Both arguments have merits in their own right. What this article intends to address is the impact of the food price hike on poverty among farmers that rely on secondary crops. The hypothesis is that in general both the negative and positive impacts will only have mild effects on secondary crops farmers. So the question is asked: is poverty mildly increased as a result of the persistent increases in food prices? And how should poverty problems for these farmers be addressed? In general, secondary crops-based farmers are among the poorest segment of the poor, and this article proposes that, rather than adopt ad hoc or reactive approaches to combating poverty for this group - such as attempting to capitalize on the food price hikes - approaches should go back to the fundamentals, i.e. seeking the root cause of the problem and pursue long-term solutions through an action research cycle that focuses on action.

'Secondary crops' usually refers to those crops second to the main staple crops or food crops grown in a country. Coarse grains, pulses, roots and tubers. Many of these crops are grown on dry upland, rainfed and marginal land. Some farmers can grow main crops, such as rice, in the wet season, supplementing these with secondary crops during the dry season. But many other farmers in upland areas rely solely on secondary crops as their source of food and income. These farmers face the challenges of low production, poor soils, little available technology, isolation and poor infrastructure.

The majority of the poor in developing countries live in rural areas and are heavily dependent on agriculture. And the majority of these, the poorest of these poor, are dependent on secondary crops. With this understanding in mind, we can now see that the incomes of this segment of the poor are very unlikely to be improved as a result of a world food price hike. Firstly because price increases are rarely transmitted to this segment of farmers, and secondly because few of these crops are internationally traded, meaning they do not experience price increases (except maize and soybeans). Even if the prices were increased, the lives of the farmers will not be affected because there are rarely substantial marketable surpluses of these crops. Worse yet, those who are net consumers of the main staple food, will be worse off as food becomes more and more unaffordable. The rise in transportation costs would have an impact on food prices, but it may be minor. In fact, from a food security perspective secondary crop farmers may even be more resilient in such crises since food will be available and affordable at the usual quality and quantity.

The question is, what then is the solution to alleviate poverty in this segment of the community? The answer is certainly not the usual theory of tapping into price increases and expanding farming operations, because most secondary crop farmers eke out a living through agriculture, not agribusiness. The solution then, is the old long-term holistic approach to poverty alleviation, the socio-economic-anthropologic approach, which could be considered part of an action research cycle. Importantly, the emphasis must shift from research to action or operationalization of poverty reduction interventions. Action is needed to make continuous improvement in the social and cultural conditions of secondary crops-based farmers, as well as in economic conditions. The research component of this approach corresponds to the 'check' part of the - Plan-Do-Check-Act - of the Deming's continuous operational improvement cycle.

The first thing to do is to 'plan': to select the target group and theme for improvement, grasp the current situation, establish priorities, study cause-and-effect relations, and devise countermeasures to eliminate the cause of poverty. Then 'do' or implement countermeasures: the action or operationalization to eliminate the cause of poverty or improve the livelihood of the target group. Next is 'check', or the research part, to confirm and reflect on the effect of the countermeasures. Lastly the 'act' part: to collate the effective countermeasures that can be continuously pursued in the everlasting continuous improvement cycle (KAIZEN) or scaled up to other places in the region, and identify remaining poverty-causing problems and evaluate the whole procedure.

Concepts, books, research results, policy and good intentions alone will not alleviate poverty, actions will.

Written by Togar Alam Napitupulu, Senior Economist, UNESCAP-CAPSA, Bogor, Indonesia.

(References available upon request)