Land Relations in Crimea October, 2006

1 Abbreviations The ARC The Autonomous Republic of Crimea NSDC National Security and Defense Council (of Ukraine) FDP Formerly Deported People

2 Contents PRIMARY FINDINGS...... 4 The analytical part of the report ...... 4 Materials presented in the appendices...... 10 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 12 REFORMING THE LAND RELATIONS...... 13 Available land: general information ...... 13 Background information...... 13 Some peculiarities of legal support...... 14 Results of the reform ...... 15 ADDRESSING THE LAND ISSUE: THE POLITICAL ASPECT...... 20 Indicators of ineffectiveness...... 20 Absence of a unified approach...... 25 Growth of ethno-political radicalism ...... 32 NATIONAL ASPECT OF LAND RELATIONS...... 35 Forms an dynamics of protest activity...... 35 Reasoning of the parties ...... 39 Limited opportunities for reaching concord ...... 43 THE PRINCIPAL CONDITIONS FOR THE PROBLEM SOLUTION...... 48 APPENDICES...... 54 Official statistical data...... 54 Public opinion on land issues ...... 65 Crimean mass media on the land issue ...... 69

3 PRIMARY FINDINGS

The analytical part of the report

Reforming the land relations

1. The land reform in Crimea reached its active phase in 1999. By 1st October 2006, 220800 people received property rights for land shares (agricultural land plots). Out of these, 217400 people received certificates, 171000 people collected the documentation for the land title deeds that would be exchanged for certificates, and 129700 people received land title deeds. The citizens also received 624361 land plots of 169032 hectares in total area. Out of these, 61% of land plots were allocated with the purpose of private housing construction and maintenance, 27,2 % for gardening, 9,2 % - for private farming, 2,6 % - for commercial activities, gardening and farming. 2. The process of the land reform in the ARC closely follows that of Ukraine, but has two important peculiarities. - The first peculiarity is the mass return of Formerly Deported People – Crimean Tatars – to Crimea. Prior to deportation, many of these people lived on the South Coast of Crimea (further on referred to as “South Coast”), but after the repatriation have no opportunity to resettle there. - The second peculiarity is the price for South Coast land. This land costs much more (a few times more) than land in other regions, and this leads to rampant corruption in the process of decision making as to land allocation. 3. The process of the reform was complicated by the fact that during the rise of private property and land market the land is being distributed for free. Land legislation is not well developed: some legal norms contradict each other, strict terminology is lacking, some by-laws are out of date and are not used, some basic laws necessary for the Land Code functioning have never been adopted. This naturally leads to “individual case management”, making specific decisions in each particular case and creates preconditions for corruption. At the same time, there are no administrative, pre-trial mechanisms for disaffirmation of erroneous and illegal decisions within the legislation. 4. The following positive results were achieved in the course of the land reform: - the land market began its formation - the opportunity for more effective land use has been created - the investment activity of citizens and groups of citizens has increased - the “construction boom” created jobs and contributed to infrastructure development in recreational Crimea.

4 5. At the same time, the reform of land relations had some negative consequences. Among these are: - the build-up of tension in rural areas due to the fact that only one third of rural inhabitants became members of Collective Agricultural Enterprises (CAE) - later this situation was resolved by a decree of the President of Ukraine. Another reason for this tension was the difference in size and quality of the allocated agricultural land plots. - the aggravation of ethnic tension, since the Crimean Tatars turned out to be the social group which was most frequently deprived in the process of agricultural land shares distribution. - absence of a land market and lack of direct access to farm machinery resulted in underuse of effective farming opportunities (for example, it is not possible to get a mortgage). - lands being purchased in shadow. After the end of the moratorium on selling the land, this can lead to strong social consequences that can be hardly predicted. - absence of the land cadastre and other necessary elements of land market is conducive for speculation with land plots. - the disproportion and violations that took place during the allocation of land plots, provoke land squatting. - distribution of land for free discords with the developing land market - budget suffers substantial losses because land tax rate (as well as rental rate) remain set much too low.

The political aspect of addressing the land issue Performance analysis of land reforms shows that the land market in Crimea is underdeveloped, the effectiveness of decrees by the central government is low, resource and management support for these decrees is, in general, absent. One of the consequences of such situation is the absence of the land cadastre, which, in its turn, means that the “rules of the game” are lacking as well as effective state policy. The legislative base is insufficient, and the potential for law enforcement is not high. This leads to the possibility of law violations that seriously harm the national budget. Thus, there is a broad scope of problems which arose during implementation of the land reform. They could have been addressed with the help of consistent state policy. Factors that lead to the absence of such policy today (!): elections of deputies to the representative government bodies at all levels, competition between the central government bodies and the leading political parties after the elections, disagreement in authority and spheres of influence of government bodies at different levels, complex of political, administrative and ethnic components influencing the decisions taken in this sphere etc. A more comprehensive analysis of the situation shows: in autumn of 2006, main governmental institutions entered an even fiercer struggle for ascendancy over the situation in Crimea. In this struggle, the Presidential administration chose the way of political pressure on government bodies in the ARC and elite groups that had formed those bodies, whereas the Cabinet of Ministers (of Ukraine) worked predominately on increasing the controllability of the Republic’s economy and granted real financial preferences to the region. The public support for these institutions in Crimea has various levels and in many respects is based on ethnic affiliation:

5 - The President of Ukraine and the institutions affiliated with this post have little support in Crimea and are mainly supported by the Crimean Tatar population. - The Cabinet of Ministers and institutions affiliated with it are widely supported; mainly by the Russian- speaking population. The struggle for authority between the central governmental institutions has an ambivalent effect on the situation in Crimea: on the one hand it contributes to the intensification of inter-ethnic discord. On the other hand, it forces the competitors to negotiate in order to juxtapose joint efforts to the pressure from the Centre. The President of Ukraine strongly criticizes the actions taken by the regional government as to addressing the land issue. At the same time, the Centre keeps ignoring its own obligations as to providing support for these actions. Such a situation allows one to suspect the President and his administration of attempting to politically discredit the regional government in the population’s opinion. The institute of regional government works under the intensified pressure exerted by the Ukrainian President and his administration and suffers lack of resources. Thus, republican authorities virtually are intermediaries between the local city and village councils (further on referred to as “local councils”) that allocate the land and citizens who demand it. Nevertheless, even such role is performed quite successfully. The Mejlis and the Crimean Tatar land squatters understand the actions of the regional government. At the same time, the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people keeps appealing to the Ukrainian President and his administration. During meetings with foreign delegations, the Mejlis claims that the Centre is not willing to carry on a dialog as to the restoration of rights of the Crimean Tatar people and fulfill the promises made earlier. Since regional government has neither the necessary resources to address the issue nor means of direct influence over the situation, it needs the support of Verkhovna Rada and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (allocation of funds to complete the land inventory, influence over land owners beyond the borders of Crimea). N. Azarov, First Vice Prime Minister, during his visit to Crimea in November 2006 confirmed the possibility of such support. In the present conditions, the majority of local councils take interim decisions, which allow the land to be allocated at a later time, yet the final problem solving is deferred for 2007. Such procrastinating leads to further increase in land squatting instances and the number of people participating in those, as well as the counteractions by Russian-speaking population and political powers that protect its interests. The positions of radical politicians – Crimean Tatar and those who represent the Russian-speaking population – are becoming stronger. Radical political powers on both sides intensify the pressure on the leaders of Verkhovna Rada of the ARC and the Mejlis, demanding stricter policies against the opponents and in favor of their electorate.

6 The national aspect of land relations. The reform of land relations in Crimea laid down the foundation for many social conflicts and contributed to the restoration of such a phenomenon as protest activity of Crimean Tatars. Its manifestation can be relatively divided into 3 stages: 1. 2000 – 2001: main activities are aimed at obtaining land by re-allocation of agricultural land plots. This mostly took place in the North of Crimea. 2. 2002 – 2005: main activities are aimed at getting land for individual housing construction. This mostly happened in the southern regions of Crimea. 3. 2006: main activities are aimed at getting land for individual housing construction. This mostly happened in Simferopol and its suburbs. Its main tendencies are: 1. The transition from actions, aimed at obtaining land through re-allocation of agricultural land plots (2000- 2001), to land squatting. 2. As a consequence, the geography of the activities shifted from the northern regions to the central and southern regions of Crimea (2002 - 2006) 3. The annual increase in the number of land squatters and of regions that are affected by the land squatting. 4. Gradual transition from protest camps (so called “polyana protesta” – protest field) to household development of the occupied land. 5. Increase in the resistance of local people to land squatting, thus a rise in the number of clashes between the Crimean Tatar and the Slavic population. The analysis of thesis argumentation of the parties involved shows: all parties agree that the following factors are conducive for land squatting: - lack of legal regulation of land relations by the Centre - absence of boundaries, general construction plans for many settlements etc. - lack of the system of inventory creation for allocated lands and of the land cadastre. Concerning the evaluation of subjective factors – political powers, people, organizations and institutions, whose position, activity or inertness gravely undermine the creation of new land relations, the parties agree on three following points: - The local government is either inactive or makes many bad decisions - The regional government has neither legislative nor financial resources to address the issue - The leaders of national movements, political opponents equally blame each other of undermining the situation. Analysis of the ways to address the problem, offered by various political powers and organizations, leads to the conclusion that none of the measures offered has support of all the parties.

7 This question is most disputable and can currently be addressed only with “coercive oppression” of one or several parties. Yet, in any case, this would only cause aggravation of the basic points for discord.

Direction of changes. Thus, 1. the process of the land reform in Crimea was a factor, that contributed to the development of some points for social discord, which have intensified lately. 2. today this is worsened by the fact, that the government doesn’t have stable policies for land reforms’ implementation and the central governing bodies look at Crimea more as a field to struggle for power, then a field to conduct constructive work 3. the regional authorities are interested in the improvement of the situation, but do not possess the necessary resources and therefore act as a strong force, but in the role of a mediator. Therefore, its activities are slow to progress and have to overcome the resistance of various administrative and political elites 4. among the abovementioned are the national elites, representing the interests of the Crimean Tatar and the Russian-speaking population. Their level of radicalism towards each other and within them is growing, as well as the general population radicalism level.

Consequently, an effective political solution of the land issue at the moment can be found only while taking into account the opinion of all of the decision-makers: (see chart). It is only in this case, that a constructive solution for the land issue could be found. A solution that would create the long term “rules of political game”, and not only a temporary decrease in the tension One of the mechanisms to achieve this concord would be a public system of decision preparation and decision- making on the land issues that would function on an ongoing basis. The creation of such a system could be commenced upon within Verkhovna Rada and the Council of Ministers of Crimea. The creation of a public hearings system could become “the entry point” that would necessarily have a mechanism of decision “transfer” to the session hall and taking the public opinion into account. The formation of a lawful and transparent secondary land market could become the strategic goal of land reforms. It would solve many problems without making them political issues and causing national confrontation. The attempts to regulate the land market “the right way” through the administrative measures inevitably increase the room for abuse of power and corruption. Moreover, the absence of economic regulation of land relations hinders the solution of a number of other economic problems, connected to the investment appeal of the region, the development of mortgage, bank loan systems and insurance business.

8 The political system within which the decisions as to land allocation are taken as of October 2006

9 The achievement of this goal is impossible without the creation of the land market infrastructure. In order to create such an infrastructure one needs to cope with a few interconnected tasks. Among those would be the creation of a digital land cadastre. The creation of this cadastre is a complex project – both in the technical and organizational sense. Nevertheless, it can be implemented by using the ways proposed or choosing the alternative path. Among the social consequences of the cadastre creation would be the following: - normalization of land registration in the ARC - control over land use and changes in the proprietary rights for land - preparation of decisions at all levels of government as to the land allocation and redistribution - the preparation of a civilized market for land resources - organization of information corpus which describes the land resources of the ARC - planning of land-use in the ARC While not attempting to describe all of the possible land cadastre systems and their ways of implementation in Crimea (more detailed information can be found in the report by V. Mykelych), we will justify only three necessary conditions that lay down its foundation: 1. the pecuniary valuation of land 2. creating of a land inventory 3. change in the legal norms

Materials presented in the appendices

Official statistical data (national aspect) Analysis of the statistical data body shows that each party uses specific numbers and omits other to argue their point. In particular, some parties use the number of land plots allocated as a measurement unit, others use the area, some prefer to divide these figures by the number of families, others - by the number of adults, still others - by the number of the population in general. The appendices of this Report contain extensive statistical data, which demonstrate both the situation with land allocation after 1991, and the possibility to use specific figures to argue one’s point. This is the reason why the Report does not analyze these figures, yet they can present valuable reference material for additional analysis. The data are grouped by nationalities, types of land plots, degree of development, by cities and districts, by geographical zones etc.

10 Public opinion on land relations. 1. The public opinion on Crimean Tatar land squatting activities in Simferopol district is rather negative. People in general believe that the areas under land squatting should be taken back and Crimean Tatars need to be given only 1 land plot per family. 2. Most of the population on the South Coast (data as of 2004) believes that during land allocation in their region some violations took place. These violations mostly benefited people with a high income level and had little dependency on the nationality of people. If the national or citizenship preferences did have place, they benefited Crimean Tatars or the citizens of Russian Federation. 3. The initiative of the President of Ukraine as to “bringing to order” the land relations (data as of 2005) were perceived by the population as attempts to re-distribute the land in favor of his elite group and the Crimean Tatar population. Crimean mass media on the land problem. The topic of land relations in Crimea is widely presented in the republican printed media. Main tendencies of its development since April 2006 are: - the number of references to land issues, having reached its peak in September 2006, starts decreasing in October. - the land issue in Crimea becomes a wider notion then just land squatting - the more mass media focus on land squatting episodes, the more references there appear to the necessity of land inventory and land cadastre creation - mass media register the media moments of the land issue rather than the problem itself The analysis of references to high-rank officials of the ARC in mass media reveals that in October A. Grizenko was mentioned less often, while people with uncompromising attitudes were referred to more often.

11 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This analytical material is an addition to the Report on Land Issues compiled by the international expert V. Mykelych. The aim of this material is to supplement the fundamental work of the expert with tendencies of current importance. Initially the analysis was based on two peculiarities that made Crimea different from the rest of Ukraine, namely: the situation with sometimes unpractical distribution of land on the South Coast and the protest activity of Crimean Tatars. The first aspect is referred to as political, second one – as national. Within the frameworks of the political aspect the following issues are discussed: - indicators for the mechanism of land distribution ineffectiveness. After their analysis the question of: “why such situation took place?” arises - in order to answer this question, the research that concerns positions of various government bodies, the system of their interrelations and the capacity for and the character of influence on the situation with land in Crimea is carried out. This research mainly analyzes the political factors that currently have such influence. Among them are various political powers including those oriented towards interests of separate national groups. Within the frameworks of the national aspect: - the phenomenon of protest activity of Crimean Tatars is discussed, including the attempts to follow the development, main tendencies and some consequences of this phenomenon. - the argumentation of parties from various sources is collected and systematized - the attempt is made to find the common in the reasoning of parties in order to determine the possibility of reaching an agreement between them. The combined analysis of these two components is carried out in the final chapter of the Report, aimed at developing schemes of constructive problem solving. This chapter includes both political and technical subsections, dedicated to general approaches of addressing the land issue as well as some other aspects of land cadastre in Crimea. The appendices of this Report have extensive statistical data, which demonstrate both the situation with land allocation after 1991, and the possibility to use specific figures to argue one’s point. This is the reason why the Report does not analyze these figures in its body. The data are grouped by nationalities, types of land plots, degree of development, by cities and districts, by geographical zones etc. The appendices also contain public opinion polls’ data that concern land squatting (both the Crimean Tatar and the South Coast of Crimea episodes). In the text of the analytical material these are used to evaluate the polarization of opinions among representatives of different nationalities as to a number of issues, the assessment of government leaders’ ratings etc. The appendices also include the quantitative analysis of mass media on the land issue. This analysis supplements the main points of reasoning. Despite the fact that some materials are presented in the Appendices only, certain conclusions based on them were included into the chapter “Main conclusions of the research.”

12 REFORMING THE LAND RELATIONS

Available land: general information According to the data, provided by the State Land Cadastre Registry, the available land as of 1st January, 2006 in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (the ARC) amounts to 2608 thousand hectares, including:

thousand of % hectares Lands of agricultural use 1869 72 % Lands under forests 256 10 % Lands occupied by inland waters 222 9 % Lands under natural reserves 127 5 % Other lands 134 5 % More than 100000 hectares of investment-attractive land for recreation and resort establishments is situated in the Black Sea protective coastal part of Crimea.

Background information In 1995 the President of Ukraine L. Kuchma issued the decree № 720/95 “On the procedure of distribution of agricultural land that is transferred to collective property of agricultural enterprises and organizations”. As a result, Collective Agricultural Enterprises (CAE) were founded instead of collective farms. In fact nothing changed – farmers received agricultural land plots and entered old kolkhozes with a different name. In 1999, President Kuchma used the means offered by temporary provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine according to which his decrees were equated with laws, and issued the decree № 1529/99 “On urgent measures to expedite the reforming the agricultural sector of economy”. The main provisions of this decree were added to the Land Code of Ukraine in 2001. After the decree “On urgent measures to expedite the reforming the agricultural sector of economy” the land became an article of trade even despite the moratorium on turning land into private property, which was imposed by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (in order to prevent mass purchase of land by separate oligarchs). The term of action of the moratorium was initially set until 01.01.2004 and later prolonged until 01.01.2007. This fact defined the intensification of land acquisition processes in the preceding years of 2004 and 2006. These processes were carried out by both various long-term rent schemes and through land squatting. Distributing land to kolkhoz members only drastically aggravated the social tension in the villages, since only a third of rural inhabitants of Crimea were members of a kolkhoz. It was further worsened by the fact that the formerly deported people lived mainly in the rural areas and were not members of collective farms, thus they could not obtain land.

13 In order to eliminate the social injustice that would appear, the President of Ukraine issued the decree №765/99 (28.06.99, “On additional measures to meet the needs of citizens for land plots”) which stipulated for allocation of land up to 2 hectares to social sphere workers and Formerly Deported People for private farming with following transfer of the plots into private property. The process of land reform in the ARC follows that of Ukraine, yet it has two very important peculiarities. The first peculiarity is the South Coast of Crimea, where land costs much more (a few times more) than land in other regions. In the times of the Soviet Union the land use on the South Coast was controlled by Moscow. After 1991 central government control weakened. In the time-span of 1995 through 1997 a part of the authority was given to the Council of Ministers of the ARC (formally) and then to the local city and village councils. The influence of the Centre mainly showed in lobbying for the interests of separate officials and business groups. This led to rampant corruption in the process of decision making as to land allocation. The second unique peculiarity is the mass return of the formerly deported Crimean Tatars to Crimea. Approximately 250000 people had to be settled and accommodated; the infrastructure of the territories had to be created. Many of Crimean Tatars strived to return to the South Coast, where their ancestors had been living, yet they were limited in this opportunity. Thus they settled in rural areas, where, due to a number of reasons, only some of them became members of the CAE that later on underwent the land distribution procedure.

Some peculiarities of legal support (based on analysis by the international expert V. Mykelych)

The process of reform is complicated by the fact that during the rise of private property and land market the land is being distributed for free. To date, the Constitutional norm and the corresponding provisions of the Land Code, according to which each citizen is entitled to a free land plot, are still enforced. In the environment of the forming land market, distribution of land plots equals to distribution of money. Some people have to buy the land, but some can get it for free. The Land Code of Ukraine is dedicated to citizens’ exercising the right to receive land. This right is guaranteed by the Constitution (article 14). The current Land Code was adopted in 2001 and differs from the Code of 1993. The new Code has more precise and specific regulations and standards. Yet the legal regulation of land relations with the Code alone is impossible: there are more than 20 laws that function along with the Code. In general, the regulation of land relations is characterized by deficit of the necessary legal base: • The legal norms of the Code often contradict that of other laws. This contradiction is clearly manifested in the case with the Law on local Self-Government. • Notions, used in the Code and in the laws are often interpreted in different ways. • A number of by-laws are hopelessly outdated, but they still function. • Some progressive laws (for example those that optimize and simplify the procedures of registration of property for real estate), on the contrary are not supported by the respective by-laws due to lack of finance and therefore they are virtually not used.

14 • The basic law for the use of the Code - the law on administrative-territorial reform - has never been developed and adopted. • The boundaries of many settlements, districts and their territories are not strictly defined and are often revised.

Judicial inadequacy naturally breeds the need for individual case management, deciding for each particular case and provides potential for corruption. The Code contains no administrative pre-trial mechanisms for disaffirmation of erroneous or illegal decisions. For example, allocation of a land plot to a citizen falls under the jurisdiction of a local council, but registration of the property rights would be expedient to entrust to some other institution that has information as to whether the citizen has ever exercised his right to a free land plot. The main organizational institution for reformation and regulation of land relations – State Committee on Land Resources – nominally received maximum authority. This authority was not used in full due to complications of the reform. Many flaws in this reform were caused by judicial deficit, lack of financing (budget is also a law), and usage of corruption schemes, the best of which utilize gaps and ambiguities of the legal regulation.

Results of the reform

Official statistical data

During the agricultural complex reform, 249 agricultural enterprises were transferred out of the state property. As a result 1,1 million hectares of land was distributed to the rural population. As of 1st October of 2006, 220800 people received property rights for a land share (an agricultural land plot). Out of these, 217400 people received certificates, 171000 people processed the papers for land title deeds in exchange for certificates, and 129700 people received land title deeds.

Thousands of people % Received property rights for an agricultural land plot 220,8 100% Received certificates 217,4 98% Processed the papers for land title deeds 171,0 77% Received land title deeds 129,7 59%

As of 1st of October 2006, in addition to 217400 agricultural land plots with the total area of 1168347 hectares, allocated to the members of the CAE, another 621361 land shares with total area of 169032 hectares were allocated. Out of these, 61 % of land plots were allocated for construction and maintenance of private housing, 27,2 % for gardening, 9,2 % - for household maintenance farming, 2,6 % - for commercial activities, gardening and farming.

15 The situation is different from the prospective of area of the land allocated: 31 % of lands are used for household maintenance farming, 29% - for private farming, 28 % for construction of private housing. For gardening, farming and commercial activity 11,7% of area are used.

number of land plots Total area Pieces hectares Total 621361 169032 For construction and maintenance of housing 379219 47526 For gardening 168895 11276 For household maintenance farming 57159 51858 For commercial activity 7381 1259 For kitchen gardens, mowing, pastures 6739 7203 For farming 1968 49910

number of land plots Total area % % For construction and maintenance of housing 61,0% 28,1% For gardening 27,2% 6,7% For household maintenance farming 9,2% 30,7% For commercial activity 1,2% 0,7% For kitchen gardens, mowing, pastures 1,1% 4,3% For farming 0,3% 29,5%

Among those who received land for construction and maintenance of housing, 22 % obtained land title deeds. Among them 12 % started developing the allocated plots.

For construction and maintenance of housing number of plots % Did not receive land title deeds 295287 77,9% Received land title deeds and started 83932 22,1% developing Received land title deeds but did not start 18869 5,0% developing

Similar situation takes place with those who use the land for gardening: 11,3 % received land title deeds, 88,7 % did not. Among those who household maintenance farming this percentage is higher: 67,7 % of land owners obtained land title deeds. Such situation is explained by the fact that citizens have the right to lease their land and receive guaranteed rent.

16 Among farmers, the share of those who received land title deeds reaches 77,5 %, because according to the law, farmers have the right to privatize the land plots obtained for farming for free. The size of the land plot is in accordance with the size of an average agricultural land plot in the local council on the territory of which the plot is situated.

received land title deeds did not receive land title deeds For gardening 11,3% 88,7% For household maintenance farming 67,1% 32,9% For farming 77,5% 22,5%

The situation is different with those who use land for commercial activity: 78,9 % of people use their land based on various licensing documents (for example lease contract) and 8,5 % have the land title deeds. At the same time, 12,6 % of land plots (4,7 % of total area) are used without any legal documentation.

Land plots area Number % Hectares % Total land plots used for commercial activity 8442 100,0 1322 100,0 Received land title deeds 715 8,5 137 10,4 Did not receive land title deeds but have other legal provisions 6666 78,9 1122 84,9 Use land without any documents 1061 12,6 63 4,7

Positive consequences of the reform (based on the analysis by the international expert V. Mykelych)

1. The fact of the reform is positive itself: the development of market economy is a priority for the country, and this is largely connected to development of the land market. 2. The transfer of land plots for housing, country-house land plots (dacha land plots) and other small land allotments into private property of citizens fosters social and psychological stabilization, development of trust and confidence that private property can not be forcibly expropriated. 3. Citizens who work on the land and other rural inhabitants become the owners of their agricultural land plot and can manage it. They stop being just hired workers, and this fact leads to a more effective and efficient land use.

17 4. Still small in number, private farms appeared. They constitute a feasible alternative to common collective way of agricultural management. 5. Along with formation of the small land owners’ class, the investment activity of citizens and groups of citizens who often reside outside of Crimea (and even Ukraine) and introduce modern agricultural processing technologies to this sector in Crimea is growing. 6. In cities and recreational areas of the ARC the demand (and price) for land are rapidly growing. The guaranteed use of land, in general, is immediately used for construction. The building boom is observed, although large investment offers still exceed the possibility of their assimilation. Employment is on the rise, real prospective for strong development of infrastructure of recreational Crimea is expected. 7. According to provisions of the Presidential Decree № 765/99, the discriminating situation with plough-land allocation to Crimean Tatars for individual agricultural use was resolved: for this purpose, 200000 hectares of land from state land reserve were allocated.

Negative consequences of the reform (based on analysis by the international expert V. Mykelych)

1. Initial practice of allocating agricultural land plots only to the members of the CAE caused aggravation of social and interethnic tensions: members of the CAE made up for only 1/3 of all rural inhabitants and only 1/6 of Crimean Tatars who lived in rural areas. 2. The allocated agricultural land plots turned out to be unequal in size and quality. The size of the land plots was determined by total area of the CAE land and number of shareholders, which greatly differed in every case. Also, the local elites affected the distribution of land: official positions held by some people allowed them to receive up to 25 hectares of the best lands, while an average agricultural land plot had 5-7 hectares. 3. For Crimean Tatars, the land reform in many respects is still discriminating. Despite the attempts to resolve this issue with allocation of plough-land to the FDP, the average area of their land shares does not exceed 2 hectares. Moreover, the land allocated for this purpose out of the state land reserve (which most of Crimean Tatars received) was less fertile, remote and difficult to get to. 4. The agricultural land plot owners, with a rare exception, do not have direct access to agricultural machinery necessary to cultivate the land. They do not have financial resources to purchase the machinery, whereas the advisability of such purchase is dubious itself. The mechanisms of lease for the machinery are absent almost everywhere. The people can not sell their land plots due to the moratorium; they can only lease them for token payment of 1 UAH per hectare. 5. Yet the right for an agricultural land plot was possible to sell and these rights were actively purchased (similarly to property certificates or vouchers) for a low price (this fact is assumed, since such deals are not registered officially). It is likely that after the repeal of moratorium, large land owners will appear, thus leading to obscure unpredictable consequences. 6. The legal processing of the agricultural land plot property right, transformation of the received land title deeds is a lengthy, difficult and expensive procedure.

18 As of April 2006 only 50000 land title deeds were registered in the ARC along with 8000 of lease contracts. 7. The databases on land plot inventory and land cadastre, necessary for the reform management, in general are still absent. During 6 years from 1999, pecuniary valuation was conducted only in 67 out of 1028 settlements of Crimea. Taking into account the volume of resources allocated for this purpose, it would take 15 years to develop the land cadastre. 8. Absence of precise account of the distributed land plots and lack of strict rules of land-use foster speculation and attempts to obtain extra land plots. 9. Judicial deficit and uncertainty of territorial boundaries are conducive for individual management and corruption. 10. Disproportion and misuse of already allocated lands provoke land squatting. 11. Before the establishment of a full-fledged land market, which would set the price for land, the land tax rate (and lease as well) remain set much too low. Land tax exemption for many recreational enterprises granted by the Centre even in the current conditions causes up to $ 15 million USD of the ARC budget losses. 12. Distribution of land for free discords even more strongly with the developing land market.

19 ADDRESSING THE LAND ISSUE: THE POLITICAL ASPECT

Present negative consequences of the land reform are, in many respects, caused by a weak position of the state, ineffective work of the managerial vertical. Consequently, we will first discuss the indicators of such a phenomenon, and then the main factors which today (!) reduce the managerial effectiveness of the government bodies.

Indicators of ineffectiveness

Development level of the land market. The land market in Crimea is at the initial stage of its development. As an indicator of the level of development, one may use the practice of land auctions replication. Since 1999 308,8 hectares of non-agricultural land have been sold in the ARC for total sum of 90,45 million UAH, including 168,2 hectares for 73,4 million UAH (54%) in 2004 before the expected end of moratorium. In 2005, the number of land auctions rapidly decreased. Over the entire year, only two land auctions were conducted to sell land in Sudak and Saki, despite the fact that in 2004 the Cabinet of Ministers of the ARC approved the list of 12 sites to be sold at the auction. Out of 10 auctions scheduled for 2006, only half was conducted. During the auctions, the land in Djankoy, Saki, Sudak and Feodosia was sold. At the same time, the city councils of Yalta and Alushta still have not submitted offers as to sites to be sold at the auction. One of the objective reasons of such situation is that procedure of bidding is very complicated in legal respect. Even if a local council does have a spare land plot, it must develop a land survey works project and licenses before the site can be put up for sale. This procedure may take years. One of the subjective reasons is that leasing the land provides more profit to local councils, as well as free distribution of land which later is sold at the black market. The legislation is also imperfect, which allows some organizations, mainly local councils, hinder the auctions. For example, in December 2005, the second auction was to take place. The site was offered for residential construction, and the starting bid was 700000 UAH. But the deputies did not come to the session of the local council and thus deranged the auction.

Effectiveness of the decisions made by central government bodies. Effectiveness of decisions, taken by central government bodies, is not high. As a rule, these are standard acts, supported by neither financial nor management resources, which makes them declarative. One of the indicators is the decrees of the President of Ukraine aimed at addressing the land issue. Comparison of the decrees signed by L. Kuchma and V. Yushenko shows that they are in many respects identical. In other words, both presidents in the course of years issued similar decrees, but the situation did not change.

20

Decrees of L. Kuchma Number Decrees of V. Yushenko Number On inventory creation Conduct an inventory of land plots, 460 To the State Committee of Land Resources of the ARC: 154 earlier allocated to the Formerly in a three month time-span, complete the inventory of Deported People or occupied by them land plots allocated to the FDP and their descendants without authorization Provide for the completion of the land 1456 To the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine: in a one month 154 inventory in the ARC before October time-span address the issue of financial support of step- 2004 by-step inventory creation for the coastal zone, first of all – the South Coast of Crimea

To the State Committee on Land Resources of Ukraine 822 and the Republican Committee on Land Resources: in a three month time-span implement the complex of additional measures on provision for effective land use of land resources in the ARC, including the creation of a digital inventory of land plots for housing of the FDP and their descendants, and the automated system of the state land cadastre.

On development of the land market Promote the development of market 460 To the cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine: before 01.01.06, 1643 for land plots of settlements in develop the concept of improving the land relations until Crimea. 2015, ensuring the land inventory creation, the formation and development of a land market, securing the property rights for land and registration of such rights.

To the cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine: in a two month 822 time-span, review the enforcement of the decree of 11.21.05 № 1643 as well as practice of conducting auctions , in which foreign and domestic investors take part in order to construct establishments of the social and recreational infrastructure on these lands. Liability for land-related violations In a 2 month time-span, take 1456 To the cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine: in a two months 154 additional measures on the time-span, submit proposals as to the law amendments reinforcement the state control over in the sphere of increasing the liability for unauthorized observance of the land laws, use and occupation of land and violation of terms of protection of lands. Stipulate for examination of requests for allocation of land plots by coordination between local local councils. government bodies with the Office of Public Prosecution, timely response to violations in this sphere. On effectiveness of land allocation To the National Security and Defense 1456 To implement the complex of measures aimed at 154 Council of Ukraine: to check effective land use. effectiveness of implementation of the state policy in the sphere of protection To regard as insufficient the actions by the heads of the and use of land, payment of the land State Committee on Land Resources of Ukraine, 822 tax, timely rental payments. N. Sidorenko, and the head of the Republican

21 Committee on Land Resources of the ARC, N. Golubev, as to providing for effective use of the land resources.

On provision of land to Formerly Deported People Ensure the allocation of land plots to 460 Take measures as to discontinuance of usage rights for the Formerly Deported citizens of illegally used land plots and land plots which were Ukraine and their descendants for occupied without authorization construction and maintenance of housing, private farming e.t.c.

Miscellaneous Take measures as to unification of procedures and reduction of terms for decision taking in the sphere of allocation of land plots, by the end of 2006 provide for determination of the boundaries for territories of natural- preserve fund.

Such situation in many respects is caused by the lack of financial support for the land reform by the Central Government (within the frameworks defined by the law). In particular, only 1,2 million UAH is allocated from the national budget annually for the land inventory creation, while the necessary amount of funds is 30 million UAH. Accordingly, with such a pace of financing, the inventory would be completed in 25 years.

Indicators of development of the land cadastre. Crimea does not have an automated system of maintaining the state land cadastre and the electronic inventory of land plots for housing that belong to the citizens. Such absence doesn’t allow effective state policy as to land use to be implemented in the ARC. In the ARC, out of 1028 settlements, only 4 cities of republican subordination, 49 villages and 924 settlements have their boundaries defined. Boundaries were not determined for 7 cities of republican subordination, 5 cities of district subordination, 7 villages and 32 settlements. 252 settlements in the Autonomous Republic marked the boundaries, including the boundaries of Evpatoria and Saki cities. Due to the absence of the necessary budgeting, the following recreational settlements have not set their boundaries: cities of Alushta, Yalta, Alupka, Feodosia, Kerch; settlements of Foros, Sanatornoye, Kurortnoye, Schebetovka, Beregovoye, Peschanoye, Uglovoye and Chernomorskoye. In order to complete this work, the national budget has to supply 6,1 million UAH, and the local budgets – 12,5 million UAH. It is indicative that the inventory as to the land plots for housing was not carried out in 6 cities of the Republic: Alushta, Saki, Simferopol, Sudak, Feodosia and Yalta – these are places where most land-related problems arise.

22 The boundaries of land of recreational and historical-cultural significance, protective areas on the coasts of the Black Sea, banks of man-made lakes and rivers have not been set as well. The list of especially valuable lands has not been revised since 1990, consequently there are no location plans, which, in its turn, leads to impossibility of proper state control over land use in these areas.

Level of law enforcement The level of law enforcement in Crimea is not high (also due to the abovementioned reasons). The situation with the State Land Inspection on control over use and protection of lands of the ARC is rather exemplifying. The state financing of the Inspection provides only for a low salary of the employees. The technical equipment, transport, per diem are not provided finance for. The Inspection has 32 employees. Thus, only 2 inspectors work in Simferopolskiy district that has 64000 land users. Due to the underbudgeting, the inspectors spend more time in the office, processing the petitions of the citizens as to the violations of the land law rather than visiting sites with the purpose of supervision. If a violation of the law is discovered, the inspector has very limited opportunities for addressing it. At the end, the court takes the decisions. Even if the decision to vacate the site is taken, the officers of the court cannot implement it. For example, in 2003-2005 the court in Sudak ruled 280 claims as to improper allocation of land plots. All of them were transferred for execution to the local branch of the State executive service, but none of the court decisions has yet been fulfilled.

Possibility for violations. The imperfect legislation, improper law enforcement and lack of resource support made the unauthorized use of land plots possible. Among the most widespread violations are: 1. Land squatting – unauthorized occupation of land by physical and legal persons, long-term use of the land plots without paying taxes. 2. Local councils violate the law while allocating the land plots. They prefer to allocate land for free or lease the land instead of conducting an auction. 3. Organizations that conduct land survey works and issue other licenses for land allocation (the Republican Committee on Land Resources, Republican Committee on Preservation of Cultural Heritage, Sanitary and Epidemiological Station etc) commit various law violations to benefit particular people or organizations. 4. Local land administrations allow the status of the very valuable lands to be changed to less valuable. This leads to budget losses and harms the environment and environmental-protection activities. As a consequence, land of many recreational enterprises is used for construction of hotel complexes and private houses.

23 For instance, a health-resort facility for children with tuberculosis in Alupka: the beach of this organization is used by some private company for the construction of slipways. Children, who come to the sanatorium from all of Ukraine, can not receive complete treatment. In the zones of the natural preserve land fund private health centers and summer houses are built. Hazardous objects are constructed in recreational zones. Irreparable harm has been caused by such construction works to such national nature-preserves as Nikita Botanical Garden, “Forosskiy Park” – the landmark of park and gardening art, Yalta mount and forest natural preserve, landscape reserve “Fiolent Cliff”, Karadag natural preserve.

Budget losses. According to experts’ evaluation, losses of budgets of all levels caused by violations of land legislation and irrational land use constitute approximately 3 billion UAH. In particular, the budget losses are caused by the lack of control over end use of the allocated land plots, taxation privileges for recreational enterprises of Crimea (the unpaid tax amounts to more than 100 million UAH annually), pecuniary valuation of land and inventory of land users, weak exercising of the right to set differentiated tax rates for land use depending on location of the plot etc.

Declaration of political intentions

Resource and Legislative base is

managerial support is not elaborate

low enough The land market in Crimea is underdeveloped

Land cadastre Land market “rules infrastructure is of the game” are not insufficient defined

Opportunities for law enforcement are limited

Possibility for No effective State violations policy in the land sphere

24

Absence of a unified approach

Thus, there are numerous problems that arose throughout the implementation of the land reform. Their solution is complicated by the lack of consistent government policy. Factors that influenced that in 2006 among others include: - elections to all levels of executive branch bodies - struggle between the government bodies and main political forces after the elections - differences in authority and spheres of influence of government bodies at different levels - combination of political, administrative and ethnic components of solutions as to land problems. This section will be devoted to the analysis of some of the abovementioned factors.

Central government institutions and the strategies of their influence (as of September 2006). As the result of the 2006 parliamentary elections the key positions in the state were occupied by representatives of political forces that competed during the 2004 presidential elections and offered very different variants of both foreign and domestic politics to the society. The coming into effect of the Constitutional reform, which proposed new “rules of the game” for the main governmental institutions, also complicated the relations between these political forces. The way these “rules of the game” would work in Ukraine was largely determined by the competition between three institutions of power: the President, the Cabinet of Ministers and Verkhovna Rada (the Parliament of Ukraine). It was also dependent on whether the “broad coalition” would be created – the one that would combine the interests of both “The Party of Regions” (Partiya Regionov) and “Our Ukraine” (Nasha Ukraina) in Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Each of these institutions influenced the situation in Crimea using its own resources. The analysis shows that the struggle among the major government institutions of power for the control over situation in Crimea intensified in September, 2006. In this struggle, the President and his offices chose the way of political pressure on government bodies in the ARC and elite groups that had formed those bodies, whereas the Cabinet of Ministers worked predominately on increasing the controllability of the Republic’s economy and granted real financial preferences to the region.

25 Main resources for influencing the situation in Crimea The President of Ukraine The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Normative resource (presidential decrees) Decrees of the Cabinet of Ministers The National Security and Defense Council Verkhovna Rada of the ARC (through the of Ukraine majority that consists of the representatives of the Party of Regions) The Secretariat of the President The Cabinet of Ministers of the ARC (is under control of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and Verkhovna Rada of the ARC) The Resident Representative of the Economic structures with a considerable President of Ukraine in the ARC share of state property Law-enforcement bodies Law-enforcement bodies

The President and his administration In September 2006 the aforementioned: 1. Intensified the control over the actions of regional authorities that were appointed responsible for solving the difficult land situation in Crimea. 2. Did not offer a positive program, realization of which could bring Presidential support to local authorities.

On September 11th President V. Yushenko revoked his decree about building a high-capacity port complex “Donuzlav” (issued on Sept. 23rd, 2005). The public speech of the President in support of building the “Donuzlav” complex in 2005 and then the cancellation of the project in 2006 (after the “orange” government was substituted by the “blue and white” one) testify to the absence of the regional economic policy in Crimea by this government institute. It also speaks about its weak possibilities of positive influence on the economic situation in Crimea. The National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine during its meeting of September 20th harshly criticized the measures taken by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, Verkhovna Rada and the Cabinet of Ministers of the ARC (largely comprised by the “Party of Regions” representatives) aimed at settling land-related issues in Crimea. The meeting of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine did not result in any new variants of solving land-related and other problems of the ARC. The decision made was to implement the old solutions. Quarterly control over the activities of local authorities was established with that purpose.

26 The political representative of the head of the state (Resident Representative of the President) in Crimea sharply increased the level of criticisms toward regional government in September. Thus, the Resident Representative of the President of Ukraine in Crimea, G. Moskal, used at least 20 causes for criticisms of the local government (as shown by the monitoring of the official web-page of the Representative’s office).

Topics of the materials presented on the official web-page of the Resident Representative of the President of Ukraine in the ARC. Criticism of the ARC government actions 17 Support of decisions made by the central government 1 Interethnic relations 1 Migration situation 1

The law-enforcement bodies sharply became more active in September. This can be concluded from the increased number of references to the words “Office of Public Prosecution” (increased by 8 times) and “Ministry of Internal Affairs” (increased by 3 times) in the media. The main publicly demonstrated examples of law-enforcement bodies’ activities coincide with the principles declared at the meeting of the NSDC of Ukraine: 60% of references are connected to the land-related area, 17% refer to the criminal cases that got a lot of media attention and were widely discussed. The main ground for these publications is informing the community about the law violations in Crimea and them being brought before court. It is worth noting that the greatest level of such public activity took place in the last week of September, i.e. after the meeting of the NSDC of Ukraine. Words-indicators May June July August September The Office of Public Prosecution of the 33 39 27 41 288 ARC The Main Department of the Ministry of 29 22 22 9 119 Internal Affairs of Ukraine in the ARC

Number of articles by topic, September 2006 Office of Public Ministry of Internal Total for the law- Prosecution Affairs enforcement bodies Land relations sphere 192 67% 54 45% 246 60% Criminal cases, that got a lot of 40 14% 29 24% 69 17% media attention Other 56 19% 36 30% 92 23%

27

Number of references to the Office of Public Prosecution Number of references to the Office of Public Prosecution in the Crimean mass media by weeks of September in the Crimean mass media by weeks of September

Weeks of September Weeks of September

The Cabinet of Ministers In September, 2006 this governmental body: 1. confined its activities in Crimea primarily to the economic sphere. It gave the region economic preferences, increased the controllability of big enterprises, where the state had the control stock. 2. blocked the most significant actions undertaken by the President (as a governmental body)

The Cabinet of Ministers had serious influence on the ARC authorities and used it to intensify its economic impact on Crimea, including such industries, which are of primary importance to this region and Ukraine in general, as fuel and energy complex and wine industry. I. Franchuk occupied the presidential post of the State Stock Company “Chernomorneftegas” (Black Sea Oil and Gas) since 2001. He was fired from this post and after that the strategy of the company was seriously altered. The drafting of the bill on the National Industrial-Agricultural Union “Massandra”, which meant to leave the enterprise a unified complex, and the decision to leave N. Boyko holding the position of director of the Union, led to a halt of “Massandra’s” breakup. The breakup intended to create several enterprises instead of a unified company and was initiated by the government of Y. Yekhanurov to support the interests of other elite groups. Many economic and financial indices determined by the Center rose sharply in Crimea. In particular, VAT reimbursement to importers reached 130% of the amount planned. V. Probey-Golova, the head of the State Tax Administration in Crimea (the former chief of Yushenko’s election campaign office in 2004), left his position after he publicly expressed his disagreement with the new taxing policies. He went on to work in the President’s Secretariat. The Cabinet of Ministers (D. Tabachnik) defined the possibility for clear distribution of authority and responsibility between the central and local authorities by declaring the readiness to improve the cooperation mechanism between the local and central branches of executive power. The readiness to design the project of the State Target Program for Socio-economic Development of the ARC and Sevastopol till 2017 was declared.

Ethnic differences of public support for the government bodies The public support of these bodies in Crimea has different levels and is largely based on the ethnic principle.

28 The data of the public opinion poll conducted in Crimea show that two thirds of Crimean population have never believed President Yushenko. At the same time the level of disappointment in him rises in the region (the rate is approximately 1% per month). 19% of the population estimate Yushenko’s actions to some extent positively.

How do you estimate the actions of Ukraine’s current President V. Yushenko? March 2005 March 2006 September 2006 Fully approve 2% 2% 2% Support 4% 5% 4% Am waiting for his actions 15% 15% 13% Am disappointed 3% 8% 13% Have never believed him 65% 60% 65% Hard to answer 11% 10% 3%

Two thirds of the Crimean population approve of V.Yanukovich being appointed the Prime-Minister of Ukraine. 17% were closer to the negative attitude as to this event. What is your attitude to V. Yanukovich being appointed the Prime-Minister of Ukraine? Rather positive 64% Rather negative 17% Hard to answer 18%

The public support for these leaders has a well-manifested national structure. In particular, actions of V. Yushenko are positively estimated by 1% of Russian population, 10% of Ukrainian population and 21% of the Crimean Tatar population. Among those who never believed Yushenko are 72% of Russians, 59% of Ukrainians and 7% of Crimean Tatars. How do you estimate the actions of Ukraine’s current President V. Yushenko? Russians Ukrainians Crimean Tatars Fully approve 0% 4% 6% Support 1% 6% 15% Am waiting for his actions 11% 14% 42% Am disappointed 3% 9% 19% Have never believed 74% 59% 7% Hard to answer 11% 8% 12%

29 Institute of regional power Opportunities On the meeting of the NSDC of Ukraine it was declared that the negative social processes were caused by an “extremely weak government”, the passiveness of which prevented repatriates from getting land. Because of that it was necessary to establish quarterly control over the implementation of the previously made decisions, connected to the solution of the land problem in the Autonomous Republic. The following factors were ignored: 1. The work on land inventory and land cadastre creation has not been funded from the Ukrainian budget for a long time. According to the head of the Republican Committee on Land Resources of the ARC (Reskomzem) N. Golubev the land inventory and land cadastre creation project have received approximately 6% of the necessary funding since 1991. Although it was decided on the February meeting of the NSDC of Ukraine that the project be completed within 3 months, no funding was provided. 2. Many lands that could have been allocated to the formerly deported people for resettlement are managed by the central institutions and agencies. The regional authorities have no influence over them. Thus, approximately 800 hectares, which were intended to be given to the protesters, belong to the National Agricultural University and the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences. These institutions do not give permission for these lands to be transferred under the authority of local councils. 3. Verkhovna Rada of the ARC has no legislative functions and can not pass legal documents that would settle the land issues in Crimea. 4. Verkhovna Rada of the ARC has no direct means of influence upon local councils, which actually allocate land. Verkhovna Rada serves as the mediator between the local councils and citizens who want to get land.

Actions In September-October, 2006, The Chairman of Verkhovna Rada of the ARC, A. Grizenko, regularly conducted meetings with all stakeholders, searching for a mechanism to solve the problem. On October, 18th Verkhovna Rada of the ARC during its session discussed the situation with land squatting and recommended the local councils of Simferopolskiy district to examine the requests for land acquisition made by the citizens till the end of the month. It also proposed that if necessary the proposals for the boundaries of the settlements’ extension be made. Reservation of land for individual housing construction was also suggested. The Speaker, A. Grizenko, visited several “protest camps”. After meeting the protesters he expressed his resentment at certain councils, which have not been allocating the land and considering the requests for decades. Content-analysis of the articles in Crimean mass-media devoted to land issues testifies to the increased public activity of A. Grizenko. The number of references to his name grew from 48 to 72.

30 Number of references to the name of the Speaker of Verkhovna Rada of the ARC, A. Grizenko, in the articles, dedicated to land issues

May June July August September

Effectiveness In spite of the ARC leaders’ directions, the local councils have been slowing down the processes of considering the requests and allocating land to the Formerly Deported People for a long time. The councils referred to the following circumstances: the necessity to extend the boundaries, absence of free land, resistance of the deputies, former decrees as to allocating land to local inhabitants only etc. Members of local councils, even those representing the Party of Regions or its political allies, do not always listen to the suggestions of Crimean authorities. They sometimes block even those initiatives that come from the regional government. In many councils the situation with law observance in considering the requests and land allocation is far from ideal. In particular, The Office of Public Prosecution of the ARC conducted revisions of the Mirnovskiy council of Simferopolskiy district. The checks showed that more than 250 requests were filed 10 years ago and were never considered. Nevertheless, many local councils of Simferopolskiy district during their session on October, 20th examined land allocation issues. As a result Chistenkovskiy and Dobrovskiy village councils reserved 80 and 180 hectares respectively for the further housing construction for the FDP. Trudovskoy and Ukromnenskiy village councils declared their agreement to meet the solicitation of the Republican Committee on Ethnic Issues (Reskomnaz) as to land allotment. They plan to do it step by step, by allocating 40 and 61 hectares of land respectively. Molodezhnnenskiy village council decided to apply to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and the National Agricultural University and ask for their agreement to withdraw 200 hectares from the property of the latter, so that this land would be allocated later on. Mirnovskiy village council reserved 505 hectares for further allocation to citizens after the withdrawal of this land from the property of the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences is negotiated. At the same time the members of Simferopol and Alushta city councils temporarily stopped allocating land for individual housing construction till new general construction plans would be approved. This postpones the solution of the problem till 2007. Although it was not yet possible to achieve final results in the solution of the land allocation problem, press- conferences showed that the leaders and the majority of land squatting participants trust the efforts of A. Grizenko in solving the problem. It manifested itself during the press-conferences and at the official meetings of leaders for the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people.

31 Growth of ethno-political radicalism

Positions of various ethnic groups on the land issues differ

The opinion poll data show that the social distance between the representatives of different ethnic groups is growing in Crimea. The positions of various ethnic groups as to socially significant issues are considerably diverse. The difference in approaches of Russians and Ukrainians is diminishing. At the same time the difference between the approaches of the Slavic population as a whole and Crimean Tatars is growing. The answers to the question about areas under land squatting in Simferopolskiy district illustrate this thesis. 92% of Crimean Tatars suppose that this land should be given to Crimean Tatars for construction, while 82- 85% of Slavs think that the land should be used as it previously has. Lately a number of land squatting episodes took place in Simferopol. What do you think? Russians Ukrainians Crimean Tatars These lands should be given to Crimean 2% 3% 92% Tatars for house construction These lands should be used as they 85% 84% 1% previously have Hard to answer 13% 13% 7%

The answers to the open (assuming the free answer of the respondent) question are indicative. 1055 out of 1660 respondents, including 381 Crimean Tatars, gave answers to the question “In your opinion, why do Crimean Tatars engage in land squatting?” The quantitative analysis, although very relative, gives interesting results. In your opinion, why do Crimean Tatars engage in land squatting? Slavs Crimean Tatars The government is to blame for the current situation 14% 27% Objective conditions: Crimean Tatars have nowhere to live 14% 45% Subjective conditions (Slavs): Crimean Tatars use the land for 59% 2% further sale, knowing that they won’t be punished; want to capture Crimea etc. Subjective conditions (Crimean Tatars): the land belongs to 1% 16% the Tatars as deported people; it has always belonged to them. Other 13% 10%

32 The answers were grouped according to their meaning. The correlation of the groups shows that: 1. Approximately half of Crimean Tatars consider land squatting to be the result of absence of normal living conditions for this ethnic group. 2. If we sum up the people who support this point of view with those who blame the government we will see that 72% of Crimean Tatars think that objective reasons account for land squatting. 3. 16% of Crimean Tatars talk about historical memory and believe that all land in Crimea belongs to the Formerly Deported. 4. 14% of Slavs blame the government for the land squatting. However, Crimean Tatars blame the authorities for not allocating land and the Slavs accuse the government of a mild attitude towards land squatting. 5. 14% of Slavs agree that the living conditions of Crimean Tatars need to be improved. Thus they admit the objective basis of land squatting. 6. 59% of Slavs talk about the subjective basis for the land squatting. Among the reasons for it they name: further sale of land, providing separate land plots for every family member, desire of Crimean Tatars to capture the entire Crimea, the impudence of Crimean Tatars. They consider Crimean Tatars to have become insolent, knowing that they will not be punished and thus believing that they can do anything e.t.c.

33 Increase in popularity of radical politicians. The poll data also show that people with low financial position and absence of housing do not always prevail among the land squatting participants. The data also show that among these people the level of support provided the land squatting leaders and national movement leaders, who call for the coercive solution to the problem, is much higher, than that of the rest of the population. As the result the positions of those appealing to more radical actions of the repatriates are strengthened. The situation with the Russian population is the same. The poll data show that the number of Slavs who would support strict measures to free the Crimean Tatar- squatted territories is growing. These attitudes promote the positions of those, who propose a firmer government stand on land squatting and argue for bringing in different community and Cossack organizations into solving the interethnic conflict on the whole.

Social expectations for the worsening of the interethnic situation. 51% of the Crimean population expects the situation to worsen. The poll shows that 1% of the Crimean population expect the interethnic situation to improve and 51% await the worsening.

Do you think that the relations between the representatives of different ethnic groups will change in the nearest future? (September, 2006) They will improve 1% They won’t change 36% They will worsen 51% Hard to answer 13%

34 NATIONAL ASPECT OF LAND RELATIONS

Forms an dynamics of protest activity

The reform of land relations in Crimea laid down the foundation for many social conflicts and contributed to the quick increase in protest activity of Crimean Tatars.

Protest activity dynamics in 2000-2001 After the decisions on the distribution of lands of the CAE were made, only 22600 Crimean Tatars, who worked in the CAE (or 13% of those living in the rural areas), got the right for property. This caused a wave of protests from repatriates in 2000 – 2001 with demands to reallocate the lands used for agricultural purposes. It was mainly expressed by various demarches of civil disobedience, e.g. pickets, encampments at public rallies, railway blocking. In some cases the work of local government was blocked. The protest activities in Belogorskiy, Djankoyskiy, Simferopolskiy, Nijnegorskiy, Pervomayskiy, and Sakskiy districts were especially numerous and involved most people. The functioning of Urozhaynovskiy village council was blocked in March, 2000. The premises of the council were damaged. In May-August the activists of local Mejlis divisions blocked railroads several times in Djankoyskiy, Nijnegorskiy and Sakskiy districts. This was accompanied by clashes with the law-enforcement agencies. Some of the protesters were arrested. In November a group of Crimean Tatars captured the building of the Djankoy Regional State Administration. Since the demands for reallocation of land were in contradiction to the acting legislation, the protest activities did not lead to the results Crimean Tatars had anticipated. Nevertheless the protest activities provided those, who wanted to work on land, with land plots for kitchen gardens and private farming. Year 2002 saw the transition from protests for reallocation of agricultural land plots to land squatting activities. The geographical distribution of the protests moved from northern part of Crimea to the central and southern part.

Protest activity dynamics in 2002-2005 The protest activity of Crimean Tatars in 2002-2005 is characterized by several tendencies: - constant expansion of geographical distribution and increase in the number of land squatting participants - gradual transition from “protest camps” to unauthorized construction - increase of local population’s resistance to land squatting - increase in the number of clashes between Crimean Tatars and the Slavic population

In 2002 the protests were most active on the territory of the Sudak city council. A series of land squatting episodes took place there. The “initiative groups” of Crimean Tatars, the majority of whom lived outside of the Sudak district, squatted land on mount Fereina and in the sea-shore zone in the Morskoye village.

35 In January 2003 a fight between Crimean Tatars and the members of the Morskoye Cossack community ensued. In 2003, the land squatting spread to the territory of the Yalta city council. For instance, there was a “protest camp” of more than 100 Crimean Tatars on the territory of “Gurzuf” state farm, demanding the territory occupied to be given to them in order to build an ethnic settlement. The Mejlis leaders argued that the term “protest camp” was more exact and preferable in comparison to “land squatting”. The government’s reaction was of declarative nature. The level of activity of the Slavic population of Crimea and the made up of its representatives organizations is growing. In November, 2003, a land squatting episode by a group of Crimean Tatars in the Partenit settlement (Alushta city council), which was accompanied by blocking of the Simferopol-Yalta road, was for the first time opposed by the local inhabitants in an organized and peaceful manner. In 2004 the territory of Feodosia city council also got involved in land squatting. In June, 2004, a “protest camp” was started in the Tikhaya Buhta (Quiet Bay) preserve near Koktebel settlement by a group of Crimean Tatars. The participants demanded for land to be allocated to them. The conflict in Yalta that was in the spotlight and was most extensively discussed happened in the water park near the settlement of Simeiz. In the course of this conflict two TV reporters were injured. Mass clashes between Crimean Tatars and Cossacks of the village Vesioloye happened in Sudak region in January, 2004. Law-enforcement agencies announced criminal cases started. Crimean Tatars started tent city rallies as an action of protest near the Cabinet of Ministers of Crimea many times in 2005. They demanded lands allocated to them in Alushta and other regions on the coast. New land squatting episodes occurred in Tikhaya Buhta (Quiet Bay), Koktebel (Feodosia), and in Bay Kapsel (Sudak). House construction started on the places of “protest camps”. More than 2000 workers of law- enforcement agencies were sent to Tikhaya Buhta to demolish the houses. As Mejlis leaders declared, several picketers barricaded themselves inside of the buildings with gasoline cans, threatening to set themselves on fire in case of assault. The Office of Public Prosecution of the ARC started criminal cases because of the squatting of the natural reserve territory. All property brought to the reserve territory was distrained. The Koktebel village council head filed a law-suit against the activities of the remonstrants. Simultaneously the Feodosia mayor V. Shayderov declared that “52 hectares, which are claimed by Crimean Tatars, are rented by state farm-plant Koktebel according to the decree of the ARC Cabinet of Ministers as of December 2004”. Thus the reserve territory was used for agricultural purposes. M. Djemilev used this fact as counter-evidence against Verkhovna Rada of the ARC decision during the meeting in The Office of Public Prosecution of the ARC. The Mejlis leader considered this decision to be purely political and provocative. In case of government coercive actions against the repatriates in Tikhaya Buhta he was ready to call for the all- national mobilization of Crimean Tatars. In September, 2005 the committee of the General Office of Public Prosecution of Ukraine acknowledged that the Tikhaya Buhta nature preserve was given its status of a nature memorial of local importance legally. Simultaneously, the Koktebel village council declared its readiness to allocate 70 hectares to the people demanding land in other places. The situation in Sudak continued to aggravate. Approximately 1000 Crimean Tatars from Djankoyskiy, Sovetskiy, Leninskiy and Kirovskiy districts started a tent city rally near the city. Through the course of it the territory of the summer camp “Shelf” was temporarily occupied. The clashes between the picketers and the local multinational population took place. In November several Crimean Tatar families occupied a land plot in the Chistenkoe village near Simferopol.

36 In December a mass rally of Crimean Tatars (more than 500 people) occurred near Verkhovna Rada of the ARC. The participants demanded land for individual housing construction allocated to them in Simferopol and Simferopolskiy district. They claimed being ready to start land squatting in case of a refusal.

2002 20032004 2005 Number of regions where land squatting occurred 3 4 5 7 Number of land squatting episodes 5 10 12 15

The dynamics of protest activities in 2006. The protest activities of 2006 show the following tendencies:

1. A sharp increase in the number of land squatting episodes and the number of their participants. In April-November of 2006 the number of land squatting episodes went from 19 to 51. 41 of these episodes took place in the Simferopol region. The number of participants increased from 7800 people to 14500 people. The number of land squatting episodes and the number of participants April May June July August September October Number of land 19 22 24 27 35 48 51 squatting episodes Number of participants 7800 9000 10500 12000 13000 14300 14500

2. Squatted territories are actively developed. The land plot boundaries are demarcated, construction materials are brought and then the construction of first temporary houses and then permanent buildings starts. This pattern is observed on most locations. As the result, the number of land squatted territories with construction went up from 7 to 37 in the period from July to October. The number of temporary houses constructed increased from 135 to 5100. The number of permanent houses increased from 0 to 480. July August September October Number of temporary houses constructed 135 2400 4560 5100 Number of permanent houses constructed 0 30 363 480 Number of land squatting territories with 7 11 36 37 construction Number of land plots with construction 300 3200 7700 8200

37 3. Main land squatting episodes occur in Simferopol and its suburbs As of the end of October, 2006, the Republican Committee on Ethnic Issues (Reskomnaz) stated that there were 51 land squatting episodes, including 28 in Simferopolskiy district, 13 in Simferopol, 4 in Yalta, 3 in Sudak, 2 in Feodosia, and 1 in Bakhchisarayskiy district.

4. Representatives of other nationalities start land squatting. In October 44 land squatting episodes out of 51 were carried out by Crimean Tatars, 3 – by representatives of other nationalities and 4 were joint ones. April May June July August September October Crimean Tatar 17 20 21 23 29 41 44 Joint 1 1 2 2 3 4 4 Other nationalities 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 The analysis of land squatting massifs (places where areas under land squatting are in proximity) in the Simferopol region shows that: - in 5 out of 9 of the biggest land squatting massifs in the capital region the share of Crimean Tatars among the participants varies from 90% to 100% - in the land squatting episode in Ukromnoye village Slavs make up half of the participants (52%) - on three more land squatting massifs the share of Slavs-participants varies from 16% to 36%.

38 Reasoning of the parties

The reasoning of the parties is presented on the basis of thesis analysis of mass media publications. Although they do not represent the entire spectrum of the parties’ positions, they nevertheless give an idea about the most popular theses. In this section they are grouped in the following way: - the position of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people - theses of political parties representing the interests of the Russian-speaking electorate - position of the government bodies

Position of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people Ever since Crimean Tatars started to come back to their homeland they observe persistent unwillingness of the government to allocate lands to them - the lands, which were illegally taken from the people during total deportation. If not for the land squatting that took place in the early 1990s, later legalized by the government, Crimean Tatars would have had no land at all. The interests of Crimean Tatars were not taken into consideration during the agriculture reform, which was being conducted since the middle of the 1990s. During the CAE lands’ distribution numerous law violations occurred. Therefore a complete reallocation of agricultural land plots is necessary. All adult representatives of the Crimean Tatar population living in rural areas (approximately 130000 people) are to get a land an agricultural land plot the size of an average one. Construction of individual houses with land plots for their maintenance is the main means of helping Crimean Tatars adjust in the new place. In the places of deportation the majority of Crimean Tatars were urban-dwellers. Despite this fact, due to the discriminative governmental policies, 75% of Crimean Tatars upon their return to Crimea were forced to settle in the countryside. According to the 1939 census approximately 30% of Crimean Tatars (65000 people) lived on the South Coast of Crimea. A little bit over 5% of the population had the opportunity to live there after they had come back. Many city and village councils of the South and Central parts of Crimea did not consider requests for land acquisition from Crimean Tatars, residing in those regions, for years. In the meantime they were actively allocating land for construction and commercial purposes to natural and legal persons. The recipients of lands were not necessarily residents of Crimea or even citizens of Ukraine. The activities of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people, aimed at finding a compromise, did not bring any sufficient results. Currently a Crimean Tatar possesses two times less agricultural land than an average country dweller. The quality of these lands is worse than the quality of lands allocated to the rest of the population. The local authorities did not want to allocate lands to Crimean Tatars and thus were constantly misinforming the central government of Ukraine. They insisted that it was not expedient to alter the existing legislation. It aggravated the tension, forcing Crimean Tatars to start mass actions.

39 During the presidential elections of 2004 the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people urged to support V. Yushenko, hoping that he would be able to see to the realization of the rights of the Crimean Tatar people. The new government did not live to the expectations of Crimean Tatars and it makes them engage in more resolute actions. Outbursts of “spontaneous protest” are connected to the fear of being left out of the South Coast lands allocation. “When we find a way to allocate the lands fairly, there would be no more lands left. Although the President shares this anxiety, it does not change anything” (R. Chubarov). The Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people made a decision on February, 22nd, 2005, to support landless Crimean Tatars who take free land plots. Provided that the local authorities ignore the repatriates’ demands for land allocation, Mejlis also supported the occupation of lands on the South Coast rented or owned by enterprises. Mejlis instructed the regional and local Mejlises to provide full assistance to Crimean Tatars “forced to engage themselves in self-initiative occupation of lands”. Land squatting is not a problem of interethnic relations, it is the problem of the government that first passes the laws and then does not follow them. The main reasons for land squatting are the uncontrolled actions of the local councils on land distribution and a biased attitude to Crimean Tatars on behalf of the afore-mentioned councils. The adoption of the law as to criminal liability for land squatting was done to defend the personal interests of its authors, who already got land in Crimea – not in order to solve the land issue. The adoption of this law will not solve the problem, but will rather make it more acute. The decisions of local councils to allocate land to Crimean Tatars only after the “protest camps” are eliminated are unfair, because only 35% of the land squatting episodes were done by Crimean Tatars.

The land issue in Crimea is aggravated by the lack of political independence of the Crimean government, “which is managed by Kyiv authorities. Not the ones in Bankovaya street [Presidential Secretariat], but the office of the Party of the Regions” (R. Chubarov). Land needs to be reserved for further allocation to the deported citizens. The land issue solution is part of the restitution problem – reimbursement of the property lost during the deportation of 1944.

Theses of political forces representing the interests of the Russian-speaking electorate Political parties opposed to the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people talk about the practice of double standards towards citizens of different ethnic backgrounds. They make statements that condemn the decisions by the Mejlis to assist land squatting on the South Coast carried out by Crimean Tatars. The leaders of defense and law enforcement agencies must take timely measures to maintain constitutionalism, stabilize the situation within the interethnic relations sphere in Crimea. They are to react to the vicious practice of land squatting, tent cities and spontaneous rallying activities. The land plots allocated to repatriates need to be revised to find out to what extent the land allocation documents correspond to the legislation. The following should also be investigated: who got the land plots and how these lands are used.

40 The land plots that have not been developed for a long time have to be taken away and transferred to those who really need them. Mejlis is an extremist organization that inspires radical attitudes among the Crimean Tatar population of the peninsula. Alternative actions of protest need to be organized under the motto “A separate land plot on the South Coast to each Slavic person!” A moratorium should be imposed on the funding provided to Crimean Tatars for settlement before land squatting is fully eliminated on the peninsula. The leaders of defense and law enforcement agencies in Crimea react to land squatting episodes in a selective manner. They restrict the Slavic ones and connive at the Crimean Tatar ones. Crimean Tatars have organized a business of reselling the land plots, they have been allocated with.

Position of the government bodies According to the official statistics, Crimean Tatars have no land problem. The repatriates are provided with land plots by 113%. A considerable part of formerly-allocated land plots (including those on the South Coast) is not developed. Many of them are being resold. Approximately 22600 Crimean Tatars, who became members of the CAE, got land certificates and became the owners of agricultural land plots. Everyone who really wanted to work on land got the necessary land shares for kitchen-gardening or farming. Problems with providing the repatriates with land worsened 3-4 years ago, when the process of inner migration from North to South of the peninsula started among the Crimean Tatars. The goal of the migration to South is not so much the individual housing construction, but the development of an “ethnic business” connected to the exploitation of the resort and recreational resources of the coast. The majority of people, who demand a land plot for the construction on the sea-shore, have already received a land plot in other parts of Crimea and have finished or are conducting construction there, and have other real estate in property. The analysis of the requests handed in to the local councils on the coast shows that 95% of the requesters do not reside in these places. They have residence permits in other cities and regions of Crimea, Zaporojye and Kherson oblasts. Some are not even the citizens of Ukraine. There are numerous evidences to the fact that many Crimean Tatars sell the land plot they were allocated in one region, to be enrolled into a waiting-list for a different land plot in another region. The repatriates’ chaotic unauthorized construction on the South Coast that does not take into consideration the general plans of regional development and makes Crimea lose its investment attractiveness. Areas under land squatting by Crimean Tatars, on the South Coast located in its infrastructurally undeveloped parts, demand serious investments for their settling. As the area of the South Coast is limited, it is necessary to develop multistory apartment building construction in order to solve the problem of allocating housing to the repatriates.

41 To solve this problem the Cabinet of Ministers of the ARC on November, 25th, 2003, passed the decree #618 “On the formation of tracts of land with the purpose of providing the Formerly Deported citizens with land plots for individual housing construction”. The realization of this decree is restricted by the fact that out of 90 settlements of the South and South-Eastern coast (Yalta, Alushta, Feodosia. Sudak etc.) only 66 have definite settlement boundaries determined. Many settlements have not developed general plans of construction. The regional government institutions took steps in 2006 to launch a constructive dialogue with Crimean Tatars. They urged Crimean Tatars to find a solution to the land problem within the legal frameworks and to refuse from protest activities. This did not happen at once, because the land problem is the cause for the pressure that radical Crimean Tatar politicians exert on the local government. It is also part of their struggle for influence in the Kurultay of the Crimean Tatar people elections. President Yushenko believes that the land problem is rooted in the fact that both regional and local authorities have no political will in solving complex controversial issues. Local authorities’ abuse of power in the land sphere is one of the main problems in land relations. The regional authorities believe that responsibility for solving the land issue should be divided among the central authorities, regional authorities and local government bodies, where the actual practice of land allocation is concentrated. The central government should solve the problem of the legal support and provide the necessary funding for the land inventory the land cadastre creation. The local authorities admit that the allocation of land plots is done irrationally. A general plan of each settlement is necessary for it to be done properly, though. The local authorities have no funds to engage in such kind of work. Local authorities are ready to allocate land only to repatriates, who reside on the territory of the administrative unit and only after land squatting stops and the occupied territories are freed. The government officials at different levels admit that land squatting has been done not only by Crimean Tatars. They also believe that land needs to be allocated regardless of the ethnic principle. The law enforcement agencies state that they control government actions in the land sphere and bring before court criminal cases instituted in cases of violations. Nevertheless they can not provide execution of the court decisions. They also don’t approve of coercive measures against land squatting.

42 Limited opportunities for reaching concord

The “agreement-disagreement” analysis of the theses is done in three directions: - determine what different parties see as objective reasons (answer the question: “what are the reasons?”) - determine what different parties see as subjective reasons (“who is to blame?”) - what needs to be done in order for the issue to be solved (“what is to be done?”) For further actualization (and therefore in order to make the analysis more concrete) the issues connected to land squatting were mostly analyzed. The models were built in expert way and presupposed maximum simplification and demonstration of the principle of potential agreement, contradiction. The comparison of the parties’ positions on “objective reasons” (the answer to the “what are the reasons?” question) shows that all parties agree that the formation of land squatting is promoted by: - the absence of the legal framework for land issues - the absence of defined settlement boundaries, general plans e.t.c. - the absence of the inventory system for the allocated lands and the land cadastre Common answers on objective factors +

Regional and Mejlis of the Crimean local authorities Organizations Tatar people representing the interests of the Russian-speaking electorate

- the absence of the legal framework for land issues on behalf of the Centre - the absence of defined settlement boundariesRegional and general and plans for many localsettlements government e.t.c. - the absence of the inventory system for the allocated lands and the land cadastre

43 At the same time each party singles out additional “objective reasons” that other parties do not agree with. The Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people: - the authorities are biased towards Crimean Tatars. They do not want to allocate land, including the South Coast land that was illegally taken from Crimean Tatars during the deportation. - Introduction of a mechanism for fair land distribution is disastrously late. By the time it is found, there will be no land left for allocation to Crimean Tatars. Organizations representing the interests of the Russian-speaking electorate: - There is a “double standards” practice for treating Crimean Tatars and Slavs. The rights of Slavs are impaired. - Crimean Tatars resell the allocated land plots. Therefore the discussion is not about the settlement of a nation, but about a business made on political speculations. Government bodies: - demands of the land squatting participants contradict the current legislation - the majority of those who demand free land on the South Coast have already received land plots in other regions of Crimea - 95% of those who demand lands allocated on the South Coast live in other regions

In their assessment of “subjective factors” i.e. political forces, people and organizations, whose positions, activities or inaction are destructive for the formation of new land-relations, the parties agree on three points: - the local authorities are either inert or make a lot of wrong decisions. - the regional government does not have the normative and financial resources to settle the matter - political opponents in land-issues, the national movements’ leaders equally reproach each other with having a destructive position. Common answers on “subjective reasons” + Mejlis of the Organizations Crimean Tatar Regional and representing the interests people local authorities of the Russian-speaking electorate

the local authorities are either inert or make a lot of wrong decisions. the regional government does not have the normative and financial resources to settle the matter

political opponents in land-issues, the national movements’ leaders equally reproach each other with having a destructive position.

44 The analysis of measures each party offers to solve the problem of land squatting shows – none of them will get the support of all parties involved. Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people, for instance, considers the following to be the main measures for solving the problem: - elimination of the disproportion in providing Crimean Tatars with land - reserving lands, including reserving them for potential repatriates

The leaders of Verkhovna Rada of the ARC have been demonstrating understanding for this position lately. In the meantime, many representatives of political forces, who make up the parliament majority, show public disagreement with this approach. The moderate representatives (“Soyuz” party /Union/) conduct press- conferences, where they speak about the lack of basis under Crimean Tatar demands for land allocation. The radical allies (the Russian Block) insist on the following: - allocation of land plots among representatives of different nations on a parity basis - moratorium on land allocation should be introduced till the land squatting stops - law violations should be brought to a halt with the help of law-enforcement bodies

45 Different opinions on objective factors

Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people Organizations representing the interests of the Russian-speaking electorate The authorities are biased towards Crimean Tatars. They do not want to There is a “double standards” practice for allocate land, including the South Coast treating Crimean Tatars and Slavs. The land that was illegally taken from rights of Slavs are impaired. Crimean Tatars during the deportation. Crimean Tatars resell the allocated land Introduction of a mechanism for fair land plots. Therefore the discussion is not about distribution is disastrously late. By the the settlement of a nation, but about a time it is found, there will be no land left business made on political speculations. for allocation to Crimean Tatars.

⎯

Government bodies

The demands of the land squatting participants contradict the current legislation, because: the majority of those who demand free land on the South Coast have already received land plots in other regions of Crimea 95% of those who demand lands allocated on the South Coast do not reside in that area

46 Positions of the parties as to the actions necessary to be undertaken for the solution of the land issue Regional Local authorities Mejlis of the Crimean Organizations authorities Tatar people representing the interests of the Russian-speaking electorate Elimination of the disproportion in land provision + + Reserving lands for Crimean Tatars + + Distribution of land plots among representatives of + different nations on a parity basis Moratorium for land allocation till land squatting + + stops The necessity of having protest activities + alternative/similar to the Crimean Tatar ones The law enforcement agencies need to stop illegal + + actions General plans of settlements need to be made, + + + + settlement boundaries defined and other cadastre procedures seen through Introducing criminal liability for land squatting + + + Revision and confiscation of the land plots that are + not being developed Transfer the lands that currently belong to different + + Central institutions and departments under the jurisdiction of the local councils The Centre needs to fund the inventory and + + cadastre creation

47 THE PRINCIPAL CONDITIONS FOR THE PROBLEM SOLUTION

The conducted analysis reveals that 1. the process of land reforms in Crimea heated a number of social controversies, that have recently become more acute 2. today this is worsened by the fact, that the government doesn’t have policies aimed at the implementation of the land reform and the central government bodies look at Crimea more as a field to compete for power, then a field to conduct constructive work 3. the regional authorities are interested in the improvement of the situation, but do not possess the necessary resources and therefore act as a strong force, but in the role of a mediator. Therefore, its activities are slow to progress and have to overcome the resistance of various administrative and political elites 4. among the abovementioned are the national elites, representing the interests of the Crimean Tatar and the Russian-speaking population. Their level of radicalism towards each other and within them is growing, as well as the population radicalism level. Consequently, an effective political solution of the land issue at the moment can be found only while taking into account the opinion of all of the decision-makers: the President of Ukraine, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, Verkhovna Rada and the Council of Ministers of the ARC, the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people, local councils, participants of the land squatting activities, the Crimean Tatar population, the Russian- language speaking population, representatives of the radical forces, defending the interests of the Crimean Tatar population, representatives of the radical forces, defending the interests of the Russian-speaking population e.t.c. It is only in this case, that a constructive solution for the land issue could be found. A solution, that would create the long term “rules of political game”, and not only a temporary decrease in the tension (see scheme). One of the mechanisms to achieve this concord would be a public system of decision preparation and decision-making as to the land issues that would function on an ongoing basis. The creation of such a system could be commenced upon within Verkhovna Rada and the Council of Ministers of Crimea. The creation of a public hearings system could become “the introductory point” that would necessarily have a mechanism of decision “transfer” to the session hall and taking the public opinion into account. The strategic goal for the land reform process could be the one of creating the land market. The socialistic attitude towards land as to the national wealth denies the market regulation of land relations. In the meantime, such regulation could solve many problems without making them political issues and without national confrontation, while the attempts to regulate the land market “the right way” through the administrative measures, inevitably increase the room for abuse of power and corruption. Moreover, the absence of economic regulation of land relations hinders the solution of a number of other economic problems, connected to the investment appeal of the region, the development of mortgage, bank loan systems and insurance business. Therefore, the creation of a legal and transparent secondary land market should be the mainstream within the land problem solution.

48

The political system within which the decisions as to land allocation are taken as of October 2006

49

50 The achievement of this goal is impossible without the creation of the land market infrastructure. In order to create such an infrastructure one needs to cope with a few interconnected tasks. One of those would be the creation of a digital land cadastre. The creation of this cadastre is a complex project – both in the technical and organizational sense. Nevertheless, it can be done by using the ways proposed or choosing the alternative path. Among the social consequences of the cadastre creation would be the following: - normalization of the land registration in the ARC - control over land use and changes in the proprietary rights for land - preparation of decisions at all levels of government as to the land allocation and redistribution - the preparation of a civilized market for land resources - organization of information corpus which describes the land resources of the ARC - planning of land use in the ARC While not attempting to describe all of the possible land cadastre systems and the ways of their implementation in Crimea (more detailed information can be found in the report by V. Mykelych), we will justify only three necessary conditions that lay down its foundation: 1. the pecuniary valuation of land 2. creating of a land inventory 3. change in the legal norms

The pecuniary valuation of land In the time-span of 1999 to 2005 the pecuniary valuation of land was conducted in 67 settlements of Crimea out of 1028 settlements, which accounts for less than 7% of the total number. Out of the 67 settlements, 11 were cities of republican subordination, 5 cities of district subordination, 31 rural settlements and 20 villages. Lands of agricultural use underwent the valuation process. This is used while paying the unified land tax by the agriculture ventures and also while calculating the amounts of the land tax and land-lease. As a result of the valuation, local budgets got an increasing input from the payments for land: from 28,6 million UAH in 1998 to 84,3 million UAH in 2004 and 96 million UAH for the 10 months of 2006 (according to the State Tax Administration). At the same time, the pecuniary valuation of lands used for non-agricultural purposes beyond the city limits has not been finished yet (only 37% has been completed). It results in budget losses of 15 million UAH annually. Meanwhile, the methodology for land pecuniary valuation provokes a lot of dispute. The mechanisms for the valuation of land that can be used for resource production and extraction, and other types of land should be totally different. The land valuation is hindered by the fact that the settlement boundaries need to be defined for it to proceed. The boundaries of many settlements in Crimea have not yet been defined. At the same time, the price of land in the “black market” in a year has reached twice the amount it used to be – up to 20 - 25 thousand USD for 100 square meters.

51 Creating of a land inventory In accordance with the decree of Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine as of 18.12.1990 “On the land reform” an inventory for the 2053,4 hectares of land was created. This area is 84% of land outside of the settlements. This includes: - 977,7 thousand hectares of lands of agricultural ventures - 309,9 thousand hectares of lands belonging to the population (agricultural land plots) - 45,8 thousand hectares of lands for private farming enterprises - 8,8 thousand hectares allocated to fruit-producing associations - 9,7 thousand hectares allocated to the population for mowing and vegetable-growing - 14,2 thousand hectares belonging to the defense and law enforcement ministries and allocated to the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation - 182,1 thousand hectares occupied by the inland waters - 90,1 thousand hectares of forestries - 415,1 thousand hectares of land not allocated for either property or use According to the information provided by the Republican Committee on Land Resources it will take another 3 years to complete the inventory creation, provided that all the necessary finance is allocated. As far as the lands within the settlement boundaries are concerned – that include lands allocated to industrial enterprises, transport and communication companies, defense industry sites, health, recreational and environmental bodies – the inventory has been created for 29% of the total area. There is not a single settlement in which the inventory of all land has been created, which results in budget loss and does not provide an opportunity for ensuring the transparency while allocating land plots. One of the reasons for that is the underbudgeting. According to the Land Reform Programme for 2001 – 2005, ratified by the Decree number 237-3 of Verkhovna Rada of Crimea dated 18.09.2002, 125 million UAH are to be allocated for the activities connected to the land reform. In reality only 4,9 million UAH (4%) has been allocated both from the national and the local budgets. Not a single decree of the President of Ukraine (both L. Kuchma and V. Yushenko) as to the creation of an automated system for state land cadastre and the electronic registry of land plots for housing, belonging to the population, has been fulfilled. As of October 2006, 93% of the land plots, allocated for house construction has been included into the inventory. This number also includes 71000 land plots of Formerly Deported People. The register for the allocated land plots will have been completed by the end of 2006. The creation of the inventory for land plots for housing has been completed in 22 regions out of 25. The work in Yalta (70% completed), Sudak (65% completed) and Simferopol (37% completed) is taking longer. It is in those areas, that most of the problems connected to land issues exist. Out of 1028 settlements in Crimea, the settlement boundaries have been set for 4 cities of republican subordination, 49 settlements and 924 villages. The boundaries have not been set for 7 cities of republican subordination, 5 cities of district subordination, 7 settlements and 26 villages. These numbers include the cities of Alushta, Alupka, Kerch, Feodosia, Yalta; the settlements of Foros, Sanatornoye, Kurortnoye, Shebetovka, Beregovoye, Peshanoye, Uglovoye, Chernomorskoye. This is due to the absence of necessary finance allocated – it requires 6,1 million UAH from the national budget and 12,5 million UAH from the local budgets. The boundaries of 254 settlements of the ARC (25%) have been marked.

52 The absence of a distinction between state-owned and communally owned lands makes it possible for a multitude of land use violations to take place, thus breaking the rights of citizens. In this case a citizen can not appeal to court about the activities or inaction of the government bodies.

Change in the legal norms While not attempting to describe all the legal norms, necessary for the creation of a land cadastre, we would like to draw the following proposals, previously formulated by the Council of Ministers of the ARC and other governmental bodies for the President and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, as an example: 1. On the amendment to the article 150 of the Land Code of Ukraine, which defines the lands in the South Coast of Crimea, belonging to the category of curative and recreational lands, as particularly valuable ones. 2. On the amendment of the Land Code of Ukraine as to the moratorium for land plot allocation in the settlements, if there doesn’t exist the general plan for construction on the territory 3. On the adoption of a decree by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine “On proclaiming the natural territories of the cities of Yalta, Sudak and Alushta health-resorts of national importance”. 4. In order to regulate the issues as to the preservation of the Black Sea and the Azov Sea coasts, amend the articles 60, 62 of Ukraine’s Land Code and the articles 88, 89 of the Water code of Ukraine, the article 31 of the law of Ukraine “On health-resorts” as to the definition of the sea, bay and salty lakes’ coastline width and determination of restrictions for economic activities in the coastline zones. 5. In order to ensure the objectiveness and the independence of control over the use of land resources, take the State Inspection for Land Use and Preservation out of control of the State Committee on Land Resources of Ukraine and make the former responsible to the Ministry of Environment Protection and increase the finance for its support. 6. In order to ensure efficient use of land occupied by various governmentally and departmentally owned health-resort facilities, create an inventory for such facilities, evaluate their efficiency and determine the need for them to stay in government property. 7. In order to limit the speculative reselling of land, that has been allocated to the citizens of Ukraine for free according to the current legislation, compliment the Criminal Code of Ukraine by article 356-1 “Land squatting and unauthorized construction”; make other changes in the legal framework. 8. In order to increase the effectiveness of land use, amend the legal acts, that regulate the issues concerning land-lease in terms of increase of demands to the time-span necessary to develop the areas, that have been taken into temporary use. Introduce a progressive system of taxation for those, who have exceeded the standard time-span for developing the land.

53 APPENDICES

Official statistical data

All-Crimean data According to the official data, the number of repatriates, who have received a land plot in this or that way after 1989, accounts for 15,2% of the total number of adults. The share of repatriates, who are older than 18, is 10,9% of the total number of adults of the peninsula. Number of land plots (pcs) % Formerly Deported People and their descendants 126482 15,2 The rest of the population of Crimea 705501 84,8 Total 831983 100,0

People over 18 in thousands % Formerly Deported People and their descendants 183,4 10,9 The rest of the population of Crimea 1490,8 89,1 Total 1674,2 100,0

On average 2,16 land plots of 2,74 hectares in area (average) fall to the share of one family of the FDP, whereas 1,2 land plots of 1,98 hectares fall to the share of the non-FDP. Number Land plots Area in Land plots per 1 Area per 1 family of families allocated hectares family (pcs) (hectares) Formerly Deported 58681 126482 161443 2,16 2,75 People and their descendants The rest of the 590354 705501 1168734 1,20 1,98 population of Crimea Total 649035 831983 1330177 1,28 2,05

There are 0,69 land plots of a total area of 0,88 hectares per one adult (over 18) of the FDP and 0,47 land plots of 0,78 hectares per one adult of the non-FDP Population Land plots Area in Land plots per 1 Area per 1 family over 18, allocated hectares family (pcs) (hectares) (persons) Formerly Deported 183423 126482 161443 0,69 0,88 People and their descendants The rest of the 1490804 705501 1168734 0,47 0,78 population of Crimea Total 1674227 831983 1330177 0,50 0,79

54 Differences between the cities and their suburbs and the rural areas

Rural areas

On average 2,36 land plots of a total area of 3,59 hectares fall to the share of one FDP family and 2,41 land plots of 4,92 hectares to the share of non-FDP families in the rural parts of the Republic. It is mostly explained by the fact, that the Formerly Deported People were not able to take part in the distribution of agricultural land plots. Number Land plots Area in Land plots per 1 Area per 1 family of families allocated hectares family (pcs) (hectares) Formerly Deported 44224 104258 158872 2,36 3,59 People and their descendants The rest of the 232903 561569 1146863 2,41 4,92 population of Crimea Total 277127 665827 1305735 2,40 4,71

There are 0,53 land plots in total area of 0,80 hectares per one FDP person in the rural areas and 0,80 land plots of 1,64 hectares for the non-FDP. Rural Land plots Area in Land plots per 1 Area per 1 person population allocated hectares person (pcs) (hectares) (persons) Formerly Deported 197373 104258 158872 0,53 0,80 People and their descendants The rest of the 698721 561569 1146863 0,40 1,64 population of Crimea Total 896094 665827 1305735 0,41 1,46

There are 0,75 land plots of 1,14 hectares per one adult (over 18) in the rural areas for the FDP and 0,92 land plots of 1,88 hectares for the non-FDP Rural Land plots Area in Land plots per 1 Area per 1 person population allocated hectares person over 18 over 18 (hectares) over 18 (pcs) (persons) Formerly Deported 139750 104258 158872 0,75 1,14 People and their descendants The rest of the 608470 561569 1146863 0,92 1,88 population of Crimea Total 748200 665827 1305735 0,89 1,74

55 Provision of land plots for construction and maintenance of a house in the rural areas: 1,27 land plots per one FDP family and 0,91 land plots for a non-FDP family in the rural areas.

Provision of land plots for house construction per one family (pieces) Formerly Deported People and Rest of the population their descendants Bakhchisarayskiy 1,67 0,85 Belogorskiy 1,16 1,10 Djankoyskiy 1,12 1,04 Kirovskiy 1,65 0,94 Krasnogvardeyskiy 1,60 0,75 Krasnoperekopskiy 1,08 1,01 Leninskiy 0,92 0,86 Nijnegorskiy 1,16 0,94 Pervomayskiy 1,12 1,05 Razdolnenskiy 0,68 0,88 Sakskiy 1,37 1,03 Simferopolskiy 1,21 0,86 Sovetskiy 1,63 0,99 Chernomorskiy 1,08 1,25 Total for all rural districts 1,27 0,91

Cities and their suburbs A different situation can be observed concerning land plot provision in the cities. That is due to two factors: first of all, the city-dwellers didn’t participate in the process of the former collective farm agricultural land plot distribution, second of all, the issue with housing is usually dealt with through construction of apartment buildings and not through the allocation of land for individual housing construction. On average there are 1,54 land plots of 0,18 hectare in total area per one FDP family and 0,40 land plots of 0,06 hectares for the non-FDP families in the cities of Crimea.

56

Number Land plots Area in Land plots per 1 Area per 1 family of families allocated hectares family (pcs) (hectares) Formerly Deported 14457 22224 2571 1,54 0,18 People and their descendants The rest of the 357451 143932 21872 0,40 0,06 population of Crimea Total 371908 166156 24443 0,45 0,07

There are 0,38 land plots of 0,04 hectare per one FDP person and 0,14 land plots of 0,02 hectares per one non-FDP person in the city area.

Urban Land plots Area in Land plots per 1 Area per 1 person population allocated hectares person (pcs) (hectares) (persons) Formerly Deported 58866 22224 2571 0,38 0,04 People and their descendants The rest of the 1029432 143932 21872 0,14 0,02 population of Crimea Total 1088298 166156 24443 0,15 0,02

There is 0,51 land plots of 0,06 hectares per one adult (over 18) in the urban areas for the FDP and 0,16 land plots of 0,02 hectares for the non-FDP Urban Land plots Area in Land plots per 1 Area per 1 person population allocated hectares person over 18 over 18 (hectares) over 18 (pcs) (persons) Formerly Deported 42673 22224 2571 0,52 0,06 People and their descendants The rest of the 883334 143932 21872 0,16 0,02 population of Crimea Total 926007 166156 24443 0,18 0,03

57 There are 1,41 land plots allocated for individual housing construction in the cities per one FDP family. That includes – 3,58 land plots in Simferopol, 2,43 land plots in Yalta, whereas this indicator in Kerch is 0,20, Djankoy – 0,41 and Saki – 0,57 respectively.

Provision of land plots for house construction per one family (pieces) Formerly Deported People and Rest of the population their descendants Alushta 1,66 0,36 Armyansk 1,47 0,21 Djankoy 0,41 0,43 Yevpatoriya 0,99 0,14 Kerch 0,20 0,04 Krasnoperekopsk 0,84 1,31 Saki 0,57 0,30 Simferopol 3,58 0,19 Sudak 1,45 0,27 Feodosia 1,73 0,27 Yalta 2,43 0,08 Total for all of the cities 1,41 0,24

Geographical distinctions For the purposes of the geographical distinctions’ analysis we can distinguish the following regions: - The South Coast of Crimea (Greater Alushta, Greater Yalta, Sudak and Feodosia) - The foothills districts (Simferopolskiy, Bakhchisarayskiy, Belogorskiy and Kirovskiy districts) - The capital region (the city of Simferopol) - The steppe regions of Crimea (all the rest of the Crimean regions). The highest level of land plot provision (number of land plots) for the FDPs and the non-FDPs is in the South Coast and the steppe regions of Crimea. The first region - due to the great attractiveness (and that is why there is great interest for it) and the second one – due to the distribution of 1 million hectares of lands for agricultural use and their transfer into the ownership of farmers.

58

Per 1 family Per person Per one adult (pieces) (pieces) (pieces) of Crimea of Crimea of Crimea descendants descendants descendants People and their People and their People and their Formerly Deported Formerly Deported Formerly Deported Rest of the population Rest of the population Rest of the population

South Coast 2,40 0,33 0,47 0,11 0,62 0,13 Foothills districts 2,03 2,20 0,43 0,71 0,59 0,82 Simferopol 1,58 0,34 0,41 0,12 0,57 0,14 The steppe regions of Crimea 2,35 1,57 0,57 0,52 0,81 0,63 Average for Crimea 2,16 1,20 0,49 0,40 0,69 0,47

As far as the areas provided are concerned the level is the highest in the steppe and the foothills districts of Crimea where: there are 0,38 to 1,04 hectares per an FDP person and 0,85 to 1,09 hectares per a non-FDP person.

Per 1 family Per person Per one adult (hectares) (hectares) (hectares) of Crimea of Crimea of Crimea descendants descendants descendants People and their People and their People and their Formerly Deported Formerly Deported Formerly Deported Rest of the population Rest of the population Rest of the population

South Coast 0,24 0,08 0,05 0,03 0,06 0,03 Foothills districts 1,80 2,64 0,38 0,85 0,52 0,99 Simferopol 0,11 0,02 0,03 0,01 0,04 0,01 The steppe regions of Crimea 4,30 3,32 1,04 1,09 1,47 1,33 Average for Crimea 2,75 1,98 0,63 0,66 0,88 0,78

59 The indicators for the South Coast

As an example let us thoroughly look at the situation in only one city council of the South Coast – Yaltinskiy. As of October 1st, 2006 there have been a total of 5907 land plots allocated on the territory of Greater Yalta. The number included 1306 (22,1%) to the Formerly Deported People and 4601 (77,9%) to the non-FDPs (2050 Crimean Tatars are registered in Greater Yalta. They make 1,44% of the population). There are 2,45 land plots per one FDP family and 0.73 land plots per one FDP adult (over 18).

Per 1 family Per person Per one adult Land plots Area Land plots Area Land plots Area (pieces) (hectares) (pieces) (hectares) (pieces) (hectares)

Formerly Deported 2,45 0,14 0,64 0,04 0,73 0,04 People and their descendants The rest of the 0,10 0,01 0,03 0,003 0,04 0,004 population of Crimea

There exist serious territorial disproportions as to the levels of land allocation to the Formerly Deported. We can distinguish the following groups of regions: - The city of Yalta, Alupka, Gurzufskiy village council – 40-45% of land plots allocated to the repatriates - Koreizskiy, Simeizskiy, Forosskiy village councils – 25-33% of land plots allocated to the repatriates - Gasprinskiy, Massandrovskiy village councils – 5-15% of land plots allocated to the repatriates - Livadiyskiy village council – no land plots have been allocated to the repatriates

Land plots allocated (pieces) Repatriates Other nationalities city of Yalta 40,2% 59,8% Alupkinskiy city council 45,4% 54,6% Gasprinskiy village council 14,8% 85,2% Gurzufskiy village council 42,6% 57,4% Koreizskiy village council 24,5% 75,5% Livadiyskiy village council 0% 100% Massandrovskiy village council 4,6% 95,4% Simeizskiy village council 33,0% 67,0% Forosskiy village council 33,0% 67,0%

60 On an average basis the size of a land plot that the repatriates received is smaller than the one received by other nationalities – 0,064 hectares against 0,073 hectares respectively. The biggest differences are: - Alupkinskiy city council – 0,042 hectares against 0,090 hectares - Forosskiy village council – 0,041 hectares against 0,104 hectares

The average size of a land plot in hectares

Repatriates Other nationalities city of Yalta 0,058 0,064 Alupkinskiy city council 0,042 0,090 Gasprinskiy village council 0,043 0,082 Gurzufskiy village council 0,094 0,099 Koreizskiy village council 0,050 0,081 Livadiyskiy village council 0,000 0,084 Massandrovskiy village council 0,030 0,053 Simeizskiy village council 0,064 0,079 Forosskiy village council 0,041 0,104

Out of the land plots, allocated to the repatriates, a greater number is not being developed. The smallest amount of undeveloped land plots is in the city of Yalta – 18% of land plots and 21% of areas. The greatest number of undeveloped land plots is in the Alupkinskiy city council – 95% of land plots and 94% of areas; and in the Simeizskiy village council – 97% of land plots and 96% of areas.

The number of land plots that have been allocated to the FDPs and are not under development: Pieces Hectares city of Yalta 17,9% 21,4% Alupkinskiy city council 95,0% 94,0% Gasprinskiy village council 23,3% 38,0% Gurzufskiy village council 33,0% 24,4% Koreizskiy village council 20,0% 35,0% Livadiyskiy village council - - Massandrovskiy village council 31,2% 72,4% Simeizskiy village council 96,8% 95,9% Forosskiy village council 70,0% 95,9%

61 The local government bodies of Greater Yalta have registered 4448 requests on behalf of Crimean Tatars for land plot reception. The majority of those requests (73%) belong to people, who do not reside in this region, and therefore, do not have a right to receive those land plots on a top-priority basis. The Yalta city council and the village councils of the region review a possibility of allocating 64 hectares of land for the purpose of individual housing construction on the territory of Greater Yalta. They also consider reallocating the land plots that have previously been allocated to the repatriates, but have not been developed, to those Crimean Tatars, who will be ready to develop those land plots.

Indicators for the capital region Since 1989 (since the moment of mass return of Crimean Tatars from the places of their deportation) 9673 land plots were allocated in the city of Simferopol for individual house construction. The number includes 6481 land plots allocated to the Formerly Deported People. Taking into consideration the passing of property in terms of housing, 9931 Crimean Tatars and 31491 representatives of other nationalities became owners of land plots. The share of Crimean Tatars accounts for 24% of the total number of allocated land plots. In Simferopolskiy district this number floats between 14% in the Mirnovskiy and Ukromnovskiy village councils and 49% in Molodiojnenskiy and Chistensky village councils. Allocation of land plots* Repatriates Other nationalities city of Simferopol 24,0% 76,0% Dobrovskiy village council 38,7% 61,3% Mirnovskiy village council 14,5% 85,5% Molodiojnenskiy village council 49,0% 51,0% Nikolaevskiy village council 21,8% 78,2% Perovskiy village council 27,2% 72,8% Trudovskoy village council 33,8% 66,2% Ukromnovskiy village council 13,6% 86,4% Chistenkiy village council 48,3% 51,7% * For the purpose of the analysis we picked the self government bodies, that have problems with land allocation and where land squatting took place.

In comparison to the South Coast region, the Simfeopol region has a bigger average size of a land plot. In the city of Simferopol, Mirnovskiy and Molodiojnenskiy village councils the size lies within the norms, prescribed for a city – 0,06-0,08 hectares and in the district 0,10-0,14 hectares respectively.

62 The average size of a land plot in hectares:

Repatriates Other nationalities city of Simferopol 0,07 hectares 0,06 hectares Dobrovskiy village council 0,14 hectares 0,13 hectares Mirnovskiy village council 0,07 hectares 0,08 hectares Molodiojnenskiy village council 0,08 hectares 0,08 hectares Nikolaevskiy village council 0,13 hectares 0,17 hectares Perovskiy village council 0,12 hectares 0,13 hectares Trudovskoy village council 0,12 hectares 0,17 hectares Ukromnovskiy village council 0,13 hectares 0,12 hectares Chistenkiy village council 0,10 hectares 0,14 hectares

Not all of the allocated land plots undergo development. Amongst the Formerly Deported People the level of land plot development is much lower, than amongst the representatives of other nationalities. The percentage of people, who have not started developing their land plots floats from 5 in Ukromnovskiy village council to 31 in Perovskiy.

Percentage of people, who have not yet started developing their land plots:

Repatriates Other nationalities city of Simferopol 7,8% 1,6% Dobrovskiy village council 0,0% 0,0% Mirnovskiy village council 12,8% 0,5% Molodiojnenskiy village council 12,1% 1,2% Nikolaevskiy village council 0,0% 0,0% Perovskiy village council 31,4% 2,4% Trudovskoy village council 25,7% 2,6% Ukromnovskiy village council 4,6% 1,6% Chistenkiy village council 19,9% 4,3%

The allocation of land plots for house construction and maintenance in Simferopol and its suburbs mostly took place through the legalization of rights for land squatted territories. In 1989-1991 the activists of the Mejlis organized mass land squatting in the areas of Fontany, Kamenka, Novonikolaevka, Trudovoye, Lozovoye, Dobroye villages. Houses were constructed on these land plots, and only afterwards was a decision as to the legalization taken. According to the state and republican programmes of resettlement there was certain infrastructure created in the above-mentioned neighborhoods – water supply, electric power supply, gas supply, roads e.t.c.

63 2005-2006 saw the second wave of land squatting, which was caused by the inner migration of Crimean Tatars. The peak of land squatting was reached in the middle of 2006. 501 hectares of land in Simferopol were occupied in an unauthorized manner. A part of this area had been previously given to special welfare categories of citizens for the construction of apartment buildings. 1023 hectares of cultivated land, belonging mainly to the Ministry of Agricultural Policy of Ukraine and the Ukrainian Academy for Agricultural Sciences, on the territory of the Dobrovskiy, Perovskiy, Trudovskoy, Ukromnovskiy, Chistenkiy, Mirnenskiy, Molodiojnenskiy and Nikolaevskiy village councils underwent land squatting. In order to allocate this land for house construction an agreement on behalf of the Ministry of Agricultural Policy of Ukraine, the Ukrainian Academy for Agricultural Sciences and Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is needed. All in all 15,6 thousand people want to get land in the above-mentioned areas. 13 thousand of them are Crimean Tatars the majority of whom are dwellers of other regions of Crimea.

Names of local councils Demand land allocation Out of them are residents of (participate in land squatting) other regions of Crimea (in % (persons) of the total) Repatriates Other Repatriates Other nationalities nationalities city of Simferopol 3068 1375 5,6 0 Dobrovskiy village council 673 414 71,9 9,4 Mirnovskiy village council 3136 285 95,5 44,9 Molodiojnenskiy village 800 150 94,4 66,7 council Nikolaevskiy village council 565 35 93,8 42,8 Perovskiy village council 304 0 87,8 0 Trudovskoy village council 675 0 78,9 0 Ukromnovskiy village 356 379 80,6 82,0 council Chistenkiy village council 3477 0 91,0 0 Total: 13054 2638 70,4 22,7

64 Public opinion on land issues

Public opinion on land squatting

According to the public opinion polls, - 38% of the Crimean population consider the protest actions (including the land squatting) by the Crimean Tatar people to be planned activities, that aim at seizing power in Crimea in a step-by-step manner. - 46% consider this to be an attempt of coercive pressing on the governmental bodies by carried out by Crimean Tatar political organizations. - 11% consider this to be the only opportunity for the population that has been cornered to get their problems and solved.

What do you think, the protest activities (including land squatting) carried out by the Crimean Tatar people are:

The only opportunity for the people to get their problems solved 5% Desperate activities of the people, who have been cornered 6% An attempt of coercive pressing on the governmental bodies carried out by Crimean 46% Tatar political organizations Planned activities, that aim at seizing power in Crimea in a step-by-step manner 38% Other, hard to answer 5%

75% of the Crimean population think that the land under land squatting in Simferopol and Simferopolskiy district should be used as it previously has, and 12% think, that it should be given to Crimean Tatars for house construction.

Recently several land squatting activities by Crimean Tatars have taken place in the city of Simferopol and Simferopolskiy district. What do you think?

These lands should be given to Crimean Tatars for house construction 12% These lands should be used as they previously have 75% Other 5% Hard to answer 7%

65 77% of the Crimean Population think, that land on the South Coast of Crimea should be allocated to those Crimean Tatars, who are registered on a waiting-list for reception of housing and according to the queue in this list.

According to your opinion, should the issue with land allocation for Crimean Tatars in the South Coast be solved? Which of the statements do you support?

The land on the South Coast of Crimea should be allocated to those Crimean Tatars, 77% who are registered on a waiting-list for reception of housing and according to the queue in this list The land should be allocated to those Crimean Tatars, who are registered on a waiting 6% list for reception of housing, but on a top-priority basis i.e. without the queue The land should be allocated to all Crimean Tatars, whose ancestors used to live on 6% this territory and regardless of presence in the waiting-list for reception of housing Other 5% Hard to answer 6%

69% of the Crimean population think, that one Crimean Tatar family should be allocated with one land plot

What do you think, what should the order of land allocation to Crimean Tatars be? One land plot should be given to:

One Crimean Tatar family 69% Every Crimean Tatar adult 9% The lands should be allocated, keeping in mind the children, that are growing 4% No land should be allocated 13% Other 2% Hard to answer 3%

66 Public opinion on the situation with land on the South Coast of Crimea

The following answers were given by the South Coast citizens (Yalta, Alushta, Sudak, Feodosia) in 2004 and 2005. The choice for the time-spans is predetermined by the fact, that 2004 saw the peak of land squatting on the South Coast of Crimea and 2005 witnessed a campaign, aimed at straightening out the situation with land resource usage, that was initiated by the newly elected President of Ukraine, V. Yushenko, who came to power at the end of 2004.

According to the opinion polls’ data, 77% of the people living in the South Coast think that there were violations during the allocation of land.

What do you think, are there violations while allocating land on the South Coast of Crimea?, 2004

Most probably “yes” 77% Most probably “no” 12% Hard to answer 11%

Among those who suppose the possible existence of such violations 82% consider the people with a high standard of living to be given favor.

What do you think – who got preferences during the land allocation on the South Coast of Crimea? (For those, who gave a positive answer to the previous question; the sum is considered to be 100%), 2004

Those, who have a higher standard of living 82% Those, who have a lower standard of living 4% The standard of living was not the criterion 8% Hard to answer 6%

48% think, that the violations took place regardless of the nationalities of people, but 26% considered the violations to be to the benefit of Crimean Tatars.

What do you think, who was in a beneficial position while the land allocation on the South Coast of Crimea took place? (For those, who gave a positive answer to the previous question; the sum is considered to be 100%), 2004

Russian by nationality 14% Ukrainian by nationality 2% Crimean Tatar by nationality 26% The nationality was not the criterion 48% Hard to answer 10%

54% consider no preference to have been given according to the country citizenship, 19% thought the citizens of the Russian Federation to have been given priority.

67 What do you think, who was in a beneficial position during the land allocation on the South Coast of Crimea? (For those, who gave a positive answer to the previous question; the sum is considered to be 100%), 2004

Citizens of Ukraine 15% Citizens of Russia 19% Citizens of Turkey 2% The country of citizenship was not the criterion 54% Hard to answer 10%

While evaluating the activities of V. Yushenko aimed at straightening out the land use in Crimea, 56% predicted the reallocation of land to the favor of the new government leaders to take place and 13% believed, that the land would be allocated among those, who have the right for it and on a fair basis.

Today the law enforcement bodies are actively checking the legality of land acquisition on the South Coast of Crimea. What do you think will take place after those checks:

The land will remain with the former owners 19% The land will be reallocated to the favor of the new leaders of the state 56% The land will be allocated among those, who have the right for it and on a fair basis 13% Other 1% Hard to answer 11%

At the same time, 46% of the respondents thought that the priority during the reallocation of land, that will take place after the checks, will be given to Crimean Tatars and 19% thought, that Ukrainians would be given priority in the case.

Today the law enforcement bodies are actively checking the legality of land acquisition on the South Coast of Crimea. What do you think will take place after those checks:

The allocation of land will take place regardless of a nationality 12% Russians will be given priority 9% Ukrainians will be given priority 19% Crimean Tatars will be given priority 46% Other 3% Hard to answer 11%

68 Crimean mass media on the land issue

Methodology for the research The research was conducted based on the materials, appearing in the printing press of Crimea, dedicated to the land issues. While conducting the analysis, articles for the time-span of April through October were used. The articles appeared in more than 10 newspapers that were divided into 3 types: pro-Russian, neutral and Crimean Tatar:

Pro-Russian Neutral Crimean Tatar “Krym.ru” “Vestnik Tavridy” “Avdet” “Krymskaya Pravda” “Krymskaya Gazeta” “Dialog” “Krymskoye Vremia” “Krymskaya Nedelia” “Golos Kryma” “Russkiy Mir” “Krymskie Izvestiya” “Poluostrov” “Slava Sevastopolia” “Pervaya Krymskaya” “Krymskiy Obozrevatel” “Sobytiya” “Respublika Krym”

In order to measure the land issues, covered by the Crimean press on a quantitative basis, the text content-analysis method was used. While using this approach, the number of references to the analysis units was counted.

Analysis units – words in the texts of the articles, that are indicators of land problem description. Those units are divided into 6 thematic groups: 1). Land, land plots and land shares 2). Land squatting, illegal activities with land 3). Land issues and problems with land 4). Ways to solve the land problem: creating of an inventory, a draft law as to criminal liability for land squatting 5). References to the leaders of the Autonomous Republic and the representatives of the central government in the articles, concerning land issues

69 Analysis units that were used for each group are listed in the following table: Groups Units of analysis 1 Land, land plots and land shares Land, Agricultural land plot, Land plot 2 Land squatting, illegal activities with land Occupation (of land) Land squatting Unauthorized construction Voluntary (illegal, unauthorized construction e.t.c) Protest camp 3 Land issues and problems with land Land issue, Land problem 4 Ways to solve the land problem: creating of Law (draft law as to criminal liability for land an inventory, a draft law as to criminal squatting) liability for land squatting Creation of an inventory Cadastre Database (for land plots) 5 References to the leaders of the Babenko Autonomous Republic and the Brayko representatives of the central government in Golubev the articles, concerning land issues Grizenko Djemilev Ilyasov Klychnikov Moskal Plakida Chubarov Sherbina Yushenko Yanukovich

Units for counting – articles of the Crimean press, divided by the type of the mass media source (neutral, pro- Russian, Crimean Tatar) and by the date (for 7 months from April to September)

Main tendencies The number of references to the land problems, having reached its peak in September 2006, starts decreasing in October Based on the analysis one can observe a tendency for the increase in the number of references to words that denote land plots and land squatting activities in the Crimean press if one looks at the dynamics of April through September 2006. 10 new areas near Simferopol and in the Simferopolskiy district underwent land squatting by Crimean Tatars and 2 areas - by the Slavic population in April. It was then, that Crimean Tatars started mass demarcation of the territories occupied in order to delimit the boundaries of land plots. They also started bringing shell limestone blocks to build temporary constructions. As a result, the April press has the highest number of references to the indicators of the land problem: 223 references for “land”, “land plot”, “land problem” and others and 139 references to “land squatting”, “land occupation”, “unauthorized construction” e.t.c.

70 The traditionally high level of references to the land issues in May (264 references) decreased to the level of 113- 155 references in June and July. The same is characteristic of the references to the words, connected to land squatting – 44 references in May and 26-33 references in June-July correspondingly. Nevertheless, in August, which saw the conflict around the market-place in Bakhchisaray and the visit of V. Yanukovich in order to solve land problems and address other issues in Crimea, one can observe a rocketing number of references to land issues (223 references in August as compared to 155 in July) and land squatting issues (90 references in August compared to 33 in July). This was not the end to the growth of tension in the conflict around land, as described by the Crimean press. This was a more acute tendency in September: - 354 references to land squatting (in August there were 90) - 665 references to land shares and land problems in general (in August there were 223) The increase in the attention of the press given to the land issues in September was justified by several reasons: - The Members of Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopts the bill as to criminal liability for land squatting in the first reading. - The NSDC conducted a meeting, devoted to problems in Crimea. Among them was the land issue - G. Moskal conducted a meeting as to the land issue - Verkhovna Rada of Crimea discussed land problems on its session (speeches made by N. Golubev and V. Khomenko) The number of references to the words, denoting land plots decreases, but remains at a high level. The references to land squatting decrease at a quicker pace and reach the level they had in August (132 references). Among all, this is due to the fact, that land squatting references gave way to the public response in connection to the press-conference held by V. Klychnikov. The topic for the press-conference was the authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea and 17 land plots in Massandra.

More than 10 new References to “land”, “squatting” and other NSDC land squatting episodes around words connected to them in the Crimean press Simferopol (incl. 3 Draft law on criminal Slavic); demarcation, liability for land squatting adopted constr. materials Crimean Tatar mourning activities brought to commemorate the deportation The visit of V. Yanukovich

Conflict in Bakhchisaray

April May June July August September October

Occupation, voluntary (illegal), land squatting, unauthorized construction, protest camp Land, agricultural land plot, land plot, land issue, land problem

71 The land problem in Crimea is becoming a wider notion, then the problem of land squatting Starting from July 2006 the difference between the reference to the words describing the land problem on a whole scale and the number of words, referring to land squatting begins to grow. This means, that Crimean press writes more and more about the land problems, that arise not only due to land squatting. This difference manifested itself most vividly in September when an attempt was taken by the Members of Crimean Verkhovna Rada to allocate 17 land plots in Massandra for the construction of country houses. May is the exception from this tendency, as the commemorative activities dedicated to the date of the deportation of Crimean Tatars take place this month. Because of this, the deportation and current life conditions of Crimean Tatars on the peninsula get into the spotlight of mass media.

Words/word groups Number of references April May June July August September October Occupation, unauthorized 139 44 26 33 90 354 132 (illegal, voluntary), land squatting, unauthorized construction, protest camp Land, agricultural land 223 264 113 155 223 665 581 plot, land plot, land issue, land problems Difference 84 220 87 122 133 311 449

All in all, in April through September the articles by Crimean mass media mentioned the words “land, agricultural land plot, land plot, land issue, land problem” 2224 times whereas the words “occupation, unauthorized (illegal, voluntary), land squatting, unauthorized construction, protest camp” were mentioned 818 times, which is 2,7 times less, than the number of references to the words, denoting land and land shares.

Words/ word groups Number of references Occupation, unauthorized (illegal, voluntary), 818 land squatting, unauthorized construction, protest camp Land, agricultural land plot, land plot, land issue, 2224 land problem

The bigger the attention given by the press to land squatting activities, the more there are references to inventory and land cadastre creation. The NSDC of Ukraine’s meeting on Crimean land problems in September provided for the peak of references to the topic of land inventory, land cadastre and database on land plots creation in the press. The number of references started growing already in July: 21 references in July, 14 in August and 46 in September. The growth of attention paid by the press to the topic of inventory creation had a positive high correlation with the growing number of land squatting activities in Crimea.

72

Words/ word groups July August September Correlation coefficient Number of land squats in Crimea 27 35 48 Number of references to the land inventory creation 21 14 46 +0,79 and everything connected to it

The burning issue with land was discussed on the meeting of the NSDC of Ukraine in September and already in October the number of references to the topic of land inventory creation, as a means to solve the problem, dropped from 46 to 18. Nevertheless, the growth of land squatting episodes did not cease after the meeting. As a result, the importance of the connection between the number of land squatting sites and the topic of land inventory creation dropped substantially.

Words/ word groups July August September October Correlation coefficient Number of land squats in Crimea 27 35 48 51 Number of references to the land 21 14 46 18 +0,39 inventory creation and everything connected to it

The reaction of the press as to the law on criminal liability for land squatting is connected not to the real number of land squatting episodes, but rather to important political events There appeared to be not more than 2 references to the law on introducing criminal liability for land squatting in April through July. In August and September the number of references started growing from 5 and reached the mark of 48 (i.e. grew by 9,6 times). At the same time, two landmark political events took place – Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted in the first reading the draft law on criminal liability for land squatting, and the NSDC conducted its meeting, dedicated to the land issue. In October the number of references to this draft law dropped to 12 whereas the number of land squatting episodes continued to grow.

References to the words “law”, “draft law”, “inventory creation” in the Crimean press The working group headed by O. Rybachuk and A. Kinakh makes The draft law at to criminal NSDC a decision to create an inventory for liability for land squattingNSDC South Coast lands adopted in the first reading

April May June July August September October Law, draft law (on criminal liability for land squatting) Land inventory creation and everything connected to it Number of areas under land squatting in Crimea

73 The ratings of the numbers of reference to the names of politicians and state officials in the articles, dedicated to the land issues As a result of the content-analyses of the articles by the Crimean mass media outlets, that were dedicated to the land problems the following politicians were most frequently mentioned: - A. Grizenko, the Speaker of Verkhovna Rada of the ARC – 241 references - N. Golubev, the head of the Republican Committee on Land Resources (Reskomzem) of the ARC – 123 - G. Moskal, the Resident Representative of the President of Ukraine in Crimea – 110 - V. Yanukovich, the Prime Minister of Ukraine – 83 - V. Plakida, the Prime Minister of Crimea – 67 - V. Yushenko, the President of Ukraine – 58 - M. Djemilev, the head of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people, Member of Parliament (People’s Deputy) in Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine – 53 - V. Klychnikov, the head of the Verkhovna Rada of the ARC Committee on Local Government and Administrative-Territorial Issues – 52

Name of politician April May June July August September October Total A. Grizenko 0 19 19 43 48 72 40 241 N. Golubev 7 9 6 5 16 32 48 123 G. Moskal 0 2 23 24 9 21 31 110 V. Yanukovich 0 0 1 4 64 14 0 83 V. Plakida 0 0 2 9 28 22 6 67 V. Yushenko 3 2 5 8 9 29 2 58 M. Djemilev 8 0 0 3 30 8 4 53 V. Klychnikov 0 0 8 0 0 2 42 52

The central government level The peak in the number of references to V. Yanukovich in the articles by the Crimean mass media, dedicated to the land issues (64 references per one month) falls to August of 2006 – it was then, that the Prime Minister visited Crimea to settle down the issue with the reallocation of the market-place in Bakhchisaray. The peak in the number of references to Yushenko (29 per month) falls to September, when the meeting of the NSDC on Crimean issues took place.

74 Number of references to the names of the President of Ukraine (V. Yushenko) and the Prime Minister of Ukraine (V. Yanukovich) in the Crimean press

The visit of NSDC V. Yanukovich

April May June July August September October Yushenko Yanukovich

The regional level The numbers of references to the Speaker of the Autonomous Republic, A. Grizenko, and the Prime Minister of the ARC, V. Plakida, grew simultaneously in the time-span of June through August. A. Grizenko was in the lead with 20-30 references more than V. Plakida.

NSDC Number of references to the names of A. Grizenko and V. Plakida in the Crimean The transfer of 17 land plots in Massandra for press country house construction by VR of the ARC

Conflict in Bakhchisaray

May June July August September October Grizenko Plakida

The peak in the number of references to the name of A. Grizenko falls to September (48 references in August, 78 in September and 40 in October). The number of references to the name of the Prime Minister of the Republic decreased after the events in August (from 28 in August to 22 in September and 6 in October) Simultaneously with the August conflict around the market-place in Bakhchisaray there grows the number of references to the name of N. Golubev as if compared with July – from 5 to 16 correspondingly. After that the number of references to N. Golubev grows in arithmetical progression – reaching 32 in September (the speech given to Verkhovna Rada of the ARC on land squatting) and 48 in October (the scandal connected to the interception of talks in the office of N. Golubev) 75 A different situation can be observed with the number of references to the name of the Resident Representative of the President of Ukraine in Crimea, G. Moskal. The number decreases from 24 to 9 during the August events and starts growing again in September-October to reach 21 and 31 references correspondingly. Wide attention was given to the statements by V. Klychnikov as to the transfer of 17 land plots in Massandra by Verkhovna Rada of the ARC: the number of references to his name in the press starting with very few in July- September grew to 42 in October.

Number of references to the names of N. Golubev, G. Moskal and V. Klychnikov in the Crimean press NSDC

The draft law at to criminal liability Comments by G. Moskal on land problems; for land squatting adopted in the first meeting of G. Moskal and the Council of reading Ministers of the ARC on land issues

Conflict in Bakhchisaray

April May June July August September October Golubev Klychnikov Moskal

76