LGI / Resources / Ethnic relations

Slovak Republic is a multiethnic society with minority communities intermixed across the country and across localities. Most of the minority communities are fully socially and economically integrated into the society. The main exception is Roma minority, facing serious social and economic troubles during transition period since 1989. The transformation problems of the economy damaged Roma households and communities in wider scale and among the first, comparing to the rest of society. Working previously mostly as non-qualified manual workers, they have become unemployed (90-100% unemployment rate in their settlements is often) and dependent on various forms of social security payments. An important part of transformation processes concerned land and ownership changes, which offered many opportunities as well as threats for citizens. The real consequences of these processes on Romanies were not extensively discussed until now. Many of them live in very poor conditions (poor housing, missing technical infrastructure, and miserable health standards). It is more distinct minority with lower education, different cultural habits, internally divided on many subgroups that limit chances for quick improvement of their situation.

The aim of this paper is to present land and ownership issues within the context of agriculture and living environment transformation processes. These two fields influence substantially living conditions of Roma minority in Slovakia. From living environment point of view, central position has evaluation of housing, environmental and infrastructure development. Transformation and situation in mentioned spheres of socio-economic life is strongly dependent on land related changes and ownership rights. These fields are also crucial to any considerations attempting to improve standard of living of Romanies. Firstly, I deliver primary information concerning minorities living in Slovakia, with selected features of Roma minority situation and brief outline of previous policies. The transformation processes in agriculture and their consequences on Roma minority are discussed in following part. It is clear that land and ownership changes in agriculture do not mean improvement for Romanies. Radical shift toward market approach in housing, with sharp decline in the new housing, led to dramatic growth of prices on real estate market, and also worsened the situation of Romanies. Unclear ownership rights and fragmented land affected the speed of reform processes, as well as environmental improvement and new infrastructure development in favour Romanies. Land and ownership registers are not adequately developed, and require long term consolidation. Substantial part of Roma community in Slovakia are in fact losers within transformation processes in many fields.

We can divide minority communities living in Slovakia with respect to the size of their population on three main groups (Buček, 1999). There are living two big minority groups (combining relevant official and unofficial information) - Hungarian minority and Roma minority, having hundred thousands of members. The second group composes more numerous minority communities - Czechs (combined with Moravians and Silesians), Ruthenians, Ukrainians, Germans, and Poles, which have thousands of population. The third group covers smaller minority groups e.g. Croatians, Bulgarians, as well as small other immigrant communities living in Slovakia (for more details on population size of minorities see Table 1).

Despite existence of basic statistical facts, there are quite understandable objections in respect to reliability of latest demographic data on Roma minority. This ethnic group could for the first time since WWII expressed own ethnic affiliation on principle of self-identification in 1991 Statistical Census. Surprisingly only 75802 (1.44%) citizens of the Slovak Republic identified themselves as Romanies. Obtained figures are not used for any broader considerations. It is clear that many Romanies declared themselves mostly as Slovak or Hungarians in this Census. Census officials (using local knowledge or visible signs) unofficially collected data on Roma minority during Statistical Censuses under previous regime. While in 1970 there lived about 160 thousand Romas (3.5% of total population) in Slovakia, in 1980 it was almost 200000 (4% of total population). The latest more precise data on Roma population was based on registry of state administration from 1989, when Roma population had 253 943 persons (4.8% of total population). The most often mentioned present experts' estimations (1998) on Roma population are between 330 to 350 thousand (about 7-7.5% of total population). The highest estimations of Roma population size in Slovakia declare half million of Romanies living in the Slovak Republic. It is generally accepted that they have high birth rate, low death rate, and almost 40% of population in pre-productive age (1995). The Roma minority is dispersed throughout the country. Its higher concentration is observable in south central Slovakia and in Eastern Slovakia. Numerous Roma communities live in majority of Slovak cities (sometimes forming smaller enclaves). Substantial part of this minority is living in bad social and economic situation (it is especially the case of Roma settlements in eastern Slovakia).

 Table 1 Population development by nationality

Historically Romanies were co-operating with majority society, although their population was much smaller and marginalised. They were traditionally craftsmen, tradesmen, agricultural workers or traveller. Their position within a society had dramatically changed under the communist regime. Main influence had crucial processes of socialist development: massive industrialisation, collectivisation in agriculture (and shift to mechanised and large, concentrated agricultural enterprises), nationalisation in retailing and urbanisation. These changes undermined traditional position of Romanies in social economic system. Many of them lost traditional economic ties with the rest of society and hardly accepted new position determined for them by majority society. Approach of communist regime to Romanies was assimilationist, and reduced its policy on social and economic aspects. Their ethnic background was ignored. The best document of such approach is anti-Roma legislation from 1958 - cancelled was their traditional nomadic way of life, liquidated should be their settlements and their too big concentrations were prevented. They were forcibly moved to high rise housing complexes, dispersed among the rest of population, their culture was refused and not supported. The positive results of this social engineering 'from above' based mostly on state paternalist principle were minimal. The position of Romanies shifted from freely selected forms of participation on the margin of the main stream social economic life to full dependency on majority society, its decisions and manipulation. They had been forced to accept socio-economic and cultural model of majority society.

Two main approaches, which should lead toward private based and market oriented agriculture - restitution and privatisation, have also included changes in land ownership and distribution in Slovakia. The main reason of the restitution process was return of land to original owners, which were dispossessed between 1948-1990. The privatisation was intended as a main tool of transformation of 'socialist' agriculture to the agriculture with dominance of private subjects. Despite ten years period of transformation, land and ownership structure did not change so dramatically as it could be expected (for example, comparing to changes in other sectors of Slovak economy). According to Blaas (1998), Slovakia avoided dramatic steps of reform in agriculture, known from some other post-socialist countries. Maybe this was reason why this sector protected relative production performance. Changes in agriculture were more gradual as radical (comparing to the rest of economy), but from this reason, they are much more long term, and without dramatic differences in basic outputs or indicators. In 1997 only about 17000 private farmers were active in Slovak agriculture, working on less than 5% of cultivated agricultural land in Slovakia (it was 5,6 % of cultivated land in 1.1.1999). The average size of these farms was 11,4 ha and only 25 farms were bigger than 500 ha (1997). Despite gradual transformation, agricultural employment decreased quickly. The agriculture fulfil under previous regime also role of social institution in rural areas (they were forced to employ especially local population). Quickly emerging competitive market with agricultural products and pressure for higher efficiency has led many owners and managers to rethink their employment strategies. The employment in agriculture according to statistical data decreased from 296392 (14,8 % of total employment in economy) in 1991 to 138826 (6,85 % of total employment) in 1997. According to the National Labour Office unemployed with the last job in agriculture composed 10% of total unemployed in 1997.

The majority of previous state farms underwent the process of privatisation. Originally, very large state farms underwent the process of splitting on smaller units, more suitable for privatisation and more effective production. State farms' privatisation started in more extensive way only after 1994 (see for example Svonavec, 1999). Remaining, not privatised state farms are smaller and some of them face bankruptcy and liquidation. Large part of the state farms’ original land resources is cultivated now mostly by private agro-business companies (joint stock companies, Ltd., etc). They control about 16 % of total cultivated agricultural land in Slovakia (1.1.1999).

Still dominating production subjects are co-operatives working on 63 % (1.1.1999) of total cultivated agricultural land of Slovakia. They went through the processes of transformation, that focused on clarification of ownership and control of farms. Co-operatives are now much precise in differentiating on co-operative members (in fact owners) and employees. Important process was also division of too large co-operatives (some of them with size exceeding 6000 ha) on more flexible smaller ones. It was reaction on the last wave of artificial concentration processes in agriculture during eighties. The average size of co-operatives decreased to 1500 ha (1997).

Only smaller number of new private farmers emerged as the result of the processes of restitution. Prevailing number of restituents have belonged to group of original owners of very small pieces of land, which can be hardly considered as sufficient land base for effective market oriented agricultural production. A lot of original owners asked only for smaller piece of land for direct cultivation, and not for all land they restituted and could ask for. The reason was to receive land only for production for own consumption of some food. This approach was combined with eventual sell of small surplus production on local or regional market (e.g. in nearby city) aiming to improve their household budget (typical for regions with fertile land). These changes led only to wider expansion of 'garden' or 'weekend' farming. Returned land is mostly close to build-up area of rural settlements, while the rest of agricultural land remained cultivated by large agricultural enterprises. The second group of restituents is descendants of former large private farm owners (Slov. kulak). These large farms were formed usually during inter-war period. Large restituents followed different strategies (Danglova, Namerova, 1999). Some of them with experiences in agriculture asked for land and begin their own agro-businesses on own land. The other asked for land and subsequently rented their land to experienced agro-entrepreneurs (mostly experienced former top or middle level managers of previous large state farms and co-operatives). The last groups of owners have left their land in transformed agricultural enterprises (for rent).

It has to be mentioned that there has existed only limited initiative even among rural population to be active in self-sufficient farming, part time market oriented agricultural production or to start full-time agro-business in Slovakia. Agriculture is highly competitive sector in Slovakia. Strong competition is also related to partly liberalised agricultural market of Central European Free Trade Association (with big producers like Poland or Hungary) and pressure of products coming from highly subsidised agriculture of European Union. Slovak agriculture works with limited state subsidies, and small farmers have to compete with large agricultural production units. Land is only first, but not sufficient condition for successful start of agriculture business. Especially capital resources were hardly accessible during first years of transition of the society. Restitution was not so extended as it was supposed. Slovak society underwent substantial industrialisation and urbanisation during forty years since land was expropriated or forcibly collectivised. In many cases, current restituents have worked for years in different sectors of economy and lost ties with 'own land'. They were not prepared to change their career and have had no experiences with modern agriculture. They were more interested in renting or selling land, which has not been always easy.

The gradual transformation of the Slovak agriculture can be partly explained by the fact that it has been usually dominated by representatives of large agricultural enterprises' interests (large co-operatives, companies which privatised previous state farms). This more or less compact pressure group is partly related to pre-1989 managers of co-operatives and state farms. In real life, managers also control many of transformed co-operatives with very dispersed and inexperienced owners. New owners have not interest for direct control, as well as ability to run big farms by themselves. They are dependent on executive managers. More extensive central government support for new and small farming was typical only for shorter period (1990-1992). Nevertheless, number of specialised, highly productive farms, which are able to compete with large co-operatives and farms, is growing. However, return to small-scale farming is hardly to expect in wider scale.

Unclear ownership rights to agricultural land have had significant role among the main problems, which have limited the progress of transformation in agriculture. Main problems caused extreme fragmentation and absenting registration of ownership. Hungarian inheritance legislature applied during previous centuries (especially after 1840) led to systematic fragmentation of land property to very small pieces of land (usually each sibling had to receive portion of inherited land). The second source of fragmentation were results of land reforms realised after First and Second World War, which distributed land to small and medium sized agricultural farmers. There were 12,5 mil. real estates, of which 9,6 million were land parcels outside build environment (1993). This land parcels were with average size 0,45 ha and with average number of 12 to 15 owners per one land parcel (Stefanovic, 1997). It means in praxis, for example, that larger co-operatives have quite often between 1500 to 2000 owners at present. An extreme growth of agricultural land fragmentation was stopped by restrictive legislation in 1947 (similar effect had legislation approved in 1949 and 1964). Ownership rights to concrete land are often not clear, although size of originally owned land is usually known. Original land parcels were changed by new parcel structure introduced under large-scale production methods, and original borders disappeared in landscape.

The rest of problems concerns registration of land related rights. There were only 3,3 % of land parcels with clear ownership in Slovakia in 1993. Part of the cadastral documentation was destroyed or lost during Second World War and not satisfactorily renewed. In many regions, cadastral maps are of problematic quality, and changes of ownership were not registered. During communist regime, ownership was considered as not important, private ownership of agricultural land was minimised, and registration of ownership changes was not obligatory. All mentioned problems caused need for nation-wide process of land registration renewal, which started in 1996. Local land registry renewal commissions were established according to local self-governmental units, with members representing state administration (including specialist), local self-government and landowners. Final aim of these commissions is in complete renewal of land registration, with all ownership relations. The process is very complicated, time consuming, expensive and requires vast field works and long term procedures. Many documents confirming transfers of ownership among population are of problematic authenticity, or transfers were informal. The restitution process also suffers by problems with loss or falsification of citizens' cadastral documentation, its unclear personal identification, as well as clashes of potential restituents for the same piece of land (Danglova, Namerova, 1999; Vechter, 1999). The registration renewal process is also resulting in more precise state owned land identification, which is supposed to be around 400 000 to 550 000 ha (administered by State Land Fund). It is mostly land of non-identified owners. This land is usually rented and income is distributed for compensation of owners, whose restitution claims could not be satisfied by their land (for example, their land is under public buildings). Registration renewal will not be finished as it was originally planned (in 2000). Under this influence agriculture land market could not develop in wider scale. Clear land ownership and flexible registration of land transactions concern about one tenth of total cadastral territories in Slovakia, where land registration renewal finished (1999).

The transformation processes in agriculture in relation to minorities concern more Hungarian minority, especially those its members, living in fertile land areas of southern Slovakia (close to border with Hungary). Romanies were historically small minority and they traditionally did not own agricultural land. Their economic base could not be improved by restitution process. The privatisation process in agriculture required particular skills, expertise and capital resources, which are rare within Roma community. On the other hand, they were damaged by lost of jobs in agriculture, one of their traditional employers in rural areas. Agricultural co-operatives and state farms employed under previous regime many Romanies with lower working qualification. They lost jobs under the pressure for higher productivity in farms (reducing social employment and full time employment) from new owners and managers. Their access to cheaper agricultural products, which they could receive as employees in state farms and co-operatives, was also reduced. Many Roma families lost their social and economic base in agriculture and became dependent on social security system. Transformation in agriculture worsened situation of Roma minority and does not include any special tools for improvement of situation of Romanies e.g. by special redistribution of land for Roma families able and willing to cultivate agricultural land (e.g. from State Land Fund).

The most critical situation is in housing, but societal changes have revealed also worse conditions of Romany communities in the field of infrastructure development and environmental safety. Transformation processes after 1989 dramatically changed situation in housing. Housing was not longer considered as 'social right' delivered and distributed by state. State retreated especially from new housing development and these competencies transferred to local self-governments suffering by lack of finance and needed special expertise. State directly participated in financing housing more extensively only until 1992, whilst afterwards was even not finished housing transferred to local self-government. Public housing stock dwellers have been positively influenced by state initiatives in rent regulation and state subsidies for heating. Their removal is long term, combined with privatisation of housing stock on favourable prices and will finish in years 2000-2001. The situation of Roma minority is influenced by a series of interrelated issues - transformation processes in housing (privatisation), new housing development, land and ownership rights issues, infrastructure development and environmentally unsafe location of settlements.

Main process in the field of housing has been housing stock ownership transformation, including privatisation. It concerned previous forms of ownership - state, co-operative and other (mostly owned by enterprises). State housing stock was transferred to municipal ownership. Nevertheless, 'municipalisation' was only one step in the process toward full privatisation. Communes were obliged to sell flats on favourable prices (this process is close to the end in majority of communes), with exception of small portion serving as social housing. Co-operative housing has also been part of privatisation process, although not so dynamic. At present about 2/3 of all housing stock is private. The transformation processes changed proportion among tenants' owned and rented sector. During last years almost did not continue growth of rented sector, with share on total housing stock below 40 % now. Sell for favourable prices led to privatisation of older housing and regulated rent diminished interests of investors for new housing development in rented sector.

Liberal economic reform dramatically influenced situation in a new housing development. As a result of rapid transition to market driven approach to housing, it became non-accessible commodity for majority of population. Personal financial resources of citizens, commercial credits and building societies should have been three new pillars of housing development during first half of nineties. If fact, citizens' savings were low, commercial credits expensive due to high credit rate, and long term money almost did not exist. General practice on fragile financial market was that real estates (existing houses, land) were preferred as collateral for credits. Such approach diminished group of population, which could afford new housing. Although building societies started already in 1992, they achieved phase of more expanded borrowing only after accumulating enough resources in mid-nineties (1995-1996). All these conditions led to high demand combined with increase of prices as of new housing, as increase of prices of old housing on real estate market.

The most promising tool for housing revitalisation has been building societies (organised on the model of 'bausparkassen' with German and Austrian capital and about 1,3 mil. of savers in 1999). They are attractive by suitable credit conditions (prime credit rate about 6%), comparing to commercial credits. It also includes main, but minor state support of housing in form of special premium for savers in building societies (40%, and since 1997 30% state premium, up to 6000 SK per year). Big part of these resources have been spent on reconstruction of older housing stock, and not on new housing construction. Sharp decrease in new housing and big public pressure lead to establishment of State Fund for Support of Housing (Slov. Statny Fond Rozvoja Byvania) in 1996. This Fund, which has offered lower rate and long term credits (according to various categories of applicants between 1-6 %), attracted high attention, however it has been with insufficient resources (depending on transfers from state budget). Its orientation on support of housing in general, and not on sections of society with low income, as well as exclusion of rented housing sector from support schemes, caused dissatisfaction. It served again as a source of cheaper money for better paid segment of the society. The last tool for support of housing – mortgages, started with delay. Although legislation was approved in 1996, banks have offered mortgages more extensively only since 1999, after state started to compensate credit rate (resulting in decrease from 13-14% to 7-8%). Taking into account economic situation of households, mortgages are also more suitable tool for upper layers of the society. There have existed also two supplementary sources of state support. Housing Development Programme (Program Rozvoja Byvania) is controlled by the Ministry of Construction and Public Works. Resources distributed under this Programme (only about 1-2 MLD SK per year) were addressed to support housing initiatives of local self-governments. They can receive resources for projects of rented sector (apartment houses), infrastructure development for housing, and also for support of Roma housing projects (Zapletalova, 1998). Part of resources can receive communes in a form of specific grant from State Environmental Fund (Statny Fond Zivotneho Prostredia), addressing especially environmental needs (only about 140-150 MIL SK per year). Local self-governments have received these subventions if they also participated by own local resources (but they must fulfil also other conditions). Availability of public expenditures for support of new housing form local level has been in general very low.

Lack of land for new housing is the main problem in relation to land issues. Land prices are high, ownership is too dispersed, land fragmented and some segments of land have unknown owner. Minor parts of land are still under the restitution processes, waiting for decision in overloaded judicial system. Planning documentation issues is the second reason why land for housing is not available in larger amount. As local self-governments, as private developers can not organise any bigger housing development project without planning documentation (city-wide or city quarter plan) approved by local councils. Two main aspects in planning are important - problem of absenting planning documentation and problem of planning documentation, that did not consider housing needs of various groups of citizens. The documentation is either too ambitious (including liquidations, relocations, new housing quarters development) or overlook specific problems and housing needs of various citizens’ groups, including Romanies. Missing planning documentation is caused by bad financial situation of local governments (have not resources for planning documentation elaboration), and in some cases by long term process of its approval, usually caused by conflicts over its objectives. The last important condition influencing land issues related to housing is legally very complicated and costly procedure for agricultural land transfer to land available for housing. Strong legal protection is introduced for protection of agricultural land and land in water resources areas. Not very effective and flexible are services of personally and technologically underdeveloped land register (cadastral offices) working within the system of district state administration.

New housing is mostly private, as it is well documented in Table 3 and Figure 1. It means hardly accessible to majority of Slovak households, not only Romanies. Big part of Romanies lived in state housing sector under previous regime housing distribution. Two scenarios are observable after privatisation and non-accessible new housing. Part of Roma families are selling flats bought for favourable prices for commercial price in cities (earning attractive price difference) and buying houses in countryside (although mostly older and smaller). The second scenario has worse consequences. It leads to rising forced concentration in existing Roma settlements, urban quarters or individual apartments. It causes deepening problems in their housing units, which are often overloaded and devastated.

Solving of housing need without external help has been almost impossible for big part of socially deprived Roma households. Due to the high prices, they have minimal chance to buy new or old house or apartment. Having mostly low income, property of low value, being unemployed, living on social allowances, they have low chance to save enough money or ask for indispensable credit. Theirs' social and economic situation limit use of existing tools for improving housing situation. Big part of these households is financially excluded and general conditions are non-suitable for needed housing situation improvement. Roma families are usually non-eligible to receive credit under standard procedure (it includes investigation of income history of household, duration of working contract, size of income etc.). In many cases, even small financial participation is hardly imaginable.

The housing situation of Romanies has to be solved in many communes and cities. Local self-governments have been forced to act in this field despite difficulties. The main reasons were - bad housing conditions of Romanies and official decision on their move (highly devastated houses facing destruction are officially declared as dangerous to residents’ life), rapid population growth of Romany population, and city centres revitalisation projects. Many cities and communes prepared own initiatives (e.g. Lucenec, Martin, Spisska Nova Ves, Kolarovo), combining mostly local, state, private and third sector resources and capacities. They mostly consist of various forms of simple, rather smaller housing units, which fulfil basic housing standards. Cheaper materials were also used, as were used movable housing units, or wooden houses. The most important problem is that financial resources of local self-governments (and other participants too) do not allow massive programmes in housing, but construction of only insufficient number of new housing units for renting. In some cases these housing projects attempted to respect specific needs of Roma population, but in some cases new housing was not co-ordinated with local Romanies and did not address need of local Roma community properly. Experiences, the most suitable technologies, forms of financing are only in development.

The most critical situation concerning land and living environment is in Roma settlements. There is 591 Roma settlements with 124 031 inhabitants registered in Slovakia (1998). Typical are problems in all mentioned points - as concerning ownership, as well as planning documentation and infrastructure development. In many cases, Roma settlements were build on land they do not own (or rented), without building permission, without any planning documentation and often outside basic infrastructure networks. Even well intended actions for improvement are under combination of such conditions restricted by legal constraints. There is no chance to invest under unclear ownership and planning condition. Such activities can be easily challenged from various reasons not only by citizens, but also by state administration (e.g. its environmental branch). Actions in favour of Roma housing are much easy on land owned by state or municipality. Housing can not also start, or be finished, without basic infrastructure development (electricity, water and sewage, road and gas network). Direct state support is limited to mentioned state funds. Private investors (including households) or local self-governments are not able to invest in wider scale (it is expensive, and according to valid legislation, networks have to be transferred free of charge to their administrators, usually state enterprises in position of public monopolies). The state enterprises have limited resources due to the price regulation concerning main services (some of them offer coverage of half costs of investments). Infrastructure is not completely developed in many communes until now. Under such conditions, investments to infrastructure are limited, functioning as important barrier for development. Problems are concentrated especially in remote, more isolated Romany settlements (attachment is very expensive due to the length of needed networks). Within 591 Roma settlements is 67 outside the main build environment of communes, and 175 is located on its margin or in close distance. Many Roma settlements are not connected to water (41 is without drinking water source), sewage (is missing in 196 settlements) and gas networks, roads are poor (50 Roma settlements is without access road), public lighting not working (94 settlements is without public lighting), public transport is distant. It confirms that investments into the public infrastructure (technical infrastructure and environmental improvements) are still extremely needed in many communes. Some local self-governments were able to connect to basic infrastructure their Roma quarters living inside or in close neighbourhood with main built environment of the commune (combining local and state resources, with Romany population participation). Such projects for improvement of their living environment includes usually project of drinking water delivery, roads, sewage and gas network completion. Nevertheless, bad financial situation of local self-government is sometimes used as an argument not to deal actively with almost unbelievable living condition in some Roma settlements. Even more simple, not very expensive solutions could improve life of these communities (better road, well, waste collection, access to public transport route), especially when population is growing and new simple housing (houses, barracks) is build spontaneously.

We can not avoid mention environmental dimension of Romany settlements. From this point of view, we can observe three main types of problematic location of Roma settlements - in a national parks, or in areas adjacent to a national parks (or natural reservations); on river shores; and on derelict, devastated, not used land. Location in the national parks, or in neighbouring areas led in some cases to damages in the national parks. The most often problem is in illegal trees cutting. Two other locations are even more dangerous. These settlements' locations are very vulnerable in various aspects. The Roma settlements were among the worst damaged by big floods happened during last two years in eastern Slovakia. Located close to the river, in not very solid houses and barracks, they faced immediate destruction of their living environment. Their fragile houses were in many cases totally destroyed, and return to the previous sites hardly possible. We can find settlements in previous mining areas, sites of closed factories and not used agricultural farms buildings with environmentally hazardous conditions.

The relation among majority and Roma minority population reflects some prejudices and perception stereotypes influencing also land and ownership issues. They are based on behaviour of not well integrated, problematic part of Roma minority, identified not only with different culture and values, but especially with higher crime rate, alcoholism, drugs, etc. Such negative forms of behaviour are visible as in devastated apartments in high rise buildings, as well in some Roma settlements, and they are unsuitable generalised on the whole Roma minority. The devastation of previously received public housing by particular Romany communities is sensitively perceived by the majority population, which also suffers housing shortage. They are often not paying rents, have limited resources even for protection of existed housing standard. Solution of such situation has led in some cases to rather problematic attempts to relocate some Roma families to houses or quarters developed within local social housing schemes (in some cases to marginal location). The problem of prejudices and stereotypes of Roma perception has also another form in unwillingness to sell land for their housing to municipality, or directly to Romanies. While citizens accept locally known, integrated Roma family in their neighbourhood, we find cases of anti-Roma reactions when there should be located housing project with higher concentration of Romanies in their neighbourhood. The absence of 'own property' in a form of land and housing ownership is part of the problem associated with devastation and very relaxed relation to received public housing, or situation in their settlements. An access to land and a search for new forms of ownership should be part of improvement activities in the field of housing for Roma minority. Particular attempts for introduction and clarification of ownership relations are successful in some communes.

The transformation processes in Slovak society after 1989 worsened the situation of many Roma households and communities. Important part of them lost their social and economic base. Land and ownership related changes in agriculture (restitution, privatisation) did not mean any opportunities for Roma population. They could not participate in this sector after changes in similar scope as before. Similar consequences have processes concerning the sphere of living environment. Romanies face serious barriers in attempts to improve their living environment. Land issues are not resolved and housing under market condition non accessible. Majority society started to be more responsive only during last years. Potential for more suitable application of many improvement policies is quite high.

More activities have to be developed for immediate improvement of living environment especially of very poor Roma settlements. Building of new, isolated and remote settlements should be minimised. Planning documentation should be prepared for all settlements, including Environmental Impact Assessment, with special attention to analysis of environmental risks and hazards. Planning documentation should respect their needs and should be approved with consent of local ethnic group representatives (e.g. own self-government, quarter councils, etc.). Local public administration should develop capacities and procedures for quick decision-making leading to building permission. Administrative procedures should be more simple and easy accessible for local Roma community. Special agencies or third sector initiatives should offer legal and expert advice in these fields (e.g. in the field of construction activities). New opportunities for more accessible ownership of land and housing should be created. Stabilisation of housing condition can achieved applying long term renting and public land reserves exploitation. Special legislature should be approved and more responsive local approaches applied in a cases of insecure land and ownership situation of Romany housing and settlement. Practices of institutions active on real estate market (real estate agencies) and dealing with housing issues (housing departments within public administration) should be monitored and prevent discriminatory practices.

Special programme for improvement of basic living condition of the poorest Roma settlements should be prepared in co-operation of state, self-governments, state enterprises controlling infrastructure, banks, construction companies and third sector initiatives. Allowances addressing housing needs, as well as priorities of SFRB (State Fund for Support of Housing) should address basic housing needs of specific segment of population like low income, young, living in depressed regions etc., and support small houses and rental housing development. Improvement activities can include self-help schemes, local public works initiatives and partial financial participation of Romanies (if possible). Selective approaches should be preferred in improvement activities. More advanced programmes should orient on Romanies willing to participate, with attempt to use principles of positive learning. Results of such projects should be protected as well as achievements of co-operating Roma households. Programmes should address concrete households and respect their needs. Roma minority members should be directly involved in defining the need, forms, and also in developing new housing.

HOSPODARSKE NOVINY, Housing situation also pressing problem (in Slovak). 15.7.1999. www.hn.sk

PRACA, Do they resolve the Roma housing issue? (in Slovak). 11. August, 1999, p. 4.

PRAVDA, The Roma problem (in Slovak). 24 April 1999, p. 3.

PRAVDA, The future of Roma settlements (in Slovak) 23. July 1999, www.pravda.sk.

Prekopova O., 1999a. Romanies will not be „gadzo“ (in Slovak). Pravda, 3.3.1999, p. 2.

Prekopova, O., 1999b. The priest being Mayor (in Slovak). Pravda, 13.3.1999. p. 5.

Prekopova, O., 1999c. Cheaper housing (in Slovak). Pravda, 26 June 1999, p. 2.

LGI / Resources / Ethnic relations