Irina Prybitkova Doctor of economical sciences, professor, Director of Center on research of population of Ukraine under "The Kyiv-Mohyla Academy" Resettlement, adaptation and integration of formerly deported Crimean Tatars in Crimea (July of 2000)

In 1999-2000's, with support of the Representation Office of the UNHCR in Ukraine, we monitored the legal and humanitarian problems of re-integration of the formerly deported peoples and persons in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Within this project, a sociological examination of Crimean Tatars was made with the aim of studying public opinion, estimations and opinions of repatriates about the most important and acute problems of resettlement, adaptation and integration in Crimea.¹ We would like to familiarize the reader of this bulletin with some of them.

The level of life and self-estimation of repatriates

Life’s burdens that resulted from necessity of resettlement in Crimea and adaptation to the complicated conditions of the economic crisis could not but influence the attitude of repatriates and their estimation of their new lives. About half of the respondents (45, 5%) speak about the significant deterioration of their life during the last 5 years, and yet one out four (26, 1%) note some deterioration. There were no changes noted in the lives of one out of five, in whose opinion there was no improvement. The number of those, who consider changes as positive, is small: only 2, 3% of them note significant improvement of their life and another 6, 2% note some positive changes.

How do the repatriates value their vital prospects? As a whole they can conditionally be divided into three groups of almost equal numbers, who include: 26, 9 % of the participants in the survey expect some improvement in the level of their life during the next five years; 26,5 % of interrogated persons assess their vital prospects as stable, without shocks and changes; 28.5 % expect deterioration of their living standards in the near future. Only a few respondents expect a significant improvement in the level of life during the next five years, - only 2, 6%. And here 8, 9 % of the respondents expect its appreciable deterioration.

In general it is possible to define the expectations of repatriates as follows: they prepare for the worst, however expect for best. This philosophical position is constantly nourished by the repatriates’ daily practice of a survival in the difficult conditions of the pervasive all-Ukrainian economic crisis and political machinations in Crimea. During the last year, the repatriates repeatedly got into stressful situations. More than half of the participants in the survey (54,8 %) more than once experienced the moments, when they did not have money to purchase the most necessary products. No less burdensome for them was forfeiting hope for change of life for the better (28.7 %). If we take into account, that 13,2 % of the respondents suffered during the last year a disappointment with the leadership when faced with their meanness and treachery, and 9,0% lost confidence in their own ability, it will appear that more than half the people whom we interrogated were in this situation of psychological stress.

A seventh participant of the survey (13,6 %) over the past year suffered heavy illness, and a tenth (9,6 %) lost work. One eighth of the respondents (12,1 %) suffered from an arbitrariness of authorities, and 2,1 % of the interrogated persons became a victim of crime.

In 2000 in comparison with the previous year, the situation was significantly improved. The participants in the survey complained less about the burdens of life and psychological stresses, which accompanied a process of their resettlement and adaptation in Crimea. They seldom got into difficult economic conditions, fewer became ill or faced arbitrariness of the authorities, and they seldom lost jobs, or suffered from crimes and conflict with their surroundings. Currently, there are fewer persons, who regret their moving to Crimea in 1999, their number was 28, 9%, and in 2000 - already 22, 4%.

The respondents’ doubts about the correctness of their choice are caused mainly by the difficult economic conditions of the life of repatriates: about which was indicated by 17, 6% of the people we interrogated. The second reason, that nourished the feeling of a regret about their decision, is a bitterness over their being segregated, militancy and marginalization: 11, 1 % of the respondents suffer because, they remained alone with their problems and help is not coming from anywhere. Much less often they regret about moving in Crimea, because of the complexities of psychological adaptation to new conditions of life on the peninsula (1,7 %) and because of the impossibility of moving to Crimea of their relatives (1,5 %).

Repatriates understand, that they returned to Crimea during a difficult time in which the majority of people living in Crimea also suffer difficulties. The poverty, unemployment and uncertainty of prospects are not only the destiny of the formerly deported. Namely, the problems that the respondents name are among the sharpest, painful and urgent for all inhabitants of a peninsula. The respondents give paramount importance to questions of employment of the population (88,3 % of votes). Amongst the number of acute problems the respondents refer to the poverty of the inhabitants of Crimea (70,9 % of votes). Making things worse, in opinion of the participants in the survey, is the lack of social protection of the unemployed, poor and other persons in need of help (34,6 %). Almost as many respondents (32,8%) voiced their support for wider access of the population of the peninsula to services of free-of-charge medicine. A quarter of the interrogated persons (25,2 %) named among unsolved problems a housing issue. The respondents give less importance to other questions, though their presence in the list of common significant problems already shows their relevance. Almost a tenth of the participant in the survey (9,1%) name corruption and bribes, fairly believing, that they are a great social evil, to get rid of which as soon as possible is necessary. The respondents are equally disturbed by the problem of education for the inhabitants of the peninsula (7,8%) and the increasing social stratification of the population of Crimea (7,6%). Although inter-ethnic relations, in their opinion have some significance this threat to peaceful development is mentioned by few respondents (4,9% of votes). The respondents mention the criminal situation on the peninsula in last place (3,7% of votes). They recognize that it is necessary to struggle with criminality, however, first of all, it is necessary to liquidate unemployment and to eliminate poverty, from which all the population of Crimea suffer.

In addition to the previously mentioned general problems, which are equally important for all inhabitants of Crimea, the for formerly deported face others urgent problems which are significant only to them. And respondents consider them in a degree of importance measured on a different scale. As the main problems of reintegration, the formerly deported people in Crimea consider a lack of job and poverty. This importance is shown by it having 79,9 % and 58,7 % of votes. After them the respondents name a lack of housing (38,5% of interrogated persons) and statelessness (25,6 % ).²

The participants in the survey listed the main troubles in the same order in 1999. To this list they added in 2000 one more problem: the participation in the privatization and land allotment program, to which a ninth of interrogated persons (11,1 %) gave importance. The respondents mention this issue as well in connection with the violation of their rights because of lack of permission for residence and citizenship, stressing an urgency of the property interests and land question by their high rating in the survey (second and fourth choices).

Not less important for resettlement of repatriates is providing to the places of their residence improved transport and engineering communications. A tenth of the respondents (10,5%), fairly believes that the lack of a transport infrastructure and municipal services in places of settlement of formerly deported people transforms their daily life into a continuous feat of survival.

Repatriates still consider reunification with their family who remained in the country of former residence to be a problem (8,5%); a threat of inter-ethnic conflict disturbs them rather seldom (4,3%), evidently this is not considered an acute problem; in some cases, (2,8 %) of respondents suffer deficiency of the necessary information.

The main reason for their being two different perceptions in the respondents’ opinions is the government’s lack of assistance in resettlement of formerly deported peoples in Crimea. Two thirds of participants in the survey (67.6 %) have such opinion. A third of the persons (29.2 %) are inclined to see the cause of the troubles in the passivity of Mejlis, and almost a fifth (18,6%) considers that a reason is the violation of the rights of formerly deported peoples in Crimea. More infrequently the respondents connect their disastrous position with insufficient humanitarian help from the International organizations, and very rarely they explain the non-solution of their vital problems by own low activity (8,4% and 4,1% of votes accordingly).

Not all participants in the survey could name the reasons for those problems, which they face practically daily after returning to the historical Native Land. As a whole, a seventh (15,3%) avoided to give an answer on the poignant question: who is guilty? But on another, on a less traditional question: what to do, and, first of all, how? - almost everybody answered, except for 4,2 % of the interrogated persons.

It is necessary to solve the problems. All of interrogated persons think so. However, they rate the priorities differently. More than half of participants in the survey (52,3%) believe, that formerly deported people should be given more attention because they are the least socially defended and the financially poorest inhabitants of Crimea. A third of persons think of an equitable resolution of problems, considering, that the problems of formerly deported people should be solved on the same level and simultaneously with problems of all inhabitants of Crimea. A seventh of the respondents (13,4 %), being themselves a sample of a healthy pragmatism and high diplomacy, propose to use the balanced approach to the solution of problems of repatriates taking into account features of each district.

Contrasting the life of formerly deported people, we must mention the standards of life of the repatriates in Crimea, amongst which are the sizes and structure of their incomes , employment and unemployment, housing conditions , the characteristics and structure of the property and a personal garden plot.

The incomes and garden plot of repatriates

The level of life is defined by many factors, of which the most important are the incomes of people, - more correctly their sizes. The basic sources of the incomes of repatriates as well as in previous years, are pension (43.3 %), income from garden plots (40,9%), casual earnings (37,1%), and, at last, wages (33,3%). They are supplemented by family allowances (8,1%) and unemployment benefits (2,6%). Shuttle trips and the seasonal works outside the Crimea bring the dividends only to a few participants on the survey, about which were indicated 2,1% and 1,1% of the interrogated persons respectively. An even smaller share of the respondents are receiving a material support as social help and grants: totally they constituted 1,8% of a number of interrogated persons.

As they say, no comments. Such structure of incomes can exist only in a very poor society. Only 33,3% of the participants in the survey have paid work, and 43,3 % of their number are retirees, or have them in the family. If the pension forms a basis of financial well-being of family then their view of their position in society can only be painted extremely in gloomy tone. The monthly average aggregate pecuniary income of the family of formerly deported people constituted in June, 2000, 131,7 UAH and monthly average income of one member of family - 31,3 UAH. For comparison, in 1997, monthly average income of one member of family constituted 26,4 UAH.

The level of life is defined not only by sizes and structure of the incomes, but also by a structure of consumption. Based on the expenditure for food it is possible to judge the level of prosperity of a family. Poverty of formerly deported people alongside with unemployment - are the main problems of their reintegration in Crimea. Up to half of aggregate income is spent for food according to 5% of the participants in the survey, and from half up to three quarters is spent by 6,3%. More than three quarters of the aggregate income is spent for a food by a ninth of the respondents (11,7%). Others use actually all financial receptions in the budget of family on acquiring of food products. Let's remind ourselves, that more than half of the respondents (54,8%) for last year appeared in a situation, when they did not have money to purchase the most necessary products. Let's notice also, that the size of expenses on a food is defined not only by size of a family purse, but also by culture of a food, tradition, individual favours, heritable and acquired diseases and number of other factors of uneconomic character.

The analysis of incomes from a personal private garden plot of a Crimean Tatar family will allow us to specify ideas on its level of well-being (or poverty). Let's remind ourselves, that this is a second source of financial resources in the family budget. Their share constitutes up to the one fourth of the general income of a family in 34,9% of private farms, and from one fourth to half - only in 8,5%. The number of families, in which the incomes of a personal subsidiary farm form from half to three quarters of the family budget, is very insignificant (3,1%). Only in 2,1% of the families does the financial income from personal plot constitute more than three quarters of their joint income. Truly poor are 6,3% of families, whose financial basis completely depends on the profit received in a personal private garden plot. Let's notice that almost a fourth of the respondents (23,3%) avoided to give an answer on the sizes of financial income from personal plots either because of ignorance, or from unwillingness to open the information on the incomes.

The respondents value their material status as follows: two thirds of participants in the survey (66,8%) refer to themselves as poor, and a third of them (30,3%) - as people of an average prosperity. NO respondent considers himself as very well-to-do.

Unemployment and poverty constrain significant number of repatriates to work on personal plots in a form of subsistence agriculture, making for themselves all most necessary food products.

Let's address the figures. Three quarters of Crimean Tatar families (75,5%) have a land lot, and the average size of personal plot constitutes 8,5 hundredth part of a hectare.³ A fourth of the families manage on a land lot with a size from 6 to 10 hundredth part of a hectare.

The land holdings, with sizes exceeding 10 hundredth part are used by a fifth (19,2%) of Crimean Tatar families. The land lots used by 42.7 of the families were privatized. Only 8,8% of the respondents (each eleventh) took part in the land allotment program. On almost a fourth of the private farms (22,0 %) they hold cattle, and on a twelfth (8,3 %) - sheep and goats, and on more than a third (37,8%) - poultry. On average the personal subsidiary farm has 1.3 cows, 3,0 sheep and goats, and 10,7 chickens.

The respondents’ opinions on principles of how the land sharing was conducted were divided as follows. Almost three quarters of interrogated persons (72,8%) hold the opinion, that in land sharing all villagers should take part on equal terms. The minor share of the participants in the survey, while maintaining on the whole to the egalitarian principle, offered to enter some limitations into this process: in their opinion the land shares for non-members of the collective agricultural enterprises (KSP) should be allocated from reserve funds. Such procedure of conducting of land reform is supported only by 3,4% of interrogated persons. And, at last, a handful of participants in the survey (0,4 %) believe, that non-members of KSP should not be admitted to land sharing.

Social - professional characteristics of repatriates and their employment

The distribution of the participants in the survey by professions and qualification is characterized by rather high share of the persons of intellectual work, - "white collars". The sizes of this contingent continue to be increased: if in 1999 their component constituted 24,6%, in 2000 - already 25,5%: among them - chiefs, managers (0,9%), teachers (10,7%), doctors (1,5%), economists and accountants (8,1%), engineers (4,3). The share of the experts with secondary education grew from 15,8 % in 1999 to 17,8 % in 2000. At the same time, a contingent of "dark blue collars" was decreased from 49,1 % to 43,4%.

Twelve point seven percent of the participants in the survey work in the basic branches of employment - industry, construction and agriculture. Less often they work in the sphere of science and education (5,7%), and also services and public catering (5,0%). Even fewer are employed in public health services (3,6%), trade and trade-mediate activity (3,0%). And practically few work in transport and in communication (1,7%) and in financial- credit sphere (1,5%).

In the area of culture and art, as well as in army and law-enforcement agencies, work a few people: accordingly 0,9% and 0,7% interrogated persons. The respondents, who have come back from Uzbekistan, more often work in agriculture, science and education, financial-credit sphere, law-enforcement agencies and financial-credit institutions, but those from other countries of CIS work more in trade and on transport.

Repatriates are skilled workers. Their average working experience, as well as in 1999, constitutes 19.35 years. Thus, the majority of the participants in the survey are veterans of work. Only 8,0 % of the respondents have no the working experience. One should note, that the working experience of interrogated persons is characterized by rare uniformity - 13,0-14,0% for each group, is less than 5 years. This normality is violated only for those who have the working experience more than 20 years. Among them there are a lot of persons of pension age. As a whole the uniformity of groups regarding working experience shows a regular and established pattern of employment even before returning in Crimea which is also characterized by labor unions and continual increase in their numbers in the whole population.

A lack of work is, in the unanimous opinion of the participants of interrogation, the main problem faced by all inhabitants of Crimea and formerly deported people. In comparison with 1999, the level of employment of repatriates increased somewhat: in the current year, 29,5 % of the respondents had a job, in past - 27,4%.

More than half of working respondents (15,5%) work at the state enterprises or institutions. Only 3,8% interrogated persons work in sphere of private business, and 3,0% have casual earnings. Almost as many of the participants in the survey (2,9%) are engaged in agricultural works. On a personal subsidiary farm work 1,9% of the respondents, their garden plot is for them the single help and source of the income. The minimal number of repatriates - only 1,1 % is engaged in private business, more infrequently they are involved in shuttle commercial trips or go on seasonal earnings outside of the Crimea (in the aggregate only 0,3%). Also rarely do they find employment in the non-governmental organizations (0,3%).

The most part of the respondents having jobs work not by specialty: of 29,6% of the persons who avoided hard destiny of the unemployed, only 12% works by specialty.

Why do not the other 70,5% of the respondents work? A fourth (23,7%) can not find a job from the moment of moving in Crimea, almost as many (22,6%) are not engaged, because they are retirees, in this connection, they should not be considered as the unemployed. Because of the same reason it is impossible to relate to this category the invalids (2,8%) and women having young children and not working in connection with necessity of care for them (8,4 %). Repatriates who are engaged in building their houses (1.2) do not search for work. Because of other reasons a total of 7,6% of the respondents are not engaged in work. 3,2% of the interrogated persons have lost work under various circumstances. Thus, of the 70,5% of the not working respondents the truly unemployed are only 26,9%⁴.

On a question on what kind of work they would like to have, the respondents who have no employment, and those, who work by specialty answered. Of the 88,0% answered, 25.5% stated on unwillingness to work in general, that is quite explained, as they are either retirees, or invalids.

What work would the others like to obtain? Most preferable for them is any good work, bringing the constant income. Almost a third of the respondents (31,0%) would like this. Appreciably less often the participants of interrogation would like to work in their specialty (13,6%) or to receive a high-paid job (12,2%). Other variants suit them less.

Apparently, some participants in the survey do not have any choice: 2,1% of them agree for any work if only to live, and 1,0% of the respondents would prefer to receive a job there, where they live. Their tendency to work in sphere of business is minimal (0,9 %), as well as to work outside the Crimea (0,5%). Only 0,5 % interrogated persons are pleased with their job and do not pity to lose it..

Of the unemployed persons only 19,4% (or each fifth) applied to a State service of employment about getting a job. The most part of the persons, who applied (11,6%) received the refusal in obtaining a job because of lack of vacant places, and some of them (2,6%) were invited to come latter. Others were offered to pass retraining, from that the respondents refused because of different reasons: ones the specialization was not suitable (1,0%), others - salary, which they defined as minimal (0,2%). Only, 0,1% of the participants in the survey were in retraining at the moment of conducting of interrogation.

Dwelling and property of repatriates

Despite the difficulties and problems, which accompanied the process of the reintegration of formerly deported people in Crimea, individual housing construction is advancing slowly, but

consistently. In 2000, a third of the repatriates (34,5%) lived in their own house, the completion of which structure at last was a success to be finished (in 1999 such there were 28,3%). Those living in the public sector have increased, though insignificantly. The number of persons who live in hostels (from 16,8% in 1999 to 8,1% in 2000) fell by a half. The number of repatriates, who rent housing was reduced from 4,4% to 3,5%. The percent of the respondents living in the unfinished house grew from 27,6% in 1999 to 31,1% in 2000. The process of resettlement still goes on. One should remember as well that the formerly deported people, though and in a very small amount, continue to arrive on the peninsula. Therefore, a number of the persons living at the relatives because of lack of own housing was increased somewhat - from 11,5% in 1999 to 12,1% in 2000.

During the past year, the per person allocation of living area for repatriates was increased as well. The change is insignificant, but it exists. If in 1999, the average of residential rooms constituted 2,7 that in 2000 their number was increased to 2,8. If in 1999, the average of persons, who lived in the house (flat) constituted 4,38%, and in one room - 1,62%, in 2000 these numbers constituted respectively 4,30% and 1,54%.

Whether are formerly deported people in Crimea the owners?

We already know that two thirds of them live in their own houses and privatized flats,⁵ but they also can be the holders of the privatized land plot, and have a dacha or garage. Let's notice, that less than 1% of the participants in the survey have a dacha, and six out of ten interrogated persons (58,4%) have a private land plot. The number of landowners exceed the general number of the respondents, who already have privatized personal plots or who received the land share (51,5%). This discrepancy can be explained that a large number of our fellow citizens poorly orient themselves when dealing with questions that are unusual for us such as private property. It is reconfirmed also by experience of researches, which were made by the author earlier on a problem of reforming of the agrarian sector and land reform, in particular. Therefore, we limit ourselves to the general affirmation, that the land lot is owned by more than half of participants in the survey.

The holder of garage is each fifth respondent (19,2%), almost a fourth (22,7%) own an automobile. In 80% of families there is a refrigerator, in 53,3% - washing machine, in 50,7 % - color TV set, in 37,1% - tape recorder, receiver or record-player, in 27,1 % - sewing machine. Much more infrequently repatriates are the holders of stereo-and video-equipment (6,3 %). Only 8,8% of families have libraries including more than 100 books.. The most indigent repatriates - are those, who do not have anything or only their clothes. A tenth of the participant in the survey are such paupers, and of those, who returned to Crimea from other places, except Uzbekistan, countries of CIS, they constitute (11,0%). Besides, a fifth of the repatriate from these countries (Tajikistan, Georgia (Abkhazia), Russia (Chechia), are refugees. One should also note, that the level of property stratification of repatriates, who moved to Crimea from other places, except Uzbekistan, countries of CIS, is appreciably is greater.

The conclusion

While it is still very early to speak about the complete resettlement of formerly deported people in Crimea, it will not be possible for them to soon achieve a standard of well-being of the average statistical inhabitant of Ukraine. Let's give for comparison the following data: 31,3% of the population of the country lives in the privatized flats, 14,5% have a dacha, 70,8% - color TV set,

59,3% - tape recorder, receiver, record-player, 16,9% - stereo - and video-equipment, 92% - refrigerator, 72,5% - washing machine, 21,7% of the Ukrainian families own personal library with number of the books more than 100⁶.

At the same time, we will name also other figures: only 34,8% of the inhabitants of Ukraine live in private houses or own them partially, though that does not testify to their worse provision of housing. Actually, 26,2% of the population of Ukraine lives in separate state flats, and 31,3% - in the privatized flats. In state houses (or the parts of a house), live 1,6% of the inhabitants of the country⁷. Besides, it is necessary to note, that repatriates are the holders of autos a little bit more often, rather than average statistical inhabitant of Ukraine: 22,7% against 20,8%. Though, the auto park of repatriates appreciably differs as to age, as to technical state. And they go by the autos much more less often, because their budget is not designed for purchase of petrol. However, it is very difficult for repatriates without personal transport to operate their farms. Let's remind, that two thirds of interrogated persons considered themselves to poor, and less than a third - to the people of an average prosperity. Not one participant in the survey considered himself as high well-to-do.

As a whole, one should recognize that a level of the reintegration of formerly deported Crimean Tatars on the peninsula today is low, because not all of repatriates (and those also in an incomplete measure) can use advantages of social, psychological, legal and material safety. Uncertainty of the legal status of a part of the repatriates (the lack of citizenship) results in systematic violation of their legal security.

The significant difficulties of the reintegration of formerly deported people are connected with violation of their material security. Despite constant searches for new possibilities to improve the financial condition, it is very difficult for repatriates to survive in conditions of a long economic crisis and constant deterioration of quality of life. Their uncertainty not only in tomorrow's , but also in today causes in them a sensation of constant threatened danger and serves for them a source of social tension. The lack of psychological security is reinforced by difficulties of adaptation and resettlement, and also a necessity to struggle for a survival in situations not always of hospitable environment.

¹ The interrogations were made in May-June 1999 and 2000. The total number selected was 800 respondents in age of 16-75 years old, belonging to the group of formerly deported Crimean Tatars. The selection of respondents was made with the criteria of given age and location of previous residence. The error of selection doesn't exceed ±3.5%. The method of selection was personal interview in places of living.

² Currently, the realization of complex of measures for obtaining of Ukrainian citizenship by state actually solved this problem. On 01.01.2002, 235043 Crimean Tatars are Ukrainian citizens that constitute 90% of total number in the ARC. – Ed.

³ It means the plots, which were given for house-building. – Ed.

⁴ According to information of Crimean Republican Employment Center of Population on 2000 in different areas of national economy were placed in a job 79,000 of 137,000 of able-bodies Crimean Tatars that constitute 58%. – Ed.

⁵ Including unfinished houses. – Ed.

⁶ Ukrainian society: monitoring of social changes (1994-1999s). Informational-analytical materials /Under ed. Doctor on economical sciences V. M. Voroni, Doctor on philosophy sciences A. O. Ruchki. - K.: Institution on sociology of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 1999. - p. 215.

⁷ Ibidem, p. 214.