Valentina TELYCHENKO
Ukrainian Fund “For Support of Reforms”
Deputy director.

NEW ASPECT OF LAND REFORM — ON OPPORTUNITY
TO REDISTRIBUTE LANDS IN CRIMEA

The land is black, but it is gold.
Crimean Tatar proverb

The eternal dream of Ukrainian about private land plot, where he could «work and bask», is accordant with Crimean Tatar one. The deportee’s aspiration to come back to homeland, and to clean a private land plot from stones and work on it, as their fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers did it for hundreds of years, astounds cosmopolitans and is worth of patriots’ attention. It is obvious that deportation is worse than fire and those who suffered a deportation still remember it. The Communist regime has killed a sentiment for private land during the period of collectivization, and a sentiment for land per ce — by industrialization. Crimean Tatars partook of ideological poison together with another peoples of “the immense Soviet homeland”. They suffered deportation and dispersing, however they have kept an aspiration to come back. From houses, which they had built on vacant places, from land pieces, though not their own, but which were cultivated by their own efforts. Seemingly, they already rooted in those places where they lived for so long, where they made friends. But in spite of all of this, they went to Crimea, which after decades of devastating Soviet rule recently suffered a clearance of vineyards as well.

Here, of course, there is no sense to argue on the ineffectiveness of collective farms, I note only that to this general ineffectiveness was contributed a failure in managing agriculture under specific natural and climatic conditions of Crimea. Therefore, a significant drop (some scientists state that it was of 7-10 times) in various kinds of crops, which had been cultivated in Crimea, a low efficiency of work look like a result to be anticipated.  The agrarian reform is topical not only for Crimea, a future of the whole state depends on it. The agrarian reform is not sufficient, but it is a prerequisite and determinant condition for changes in economy of Ukraine.

The Decree of President of Ukraine on the reformation of the agrarian sector is an essential step of the land reform, although it is not irreproachable. One of its shortcomings is that the rights of repatriates are ignored. And it is obvious among these repatriates, Crimean Tatars are the main target group. There are about 270,000 of them now residing in Crimea, and about 70% of them – and this corresponds to 190,000 – live in rural area. Therefore, in a whole structure of agriculture of Crimea Crimean Tatars constitute 25%. According to the President’s Decree, only 16,200 of them have a right for a land plot, whereas general number of plots is assessed as 190,300. This means that after distribution of all plots the repatriates would have only 8,5% of land versus 25% of their proportion in the whole population residing in countryside. It happened so because Crimean Tatars did not work in our collective farms, though not due to their own free will. During Soviet times they lived in exile, while after voluntary return to Crimea they remained there unwanted and deprived, because they were devoid of citizenship of Ukraine, or of residency permit, and because of this, could not have become the “proper” members of collective farms.

The private property for land is, without any doubts, the determinant factor in a whole system of economic relations. How many times would we address the drawbacks of this Decree, and problems relating to its practical implementation and legal guaranteeing of everything it covers, this would not diminish its value. It is a truth that there are a lot of problems here. And they are not limited by the lack of credits/investments on acceptable conditions. Today, the society is yet underestimates private property for land. There is an unexpected indifference towards land, and potential owner frequently doesn’t know the answer for question on what one has to do with the land share. And those who have an opportunity to escape looking for the last hope for survival by gaining prospective land share, do not burden themselves to ensure the maximal efficiency of using their land share. They simply follow advice of a former head of a collective farm and, letting out their land share for rent, do not develop some special hopes.

The repatriates have another situation. They have the higher level of unemployment, on average, in Crimea more than in three times. For them, the opportunity to get a land share for ownership and to cultivate it is the single prospect to get a job not leaving the Crimea. It should be added that taking into account insufficient integration of repatriates into community and infrastructure, also problems with the state language, the chances of the unemployed repatriates to find a job are much lower than those of persons who have the same education and experience, but who live in Crimea for many years. And who - let us admit that the long-lasted propaganda has succeeded - has a Slavic name.

Besides, the difficulties experienced by Crimean Tatars over the last years have resulted in their readiness to do any hard work. The parents’ narratives on blessed Crimean land and spiritual inspiration of coming to homeland, desire to restore traditional agriculture combined to modern knowledge, give them faith and additional impetus for success. Thus, though the Decree hasn’t evoked a special enthusiasm among villagers in Ukraine as a whole, in Crimea the prospect to be left without land has even resulted in an increased social tension. The representative of the President of Ukraine in the ARC has received 80899 appeals with the request for land share. The most of them are from repatriates (46603 appeals). The government of the ARC believes that about one third of the appeals have been satisfied, partly because of using the land from the Reserve Fund. However, these land shares are much smaller than those of neighbouring farms. For example, if normal land share in steppe area constitutes 15-18 ha, the repatriates receive here a hectare or hectare and a half, but where the land share is about 1,5 ha, the repatriates could receive only 0, 6 ha.

If this issue is to be solved by using the land reserves and recourses, one cannot expect another result, because these lands are limited. Were all of this reserve — 270,000 ha – given to repatriates for private ownership, even then their land share would be 4-5 times smaller than that of a neighbour who previously was not subjected to forcible deportation. But there are another aspects of this problem. The Decree of the President of Ukraine provides an allotment of land plots from the Reserve Fund for villagers - non-members of collective enterprises - working in a social sphere. Besides, a development of localities and infrastructure would also require a land, for which purpose the Reserve Fund was actually designed. And let us not forget about the repatriates who not yet returned (presumably, there are about 10,000 on the way)…What lands are we going to use for solution of land issues tomorrow?

Recently, Crimean mass media is full of stories on positive experience of land distribution in Bakhchisaray region. First of all, what is this experience? Bakhchisaray residents have decided to redistribute all lands that are to be distributed, in order to give more land shares for Crimean Tatars who live at the territory of collective enterprises, namely, proportionally to number of shares received by other residents. In this case, a size of a land share is reduced, on average, on 0,3 ha. It means that the land share that contained 2,5 ha now contains 2,2 ha. It is evident that following this approach, not all Crimean Tatars can receive a land share, but only the same part of villagers as in non-Tatar area. Therefore, it was decided that land shares will be distributed among the repatriates by local Mejlises. This is a difficult task for Mejlises, because inevitably, the dissatisfied people will appear who would consider themselves discriminated. However, the trust and respect for the representative bodies of Crimean Tatars allow the former to take this responsibility and to be sure of success.

The Bakhchisaray approach is a very eloquent illustration for what is going on in Crimea. The authorities didn’t take into account timely the right of repatriates for land shares. This caused a social tension. “The leaders on places” found a solution for this problem. They held meetings of citizens in villages and in rural councils —and not only in Bakhchisaray region, but in Kirovskyi region as well! Where, I am quoting “Krimskaya gazeta” from June 3, 2000, —“as a result of these meetings and dialogues, all inhabitants came to understanding of the necessity to share lands for a sake of justice, peace and order”. Everybody agreed with this approach in principle, all the more so, because “a price of issue”, on average, constitutes 0,31 ha.

The Bakhchisaray experience shows that when the authorities want indeed to find an optimal solution and to keep peace and order, then it will find an understanding even if “sharing your own” is needed. On the other hand, to do all on the contrary is not too hard a task, and that does not ask for great mental efforts. Unfortunately, there are a lot of speculations on this issue. Widespread rumors about taking a part of land from all present owners for establishment of a special fund for Crimean Tatars, about the possibility to compel Crimean Tatars to buy a land if they need it do not promote a social stability at all. In addition, why do some authorities think that to expand Bakhchisaray experience all over Crimea is a problem that could cause the legal collisions? Whereas a principle of land’s privatization “to divide equally”, as has been made with certificates for property, they consider a viable one, - maybe, because in such a case, Crimean Tatars will receive a very little part of Crimean land? This result is quite predictable, because they constitute 25% in rural area, but only  10% in republic as a whole.

Concerning the legal collisions. The private property should be inviolable. However and here again we feel that Ukrainian officials are still afraid of a private land ownership - the certificates received (or not received) by villagers do not yet confirm their right for land. They only fixed the right to receive a land share of defined size after leaving a collective farm. And further—more. The repatriates have not been the members of collective farms, so, they could not leave them, and therefore, could not receive land.. This is justly with regard to collective farms. But what about people?

Also, these certificates do not define what exact land share can receive a villager, because there are no any real boundaries between them. Thus, one intentionally creates the obstacles (the quotation from “Krimskoye Vremya” from 2 July 2000: “The vice-premier on issues of the agrarian-industrial complex Vasilyi Kiselev stated that it is possible to speak only about giving in a part of a land share, and only according to proper legal regulations, namely, through notary”). To follow this way, implementation of the Bakhchisaray method of redistribution of land shares might turn into the hypocritical speculation. Thus, if one puts a sufficient number of bureaucratic obstacles on way of redistribution, this redistribution may never be realized. Not because the villagers do not want to share lands, but because they do not want to waste their own time, money and efforts to transfer those 0,30 ha to repatriates. Then, repatriates could not receive them. This would be a vicious circle, authorities are still able to prevent it. Today, they already admit the possibility to redistribute lands (see “Zerkalo nedeli” #27 from 17-23 June 2000, the article by Mikola Semena “Land: the demand is increased…”). Let them use that short period which they still have for a solution of this issue, for non-preconceived studying of the real situation, and let them be able to adopt wise and forward-looking decisions.