Table 1: Comparison of mechanisms to implement market assisted land reform in Colombia, Brazil, and South Africa.

||Col|ombia|B|razil|South Africa|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||_INCORA_|Market Assisted|_INCRA_|Market Assisted|Pilots|
|Land selection|Selection by_INCORA_de factor<br>based on political pressure; Cost<br>of $ 18,000 - 22,000 per family.|By beneficiaries; with means to<br>increase transparency and provide<br>technical assistance.|Purchase or expropriation;<br>average cost of $ 11,600 per<br>family; mainly legalization of<br>occupied lands.|Negotiated by community; willing<br>seller (including banks)- willing<br>buyer; expected cost $ 3,000 per<br>beneficiary.|Community initiative.|
|Land financing|70% of land value (up to $ 22,000) as grant (20% cash; 50%<br>bonds); 30% through_Caja_<br>_Agraria_credit (lengthy delays).|Commercial bank administers<br>grant resources and provides<br>additional credit for land<br>purchase and working capital.|TDAs for unimproved land and<br>cash for improvements and<br>crops; beneficiaries in theory<br>expected to pay back; not<br>enforced.|Loan to approved beneficiaries<br>from a commercial bank<br>(considerable subsidy element).|Max. grant of R 15,000 for land purchase;<br>separate planning grant.|
|Beneficiary<br>selection|Point scheme for social need and<br>agricultural experience; in<br>practice ad-hoc selection based<br>on individual farms.|Comprehensive registration; and<br>pre-selection based on social<br>criteria. Final selection based on<br>productive projects.|Through INCRA based on<br>examination of agriculture<br>knowledge; in practice almost<br>all are regularized squatters.|Self-selection of beneficiaries;<br>clearance of price and title by State<br>Land Institute; decentralized<br>approval. Occupied lands<br>ineligible.|Self-selection of beneficiaries subject to<br>maximum income criterion (< R 1,500 per<br>month).|
|Farming project<br>definition|Perceived to be necessary only to<br>obtaining a Bank loan.|Key issue for selection; different<br>forms of technical assistance<br>available.<br>Farm models available at<br>municipal level.|No specific arrangements.|Up to 8% of project value<br>available for technical assistance<br>in project preparation and<br>implementation. Farm models<br>elaborated at state level.|Provincial plan is a precondition but few<br>specific guidelines provided and no farm<br>models are elaborated.|
|Other financing|Credit for land and working<br>capital is the big bottleneck<br>causing implementation delays.|Independent financial institutions<br>to provide integrated credit for<br>the whole project.|Credit of up to $ 1150 (average<br>$ 610) for food and housing and<br>$ 7,500 (average $ 4,500) for<br>working capital. 70% subsidy<br>element; minimal cost<br>recovery.|Access to PROCERA credit like<br>other land reform beneficiaries.|Responsibility of beneficiaries.|
|Off-farm<br>investments|Complex set of interinstitutional<br>coordination with little results up<br>to now.|Identified and priced in municipal<br>land reform plan.|Provided by INCRA ($ 3,200 in<br>1994, now up to $ 8000);<br>almost all for roads.|Grant<sup>of $ 4,000 per beneficiary;</sup><br>disbursed directly to community.|Services and to some extent infrastructure<br>are provincial responsibility; coordination<br>with the center is still weak.|