1 The Socioeconomic Impacts of COVID-19 on Households in Cambodia Results from a High-Frequency Phone Survey of Households Round 4 17 December 2020–12 January 2021 (LSMS+ and IDPoor sample) 30 March, 2021 2 High-Frequency Phone Survey of Households in Cambodia Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Survey 11–26 May 2020 (LSMS+) 17 December 2020–12 17 August–7 September 2020 14 October–6 November 2020 period 11–28 June 2020 (IDPoor) January 2021 1,687 respondents 1,684 respondents 1,667 respondents 1,665 respondents • 410 (LSMS+) Sample size • 700 (LSMS+) • 612 (LSMS+) • 481 (LSMS+) • 1,277 (IDPoor) • 984 (IDPoor) • 1,055 (IDPoor) • 1,184 (IDPoor) LSMS+: National, Urban and LSMS+: National, Urban and LSMS+: National, Urban and LSMS+: National, Urban and Coverage Rural Rural Rural Rural IDPoor: National IDPoor: National IDPoor: National IDPoor: National Partnerships World Bank; World Bank; World Bank; World Bank; Ministry of Planning (MoP, the MoP, NIS; MoSVY; National MoP, NIS; MoSVY; NSPC MoP, NIS; MoSVY; NSPC National Institute of Statistic Social Protection Council (NIS)); Ministry of Social (NSPC) Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation (MoSVY). Coordinated with other Development Partners (DPs), shared instruments and received feedback 3 Key Findings (I) Access to Food Staples, Health & Education Services • Access to basic goods and services (food staples, medicines, and health services) remained robust between December 2020 and January 2021 as markets and the health system continued to meet demand. • Children’s engagement in learning activities declined following the second school closure instituted in November 2020 to curb a local COVID-19 outbreak and school term break. • In December 2020, 57 percent of LSMS+ households with school-age children (6–17 years) and 33 percent of IDPoor households reported their children were engaged in education or learning activities in the last 7 days. • This is compared to 92 percent of LSMS+ and 86 percent of IDPoor households with school-age children in October 2020, when schools had partially reopened and participation in learning had reached pre-pandemic levels. • Learning has shifted away from face-to-face activities, back to remote alternatives. Employment, Income & Perceived Economic Well-being • Employment has yet to return to pre-pandemic levels when 82 percent of respondents were working. • In December, 72 percent of respondents in LSMS+ households were working. Employment levels are higher among IDPoor; 86 percent of main earners were working. • Among those who stopped working, seasonality is the primary reason. • The negative impact of the pandemic on non-farm family businesses remains substantial and weak consumer demand continues to constrain business revenues. • In December, 58 percent of LSMS+ households operating a non-farm family business reported having made “less” or “no revenues” relative to the previous month, compared to 54 percent in October, 64 percent in August, and 81 percent in May. • In December, 45 percent of IDPoor households operating a non-farm family business reported having made “less” or “no revenues” relative to the previous month, compared to 52 percent in October, and 50 percent in August. • About 81 percent of family businesses with reduced or no sales mention having fewer or no customers relative to the previous month. 4 Key Findings (II) Employment, Income & Perceived Well-being (continued) • About 1 in 2 households continued to report that their household income had declined. • In December, 48 percent of LSMS+ households reported a decline in household income relative to the previous round, compared to 51 percent in October, 63 percent in August, and 83 percent in May 2020. • In December, 46 percent of IDPoor household reported a decline in household income relative to the previous round, compared to 44 percent in October, 57 percent in August, and 88 percent in May 2020. • Households reported an average reduction in total household income of around 40 percent in December, in October, and in August 2020. • For many households, household income has fallen considerably relative to the previous year. • Around 1 in 2 LSMS+ households (51 percent) reported that their income had decreased compared to November 2019. These households reported an average reduction of 43 percent. • Around 1 in 4 IDPoor households (26 percent) reported that their income had decreased compared to November 2019. These households reported an average reduction of 48 percent. • Relative to the previous year, labor income and remittances have fallen while government assistance has increased. • Compared to the previous year, households perceived their well-being and economic status to have deteriorated. 5 Key Findings (III) Coping Strategies • To cope with the crisis, most households reported having had to reduce consumption during the COVID- 19 crisis. • However, a higher share of households had received government assistance, delayed payments, borrowed, and engaged in additional income generating activities in response to the pandemic by December than during the earlier period of COVID-19 (May-June). Food Insecurity • Food insecurity remained unchanged between October and December 2020, following a decline between August and October. • Among the LSMS+ households, the prevalence of moderate-or-severe food insecurity was 17 percent in December. This is compared to 17 percent in October and 48 percent in August. • Among IDPoor households, the results show a statistically insignificant decline in food insecurity from a prevalence of 38 percent in October to 34 percent in December. This is following a decline from 67 percent in August. 6 Key Findings (IV) Social Assistance (SA) • By December 2020, 95 percent of eligible IDPoor households had received SA and 93 percent of eligible IDPoor households had received the relief cash transfers since the government launched the COVID-19 relief cash transfer program in June 2020. • Only 7 percent of eligible IDPoor households had yet to receive these relief transfers, but registration—required to receive the transfers—has stagnated. • Amount and frequency of cash transfers provided to households are as expected: As of December, most beneficiaries have received 6 to 7 cash installments, averaging a total of US$252 since the program launch. • Relief cash transfers are important for IDPoor households and are perceived to have had a positive impact on household economic well-being. Access to Basic Necessities 8 Access to food staples remained robust as markets continued to function well since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic In the last 7 days, was your household able to buy… (conditional of having tried to buy [staple food]) 100 IDPoor 100 100 Rice 100 99 LSMS+ 100 100 100 100 Fish or meat IDPoor 100 100 100 99 LSMS+ 100 100 100 100 Vegetable or IDPoor 100 100 100 fruit 99 LSMS+ 100 99 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 9 Nearly all households have been able to access medicine and health services when needed throughout the pandemic, even as demand rose In the last week, has your household ...? Since the last interview, did you or any household member ...? 100 1 1 100 1 1 2 22 30 28 34 33 30 34 35 80 80 39 38 44 45 57 55 60 74 60 60 % 99 99 100100100100100100 99 100 100 99 100 98 100 100 % 40 78 40 70 72 66 67 70 66 65 61 62 56 55 20 43 45 20 39 26 0 0 R1 R2 R3 R4 R1 R2 R3 R4 R1 R2 R3 R4 R1 R2 R3 R4 R1 R2 R3 R4 R1 R2 R3 R4 R1 R2 R3 R4 R1 R2 R3 R4 LSMS+ IDPoor LSMS+ IDPoor LSMS+ IDPoor LSMS+ IDPoor Tried to buy medicine Able to buy medicine Needed medical treatment Accessed medical treatment (for those who tried to buy) (for those who needed treatment) Yes No Yes No School closures Phase I: Partial Phase II: Partial Phase III: Reopening School nationwide reopening of schools reopening of schools of schools nationwide closures Mar. 2020 May 2020 Aug. 2020 Aug.–Sep. 2020 Sep. 2020 Oct.–Nov. 2020 Nov. 2020 Dec. 2020 Dec. 2020–Jan. 2021 HFPS Round 1 HFPS Round 2 HFPS Round 3 HFPS Round 4 In the last 7 days, have the children engaged in education or learning activities? 100 8 14 25 32 36 80 38 43 67 60 % 92 86 40 75 68 64 62 57 20 33 0 R1 R2 R3 R4 R1 R2 R3 R4 LSMS+ IDPoor Yes No 11 Children's engagement in education/learning activities declined as students got an early start on holidays following the second nationwide school closure In the last 7 days, have the children engaged in education or learning activities? 100 92 92 95 92 89 86 80 80 75 76 69 70 68 62 63 66 64 64 62 57 57 59 60 52 50 % 40 33 20 0 Cambodia Urban Rural Bottom 40 Top 60 LSMS+ IDPoor Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Note: Schools closed nationwide in mid-March 2020 and partially reopened in August 2020 and on 7 September 2020. During this time, students continued their studies remotely. On November 2, 2020, all schools reopened. Shortly after, schools closed again on November 30, 2020 in response to a local COVID-19 outbreak. Public schools concluded the 2019–2020 academic year early. Private schools suspended in-person instruction for two weeks while maintaining remote instruction. Grade 12 classes could continue depending on the level of risk for COVID-19 transmission the high school faced. Private schools started reopening for the 2020-2021 academic year on January 4, 2021, while public schools commenced the 2020-2021 academic year one week later on January 11, 2021. 12 Learning shifted back to remote alternatives for those engaged in learning Types of education or learning activities in the last 7 days 100 86 82 78 80 66 66 58 60 47 45 44 % 40 36 35 31 32 31 32 29 28 28 29 24 20 20 14 15 14 13 10 10 8 7 3 3 2 0 0 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 Met with Completed Mobile apps Watched TV Listened to Met with Completed Mobile apps Watched TV Listened to teacher assignment learning radio teacher assignment learning radio LSMS+ IDPoor Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Note: Schools closed nationwide in mid-March 2020 and partially reopened in August 2020 and on 7 September 2020. During this time, students continued their studies remotely. On November 2, 2020, all schools reopened. Shortly after, schools closed again on November 30, 2020 in response to a local COVID-19 outbreak. Public schools concluded the 2019–2020 academic year early. Private schools suspended in-person instruction for two weeks while maintaining remote instruction. Grade 12 classes could continue depending on the level of risk for COVID-19 transmission the high school faced. Private schools started reopening for the 2020-2021 academic year on January 4, 2021, while public schools commenced the 2020-2021 academic year one week later on January 11, 2021. 13 Shifts from in-person meetings with teachers to remote learning occurred across the country and population groups Types of education or learning activities in last 7 days by Types of education or learning activities in last 7 days by urban and rural top 60 and bottom 40 48 51 45 45 Percentage point difference 41 Percentage point difference 31 26 21 18 21 23 18 98 10 10 9 10 24 6 3 00 -1 -1 -1 -1 -5 -5 -5 -2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -6 -5 -5 -7 -7 -14 -11 -15 -16 -20 -25 -24 -28 -26 -35 -33 -33 -28 -36 -32 -52 -75 -77 T60 B40 T60 B40 T60 B40 T60 B40 T60 B40 Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Met with Completed Listened to Watched TV Mobile apps Met with Completed Listened to Watched TV Mobile apps teacher assignment radio learning teacher assignment radio learning (Round 2 - Round 1) (Round 3 - Round 2) (Round 4 - Round 3) (Round 2 - Round 1) (Round 3 - Round 2) (Round 4 - Round 3) Source: LSMS+ sample. Note: Schools closed nationwide in mid-March 2020 and partially reopened in August 2020 and on 7 September 2020. During this time, students continued their studies remotely. On November 2, 2020, all schools reopened. Shortly after, schools closed again on November 30, 2020 in response to a local COVID-19 outbreak. Public schools concluded the 2019–2020 academic year early. Private schools suspended in-person instruction for two weeks while maintaining remote instruction. Grade 12 classes could continue depending on the level of risk for COVID-19 transmission the high school faced. Private schools started reopening for the 2020- 2021 academic year on January 4, 2021, while public schools commenced the 2020-2021 academic year one week later on January 11, 2021. Employment Patterns, Household Income & Perceived Economic Well-being 15 Employment increased slightly, but remained below pre-pandemic levels when 8 in 10 respondents were working In the last 7 days, did the respondent or main Why did the main earner stop working? earner in the household do any work? 100 4 40 7 Business/office closed due to 13 18 20 21 19 16 10 1 10 Covid-19 12 4 80 11 5 19 11 10 9 Furlough (temporarily laid off) 3 13 4 8 2 6 5 6 1 60 9 32 % Seasonal worker 19 23 40 82 8 78 Not farming season 5 65 65 64 68 65 24 33 5 20 Ill/quarantined 21 9 3 16 0 Other 27 43 R1 R2 R3 R4 R1 R2 R3 R4 15 3 LSMS+ IDPoor Need to care for ill relative 0 3 7 Out of work since last round Stopped working since last round 0 20 40 60 % Currently working (changed job since last round) Currently working (same job since last round) Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 “Before the COVID-19 outbreak” is the reference period in round 1. Source: LSMS+ sample. “Other” reasons in round 3 mostly are mostly related to Respondent for LSMS+ households and main earner for IDPoor households. flooding. 16 Negative impact of the pandemic on non-farm family businesses remains substantial with weak consumer demand driving the revenue losses Compared to last month, revenue from business Reasons for having less or no revenue? sales ...? 100 100 12 16 14 5 5 5 5 8 5 10 19 21 20 30 15 80 80 31 40 37 44 42 46 60 60 % % 88 84 86 73 40 81 79 80 40 70 61 52 58 48 48 40 20 20 8 3 3 2 4 5 0 0 R1 R2 R3 R4 R1 R2 R3 R4 R1 R2 R3 R4 R1 R2 R3 R4 LSMS+ IDPoor LSMS+ IDPoor No revenue Less The same Higher No customers/few customers Other 17 1 in 2 households continued to report a decline in household income Changes in total household income How much was total household income reduced since the last interview (in %) since the last interview? R1 83 16 1 -41 R2 63 29 8 LSMS+ -39 LSMS+ R3 51 42 7 -40 R4 48 43 9 R1 88 11 1 -44 R2 57 32 12 IDPoor -41 IDPoor R3 44 46 9 -42 R4 46 45 9 0 20 40 60 80 100 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 % % Reduced Stayed the same Increased Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 “Before the COVID-19 outbreak” is the reference period for R1. Average % reduction in total household income for sample of households reporting a reduction in total household income since the last round. 18 Widespread reductions in household income continued irrespective of poverty status or area of residence Changes in total household income since the last How much was total household income reduced (in %) interview since the last interview? R1 85 15 0 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Urban R2 61 33 6 Bottom 40 Bottom 40 Bottom 40 R3 51 44 5 Top 60 Top 60 Top 60 Urban Urban Urban Rural Rural Rural R4 57 40 4 R1 83 16 1 0 R2 Rural 63 29 8 R3 51 41 8 R4 47 44 10 -10 R1 84 15 1 Bottom 40 R2 64 27 9 -20 R3 48 42 10 % R4 45 47 8 R1 83 16 1 -30 Top 60 R2 61 31 7 R3 53 41 5 -40 -39 -38 -38 R4 51 40 9 -40 -39 -39 -40 -42 -41 -42 -42 -42 0 20 40 % 60 80 100 Reduced Stayed the same Increased -50 Average % reduction in total household income for sample of households Source: LSMS+ sample. Round 4 reporting a reduction in total household income since the last round. 19 Household income has also declined relative to the same period last year, by similar average % reductions Compared to November 2019, how has your total How much was your total household income household income changed? reduced since November 2019? LSMS+ IDPoor 100 0 22 80 34 27 -20 60 % 40 % 40 51 -40 20 -43 26 -48 0 LSMS+ IDPoor -60 Reduced Stayed the same Increased Average % reduction in total household income for sample of households reporting a reduction in total household income since November 2019. 20 Relative to the previous year, households saw declines in labor income and remittances and increases in government/NGO assistance How has your income from ... changed since November 2019? family Family IDPoor 48 30 22 farm LSMS+ 49 32 18 IDPoor 54 27 20 Non- farm biz LSMS+ 70 20 10 IDPoor non- Remitt- Wage 54 35 11 NGO Pension property family ances empl. LSMS+ 44 43 13 IDPoor 74 11 15 LSMS+ 56 35 9 Income family / Assist- IDPoor 25 35 41 ance LSMS+ 28 47 24 IDPoor 26 16 58 from LSMS+ 38 40 22 IDPoor 74 18 LSMS+ 72 26 Assist- IDPoor 7 5 89 Govt/ ance LSMS+ 5 10 85 0 10 20 30 40 50 % 60 70 80 90 100 Reduced Stayed the same Increased 21 But labor income accounted for the most important source of household livelihood Sources of household livelihoods in last 12 months 100 86 85 80 69 60 51 % 38 40 35 29 20 20 10 5 5 5 3 5 3 1 0 Family farm Non-farm Wage Remittances Assistance Property Pension Assistance family employment family or non- income from business family Government/ NGO LSMS+ IDPoor 22 Relative to the previous year, labor income decreased substantially How much was your income from … reduced (in %) since November 2019? Assistance Non-farm family family / non- Income from Family farm biz Wage empl. Remittances family property 0 -20 -40 -41 -45 % -48 -46 -47 -51 -60 -55 -54 -58 -60 -69 -80 -84 -100 LSMS+ IDPoor Average % reduction in income for sample of households reporting a reduction in this income source since November 2019. 23 Households perceive their well-being and economic status to have deteriorated since the previous year and to a lesser extent since June 2020 Compared to November 2019, how has your Compared to June 2020, how has your household household wellbeing and economic status wellbeing and economic status changed? changed? 100 100 3 9 9 8 13 15 80 80 30 48 29 45 53 60 49 60 % % 40 41 31 40 40 33 23 30 20 20 19 24 13 15 9 9 0 0 LSMS+ IDPoor R3 R4 R3 R4 Reduced by a lot Reduced by a little bit Reduced by a lot Reduced by a little bit Stayed about the same Increased by a little bit Stayed about the same Increased by a little bit Increased by a lot Increased by a lot Coping Strategies 25 While many households reduced consumption during the pandemic, an increasing share of households received government assistance, borrowed, delayed payments of obligations or engaged in additional income-generating activities Has your household had to ... in response to the Has your household had to do ... in response to the COVID-19 crisis? (LSMS+) COVID-19 crisis? (IDPoor with valid equity card) 65 Reduce food consumption 89 Reduce food consumption 68 86 Reduce non-food consumption 61 Reduce non-food consumption 84 59 72 Credit purchases 36 Credit purchases 65 43 59 Borrow from friends & family 27 Borrow from friends & family 45 29 51 Assistance from government 5 Assistance from government 45 27 96 Delay payment obligations 20 Delay payment obligations 31 26 35 Additional income generation 17 Additional income generation 22 25 36 Loan from financial institution 13 Loan from financial institution 16 22 28 Sale of assets 17 Sale of assets 23 15 18 Sell harvest in advance 5 Assistance from NGO 23 6 32 Assistance from NGO 9 Children took on household chores 7 13 8 Children took on household chores 14 Sell harvest in advance 9 7 6 Assistance from friends & family 18 Assistance from friends & family 16 6 4 Take pay advance from employer 2 Take advanced payment from… 6 4 8 Rely on savings 20 Rely on savings 10 3 2 Covered by insurance policy 0 Covered by insurance policy 0 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 % % Round 1 Round 4 Round 1 Round 4 26 Although eligible IDPoor households were more likely to reduce consumption, borrow, delay payment of obligations, or take on more work to cope with the pandemic, they were also more likely to receive assistance Has your household had to do ... in response to the COVID-19 crisis? Reduce food consumption 68 86 Reduce non-food consumption 59 72 Credit purchases 43 59 Borrow from friends & family 29 51 Assistance from government 27 96 Delay payment obligations 26 35 Additional income generation 25 36 Loan from financial institution 22 28 Sale of assets 15 18 Assistance from NGO 13 32 Children took on household chores 7 8 Sell harvest in advance 6 6 Assistance from friends & family 6 4 Take advanced payment from employer 4 8 Rely on savings 3 2 Covered by insurance policy 0 0 0 20 40 % 60 80 100 Round 4. LSMS+ IDPoor with valid equity card Social Assistance & Access to Financial Services 28 Social assistance (SA) coverage is high among IDPoor: 95% of eligible IDPoor households received some form of SA, mostly via cash from the govt. Percentage of IDPoor Main source of SA Type of SA received households receiving SA (% of IDPoor households (% of IDPoor households) 95 94 5% % IDPoor households % IDPoor households 95% 9 3 2 3 1 Food Government NGO Direct cash transfers Social assistance No social assistance Religious body Other Other in-kind transfers (excl. food) Source: Eligible sample (IDPoor households with a Source: Eligible IDPoor sample. Round 4. Source: Eligible IDPoor sample. Round 4. valid equity card). Round 4. 29 Social assistance (SA) coverage among IDPoor remains high following the launch of the government's relief cash transfer program in June 2020 Percentage of IDPoor Main source of SA Types of SA received households receiving SA since (% of IDPoor households) (% of IDPoor households) last interview 100 95 95 100 95 100 94 91 92 92 90 92 89 90 90 80 80 80 % IDPoor households % IDPoor households % IDPoor households 60 60 60 50 44 40 40 40 35 30 20 20 20 20 13 7 9 6 6 2 2 3 12 111 202 312 0 0 0 LSMS+ IDPoor R1 R2 R3 R4 R1 R2 R3 R4 Food Government NGO Direct cash transfers Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Religious body Other Other in-kind transfers (excl. food) Source: Eligible sample (IDPoor households with Source: Eligible IDPoor sample. Source: Eligible IDPoor sample. a valid equity card). 30 Relief cash transfers have high reach among IDPoor households, but registration among those who did not receive transfers has stagnated Have you ever received the relief Did you register with the village Why did you not register? cash transfer program from govt chief/commune council to receive since June 2020? the transfer? 100 100 10 5 10 8 7 14 5% 80 80 60 59 74 30% 60 60 % % 90 95 90 92 93 86 40 65% 40 20 20 40 41 26 0 0 R2 R3 R4 R2 R3 R4 R2 R3 R4 Unaware of the program LSMS+ IDPoor Didn’t know the transfer is for them Yes No Yes No Other Source: Eligible sample (IDPoor households with Source: Eligible sample (IDPoor households with valid Source: Eligible sample that have not received relief a valid equity card). equity card) that have not received relief transfers. transfers and did not register. R4. 31 Take-up is high among IDPoor households that registered for the relief cash transfer program 100 97 97 96 95 98 95 97 96 97 96 99 97 98 97 96 96 97 97 96 95 93 97 94 95 97 98 99 99 99 97 96 96 94 95 95 93 93 94 94 80 60 % 40 20 0 Male Female Phnom Plain Tonle Sap Coastal Plateau 1 (Poorest) 2 3 4 5 (Average Penh and and or higher) urban Mountain areas All Gender Region Social economic status Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Source: IDPoor sample with valid equity card who registered for the COVID-19 relief cash transfer program. 32 Frequency and amounts of cash transfers received by Dec. 2020–Jan. 2021 are as expected: Most beneficiaries had received 6 to 7 cash payments, averaging US$252 in total How many times have you received the cash relief How much did you receive in total? transfer from the government so far? 350 40 313 37 300 271 252 30 250 234 24 195 200 20 USD % 20 148 150 104 10 100 10 6 49 50 2 1 0 0 Once Twice Three Four Five Six times Seven Once Twice Three Four Five Six Seven Total times times times times times times times times times Round 4 Source: IDPoor sample that have ever received the relief cash Note: Total amount of relief cash transfers received from the transfer program from the government since June 2020. government by the number of transfers received so far. 33 IDPoor households perceive the relief cash transfers to be important for household economic well-being and to have had a positive impact How important was the relief transfer for your How much of a difference did the relief transfer household's (economic) well-being? make to your household's (economic) wellbeing? 3% 24% 23% 37% 47% 27% 39% Extremely important Very important Moderately important Not so important No difference Slight difference Moderate difference Not important at all Strong difference Complete difference Source: IDPoor sample with valid equity card who ever Source: IDPoor sample with valid equity card who ever received relief cash transfer program. Round 4. received relief cash transfer program. Round 4. 34 Most IDPoor households continued to spend their relief cash transfers on food, a significant portion also spent it on essential items What did you do with the money that you received? 100 Food 100 99 58 Other essential items 54 64 15 Paid back loan 8 12 2 Other 5 5 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Source: IDPoor sample with valid equity card who ever received the relief cash transfer program from the government since June 2020. 35 Many Cambodians are still unbanked and prefer to make payments in cash rather than using other payment devices Do you have a payment account? Do you use anything other than cash to make payments? 100 80 71 70 80 60 60 81 75 78 86 % % 40 40 19 19 20 20 2 19 11 9 8 3 3 4 1 9 15 9 0 0 5 0 R3 R4 R3 R4 Yes, Yes, mobile Yes, other No, but No, and not payment phone interested interested LSMS+ IDPoor card No LSMS+ IDPoor Yes, other account Yes, both Yes, e-money / mobile money account Data from round 4. Food Insecurity 37 Food insecurity remained unchanged between October and December 2020 “In the last 30 days” is the reference 100 period. 80 People experiencing moderate levels of food insecurity will typically eat low 67 quality diets and might have been 60 forced, at times during the year, to also 48 reduce the quantity of food they would % normally eat, while those experiencing 39 40 34 severe levels would have gone for entire days without eating, due to lack of money or other resources to obtain 20 17 17 food. 5 4 1 0.5 3 0.9 Prevalence of food insecurity, based on 0 the Food Insecurity Experience Scale R2 R3 R4 R2 R3 R4 (FIES), was estimated by the Food and LSMS+ IDPoor Agriculture Organization of the United Total population Moderate-or-severe food insecurity Severe food insecurity Nations. 38 Concluding remarks • The pandemic led to a sharp slowdown in economic growth. While the outlook remains uncertain, the economy is projected to gradually recover in 2021. • As of December 2020, the pandemic continued to have negative impacts on jobs and incomes although these impacts appear to be less severe compared to the onset of the pandemic. • The adverse effects of the pandemic have been far reaching, affecting households across the income distribution and households both in urban and rural areas. • The government continued to provide COVID-19 relief cash transfers to impoverished families during the pandemic, which has provided a much-needed safety net for IDPoor households. However, not all households that have been adversely impacted by the pandemic are covered under the government’s assistance program posing a risk to increased poverty. • Households have coped with the COVID-19 pandemic using a multitude of coping mechanisms including reducing consumption, taking up loans from formal and informal networks, deferring payments, and taking up additional income-generating activities. But some of these coping mechanisms have their limits. • For households to recover, a broad set of measures will be needed to support jobs and provide more broad- based assistance. 39 Implementation plan Follow-up (Round 5) Baseline (Round 1) Follow-up (Round 3) March 2021 May–June 2020 October–November 2020 Access, Employment, Knowledge, Behavior, Knowledge, Access, Income Loss, Farm Access, Employment, Employment, Income Loss, Income, Food Insecurity, Income Loss, Food Food Insecurity, Safety Net, Safety Net, Insecurity, Coping Vaccination, Socioeconomic Socioeconomic Status Mechanism, Safety Net Status, Payment Methods Follow-up (Round 2) Follow-up (Round 4) August–September 2020 December 2020–January 2021 Access, Employment, Access, Employment, Income Income Loss, Food Loss, Food Insecurity, Coping Insecurity, Safety Net, Mechanism, Safety Net, Migration Socioeconomic Status, Payment Methods 40 Annex: Types of social assistance programs Eligibility criteria Transfer amount COVID-19 related Social Assistance Programs Relief cash transfer program for poor IDPoor households (See next slide) and vulnerable households Unemployment benefits for Garment and tourism workers in the US$70 per month for two months suspended workers in garment and formal sector (US$40 paid by the government, and tourism sector US$30 paid by the factory) Non-COVID-19 related Social Assistance Programs Conditional cash transfer for pregnant IDPoor households US$190 for 1000 days women and child under 2 Home grown school feeding program All household with children in the targeted schools Scholarship program Performance based (school) IDPoor households (government) 41 Annex: Relief cash transfer program for poor and vulnerable households during COVID-19 Phnom Penh Other urban Other rural IDPoor 1 IDPoor 2 IDPoor 1 IDPoor 2 IDPoor 1 IDPoor 2 Household $30 $30 $30 $30 $20 $20 Each member $13 $9 $10 $7 $6 $4 Vulnerable member Child aged 0-5 $10 $7 $10 $7 $6 $4 Disability $10 $7 $10 $7 $6 $4 Adult aged 60+ $10 $7 $10 $7 $6 $4 HIV/AIDS $10 $7 $10 $7 $6 $4 IDPoor1 households (very poor) are estimated to receive on average $67 per month, while IDPoor2 (poor) are estimated to receive $52 42 Thank you Wendy Karamba and Kimsun Tong led the Cambodia High-Frequency Phone Survey (HFPS) team that comprised of Maheshwor Shrestha, Sokbunthoeun So and Isabelle Salcher. Nuppun Research Consulting implemented the survey with technical and financial support from the World Bank. Additional financial contributions for the HFPS were received from the Public Financial Management and Service Delivery Trust Fund contributed by Australia and the European Union. The team is grateful to the National Institute of Statistics of the Ministry of Planning and the Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation for their collaboration, as well as the Food and Agriculture Organization for their analytical support on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES). Website: Monitoring the Impact of COVID-19 on Households in Cambodia Contact: Wendy Karamba Kimsun Tong