16commercial enterprise. On the other hand, smaller household-level projects have beenpossible only where applicants are relatively well-off and can contribute their ownresources, avoiding the need to inflate the group size to access further grant funding andinstead registering each member of a household as a beneficiary to reduce the owncontributionto grant ratio. Between these two models is a third possibility: small-scaleproduction by poor households on their own land, whether held in common or not. Thisis a crucial gap, a model that is not being promoted at present and is probably the mostimportant area for the future of land reform, if it is to directly address the situation of poorpeople living in rural areas.Policy Options for Land and Agrarian ReformProgramme for Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape
173. HOW LAND USE IS CURRENTLY PLANNEDLand reform is premised on the assumption that land reform will result in changes in landuse, and it is these changes, rather than the mere transfer of a capital asset, that areintended to bring about direct benefits for ‘beneficiaries’, in the form of income, food andsecure tenure (DLA 1997). Land reform also has the potential to generate wider,beneficial impacts on the surrounding population and economy, in the form of increasedspending, demand for local inputs and labour, as well as the supply of food and othergoods to local markets or into secondary industries (Aliber et al 2007, DLA 1997, WorldBank 2007). However, transfer or restructuring of ownership does not necessarily lead tochange in the organisation of production or the way in which benefits are distributed. Asthis review shows, much planning for land reform has done the opposite. Based onassumptions about how production and tenure regimes are to be organised, projectplans have often aimed to minimise the changes in production and to keep existingfarming systems intact through the process of redistribution. But what do policy and lawsay about land use, and what would a transformatory agenda have to confront?National and provincial levelLand use planning has remained very much a technocracy… [and] it hasalways proved difficult to impose these plans. Maybe this is just as well(Dalal-Clayton 2003:45).At the national level, there is limited planning for land use. Agriculture is recognised asan important sector of the economy, in terms of its contributions to employment,supplying food into local markets, and as an earner of foreign exchange. The StrategicPlan for Agriculture emphasises growth, competitiveness and deracialisation throughsupport to new entrants, but contains no vision plan for land reform to change patterns ofland use and to transform the agricultural sector to play a new and reinvigorated role ineconomic development (DOA 2002). From the side of land reform policy, the WhitePaper says very little about land use but does note that:smaller sized agricultural units are often farmed more intensively, and aremore labour absorbing. There are over a hundred thousand small scaleand subsistence farmers in South Africa who could be assisted by theland redistribution programme to expand their land resource base throughpurchase or lease. The land reform programme thus offers the potentialfor more intensive irrigated farming, for contract farming in importantsectors of the agricultural economy such as cotton, timber and sugar, andthe potential to intensify agricultural production in areas of highagricultural potential (DLA 1997).A system of classifying agronomic regions (particularly distinguishing summer and winterrainfall areas) was used in the past by the Department of Agriculture when it wasnational. Now, agriculture is a concurrent competency and planning is decentralised toprovincial level, based on spatial development plans and provincial growth andPolicy Options for Land and Agrarian ReformProgramme for Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape