Metadata Table 0.1: Sample Composition (# of Households) Table 0.2: Contact Rate Figure 1. Number of Attempts Table 0.3: Result of Interview Table 0.4: Language of interivew Figure 2. Duration of interview Table 0.5: Sample Composition Basic Information Table 1.1. Respondent Characteristics - Age and Sex (% of respondents) Table 1.2: Respondent Relationship to Head Table 1.3: Respondent education (% of respondents) Knowledge, behavior, and concerns Table 2.1 Prevalence of safe practices Table 2.2 Frequency of washing hands with soap among those who were in public, last 7 days Table 2.2a Frequency of washing hands with soap, last 7 days Table 2.3 Frequency of wearing mask among those who were in public, last 7 days Table 2.3a Frequency of wearing mask, last 7 days Table 2.4 % of Households experienced COVID-19 symptoms Table 2.5 % of Households with at least one member with Lab test Table 2.6 % of Households who believe that measures would curb the spread of COVID19 Table 2.7 Perceptions about impact of COVID-19 and COVID-19 related measures Table 2.8 % of respondens who believe that measures would escalate the spread of COVID19 Access Table 3.1. Demand to basic needs, past 7 days Table 3.2. Access to basic needs, past 7 days Table 3.2a. Access to basic needs, past 7 days (first round) Table 3.3. Reasons for not being able to access soap Credit Table 4.1. % of Households who borrowed Table 4.2. Reasons why households had borrowed after March 2020 Table 4.3. Source to borrow after March 2020 Table 4.4. How worried are you that you will not be able to repay all the money you borrowed within the repayment period ( Table 4.5 Coronavirus restrictions - effects on education* (% of 3-18 yrs old individuals ) Table 5.1 Coronavirus restrictions - effects on education* (% of households) Table 5.2 Coronavirus restrictions – reasons for not participating in education* Table 5.3 Challenges faced while learning at home Food Security Table6.1. Food Security Problems Employment Table 7.1 WORK LAST WEEK (any work for pay or any income generating activities) Table 7.2 WORK LAST WEEK (any work for pay or any income generating activities) Table 7.3. Work stoppages, by industry of main job Table 7.4. Work stoppages, main reason Table 7.5 Main industry of those respondents working (% of respondents working) Table 7.6 Family businesses, status & fluctuation Table 7.7 Family businesses, main reason for closure in Round 2 (June) Table 7.8 Family business by sector Table 7.9. Family business that operated during baseline- Revenues by sector Table 7.10. None/Less revenues in family business Table 7.11 NFE: coronavirus-related challenges Table 7.12. HH Income sources in the last 12 months Agriculture Table 8.1. Proportion of Households Whose Harvesting Decision were affected by COVID 19 Table 8.2 Distribution of How COVID 19 Affected Crop Harvesting, by region and Land Quintiles Table 8.3. Distribution of How COVID 19 Affected Crop Harvesting, by region and Land Quintiles Table 8.4 Distribution of Measures Taken to Ensure Safety from COVID 19 During Crop Harvesting, by region Table 8.5 Distribution of Reasons for not Hiring During Crop Harvesting, by region Table 8.6. Prevalence of Livestock and Crop Farming Households, by region Table 8.7 Proportion of Households Whose Livestock Activities were affected by COVID 19 Table 8.8. Distribution of How COVID 19 Affected Livestock Activities, by region Table 8.9. Sales of Agricultural Produce Table 8.10 Reasons for decline in sales or no sales Table 8.11. Share of Households that needed to Sell Agricultural Produce but Could Not. Tab 8.12 Change in livestock product sales since March 20, 2020 by region Tab 8.13 Change in livestock product price since March 20, 2020 by region Safety Nets Table 9.1 SAFETY NETS since last interview (2 round), by quintiles Table 9.1a % of households who had issues with accesing safety nets since mid-March 2020, by quintiles Table 9.1b SAFETY NETS since March 2020 (1 round), by quintiles Table 9.2 Source of Food Assistance since last interview Table 0.1: Sample Composition (# of Households) Sector Zones Total % Rural Urban Central Eastern Sample size, UNPS 2019/2020 3098 2,327 751 791 701 HH with at least one phone number 2376 77 1,743 633 654 582 HHs called for Round 1 (sample size) 2376 77 1,743 633 654 582 HHs fully interviewed 2199 93 1,637 562 566 551 HHs reached but not fully interviewed 9 0.38 5 4 5 - HHs refused 13 0.55 3 10 7 2 HHs unable to reach 154 6.48 98 56 75 29 Zones Northern Western 871 732 568 572 568 572 524 558 - 4 3 1 41 9 Table 0.2: Contact Rate Average # per HH % of Total HHs Calls made - all HHs 1.62 Calls made, HHs interviewed 1.99 92.86 Calls made, HHs refused 2.38 0.54 Calls made, no contact 3.85 5.15 Calls made, other non-response 2.91 1.45 Table 0.3: Result of Interview SECTOR OVERALL Rural # of % of overall # of % of rural households sample households sample Reached Complete 2199 92.6 1641 93.8 Partially Complete 5 0.2 1 0.1 Refused 13 0.5 4 0.2 Language barrier 4 0.2 4 0.2 Not reached Nobody answering 22 0.9 12 0.7 Number does not exist 18 0.8 12 0.7 Phone turned off 84 3.5 52 3.0 Wrong number (don't know the household) 10 0.4 6 0.3 Reference person can't connect to household 20 0.8 17 1.0 SECTOR Urban # of % of Urban households sample 558 89.1 4 0.6 9 1.4 0 0.0 10 1.6 6 1.0 32 5.1 4 0.6 3 0.5 Table 0.4: Language of interivew % of Interviews Luo 4.6 Lusoga 13.4 Logishu 8.6 Ateso 4.0 Lugbara 6.9 Luganda 3.8 Runyankole/ Rukiga 27.9 Runyoro/Rutoro 15.8 English 6.4 Other 8.6 Table 0.5: Sample Composition* UNPS Phone sample Characteristic Unweighted Weighted Unweighted Weighted Number of observations** 3077 2199 Average household size 5.13 4.86 5.38 4.88 Household head characteristics Female head (%) 3.9 3.4 2.8 3.4 Age 48.1 45.3 47.9 45.3 Literate (%) 70.7 76.7 75.9 78.1 Asset ownership Regular mobile or fixed phone 3.4 4.0 3.8 3.5 Internet access 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.5 Television 18.3 26.1 20.8 26.6 Refrigerator 5.0 7.2 5.2 6.6 Car 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.3 Generator 76.0 80.8 85.5 87.5 Consumption quintile Q1 19.0 15.7 16.6 15.2 Q2 19.2 17.6 18.9 17.9 Q3 20.8 19.6 21.0 19.1 Q4 22.0 22.3 23.0 22.8 Q5 19.0 24.7 20.5 25.0 * Based on information from the UNPS only. ** HHs with completed UNPS information Table 1.1. Respondent Characteristics - Age and Sex (% of respondents) Round 2 (June) Male Female All respondents respondents All (% of respondents) 50.4 49.6 15-24 years 5.5 5.3 5.7 25-39 years 35.8 37.8 33.8 40-49 years 23.6 24.0 23.2 50-64 years 22.4 21.5 23.5 65 years and above 12.7 11.4 13.7 Median age of respondents 43 42 44 Table 1.2: Respondent Relationship to Head Round 2 (June) Relationship to HH Head: Total Male Female Head 73.1 91.6 54.3 Spouse 20.5 2.1 39.3 Child (own/step/adopted) 5.1 5.4 4.7 Other relative 1.2 0.9 1.6 Not related 0.05 0.0 0.1 Table 1.3: Respondent education (% of respondents) Round 2 (June)** UNPS consumption per a Total Male Female Q1 Literate (in any language) 75.5 84.4 66.6 57.4 Level No school 9.0 3.6 14.5 18.3 Primary - partial 38.9 35.8 42.0 49.8 Primary - completed 21.3 24.0 18.4 16.2 Secondary - partial 21.1 25.0 17.1 13.8 Secondary - completed 7.9 9.7 6.1 1.5 Post secondary- partial & completed 1.8 1.8 1.8 0.3 ndents) UNPS consumption per adult equivalent quintiles Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 71.8 74.7 82.0 87.1 7.1 11.4 5.9 4.5 49.4 42.6 37.4 18.2 22.1 20.8 22.2 23.9 17.0 21.2 23.4 27.9 4.3 4.0 8.8 19.4 0.0 0.0 2.3 6.1 First round, since Mar Residence Education leve % of No formal responde Rural Urban education nts More frequent handwashing with soap 97 97 97 97 Avoid handshakes/physical greetings 96 96 96 98 Avoid groups of more than 10 people 91 91 92 93 Stock up more food than normal, due to restricted movement 51 45 63 22 Reduce the number of times to the market/grocery store? 85 85 86 71 Table 2.1 Prevalence of safe practices First round, since March till June second round, l Education level of respondent Gender of respondent Residence Complete % of Some Complete Some d Male Female responde Rural Urban primary d primary secondary secondary nts &+ 96 97 96 96 97 96 80 80 79 97 94 96 98 95 97 85 83 89 90 91 92 92 90 93 77 77 79 44 51 60 74 50 51 28 28 26 84 86 87 91 84 87 64 65 62 second round, last seven days in August Education level of respondent Gender of respondent Complete No formal Some Complete Some d Male Female education primary d primary scondary secondary &+ 73 80 83 77 80 80 79 80 84 86 89 85 84 87 74 75 79 81 77 75 80 11 29 26 32 31 29 26 70 60 69 66 57 62 66 Table 2.2 Frequency of washing hands with soap among those who were in public, last Residence Education level of resp % of No formal Some responde Rural Urban education primary nts All of the time 52 48 60 25 49 Most of the time 28 30 23 40 29 About half of the time 6 7 3 6 7 Some of the time 12 13 9 25 13 None of the time 3 2 4 4 2 I have not been in public during the last 7 days e who were in public, last 7 days Education level of respondent Gender of respondent Complete Complete Some d Male Female d primary secondary secondary &+ 56 54 62 52 53 27 27 23 29 26 5 6 4 6 5 11 11 6 10 13 1 3 5 2.5 2.8 Table 2.2a Frequency of washing hands with soap, last 7 days Residence Education level of responde % of No formal Some responde Rural Urban education primary nts All of the time 46 42 54 18 41 Most of the time 24 26 21 30 24 About half of the time 5 6 3 5 6 Some of the time 10 11 8 18 11 None of the time 2 2 4 3 2 I have not been in public during the last 7 days 13 13 11 26 17 h soap, last 7 days Education level of respondent Gender of respondent Complete Complete Some d Male Female d primary secondary secondary &+ 51 50 58 48 43 25 25 21 27 22 5 6 4 6 5 10 10 6 10 11 1 2 5 2 2 8 7 7 8 18 Table 2.3 Frequency of wearing mask among those who were in public, last 7 days Residence Education level of respondent % of No formal Some Complete Some responde Rural Urban education primary d primary secondary nts All of the time 45 41 54 20 42 52 48 Most of the time 21 22 17 18 21 20 24 About half of the time 4 4 5 2 4 2 4 Some of the time 14 14 13 24 13 9 14 None of the time 16 19 11 37 20 16 11 I have not been in public during the last 7 days public, last 7 days spondent Gender of respondent Complete d Male Female secondary &+ 52 45 46 16 21 21 9 5 4 16 14 13 6 15.3 17.0 Table 2.3a Frequency of wearing mask, last 7 days Residence Education level of responde % of No formal Some responde Rural Urban education primary nts All of the time 39 35 47 14 34 Most of the time 18 19 15 13 17 About half of the time 4 3 5 1 4 Some of the time 12 12 11 17 11 None of the time 14 16 10 27 16 I have not been in public during the last 7 days 13 14 12 28 18 k, last 7 days Education level of respondent Gender of respondent Complete Complete Some d Male Female d primary secondary secondary &+ 48 45 48 41 37 18 22 15 19 17 2 3 8 5 3 8 13 15 13 11 15 10 6 14 14 9 7 7 8 19 Table 2.4 % of Households experienced COVID-19 symptoms Residence Consumption per capita quintiles % of responde Rural Urban Lowest Q2 Q3 Q4 nts Any from symptoms below 51 56 40 56 56 57 49 Cough 27 30 20 32 30 27 28 Shortness of breath 4 4 2 4 2 6 2 Fever 28 32 18 32 34 34 23 Chills 11 12 8 15 12 13 11 Muscle pain 8 9 5 8 10 9 5 Headache 27 33 16 33 33 36 21 Sore throat 5 5 6 5 5 7 4 Loss of taste or smell 2 3 1 2 2 4 1 ta quintiles Top 40 20 4 20 6 7 19 6 1 Table 2.5 % of Households with at least one member with Lab test Residence Consumption per capita quin % of Rural Urban Lowest Q2 respondents All households 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 1.4 Any from symptoms below 3.2 Cough 4.0 Shortness of breath 10.0 Fever 3.1 Chills 5.4 Muscle pain 10.0 Headache 4.0 Sore throat 5.3 Loss of taste or smell 5.3 h Lab test Consumption per capita quintiles Q3 Q4 Top 1.0 1.7 3.3 Table 2.6 % of Households who believe that measures would curb the spread of COV Residence % of responde Rural Urban nts Closure of all the educational institutions 92 93 88 Suspension of communal prayers or closure of churches 87 89 83 Suspension of all gatherings or conferences 92 94 89 Suspension of hexagonal, extravagant Ugandan-style weddings. 92 93 89 Suspension of weekly or monthly markets. 91 92 88 uld curb the spread of COVID19 Consumption per capita quintiles Lowest Q2 Q3 Q4 Top 95 92 94 90 90 93 87 90 86 82 95 92 94 92 89 95 92 93 93 87 93 89 93 90 89 Table 2.7 Perceptions about impact o % of households ...greater security ...response to ...money and Corruption in risks and the COVID-19 supplies allocated the government vulnerability to emergency will for the COVID-19 has lowered the crime and violence limit my rights response will be quality of during the COVID and freedoms misused and medical supplies crisis captured by and care powerful people in the country Strongly Agree 23 27 42 49 Agree 24 30 32 32 Neutral 9 10 14 10 Disagree 32 24 11 9 Strongly Disagree 12 8 1 1 Table 2.7 Perceptions about impact of COVID-19 and COVID-19 related measures Rural Urban ...greater ...response to ...money and Corruption in the ...greater security ...response to security risks the COVID-19 supplies government has risks and the COVID-19 and emergency will allocated for the lowered the vulnerability to emergency vulnerability to limit my rights COVID-19 quality of medical crime and will limit my crime and and freedoms response will be supplies and care violence during rights and violence during misused and the COVID crisis freedoms the COVID crisis captured by powerful people in the country 21 23 37 45 28 35 24 30 35 33 24 31 10 11 15 11 7 8 32 26 13 10 30 20 12 9 1 1 11 6 Urban ...money and supplies Corruption in the allocated for the COVID- government has 19 response will be lowered the quality of misused and captured by medical supplies and powerful people in the care country 53 58 26 28 12 7 8 6 1 0 Table 2.8 % of respondens who believe that measu Residence % of respondents Rural aware that on June 22 the goverenment has revised the COVID19 Guidelines 94 93 Allowing public and private vehicles to operate 67 68 Adjustment of the curfew time from 7 PM to 9PM 56 57 Allowing the food sellers to go home after 21 days 49 48 Allowing the shopping malls, hardware shops re-open 59 59 Allowing hotels and food restaurants to open 56 56 Allowing salons to be open 60 59 dens who believe that measures would escalate the spread of COVID19 sidence Consumption per capita quintiles Urban Lowest Q2 Q3 Q4 96 90 93 95 95 65 71 68 64 69 55 59 58 53 54 51 51 48 44 48 59 66 56 55 60 57 60 54 50 55 62 61 61 53 60 ntiles Top 96 65 58 53 58 61 64 Table 3.1. Demand to basic needs, past 7 days % HH that needed to buy Consumption per adult equivalent quintiles Overall Rural Urban Lowest Q2 Q3 Q4 Top Medicine 70.4 71.0 69.1 66.9 70.1 74.2 66.4 73.6 55.8 Medical Treatment 60.9 44.9 60.7 59.8 63.9 53.8 45.5 Table 3.2. Access to basic needs, past 7 days Could not buy (% HH that needed to buy) Consumption per adult equivalent quin Overall Rural Urban Poorest Q2 Q3 quintile Drinking water 5 6 3 7 8 3 Soap 14 17 6 26 22 16 Water to wash hands 2 2 2 2 3 1 Medicine 32 35 25 32 40 28 Medical treatment 11 12 8 10 12 17 Neither water nor soap to wash hands 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.1 1.3 0.5 ed to buy) er adult equivalent quintiles Richest Q4 quintile 5 2 9 3 2 2 34 29 9 7 1.7 0.7 Table 3.2a. Access to basic needs, past 7 days (first round) Consumption per adult equivalent quintiles Overall Rural Urban Poorest Q2 Q3 Q4 quintile Soap 18 20 13 29 24 17 16 Water to wash hands 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 Medicine 33 35 27 26 41 35 35 Medical treatment 18 20 15 19 19 22 18 ivalent quintiles Richest quintile 9 0 28 15 Table 3.3. Reasons for not being able to access soap Soap Consumption per ad Overall Rural Urban Lowest Out of stock 0 0 0 0 Local market closed/ not operating 1 1 0 0 Limited/no transportation 1 2 0 0 Price too high 0 0 0 0 Cannot access cash 0 0 0 0 Cannot afford it 93 93 94 95 Other 5 5 6 5 s soap Consumption per adult equivalent quintiles Q2 Q3 Q4 Top 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 100 81 99 4 0 15 1 Table 4.1. % of Househo Borrowed money during last ast 12 months and have still have to repay Forced to borrow money to face the COVID19 emergency after March 2020 Table 4.1. % of Households who borrowed Residence Consumption per adult equivalent quintiles Regions % of Rural Urban Lowest Q2 Q3 Q4 Top Central respondents 41 42 39 34 46 38 44 40 36 23 23 23 16 27 23 24 23 27 Regions Eastern Northern Western 46 55 31 36 24 8 Table 4.2. Reasons why households had borrowed after Ma Residence Consumption per adult % of Rural Urban Lowest respondents I lost my job 6 5 9 4 My business closed 18 16 23 18 My sales decreased 25 23 29 10 I could not sell my produce 24 29 12 35 I could not get assistance from my family or neighbour 27 26 28 32 eholds had borrowed after March 2020 Consumption per adult equivalent quintiles Regions Q2 Q3 Q4 Top Central Eastern Northern Western 7 3 12 4 6 8 5 4 14 13 15 30 15 22 11 34 19 28 38 22 36 20 13 26 32 24 16 20 18 21 41 19 28 32 19 25 24 30 30 17 Table 4.3. Source to borrow after March 2020 Residence Consumption per adult equiv % of respondents Rural Urban Lowest Commercial bank 10 5 20 5 Savings club/group 15 16 13 19 Credit institution 2 3 2 0 ROSCAs 1 1 0 0 MDI 1 0 2 0 Welfare fund 0 0 0 0 SACCOs 5 4 5 1 Investment club 0 0 0 0 NGOs 0 0 0 2 Burial Societies 1 2 0 1 ASCAs 0 0 0 0 MFIs 2 1 2 0 VSLAs 24 25 22 25 Mokash 1 1 1 6 Wewile 0 0 0 0 Neighbour/Friend/Non hh Individual 46 48 42 55 Others (specify) 0 0 0 1 e to borrow after March 2020 Consumption per adult equivalent quintiles Regions Q2 Q3 Q4 Top Central Eastern Northern Western 4 6 8 21 13 10 6 7 14 22 18 8 13 24 0 28 0 0 3 6 2 1 2 10 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 3 8 3 6 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 2 3 0 3 0 25 25 25 23 19 15 50 19 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 48 45 35 45 49 44 42 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 Table 4.4. How worried are you that you will not be able to repay all the money you borrowed within the repayment period (among those who took loan after March 2020) Residence Consumption per adult equivalent quintiles % of responde Rural Urban Lowest Q2 Q3 Q4 nts Very worried 44 47 36 49 44 46 49 Somewhat worried 24 23 26 30 26 26 12 Not too worried 17 16 19 13 10 18 25 Not worried at all 15 14 19 7 19 10 14 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 rowed within the ivalent quintiles Top 34 28 17 21 100 Table 4.5 Coronavirus restrictions - effects on educ Residence Gender Overall Rural Urban Male Female Children attending school, pre-closures 87 85 93 86 88 Any students, in the pa Engaged in any learning/education activities 55 50 69 56 55 estrictions - effects on education* (% of 3-18 yrs old individuals ) Consumption per adult equivalent quintiles Age class Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 3-5 yrs old 6-12 yrs old 79 83 87 92 95 71 97 Any students, in the past 7 days: 42 51 51 63 69 45 55 Age class 13-18 yrs old 88 62 Table 5.1 Coronavirus restrictions - effects on education* (% of households) First round Second round Overall Rural Urban Overall children attending school, pre-closures 93 92 94 94 Engaged in any learning/education activities 59 56 67 60 eholds) Second round Rural Urban 93 96 54 73 Table 5.2 Coronavirus restrictions – reasons for not participating in educa Residence Gender Consumption per Overall Rural Urban Male Female Q1 No access to internet 4 4 3 5 3 7 No access to radio/tv 31 32 24 29 32 35 Did not receive learning materials from school 43 45 37 43 44 46 Did not receive learning materials from government 53 54 45 53 52 54 No access to electricity/lighting 5 6 4 6 5 10 Increased household chores 13 14 5 13 13 16 Pupil/Student not interested 35 35 34 39 31 32 Multiple roles of the Parent/Guardian 8 8 11 9 8 11 Parent/Guardian not interested 10 10 8 10 10 16 Has to help with household business 3 4 2 4 2 6 Other 6 6 9 6 6 6 not participating in education* Consumption per adult equivalent Age class 6-12 yrs 13-18 yrs Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 3-5 yrs old old old 2 2 3 6 3 4 5 38 32 28 10 19 35 36 41 50 48 24 39 49 40 61 54 49 38 41 58 57 4 4 5 1 3 6 7 12 14 7 12 5 12 21 34 42 27 40 37 35 34 8 6 3 16 9 8 8 7 5 8 15 14 9 7 4 2 2 2 2 3 5 8 5 4 10 8 4 8 Table 5.3 Challenges faced while learning at Residence Gender Overall Rural Urban Male Poor internet connectivity 3 4 2 3 High cost of internet 4 4 3 4 Limited access to radio/tv 20 26 9 19 Limited access to learning materials from school 26 28 24 24 Limited access to learning materials from government 31 35 25 31 Limited access to electricity/lighting 7 8 4 6 Increased household chores 16 17 15 14 Pupil/Student not interested 18 19 17 20 Multiple roles of the Parent/Guardian 9 8 10 9 Parent/Guardian not interested 4 5 1 4 Lack of a skilled instructor 39 42 32 38 Has to help with household business 3 4 1 3 No challenge 16 15 18 17 Other 5 4 7 6 nges faced while learning at home Gender Consumption per adult equivalent quintiles Age class 6-12 yrs 13-18 yrs Female Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 3-5 yrs old old old 3 4 1 1 5 4 1 3 5 3 4 1 1 5 7 1 3 6 22 23 35 25 14 10 11 21 24 29 25 29 29 22 28 13 26 33 32 29 40 34 26 29 19 32 37 8 12 4 4 9 6 3 6 9 18 31 16 13 16 10 6 15 22 16 13 23 13 19 21 25 19 14 9 8 5 7 10 13 9 9 10 3 3 2 3 5 4 2 3 5 39 34 39 48 39 33 30 43 38 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 2 4 16 22 9 14 19 19 26 14 14 4 3 6 2 4 8 6 4 6 Table6.1. Food Security Problems % of HHs Due to lack of money or other resources: Baseline (April/May 2020) Composite FIES index Overal 5.0% Severe Rural 5.7% Urban 3.2% Poorest quintile 8.2% Q2 5.5% Consumption Q3 5.3% Quintile Q4 2.7% Richest quintile 3.4% Central 2.9% Eastern 9.2% Region Northern 7.5% Western 1.2% Overal 33.2% Moderate Rural 34.6% Urban 29.5% Poorest quintile 41.5% Q2 39.7% Consumption Q3 37.9% Quintile Q4 27.1% Richest quintile 20.5% Central 22.7% Eastern 44.6% Region Northern 51.2% Western 19.3% Table 7.1 WORK LAST WEEK (any work for pay or any income generating activities) % of Residence Percent of respondents, by (UNPS) consump responde Rural Urban Poorest quintile Q2 Respondent working before March 20 86 85 88 82 90 Respondent working in round 1 70 74 61 69 76 Respondent working in round 2 87 90 80 94 92 ncome generating activities) ondents, by (UNPS) consumption quintiles per adult equivalent Q3 Q4 Richest quintile 85 85 89 74 67 64 86 81 84 Table 7.2 WORK LAST WEEK (any work for pay or any income generating a Residence Overall Rural Urban Working: also working in Round 1 64.6 69.0 55.6 Working: not working in Round 1 but working before the outbreak 11.9 9.0 17.9 Working: not working in Round 1 nor working before the outbreak 10.0 11.6 6.5 Stopped since Round 1 4.6 4.0 5.8 Stopped since outbreak 4.9 2.8 9.4 Still not working (since pre-outbreak) 4.0 3.6 4.8 any income generating activities) Percent of respondents, by (UNPS) consumption quintiles per adult Poorest quintile Q2 Q3 Q4 Richest quintile 64.6 72.5 67.4 60.9 60.5 10.2 10.9 8.6 10.0 17.8 19.3 8.6 10.5 10.0 5.4 2.4 2.8 5.1 6.8 4.6 2.1 2.3 2.6 8.3 7.0 1.4 2.8 5.8 4.1 4.7 Table 7.3. Work stoppages, by industry of main job Percentage of respondents that STOPPED Percentage of respondents that working during the outbreak but came STOPPED working back to working Between Mid- Between June and Round 2 - June March and June July/August All 16.6 4.6 11.9 Agriculture 19.0 53.0 38.6 Mining 6.3 2.4 5.6 Utilities 0.2 3.2 0.4 Construction 3.7 14.9 5.3 Buying & Selling 34.9 16.0 31.0 Transport 6.4 0.0 4.8 Professional Activities 5.3 4.1 2.6 Public Administration 1.0 0.0 0.3 Personal Services 23.3 6.5 11.5 Table 7.4. Work stoppages, main reason Percentage of Percentage of Round 2 Round 1 (July/Aug Round 1 Round 2 (June) ust) Business/office closed - coronavirus legal restrictions 61.71 16.53 Ill/quarantined 10.35 34.53 Need to care for ill relative 1.03 11.30 Not able to go to farm - movement restrictions 0.92 0.00 Laid off while business continues 0.38 0.00 90.87 66.98 Furlough (temporarily laid off) 8.52 3.96 Not able to farm due to lack of inputs 0.19 0.36 Lack of transportation 3.58 0.30 Not want to be epoxed to the virus 4.18 0.00 Business/office closed for another reason 2.41 2.44 Not farming season 2.42 5.41 Seasonal worker/or farming season 3.34 8.18 9.13 17.56 Retired 0.97 0.00 Vacation 0.00 0.00 Other 0.00 1.53 Relation to coronavirus outbreak & related counter measures Potentially unrelated Potentially related Level Table 7.5 Main industry of those respondents working (% of respondents working) Before COVID- 19 outbreak (mid-March Round 1 Round 2 2020) (June) (July/August) Agriculture 50.67 62.0 60.4 Mining & Manufacturing 4.92 4.4 5.1 Utilities 0.69 0.8 0.7 Construction 3.95 3.9 3.0 Commerce 18.94 15.8 17.4 Transport 4.05 2.4 3.0 Professional Activities 2.95 2.3 1.9 Public Administration 0.95 0.9 1.1 Services 12.89 7.5 7.4 Table 7.6 Family businesses, status & fluctuation All HHs with a non-farm business in June 2020 35.4 Started non-farm business since baseline 3.1 Already had a non-farm business in 2020 43.5 … still open 74.2 … temporarily closed 22.1 … permanently closed 3.7 * only includes HH interviewed in Round 2 Table 7.7 Family businesses, main reason for closure in R Percentage of HHs with NFEs closed* temporarily closed permanently clo Usual place of business closed due to coronavirus legal 55.4 32.0 restrictions No customers/ fewer customers 21.5 31.3 79.52 Can't get inputs 24.5 23.7 Can't travel/ transport goods for trade 4.8 5.7 Ill/ quarantined due to coronavirus 0.0 0.0 Usual place of business closed, other reasons 15.2 15.6 Ill, other reason/disease 4.4 14.9 Need to take care of a family member 2.9 5.9 38.02 Seasonal closure 4.2 0.0 Vacation 0.0 0.0 Other 11.3 15.8 * includes all HHs that reported having a NFE during 2020 inesses, main reason for closure in Round 2 (June) Percentage of HHs with NFEs closed* permanently closed Level Relation to coronavirus outbreak & related counter measures 71.79 Potentially related 52.24 Potentially unrelated Table 7.8 Family business by sector Sector of NFE Round 1 Round 2 (June) (July) Agriculture 5.2 4.9 Mining&Manufacturing 9.0 13.3 Utilities 0.1 0.7 Construction 0.2 1.5 Commerce 67.9 62.3 Transport 6.0 7.8 Professional Activities 1.3 0.9 Public Administration 0.0 0.0 Personal Services 10.3 8.5 Table 7.9. Family business that operated during baseline- Revenues by sector June sales revenue , compared to May 202 None or Less Agriculture 75.2 Mining & Utilities 100.0 Construction, Transport & Professional Act. 88.1 Commerce 89.6 Public Administration Services 85.7 % of HHs with a family business (Round 2) 87.2 eline- Revenues by sector June sales revenue , Current sales revenue (July/August), compared to May 2020 compared toJune 2020 Same Higher None or Less Same Higher 24.8 0.0 8.9 82.9 8.2 0.0 0.0 40.8 25.0 34.3 11.9 0.0 36.5 22.1 41.5 7.7 2.7 44.0 25.7 30.3 12.3 2.0 56.0 23.9 20.1 10.6 2.2 43.4 24.5 32.1 Table 7.10. None/Less revenues in family business Percentag Percentag e of HHs e of HHs with a with a Level family family business business Usual place of business closed - coronavirus legal restrictions 5.3 Ill/quarantined due to coronavirus 0.2 Need to take care of a family member 0.0 Potentiall 96.94 No customers/ less customers 83.9 y related Cant' get input 4.3 Can't travel/ transport goods for sale 3.3 Usual place of business closed for another reason 0.0 Ill with another disease 1.0 Potentiall Seasonal Closure 0.3 3.06 y Vacation 0.0 unrelated Other 1.7 Relation to coronavirus outbreak & related counter measures Table 7.11 NFE: coronavirus-related challenges Percent of respondents with Challenges NFE has faced due to coronavirus All Rural Urban Difficulty buying and receiving supplies and inputs to run my business 41.7 39.8 44.7 Difficulty raising money for the business 45.5 45.3 45.9 Difficulty repaying loans or other debt obligations 12.2 11.3 13.6 Difficulty paying rent for business location 15.4 8.1 26.8 Difficulty paying workers 6.3 3.9 9.9 Difficulty selling goods or services to customers 58.3 57.2 60.1 Have changed or plan to change how business is conducted 24.1 21.4 28.3 Percent of respondents that Types of changes doing/planned (multiselect possible) All Rural Urban Require customers to wear masks 46.0 55.7 34.5 Maintain distance between customers 63.1 65.3 60.6 Reduce number of customers at a time 37.9 41.4 33.8 Market products/services by phone/social media 4.8 3.4 6.3 Switched to delivery only 4.6 6.3 2.7 Siwtched product/service offering 16.0 12.5 20.2 Provided handwashing facility 6.0 5.9 6.2 Other 8.6 4.4 13.7 Table 7.12. HH Income sources in the last 12 months Change since outbreak Source of livelihood % of HHs More Same Less Family farming, livestock or fishing 70.9 5.5 35.2 53.6 Non-farm family business, including fam 41.6 2.9 6.2 64.2 Wage employment of household members 32.6 2.8 31.4 41.6 Unemployment benefits 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Remittances from abroad 1.2 0.0 18.7 68.7 Assistance from family within the country 15.8 7.8 9.4 75.9 Assistance from other non-family individual 2.5 1.2 6.1 89.1 Income from properties, investments or savings 2.5 0.5 7.8 63.4 Pension 0.5 0.0 100.0 0.0 Assistance from the Government 0.7 24.8 69.7 3.2 Assistance from NGOs / charitable organanization 0.6 0.0 6.9 93.1 Other income 0.4 0.0 53.4 36.8 Overall income NA NA NA es in the last 12 months nce outbreak Change since June % of HHs No earnings More Same Less No earnings 5.7 75.8 22.1 33.3 40.1 4.5 26.7 46.9 24.2 14.1 43.5 18.2 24.2 34.2 10.7 39.9 34.8 14.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.7 1.3 14.2 14.1 64.4 7.2 6.9 19.0 9.9 25.2 61.3 3.6 3.6 2.6 4.0 25.2 68.1 2.7 28.2 2.5 5.9 27.0 66.6 0.6 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 13.4 19.6 48.1 18.9 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA 100.0 21.6 25.9 49.9 2.6 Table 8.1. Proportion of Households Whose Harvesting Decision were affected by COVID 19 Total # All HHs Region Residence Central Eastern Northern Western Rural Urban Yes, COVID 19 Affected Harvesting Decisions 92 5.6 5.7 6.7 8.2 3.0 5.3 6.7 No, COVID 19 Didn't Affect Havesting Decisions 1618 94.4 94.3 93.3 91.8 97.0 94.7 93.3 Total respondents Table 8.2 Distribution of How COVID 19 Affected Crop Harvesting, by region and Land Quintiles Overall Regions Land Quintiles Central Eastern Northern Western # % # % # % # % Q1 Q2 Q3 Took COVID 19 Saftety Measures 17.3 20.0 1.4 33.0 4.2 27.0 51.6 12.0 4.8 0.0 58.7 20.1 Could Not Hire any Workers Despite the Need 24.9 20.0 11.7 33.0 17.7 27.0 41.2 12.0 30.6 12.7 22.2 30.7 Hired Less Workers Than Desired 27.5 20.0 4.6 33.0 51.4 27.0 31.1 12.0 17.7 40.4 19.0 33.9 Abandoned Crops in the Field 1.0 20.0 0.8 33.0 0.0 27.0 0.0 12.0 5.2 3.1 0.0 0.0 Delayed Harvesting 29.9 20.0 56.0 33.0 25.2 27.0 0.0 12.0 48.2 30.9 0.0 35.3 Others Specify 17.9 20.0 36.7 33.0 5.5 27.0 9.4 12.0 23.2 17.4 0.0 16.2 Land Quintiles Q4 Q5 17.4 20.0 27.6 27.9 26.7 4.3 0.0 1.6 27.8 30.3 27.0 19.4 Table 8.3. Distribution of How COVID 19 Affected Crop Harvesting, by region and Land Q Overall Central Eastern Northern Western Took COVID 19 Saftety Measures 17.3 1.4 4.2 51.6 4.8 Could Not Hire any Workers Despite the Need 24.9 11.7 17.7 41.2 30.6 Hired Less Workers Than Desired 27.5 4.6 51.4 31.1 17.7 Abandoned Crops in the Field 1.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 5.2 Delayed Harvesting 29.9 56.0 25.2 0.0 48.2 Others Specify 17.9 36.7 5.5 9.4 23.2 ing, by region and Land Quintiles Land Quintiles Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 0.0 58.7 20.1 17.4 20.0 12.7 22.2 30.7 27.6 27.9 40.4 19.0 33.9 26.7 4.3 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 30.9 0.0 35.3 27.8 30.3 17.4 0.0 16.2 27.0 19.4 Table 8.4 Distribution of Measures Taken to Ensure Safety from COVID 19 During Crop Harvesting, by region Overall Central Eastern Northern Western # % # % # % # % Use of Masks 54.1 1.0 100.0 3.0 100.0 11.0 47.1 2.0 47.1 No Hand Shakes 75.6 1.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 11.0 82.2 2.0 82.2 Use of Gloves 2.2 1.0 100.0 3.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Keeping 1M Distance 66.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 26.3 11.0 69.1 2.0 69.1 Other Specify 13.5 1.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 11.0 15.6 2.0 15.6 Table 8.5 Distribution of Reasons for not Hiring During Crop Harvesting, by region Overall Central Eastern Northern Western # % # % # % # Fear of COVID 19 Transmission 29.0 8.0 0.0 22.0 22.9 16.0 48.9 4 High Cost of Labor 44.7 8.0 54.0 22.0 39.3 16.0 31.6 4 Lower Supply Due to COVID 19 Restrictions 25.1 8.0 46.0 22.0 36.1 16.0 18.0 4 Others Specify 1.20 Western % 19.25891 80.74109 0 Table 8.6. Prevalence of Livestock and Crop Farming Households, by region AG (# of AG Practising % of respondents by Region % of respondents by per adult equivalent quintile HHs) (% of HHs) Central Eastern Northern Western Q1 Q2 Q3 Only Crop Farming Households 546 30.8 30.8 23.3 13.3 51.9 26.8 29.5 29.0 Only Livestock Farming Households 84 4.9 9.7 3.7 3.3 2.8 1.4 4.5 2.1 Both Crop and Livestock Households 1346 64.3 59.5 73.0 83.4 45.3 71.8 66.0 68.9 y per adult equivalent quintile Q4 Q5 33.0 35.1 6.3 10.0 60.7 54.9 Table 8.7 Proportion of Households Whose Livestock Activities were affected by COVID 19 Total # All HHs Region Residence Central Eastern Northern Western Urban Yes, COVID 19 Affected Livestock Activities in My Farm 161 12.0 26.6 9.1 6.3 4.0 11.5 No, COVID 19 Didn't Affect Livestock Activities in My Farm 1258 88.0 73.4 90.9 93.7 96.0 88.5 Total respondents 1419 Residence Rural 14.1 85.9 Table 8.8. Distribution of How COVID 19 Affected Livestock Activities, by region Overall Central Eastern Northern # % # % # Reduced access to animal feeds 43 76 59.7 41 4.6 31 Reduced access animal breeding material or replacement stock 5 76 1.1 41 1.3 31 Reduced access to veterinary services & drugs 59 76 52.5 41 52.8 31 Reduced access to markets 24 76 16.3 41 54.2 31 Reduced milk and egg production 1 76 2.1 41 0.0 31 Compromised storage 1 76 2.0 41 0.8 31 Reduced processing capacity 0 76 0.0 41 0.0 31 vities, by region Northern Western Rural Urban % # % # % # % 5.8 12 5.8 131.0 59.7 29.0 4.6 0.0 12 0.0 131.0 1.1 29.0 1.3 83.6 12 83.6 131.0 52.5 29.0 52.8 24.4 12 24.4 131.0 16.3 29.0 54.2 0.0 12 0.0 131.0 2.1 29.0 0.0 0.0 12 0.0 131.0 2.0 29.0 0.8 0.0 12 0.0 131.0 0.0 29.0 0.0 Table 8.9. Sales of Agricultural Produce Needed Needed Sale of Agicultural Produce to sell (# to sell (% IHPS PCA Index Based Wealth Quintiles % of respondents by Region of HHs) of HHs) Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Central Eastern Northern Western Yes, Needed to Sell Agricultural Products 826 42.5 37.1 45.2 40.4 48.4 40.6 45.0 36.7 36.7 50.0 No,did not need to Sell Agricultural Products 1066 57.5 62.9 54.8 59.6 51.6 59.4 55.0 63.3 63.3 50.0 Table 8.10 Reasons for decline in sales or no sales Total # Region Residence Central Eastern Northern Western Urban Local markets not operating/closed 3.17 2.27 3.95 0.35 6.55 3.12 Hotels/Restaurant were closed 2.47 - 0.41 2.79 15.82 2.11 Limited/No Transportation 1.39 1.32 0.11 1.53 6.75 1.36 Restriction on movement/travel 2.66 2.16 0.40 6.49 6.87 2.53 Fall in price/reduced profiabilities 13.79 38.82 1.33 13.39 16.00 13.23 Other 82.43 59.34 96.07 81.95 72.69 83.44 Residence Rural 3.40 4.17 1.51 3.26 16.50 77.56 Table 8.11. Share of Households that needed to Sell Agricultural Produce but Could Not. Needed to Needed to Could not sell (% that needed to sell Agricultural Produce) sell (# of sell (% of Overall IHPS PCA Index Based Wealth Quintiles % of respondents by Region HHs) HHs) All HHs Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Central Eastern Northern Yes, Needed to Sell Agricultural Products 826 42.5 15.0 14.1 13.5 18.7 14.8 13.6 10.7 17.0 36.6 No,did not need to Sell Agricultural Products 1066 57.5 ce) ents by Region Western 3.8 Tab 8.12 Change in livestock product sales since March 20, 2020 by region % of respondents reporting decline in sales by Overall Region Increased Declined No change Central Eastern Northern Western Milk 16.4 43.4 40.2 37.5 49.1 52.3 41.7 Eggs 35.4 43.1 21.4 66.6 17.2 86.8 22.6 Meat 56.4 30.0 13.6 34.8 86.7 28.7 8.4 Other 0.0 31.3 68.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ab 6.11 Change in livestock product sales since March 20, 2020 by region Milk Eggs Meat Other Tab 8.13 Change in livestock product price since March 20, 2020 by region % of respondents reporting decline in prices Overall by Region Increased Declined No change Central Eastern Northern Western Milk 18.61 44.57 36.82 37.48 22.60 74.27 51.92 Eggs 13.13 48.60 38.27 74.05 25.20 86.75 25.69 Meat 58.94 28.47 12.60 33.89 86.67 27.04 4.74 Other 0.00 31.29 68.71 Table 9.1 SAFETY NETS since last interview (2 round), by quintiles Percent HHs, by % of HHs Regions Types of assistance, any institution rural/urban Overall Rural Urban Central Eastern Northern Food 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.2 3.0 3.0 Direct cash transfers 1.0 1.1 0.7 0.8 2.1 1.1 Other in-kind (not food) transfers 16.5 17.9 13.4 11.5 21.1 25.7 (2 round), by quintiles ions Percent HHs, by UNPS consumption quintiles Western Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 0.1 1.7 2.3 0.6 1.8 1.9 0.3 0.1 0.2 2.1 0.7 1.5 11.5 20.3 17.0 15.2 15.2 15.9 Table 9.1a % of households who had issues with accesing safety nets since mid-March 2020, by quintiles problem Food 6.6 Direct cash transfers 0.0 Other in-kind (not food) transfers 7.2 Table 9.1b SAFETY NETS since March 2020 (1 round), by quintiles % of HHs Percent HHs, by Types of assistance, any institution Overall Rural Urban Food 8.9 5.3 16.4 Direct cash transfers 0.8 0.9 0.7 Other in-kind (not food) transfers 3.3 4.1 1.7 Table 9.2 Source of Food Assistance since last interview Other in-kind Main source of food assistance Food Direct cash (not food) transfers transfers Federal government 53.7 52.7 94.5 State government 11.0 3.6 3.9 Local government 1.2 3.3 0.6 Community organization/ cooperative 3.9 0.0 0.9 NGO 20.1 0.0 1.3 Religious bodies 4.4 0.0 0.0 Other 6.7 42.3 0.0 *multiple sources are possible, shares can sum up beyond 100 percent