resources (hunting, gathering and fishing) and their forms of agriculture.

Intercultural and interethnic policies and policies of cultural affirmation directed toward an alternative AKST system would serve to capitalize on indigenous/peasant knowledge and AKST by incorporating them in their own
terms—in other words, without attempting to validate them from some supposedly modern, scientific cognitive authority (Grillo, 1998; Agrawal, 1999), and as part of a process of food sovereignty and indigenous/peasant self-determination at the local, regional (e.g., a watershed), or national level. Such policies could in this way promote the revitalization and affirmation of indigenous/peasant culture that would contribute to IAASTD objectives.

To give effect to policies for strengthening indigenous/ peasant systems of knowledge and AKST, it would be useful to assess the liberal34 and/or neoliberal policies of governments, and the transnational network (based on financing and models from Western Europe and North America and sponsored by a network of agencies already mentioned) that supports and provides feedback to the region’s AKST system (Escobar, 1995; Gonzales, 1996, 1999; Vía Campesina, 2006).

The rural development models and AKST systems adopted in the LAC region in the last 50 years continue to rely on a Eurocentric vision, transmitted via Europe and North America and their counterparts in the region 35. Specific policies for institutional change and innovation have facilitated the adoption and adaptation of knowledge, institutions and technologies originating in Europe and North America. Given this situation, when it comes to nonconventional culture and agriculture, the direct and indirect impact of this dominant model has been of little benefit and has indeed

Investigaciones de la Amazonia (IIAP), in collaboration with six Peruvian institutions (Ishizawa 2006, Valladolid 2005), http://www.insitu.org.pe/english.htm). In addition there are two indigenous research centers working on the management of biodiversity, El PEMANSKY, in southern Panama, and the Instituto Amazanga of the Organización de Pueblos Indígenas, in Puyo, Pastaza, in Ecuador (http://www.cdi.gob.mx/pnuma/ c7_10.htm ).
34 Liberal theory was developed in the 19th century in Western Europe and is associated with the “Age of Enlightenment”. Since then, and particularly in the last 50 years, this theory has become the dominant paradigm in western or westernized countries. Although today this paradigm and the development
theories based on it are in crisis, their hegemony is recognized worldwide (Harvey, 2007; Lander, 2000). The state and the development policies applied in the LAC region to date have had a liberal character, and more recently, generally since the late 1980s, have taken on a neoliberal character.
35 The North American model of progress and of rural and agrarian development, as it developed through the 20th century, has shown many limitations and contradictions that have been highlighted in the literature (e.g., Berry, 1996; Gilbert et al., 2002). The question arises then, why do policies in the LAC region insist on trying to replicate the conventional agriculture model applied in North America under liberal or neoliberal models?

    eroded local and peasant/indigenous agri-cultures in LAC. The same holds for people’s health, and the region’s ecology and environment. In this context we must consider policies that reflect experience from the past and that encourage the integral participation of peasant/indigenous knowledge and AKST systems.

Agrarian reform (AR) and landholding are important issues for the region’s agricultural development. Such is the heterogeneity of LAC, however, that these issues must be considered separately in each country. AR and landholding in the region are central factors associated with poverty, hunger, and the expulsion of small-scale peasant/ indigenous farmers from the countryside to the city. Similarly, living conditions, identity, the environment, and sustainable development are being seriously affected within indigenous communities (Colchester, 2001). In general, in the context of the region’s system of economic, political and social domination, landholding in the 20th century, during and after the oligarchic regimes, continues to show serious disparities and social divides (Van Dam, 1999; Baranyi et al., 2004). ARs and the associated policies for land redistribution and modernization of rural production relations, it must be noted, have tended temporarily to reduce social conflict and the demand for more land and justice on the part of peasants and indigenous people in the region.

It must also be noted that these ARs were designed on the basis of western premises and experience bound up with the liberal paradigm, and they had no cultural or environmental orientation appropriate to the great mass of peasants and indigenous people and for this reason in some countries there affects ran counter to the competitive development of farming.36 This aspect could be reconsidered in future AR and landholding policies.

If agrarian reform and land distribution policies had been based on an appropriate cultural and environmental focus, in particular with respect to the peasant/indigenous sector, the results in terms of natural resource management could have been more sustainable and equitable.

Today there is tremendous pressure from the demand for land on the part of landless peasants and indigenous people, and for those who are trapped in the tilling of miniand micro-plots the pressure is increasingly intense and is sparking social conflict in the countryside. This situation may require compiling reviewing and assessing the ARs that have been implemented, and proposing ARs that take account of the stakeholders, the specific features of the re-

36 The Western world there are three theories of development: the liberal theory, the Marxist theory, and the poststructuralist theory (Escobar, 2005). With the long-term dominance of Western European colonization, and later that of the United States, the paradigm of liberal theory expanded beyond the confines of those centers of political and economic power. During the 20th century, and especially in its second half, governments and policies in former colonial states, including those of the LAC region, took on a liberal character to various degrees. Since the 1980s, neoliberal thinking has been heavily adopted in government policies in the region.