1 The Socioeconomic Impacts of COVID-19 on Households in Cambodia Results from a High-Frequency Phone Survey of Households Round 5 1–21 March 2021 (LSMS+ and IDPoor sample) 10 June, 2021 2 High-Frequency Phone Survey of Households in Cambodia Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 11–26 May 2020 (LSMS+) 17 August– 14 October– 17 December 2020– Survey period 1–21 March 2021 11–28 June 2020 (IDPoor) 7 September 2020 6 November 2020 12 January 2021 1,684 respondents 1,667 respondents 1,665 respondents 1,687 respondents 1,688 respondents Sample size 700 (LSMS+) 612 (LSMS+) 481 (LSMS+) 410 (LSMS+) 378 (LSMS+) 984 (IDPoor) 1,055 (IDPoor) 1,184 (IDPoor) 1,277 (IDPoor) 1,309 (IDPoor) LSMS+: National, Urban and Rural Coverage IDPoor: National Partnerships World Bank; World Bank; Ministry of Planning (MoP, the MoP, NIS; MoSVY; National Social Protection Council (NSPC) National Institute of Statistic (NIS)); Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation (MoSVY). Coordinated with other Development Partners, 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 in March 2021 as markets and the health system continued to meet demand. • Awareness of the COVID-19 vaccine is high as the vaccination program rolls out. • Children’s engagement in learning activities returned to levels prior the second school closure instituted in November 2020 to curb a local COVID-19 outbreak and school term break in December. • In March 2021, 90 percent of LSMS+ households with school-age children (6–17 years) and 79 percent of IDPoor households reported their children were engaged in education or learning activities in the preceding 7 days. • This is relatively comparable to 92 percent of LSMS+ and 86 percent of IDPoor households with school-age children engaged in learning in October 2020, when schools had partially reopened and participation in learning had reached pre-pandemic levels. • Learning had shifted back to face-to-face activities and away from 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 March 2021, 69 percent of respondents in LSMS+ households were working. Employment levels among main earners in IDPoor households was 84 percent. • 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 March 2021, 50 percent of LSMS+ households operating a non-farm family business reported having made “less” or “no revenues” relative to the previous month, compared to 58 percent in December, 54 percent in October, 64 percent in August, and 81 percent in May 2020. • In March 2021, 65 percent of IDPoor households operating a non-farm family business reported having made “less” or “no revenues” relative to the previous month, compared to 45 percent in December, 52 percent in October, and 50 percent in August 2020. • About 78 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 March 2021, 45 percent of LSMS+ households reported a decline in household income relative to the previous round, compared to 48 percent in December, 51 percent in October, 63 percent in August, and 83 percent in May 2020. • In March 2021, 52 percent of IDPoor household reported a decline in household income relative to the previous round, compared to 46 percent in December, 44 percent in October, 57 percent in August, and 88 percent in May 2020. • Households reported that their total household income decreased by 15 percent since the last interview. • Households reported an average reduction in total household income of around 40 percent in March 2021, December, October, and August 2020 since the previous interview. • A share of households reported an income reduction relative to January 2020 is almost the same as to June 2020. • 41 percent of LSMS+ households reported that their income had decreased compared to January 2020, while 39 percent reported a decline compared to June 2020. Households reported that, on average, their total income decreased by 9 percent relative to January 2020 and 11 percent relative to June 2020. • 23 percent of IDPoor households reported that their income had decreased compared to January 2020 and 47 percent reported a decline compared to June 2020. IDPoor households reported that total income increased by 1 percent relative to January 2020 but decreased by 15 percent relative to June 2020. • Relative to January 2020, labor income and remittances have fallen while government assistance has increased. Relative to June 2020, labor income has stabilized or even increased, while assistance has not further increased. • Compared to the previous year, households perceived their well-being and economic status to have deteriorated. 5 Key Findings (III) Social Assistance (SA) • By March 2021, 96 percent of eligible IDPoor households had received SA and 95 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 5 percent of eligible IDPoor households had yet to receive these relief cash transfers and among those, registration — required to receive the transfers—has decreased. No or an expired IDPoor card were the main reasons for not registering. • Amount and frequency of cash transfers provided to households are as expected: As of March 2021, most beneficiaries had received 9 cash installments, averaging a total of US$366 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. Food Insecurity • Moderate-or-severe food insecurity increased between December 2020 and March 2021, after having remained unchanged between October and December 2020 and declined between August and October. • Among LSMS+ households, the prevalence of moderate-or-severe food insecurity was 32 percent in March 2021. This is compared to 17 percent in December, 17 percent in October, and 48 percent in August 2020. • Among IDPoor households, the prevalence of moderate-or-severe food insecurity was 55 percent in March 2021, 34 percent in December, 39 percent in October, and 67 percent in August 2020. • Severe food insecurity remained unchanged between December 2020 and March 2021. Access to Basic Necessities 7 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 on having tried to buy [staple food]) 100 100 IDPoor 100 100 100 Rice 99 100 LSMS+ 100 100 100 100 100 Fish or meat IDPoor 100 100 100 99 100 LSMS+ 100 100 100 100 Vegetable or fruit 100 IDPoor 100 100 100 99 100 LSMS+ 99 100 100 % Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 8 Nearly all households have been able to access medicine when needed throughout the pandemic In the last week, has your household tried to buy In the last week, has your household been able to medicine? buy medicine? (for those who tried to buy) 1 1 22 20 30 28 30 26 34 33 57 55 % % 99 99 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 78 80 70 72 70 74 66 67 43 45 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 LSMS+ IDPoor LSMS+ IDPoor Yes No Yes No 9 Nearly all households have been able to access health services when needed throughout the pandemic and access them safely Since the last interview, did you or any household Did health staff comply with preventive measures member ...? such as mask wearing, distancing and 1 1 2 handwashing? 75 39 37 40 34 35 38 45 44 66 61 74 % 99 100100 99 100100 98 100100100 % 37 36 32 31 61 63 60 66 65 62 55 56 22 39 12 26 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 Mask wearing Social distancing Handwashing All of the above LSMS+ IDPoor LSMS+ IDPoor Needed medical treatment Accessed medical treatment (for those who needed treatment) Yes No LSMS+ IDPoor For those who were able to access medical treatment since the last interview and observed the behavior of health staff. 10 Public health facilities, consulted by more IDPoor households, provided medicine for treatment Which was the first provider that was consulted? Did public health facilities provide medicine for treatment? 5 1 2 1 2 1 3 13 33 34 39 41 58 65 62 64 % % 97 87 66 64 61 58 41 37 31 34 R2 R3 R4 R5 R2 R3 R4 R5 LSMS+ IDPoor LSMS+ IDPoor No, patient needed to buy some/all medicines for treatment Public Private Not medical sector Yes, health facility provided medicine for treatment For those who were able to access medical treatment since the last interview. For those who first consulted a public health care provider. 11 High awareness of COVID-19 vaccine availability, but few had been vaccinated—primarily due to prioritization and lack of knowledge on access Do you know that COVID-19 If yes, have you received the Why have you not received vaccine is now available in COVID-19 vaccine? COVID-19 vaccine? Cambodia? 9 2 16 10 34 40 % % % 95 99 91 84 60 35 1 12 5 4 LSMS+ IDPoor LSMS+ IDPoor LSMS+ IDPoor Other I am not eligible to get the vaccine (too old) Yes No Yes No I am not the priority group to get the vaccine I don’t know how to access the vaccine I don’t think it is safe For those who know that the COVID-19 vaccine For those who have not received the COVID-19 is available in Cambodia. vaccine. School closures Phase I: Partial Phase II: Partial Phase III: Reopening School Reopening School nationwide reopening of schools reopening of schools of schools nationwide closures of schools closures 2020 Reopening of schools 2021 Mar. May Aug. Aug.–Sep. Sep. Oct.–Nov. Nov. Dec. Dec. 2020–Jan. 2021 Jan. Feb.–Mar. HFPS: Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 In the last 7 days, have the children engaged in education or learning activities? 8 10 14 25 21 32 36 38 43 67 % 92 90 86 75 79 68 64 62 57 33 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 LSMS+ IDPoor Yes No 13 Children's engagement in education/learning activities returned to pre- pandemic levels as schools reopened after a second nationwide school closure and school-term break during November-December (Round 4) In the last 7 days, have the children engaged in education or learning activities? 92 92 95 90 92 89 90 89 90 90 86 80 79 75 76 69 70 68 62 63 66 64 64 62 57 57 59 52 50 % 33 All Urban Rural Bottom 40 Top 60 LSMS+ IDPoor Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 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. 14 Learning shifted back to meetings with teachers and away from remote alternatives for those engaged in learning Types of education or learning activities in the last 7 days 86 84 82 78 66 68 66 58 47 4544 % 36 35 31 32 3130 32 29 29 28 28 25 24 20 19 14 15 14 13 10 10 8 5 7 7 6 3 3 2 0 0 2 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 Round 5 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 16 Employment remained unchanged and below pre-pandemic levels when 8 in 10 respondents were working In the last 7 days, did you (LSMS+) or the main Why did you (LSMS+) or the main earner earner in household (IDPoor) do any work? (IDPoor) stop working? 7 4 4 40 18 16 10 Business/office closed due to 13 20 21 19 20 10 12 1 4 Covid-19 12 5 3 9 11 9 11 19 10 13 12 3 6 5 4 2 8 Furlough (temporarily laid off) 2 1 6 3 9 32 % Seasonal worker 19 23 78 82 81 11 68 67 8 65 65 64 65 5 Not farming season 24 33 54 5 21 Ill/quarantined 9 3 0 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 16 27 Other 43 LSMS+ IDPoor 15 12 3 Out of work since last round 0 Need to care for ill relative 3 Stopped working since last round 7 Currently working (changed job since last round) 11 % Currently working (same job since last round) Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 “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. 17 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 ...? 5 5 5 5 4 8 5 7 10 12 14 13 16 19 21 20 15 22 30 31 29 40 37 46 44 42 46 % % 73 88 84 86 87 81 78 79 80 61 62 70 52 58 46 48 48 40 8 3 3 4 2 4 5 3 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 LSMS+ IDPoor LSMS+ IDPoor No customers/few customers Others No revenue Less The same Higher 18 Around 1 in 2 households continued to report a decline in household income Changes in total household income How much did total household income change since the last interview (in %) since the last interview? LSMS+ IDPoor R1 83 16 1 R2 63 29 8 LSMS+ R3 51 42 7 R4 48 43 9 R5 45 47 8 % R1 88 11 1 R2 57 32 12 -15 IDPoor R3 44 46 9 -17 -16 -17 -18 R4 46 45 9 -19 -21 R5 52 43 5 -23 % Reduced Stayed the same Increased Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 “Before the COVID-19 outbreak” is the reference period for R1. 19 Reductions in household income more prevalent in urban areas, but irrespective of poverty status Changes in total household income since the last How much did total household income change interview (in %) since the last interview? R1 85 15 R2 61 33 6 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Urban Bottom 40 Bottom 40 Bottom 40 Bottom 40 R3 51 44 5 R4 57 40 4 Top 60 Top 60 Top 60 Top 60 Urban Urban Urban Urban Rural Rural Rural Rural R5 58 40 2 R1 83 16 1 R2 63 29 8 Rural R3 51 41 8 R4 47 44 10 R5 42 48 9 R1 84 15 1 Bottom 40 % R2 64 27 9 R3 48 42 10 R4 45 47 8 R5 43 49 8 -14 -14 -16 -16 -16 R1 83 16 1 -17 R2 61 31 7 -18 -18 -19 -18 Top 60 -19 R3 53 41 5 -21 R4 51 40 9 -23 -23 -24 R5 46 46 9 -24 % Reduced Stayed the same Increased Source: LSMS+ sample. 20 Relative to January 2020, households saw declines in labor income and remittances and increases in government/NGO assistance How has your income from ... changed since January 2020? family Family IDPoor 41 53 6 farm LSMS+ 40 49 11 IDPoor 59 31 10 Non- farm biz LSMS+ 57 40 3 IDPoor non- Remitt- Wage 47 49 4 family ances empl. LSMS+ 30 59 11 IDPoor 67 33 LSMS+ 49 34 17 family / Assist- IDPoor 10 35 55 ance LSMS+ 42 58 NGO Pension property Income IDPoor 100 from LSMS+ 100 IDPoor 83 17 LSMS+ 85 13 Assist- IDPoor 3 3 95 Govt/ ance LSMS+ 4 11 85 % Reduced Stayed the same Increased 21 Relative to June 2020, labor income stabilized or even recovered while government/NGO assistance did not further increase How has your income from ... changed since June 2020? Family IDPoor 6 58 36 farm LSMS+ 7 62 31 IDPoor family 10 35 55 Non- farm biz LSMS+ 6 44 50 IDPoor non- Remitt- Wage 5 53 42 family ances empl. LSMS+ 8 67 25 IDPoor 3 20 77 LSMS+ 24 27 49 family / Assist- IDPoor 36 35 29 ance LSMS+ 88 12 NGO Pension property Income IDPoor 100 from LSMS+ 100 IDPoor 17 83 LSMS+ 9 92 Assist- IDPoor 29 64 7 Govt/ ance LSMS+ 32 65 3 % Reduced Stayed the same Increased 22 But labor income accounted for the most important source of household livelihood in the past year Sources of household livelihoods in last 12 months 84 73 69 52 % 32 32 25 20 7 2 3 4 0 1 0 1 Family farm Non-farm Wage Remittances Assistance Property Pension Assistance family employment family or non- income from business family Government/ NGO LSMS+ IDPoor 23 Relative to January 2020, labor income decreased and assistance from government/NGO increased How much has your income from … changed (in %) since January 2020? Assistance Non-farm family / non- Income from Assistance Family farm family biz Wage empl. Remittances family property Pension Govt/ NGO 92 78 31 17 0 0 1 % -9 -6 -10 -14 -17 -24 -20 -19 -34 LSMS+ IDPoor 24 Relative to June 2020, labor income increased How much has your income from … changed (in %) since June 2020? Assistance Non-farm family / non- Income from Assist-ance Family farm family biz Wage empl. Remittances family property Pension Govt/ NGO 37 33 19 12 13 9 8 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 % -7 -24 LSMS+ IDPoor 25 Households perceive their well-being and economic status to have deteriorated since January 2020 and since June 2020 Compared to January 2020, how has your Compared to June 2020, how has your household household wellbeing and economic status wellbeing and economic status changed? changed? 6 3 5 8 5 9 9 13 42 48 45 42 45 50 53 49 % % 37 36 40 40 33 36 23 30 16 13 15 15 9 9 9 9 LSMS+ IDPoor R3 R4 R5 R3 R4 R5 LSMS+ IDPoor 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 26 February 2021 was among toughest months in terms of household well- being since January 2020. Some households expect further deteriorations. Since January 2020, which was the worst month in How do you think your household’s well-being will terms of household well-being? change in the next few months compared to now? 14 11 30 44 48 19 % % 12 12 12 10 9 8 8 7 8 31 31 7 6 6 6 7 5 5 4 3 4 4 4 2 1 1 1 1 9 10 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb LSMS+ IDPoor 2020 2021 LSMS+ IDPoor Much worse Slightly worse The same Slightly better Much better Social Assistance 28 Social assistance (SA) coverage is high among IDPoor: 96% of eligible IDPoor households received some form of SA, mostly via cash from the govt Percentage of SA beneficiaries Percentage of beneficiaries Percentage of beneficiaries since last interview reporting receiving types of SA reporting … as main source of SA 96 96 4% % households % households 96% 1 0 0 2 0 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 5. Source: Eligible IDPoor sample. Round 5. valid equity card). Round 5. 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 SA beneficiaries Percentage of beneficiaries Percentage of beneficiaries since last interview reporting…as main source of SA reporting receiving types of SA 95 96 95 96 95 96 94 96 91 92 90 92 90 92 89 90 % of eligible IDPoor households % eligible IDPoor households % eligible IDPoor households 50 44 35 30 20 13 7 9 6 6 12 111 202 312 100 2 2 3 2 0 LSMS+ IDPoor R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 Food Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Government NGO Direct cash transfers Round 4 Round 5 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 reached many IDPoor households, but registration among those who did not receive transfers has decreased— mostly due to having no or an expired IDPoor card Have you ever received the relief Did you register with the village Why did Why you not did you not register? register? cash transfer program from govt chief/commune council to receive 1% since June 2020? the transfer? 100 100 5% 5 4 8 7 5 14 10 10 18% 5% 25% 80 80 60 59 60 60 74 78 30% 8% % % 95 96 92 93 95 86 90 90 40 40 40% 65% 3% 20 20 40 41 26 22 Unaware of the program 0 0 Didn’t know the transfer is for them R2 R3 R4 R5 R2 R3 R4 R5 R2 R3 R4 R5 Didn’t want of the Unaware the transfer program No IDPoor card LSMS+ IDPoor Didn’t Expiredknow transfer is for them the card IDPoor Invalid IDPoor card Other Yes No Yes No Other Source: Eligible sample (IDPoor households with Source: Eligible sample (IDPoor households with valid Source: Eligible IDPoor sample that have not received a valid equity card). equity card) that have not received relief transfers. relief transfers and did not register. R5. 31 Take-up is high among IDPoor households that registered for the relief cash transfer program 97979698 98 97969799 99 100 98979697 99 100 97949599 97989999 99999798 96969499 98 98 95 9598 96 97 969797 969593 939494 959593 % Male Female Phnom Plain Tonle Sap Coastal Plateau and 1 (Poorest) 2 3 4 5 (Average Penh and Mountain or higher) urban areas All Gender Region Social economic status Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 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 Feb.–Mar. 2021 are as expected: Most beneficiaries had received 9 cash payments, averaging US$366 in total How many times have you received the transfer HowHow much much did you did you receive receive in total? in total? so far? 350 450 80 405 313 400 374 68 300 366 271 350 252 319 60 250 234 300 279 195 USD 200 240 % 250 220 USD 40 148 200 150 155 150 104 100 20 100 87 49 10 50 47 7 7 50 2 4 1 1 2 0 0 Once Twice Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Twice OnceTwice Once Three Three Four Four Five Five Six SevenSix Eight Seven Nine Total Total times times times times times times times timestimes times times times times times times times times times times 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? 2% 22% 19% 38% 42% 37% 40% Extremely important Very important Moderately important No difference Slight difference Moderate difference Not so important 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 5. received relief cash transfer program. Round 5. 34 Most IDPoor households continued to spend their relief cash transfers on food and other essential items What did you do with the money that you received? 100 100 Food 99 100 58 54 Other essential items 64 78 15 8 Paid back loan 12 10 2 5 Other 5 4 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Source: IDPoor sample with valid equity card who ever received the relief cash transfer program from the government since June 2020. Food Insecurity 36 Moderate-or-severe food insecurity increased between December 2020 and March 2021, while severe food insecurity remained unchanged “In the last 30 days” is the reference period. People experiencing moderate levels of food insecurity will typically eat low 67 quality diets and might have been 55 forced, at times during the year, to also 48 reduce the quantity of food they would % normally eat, while those experiencing 39 32 34 severe levels would have gone for entire days without eating, due to lack of money or other resources to obtain 17 17 food. 5 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 Prevalence of food insecurity, based on R2 R3 R4 R5 R2 R3 R4 R5 the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (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. 37 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 March 2021, 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. • For households to recover, a broad set of measures will be needed to support jobs and provide more broad- based assistance. 38 Implementation plan Baseline (Round 1) Follow-up (Round 3) Follow-up (Round 5) May–June 2020 October–November 2020 March 2021 Knowledge, Behavior, Knowledge, Access, Access, Employment, Access, Employment, Employment, Income Loss, Income Loss, Farm Income Loss, Food Food Insecurity, Safety Net, Income, Vaccination, Food Insecurity, Coping Vaccination, Socioeconomic Insecurity, Safety Net, Mechanism, Safety Net Status, Payment Methods Socioeconomic Status 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 39 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) 40 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. 41 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