EACH-FOR full report: Environmental Migration in Kyrgyzstan

Regional Center for Migration and Refugees Social Research Center, American University of Central Asia

Environmental Migration: case of Kyrgyzstan

Emil NASRITDINOV Mehrigul ABLEZOVA Aigoul ABDOUBAETOVA Jypara ABAKIROVA

2

CONTENTS

GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS.................................................................................................3 1. RESEARCH BACKGROUND.................................................................................................4 2. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................5

2.1 Country profile ....................................................................................................................5

2.2 Environmental situation in Kyrgyzstan ............................................................................6

2.3 Migration ..............................................................................................................................8

3. METHODS...............................................................................................................................10

3.1 Choice of sampled sites .....................................................................................................10 3.2 Research techniques and tools ..........................................................................................10

4. FIELDWORK FINDINGS .....................................................................................................12

4.1 From expert interviews ......................................................................................................12 4.2 Description of researched settlements ..............................................................................18 4.3 From questionnaires...........................................................................................................24

4.3.1 Non-Migrants Survey: Living in Ruins ...................................................................24 4.3.2 Migrants Survey: The Environmental Migration Chain.......................................29

5. CONCLUSION: SCENARIO WITH NO WINNERS .........................................................38 6. RECOMMENDATIONS: RESTORING THE BALANCE................................................39 7. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................40

3

GLOSSARY Novostrika: New living areas in the periphery of Bishkek Raion: District ACRONYMS EACH FOR Environmental Change and Forced Migration IOM International Organization for Migration MES Ministry for Emergency Situations NSC National Statistical Committee

4

1. RESEARCH BACKGROUND This report presents the finding of six months empirical study, which examines the environmental dimension of relevance to migration in Kyrgyzstan. This multidisciplinary research examines the effects of changing environmental conditions on shaping migration decision of households or individuals in Kyrgyzstan. It also investigates the impact of government and donor responses in addressing the causes and consequences of environmental migration. A third focus of the study is to provide plausible future scenarios of environmentally induced forced migration. Specifically, it seeks to answer the following key questions:

- What role do environmental changes play in migration decision-making process? How does environmental degradation interplay with social, cultural, economic, and political factors in making migration decision?

- How do people perceive the state of environment and its effect on their well-being in

hazardous places? - What are the major factors that keep households from changing the places of living? - Why do people decide to migrate from risk-prone areas? Who decides to move? How the

destination points are chosen? What networks are used to facilitate migration? What are the migration patterns? Are there examples of families returning to their places of origin? Why?

- How does migration affect the social, cultural, economic, and political context in risk-

prone communities? - What could be possible future scenario of environmentally forced migration for the next

5-10-20 years?

5

2. INTRODUCTION 2.1.Country profile

The Kyrgyz Republic (or Kyrgyzstan) is a small landlocked country that is situated in the middle of the Central Asian region. The republic gained its independence after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. It shares its boundaries with China in the south-east, Kazakhstan in the north, Tajikistan in south-west and Uzbekistan in the west. Kyrgyzstan is a mountainous country: about 96% of the territory of the Republic is located 1000 meters above the sea level. Such mountainous terrain keeps some of the population isolated and creates barriers in providing with even access to health, education and other basic social services to all regions in the country. As of the beginning of 2007, the constant population of the Kyrgyz Republic constitutes 5.2 million people (NSC, 2007). More than a third of the population (35%) resides in urban areas, and about two third (65%) are rural inhabitants. The average population density of the country is 26 people per square kilometer. The population is growing by about 1% per year. The size of the population of the country is fueled by a high fertility rate and is also affected by out-migration. The population of the Kyrgyz Republic is relatively young: as of the end of 2006, children and adolescents comprised 21.7% of the whole population, 59% were people who are capable to work and only 8.2% were of the population above that age. The average age of the country is 27.2 years. The number of those people who are capable to work continues to grow. This tendency is attributed to the high fertility rates in the 1980s. The gender composition of the country is even: 49.4% of the population is males and 50.6% - females. The sex imbalance occurs after 35 years. There are twice as more females than males above the age of 80. More than a half of the population are Kyrgyz’s (64.9%), Uzbeks – 13.8%, Russians – 12.5%, also there are Ukrainians, Tatars, Germans and others. Administratively, the territory of the Kyrgyz Republic is divided into seven provinces and two cities at a republican level. Osh province, Jalalabat province, Batken province, and the city of Osh are located in the southern part of the country and Chui province, Talas province, Naryn province, Issykkul and the capital city of Bishkek are located in the north. Historically, the southern part of the country was primarily agrarian and was perceived as less developed, whereas the northern part was industrial and more economically sustained. Although the southern provinces occupy 40% of the whole territory, more than a half of the population resides in that part of the country. The Kyrgyz Republic is characterized by more complex socio-political environment than its neighboring countries. During the period of 2000-2007 Kyrgyzstan has experienced a series of large rallies and demonstrations. Six people died and the Prime Minister and cabinet changed as a result of the clash with opposition in 2001. The Tulip Revolution in March 2005 resulted in political unrest, ousted of former president Askar Akaev and had a negative impact on economic development especially in the agricultural, mining and manufacturing sectors. Thus, that year for the first time since 1995, a negative growth of the GDP was observed. In April 2006 several thousand people demanded promised reforms and protested against ineffective governance, a significant level of corruption and criminality. Such political unrest together with ineffective governance and high level of corruption have been identified as serious obstacles to economic growth and poverty reduction. The collapse of the Soviet Union has hit the Kyrgyz economic and social welfare hard (World Bank, 2007). The transition from a planned to a market economy has put an end to an important aid that Kyrgyzstan received from the central government and ruined the trading relations with the former socialist countries and the other 14 Soviet republics. As a result of drastic political,

6

economic, social, and cultural transformations, GDP was halved from its 1990 level by 1995. The increase of prices for food approached 1000% in 1993. Nevertheless, in 1996 and 1997 the Kyrgyz government was able to achieve and remain the macroeconomic stability and performed a number of significant structural reorganizations. However, the country’s initial growth and reforms have been interrupted by the financial crisis of 1998 in Russia. Since then though the annual growth rate has stabilized at about 5%. The major drivers of economic growth are service, industry and agriculture. Although almost half of the population is employed in agriculture, it contributes only modestly to Kyrgyz economy. Kyrgyzstan is the second poorest country in the Europe and Central Asia region (World Bank, 2007). GDP per capita has increased 475$ in 2005. The inflation rate remains low, the real incomes of the population have been increasing by about 5% per annum. The unemployment rate has been increasing as well and reached 10% in 2005. In 2007, 270.5 thousand people were officially registered as unemployed. According to estimations of the World Bank, 43.1% of the population of the Kyrgyz Republic was poor, and 11.1% of the population lived in extreme poverty in 2005. Poverty is concentrated in rural communities: 51% of rural inhabitants live in poverty whereas only 30% of the urban are poor. The level of extreme poverty is two times higher in rural than in urban areas. Despite the Kyrgyzstan low income level, the social indicators are higher than in low income countries in Europe and Central Asian region. Therefore it is quite difficult to find adequate comparative countries to the Kyrgyz Republic.

2.2. Environmental situation in Kyrgyzstan

The Kyrgyz Republic covers an area of 198.8 thousand square kilometers (5.3% - forests, 4.4% - lakes & rivers, 54.1% - agricultural lands, 36.2% - other). About 30% of the territory of the Kyrgyz Republic is habitable, whereas 70% of the territory are high mountains. The Pamir – Altay mountain range is in the Southwest. In the Northeast there is the Tian Shan with the region’s highest point – Pobeda Peak (7439m). These mountain ranges are divided by great valleys and hollows; in the North – the Chui and Talas valleys, in the Southwest the Fergana valley, in the South, the Alay valley. Both the Pamir and Tien-Shan Mountains are still young and seismically very active (Stepanenko, 1997). This seismic activity and the 7000 meters difference in high and low altitudes are among the main reasons of frequent natural disasters, the larger share of which happen in Southern Kyrgyzstan (MES, 2007).

Natural Disasters

The territory of the Kyrgyz Republic is geologically considered to be the most dangerous area of Central Asia and it is subject to more than 20 kinds of dangerous natural processes which cause natural disasters like earthquakes, landslides, floods, stone falls, avalanches, etc.

The distribution of the frequency of major emergency situation in the Kyrgyz Republic is following: floods – 30%, landslides – 16%, technogenic – 10%, earthquakes – 9%, meteorological – 9% (MES, 2008)

Annually, seismologists record about 3000 earthquakes, tens of them are strong, although as a rule few cause the damage to houses and buildings. According to geological specialists, more than 200 localities are categorized as seismically dangerous. In 2006 there was a magnitude 7 earthquake (on the Richter Scale) in the Naryn oblast. 444YTGFIts epicenter was in Kachkor

7

village, and this caused damage to 7003 houses and 50 public buildings. 7 were completely destroyed and 1322 were severely damaged. On the 8th of January 2007, there was an even larger earthquake in Batken, scoring 8 points on the RS. It damaged 7,137 houses, 90 of them were severely damaged (MES, 2008)

More than a half of the territory of the republic is subject to avalanche danger. The duration of the avalanche season is 5-7 months. Every year y avalanches cause frequent emergency situations on the mountain roads. More than 10 river basins and 800 avalanche-dangerous areas have been identified in the country. 50 people died under avalanches during the period of 2002-2007.

Because of intensive glacier thawing as well as plentiful snow-and rain-falls, every Spring many regions of the country are subject to flooding. There are 3,100 river flood basins on the territory of Kyrgyzstan. Also, 200 of our 2000 Alpine lakes have the potential for causing floods. In 2003, 38 locals of Sogot village in the Uzgen region died from flooding. In 2004, in the area of Kaynama Budalyk village of Alay region, a flood killed 33 people, 17 of whom were children. Also, in April 2004 on the Karasogot area of Karasu region of Osh oblast, a flood with a volume of 60 thousand m3 took the lives of 5 school children. In the end of March 2005 a flood on the territory of Sarybulak village of Karakuldja region destroyed the road, and wiped-out 700m of the electrical lines and 1,5km of communication lines. In 2003, after the flood, 50 families from this village were relocated.

Landslides are another major environmental disaster common in Kyrgyzstan. Eighty-eight people were killed by them during the period from 2002 to 2007 (MES, 2008). Currently, there are more than 5,000 active landslides in Kyrgyzstan. More than 509 settlements are, or can be affected, and more than 10,000 families live in endangered houses (Governmental Agency on Environment protection and Forestry under the Kyrgyz Republic Government, 2007). Floods and landslides can also be seen as the result of human activity. The main reason for the increase in their numbers in recent years is soil erosion on mountainous slopes which is caused by the overgrazing of pastures. Later in the paper, this research will analyze this in more detail. In the next section this research addresses a more explicit anthropogenic activity effecting environment – uranium mines.

Anthropogenic Disasters

The extraction of uranium, heavy metals, and mercury, along with the accumulation of their wastes, are among the main man-made environmental disasters in Kyrgyzstan. They cause environmental pollution and constitute a serious existing and potential health danger. These threats are aggravated by the fact that the Kyrgyz Republic is situated at the upper portion of the region’s water basins, therefore contaminated substances from its territory can reach to the other regions of Central Asia through numerous water flows. There are 5 main uranium tailing-fields in Kyrgyzstan: Mailuu-Suu, Kara-Balta, Ming-Kush, Kaji-Say and Ak-Tuz.

The extraction of uranium in Kyrgyzstan started in 40’s as a part of the Soviet nuclear program. It was aimed to provide nuclear electric-stations in Russia with raw materials. At that time, Kyrgyz towns and villages, situated near the uranium pits had restricted access and were classified as secret. The extraction of uranium in Kyrgyzstan continued until 1968. Then, the pits were closed, but the tailings, where the uranium wastes were stored, remained. There are more than 250 millions m3 of wastes in 92 locations where the mining industry existed on the territory of the republic; they all contain radio-nuclides which are hazardous and toxic for humans. After the collapse of the mining corporations of the Soviet Union, for service and safety support these

8

36 tailing-fields and 25 pits with the total volume of 15,7 millions m3, were placed under the authority of the Ministry of the Emergency Situations of the KR. They included:

� 31 tailing-fields with radioactive wastes – 7,2 millions m3;

� 5 tailing-fields with toxic wastes – 5,2 millions m3; and,

� 25 mountain pits of un-recovered ores – 3,3 millions m3(MES, 2007)

Potentially dangerous natural processes, such as landslides and floods were not taken into account during planning and construction stages of these sites. Most of the tailing-fields are situated in river-beds, which continuously erode them, resulting in discharges of radioactive substances into the environment: soil, atmosphere, and subsoil waters. The situation is complicated by the activation of landslides and earthquakes in the tail-fields zone. Scientists state that there is a real danger of the discharges of radioactive wastes into Kyrgyzstan’s rivers. In the case of possible pollution, the water arteries of Kyrgyzstan belonging to the basins of Syrdarya and Amudarya Rivers can quickly spread radioactive and toxic wastes into the territory of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. A large scale discharge would cause a regional catastrophe and threaten the existence of a large part of local population and environment. Currently, the MES works on reburying the wastes. From 1999 until 2007 it spent 8,8 million som, but only temporary safe conditions of tailing-fields were provided (Rajabov, 2008; Zvyagelskaya; 2001, Gruzdov, 2003; Mamajakyp uulu, 2005)

2.3. Migration

As a result of economic and political reforms in 90s, migration became the number one issue in the Kyrgyz Republic. High unemployment rates, decrease in living standards, shortage of land (especially in the Southern regions) and lack of social protection are the main factors causing high-scale migrations, both internal (mainly from rural areas to secondary urban cities, capital city Bishkek and surrounding areas in Chui and Issyk-Kul provinces) and external (predominately to Russian and Kazahstan).

According to the official data, internal migration peaked in the period between 1994-1998 with about 100,000 people changing their place of residents per year. Around the year 2000, migration processes became more stable and showed lower rates, with about 50,000 (1% of the entire population) migrants annum. However, after the events of March 24, 2005 these processes increased again. The main direction of migration flows is from the impoverished South to the more prosperous Northern regions, in particular to the capital city Bishkek. Administrative records suggest that 34,000 people have settled in Bishkek city and Chui province as a result of migrants’ inflows in 1999-2003. However, as noted in the World Bank Poverty Assessment (2007), the number of internal migrants is significantly higher. There are about 26 new living areas in the periphery of Bishkek – novostrikas – with about 200,000 residents. However, the real population of such settlements is considerably higher "due to the lack of residence permission for a large portion of residents." (World Bank, 2007). In addition, Kyrgyz Integrated Household Survey revealed that about 9% of Bishkek city inhabitants are not registered.

Since most of migrants are young or middle-aged, the internal migration causes the demographic asymmetry in rural and urban places; it puts additional pressure on public services, housing prices and labor markets in urban areas.

9

As mentioned above, the majority of migrants are from rural south. Southern regions lack any kind of employment; they are overpopulated and there is a strong shortage of land. Very often this internal migration serves as an intermediate stage for earning money to travel to Russia.

In total, about 400,000 people left abroad (Migration Convention, 2004). According to World Bank estimates, more than half a million people (about 23% of total labor) are estimated working abroad (World Bank, 2007). Most of them travel to Russia (about 300,000) and Kazakhstan (50,000) as labor migrants. Such situation is connected with a high demand of labor there, better salaries in these countries, and extreme poverty, especially in the Southern Kyrgyzstan.

This scale of migration aggravates demographic problems in the republic, which is characterized by the decreased birth rate, and increased death rates — thus a decrease in the population growth of an already low-density population country. The intensity of migration processes and decrease in the natural growth negatively affects the labor potential of Kyrgyzstan and strengthens a tendency towards an “ageing” population.

In addition, rising flows of female migrants means that more children are left behind in the care of grandparents. The consequences of such phenomenon will be described further in section 4.1. Furthermore, rising flows of young and middle-aged and more educated people hinder the social and economic development of the country, especially in its rural regions.

The existing studies done on migration processes in Kyrgyzstan have looked at the number of factors causing migration: economic, social, cultural and even religious. However, hardly anyone considered the role of environmental degradation in people’s decision to move. This study has aimed to establish this important missing link, and analyze the environmental causes for migration.

10

3. METHODS 3.1 Choice of sampled sites The research team conducted fieldwork in 9 territories/settlements in Southern and Northern Kyrgyzstan: Min-Kush and Chaek (Naryn province), Kaji-Sai (Issyk-Kul province), Mailuu-Suu (Jalalabad province), Kara-Sogot, Nichke-Sai, Kara-Kulja, Kurshab and Manas Aiyly (Osh province). Sample sites were selected based on prior knowledge of on the level of environmental degradation and high rate of out-migration established from the professional judgment. Thus, majority of sites were suggested by experts who took part in the research projects. Since the research aimed to examine the environmental migration patterns in the whole Kyrgyzstan, it was decided to conduct research in Southern and Northern regions of the country and to utilize quota judgmental sampling for the sites selection. Since, about 2/3 of all hazards occur in the South, 6 out of 9 sampled settlements are located in that part of the country. In addition to regional differences, the sample was diversified in terms of types of hazards. Thus, Min-Kush, Kaji-Sai and Mailuu-Suu were chosen as areas affected by radiation from uranium mines. Whereas other settlements were chosen on the basis of major natural disasters: earthquakes, landslides and floods. All sites are characterized by high rated of migration. Population of some sites, small post-industrial in particular, was even halved of its 1989 level in 2001 (Togoev et.al., 2001). 3.2 Research techniques and tools Four techniques were used to answer the research questions states in the first section of the report: in-depth expert interviews, semi-structured field interviews and face-to-face structured interviews with migrants and non-migrants Semi-structured expert interviews Implementation of expert interviews was the first stage of the research project. Experts shared with their knowledge gained from their professional experience. Information obtained from such interviews allowed to yield insights about the overall country situation, the extent of environmental migration as well as the kinds of policies that affect environmental degradation and migration. The interview guide was developed by the EACH-FOR project team. Overall, 15 experts interviews were conducted with the representatives of governmental, non-governmental, international and academic organizations (see annex I for the lest of interviewed experts). The experts were selected by the means of judgmental and snowball sampling. Most of the interviews took place between early March and early June 2005. Almost all interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. They were largely conducted at the interviewees' place of work and lasted between fifteen minutes to one hour. In general, the willingness of the experts to take adequate time for the interview and to give detailed responses was not very high. This is attributed to the lack of time, lack of expertise in particular issues (thus, the person who dealt with environmental problems could not answer the questions regarding the migration issues and vice-a-versa) and lack of interest in the project. Governmental officials were reserved and very careful while answering the questions. Several experts refused to participate in the research. Only few respondents were highly motivated to take part in the

11

project since they saw it both as an incentive and an opportunity to introduce changes that will significantly improve the situation with environmental migration in the future. Semi-structured field interviews Research team has visited 12 settlements affected by sudden environmental disasters and slow environmental degradation in Osh, Jalalabad, Issyk-Kul and Naryn provinces of Kyrgyzstan in the spring of 2008. The semi-structured fieldwork interviews were conducted with 12 inhabitants in the targeted settlements. The respondents were selected by means of snowball sampling. These interviews yielded insights about the coping strategies of residents of risk-prone areas and factors and/or conditions that push the migration. Such information allows drawing conclusions about the future environmental and migration scenarios. The interview guide was prepared by EACH-FOR research team. Face-to-face structured interviews EACH-FOR project team has prepared two questionnaires to interview people who have migrated (migrant questionnaire) and people who live in areas affected by environmental degradation (non-migrant questionnaire). The questionnaires were translated into Russian and Kyrgyz languages. Migrant questionnaires revealed the factors that shaped the migration decision as well as assess the economic and social impact of migration. Non-migrant questionnaire were designed to examine perception of environmental problems as well the factors that that restricts the migration. Overall, 22 migrant and 26 non-migrant questionnaires were filled out. Respondents were recruited through snowball sampling procedure. All questionnaires were entered and stored in excel format. Semi-structured fieldwork interviews and questionnaire were carried out from in late April and early May. Research team has not encountered any problems with the questionnaire, interview guide and respondents selection. People outside Bishkek were friendly and easy to access.

12

4. FIELDWORK FINDINGS 4.1 From expert interviews

One of the goals of the current research was to examine the perception of representatives of governmental, non-governmental and international organizations regarding the association between the migration and environmental hazards. The experts were also asked to identify the factors that contribute to, or restrict the likelihood of, ecological migration and share their views on the scenario for the next 5-10-15 years. Recognition of the problems Expert opinion on the role of environmental factors in migration processes was divided. Some view migration as a response to high rates of poverty and unemployment and claim that the environmental condition is of minor or no significance.

You know it is the first time within these years when such question is asked: whether or not the environmental condition influence the migration processes. If to assess current situation with environment, then it is not very critical in comparison to other republics and regions. It does not even indirectly cause the migration decision…Even in such places as Mailisuu… people fell themselves well and there is no migration due to ecological programs…because starting from 2002 government has undertaken all necessary preventive measures…And therefore I do not think that environment influence migration decision…The reason is one: lack of employment opportunities, socio-economic conditions in the region.

Taisiya Neronova, State Agency for Environment Protection and Forestry These are only economic reasons such as poverty …almost everyone moved in hope for better life that is to earn some money. There are no other reasons.

Andrey Fesenko, Kyrgyz UNEP National Committee Other experts claim that there is a straightforward association between the environmental hazards (both natural and technological) and migration. They argue that economic factors are intertwined with environmental factors and that it is meaningless and difficult to separate economic migrant from ecological. As Henry suggested, "Environmental factors are constraining but the response of individuals or households may be varied given the limits shaped by economic and ecological circumstances and depending on the household economic aspirations" (Henry 2006).

As we discussed it, up till now we do not have a good analysis of what comes first ecological or economic factors. But I think that it is obvious that these factors are connected. Because it is clear that if land would not give harvest, there will be no money and there will be nothing…and people migrate.

Andrey Fesenko, Kyrgyz UNEP National Committee How can we separate economic and ecologic migrants? For example, in Issyk-Kul province there have introduced a moratorium on fishing in the lake last year. This moratorium will last for five years. This was a source of income for many people. So, they lost their jobs and some have migrated. So, are they ecological or economic migrants?

Evgenia Postnova, Ecological Movement “BIOM” Factors that influence migration decisions Introduction section has demonstrated that a relatively substantial portion of the population lives in hazard-prone areas. Interviews revealed that most of people decide to remain in those areas. The decision whether to move and stay is depended upon many factors such as the individual, household and other community characteristics, which are described further. In addition to such

13

characteristics the migration decision is shaped by the type of hazard. Thus, people are likely to move in case of natural disasters that caused human and material losses. Whereas in cases of technological hazards, results of which is usually invisible, people are less likely to migrate. However, such invisible effects create stressful environment since residents are either not informed about or not able to assess the health and other effects of such hazards themselves. In addition, one of the representatives of local authorities that participated in our research has mentioned that she does not trust the assessments that are undertaken by independent researchers because they can be politically and economically biased. She claims that different tests come up with different and sometimes contradictory results. The recent one concluded that the place is suitable for living. By drawing such conclusions, she suggests that due to financial constrains, the government is not willing to render help to the residents in her community . If they do move, usually households move only a short distance away. The explanation for such phenomenon is consistent with research projects conducted in other countries. Thus, Zaman claimed that, "Short distance migration is a product of lack of resources, presence of kin, and belief that land will re-emerge to be reclaimed" (Zaman 1991 in Hunter 2004). In addition, to these justifications, experts also mentioned that in case of forced relocation, the residents are provided with the land in the territory of the same raion. Some people who decide to migrate usually move for a short period of time and eventually return home. This can be attributed to a number of reasons. First, returnees are those who were not able to find job and settle in new location. Second, older people decide to return in order to be burred in the land of their ancestors. Third and quite surprising reason is deterioration of health condition. In the village of Minkush, there is a belief that if a person is exposed to radiation, s/he cannot live in other conditions. The body "demands" it and starts to dysfunction in new environment. Thus, the representative of local authorities in Minkush claimed that there were many cases when older people return to Minkush to die but felt themselves much better after several days in the community. In addition, many take land, clay or bricks with them to new places and put them under their beds or somewhere else in their houses and believe that these materials will keep them healthy. The interview results are consistent with results of other research. Thus, Hunter suggested, "…analytical efforts suggest that the environment as a contextual factor, interacts with individual, household and other community characteristics to shape household migration decision-making" (Hunter 2004). Below we present description of experts’ opinions about the main characteristics that influence the migration decision in Kyrgyzstan.

� Financial reasons Often experts also explain the decision to migrate in terms of the financial situation of the family. The relationship however is very complex. Some experts have argued that the migration is an option available to only wealthier households. One argument to support this is that migration involves a number of costs, such as transportation, purchase of new houses in a new place and purchase of land or livestock. Since poor people cannot afford such expenses, they often decide to stay where they are.

I think, that certainly only those people who could afford all these expenses have migrated. This means that they could sell something, migrate and buy something in a new place.

Aigul Atatkanova, Red Crescent Society in Kyrgyzstan Well, everyone who had money have left. Everyone who had finance have left, no one have stayed... Many people would migrate if money were provided.

Andrey Fesenko, Kyrgyz UNEP National Committee

14

As for economic factor, then indeed it does play a role. If people have financial opportunity or finance to relocate…then yes, economic factor is very important.

Isakbek Torgoev, National Academy of Science of the Kyrgyz Republic However, a number of experts counter-claimed that less socio-economically advantaged may be more likely to migrate. Families with more assets are believed to be less prone to abandon or sell the house, livestock, and land that they own. Even if a family has to leave their places, they relocate temporarily and often visit their houses and belongings. Migration is usually associated with the lowering of the social status of the family and, therefore, well-off families are less keen to loose their “status quo”. Whereas poor families have nothing to lose and are more likely to try to build their life in a new location.

Not everyone decides to migrate because people were born in those lands, they have their own property, livestock, pastures and they do not want to leave.

Ainura Alymbekova, UN Disaster Reduction program They still live there. They have livestock in the mountains…In other words, even if they were relocated to Kurshab, they still came and visited this place, their building. They look after their property.

Aigul Atatkanova, Red Crescent Society in Kyrgyzstan There was a small percentage … those people are forced to go since they had nothing to loose. It is better to go somewhere and try to earn something.


� Other household and community characteristics In addition to material well-being of the households, the association between migration and environmental hazards varies by setting and location of the household. Thus, most of the experts have underlined that among high-risk areas the rate of out-migration is generally higher in small post-industrial cities of Kyrgyzstan and in rural areas. Such association can be attributed to limited employment and income generating possibilities, which therefore leads to poor social and cultural infrastructure of the community. Residents of small post-industrial cities that experience natural and technological hazards are in more vulnerable position. Such cities do not have land that can be used for farming and animal husbandry. Many experts have suggested that investment in community infrastructure and generation of new employment opportunities in risk-prone zones can slow down the increasing tendency of ecological migration. Thus, inhabitants of Kadji-Sai village are less likely to migrate than inhabitants of the city of Minkush although both communities are experiencing the same technological hazard. Such difference is due to the fact that Kadji-Sai is located in resort area of Isskul-Kul lake and residents have relatively stable income. In addition to employment opportunities significant funds were invested in infrastructure of the village.

People are more likely to migrate from rural areas than from urban…The cities are alive. We have been to Naryn lately and citizens there are living well since they have something to do…There are some enterprises, some selling centers…It is clear that everything is depended upon some perspectives. For example, there is a perspective in Naryn province, that something will be built there an international university…people are trying to find job there…some in teaching, others in construction.


Migration decisions are also closely related to the strength of community ties. Thus, people are more likely to stay, or migrate only temporarily, if most of their relatives reside in the same area. In addition, those who do decide to migrate usually move to places where they have relatives and/or friends. In a country where government support is limited and scarce, social networks are of vital importance. Thus, the presence of relatives and/or friends can ease the process of cultural and social adaptation in new environment and serve as a source of potential financial and

15

psychological support. Therefore, a phenomenon of chain migration is widespread among ecological migrants. One family settles in new community and drags others to the same place.

At first, 2-3 families have left. Then they called and told people to come to the place where they have migrated. At that time it was possible to buy not very expensive house with garden. So, many families have migrated there. They did not have any relatives there. “Ours” have called them there.

Tokon Madievna, local authority representative in Min-Kush

� Individual characteristics In some cases, only some household members migrate while others stay behind. The decision who should stay and who should move represents household migratory strategies as related to natural hazards. Many experts have pointed out that those who move tend to be younger or middle-aged and characterized by higher educational levels. This decision rests on assumption that such family members have wider variety of employment opportunities in new places. Most of jobs that are available involve manual labor that can be performed mainly by young and middle-aged people. In addition, people at these age categories are capable of training and retraining. As a result, majority of households in hazardous places are old people and children. Grandparents are the major carriers of their grandchildren. Such situation impose additional burden on old people and leads to low educational achievements of children and juvenile delinquency.

As for age category, when we analyzed, the rate out-migration … is higher among young and middle aged people, those who can work…Young people try to migrate to find work, to earn something and support their families, relatives…And in many cases only children, very small, preschool or school aged, and pensioners are left behind.

Alexander Meleshko, Ministry of Emergency Situations When children finish school, most parents invest all their assets and send them to more appealing places to study or to work. In such situation, it is expected that children will not return home and will settle in new communities. They use this strategy as an initial stage of their migration of the whole household or as additional income generation strategy.

When a part of the family are left, the old people and very young, then they try by using some assets, for example the sale of some livestock or some other property. By doing so they try to accumulate the necessary amount of money to send one of the youngsters to move somewhere…And when the youngsters succeed in some places and work, and have some finance, they decide either use this money to help financially relatives who were left behind or they spend this money on transportation of other relatives to the same place.

Ainura Alymbekova, UN Disaster Reduction program

� Governmental support

Results also indicated that a lack of government aid restricts the residential choices of many inhabitants of risk-prone regions. Representative of Min-Kush local authority has claimed, that all inhabitants are ready to relocate to safety areas if government provides with land and financial support to built a house. Since the situation in Min-Kush is nearly catastrophical, government renders humanitarian aid to population of the village. Thus, according to the resolution, accepted in July 2008, it is expected to deliver 50 kg of flour to each family in Minkush. However, this is a one-time help. Representatives of local authority demand the design and implementation of specific governmental program on hazards alleviation in Min-Kush.

16

Although the National Development Plan for 2007-2010 has set the ecological security as one of the four priorities, many experts said they were unaware of any centralized program on ecological migration. However, experts recognize that such program is vital for the development of the country. Experts often indicated that such program should be based on thorough analysis of the current situation and of the possible consequences of proposed measures.

Experts also believed that the functions are MES should be revised. Thus, MES should focus more on hazards prevention measures rather than deal with consequences of hazards.

In order to have a program that will really work, it is clear that we need an analysis…we need a some models for future, what is going to happen on the future. Because if we move people from one area to another and will not take into account that there will be more burdens on resources, we can create more social problems. So, we cannot design a program without such analysis. For this we need to analyze why people are migrating, who, where, will be they able to find jobs in those places…All these aspects should be taken into consideration in the program.

Isakbek Torgoev, National Academy of Science of the Kyrgyz Republic There are no governmental programs. But the most important is that MES only reacts to the consequences of some hazards …and do not conduct any preventive measures.


The rate of out-migration is lower in communities where disaster preparedness and/or relief programs are carried out. There are programs that try to lower down the rate of ecological migration. Representatives of IOM and Red Cross, have informed that they carry out hazards mitigation trainings in several settlements in which people learn how the natural disasters can be controlled.

We conduct training in populous places that were suggested by MES. We teach them that natural disaster is not something fatal or something that will never happen to them…We teach them that natural disasters are something that can be controlled.

Aigul Atatkanova, Red Crescent Society in Kyrgyzstan

� Access to land Many residents in hazardous locations do not migrate because they have no choice. Most of the land is privatized in Kyrgyzstan. The scarcity of land is especially visible in the Southern regions where the majority of natural disasters take place. Those who wish to relocate are either provided with land of "less quality" or that is located in other risk-prone areas. Many people refuse to relocate and sign a document stating that they are aware of potential risk and confirm their informed decision to remain in the dangerous place.

How was it done during the Soviet times? One prepared a land request, then the project. There were lands where it was allowed to relocate people and lands where the relocation was prohibited. Then everything would be examined very in detail. And now nobody pays attention to this. They say “Well, that land is privatized, therefore we would relocate them to this land since it is free”. And [the migrants] are given useless land. There is no water there…We do not have here one policy.

Isakbek Torgoev, National Academy of Science of the Kyrgyz Republic

See, here is a village. [a picture of a village with a number of houses covered by mud after the land slide]. Do you see new houses here? Some are not finished yet. There were 200 houses here. And this new land slide destroyed all the houses. And those houses were for people from Budalyk. People there lived in a land that run the risk of potential land slide, so the government provided some money and they have built houses here. So, after a year, they have not moved to these new houses yet, the ancient land slide has activated and destroyed all the new houses. So, it was the first lesson for us. Now these people are relocated here. And that land is running the risk of floud. There is a river there. So, that is the policy that we have here. Because of lack of land and miscommunication between the central and local authorities, people are relocated from one dangerous place to another dangerous place.

Isakbek Torgoev, National Academy of Science of the Kyrgyz Republic

17

First, people do not move anywhere because they do not know where and how. As a rule everyone has houses, some property, some livestock…I know that when the representatives of Ministry of Emergency Situations (MES) come to them and tell them that they need to move, they say that they do not want to move and sigh different documents and do not move anywhere. And there were cases when MES people come, tell inhabitants that there is a possibility of land slide and that they should move as soon as possible, they sign a document and after half an hour the house was destroyed and they all dye… It is a real story.

Aigul Atatkanova, Red Crescent Society in Kyrgyzstan

� Emotional attachment to the land Finally, people refuse to move due to emotional attachment to their location, which is more apparent among older inhabitants. They claim that they cannot move since this a place where they have been born and raised, and that they would like to be buried with their ancestors.

One of the influence on the decision to relocate or not is that older people are more linked/connected o these people. It is because it is their motherland, their ancestors were buried there.. they are traditionally attached to those lands. Young people are less likely to have such mentality and therefore they are more likely to risk and migrate…Having not much finance, they nevertheless risk to change something in their life.

Tolkun Jukusheva, Save the Children

For people it is very hard to leave their roots. Aigul Atatkanova, Red Crescent Society in Kyrgyzstan

Scenario for 5-10-30 years

Although, experts had different perceptions regarding the role of environment in migration decisions, all of them (even those who do not see connection between environment and migration) believe that influence of environmental hazards on different aspects of human life will intensify and, as a result, the number of ecological migrants will increase. Therefore, many experts suggested that there is a need to design a strategic program that will address the short and long term consequences of environmental hazards on human well-being.

18

4.2 Description of researched settlements

This section described the environmental, social and economic context of the settlements that were sampled for the research. Min-Kush (Naryn province) Min-Kush is a small village located in Djumgal raion in Naryn provinces of the Kyrgyz Republic. The village is situated 2000 meters above the sea level. The climate in the area is very severe: winter lasts more than 6 months. The village is located in a distance of 60 km from the Chaek, the raion center of Jumgal region. It was founded in 1950 on the base of “Kavak” pit of extraction of brown uranium-containing coals and enriching shops. The pit was closed in 1968. In 1971 on the base of the pit the “Orgtechnica” stationery making factory was opened that functioned up until the collapse of the Soviet Union. According to the emergency officials, there are four uranium waste dumps in Min-Kush with a total volume of radioactive waste of 1,150,000 m3 (Geopribor, 2006). The level of radiation varies from 100 mR/pH to 1140 mR/pH. The Minkush area dumps contain waste from uranium mining in the former Soviet Union from 1958 to 1969. The most dangerous dumps are Tuyuk-Suu and Taldy-Bulak are located in the village, and the other two Dalnee and Kak are located 11 kilometers from the village. Due to delayed maintenance works, the safety constructions built during the Soviet times are being destroyed. Since these dumps are located in the center of Kyrgyzstan, they pose a threat to environment of the whole Kyrgyz Republic and the fertile Ferghana valley. The region is also running the risk of landslides. Heavy rain- and snowfall in 2003-2005 and earthquake in 2003 contributed to the triggering of landslides. There is a possibility that a landslide will block the river that will flood a radioactive dump near the Tuuk-Suu River. As a result the rivers Min-Kush, Kokomeren and Naryn (a tributary of the Syrdarya river, one of the major water sources in Central Asia) would be polluted with radioactivity. Representative of Ministry of Emergency Situations claim that up to 50,000 people could be affected (IRIN Nov. 1, 2004). "The climate and the earthquake situation in the past 10 years have created conditions that could trigger landslides, which result in mudslides and catastrophic floods," said Bakir Jolchiev, Deputy Minister of Emergency Situations (OSCE Bishkek June 14, 2006) Min-Kush inhabitants live in difficult social and economic conditions. Although, officially 5059 people are registered in the area, only about 2000 reside in the village. The majority of inhabitants are children and pensioners. High unemployment rates forces young and middle-aged population to leave the village in search for work. According to informal interviews with inhabitants and local authority, such age misbalance leads to lower educational achievements, aspirations among children and the rise of juvenile delinquency. Due to high out-migration rate, the village is sometimes is called as “dead” since majority of houses and apartments are empty. It can be concluded from the observation that the village life was dynamic during the Soviet time. There are many well-built tenement-houses with four apartment, two secondary schools, kindergarten, skating rink, a number of sports clubs, among other facilities. Now the city is empty, only one out four apartments is occupied and there are no signs of life in the streets even in evenings. The only sources of income are pensions, social benefits and salaries of governmental workers (teachers, doctors and officials). Since there was no land for agricultural purposes, the Min-Kush residents have to buy the majority of their products. However, some inhabitants own some livestock and use every spot in the village for agricultural purposes.

19

High radiation affects the health of inhabitants. Thus, there are more cases of mutation among the newborns and cancer among the young population (Moldokeeva, 2008). In addition, many people in Min-Kush and Chaek, believe that Min-Kush inhabitants get older faster. By the age of 40, most inhabitants loose most of their teeth, have many wrinkles and lots of gray hair. Many residents are addicted to alcohol. They claim that by drinking vodka they reduce the effect of radiation on health, however, some confessed that vodka helps them to forget about the problems they face on everyday life. Kaji-Sai (Issyk-Kul province) Kaji-Say is a village, which is situated in the Southern shore of Issyk-Kul lake. The Kaji-Say tailings dump with an area of 10,800 square meters and with a volume of 0.15 million cubic meters is located in the region of the Kaji-Say settlement, only 1.5 km from the Issyk-Kul lake (AKI press Nov. 28, 2002). This dump was left from uranium mining that operated during the Soviet times from 1949 until 1967. During the Soviet times, there was brown coal production with the use of toxic materials. Currently, there is no information about what exact kinds of wastes were buried in the dump. However it is known, that the dump contains radioactive materials. As the mine is situated near Issyk-Kul lake, there is a threat of contamination of the lake by radioactive wastes. Downpours caused a serious damage to the isolation layer and to the dike; it washed off some radioactive substances into the waters of the lake. As a result, radio-active background in different areas of the burial reached to 1700-1800 micro-rays/PHS (Tynybekov et.al, 2003). In addition to the rains, the isolation layer of the dump is destroyed by villagers who are excavating non-ferrous metals that can be easily sold in the market. According to MES, about 130-150 people are involved in such income-generation activities. Many inhabitants during the fieldwork confessed that such work is performed predominately by children. As a result of such entrepreneurial activities, gamma-background increased till 80-440 mR/pH (Tynybekov et.al, 2003). In June 2006, MES decided to post the waste dump. However, during our visit the tailing-site was not protected. Kaji-Sai residents informed us that cancerous tumors are the most common disease and death cause in the village. Respondents also often complained about the lung diseases and reproductive health among males. Overall, the social and economic conditions of people in Kaji-Sai are better than in other areas that out team visited. Since, the village is located in the resort areas, there was significant investments in the infrastructure of the village. Many new tourism businesses are currently opening. Many people have constant income and believe that their life will enhance in few years.

Mailuu-Suu (Jalalabad province) Mailuu-Suu is a city in Jalal-Abad province. For a long time it was a city with restricted access, not only for foreigners but also for Soviet citizens. Earlier it was classified as secret and was called “Mailbox 200”. It is situated only in 150 km from Osh. Mayluu-Suu is marked as the most ecologically disastrous area of Central Asia. The American University of Blacksmith, which

20

does research on environmental issues, placed Mayluu-Suu in the top-30 of the most polluted cities of the world. There are 2 million tons of the uranium waste contained in 23 tailing-fields. The full area of the tailing-field is 432, 000 m2. The combined radioactivity of all the tailing-fields of Mailuu-Suu is 5000 kury. Within 22 years (1946-1967), from the work of 2 hydro-metallurgical factories, 10,000 tons of uranium oxide and protoxide were extracted. Mayluu-Suu survived a crisis of closing and re-profiling of the uranium pits. Later a electro light bulb factory was opened in the city. Currently, soil erosion and landslide activity were on the rise for two reasons: the mines in the hills weakened the soil structure and second – overgrazing of the hills by local animal stock. Such a situation rings alarms for the Kyrgyz government, for Uzbekistan, and for a broader international community. If tailing-fields are damaged and uranium waste slide into the waters of Mailuu-Suu River, it will lead to a regional ecologic catastrophe and poison a large part of the Ferghana Valley (Woldemar, 2007). Currently, the MES is using money from international donors to rebury the waste on the same territory.

The research team spent one day in the Sary-Be village on the outskirts of Mailuu-Suu. 17 tailing-fields surround the village. What the team saw looked more like a scene from a war or horror movie (see Figure 1 above). Some surviving, but empty, four-storey apartment buildings, were surrounded by the ruins of houses dissembled for construction materials. The majority of population was elderly. The younger generation has left. Many of those who remained are alcoholics. One fairly drunk fellow suggested that if you have 100 gram of vodka every day, it will reduce the effect of radiation. But for us it looked more as if alcohol offered means to forget about the terrifying reality of one’s body being slowly and continuously destroyed by radiation hundred times higher than is safe. Interviews with residents and with a doctor at the local clinique revealed that the effect on health was enormous. One young mother of four described how her mother died from cancer, her father was blind and terminally ill, she had cancer herself and four of her four children all had goiters. The doctor mentioned dozens of illnesses common to their village: various types of cancer, low energy, fertility problems for women and erection problems for men, poor mental health for boys and many others. People are dying, but still they stay. Why?

We were told a local hypothesis, which may or may not be true – the bodies of local residents are so used to high radiation that they cannot survive without it, so those leaving the place either die or come back unable to adjust to a normal radiological environment. It was a circle with no way out. A less complicated explanation was that they simply did not have means to escape: there was no help from the government and no personal funds to migrate. Finally, in spite of radiation, they had some land for vegetables and fruits and small pastures to feed their animals on the hills. The team left the village with a deep feeling of emptiness, and an absence of hope. Most of the team did not feel well for a week after the trip, either because of what they saw or because of only few hours of exposure to high radiation.

Kara-Kulja (Osh province)

The research team studied several other villages located along Kara-Kulja River – territory prone to landslides and floods. Major landslides happened in this area 2-3 times since the 1990s. All together 209 people were relocated from this area. Usually government and local authorities monitor the landslides and they try to move people or try to put them in safer places during potential dangers. The authorities ban people from using dangerous places and ban animal grazing in those areas. In spite of this danger, some people never move. Others move to safer places for a while, but soon come back, mainly because the new land they are given is small and doesn’t have water, where as in their original place they had plenty of land and water for agriculture and pastures rich in grass for grazing. Many families move out temporarily from their houses during dangerous seasons like in the spring, or during heavy rains, and then come back.

21

Sary-Tash (Yellow Stone) is a village of those who relocated permanently because of landslides. All houses here are newly built, but many of them are empty. The village was surrounded by hills on one side and the very steep bank of Kara-Kulja River on another. The government provided long term loans, which covered most of the constructions costs for the new homes. Some construction materials were also provided. The main concern of the villagers was that they were moved from one environmental disaster to two new ones: absence of water and a newly developing landslide. When they were relocated, they were told that the new location was a safe to live. However, after they built houses and started to settle, a new landslide emerged on the nearby hills (see Figure 2 above). This landslide is getting closer and closer each year, but the government does not address the issue saying they have already received their money and that this landslide will not occur. Absence of water is not considered a sufficient reason to relocate them.

Sary-Tash has no school and basically no services. Residents have no access to clean drinking or irrigation water. It was a dry, dusty, and fairly empty settlement. The villagers complained that locals do not allow them graze their animals on the local pastures, yet they don’t have any of their own here. Migrants in Sary-Tash live in miserable conditions with access to practically nothing. They are cut out from their relatives, their community, and their basic needs are not met. This new village is already experiencing out migration as many realize there is no future in Sary-Tash. Therefore, people are even leaving these nice, newly built houses in search of a more suitable place to live. The case of Sary-Tash village shows how poor planning of new settlements, and a lack of proper land, often leaves those who migrate in worse conditions than they left.

Nichke-Sai Nichke-Sai is located in Ozgon. This is a village inhabited by both migrants and non-migrants. From outside, the village looks quite green and beautiful. It has plenty of water. It is located on the hills along the river. The size of the village is small to medium and it has a school, a medical center and a post office. People keep animals and grow mainly wheat, maize, potato and cornflower. The main ecological problem in this village is landslides. The village is divided by the road into two sides, one of which is closer to the mountains and affected by the landslide. After last landslide about 10 houses were moved from the dangerous side to a safer one. Owners of effected houses were given a long term loan and have built new houses in the same village. The landslides do not happen frequently in the village. There were 2-3 landslides overall, and there were no people killed although many houses were damaged. Some families are still living in potentially dangerous locations, but the government authorities have said that at the moment there is no need to move. The affected villagers didn’t need to move away as there was enough land within the village. However, there was no drinking water and road in this land. After moving, the newly relocated people found that they had great disadvantages compared to other fellow villagers who were not affected by landslides. These villagers had to build new houses partially using their own expenses. They lost close access to grazing land and clean drinking water. They didn’t even have access to electricity until a local teacher of physics built a small electricity generating station by himself. Economic conditions of relocated villagers turned to be much worse compared to others. The plot of land given to build a house was too small – only 0.08 hectare, which is way too small

22

for the typical Kyrgyz family. After building a house, one doesn’t have much land left for growing vegetables. The villagers have also complained that they are not getting enough harvest and climate change is affecting their livelihoods. They have more pest diseases; they receive very little rain and sometimes have destructive winds. The numbers of animals are also decreasing mainly because people sell them when they don’t have enough harvest. Unemployment was high and many young people have left for Russia as temporary labour migrants. It was very hard for pensioners to live in the new part of the village, as it is located quite far from the village center. Kourshab Kourshab is a nice and prospering town in Ozgon. It is located along the Osh-Ozgon route. It has hospitals, a number of schools, a market, banks, cafes and many other services. People are mainly involved in agriculture, services, trade or government jobs. A few years ago, migrants from Jalpak-Tash were relocated to one of the edges of this town after tragic events when a landslide killed nearly 40 villagers. In certain families there only one or two survivors. The researchers interviewed a man whose whole family was killed. There are currently 30-40 newly built houses for migrants who moved here with their families. The government helped these families to build nice houses. The villagers now have good access to drinking and irrigation water. But the main concern of migrants was lack of land. Similarly to Nichke-Sai, migrants were given only 0.08 hectare for a house and there was very little space left for vegetables. They couldn’t have animals either because there was no land for grazing in this new place. There were also not so many employment opportunities. Therefore, they were left with only one option – to work the land they owned in Jalpak-Tash, which was 70 km away. This was a very difficult task given the distance. One practice that they used was to send one or two of the married sons to live in Jalpak-Tash with the relatives who still lived there and do the entire job. This solved problems to some degree, but was not that effective, because firstly, one or two people couldn’t cope with all tasks and secondly, because there were high expenses necessary for transportation of people and materials regularly from Kurshab to Jalpak-Tash. As a result, the economic situation of migrants worsened significantly. Migrants in Kourshab are also having difficulty to adjust to city like lifestyle. They are not happy about the limited space. They got used to live in the wide mountainous openness and here everything seemed squashed and congested for them. People complained about health problems, especially related to heart. Many developed heart diseases because of the fears caused by landslides. As a result, many young people left for work to Russia and often their remittances became the main source of income for a large family. Today, these migrants in Kourshab live a life of a physically, emotionally and socially displaced community. Manas Ayulu It is a migrant village, consisting of people who were relocated from the Kara-Sogot village because of the earthquakes and a major landslide. Manas Ayuly is a small village located not too far from the city of Osh (about 9 km). All the migrants were given long term loans for building houses and now their houses are new and quite large. From outside, the village looked very nice

23

and the villagers seemed to be living in far better conditions compared to the villagers who remained in Kara-Sogot. However, during our interviews with people, we have found out that these villagers have a lot of problems. They had no access to clean drinking water. The locals often block access to their water and suggest them to build their own water pipe. This leads to frequent confrontations and open conflicts. As for the quality of drinking water, migrants told stories of finding dead animals in it. They have no school and medical center and pregnant women often have to walk a long distance to access the medical services. The migrants also had problems with land. Their own land was far away in Kar-Sogot and they were not given any extra land in the new place. Transportation costs to go there are quite big. Unemployment run high and income was very limited. It was a situation similar to migrants in Kourshab. They have nice houses, access to cities but no land for agriculture and grazing.

24

4.3 From questionnaires

4.3.1 Non-Migrants Survey: Living in Ruins The non-migrant questionnaire survey was conducted in 12 settlements in 4 provinces of Kyrgyzstan:

1. Osh province: o Ozgon region:

� Nichke-Sai o Kara-Kulja region:

� Ula-Taala � Sary-Bulak � Sary-Tash � Chalma � Bouiga

o Kara-Suu region � Kara-Sogot

2. Jalalabad province o Mailisuu region

� Sarybe 3. Naryn province

o Jumgal region � Min-Kush � Chaek � Baizak

4. Issyk-Kol province � Kaji-Sai

The total of 26 questionnaires was collected and 10 interviews were conducted by the research team to study what makes people remain in the places of environmental degradation. The research sites analyzed in this section can be divided into two groups by the nature of environmental problems: places of former uranium mines and areas affected by landslides and floods. The life in these two groups has some major differences: first can be really called – living in the ruins, while the second has more economic opportunities. This section will describe the results of the analysis. Environmental situation and reasons for migration The survey has shown that the environmental situation has become worse for all informants. Two main environmental problems were identified: landslides and radiation from uranium waste. Researchers got very lengthy descriptions of environmental problems. Some of these answers are given below.

In the past, the climate and weather were different. Fruits and vegetables were smaller in size and used to be much tastier than now. Apricots now have different skin: it is dry and has different color.

30-year old female in Kaji Sai Everybody is sick here. Since I returned here 2 years ago, I am constantly sick. Blood runs from nose. I cannot recover and gain weight. They uncover uranium again. When it is warm, the uranium goes up. I have problems with kidneys, pain in the legs and low potency.

44-year old male in Kaji Sai

25

There are lots of cases of cancer related illnesses. My son has a non-cancerous tumor in his head. They said it was because of the climate. There are lots of diseases like this. The water is bad. We made requests to change the situation, but it is useless. They say that we should move away. But where can we go?

47-year old female in Kaji Sai Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, not much attention is given to Min-Kush. The mines entrances are opening and many bad smells are coming out. The radiation is increasing. Young children become ill. The number of migrants is increasing.

52-year old male in Min-Kush More than a half of villagers (24 out of 26) said that people have been leaving the village in the last year and in 20 of cases they have left permanently. As for the scale of migration, this varied from 2 families to as much as 80 families. An elderly man from Min-Kush said:

Officially 5015 people live in the village but in fact only 3500 people. All others live all over the republic. During the Soviet times 17000 people lived in the village. People have left after the collapse. If governments does not do anything, the village will become dead.

49-year old male in Min-Kush Only political conflicts were identified as not important. All other factors: social, economic and environmental were quite significant motives for migration. Economic factors that forced people to move included unemployment (20 informants out of 26), environmental degradation made it impossible to earn living (19 informants) and dissatisfaction with livelihood (18 informants). Environmental factors were also important. The two most significant ones were: slow environmental degradation (19 informants) and sudden environmental disasters (16 informants). The next important factor was related to water shortage (12 informants) and poor water quality (12 informants). It is interesting that living in the country that is the origin of water resources for large areas of neighboring countries, such as Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, our republic does not have enough for its own needs. Finally, unreliable harvest (11 people) and man-made disasters (11 people) were also contributing to people’s decision to move. Environmental problems affect residents in the following way: they have direct effect on their health (especially in the places of uranium wastes), they affect people’s nervous system because of living under the continuous threat of disaster, their infrastructure and grazing lands are destroyed, unusually cold temperatures in spring kill the flowers of fruit trees. Because of the pressure of these environmental problems many people migrate. Those who stay however experience all negative results of the out-migration. What these include is described in the next section. Effects of out-migration When people leave the settlement this has strong impact on the life of this village or town community. One of the major effects of out-migration is ageing population. Such settlements as Mailuu-Suu and Min-Kush can be referred into the category of ghost-cities. There are quite few of them in Kyrgyzstan: Kyzyl-Kiya, Aidarkan, Tash-Komur, and others. Today they stand like almost empty ruins – witnesses to the former industrial glory of the Soviet Union. The majority of young people have left, only elderly who have neither means nor desire to leave, exist from day to day trying to survive on a small retirement pension. Here are some quotes:

All the young people are leaving and only old people are being left. It is difficult for old people. We don't have a labor force.

49-year old male in Sarybe

26

[Out-migration] has a negative effect. Labor force will decrease. Young and good professionals are moving away and only children and old people are being left. No development and no constructions are going on here. It will create more conditions for poverty.

56-year old female in Min-Kush Another important impact is on the social life of the settlement community. When people migrate, those who stay loose their relatives, friends, life-long acquaintances, and colleagues. They have memories but not people. Hoja Nasritdin – one famous Central Asian folk character – once said: “When two people depart, the one who leaves takes with him only one quarter of sadness, the remaining three quarters stay with the one who stays behind.” The burden of social detachment is always more on those who remain and whose villages, previously occupied and lively, become half empty.

It just means that our big village will become smaller and smaller. We lose close contact with friends, relatives and neighbors. We lose our community feeling.

61-year old female in Min-Kush [Out-migration] will have a negative effect. It is good to have more people. You will have more community and more communication.

47-year old female in Sarybe

Settlements with fewer people slowly degrade. There are no investments into infrastructure. Old water and sewage pipes get destroyed and useless. Sewage smell crawls from the streets into the houses. Four-five story apartment buildings stand with dark empty windows.

The village was of urban type. But now the houses are empty and we become a real village. No roads, no sewage system. The village looks like after bombing or blockade in Leningrad.

37-year old male in Kaji-Sai There is also a demoralizing effect on youth and on the overall psychological condition of residents. Both young and elderly people start drinking, doing drugs, etc. The last quote summarizes several demoralizing effects.

The migration effects the village in a negative way: 1) divorce and problems in families, 2) children are raised not in adequate way, 3) many people died, even abroad, 4) all public and cultural landmarks are empty, the houses are destroyed and plundered, 5) people in the village do not have any hopes for the future.

49-year old male in Min-Kush The only positive aspect of out-migration is that those who migrated to cities send some material support to their relatives who have not migrated. More than a half of residents were receiving either frequent or occasional material or financial support from their migrant relatives. The results of other studies however show that such help is usually sent only in the cases when a man works as a labor migrant somewhere in Bishkek, Kazakhstan or Russia, but his wife and children stay in the village. Once he stands on his feet and takes the family with him, the material/financial support usually ceases, just like frequency of visits and phone conversations. Those who remain feel more and more isolated. Having seen such a gloomy picture portrayed in two previous sections, we ask what do villagers want to do about it. Social organization and plans for future The vast majority of non-migrants (20 out of 26) expect environmental problems make them want to move, but only one third is planning to move, while two thirds plan to stay. Those who want to move are mostly from radiation-active zones, where they are under the continuous negative health effect.

27

How one can live here? No job, no health. Perhaps, we have 2 more years till death. My brother, who lived in Bishkek and is 4 years older than me, looks younger than me. It is very hard to breathe here. My father died from lung problems.

44-year old male in Kaji-Sai My husband has died three years ago because of cancer. My grandchild has a heart disease. That is why I want to leave. I worry about the future of my children and grandchildren. I want my children to live in ecologically clear and rich community.

56-year old female in Min-Kush The research analyzed the availability of services, such as gas electricity, water, health services, school and market to see if these might be the factors affecting the villagers’ decision to move. However, the results show that there was no shortage of any of these services except for public services. Therefore, we can consider environmental and economic are the main reasons affecting the decision to migrate. Those in the landslides zones prefer to stay, because if they only manage to protect themselves from the landslide, they much better economic opportunities there than in the new places.

There will be no jobs there for me. Here, I mostly grow crops. I won't have a land to grow crops in a new place.

41-year old male in Bouiga The government won't give a plot for building a house. If they give, they will give very small plot. So, it is not going to be useful. Besides, this is my homeland.

52-year old male in Nichke-Sai Homeland factor and attachment to the land of ancestors were also important for many residents. These factors connect people to their tribal identity associated with specific territorial zones of influence, outside of which they loose their communal status and respect. The concept of uruu or uruk (tribe) from the ancient times was a crucial survival mechanism. Uruks were often at war or at competition with each other and therefore loosing a tribal connection often meant death or significant loss of respect. It is for these reasons, when there are inter-tribal marriages, men never live with their wives’ relatives. In all cultural events, such as weddings, funerals or any other get-togethers, they would be shown the least respect and consideration. In the cities the situation is different: because cities are conglomerates of people from diverse backgrounds, their tribal affiliations loose significance. But in the rural areas, the tribal affiliations are preserved and to these days strongly define relationships within the society and therefore, migration to a different rural area is socially very disadvantageous for the Kyrgyz people. People within one uruk or village offer at least social support to each other. The survey results show that besides the network of relatives and other villagers, there is very little help from government or non-governmental organizations for those people who remain in the villages. Government only supports those who migrate, while those who stay are considered to have land, access to water, etc. But what their real economic situation is? The next section will look into this question. Economic situation of non-migrants The results of the survey show that in comparison to those who have been relocated, those who stayed were economically better off because they still had their land and water for agriculture and grazing. However, the economic situation was affected by the worsened environmental situation for almost two thirds of villagers. One resident mentioned:

Recently, the weather and snowing patterns have become very irregular. Sometimes it snows in the middle of the spring. This kills the harvest.

28

44-year old male in Kaji-Sai

While the contrary perspective shows: Landslide affects our roads, our community but it doesn't directly affect my livelihood. My unemployment doesn't have anything to do with landslides.

23-year old male in Bouiga Agriculture Agriculture is not the first source of income for villagers, but it is still quite important one: all villagers have the land. This land mostly satisfies the family’s own needs and hardly anything gets sold: in three quarters of cases agricultural products are consumed by families themselves. Eights out of 11 informants have indicated that their crop yields has declined in the last few years. The reasons for decline can be rated in the following way: cost (7 informants out of 8) and availability (6 informants) of seeds, problems with pets and other diseases (6 informants), erosion and lack of water (5 informants), changing climate (4 informants), cost of fertilizers (4 informants), poor soil quality (3 informants and flooding (2 informants). Therefore, we can again see two main aspects affecting the decline of harvest: economic and environmental. For about two-thirds of villagers such decline of harvest would represent a problem. The main way to overcome such economic challenge for residents is through selling animals. Therefore, we can again confirm that animal husbandry is the main source of livelihood. Animal husbandry The main source of income was stock-breeding: 20 informants out of 26 had animals and 17 were dependent on them (11 - completely dependent). That is why the reported decline (in 17 cases) has strong effect on their economic situation. The main reasons for decline were also economic – villagers either consumed animals (15 informants) or sold them to get money (14 informants) or repay loans (12 informants). However, other non-economic factors come to focus here – poor quality of grazing land (8 cases) mostly caused by overgrazing (5 cases). By observing the decline in the quantity of animals, we can also make conclusions that the quality of pastures has been getting worse too. Many individual interviews also confirmed this fact. This brings us back to the statement made earlier in the section about migrants: animal husbandry as the main and often only source of income leads to the overgrazing of pastures followed by soil erosion and increased landslide and flooding activity. Besides animal husbandry and to some degree agriculture there were some other sources of money for villagers – 11 out of 26 had access to financial services. These included mostly informal borrowings (8 cases) and micro-credits (8 cases). Access to these and any other prospective financial services reduces the pressure to migrate on the majority (19) of residents. Considering that the remaining 7 respondents were mostly from the areas affected by radiation with strong impact on their health, we can conclude that those in the areas affected by landslides and floods would prefer to use the money for improving their economic situation at home rather than migrating.

29

4.3.2 Migrants Survey: The Environmental Migration Chain Research Context The migrant questionnaire survey was conducted with migrants currently living in the following 11 villages/small towns located in three provinces of Kyrgyzstan:

1. Osh province: a. Ozgon region:

i. Kurshab ii. Nichke-Sai iii. Jalpak-Tash

b. Kara-Kulja region: i. Ula-Taala

ii. Sary-Bulak iii. Sary-Tash

c. Kara-Suu region i. Manas-Aiyly

2. Jalalabad province a. Mailisuu region

i. Sarybe 3. Naryn province

a. Jumgal region i. Min-Kush

ii. Chaek iii. Baizak

Total of 22 questionnaire interviews were conducted with migrants who moved to these places because of the environmental disasters in their original places of residence. Using the outcomes of the survey, in this chapter, the research will attempt to construct a complete and chronologically connected chain of processes leading to and following environmental migration in the mountainous territories of Kyrgyzstan. It will start by looking at the main reasons for environmental degradation; then it will describe how environmental problems cause migration. After that the research will describe the migration process and current situation of migrants. There are a number of environmental problems in Kyrgyzstan. They have been described earlier. However, it just so happened that the majority of migration cases analyzed in this survey were connected to landslides and flooding. Causes of Environmental Degradation Historic Overview Kyrgyzstan is a mountainous country and for centuries the main activity of Kyrgyz pastoral nomads was animal husbandry. The Kyrgyz moved from pasture to pasture with their animals in the Tien-Shan Mountains and during the last millennium stock-breeding in this territory provided them with everything they needed. Because of the continuous movement, Kyrgyz people hardly had a chance to be engaged in agriculture. Therefore, they exchanged with settled populations animal milk, meat, fur and skin products for many other basic things in their life. During the Soviet time, many Kyrgyz nomadic tribes were forced to settle. However, the sedentarization processes in the Kyrgyz Republic were not of such great scale and of such

30

disastrous consequences as they were in Kazakhstan. Many families were allowed to continue semi-nomadic lifestyle and animal husbandry remained one of the main sectors of the economy of our republic. The state owned farm collectives (kolhozy and sovhozy) were the main organizational units for the Kyrgyz stock-breeders. This way animal husbandry was preserved throughout the century. With the break-up of the Soviet Union and with Kyrgyzstan gaining independence, state farm collectives were abolished and the land and animal stock belonging to the state were privatized and distributed among people. However, this transformation also brought another change – unemployment. Previously, Kyrgyz stock-breeders and farmers used to receive salary for their work in the collective farm. With privatization, nobody had salaries anymore, except for few people in administrative positions, schools and hospitals. Therefore, suddenly everyone had to rely on their land and animal stock to survive. Because of the mountainous territories, just like in the past, growing crops became only supplementary to stock-breeding among the Kyrgyz and just like in the past, their livelihood became totally connected and dependent on their animals. The following sections compare the agricultural and stock-breeding components of the livelihood of migrants researched in this study.

Agricultural Component Seventeen out of 22 migrants used to grow crops in the former place of residence and all of them owned their land. For more than a half of respondents (9 out of 17) it would cause problems if they couldn’t grow crops. Twelve out of 17 migrants indicated that their harvest in the last few years has decreased. Let us look at the reasons for the decline:

• The most important reasons (all respondents 12 respondents) were changing climate and temperatures and problems with insects, pests and other diseases

• Fertilizer was named as the second important reason: there was not enough of it (all

respondents 12 respondents) and it was too expensive (11 out of 12 respondents)

• Availability (10 out of 12 respondents) and high price (10 out of 12 respondents) of seeds were the third reason, followed by

• The shortage of water (10 out of 12 respondents), and • Erosion (9 out of 12 respondents) and poor quality of soil (9 out of 12 respondents)

Non-environmental reasons, such as conflicts, theft, and shortage of labor were not that important at all. Thus, we conclude that both economic (fertilizer and seeds) and environmental (water and erosion) factors contributed to the decline of harvest. It is interesting that in the time of bad harvest only about a third would seek financial assistance in the form of loans or help from relatives. The most common strategy to offset (for more than two thirds of respondents) such problems was selling the animal stock. Here is one quote:

We grow crops for ourselves, and whatever we cannot grow, we buy for the money we get from selling our animals.

60-year old male in Kourshab Here is another confirmation that mountainous slopes and cold climate are not very good for agriculture. Crops are not grown for sale, but mainly for family consumption (for 16 out of 17

31

migrants). Animal husbandry on the contrary is the main resource that helps in the times of difficulties. Animal Husbandry The analysis of informants in this study reveals that 19 out of 22 migrants used to keep animals: about a third (12 out of 19 respondents) were completely dependent on them, while others were mostly dependent. Considering that in the former places of residences the majority (16 out of 19 respondents) didn’t have problems feeding their animal stock (they had plenty of good land for grazing) we can conclude that animal husbandry is the main source of livelihood of migrants in this research. Further analysis shows that this main source of income has been declining over last years for a larger half of migrants (11 respondents) and the main reason for that decline is economic – animals were sold or consumed. Ten out of 11 respondents killed animals for their own consumption. The same number if informants sold them for surviving or for receiving money, 9 migrants - for repaying loan and 7- because price for animals rose. Animal diseases were also important (7 cases out of 11). The set of environmental factors was less significant: poor quality of grazing land (4 cases), overgrazing (3 cases) and no fodder animal food available (3 cases). This leads us to a hypothesis that stock-breeding is not so much the factor that is affected by environmental problems, but more the factor that contributes to it. Because the Kyrgyz became so dependent on animals for their livelihood and survival in the Post-Soviet period, they tried to increase the quantity of stock and that led to overgrazing of pasture lands on the mountainous slopes. Overgrazing is the main cause of soil erosion, which leads to landslides and flooding. The next section of this chapter will look at the role of these two environmental problems on the migrants’ decision to migrate. Causes of Migration Environmental Problems as the Main Causes of Migration Knowing that the sample in this survey was targeted at environmental migrants, it is logical to suppose that most of the migration cases here will be related to environmental problems. The results show that for all migrants – environmental problems were the reason to move at least once in their migration history. For about a third of migrants (8 respondents out of 22) environmental problems had effect on their very first decision to move and 5 migrants followed their relatives who had environmental problems. For 6 migrants environmental degradation is still a problem now. Looking at the history of multiple migrations, we can see that environmental problems were the main reason for migration on all stages of migration for almost all migrants. The comparison of the main causes of migration of our sample of respondents shows a very clear and definite pattern – environmental degradation was the main reason for migration. Let us look at some facts.

• Social reasons were not important: only 3 respondents out of 22 indicated insufficient health care services, 2- poor community life and only 1- lack of school.

• Conflicts (religious, political, over resources, family, etc.) were not important at all (0

respondents).

32

• Economics were more important: for 7 out of 22 migrants – not enough income, unemployment and no land for farming were among the reasons to migrate. But for vast majority of migrants (17 out of 22) economic problems were related to environment – environmental degradation made it impossible to earn a decent living.

• Deeper analysis of environmental issues shows following gradation of importance:

o 21 out of 22 respondents migrated because of sudden environmental disasters (in our sample – mostly landslides)

o 18- because of slow environmental degradation o 14 migrants had health problems caused by unhealthy environment o 10-13 respondents migrated due to poor water and soil quality, water

shortage/drought, and unreliable harvest o 3 – after the man-made disasters o 1 - because of development projects.

For almost all migrants, things like energy, water, transport, health services and schools were available in the former place of residence. Only market (6 put of 22 cases) and public services (2 out of 22 cases) were not so accessible. This again confirms that there were not so many other reasons for migrants in this study to migrate besides environmental problems. Landslides More than two third of migrants in this study migrated because of landslides. Interviews with experts also revealed that landslides have become one of the most frequent and important environmental disasters happening in Kyrgyzstan. Landslides have also become the main focus of the Ministry of Emergency Situations. Landslides are the main reason why the Ministry resettles people. Tien-Shan Mountains are young and there is a lot of seismic activity that leads to landslides. However, as interviews with experts and residents have shown the frequency of landslides has increased significantly during last two decades. The main reason for increased frequency of landslides in Kyrgyzstan is soil erosion caused by overgrazing. As indicated by one administrator in the Nichke-Sai village, during the Soviet times, there were geology specialists employed by state farm collectives, who regularly made assessment of pastures on mountainous slopes. If they found situation dangerous they used to close this area and set fences or put some marks not allowing animal grazing there. After the break up of the Soviet Union and privatization of lands and pastures, nobody makes such assessments anymore and no one has the authority to stop the owners of pastureland from grazing their animals. MES officers sometime exercise this control, but their monitoring is not regular and control not very effective. As a result, the pastures are overgrazed. As residents themselves mentioned – grass is the best protection from soil erosion: during rain, water falls and goes down the slope on the top of grass, not entering the soil much. However, when there is not enough grass, water goes into the ground and makes it less stable, which leads to a slow development of a landslide. Landslides are a very dangerous phenomenon. They can develop slowly and steadily moving few centimeters a day. But this growth is unpredictable and after reaching the critical condition huge masses of land can break away and come down on houses. In the Jalpak-Tash village in the Ozgon region, 39 people were killed by a landslide overnight (19 families were affected). Obviously, such unpredictability and danger force people to migrate even from the greenest pasturelands. So, people move. What their life becomes like after migration is the subject of the next section. Migration and After

33

Economic Situation Environmental problems had strong effect on all respondents. This is what they described:

• For more than a quarter of migrants indicated that the new place is much worse than the original: the land that was given them is small, it doesn’t have water, there is no pasture land for grazing, etc.:

Drought [in the new place] has the most negative effect on our livelihood. If there is no rain, we can’t grow wheat. When we have no wheat, we have no bread. That means we have to buy wheat, which significantly affects our finances and livelihood.

43-year old female in Kourshab

• For a quarter migration became a big financial burden: they needed money for transportation to move, for building new house, for starting agriculture in the new place. Credits they received from the government for building houses, often were not enough. Four out of 22 migrants had to sell their animals to find necessary additional money and thus lost their livestock.

I had to spend money for moving. I wouldn’t spend my money on moving if landslide didn’t happen. Instead, I would use it for my family.

50-year old male in Kourshab

• One fifth of migrants lost their jobs or main sources of income (agriculture, stock-breeding) because they had to move to a new place.

Landslide forced us to migrate. I lost my job and income that I used to receive from keeping livestock and garden in my previous village.

60-year old male in Kourshab Therefore, we can see that in the majority of cases migration has negative effect on people’s economic situation: they loose their lands, animals and savings and they have to start their life from scratch in the new places, on very small plots for housing and not enough water for irrigation or even for drinking. Social Networks The analysis of the social networks of migrants shows that migration strongly affects not only economic but also social life of migrants. The majority (16 out of 22) of migrants migrated with other members of their family and the majority of these family members (14 out of 16) have been resettled to the same or near place. Only one family in a sample migrated to a different village and two families migrated to Russia. These family members who moved away helped their relatives by occasionally sending money and some material support. We can see from this pattern that people often migrate with their family members and relatives and that they keep their family links trying to stay in the new place together. This has been confirmed few times in the interviews: family and relatives are just too important. Therefore, when they move they try to move altogether. The situation is slightly different with the broader circle of relatives and friends. The results show that for 13 out of 22 migrants their broader social networks remained in the former place of residence . For the remaining 9, the majority of relatives and friends have migrated. And half of

34

those who migrated – came to the same place. Therefore, there are 4 migrant families who either by their own choice or by the choice of resettling agency preserved their social networks during migration. Interviews with non-migrants have shown that keeping the relations is very important for them and that ideally they would prefer to all move as one village. However in the context of limited land resources usually only the ones whose houses were destroyed or are in the most dangerous zones are resettled. As a result, for 18 out of 22 of migrants their social networks are lost. Plans for future Seeing that after migration people loose both their financial, material and social capital, it is interesting to know where they see their future. Very often migrants are resettled from one place of environmental disaster to another one, like it was in the Sary-Tash village in Kara-Kulja. In such context, it is interesting to analyze the migrants’ willingness to move to a new place again or return home. Sixteen out of 22 migrants said that they expect that in the future environmental problems will make them want to migrate again. However, only 2 said that they plan to migrate. These migrants said that they want to move for a better life and that the current place doesn’t have enough water for drinking and farming. Twenty migrants who did not plan to move in spite of expecting environmental problems in the future gave following reasons.

• Seven said that life in general and infrastructure of their new place new place of residence is better than in the old one.

The place I was given is in a good, flat location. It is much better than my former place of residence. It's got plenty of water for growing crops although we don't have drinking water here. We have built a house here with the help from the government. It is closer to the city, therefore more convenient.

41-year old male in Manas Aiyly

• Six respondents said that they have already built their houses and settled in the new place, so they wouldn’t want to move again

We have already built a house here. It is hard to build a house, since the government does not help us. I am going to stay here even though we have a lot of problems: no drinking water, no roads, very little land, etc.

63-year old female in Nichke-sai

• Seven informants said that land is a problem, that government will not give them land second time after they have been resettled once

• Finally, 5 said that they don’t have financial means to migrate again.

I have no financial means. If the government gives us a plot in a place where there is both drinking and irrigation water, and if they give long term loans to build a house in that place, I would go. But, it is unlikely that the government will give loans without any reason. So we are more likely to stay here.

28-year old male in Sary-Tash

As we can see, besides better living conditions in the new place, the major factors effecting the decision to stay are mostly related to economic matters, like building house again, absence of land and financial shortage.

35

Migrants were asked whether they would like to return to their home places if the environmental situation there improved. Less half of them (10 out of 22) responded positively and little majority (12 out of 22) - negatively. Those who wanted to return identified following reasons:

• 8 said they would return because they had more and better land there • 5 said that there was more water

• 5 said because it was their birthplace, land of their ancestors and they felt strongly

attached to it. Here are some quotes:

Yes, I would return, because there are good grazing lands and pastures. It is my motherland. It is hard to get used to a new place like this. It is like living in a city: our current place of residence has only little backyard for growing vegetables. No land for keeping animals. No pastures. No irrigation land allocated for us. All we have here is our house. No jobs, no farming and no agriculture.

50-year old female in Kourshab

It is my motherland. I have many relatives and friends there. It is suitable for livestock and it has plenty of land for grazing. It is beautiful there with large forests.


From this we can see that very often migrants displaced from the places with better natural resources to the places where there is not enough land and water – two key components of agriculture and stock-breeding. The reason for that is the lack of land and overpopulation of the Southern regions of Kyrgyzstan. Because these territories have been populated for a very long time, there are long existing boundaries of ownership of land and water resources. In the Pre-Soviet time, even though most of Kyrgyz tribes were moving from pasture to pasture, there still existed certain zones of influence, which were negotiated peacefully or taken by force. During the Soviet time, when large share of the Kyrgyz were forced to settle, these tribal zones of influence became the basis for establishing the state collective farms. After independence, the collective land was distributed among the residents of each village. Therefore, we can observe that many people today own the land of their grand- and grand-grand-fathers and that there is very little free land. The land that is available is of poorer quality – it is usually not irrigated and has little grass for stock-breeding. This explains why many migrants want to come back because they had better land in their original places of residence.

On the other hand, those who did not want to come back, indicated following reasons:

• 5 respondents said they don’t have houses there and some don’t even have land left. • 4 felt that it would still be very dangerous to live there because of the environmental

disasters

• 2 said they had bad memories. One woman lost two of her sons in the landslides and said that she would never be able to live again in the place, where everything reminds her of them. Another migrant said that he didn’t want to uncover the past: many of his ancestors lived there, but now all moved out.

• Only one migrant said that life in the new place is better than in the old.

36

This mixed set of responses constitutes often tragic juxtaposition of feelings, attachments and economic realities that shape individual life of every migrant. What about their communal and public life in the new places of settlement? The next section of research looks into that. Public Life The analysis of official public life in the villages shows that it is almost non-existent. Only 1 out of 22 interviewed migrants was a member of a farmer cooperative. No one else was a member of any kind of organizations. The majority (13 out of 22 respondents) said they would not trust or rely on such organizations, simply because such organizations do not exist. However, those few who believed that some kind of help was possible, suggested that they would ask for the basic necessities, such as providing access to drinking water, improving roads, giving some credits, etc. In the individual interviews and focus groups migrants expressed their strong opinion about all these representatives of organizations (like our own research team) who come, write everything down, take pictures, but do nothing at the end; or about parliament deputies, who during the election period come to the villages and promise “golden mountains” if they are elected, but never return to fulfill the promises. The research team was under the strong impression of mistrust of migrants towards organizations, including the governmental bodies. However, the research observations have shown some evidences of activity of mostly two main external agents in the villages: foreign donors and Ministry of Emergency Situations. For example, people in the village of Kara-Sogot (the place of strong earthquake) in Osh oblast, had American tents in the yards of almost every house and there was one large army tent in the yard of the local school. Pupils were taking lessons in that tent. As for the activity of Ministry of Emergency Situations, it could be seen in every single village the research team went to: there were houses demolished by the soldiers, there was some construction work going, in the Sarybe village near uranium mines in Maili-Suu, MES trucks were reburying the uranium waste. Seeing these evidences of the important work done by the Ministry one has to applaud to the new and very active Minister Kamchybek Tashiev and to the recent decision to move the Ministry from the capital to the city of Osh in the Southern Kyrgyzstan. The Ministry works closely with many international donor agencies and currently there are several collaborative efforts and initiatives on improving the environmental situation and condition of people in the dangerous zones. Such collaboration is often based on foreign financial assistance and local expertise and labor. Besides investments into the environmental projects, some of that financial assistance goes to people themselves. This is reviewed in the next section. Access to Financial Services Before migrating, only five people indicated having access to financial services. All of them used formal financial services, two borrowed from relatives, one took a micro credit loan and one relied on remittances. After migration, more than a third of migrants (9 out of 22) had access to financial services. When migrants moved, they received support from the government in the form of short-term financial aid and credits and long-term subsidized loans. On a short-term basis they also were provided with some cash money, tents, transport, and health services. They also received tools, construction materials and donations. Finally, they were given new lands and land rights. More migrants (12 out of 22) said that access to financial services does not reduce the pressure to migrate. One migrant commented:

37

If I am given long-term loan, I would move out from this place and settle in a better place where there is enough water.


On the contrary, other migrant suggested that:

We had pressure to migrate because of natural disasters, such as landslide. But even if I had access to financial services, I wouldn't necessarily use it for moving. I would use that for something that brings more money.

42-year old female in Sary-Bulak There are many stories, when migrants received money from the government for building houses but used money for different purposes, like buying more animal stock or simply consuming money on everyday things. On one hand such decision is not smart, since they loose the opportunity to build a house. On the other hand, it might be riskier but more promising in economic terms to remain in the good pasture lands with extra animal stock than build a house in the new place, where there are no economic opportunities. This option of remaining in the place of danger will be discussed in the next main chapter about non-migrants. But for now, let us summarize some major findings from the life of those informants of this study who decided to migrate.

38

5. CONCLUSION: SCENARIO WITH NO WINNERS Cutter argues that “there is no such thing as a ‘hazard- or disaster- free’ environment.” (Cutter, 2001 in Hunter 2004). Still, a number of representatives of governmental and international organization deny the environmental basis for migration. However, the empirical evidences suggest that environment does shape the migration decision-making process. However, substantial variation exists with regard to likelihood of migration, defined by household and personal characteristics. The results show that those who remained behind generally are economically better off than those who left. They preserve their land and animal stock. However, they are massively affected by environmental disasters/deterioration and by out-migration. The main effect of the environmental problems are on their physical and psychological health (especially in the places of former uranium mines) and on their livelihood (decline of harvest and loss of animal stock). The effect of out-migration results in the lost socio-cultural milieu, ageing population, demoralized youth and deterioration of physical infrastructure. As many as 80 families leave some villages in one year. The pressure for those who stay builds up: most of them want to leave because of environmental problems, but cannot. On one hand they are afraid of economic difficulties in new locations; on the other hand they don’t have the means to move. So they carry on waking up everyday to the horrifying reality of their bodies being destroyed every second of living in these radioactive zones, or hoping that their homes will not be squashed by a developing landslide. In the mountainous regions of Kyrgyzstan, animal husbandry is the main source of income and survival for population. In the harsh economic realities after the break-up of the Soviet Union, people tried to increase stock breeding. In the absence of state-regulated control this led to overgrazing of pasture lands. Overgrazing led to soil erosion and to increased land-sliding and flooding activity. Environmental degradation and danger related to landslides became the main reasons for migration. No other factor (economic, social, or political) had such importance. The government supported resettlement both forcefully and with long-term loans for building houses. They also provided people with new land. However, because of the overpopulation of the Southern Kyrgyzstan, these lands were very small and given in the places with little water and no space for grazing animals. Therefore, migrants moved from better places to often much worse places. They used their savings and livestock for migrating to new place, just to find out that it is very hard to survive there. In the migration process, they managed to preserve some of their family links, but lost almost all broader social networks. Therefore, at the beginning of the environmental migration chain we can see harsh economic realities and absence of control over people’s activities as the main reason for environmental degradation forcing people to migrate. At the end of the same chain there is a dislocated migrant family, who are the real losers in all aspects of their life: economic, social and cultural.

In sum, the Kyrgyz case shows that migration processes in Kyrgyzstan have a strong environmental flavor and that environmental problems causing migration and displacement of large groups of people bring only negative, deteriorating impacts on the life of local communities. The uniqueness of environmental migration is that very often it is not a choice, but the only solution in a no-win scenario: both those who migrate and those who stay are losers. Their social networks, built over an entire lifetime, are destroyed. Their livelihood strategies, inherited from many generations of forefathers, become meaningless. Their culture, strongly connected to tribal identity and unity, disappear. This study brings into focus the importance of this often ignored environmental dimension in the study of population dynamics. It also points to the interconnectedness of environmental factors with economic, social, and cultural factors affecting the migration flow of people.

39

6. RECOMMENDATIONS: RESTORING THE BALANCE

As this study has revealed, almost all disasters have anthropogenic roots, whether on the scale of large governmental industries or small-scale individual stock-breeding practices. Current governmental policies in Kyrgyzstan however, deal mostly with consequences and do not address the real causes. There is a need for both top-down and bottom-up initiatives for preserving the slopes, forests, lakes, and rivers of the Kyrgyz ecosystems. One solution can be found in reviving the traditional indigenous methods of animal husbandry and agriculture, which were developed during several millennia of evolution. Kyrgyz nomads were always very considerate of treating pastures with great care. They were not attached to one place, but were following the favorable climate and thus were a part of complex and interconnected ecosystem. Many of these practices and large part of traditional ecological knowledge were lost over the last century of collective farming and sedentarization.

It is also important to revive the aboriginal breeds of sheep and sorts of fruits and vegetables grown in Kyrgyzstan. These are much better adjusted to local environmental conditions. For example, the aboriginal Alay sheep consumes much less grass and exerts significantly smaller pressure on pastures while feeding than many new heavy hybrid breeds brought and cultivated in Kyrgyzstan during the Soviet times. Another example is the aboriginal Kasek apricot, which requires watering only 2-3 times a year, compared to many imported apricot trees requiring 6-7 times more water. This is extremely practical in the Southern Batken province strongly affected by draughts. Currently, there are several initiatives taking place in Kyrgyzstan aimed to preserve the agro/biodiversity of our region using the indigenous methods. Reviving the traditional wisdom and practices could help many Central Asian communities recover the lost ecological balance. This will be the first step towards restoring the damaged social and cultural milieu of the Kyrgyz settlements and communities affected by forced migration.

40

7. REFERENCES Ecological Security Conception of the of the Kyrgyz Republic. 2007. Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan Gruzdov, Y. 2003. “Gde hvost uranovogo drakona?”, Kyrgyzstan, №11 Hunter, Lori. 2004. Migration and Environmental Hazards Mamajakyp uulu, C., Kamcgybeov E.B., Magazova, C.M., Nazarbekov D.., Nartaeva, A.K. and S.M. Mamatov. 2005. Izmeneiya kletok perifericheskoi krovi u jitelei, projivayushih v raione zahororneniya radioaktivnyh orhodov. Nauchno-issledovatelskyi otdel Ministerstva zdravohraneniya Kyrgyzskoi Respubliki, Kyrgyzsko-Rossiyskiy Slavyanskyi Universitet, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan Migration Policy Conception of the Kyrgyz Republic. 2004. Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan Ministry for Emergency Situations. 2007. Monitiring, prognoz I podgotovka k reagirovaniyu na vozmojnye aktivizatsii opasnyh protsessov I yavleniy na territorii Kyrgyzskoi Respubliki I prigranichnyh raionah s gosudarstvami Tsentralnoi Azii. Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan Ministry of Emergency Situations. 2008. Natural and Technogenic Emergency Situations Moldokeeva, Jenishgul. 2008. Usloviya jizni kak factor zdoroviya nasleniya sovremennogo Kyrgyzstanha. Bishkek, Kyrgyhzstan National Statistics Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic. 2007. Annual Demographic Report of the Kyrgyz Republic, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan Radjabov, M. 2008. “Problemy regionalnoi bezopasnosti v Tsentralnoi Azii na poroge ХХI veka”, Navigator newspaper, Kazahstan Stepanenko, I. 1997. Prirodno-klimaticheskie usloviya Kyrgyzstana. Tishin, A. I. 2007. Protsesy socialnoi disipatsii v Kyrgyzskoi Respublike, Kyrgyz National University, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan Torgoev., Isakbek and Yuryi Aleshin. 2001. Ekologiya gornopromyshlennogo kompleksa Kyrgyzstana. Bishkek, Kyrgyuzstan – Ilim publishing house Tynybekov, A.K., Emil kyzy, A. and E.S. Adylov. 2003. Ekologicheskoe sostoyanie Kaji-Saiskogo uranovogo hvostohranilicha. Woldemar. 2007. Mayluu-Suu, the ghost-city. World Bank. 2007. Kyrgyz Republic: Poverty Assessment Zvyagelskaya I. D. 2001. “K voprosu ob ugrozah v Tsentralnoi Azii. Meterialy nauchno-prakticheskogo seminara “10 let SNG: nekotorye itogi”, Seriya: Nauchnye doklady № 5.

EACH-FOR full report: Environmental Migration in Kyrgyzstan

Documents