6.4
3.7
1.9

100.0

4.3.1 - Data collection and processing procedures

In Lebanon, there are three, computerised, border points. The Ministry of Interior uses both arrival and departure 
cards, which have to be ﬁ lled in by foreigners, Arabs, and Lebanese. Administrative data are entered into comput-
ers at the borders, producing an administrative data base that covers all the needs of the Ministry of the Interior. 
Although the border cards contain plenty of information that serves both administrative and statistical purposes, 
the information actually processed for statistical purposes is very limited and covers only the number of arrivals 
and departures by nationality each month. 

4.3.2 - Contents of border cards

In addition to data that serve administrative purposes, the arrival and departure cards include data important for 
statistics, such as date of birth, nationality, occupation, and place of residence (see annex 8.2). However, the cards 
do not include information that is vital for obtaining migration and tourism statistics such as original nationality 
(i.e., nationality at birth), purpose of visit, and expected duration of stay.

4.3.3 - Production and dissemination of statistics

The Ministry of the Interior provides the Central Administration of Statistics (CAS) with monthly  information on 
the number of arrivals and departures by nationality; CAS in turn includes these data in its annual statistical pub-
lications. According to these, the number of arrivals and departures in 2000 amounted to 2.97 million and 3.25 
million respectively.  Given that all border points are computerised, potentially more statistics could be obtained 
from the border cards; nevertheless, statistics on migration and tourism would remain limited as the cards lack 
information on purpose and (expected) duration of stay.

25

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

4.4 - Morocco

4.4.1 - Data collection and processing procedures

Border information in Morocco is collected since 1962, at the 46 border posts, from all arriving and departing 
travellers except transit passengers, passengers on intra-country ﬂ ights and crews (Cherkaoui, 2000). Further-
more, children travelling on the passport of a parent do not have to ﬁ ll out a card, although there is no statement 
on the card informing the traveller of this exception. Information on these children is added to the parent’s border 
card directly by the border ofﬁ cial. The Border Police (Police des Frontières) completes the information provided 
by the traveller and checks it against the passport. 

The  data  are  processed  locally,  at  each  individual  border  post,  separately  for  administrative  purposes  and  for 
statistical purposes. The administrative system is fully computerised, and involves direct data-entry by the border 
ofﬁ cial of information provided by the traveller on the card, into a national network. Information available for 
each individual includes such items as the personal admission number and other personal information including 
name, passport details and addresses, the person’s history of arrivals and departures (dates and points of entry and 
exit), date and place of birth, sex, nationality, profession, as well as some information that does not appear on the 
cards (e.g., information on double citizenship).

4.4.2 - Contents of border cards

There is no single standard card in use in Morocco (see also Bourchachen, 1999, p. 21). This is due to the fact 
that the printing of cards is left to the airline and shipping companies, and there are no legal rules governing the 
border card data collection system. Nevertheless, most cards have only slight differences between them. A copy 
of the border cards used at the main border post of Mohamed V airport in Casablanca is included in annex 8.2. 
Coverage of the cards is described in annex table 8.1.

Most  of  the  key  variables  required  to  distinguish  between  (long-  and  short-term)  migrants  and  tourists  are 
not available on the border cards for Morocco: (intended) duration of stay, country of (usual) residence, and 
purpose of stay. 

4.4.3 - Production and dissemination of statistics

The statistical system is a manual one. At the border posts, information from the cards is transferred to monthly 
overview sheets; on these sheets space is reserved for listing the total number of arrivals and departures for that 
month by nationality, residence-status, sex (for those 15 years of age or over), children under 15, and, for arriv-
als, if the visit is of a temporary or a permanent nature. The latter are categorised in workers versus those with 
another occupation. For departing residents, the sheet provides for the recording of permanent versus temporary 
departures (Bourchachen, 1999; Guerreiro Bremón (1999). The manual system of production of statistics is prone 
to errors, and the Ministry of Interior’s DGSN is in favour of modernising the system.

The tables are forwarded on a monthly basis to the General Directorate on National Security (Direction Général 
de la Sureté Nationale, DGSN) at the Ministry of the Interior (Bourchachen, 1999). In turn, DGSN transmits data 
to the Direction de la Statistique and to the Ministry of Tourism, both of which include tables derived from them 
in their annual publications. Statistics on the number of arrivals and departures are available by residence status 
(in Morocco or abroad) and nationality. Further detail is provided by information on mode of transport, border 
post, and month. No data are available that allow for a distinction of long-term migrants (see annex 8.4).

In 2001, a total of 2.2 million non-resident foreigners entered the country, and 2.0 million non-resident Moroc-
cans. Adding another 1.8 million arrivals of resident Moroccans, and 0.06 million resident foreigners, the total 
number of arrivals amounts to 6.1 million. Non-resident foreigner departures numbered 2.2 million in 2001, while 
the number of departures of non-resident Moroccans was 1.9 million. Adding 1.7 million departures by resident 
Moroccans and 0.07 million departures by resident foreigners, the total number of departures is 6.0 million.

26

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

4.5 - Syria

4.5.1 - Data collection and processing procedures

The Ministry of the Interior is responsible for collecting and providing administrative information at Syria’s 24 
border points. Data are collected using arrival and departure cards. Until 1995 this was done for Syrians, Arabs, 
and foreigners. Since then, the use of arrival and departure cards has been restricted to non-Syrian Arabs and 
foreigners only. 

Up to the beginning of 2003, two cards for arrivals and departures were used: one for foreigners, the other for 
non-Syrian Arabs. There is no card for the Syrians. All foreign and non-Syrian Arab arrivals have to ﬁ ll arrival 
and departure cards. At arrival, cards are ﬁ lled in two copies; one copy is left with the border authorities while the 
other copy is left with the passenger to be submitted to the border authorities at departure. 

Since 1995, the Ministry of Interior (MOI) has started to implement an integrated project for computerisation of 
border centres and linking them with the main station at MOI. So far, there is no data entry but data are written 
down manually in speciﬁ c records. 

4.5.2 - Contents of border cards

A copy of the current border cards is attached (see annex 8.2). Arrival and departure cards include data on the 
person’s name, age, nationality, passport number, occupation and others. These cards do not include data that 
allow for the measurement of international migration and tourism. Accordingly, we can conclude that the cur-
rently existing card fulﬁ ls administrative needs only and not statistical requirements, particularly those related to 
international migration, tourism and others.

4.5.3 - Production and dissemination of statistics

The Ministry of Interior provides the Ministry of Tourism with monthly statistics on the number of arrivals of for-
eigners and non-Syrian Arabs, per border centre by nationality and means of transport, and provides CBS with the 
number departing per month. Then, the Ministry of Tourism provides CBS with these data, which are published 
in the annual Statistical Abstract (see annex 8.4). Published tables cover foreigners and Arabs by nationality, per 
month. In addition, data are available on the number of Syrians requesting an exit visa, by country of destination. 
With the available data, international migration cannot be measured whether on long or short term. Moreover, 
without actual migration data on Syrians, it is not possible to have an idea about the number of migrant Syrians. 

Ofﬁ cial statistics indicate that number of arrival/departures of non-Syrian Arabs and foreigners rises to 3.01 mil-
lion in 2000 5. 

4.6 - Tunisia

4.6.1 - Data collection and processing procedures

Tunisia collects information at the 37 border posts from all travellers, including children travelling on the pass-
port of a parent. The same version of the card is used both at entry into and at departure from the country. Non-
residents entering the country have to ﬁ ll out both the main body of the card and a detachable stub, which remains 
in the passport for the duration of the visit, as a temporary identity card, and is taken in by the border police when 
the  visitor  leaves  the  country.  It  appears  that  different  airlines  use  different  versions  of  the  card. This  should 
generally pose no problem to the extent that all relevant administrative information is present on the card, but it 
would cause difﬁ culties if the system is to be used for statistical purposes as well.

The information needed for administrative and security purposes is entered into a computerised system directly 
at the border, by the border police (Police des Frontières). For statistical purposes, cards are processed centrally, 
manually, at the Direction des Frontières et des Etrangers (DFE), where monthly statistics are produced, for in-
ternal use. Not all of the information on the cards is processed. 

5  The ministry of tourism estimates that among arrivals/departures of foreigners and Arabs, the number of tourists reached 2.68 million in 2000 (statistical 

Abstract 2001).

27

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

4.6.2 - Contents of border cards

A copy of the border card is included in annex 8.2. Data on the card cover the usual (see annex table 8.1), but 
information on (intended) duration of stay and purpose of visit, necessary to measure migration and tourism, is 
lacking. The question on ‘address’ may perhaps serve to represent place of usual residence.

4.6.3 - Production and dissemination of statistics

The tables produced by DFE are regularly transmitted to INS, who publishes annual data in the statistical year-
book, and to the Ministry of Tourism which publishes data in the tourism yearbook. Statistics on the number of 
arrivals and departures are available by residence status (in Tunisia or abroad) and nationality. Further detail is 
provided by information on month of arrival, mode of transport and border post. No data are available that allow 
for a distinction of long-term migrants; and few tables distinguish between resident and non-resident Tunisians 
(see annex 8.4).

In his MED-Tour report on Tunisia, De Lemos (1999) remarks that reliability of the information is not consid-
ered vital from the point of view of police control, and is unsatisfactory for statistical purposes inasmuch the 
conceptual framework involved is not clear. Bourchachen (1999, p. 33) remarks that the data on departures seem 
less reliable than those on arrivals, but that the INS and the Directorate of Borders and Foreigners (Direction des 
Frontières et des Etrangers, DFE) work together to improve the quality of these data. 

In 2001, a total of 5.4 million non-resident foreigners entered the country, and 0.6 million non-resident Tunisians. 
Adding another 1.0 million arrivals of resident Tunisians, the total number of arrivals amounts to 7.0 million. 
Non-resident foreigner departures also numbered 5.4 million in 2001, departures of non-resident Tunisians num-
bered 0.6 million, and departures of resident Tunisians 1.1 million, making a total of 7.1 million.

5 - Recent developments in border card data collection systems: MED-Migr initiatives

5.1 - Pilot studies

5.1.1 - Jordan

Within the framework of the MEDSTAT/MED-Migr project, and in collaboration with General Department of 
Public Security, Ministry of Interior, Department of Statistics, Ministry of Tourism and Jordan Tourism Board, a 
pilot study was carried out, to test procedures for adapting the border card system to allow for the measurement 
of international migration and tourism.

A test card was developed, based on the following principles:
• 

two cards (in different colour) were to be used: one for entry and one for departure, for all travellers, citizens 
and foreigners;
the cards are pre-coded in order to facilitate data entry;
each card is in two languages: Arabic, printed on one side of the card, and English, printed on the other side.

• 
• 

Four items were added to the existing cards in order to meet international recommendations for migration and 
tourism statistics, namely;
• 
country of birth;
• 
country of current residence;
• 
(intended) duration of stay;
• 
occupation.

The new question on duration of stay, in addition to the question on purpose of visit, are administered to all ar-
riving passengers, but only to departing passengers residing in Jordan.

28

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

tourism;

The question on purpose of visit has eight coding categories:
1. 
2.  visiting relatives;
3.  business/conference;
4.  work;
5. 
study;
6.  health treatment;
7. 

for entry card: transit (passing through Jordan and going on to another country); 
for departure card: permanent return;

8.  other.

Responses to the question on intended duration of stay are pre-coded into the following categories:
• 
• 
• 

less than 24 hours (entry card only);
days/months/years;
indeﬁ nite (departure card only).

Three major border posts were chosen for the test: Queen Alia airport (the main international airport) in Amman, 
Jaber land border post (with Syria), and Aqaba port. Based on data for 2001, the arrival and departure cards to be 
completed in each of these three border posts were distributed in the following way:

Border post

Queen Alia Airport-Amman

Jaber (land) border

Aqaba port

Total

Departure card

Arrival card

2,400

2,500

1,100

6,000

2,400

2,500

1,100

6,000

Total

4,800

5,000

2,200

 12,000

The test was carried out during 25 August-3 September 2002. Time management was top priority for the Directo-
rate of Public Security, whose main concern was to avoid having long queues at border points, which create prob-
lems both to travellers and police ofﬁ cers.  On the other hand it was important to include in the pilot travellers 
from various origins and language groups. Therefore the pilot cards were handed over to every fourth traveller, 
and this procedure was followed until the supply had run out.

During the test, ﬁ eldwork was monitored, and this included both observation and interviews with travellers and 
border ofﬁ cials. The Department of Statistics processed the data, using IMPS software for data entry and SPSS 
for tabulations.

The test has provided a wealth of information. The results show an overall response rate of 83 percent, the rate 
being lowest in Jaber land border, 75 percent, rising to 89 percent and 90 percent in Queen Alia airport and Aqaba 
port, respectively.  Response rates were slightly lower among arriving passengers (82 percent) than among de-
parting ones (85 percent).  Detailed results, however, show that at Queen Alia airport, the completion rate was 
much higher among arriving passengers (96 percent) than among those departing  (82 percent).  Another large 
discrepancy, but in the opposite direction, is shown for Jaber land border; the completion rate was much lower 
among arriving passengers (65 percent) than among those departing  (85 percent). At Aqaba port, the completion 
rate was identical among both arriving and departing passengers (90 percent).  

These lower than expected recovery rates, particularly among passengers arriving at Jaber land border, appear to 
be due to various causes.  

•  First, a number of passengers collect spare cards for future trips.
•  Secondly, a relatively high proportion of cards is wasted, because some passengers take additional card(s) in 
case they make an error ﬁ lling in the card, or because they take a number of cards equivalent to the number of 

29

 
MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

persons accompanying them and not the number of passports they hold.  This was a problem especially among 
arrivals at Jaber land border, where only 1,616 cards were collected out of a total of 2,500 distributed.

•  Thirdly, cards were distributed in packs of 100 to border ofﬁ cers boarding the shuttle boats arriving at Aqaba 

from the Egyptian port of Nuweiba, and it is apparent that unused cards were discarded.

Virtually all passengers ticked the box indicating their sex. About 95 percent of passengers provided their year of 
birth, while the proportion providing the complete date of birth (day/month/year) was lower at 85 percent. The 
questions on nationality, country of birth, and country of current residence, crucial for measurement of migration 
and tourism, were also ﬁ lled in by virtually all passengers.

The picture, however, was different with regard to the questions on intended duration of stay and purpose of visit.  
This was partly related not to the questions themselves but to some confusion about who should respond to them: 
upon arrival all travellers, and upon departure only those who do reside in Jordan. Even so, few departing pas-
sengers ﬁ lled in the two questions when they did not need to. But too many did not ﬁ ll in an answer when, given 
their residence status, they should have done.  

The question on duration of stay was unpopular equally amongst arriving non-residents and departing residents, 
with about one-third of passengers failing to give a response. Response to the question on the purpose of visit 
was higher, but here arriving non-residents were somehow more compliant (82 percent) than departing residents 
(76 percent).

Among arriving passengers, who are not residing in Jordan, non-response to both questions was much higher 
among Jordanian citizens than among nationals of other countries.  But among departing passengers, who stated 
Jordan as their country of current residence, non-response to both questions was much higher among foreign pas-
sengers than among Jordanian citizens.

The high non-response to these two questions may be attributed to the following: 

• 

• 
• 

confusion about who should answer these questions (due mainly to confusion about the concept of current 
residence);
lack of time/interest (especially for one-day excursionists);  
refusal to answer.

Among arriving non-resident passengers, about one-third stated their intended duration of stay in Jordan as ‘less 
than 24 hours’, and about 37 percent were categorised as ‘transit’ passengers, in the sense that they arrived in 
Jordan, usually by land or sea, with the intention of travelling by land through Jordan towards another country. 
This group of ‘transit’ passengers represented about 68 percent of arrivals at Aqaba port, and 50 percent at Jaber 
land border, but only 11 percent at Queen Alia airport. About 18 percent of arriving non-residents stated ‘tour-
ism’ as the reason of visit, over 11 percent gave ‘visiting relatives’ as the reason of their trip, and only 5 percent 
speciﬁ ed work as the reason.

Among departing passengers residing in Jordan, about one-third stated ‘tourism’ as the reason of travelling, 17 
percent gave ‘work’ as reason, and 15 percent said they were travelling to visit relatives.  

When the information necessary to measure migration and tourism is considered together, we ﬁ nd that among 
non-resident arriving passengers, only 63 percent provided information on nationality, country of current resi-
dence, purpose of visit, and intended duration of stay, the percentage being lowest (53 percent) in Jaber border 
post, higher (62 percent) in Aqaba port, and highest in Queen Alia airport (71 percent). Similarly, the percentage 
of resident departing passengers who provided information on these four items was low, only 64 percent. 

All in all, as expected, tourists formed the largest group of travellers, while the number of both short-term and 
long-term migrants found was relatively small. The results suggest that statistics based on the border card sys-
tem will probably produce more reliable ﬁ gures on tourism than on migration. As far as migration statistics are 
concerned, they will probably provide a reasonable impression of legal migration (professionals, marriage and 
family reuniﬁ cation, study, etc.). 

30

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

5.1.2 - Morocco

Within the framework of the MEDSTAT-programme (synergy MED-Migr and MED-Tour), and in collaboration 
between DGSN, the Direction de la Statistique and the Ministry of Tourism, a pilot study was carried out, to test 
procedures for adapting the border card system to allow for the measurement of international migration and tour-
ism (for an evaluation of the pilot study, see Chahoua and Schoorl, 2002).

A test border card was developed, based on the following principles:

• 
• 
• 

no essential changes in the information required for administrative purposes;
addition of minimum information needed to measure migration and tourism;
separation of data processing between DGSN and the Direction de la Statistique.

The latter requirement resulted in a rather large card, containing necessarily partially duplicative questions (see 
Chahoua and Schoorl, 2002). The left-hand side of the card contains the questions currently asked for adminis-
trative purposes on the regular card, while the detachable right-hand side contains the questions to be used for 
statistical purposes (see annex 8.7). The new questions on intended duration of stay and purpose of the visit are 
only asked from travellers who do not reside in Morocco, upon their arrival, and from travellers residing in Mo-
rocco, upon their departure.

Two locations were chosen for the test: Mohamed V airport of Casablanca, and Tanger port, both major border 
posts. The test was carried out in co-operation with the border police ofﬁ cials at the two pilot locations, and with 
Royal Air Maroc, l’Ofﬁ ce National des Aéroports (ONDA) and l’Ofﬁ ce de l’Exploitation des Ports. For the pilot, 
9,900 cards were distributed, and the test was carried out at the end of February 2002. During the test, ﬁ eld work 
was monitored, and interviews were carried out with travellers, border ofﬁ cials and port and airport organisations. 
The Direction de la Statistique processed the data, using IMPS software.

The test provided a wealth of information on passenger compliance with an adapted border card based on the 
principle of separate data collection and data processing 6, and allow for a number of comments, some following 
from the design of the card, others from its contents. 

The choice for a design with a detachable statistical part, which followed from the need at DGSN for separate 
data-processing by DGSN and DS caused complaints about the length of the card and the duplication of ques-
tions. Furthermore, although the majority of the travellers completed both parts of the card, 25 percent did not 
ﬁ ll in the statistical part of the card at all. From the monitoring interviews and the analysis of the cards it may be 

6  The recovery rate of the cards itself was rather low: 65 percent in Tanger, and just 47 percent at Mohamed V airport, due to various causes mostly unre-
lated to the test. But among the cards that were recovered, a fairly large number was left empty by the traveller, especially at the airport (46 percent of the 
recovered cards). In Tanger, the situation was less problematic, although here too, 11 percent of the travellers left the statistical part of the card blank.

If travellers decided to ﬁ ll in the statistical part of the card, they generally complied relatively well in ﬁ lling in the duplicative section, where part of the 
questions asked for administrative purposes on the left-hand side of the card, were repeated. Response rates were slightly higher among arriving pas-
sengers than among departing ones, and for most questions there were only small differences between Moroccan and foreign citizens. Lowest response 
was found on date of arrival/departure and sex (the latter perhaps related to its pre-coded nature). Furthermore, a small number of travellers confused the 
date of arrival/departure with the date of birth. The question on country of residence, crucial for measurement of migration and tourism, was ﬁ lled in by 
a large majority of the travellers, but still for 11 percent of the arrivals and 14 percent of the departures there was no response. 

  The new questions of duration of and motive for the visit posed more problems. This was partly related not to the questions themselves but to some con-
fusion about who should respond to them: upon arrivals only those travellers who do not reside in Morocco, and upon departure only those who do reside 
there. Even so, few travellers ﬁ lled in the two questions when they did not need to. But too many did not ﬁ ll in an answer when, given their residence 
status, they should have done so. Non-response to both questions was higher among Moroccan citizens than among foreign citizens.

  The question on duration of the visit was particularly unpopular, most so among departing residents, and then especially among residents departing via 
Tanger port. Response to the question on the motive for the visit was considerably higher, and here too arriving non-residents were more compliant than 
departing residents. Nevertheless, non-response on motive for the visit was too high, from the point of view of production of reliable statistics. 

  Based on the response, travellers were categorised as excursionists (one day), short-term tourists (less than 3 months), long-term tourists (between 3 and 
12 months), short-term migrants (3-12 months) or long-term migrants (one year or longer). Not all travellers could be classiﬁ ed properly, due to missing 
information on duration, motive, or country of residence, while in some cases the information provided on duration and motive was ambiguous. Never-
theless, as expected, tourists formed the largest group and, equally expected, the number of both short-term and long-term migrants found was small, as 
even in countries characterised by high immigration or emigration, actual migration ﬂ ows are dwarfed by the daily ﬂ ow of business- and/or tourist trafﬁ c 
(see Chahoua and Schoorl, 2002). 

31

 
MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

deduced that there are several causes for this ‘full’ non-response, some related to the general complaint that the 
card is too long:

• 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

a refusal to ﬁ ll in the questions for statistics;
a perceived lack of time to complete all the questions; this is most pertinent for ‘excursionists’, that is, those 
who come for a visit of less than one day;
the use of three languages and space reserved for coding give the right-hand part of the card a crowded look, 
increasing the impression that ‘too many’ questions are asked;
even so, many travellers know neither of these three languages; by them, the card may be perceived as too 
much of burden;
an interpretation of the heading of the right-hand part of the card, ‘Direction de la Statistique’, as ‘reserved 
for the Direction de la Statistique’, and therefore leaving it to DS to ﬁ ll in that part of the card; this interpreta-
tion may have been reinforced by the fact that the perforation between the left-hand and right-hand sections 
of the cards was hardly visible;
halfway the right-hand part of the card, the text ‘for residents only’ (on the departure card), or ‘for non-resi-
dents only’ (on the arrival card) caused some passengers to think that the whole right-hand section was not 
intended for them, as they did not belong to that category;
unfamiliarity with the new card.

Some travellers did complete only part of the questions in the statistical section (partial non-response), or ﬁ lled 
in more than requested:

• 

• 

• 

the top half of the statistical section is an almost complete duplication of the left-hand part of the card; many 
passengers left these questions unanswered either because they did not understand the reason for this dupli-
cation or because they did not want to answer to the same questions twice (nevertheless, those travellers who 
took pains to ﬁ ll in the card, did reply to most questions in this section). Again, the lack of visibility of the 
perforation may have added to the confusion;
the texts ‘for residents only’ (departure card) and ‘for non-residents only’ (arrival card) were not clear to all 
travellers;
the distinction between Moroccan citizens and foreign citizens in the question on purpose of visit was not 
well understood by some.

Based on the pilot evaluation, a number of further adaptations should be made, in order to reduce non-response 
and to improve the quality of response. Even with such adaptations, it is important to realise that the card system 
will most likely produce more reliable statistics on tourism than on migration. As far as migration statistics are 
concerned, they will probably provide a reasonable impression of legal migration (professionals, marriage and 
family reuniﬁ cation, study, etc.) but also suffer from underestimation due to the following:

• 
• 
• 

undocumented travellers avoiding the border posts;
travellers who will overstay their short-term visa or permits, whether intentionally or not;
travellers who are effectively changing their country of residence but are also frequent travellers (and there-
fore may report short durations of stay).

5.1.3 - Syria

In the framework of MED-Migr project of the Mediterranean countries 2000-2002, Syria was selected as a pilot 
country for the group of countries that include Turkey, Lebanon, the Palestinian National Authority, and Syria. 
The pilot exercise was implemented in Syria for improving the arrival/ departure card to allow for the measure-
ment of international migration outﬂ ows and inﬂ ows as well as tourism statistics. Within this context, a com-
mittee consisting of members from CBS, MOI and MOT and other related ministries was formed to enhance 
the border card system including arrival/departure cards for the purpose of producing statistics on international 
migration and related topics. The committee worked on reviewing the existing border card, and a new proposal 
card for arrivals and departures was prepared. To the proposed card, a number of questions added to meet with 
national needs and serve measurement of migration ﬂ ows and international tourism along Syrian borders. This 

32

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

proposal conformed to international recommendations pertaining to migration and tourism statistics including 
recommendations on harmonisation and international comparability. At the same time, the MOI continued the 
process of providing all 24 border centres with computers and linking them with the main station; this operation 
was completed by the beginning of 2002.

The existing border card serves administrative needs. A review of the card by the authorities concerned resulted in 
the addition of  several items, such as ‘expected duration of visit’, ‘reason for visit’, ‘country of usual residence’, 
and ‘original nationality’. The resulting proposed card is included in annex 8.7.

The  pilot  exercise  in  which  the  new  card  was  tested,  covered  arrivals  from  foreigners  and  non-Syrian Arabs 
only. Regarding Syrians, a small sample was selected and three questions were addressed to departing Syrians. 
As passport information on Syrians will be optically read in the future, the border ofﬁ cers record answers in a 
separate statement. The questions were:

• 
• 
• 

expected duration of stay abroad;
reason for leaving; 
country of destination.

The  test  was  implemented  in  three  border  centres;  International  Damascus  airport,  which  is  among  the  main 
border  centres  for  arriving  foreigners  and  non-Syrian Arabs,  Dara’a  and  Naseeb  border  centres,  in  the  south, 
both main road border centres for arriving Arabs particularly from the Gulf countries. Naseeb border centre was 
selected as a test for the Syrians. In total, ten thousand cards were used for the test.

The ﬁ eldwork started at March 7, 2002 and lasted for two weeks. Fieldwork was monitored at the border centres 
in co-operation between CBS and MOI. The MOI, represented by the Migration and Passport Administration and 
the Border Centre Administration, had given all care and attention to this work and provided all tools and needs 
required for the implementation of the exercise. 

At the beginning of April, CBS received 7,820 cards for non-Syrian Arabs and foreigners, and 134 cards for de-
parting Syrians. Training for data entry staff was done. ISCO was used for coding occupation, while citizenship 
codes were used for country coding, and IMPS for data entry. The operation of data entry was completed by the 
end of April 2002.

Overall, 79 percent of the total number of distributed cards were recovered. The values vary from one centre to 
another, ﬁ gures rise to 75 percent in the airport, 91 percent in Naseeb and 70 percent in Daraa’. Of the recovered 
cards, the percentage completed is very high (99 percent) in all border centres. Out of the 7,866 recovered cards, 
only 46 cards were not completed; 23 cards at the airport, 14 cards in Naseeb and 9 cards in Daraa’. Overall, the 
percentage of recovered and ﬁ lled cards amounts to 78 percent; this might be considered high. The reason that 
some distributed cards were not ﬁ lled or completed can be attributed to the difﬁ culty that some passengers had 
faced in ﬁ lling items of the new card in addition to the existing card that must be ﬁ lled as well.

Response rates for arriving non-Syrian Arabs and foreigners were calculated for 7,820 cards; and for Syrian de-
parting were calculated for 134 cards. The response rate for the majority of the items was high, particularly those 
regarding administrative information. Overall, they rise to 100 percent for sex, 98 percent for country of birth, 91 
percent for date of birth, and 98 percent for nationality. They were also high in the various border centres covered 
by the pilot test.

Regarding the statistical information, the response rate was high for country of usual residence (94 percent). Yet 
it decreased for the remaining items to 66 percent for profession, 49 percent for accommodation, 64 percent for 
expected duration of stay, and only 37 percent for purpose of visit. Besides, differences were observed along 
border centres. Around two third of travellers at the airport ﬁ lled in answers on expected duration of stay, while 
67 percent did so in Naseeb, and almost 77 percent in Daraa’. Almost the same values were recorded for the ques-
tion on the purpose of visit in the various border centres. As for Syrians, 134 cards were ﬁ lled; in addition to the 

33

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

answers recorded on the three questions. Response rates were as follows: 100 percent on the question of purpose 
for leaving, 100 percent on the question on country of destination, and 99 percent on the question of expected 
duration of stay abroad.

Of all travellers, 34 percent came as tourists. As for long-term migrants, 1.2 percent of travellers reported a du-
ration of more than 12 months. The number of cases was rather small; ﬁ gures rise to 11 cases among Syrians, 
44 among non-Syrian Arabs and 39 among foreigners. The percentage of Syrians reporting long-term migration 
possibly reﬂ ects return migrants, since the test was carried out for foreigners and non-Syrian Arabs.

The supervisory team observation from the ﬁ eldwork recommends the following:

replace the phrase ‘last name’ by ‘surname’ and remove it to ﬁ rst item;

• 
•  move item ‘sex’ and place it after item ‘date of birth’;
• 
• 
• 

replace ‘usual country of residence’ by ‘current country of residence’;
classiﬁ cations of means of transport, plain, car, train, ship, and other;
classiﬁ cation of type of accommodation: hotel, rented apartment, private apartment, relatives and friends, 
and other;
adding ‘business/conference’ to classiﬁ cations of question on main reason of visit, and replace ‘visit’ with 
‘other’;
adding a question on accompanying persons at the end of the card;

• 
•  write items in the French language as well, beside the English and Arabic languages;
• 

using one face of the card based on resolution of the MOI.

• 

CBS, MOI, MOT and other concerned ministries carefully studied above needs and they were taken into consid-
eration when the border card was put in its ﬁ nal form (see annex 8.8).  Thus, the following items were added:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

original nationality;
country of birth;
country of usual residence;
expected duration of stay;
purpose of visit.

The ministry of Interior has printed 3 million of the new cards as a ﬁ rst step; the new cards were distributed and 
applied as of the beginning of 2003.

The improvement of the border card system in Syria, particularly that pertaining to computerisation of border 
centres and modiﬁ cation of border entry/exit card should make it possible in the future to obtain reliable informa-
tion on tourism and the migration of foreigners (non-Syrians).

5.2 - Non-pilot countries

5.2.1 - Algeria

There is continuous and fruitful co-operation between the Ministry of Tourism, ONS, and DGSN/Ministry of 
the Interior on improvement of statistics, in particular those on tourism and, more recently, on migration. Within 
the framework of the MED-Migr and MED-Tour synergy, an adapted version of the border card was developed, 
which involved mainly the addition of the crucial information on (intended) duration of stay and purpose of the 
visit, as well as whether the traveller is male or female. Furthermore, it was proposed to pre-code some of the 
answers, and to adapt the formulation of some of the questions, to reduce ambiguity and/or to adapt the questions 
for joint administrative and statistical usage. As in the other countries, the main goal was to conform as closely 
to the current card as possible, and to keep the number of changes and additions to a minimum, so as not to ag-
gravate the burden on the border ofﬁ cials nor on procedures of data-entry. 

34

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

Nevertheless, DGSN prefers still fewer changes and in fact proposed to only add the two crucial questions, but 
to dismiss the notion of  pre-coded answers and other changes. The card based on the latter proposal, still being 
an important step in the potential improvement of migration and tourism statistics, has been issued for use by the 
Ministry of the Interior starting August 2002.  

Nevertheless, cards based on either proposal will imply considerable future work on data processing systems, 
and more particularly, on the potential of the computerised administrative system to incorporate the production 
of statistics. 

5.2.2 - Lebanon

Within the framework of the MED-Migr project, the Lebanese Ministry of Interior in co-ordination with the Cen-
tral Administration of Statistics has agreed to take the necessary measures to improve the border card system in 
use in Lebanon, so as to meet the needs of data users, and to enable the measurement of international migration 
and tourism in accordance with international standards. 

Within this context, a proposal for revised cards which comply with international recommendations was submit-
ted in 2002 to Central Administration of Statistics and the Ministry of the Interior (see Annex 8.7). The following 
items were added to the cards:

• 
• 
• 
• 

reason of the entry/exit;
expected duration of stay;
original nationality;
country of usual residence.

The Central Administration of Statistics and the Ministry of the Interior agreed to add reason of entry/exit  and 
are planning to use the proposed  entry and exit cards (Annex 8.7) starting from January 2003. Both institutions 
are fully committed to use and exploit the border cards system to obtain reliable data on inﬂ ows and outﬂ ows for 
the purpose of migration and tourism statistics and in accordance with international recommendations.

5.2.3 - Tunisia

In co-operation between INS, the Ministry of Tourism and to some extent the Ministry of the Interior, and within 
the framework of the MED-Migr and MED-Tour synergy, an adapted version of the border card was proposed. The 
adapted version mainly involved the addition of the crucial information on (intended) duration of stay and purpose 
of the visit. Furthermore, it was proposed to pre-code some of the answers, and to adapt the formulation of some 
of the questions, to reduce ambiguity and/or to adapt the questions for joint administrative and statistical usage. 

As in other countries, the main goal was to conform as closely to the current card as possible, and to keep the 
number of changes and additions to a minimum, so as not to aggravate the burden on the border ofﬁ cials nor on 
procedures of data-entry. As non-resident foreign visitors are required to ﬁ ll out both a main card and a detach-
able stub that is to be kept in the passport as a temporary identity card, the addition of another detachable stub for 
statistical purposes was not considered practical.

Considerable work remains for the future in further enhancing inter-institutional collaboration, and assessing the 
options for adaptations of the cards and of the production of statistics. 

6 - Recommendations

6.1 - Data collection and processing

The border card pilots were carried out in three countries, Jordan, Morocco, and Syria. Nevertheless, in several 
other countries, including Algeria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian National Authority, considerable efforts were put 
both into enhancing collaboration between the ministries concerned and the statistical ofﬁ ce, and into the adapta-
tion of the border card systems. Future work for the countries who decided to revise the cards lies especially in the 

35

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

ﬁ eld of data processing. The recommendations in the following sections are based on each of the pilot countries’ 
experiences.

6.1.1 - Jordan

As previously mentioned, the use of border cards was phased out in 10 out of a total of 13 border posts in the 
country, and a new computerised system was introduced. Under this system, a computerised border record is as-
signed to each traveller having a passport, and information is entered directly at the border, by the border police. 
In the remaining three border posts, where traditional border cards are still in use, the cards have to be ﬁ lled in 
by each traveller having a passport.

Based on the evaluation of the pilot results, the main recommendation to make is to add to the computerised 
border record the four items added to the exiting card for the pilot study, in order to meet international recom-
mendations for migration and tourism statistics, namely: country of birth, country of current residence, intended 
duration of stay, and occupation.  These four items should also be added to the traditional border card still in use 
in three border posts, until these posts are covered by the national computerised system.  It is to be expected that 
response rates would be much higher than those obtained in the pilot study, especially in view of the fact that, 
under the computerised system, information is gathered and entered by the border police.

The Ministry of Interior, in principle, has no objections to the addition of these questions to border cards and to 
adapting the border card system in Jordan to meet international recommendations to measure international migra-
tion and tourism.

However, a decision to adapt the border card system in the way suggested above would have important ﬁ nancial 
implications. The cost associated with the modiﬁ cation of the computerised border card system would be substan-
tial. The current system, therefore, could be modiﬁ ed only when sufﬁ cient funding is made available.

6.1.2 - Morocco

Based on the evaluation of the tests, there are a number of recommendations to make, mostly on the lay-out and 
content of the card, and on data processing. Future choices by the authorities concerned should weigh the need 
for (reliable) statistics and the role of the border card system therein against the costs involved.

Assuming a card system based on separate data collection and data processing, as was the guiding principle of the 
test in Morocco, it is of the highest importance to reduce the burden perceived and experienced by the traveller, 
and to eliminate as much as possible potential sources of confusion 7:

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 
• 

improving the visibility of the perforation of the card, to help travellers understand the reason for duplicative 
questions;
changing the heading of the right-hand part of the card, and adding the sub-heading ‘to be completed by all 
travellers’, so as to reduce the risk that travellers think this section is none of their concern and will be com-
pleted by the Bureau of Statistics;
changing the sub-heading ‘residents only’ (departure card) and ‘non-residents only’ (arrival card) to elimi-
nate confusion about residency status;
using pre-coded questions where possible but eliminating the code boxes for questions that need coding dur-
ing data processing (as too often the code boxes were used by travellers who, obligingly, used the space to 
ﬁ ll in abbreviations of country names);
asking year of birth only instead of the full date of birth (in order to reduce overall work load and use of 
space, as well as the risk of confusion between date of arrival/departure and date of birth);
perhaps changing ‘country of usual residence’ to ‘in which country do you live’ or even just ‘country of 
residence’.
revise the lay-out of the card to reduce the appearance of congestion;
considering to print the Arabic version of the card (both administrative and statistical parts) on the front side 

7  Part of these recommendations obviously also apply to an integrated version of the card.

36

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

of the card, with French and English on the back side. This reduces both the congested outlook and would 
reduce unnecessary waste of cards by those who now use the empty back part as note paper;

However, these adaptations to a card with a detachable stub are unlikely to reduce non-response to acceptable 
levels, especially in view of the non-obligatory character of the cards. Furthermore, the duplication of data entry, 
the higher cost of the cards, and the costs for card transportation all add to a formidable budget. Thus, for both 
budgetary reasons and reasons of data quality, an integrated system (i.e., joint data collection and data processing 
for administrative and statistical purposes) is undoubtedly preferable. But given the important ﬁ nancial impli-
cations of such an integration for the data collection authority, this too could only be envisaged if the ﬁ nancial 
means to support the additional data processing form part of the plans. At the same time, such a system would 
allow the data collecting authority to fully computerise its manual production of statistics.

An  alternative  method  of  reducing  the  burden  for  travellers  but  maintaining  the  possibility  of  separate  data 
processing, is to introduce a carbon-copy card, which requires only one series of answers from the respondent. In 
that case, privacy should be guarded by preventing carbon-copying of personal information. However, the cost 
associated with such cards is substantial.

Regarding  data  processing,  the  test  in  Morocco  showed  that  separate  data  entry  for  statistical  purposes  using 
available and user-friendly software poses no technical problems. To reduce costs of coding prior to data entry, 
the use of pre-coded cards is preferred. Costs of data entry could be reduced substantially by integrating data 
entry for administrative and statistical purposes; however, procedures to test  this option formed no part of the 
current pilot in Morocco. The use of scanners has not been tested either, partly because of the cost (material and 
expertise) involved, but mainly due to the expected problems with multi-lingual cards.

Towards  the  end  of  2002,  considering  the  results  of  the  border  card  pilot,  the  Direction  de  la  Statistique,  the 
Ministry of the Interior, and the Ministry of Tourism decided (December 2002) to draft a renewed proposal for 
an integrated border card. A committee consisting of representatives of the authorities concerned will be set up to 
study the possibilities for the adoption of such a card. A draft version of the integrated cards is included in annex 
8.8. They are not yet ﬁ nalised and their status at present is that of a proposal in discussion.

6.1.3 - Syria

Regarding the pilot exercise in Syria, the following adaptations were recommended:

replace the phrase ‘last name’ by ‘surname’ and remove it to ﬁ rst item;

• 
•  move item ‘sex’ and place it after item ‘date of birth’;
• 
• 
• 

replace ‘usual country of residence’ by ‘current country of residence’;
classiﬁ cations of means of transport, plain, car, train, ship, and other;
classiﬁ cation of type of accommodation: hotel, rented apartment, private apartment, relatives and friends, 
and other;
adding ‘business/conference’ to classiﬁ cations of question on main reason of visit, and replace ‘visit’ with 
‘other’;
adding a question on accompanying persons at the end of the card;

• 
•  write items in the French language as well, beside the English and Arabic languages;
• 

using one face of the card based on resolution of the MOI.

• 

The above adaptations were put into effect following the evaluation of the Syrian pilot  exercise, and the adapted 
cards were distributed for use starting the beginning of 2003.

6.2 - Production and dissemination of statistics

The countries produce and disseminate a number of tables, usually in publications of the Bureau of Statistics and 
the Ministry of Tourism. In so far as the data allow for production of some additional tables, their dissemination 
might be encouraged. For instance, tables by sex, and age groups, and/or more detail on nationalities are poten-
tially possible, although the manual systems of data processing may often be prohibitive.

37

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

However, whatever tables based on the current border card systems are produced, they only provide an estimate 
of the number of tourists, and give no information at all on the number of migrants.

With  an  adapted  data  collection  (including  questions  on  duration  and  purpose  of  the  visit,  and  including  the 
crucial question on residency status), tables may be produced on both migrants and tourists, depending on the re-
quirements for policy planners within the country. In addition, some of the tables as recommended by the United 
Nations may be produced; a list of these tables is included in annex 8.9.  Furthermore, the annex includes the list 
of table currently requested by Eurostat, for their European and Mediterranean data base on migration statistics.

Given the fact that many of the countries concerned are characterised by strong emigration and by return migra-
tion, additional tables on returning citizens by country of birth (and for instance, sex, age group, previous country 
of residence), may serve planning purposes.

Based on the information on border cards relating to residency status, purpose of stay and intended duration of 
stay, tourists, short-term migrants and long-term migrants may be distinguished, whereby ‘non-resident’ means 
non-resident in the country of arrival for arriving travellers, and non-resident in the country of departure for de-
parting travellers (see table 6.1).

Tables including age or age group may be produced either on exact ages, that is the age reached by the traveller 
on the day of arrival/departure, or on age reached by the end of the year. The latter is of course the only possibil-
ity if only the year of birth is asked and/or coded, or in cases where data on day and month of birth are faulty or 
have many missing cases.

Coding of data relating to speciﬁ c countries (country of residence, of nationality, of birth, of origin/destination) 
should preferably use international code lists, such as ISO, or correspond to coding used within the country for 
other large data bases, such as for instance the census or major surveys.

6.3 - Integration of data sources

Migration and tourism statistics from border cards form but one source among several. Another option is to derive 
immigration statistics (on foreigners) from residence or work permit registers. Emigration statistics (on citizens) 
may be available from sources abroad, especially in cases where migration takes places primarily to a few major 
destinations. Furthermore, major sources for migrant stock data are censuses and large-scale surveys. For tourism 
statistics, important other sources are tourism expenditure surveys, and hotel registration data.

In what way may sources be combined to enhance data availability and data use? Given that data on migration, 
and to a lesser extent, tourism, are still scarce in many of the countries concerned, it is perhaps too early to specu-
late on the options for source integration. Nevertheless, some examples: border data collection systems, if they 
allow for the measurement of tourism and migration, may serve as sample frames for targeted surveys on migra-
tion and tourism. Furthermore, work or residence permit registers, which can often only produce inﬂ ow statistics 
by themselves, may beneﬁ t from a link with border data systems, to estimate stocks as well.  

38

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

Table 6.1:   Potential classiﬁ cation of tourists and migrants from border card information

Category of traveller
Arriving residents
Arriving non-residents:
-  Excursionists

-  Tourists

-  Short-term migrants
-  Long-term migrants

Departing residents:
-  Excursionists

-  Tourists

-  Short-term migrants
-  Long-term migrants

Departing non-residents 

Purpose of visit
All

Intended duration of visit
All

Holidays, visit to friends/relatives,

Less than 1 day a 

business/conference, (other)
Holidays, visit to friends/relatives,
business/conference, (other)
Work, study, family reunion/marriage
Work, study, family reunion/marriage, 
permanent return

Holidays, visit to friends/relatives,
business/conference, (other)
Holidays, visit to friends/relatives, 
business/conference, (other)
Work, study, family reunion/marriage
Work, study, family reunion/marriage, 
permanent return
All

At least 1 day but less than 1 year

From 3 months to up to 1 year
1 year or longer b

Less than 1 day a 

At least 1 day but less than 1 year

From 3 months to up to 1 year
1 year or longer b

All

a)  Actually, the recommendation is ‘not spending the night’, but this would require an additional question on the border card.
If possible, a distinction between ‘1 year or longer, but with a known limitation’ and ‘unlimited duration’ is recommended.
b) 

7 - References

Ali, I., H. Ismaeel, and S. Saadedine (2002), Adaptation of the border card system in Syria to measure inter-
national migration and international tourism: results of a pilot study. Damascus/Rome: Central Bureau of 
Statistics/CESD-Roma.

Al-Assaf, M. and S. Farid (2002), Adaptation of the border card system in Jordan to measure international migra-
tion and international tourism: results of a pilot study. Amman/Rome: Department of Statistics/CESD-Roma
Bilsborrow, R.E., G. Hugo, A.S. Oberai and H. Zlotnik (1997), International migration statistics. Guidelines for 

improving data collection systems. Geneva: International Labour Ofﬁ ce.

Bourchachen, J. (1999), Statistiques sur la migration internationale dans les pays méditerranéens: rapport de 

mission Algérie, Maroc, Tunisie. Luxembourg: Eurostat. Population et conditions sociales 3/1999/E/no.11.

Bourchachen, J. (2000), Statistics on travellers: distinguishing between migrants and tourists. Paper presented at 

the Euro-Mediterranean workshop on border statistics, Rome 3-5 July.

Carmichael, G. A. (1993), Beware the passenger card! Australian and New Zealand data on population movement 

between two countries. In: International Migration Review,  vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 819-849.

CESD-Madrid, Eurostat, and Direction de la Statistique, Maroc (2000), Inbound tourism: summary progress re-
port. Report presented at the Task force meeting on Euro-Mediterranean co-operation in the ﬁ eld of tourism 
statistics (medtour), Marrakech 20-21 November.

CESD-Rome and Eurostat (2000), Minutes of the Euro-Mediterranean workshop on border statistics, Rome 3-5 

July.

CESD-Madrid and Eurostat (2001), Summary analysis of the existing statistical systems in the 12 Mediterranean 

partner countries. Action 2 of the medtour programme.

Chahoua, S. and J.J. Schoorl (2002), Adaptation of the border card system in Morocco to measure international 
migration and international tourism: results of a pilot study. Rabat/The Hague/Rome, Direction de la Statis-
tique/NIDI/CESD-Roma.

Cherkaoui, A. (2000), Using basic data on entry/exit cards to draw up statistics on tourism: relevant problems 
and possible solutions. Summary of paper presented at the Euro-Mediterranean workshop on border statis-
tics, Rome 3-5 July.

39

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

De Lemos, J. B. (1999), Medtour project: Action 7.2: Tunisia.
Derkouche,  B.  (2000),  Les  systèmes  des  cartes  d’entrée  et  de  sortie:  comment  peuvent-ils  être  améliorés  et 
développés pour la production de statistiques sur le tourisme et les migrations. Paper presented at the Euro-
Mediterranean workshop on border statistics, Rome 3-5 July.

Eurostat (1998), Community methodology on tourism statistics. Luxembourg: Ofﬁ ce for Ofﬁ cial Publications of 

the European Communities.

Eurostat (2000), Methodological manual on the design and implementation of surveys on inbound tourism. Lux-

embourg: Ofﬁ ce for Ofﬁ cial Publications of the European Communities.

Fourati, H. (2000), Vers une consolidation du système de collecte aux frontières en Tunisie. Paper presented at the 

Euro-Mediterranean workshop on border statistics, Rome 3-5 July.

Guerreiro Bremón, S. (1999), Medtour project: Action 7.2: regular surveys of inbound tourism. First mission 

report Morocco.

Manente, M. (2000), Existing border card systems: regional perspective. Learning from the Medtour experience. 

Paper presented at the Euro-Mediterranean workshop on border statistics, Rome 3-5 July.

Manente, M. (2000), Existing border survey systems: international and regional perspective. Learning from the 
Medtour experience. Paper presented at the Euro-Mediterranean workshop on border statistics, Rome 3-5 
July.

Mokhtari, A. (2000), Le système des cartes d’entrée et de sortie en Algérie. Paper presented at the Euro-Mediter-

ranean workshop on border statistics, Rome 3-5 July.

Pearce, D. and D. Rotolone (1998), International migration statistics in the Mediterranean countries: current 
data sources and statistics available in the countries. Luxembourg: Eurostat. Population and social condi-
tions 3/1998/E/no.20.

Pearce, D. (1999), International migration statistics in the Mediterranean countries: summary report of missions 

to the 12 project countries. Luxembourg: Eurostat. Population and social conditions 3/1999/E/no.18.

Pearce, D. (2000), Exploiting entry-exit records: regional perspective. Paper presented at the Euro-Mediterranean 

workshop on border statistics, Rome 3-5 July.

Schoorl, J.J. and L. Ruiz (2001), Towards adapting the border card system in the Maghreb region: integrating 
migration and tourism statistics. Paper prepared for the MED-Migr Workshop on administrative and statisti-
cal sources for migration statistics, Paris, 25-27 April 2001. Also in French: Comment adapter le système des 
cartes d’entrée et de sortie aux frontières dans le Maghreb: intégration des statistiques sur les migrations et 
sur le tourisme.

United  Nations  (1998),  Recommendations  on  statistics  of  international  migration.  New York:  Department  of 

Economic and Social Affairs. Statistical papers, series M, no. 58, rev. 1.

United  Nations  and  World  Tourism  Organization  (1994),  Recommendations  on  tourism  statistics.  New York: 

United Nations. Statistical papers, series M, no. 83.

40

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

8 - Annexes

8.1 - Table

Table 8.1:  

information on border cards in the project countries, arrival cards and departure cards

Arrival cards

Coverage

Algeria

Jordan

Morocco

Lebanon

Syria

Tunisia

Adults a
All travellers Foreigners

Adults b

Adults c
All travellers Foreigners

Adults

Adults
Foreigners

All
All travellers

-
X
X
X

Information relevant for statistics
-  Date of arrival
-  Means of transportation 
-  Date of birth
-  Place of birth
-  Nationality
-  Profession
-  Permanent address (pa) / address (a)
-  Address during stay (ds) / in country (ic)
-  Type of accommodation
-  Coming from
-  Going to
-  Purpose of stay
-  Port of entry

Personal information
-  Family name
-  Woman’s maiden name
-  Given names
-  Father’s name
-  Passport number
-  Date of issue of passport
-  Place of issue of passport

X
X
X
-

X d
X
X
X

-
-
X
X

X
X
X
-

-
-
X
X

X
X
X(pa)
X(ds)
-
X
-
-
-

X
X
X
-
X
X
X

X
-
-
X (ic)
-
X
-
-
-

X
X
X
-
X
X
X

X
X
X e
X(ic) e
-
X
X
-
-

X
X
X
-
X
X
X

X
X
-
-
X
X
-
-
-

X
-
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
-
-
-
-
-
X
X

X
-
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X(a)
X(ic) c
-
X
X
-
-

X
X
X
-
X
X
X

Plus for each accompanying child (i.e., travelling on the same passport as the accompanying adult): date and place of birth, names.

a) 
b)  Number of accompanying persons.
c) 
d)  Not included on all cards observed.
e) 

Only on detachable stub for non-residents (non-resident visitor’s card).

Address in Morocco is asked on airport card; some other cards ask for ‘address’.

41

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

Table 8.1  

continued

Departure cards

Algeria

Jordan

Morocco

Lebanon

Syria

Tunisia

Coverage

Adults a
All travellers Foreigners

Adults b

Adults c
All travellers Foreigners

Adults

Adults
Foreigners

All
All travellers

Information relevant for statistics
-  Date of departure
-  Means of transportation 
-  Date of birth
-  Place of birth
-  Nationality
-  Profession
-  Permanent address (pa) / address (a)
-  Address in country (ic)
-  Type of accommodation
-  Going to
-  Coming from
-  Purpose of stay
-  Port of exit

Personal information
-  Family name
-  Woman’s maiden name
-  Given names
-  Father’s name
-  Passport number
-  Date of issue of passport
-  Place of issue of passport

-

X

X d

-

X

-

X
X
X
X
X
X(pa)

-
X
-
-
-

X
X
X
-
X
X
X

X
X
-
X
-
-
-
X
-
-
-
-

X
X
X
-
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X e
X(ic) e
-
X
X
-
-

X
X
X
-
X
X
X

-
X
X
X
X
-
-
X g
X
-
-
-

X
-
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
-
X
X
-
-
-
-
-
X f
X

X
-
X
X
X
X
X

-
X
X
X
X
X(a)
X(ic) c
-
X
X
-
-

X
X
X
-
X
X
X

Plus for each accompanying child (i.e., travelling on the same passport as the accompanying adult): date and place of birth, names.

Only on detachable stub for non-residents (non-resident visitor’s card).

a) 
b)  Number of accompanying persons.
c) 
d)  Not included on all cards observed.
e) 
f) 
g) 

Address in Morocco is asked on airport card; some other cards ask for ‘address’.
Purpose of stay in Syria.
Type of accommodation in Lebanon.

42

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

8.2 - Existing border cards

8.2.1 - Algeria

43

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

44

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

8.8.2 - Jordan

45

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

8.2.3 - Lebanon

46

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

8.3 - Border cards in selected other countries: Australia, New Zealand, Singapore

8.3.1 - Australia

47

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

48

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

8.3.2 - New Zealand

49

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

50

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

8.3.3 - Singapore

51

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

8.4 - Overview of available statistics

8.4.1 - Algeria
•  Ministère du Tourisme, Rapport sur le tourisme, 2000. Alger, 2001 (en Arabe)
•  Ofﬁ ce National des Statistiques, Annuaire Statistique de l’Algérie:  

•  Arrivées  aux  frontières  des  voyageurs  en  provenance  de  l’étranger  par  pays  de  nationalité  (incl. Al-

gériens résidents à l’étranger)

•  Nombre d’entrées de voyageurs en Algérie par mode de transport
•  Evolution des arrivées des Maghrébins en Algérie

•  Ofﬁ ce National des Statistiques, Série ‘Données Statistiques’, no. 228, Démographie Algérienne 1995: Evo-

lution des mouvements aux frontières des nationaux résidents, par année, 1990-1995

•  Ofﬁ ce National des Statistiques, Série ‘Données Statistiques’, no. 234, Démographie Algérienne: Mouve-
ments aux frontières des nationaux résidents et non-résidents, par trimestre (4e trimestre 1994 et 1995)

8.4.2 - Jordan
•  Department of Statistics,  Annual Statistical Yearbook:

•  Number of arrivals by nationality and quarters of the year
•  Number of departures by nationality and quarters of the year
•  Number of arrivals by nationality, border post, and month of arrival
•  Number of departures by nationality, border post, and month of departure 
•  Number of arrivals, Arabs and non-Arabs, by month of arrival
•  Number of departure, Arabs and non-Arabs, by month of departure

•  Ministry of Tourism, Annual Statistical Yearbook: 

•  Hotels statistics (numbers of hotels, rooms, beds, employees)
•  Tourism statistics (numbers of rooms, beds, travel agencies, rented cars, riding animals, oriental souve-

nir stores, tourist guides, tourist transportation, tourist restaurants)

•  Nights spent by Arab and non-Arab guests by hotel class
•  Nights spent by Arab and non-Arab guests by month
•  Employment in tourism activities by type of activity
•  Classiﬁ ed hotels by location
•  Unclassiﬁ ed hotels by location 

8.4.3 - Lebanon
•  Central Bureau of Statistics, Statistical Bulletin:
•  Number of arrivals by nationality, per month
•  Number of departures by nationality, per month

8.4.4 - Morocco
•  Ministère de la Prévision Economique et du Plan, Direction de la Statistique, Annuaire Statistique du Maroc:
•  Voyageurs contrôlés aux frontières marocaines: entrants et sortants par voie de transport et poste frontière
•  Voyageurs contrôlés aux frontières marocaines: entrants et sortants selon la domiciliation (au Maroc/

hors du Maroc), la nationalité et le voie de transport

•  Entrées des touristes de séjour selon la nationalité (incl. Marocains résidents à l’étranger)
•  Touristes selon la nationalité et la voie de transport: entrants et sortants
•  Résidents au Maroc partant pour le tourisme à l’étranger, par nationalité et voie de transport
•  Passagers en croisière touristique, par poste frontière
•  Entrées et sorties des touristes, par sexe et domiciliation (au Maroc/hors du Maroc)

•  Ministère du Tourisme, Royaume du Maroc, Le Secteur Touristique; Statistiques [année]:

•     Mouvements des passagers internationaux: entrants et sortants par voie de transport et poste frontière
•  Saisonnalité des mouvements des passagers internationaux: entrants et sortants
•  Sorties des nationaux et des résidents étrangers au Maroc par poste frontière

52

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

•  Evolution de la saisonnalité des sorties à l’étranger des nationaux et des résidents étrangers au Maroc
•  Evolution des arrivées des non-résidents par poste frontière
•  Saisonnalité des arrivées des non-résidents par type de visiteurs (tourisme récepteur, Marocains résident 

à l’étranger, croisiéristes)

•  Saisonnalité des arrivées des résidents Marocains à l’étranger
•  Evolution par nationalité des arrivées des croisiéristes
•  Arrivées des non-résidents par poste frontière
•  Evolution des arrivées de touristes étrangers de séjour par poste frontière
•  Evolution des arrivées de touristes étrangers par nationalité et par voie
•  Saisonnalité des arrivées des touristes étrangers de séjour par mode de transport

8.4.5 - Syria
•  Central Bureau of Statistics, Annual Statistical Abstract:

•  Arab arrivals by nationality 
•  Foreign arrivals by nationality
•  Arab arrivals by nationality and means of transport 
•  Foreign arrivals by nationality and means of transport
•  Arrivals ( Arab and Foreigners ) by centres & months 
•  Estimates of arrivals (Arab and Foreigners ) by visiting cause and nationality 
•  Arab guests by nationality 
•  Foreign guests by nationality
•  Arab guests by nationality and hotels class 
•  Foreign guests by nationality and hotels class
•  Arab guests by months and Mohafazat 
•  Foreign guest by months and Mohafazat 
•  Syrian guest by months and Mohafazat
•  Nights spent by Arab and Foreign guests by hotel class 
•  Nights spent by Arab guests by nationality 
•  Nights spent by foreign guests by nationality
•  Nights spent by Arab guests by nationality and hotel class
•  Nights spent by foreign guests by nationality and hotel class
•  Nights spent by (Arabs – foreigners – Syrians) guests by hotel class and Mohafazat
•  Nights spent by Arab guests by hotel class, Mohafazat
•  Nights spent by foreign guests by hotel class , Mohafazat
•  Nights spent by Syrian guests by hotel class , Mohafazat
•  Nights spent by Arab guests by months and Mohafazat
•  Nights spent by foreign guests by months and Mohafazat
•  Nights spent by Syrian guests by months and Mohafazat
•  Syrian departures to Arab countries by visa and destination 
•  Syrian departures to foreign countries by visa and destination 
•  Nights spent by Arab guests by nationality and hotel class 

8.4.6 - Tunisia
• 

Institut National de la Statistique, Annuaire Statistique de la Tunisie: 
•  Entrées des voyageurs non-résidents par nationalité et par mois
•  Entrées des voyageurs non-résidents par nationalité, par mois et par voie de transport
•  Entrées des voyageurs par statut de résidence (résident, non-résident) et nationalité
•  Evolution des entrées des voyageurs non-résidents par voie de transport et porte frontière
•  Sorties des voyageurs non-résidents par nationalité et par mois
•  Sorties des voyageurs non-résidents par nationalité, par mois et par voie de transport
•  Sorties des voyageurs non-résidents par voie de transport et poste frontière
•  Sorties des voyageurs par statut de résidence (résident, non-résident) et nationalité
•  Entrées des Tunisiens par voie de transport et poste frontière

53

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

•  Sorties des Tunisiens par pays de destination et par voie de transport
•  Mouvement des croisières maritimes par nationalité par port d’entrée

•  Ministère du Tourisme, des Loisirs et de l’Artisanat ; Ofﬁ ce National du Tourisme Tunisien, Le Tourisme 

Tunisien en Chiffres [année]: 
•  Entrées des non-résidents par nationalité
•  Entrées des non-résidents par nationalité et par mois
•  Entrées des non-résidents par nationalité et par saison touristique
•  Entrées des non-résidents par saison touristique
•  Entrées des non-résidents par nationalité et par moyen de transport
•  Entrées mensuelles des non-résidents par mode de transport
•  Entrées des scandinaves par nationalité
•  Entrées de moyen-orientaux par nationalité
•  Entrées mensuelles des scandinaves
•  Entrées mensuelles de moyen-orientaux
•  Mouvements des Tunisiens
•  Sorties des Tunisiens par pays de destination et par mode de transport
•  Sortie des Tunisiens par mois et par moyen de transport
•  Sorties mensuelles des résidents par moyen de transport

54

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

8.5 - UN recommendations on international migration statistics: deﬁ nitions of the categories included in the 
revised taxonomy of international outﬂ ows according to entry status established by receiving state

A.  Categories of transients not relevant for international migration

1.  Citizens departing as border workers ‡ Foreign border workers: Foreign persons granted the permis-
sion to be employed on a continuous basis in the receiving country provided they depart at regular and 
short intervals (daily or weekly) from that country.

2. 

(a)  Citizens in transit: Persons who arrive in their own country but do not enter it formally because 

they are on their way to another destination.

(b)  Foreigners in transit: Foreign persons who arrive in the receiving country but do not enter it for-

mally because they are on their way to another destination.

B.  Categories relevant for international tourism

3.  Citizens departing as excursionists ‡ Foreign excursionists (also called ‘same-day visitors’): Foreign 
persons who visit the receiving country for a day without spending the night in a collective or private 
accommodation within the country visited. This category includes cruise passengers who arrive in a 
country on a cruise ship and return to the ship each night to sleep on board as well as crew members 
who do not spend the night in the country. It also includes residents of border areas who visit the neigh-
bouring country during the day to shop, visit friends or relatives, seek medical treatment or participate 
in leisure activities.

4.  Citizens  departing  as  tourists  ‡  Foreign  tourists:  Foreign  persons  admitted  under  tourist  visas  (if 
required) for purposes of leisure, recreation, holiday, visits to friends and relatives, health or medical 
treatment, or religious pilgrimage. They must spend at least a night in a collective or private accom-
modation in the receiving country and their duration of stay must not surpass 12 months.

5.  Citizens departing as business travellers ‡ Foreign business travellers: Foreign persons granted the 
permission to engage in business or professional activities that are not remunerated from within the 
country of arrival. Their length of stay is restricted and cannot surpass 12 months.

C.  Categories traditionally excluded from international migration statistics

6.  Citizens departing with the status of diplomatic or consular personnel or as dependants and employees 
of that personnel ‡ Foreign diplomatic and consular personnel plus their dependants and employees: 
Foreigners admitted under diplomatic visas or permits. Their dependants and domestic employees, if 
admitted, are also included in this category.

7.  Citizens departing with the status of military personnel or as dependants or employees of that person-
nel ‡ Foreign military personnel plus their dependants and employees: A category encompassing all 
foreign military servicemen, ofﬁ cials and advisers together with their dependants and domestic em-
ployees stationed in the country of arrival for a limited period.

8.  Nomads: Persons without a ﬁ xed place of residence who move from one site to another, generally ac-
cording to well-established patterns of territorial mobility. When their trajectory involves crossing cur-
rent international boundaries they become part of the international ﬂ ows of people. Some nomads may 
be stateless persons because, lacking a ﬁ xed place of residence, they may not be recognised as citizens 
by any of the countries through which they pass.

D.  Categories relevant for the compilation of international migration statistics

9.  Citizens departing to study abroad ‡ Foreign students: Foreigners admitted under special permits or 
visas allowing them to undertake a speciﬁ c course of study in an accredited institution of the receiving 
country. If their dependants are admitted, they are also included in this category.

10.  Citizens departing to be trained abroad ‡ Foreign trainees: Foreigners admitted under special permits 
or visas allowing them to undertake training that is remunerated from within the receiving country. If 
their dependants are admitted, they are also included in this category.

55

 
MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

11.  Citizens departing to work abroad ‡ Foreign migrant workers: Foreigners admitted by the receiving 
State for the speciﬁ c purpose of exercising an economic activity remunerated from within the receiv-
ing country. Their length of stay is usually restricted as is the type of employment they can hold. Their 
dependants, if admitted, are also included in this category.

12.  Citizens  departing  to  work  for  an  international  organisation  abroad  ‡  Foreigners  admitted  as  in-
ternational civil servants: Foreigners admitted under special visas or residence permits as employees 
of international organisations located in the territory of the receiving country. If their dependants and 
employees are admitted, they are also included in this category.

13.  Citizens departing to exercise their right to free establishment ‡ Foreigners having the right of free es-
tablishment: Foreign persons who have the right to establish residence in the receiving country because 
of special treaties or agreements between their country of citizenship and the receiving country. Their 
dependants, if admitted, are included in this category.

14.  Citizens departing to settle abroad ‡ Foreigners admitted for settlement: Foreign persons granted the 
permission to reside in the receiving country without limitations regarding duration of stay or exercise 
of an economic activity. Their dependants, if admitted, are also included in this category.

15.  Citizens  departing  to  form  a  family  or  join  immediate  relatives  abroad  ‡  Foreigners  admitted  for 
family formation or reuniﬁ cation: This category includes the foreign ﬁ ancé(e)s and foreign adopted 
children of citizens, the foreign ﬁ ancé(e)s of other foreigners already residing in the receiving country, 
and all foreign persons allowed to join their immediate relatives already established in the receiving 
country.

16.  Citizens departing to seek asylum ‡ Refugees: Foreign persons granted refugee status either at the time 
of admission or before admission. This category therefore includes foreign persons granted refugee sta-
tus while abroad and entering to be resettled in the receiving country as well as persons granted refugee 
status on a group basis upon arrival in the country. In some cases, refugee status may be granted when 
the persons involved are still in their country of origin through ‘in-country processing’ of requests for 
asylum. Refugee status may be granted on the basis of the 1951 Conventiona relating to the Status of 
Refugees and the 1967 Protocolb, other pertinent regional instruments, or humanitarian considerations.

E.  Other categories relevant for the measurement of international migration but encompassing persons whose 

duration of stay in the receiving country is uncertain

17.  Citizens departing to seek asylum ‡ Foreigners seeking asylum: A category that encompasses both 
persons who are eventually allowed to ﬁ le an application for asylum (asylum-seekers proper) and those 
who do not enter the asylum adjudication system formally but are nevertheless granted the permission 
to stay until they can return safely to their countries of origin (in other words, foreigners granted tem-
porary protected status).

18.  Citizens departing without the admission documents required by the country of destination ‡ Foreign-
ers whose entry or stay is not sanctioned: This category includes foreigners who violate the rules of 
admission of the receiving country and are deportable, as well as foreign persons attempting to seek 
asylum but who are not allowed to ﬁ le an application and are not permitted to stay in the receiving 
country on any other grounds.

a  United Nations, 1957, Treaty Series, vol. 189, No. 2545.
b  Ibid., 1967, vol. 606, No. 8791.

Source: United Nations, 1998, pp. 13-15. 
© copyright 1998 United Nations. Reprinted with permission.

56

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

8.6 - Recommendations on tourism statistics: deﬁ nitions and classiﬁ cations 8

37.  For statistical purposes, the term ‘international same-day visitor’ describes an international visitor 
who does not spend the night in a collective or private accommodation in the country visited. This 
deﬁ nition includes:
(a)  Cruise passengers who arrive in a country on a cruise ship and return to the ship each night to 
sleep on board even though the ship remains in port for several days. Also included in this group 
are, by extension, owners or passengers of yachts and passengers on a group tour accommodated 
in a train;

(b)  Crew members who do not spend the night in the country of destination; this group also includes 
crews of warships on a courtesy visit to a port in the country of destination, and who spend the 
night on board ship and rot at the destination.

45.  [Regarding classiﬁ cation of purpose of visit:] For information and guidance to countries, the following 

types of activities are included under each of the major groups:
1.  Leisure, recreation and holidays: sight-seeing, shopping, attending sporting and cultural events, 
recreation and cultural activities, non-professional active sports, trekking and mountaineering, use 
of beaches, cruises, gambling, rest and recreation for armed forces, summer camp, honeymooning, 
etc.;

2.  Visiting friends and relatives: visits to relatives or friends, home leave, attending funerals, care of 

invalids;

3.  Business and professional: installing equipment, inspection, purchases, sales for foreign enterpris-
es; attending meetings, conferences or congresses, trade fairs and exhibitions; employer incentive 
tours; giving lectures or concerts; programming tourist travel, contracting of accommodation and 
transport, working as guides and other tourism professionals; participation in professional sports 
activities; government missions: including diplomatic, military or international organisation per-
sonnel, except when stationed on duty in the country visited; paid study, education and research, 
such as university sabbatical leave; language, professional or other special courses in connection 
with and supported by visitor’s business or profession;

4 .  Health treatment: spas, ﬁ tness, thalasso-therapy, health resorts and other treatments and cures;
5.  Religion/pilgrimages: attending religious events, pilgrimages;
6.  Other: aircraft and ship crews on public carriers, transit and other or unknown activities.

62.  […] Standard classiﬁ cation of means of transport:

Major groups 

1.  Air 

2.  Waterway 

3.  Land 

Minor groups

1.1.  Scheduled ﬂ ights
1.2.  Non-scheduled ﬂ ights
1.3.  Other services
2.1.  Passenger lines and ferries
2.2.  Cruise
2.3.  Other
3. 1. Railway
3.2.  Motor coach or bus and other public road transport

3.2.1. Scheduled (e.g., regular services) 9
3.2.2. Non-scheduled (e.g., touring) 10 

3.3.  Private vehicles (with capacity for up to eight persons)
3.4.  Vehicle rental
3.5.  Other means of land transport

 Source is UN/WTO, 1994, unless otherwise stated. The paragraph numbers refer to those in the text of the UN/WTO recommendations.
 Eurostat, 1998, p.54.

8 
9 
10   Ibid.

57

  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

75.  […] Standard classiﬁ cation of tourism accommodation

Major groups 

Minor groups 

Unit groups

1.  Collective tourism  1.1.  Hotels and similar 

establishments 

establishments 

1.2.  Specialised establishments 

1.1.1. Hotels
1.1.2. Similar establishments
1.2.1. Health establishments
1.2.2. Work and holiday camps
1.2.3. Public means of transport
1.2.4. Conference centres
1.3.  Other collective establishments 1.3.1. Holiday dwellings
1.3.2. Tourist campsites
1.3.3. Other collective establishments

2.  Private tourism 
accommodation 

2. 1. Private tourism 
accommodation 

2.1.1. Owned dwellings
2.1.2. Rented rooms in family homes
2.1.3. Dwellings rented from private 
  individuals or professional 
  agencies

2.1.4. Accommodation provided

without charge by relatives or friends

2.1.5. Other private accommodation

Deﬁ nitions and descriptions of the various types of establishments are given in UN/WTO, 1994, pp.16-17.

Source: UN/WTO, 1994.

58

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

8.7 - Pilot border cards

8.7.1 - Jordan

1 Entry Post

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

Ministry of Interior
Public Security

ENTRY CARD

Full name:

Sex:

1- Male

2- Female

Date of birth:

Day

Mont
h

Year

Country of birth:

Nationality:

Country of current
residence :

Occupation:

Passport No.

Date of issue :

Day

Mont
h

Year

No. of accompanied persons :

Coming from:

Purpose of
visit:

1- Tourism

5- Study

2- Visiting
relatives
6- Treatment

3- Business/
Conference
7- Transit

4- Work

8- Other

Intended duration of
stay:

Less than
24 hours

Days

Months

Years

59

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

2 Exit Post

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

Ministry of Interior

Public Security

DEPARTURE CARD

Full name:

Sex:

1- Male

2- Female

Date of birth:

Day

Mont
h

Year

Country of birth:

Nationality:

Country of current
residence :

Occupation:

Passport No.

Date of issue :

Day

Mont
h

Year

No. of accompanied persons :

Going to:

FOR RESIDENTS ONLY

Purpose of
travelling:

1- Tourism

5- Study

2- Visiting
relatives
6- Health

treatment

3- Business/
Conference
7- Permanent
return

4- Work

8- Other

For how long you
intend to stay

Days Month

Years

s

60

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

8.7.2 - Morocco

61

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

62

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

8.7.3 - Syria

63

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

8.8 - Adapted cards

8.8.1 - Algeria

Departure card (comparable card for arrivals)

64

 
MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

8.8.2 - Lebanon

65

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

66

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

8.8.3 - Syria

67

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

8.8.4 - Morocco (proposal under discussion)

68

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

8.9 - Recommendations: tabulations

8.9.1 - UN Recommandations for tables on international migration 11

Immigration

1.  Number of incoming migrants by sex and country of citizenship
2.  Number of incoming migrants by sex and country of birth
3.  Number of incoming migrants by sex and previous country of usual residence
4.  Number of incoming migrants by sex, age group and country of citizenship
5.  Number of incoming migrants by sex, age group and country of birth
6.  Number of incoming migrants by sex, age group and previous country of usual residence
9.  Number of incoming migrants by sex, single calendar year of birth and citizenship (citizens/foreigners)
12.  Number of incoming migrants by sex, citizenship (citizens/foreigners) and expected location of usual resi-

dence in the receiving country 12

15.  Number of returning citizens by sex, age group and previous country of usual residence
25.  Foreigners by sex, age group and duration of validity of current visa or permit 13
26.  Foreigners by sex, age group and type of visa or permit 14
27.  Foreigners by sex, age group, country of citizenship and type of visa or permit 15
28.  Foreigners by sex, age group, country of citizenship and duration of validity of current visa or permit 16

Emigration

1.  Number of departing migrants by sex and country of citizenship
2.  Number of departing migrants by sex and country of birth
3.  Number of departing migrants by sex and future country of usual residence 17
4.  Number of departing migrants by sex, age group and country of citizenship
5.  Number of departing migrants by sex, age group and country of birth
6.  Number of departing migrants by sex, age group and future country of usual residence
9.  Number of departing migrants by sex, single calendar year of birth and citizenship (citizens/foreigners)
12.  Number of departing migrants by sex, citizenship (citizens/foreigners) and location of place of usual resi-

dence in country of departure 18

14.  Number of emigrating citizens by sex, age group and future country of usual residence
15.  Number of emigrating citizens by sex, age group and purpose of stay abroad
16.  Number of emigrating citizens by sex, age group and intended duration of stay abroad
17.  Number of emigrating citizens by sex, future country of usual residence and purpose of stay abroad
18.  Number  of  emigrating  citizens  by  sex,  future  country  of  usual  residence  and  intended  duration  of  stay 

abroad

19.  Number of emigrating citizens by sex, purpose of stay abroad and intended duration of stay abroad
31.  Foreigners departing by sex, age group and expiration date of current visa or permit
32.  Foreigners departing by sex, age group, country of citizenship and type of visa or permit
33.  Foreigners departing by sex, age group, country of citizenship and expiration date of current visa or permit

11  Source: United Nations, 1998, pp. 72-75. High priority tables, according to the UN recommendations, are printed in bold face, low priority tables  

in italics. Numbering of tables corresponds to the UN-list of recommended tables.

12  If the card includes a question on ‘address in the receiving country’, the table may be approximated.
13  Or: intended duration of stay.
14  Or: purpose of stay.
15  Or: purpose of stay.
16  Or: intended duration of stay.
17  Future country of usual residence: may only be roughly approximated, based on the question on destination.
18  If the card includes a question on ‘address in the country of departure’.

69

MEDSTAT/MED-Migr

8.9.2 - Tables for Eurostat data base 19

Table 1 

Major categories of inﬂ ows and outﬂ ows

Var 1: 
Var 2: 

movement (departure, arrival)
types 20 (various categories)

Table 2 

Long-term immigration by country of last residence and sex

Var 1: 
Var 2: 

sex (both sexes, males, females)
country of last residence (all country detail)

Table 3a 

Long-term immigration by citizenship and age - Both sexes

Var 1: 

Var 2: 

age (Total, 0-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, 40-44, 45-49, 50-54, 55-59, 60-64, 
65-69, 70-74, 75-79, 80-84, 85+, 65+)
citizenship (all country detail)

Table 3b 

Long-term immigration by citizenship and age - Males

Var 1: 

Var 2: 

age (Total, 0-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, 40-44, 45-49, 50-54, 55-59, 60-64, 
65-69, 70-74, 75-79, 80-84, 85+, 65+)
citizenship (all country detail)

Table 3c 

Long-term immigration by citizenship and age - Females

Var 1: 

Var 2: 

age (Total, 0-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, 40-44, 45-49, 50-54, 55-59, 60-64, 
65-69, 70-74, 75-79, 80-84, 85+, 65+)
citizenship (all country detail)

Table 4 

Long-term emigration by country of next residence 21  and sex

Var 1: 
Var 2: 

sex (both sexes, males, females)
country of next residence (all country detail)

Table 5a 

Long-term emigration by citizenship and age - Both sexes

Var 1: 

Var 2: 

age (Total, 0-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, 40-44, 45-49, 50-54, 55-59, 60-64, 
65-69, 70-74, 75-79, 80-84, 85+, 65+)
citizenship (all country detail)

Table 5b 

Long-term emigration by citizenship and age - Males

Var 1: 

Var 2: 

age (Total, 0-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, 40-44, 45-49, 50-54, 55-59, 60-64, 
65-69, 70-74, 75-79, 80-84, 85+, 65+)
citizenship (all country detail)

Table 5c 

Long-term emigration by citizenship and age - Females

Var 1: 

Var 2: 

age (Total, 0-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, 40-44, 45-49, 50-54, 55-59, 60-64, 
65-69, 70-74, 75-79, 80-84, 85+, 65+)
citizenship (all country detail)

19 

  Numbering of tables corresponds to Eurostat’s regular questionnaires to countries supplying data.

20   For a deﬁ nition of the categories included in this table see Table 3.1.
21   Future country of usual residence: may only be roughly approximated, based on the question on destination.

70