mainly at the dominant centers that generate knowledge (international/ regional research centers/institutes, universities) around the world. These centers have embraced and worked to sustain and promote the mechanistic models, theories, paradigms and world view associated with the reductionist system of conventional/productivist agricultural research and production (De Souza Silva et al., 2005). This world view and corresponding paradigms are still a key component of a transnational network made up of academic centers (Bowers, 2002; Smith, 2002; Progler, 2005; Pimbert, 2006), representatives of governments, think tanks, the business sector, international organizations and development financing agencies (Escobar, 1999; Gonzales, 2007) (Figure 1-10).
     The political leadership, policy makers and civil society generally have also been permeated by the knowledge produced by the mechanistic western paradigm/world view and have become its practitioners.
     A well-articulated and well-financed transnational network of scientific institutions has generated, fed into and provided feedback to the conventional/productivist system for the production of agricultural knowledge. The environmental and sustainability problems associated with the system are derived from this reductionist knowledge base. (Figure 1-11).
     The agro-industrial project that emerges from the dominant AKST system proposes that the indigenous/peasant communities should modernize and progress by means of technology, machines and scientific knowledge, as well as by entering the market. This agro-industrial proposal seeks to have the agroecosystem simplified and specialized to increase labor efficiency (Toledo, 2005).
     Agroecology proposes modernization by way of path different from that of agroindustry. It proposes a form of development based on respect for the environment (the Mother Earth, for the indigenous peoples), as well as the traditions, culture and history of the people. The agroecological proposal recognizes the need for scientific and technological research, yet unlike the agroindustrial proposal, it suggests a dialogue of different ways of knowing based on a respectful exchange among the researchers or technical personnel and the peasant and indigenous communities (Toledo, 2005). Ishizawa (2006) and Machaca (1996, 1998)
propose a dialogue of ways of knowing from a perspective of cultural affirmation and decolonization, while at the same time suggesting the challenge posed by the world views for the dialogue.
     The dominant society in general and the dominant policies and AKST system in particular, have contributed to the marginalization or exclusion of the cultures, world views, systems of knowledge, and ways of knowing and being linked to the peasant-indigenous and agroecological production systems. Several studies conclude that these two systems have a potential that has yet to be tapped or fully recognized (Altieri, 1987, 1996; Chambi and Chambi, 1995; Machaca 1996, 1998; Rosset, 1999; Toledo, 2005), or integrated to the region’s AKST system. Nonetheless, agricultural movements proposing alternatives to conventional/productivist agriculture and/or decolonization and cultural affirmation suggest the potential of such alternative ways of knowing and AKST systems for making a significant contribution to

attaining sustainable development objectives (Altieri, 1987, 1996; Grillo, 1998; Rengifo, 1998; Valladolid, 1998, 2001; Delgado and Ponce, 1999; Huizer, 1999; Rist et al., 1999; Toledo, 2001, 2003; Funes et al., 2001; Toledo et al., 2001; Barkin, 2005; Ishizawa, 2006; Badgley et al., 2007). This situation creates an opportunity in the region for a new, inclusive AKST policy, one which incorporates, on its own terms, the peasant-indigenous and agroecological systems of knowledge and wisdom (Leff and Carabias, 1993).

1.6.2.6 Gender aspects
The main trends associated with the neoliberal restructuring and the increase in rural poverty in LAC include greater participation of women in agriculture, both as producers and as wage workers in the agricultural sector (Deere, 2005). As the participation of men in agriculture diminishes, the role of women in agricultural production increases. Male migration is one of the main motives for the increase in women’s participation in the rural economy. The expansion of nontraditional export crops, wars, violence and forced displacements are other causes of the so-called “feminization of agriculture,” and with it, the feminization of poverty.
     The increase in women’s participation in wage labor in the agricultural sector is closely related to the expansion of non-traditional export crops (Robles, 2000; Chant and Craske, 2003; Deere, 2005). In particular, women play a predominant role in labor activities such as packing flowers (e.g., in Mexico, Ecuador and Colombia), fruits (e.g., in Mexico, Argentina, Brazil and Chile) and fresh vegetables (e.g., in Mexico, Guatemala and Brazil) for export to North America (Deere, 2005). In addition, a large proportion of women and their children (50%) provide labor in the fields where these crops are produced (Deere, 2005). The flower sector has the largest percentage of female workers of the non-traditional crops. In Mexico and Colombia it is estimated that 60 to 80% of the labor force in this sector is made up of women (Lara, 1992; Becerril, 1995; Meier, 1999). This work is mostly seasonal, lacks security and is marked by precarious working conditions and discrimination (Lara, 1995, 1998; Barndt, 2002). There is also persistent income inequality between male and female workers, as well as between white workers and those belonging to other ethnic minorities. The increase in the use of women as wage workers in agriculture is not a uniform trend throughout the region and is very much associated with non-traditional export crops. Several studies on the participation of women in wage labor show that in many countries of the region a much higher proportion of women work in the non-agricultural sector, such as in the maquiladoras, as domestic servants and in the industrial sector (Reardon et al., 2001; Katz, 2003). For example, in the Dominican Republic and Panama, 92% of economically active rural women work in the non-agricultural sector (Katz, 2003).
     The literature includes a debate over whether this type of work represents greater exploitation of female labor or, to the contrary, is potentially liberating for women. In relation to this debate, Safa (1995) emphasizes the complexity and at times contradiction in the relationship between wage labor (and the discrimination, exploitation and precarious working conditions this often represents) and greater access to and control of the salary, greater purchasing power,