On behalf of the European Commission DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Social Impact of Emigration and Rural-Urban Migration in Central and Eastern Europe Final Country Report Lithuania April 2012 Authors: Dovilė Krupickaitė Arūnas Poviliūnas Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission may be held responsible for the use that may be made of the information contained in this publication. Social Impact of Emigration and Rural-Urban Migration in Central and Eastern Europe VT/2010/001 Content 1. Socio-Economic and Political Overview ............................................................................. 3 2. Main emigration and internal migration trends and patterns............................................... 5 2.1. Main emigration trends................................................................................................ 5 2.2. Main internal migration trends ..................................................................................... 8 2.3. Main characteristics of migrants .................................................................................. 9 3. Nation-wide labour market and social development trends under the influence of emigration ............................................................................................................................10 3.1. Economic and labour market developments ...............................................................10 3.2. Social security ............................................................................................................14 3.3. Poverty and Social Exclusion .....................................................................................15 4. Labour market and social development trends in net migration loss / gain regions ...........16 4.1. Identification of net migration loss / gain regions ........................................................16 4.2. Labour market development in net migration loss regions ..........................................20 4.3. Poverty and social exclusion in net migration loss regions .........................................21 5. Impact of migration on vulnerable groups .........................................................................22 5.1. Children .....................................................................................................................22 5.2. Roma .........................................................................................................................23 6. Policy responses ..............................................................................................................25 6.1. Encouragement of circular migration ..........................................................................25 6.2. Encouragement of return migration and support of integration of returnees ...............25 6.4. Development of net migration loss/gain regions (incl. assessment of SF use) ...........27 6.5. Support to vulnerable groups related to migration (incl. assessment of SF use) ........29 6.6. Best practice examples of policy responses ...............................................................30 7. Key challenges and policy suggestions ............................................................................30 7.1. Key challenges of the social impact of emigration and internal migration ...................30 7.2. Policies to be taken by different actors (national, regional, local governments, Diaspora, EU, host countries’ institutions) .........................................................................31 List of References ................................................................................................................33 Other data sources and websites: ........................................................................................41 Annexes ...............................................................................................................................43 Annex 1. Relevant data sources and empirical studies on migration .................................43 Annex 2. Tables and Figures ............................................................................................45 Final Country Report Lithuania 2 Social Impact of Emigration and Rural-Urban Migration in Central and Eastern Europe VT/2010/001 1. Socio-Economic and Political Overview Lithuania is a relatively small country on the south-eastern shore of the Baltic Sea with an area of 65,200 sq km and with an estimated population of 3.05 million as of 2011. The biggest part of the population is composed of Lithuanians (83.9%); other important ethnic groups are Poles (6.6%), Russians (5.4%) and Belarusians (1.3%) (Statistics Lithuania, 2011b, p. 31). Lithuania has a three-tier division: the country is divided into 10 counties (apskritis, NUTS-3), which are territorial and statistical units without administrative function (Fig. 1.1), 60 municipalities of three types: municipalities and district / town municipalities (savivaldybė, rajono / miesto savivaldybė, LAU-1) which consist of over 500 elderships (seniūnija, LAU-2), the smallest administrative division of Lithuania. An eldership can either be a very small area consisting of few villages, a single town or a part of a big city. In order to understand national emigration patterns since 1990 it is useful to differentiate between the main political developments and socioeconomic processes. The main political developments which have influenced migration processes in the period of 1990-2010 were as follows: 1. The social and political movement which started in Lithuania after the introduction of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring) culminated on March 11, 1990 when after the first free and democratic parliamentary elections in February 1990 the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania has declared the Reestablishment of Lithuanian Independence. An important factor was the citizenship: according to the Law on Citizenship enacted on 5 December 1991, all persons who were habitually resident in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania and were not citizens of any other state, could become citizens of Lithuania on the day of coming into force of the Law on Citizenship enacted on 3 November 1989. The part of population which did not recognise the new status of Lithuania and did not want to accept Lithuanian citizenship left the country. This part of the population moved to the CIS countries. Therefore, at the beginning of the 90s, the majority of emigrants included national minorities leaving Lithuania (Russians, Byelorussians, Ukrainians, Jews, etc.) (Stankūnienė, 1995a, p. 135). 2. Another important political event which has influenced migration flows was the integration of Lithuania into the European Union. In May 2003 a referendum on the accession to the EU was held in Lithuania. 91.07% of those who participated in the referendum were in favour of the EU membership. On 1 May 2004 Lithuania became an EU Member State along with nine other states. After Lithuania’s successful adjustment of its national information system and completion of the preparatory tasks on 21 December 2007 Lithuania became a member of the Schengen area. As a result, the internal land and sea border control have been abolished. Air border control has been removed in March 2008. The main socioeconomic processes that have influenced emigration processes between in 1990 and 2010 were as follows: 1. The restructuring of the industry in Lithuania took place in the period from 1990 to 1994. Until the 1990s, industrial production was based on large state-owned enterprises which were integral parts of the Soviet economy. The former USSR countries, the majority of which became members of the CIS, were the main economic partners of Lithuania (Table 1.1). Due to structural changes from 1990 to 1994, the industrial production has decreased 5 times and in 1994 it amounted to only 21% of the level of 1990 (Table 1.2). The fall of industrial production was an important macroeconomic factor which has promoted migration from urban to rural areas. 2. The Lithuanian economy, as a former part of the Soviet economy, was integrated into the Soviet economic space. The level of integration and the steps of separation of the Lithuanian economy are reflected in data presented in the Tables 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5. In 1991 56.5% of exports were directed to Russia and 49.6% of imports came from Russia. In 1990 the main export good was food which constituted 37.6% of total exports. The Final Country Report Lithuania 3 Social Impact of Emigration and Rural-Urban Migration in Central and Eastern Europe VT/2010/001 food production is tightly linked with commodity agriculture (Statistics Lithuania, 1991, p. 207). Insofar as the Lithuanian economy was strongly linked with the Russian economy, the decline of the Lithuanian economy after the Russian economic crisis in 1998 (decrease of income of households and increase of unemployment) has forced economic emigration. It is important to stress that this flow of emigration resulted into the formation of numerous communities of migrants that later became one of the pull factors of migration. According to experts, these flows have changed the cultural interpretation of migration behaviour and have legitimized it. Furthermore first migration networks based on bonding social capital have been established and played an important role after Lithuania has joined the EU (Maslauskaitė, Stankūnienė, 2007, pp. 187-188). After the Russian