1 The Socioeconomic Impacts of COVID-19 on Households in Cambodia Results from a High Frequency Phone Survey of Households Round 2 17 August–07 September 2020 (LSMS & IDPoor sample) 17 November, 2020 2 High Frequency Phone Survey of Households in Cambodia Round 1 Round 2 11–26 May 2020 (LSMS) Survey period 17 August–07 September 2020 11–28 June 2020 (IDPoor) 1,684 respondents 1,667 respondents Sample size • 700 respondents (LSMS) • 612 respondents (LSMS) • 984 respondents (IDPoor) • 1055 respondents (IDPoor) LSMS: National, Urban and Rural LSMS: National, Urban and Rural Coverage IDPoor: National IDPoor: National Partnerships World Bank; World Bank; Ministry of Planning (MOP, the National Institute Ministry of Planning (MOP, the National Institute of Statistic); of Statistic); Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation (MoSVY). Rehabilitation (MoSVY), Coordinated with other DPs, shared instruments National Social Protection Council (NSPC) and received feedback 3 Key Findings (I) Employment and Income • Negative impacts of the pandemic on employment and non-family businesses are less severe between May and August. • 7 in 10 respondents were working since May 2020. • 61% of households that relied on non-farm family business reported a reduction in sales income in August, compared with 73% in May. But many households are still suffering losses due to weak demand. • Migrant workers have lost jobs or wages since the outbreak, reducing the amount of remittances migrant-sending households received. • Although declines in household income have slowed since May, more than half of the respondents reported that household income had declined. • However, about 40% of the respondents reported an increase in assistance from government and NGOs. 4 Key Findings (II) Social Assistance Program • 9 in 10 IDPoor households received some form of social assistance since June 2020. • A small fraction remain uncovered: 1 in 10 IDPoor households had yet to receive the relief cash transfers for poor and vulnerable households during COVID-19 which launched on 24 June 2020. • Take-up is very high (97%) among those who registered for the relief transfer program. Food Security • Significant reduction in households experiencing food shortages since May 2020. Access to Education and Health Services • Access to staples foods and health services remained high both in May and August. • Increased involvement of children in educational activities between May and August. • 75% of households with children aged 6-17 engaged in education activities in August, an increase of 12 percentage points from May 2020. • A shift towards more face-to-face learning from remote learning (mobile applications or educational TV programs) since May 2020 5 Employment remained steady between May and August In the last 7 days, did you do any work? Why did you stop working? 100 Business/office closed due to Covid-19 13 40 17 20 Furlough (temporarily laid off) 3 19 80 Seasonal Worker 8 32 11 10 6 5 Not farming season 5 7 60 Ill/quarantined 7 21 Other 2 5 % 40 Need to care for ill relative 0 3 66 65 Business/office closed due to other reasons 3 9 20 Not able to farm due to lack of inputs 23 Vacation 2 6 0 Retired 02 Round 1 Round 2 Not able to go to farm due to movement restriction 11 Maternity leave 0 5 Did not work 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Currently not working % Currently working (change job) Currently working (same job) Round 1 Round 2 Source: LSMS Sample 6 Negative impacts on non-farm family businesses is less severe in August compared to May Compared to last month, revenue from Reasons for having less or no revenue? business sales… ?” No customers/few customers 70 100 88 Usual place of business closed due to Covid- 14 19 1 80 Can't travel/transport travel 4 0 48 Can't get inputs 2 1 61 60 67 Need to take care of a family member 2 73 2 % Vacation 1 0 40 Usual place of business closed for another 1 reason 2 42 1 Seasonal closure 2 20 31 18 Other 0 2 15 Ill with another disease 0 2 0 R1 R2 R1 R2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LSMS ID Poor % Higher The same Less No revenue Round 1 Round 2 Source: LSMS Sample 7 COVID-19 has forced the return of some migrants. Since the COVID-19 outbreak, 1 in 10 households had a migrant return home, while 2 in 10 households had a migrant currently away from the residence. Any migrant members..? 30 26 20 19 % 11 10 8 0 Return migrant Current migrant LSMS ID Poor 8 Most migrant workers returned home because of factory closures (36%) and a lack of work (24% of return migrant households) “Why did they return…? ” LSMS IDPoor Factory shut Factory shut down down 20% 24% No work Deported 36% 2% School/university No work close 48% Deported 2% 9% Other 15% Family School/univ reason at Family ersity close home reason at 15% 8% home Cannot Other pay rent 8% 9% 4% 9 Returnees are currently out of work among 3 in 10 return migrant households. The estimate is lower for the IDPoor sample. “What is she/he currently doing?” As an LSMS IDPoor As an apprentice employee for 1% Not working someone else 16% 16% Not working 34% Looking for work 8% In your own As an business employee for 2% someone else In a family 58% farm 29% In a family Looking for farm work 16% In a business 5% operated by a In your own Studying household business 8% 4% 3% 10 6 in 10 migrant households reported a decline in the migrant's income Changes in income since the Covid-19 outbreak (mid-March) % reduction in income LSMS ID Poor LSMS IDPoor Increased 0 Don't Increased Don't 4% know 6% know 3% 8% -10 Stayed Stayed the same the same -20 26% 28% % -30 Reduced 65% Reduced -40 60% -42 -47 -50 11 7 in 10 migrant households have received remittances, but the amount of remittances has declined Received remittances since the Changes in remittance since the Covid-19 outbreak (mid-March) Covid-19 outbreak 100 LSMS Don't IDPoor Increased know Increased 5% 2% 80 76 73 60 Stayed the same % Stayed 36% 40 Reduced the same 54% 41% Reduced 61% 20 0 LSMS ID Poor 12 Declines in household income slowed, but income losses remained widespread for most income sources How has your income from … changed ? Income Assista from househ farm farming, from nce domesti old family livestoc R1 62 36 1 nces ment of Non- Family fishing properti from c and membe busines k or R2 32 65 2 R1 82 18 1 s R2 68 27 5 R1 Remitta employ 63 35 2 Wage income GO Pension es family abroad rs R2 50 46 5 R1 75 22 3 R2 58 37 6 R1 74 22 4 R2 30 63 7 R1 59 41 0 R2 19 52 28 R1 0 89 11 R2 0 78 22 R1 househ Govern Assista old ment/N 43 53 4 from nce Total the R2 8 50 42 R1 83 15 1 R2 63 29 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % Reduced Stayed the same Increased Source: LSMS Sample 13 Declines in household income slowed, but income losses remained widespread Changes in household income between May and August 16 15 16 15 16 29 33 29 27 31 83 85 83 84 83 63 61 63 64 61 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 Cambodia Urban Rural Bottom 40 Top 60 Reduced Stayed the same Increased Source: LSMS Sample 14 Increased coverage of SA: 9 in 10 IDPoor households have received social assistance since June 2020 Share of social assistance Sources of social assistance Types of social assistance beneficiaries since last interview 2% 1% 1% 1% 8% 100 89 91 80 60 50 % 40 30 20 90% 0 97% Food LSMS ID Poor Government NGO Direct cash transfers Round 1 Round 2 Religious body Other Other in-kind transfers (excluding food) Source: IDPoor Sample Source: IDPoor Sample 15 Social assistance programs Eligibility criteria Transfer amount COVID-19 related Social Assistance Programs Cash transfer program for poor IDPoor households (See next slide) and vulnerable households Unemployment benefits for Garment and tourism workers in US$70 per month for two months suspended workers in garment the formal sector (US$40 paid by the government, and tourism sector and 30$ paid by the factory) Non-COVID-19 related Social Assistance Programs Conditional cash transfer for IDPoor households US$190 for 1000 days pregnant women and child under 2 Home grown school feeding All household with children in the program targeted schools Scholarship program Performance based (school) IDPoor households (government) 16 Relief cash transfer program for poor and vulnerable households during COVID-19 Phnom Penh Other urban Other rural ID Poor 1 ID Poor 2 ID Poor 1 ID Poor 2 ID Poor 1 ID Poor 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 17 Relief cash transfer program dominates SA; but beneficiaries of cash transfer programs for pregnant women also continue receiving their benefits Types of Program ID Poor 62 29 LSMS 71 3 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Cash transfer program for poor and vulnerable household Cash transfer program for pregnant women and child under 2 Relief program from the local government Home grown school feeding program Other 18 Relief cash transfer program has reached many IDPoor HHs, but a small proportion are still uncovered 100 10 Did you register at commune Why did you not register? 14 council to receive the transfer? 80 20% 26% 60 % 86 90 40 53% 27% 20 74% 0 Yes No Unaware of the program LSMS ID Poor Didn’t know the transfer is for them Transfer No transfer Other Source: IDPoor Sample Source: IDPoor Sample 19 Take-up is high (97 percent) among those who registered for the relief cash transfer program 100 97 95 97 96 98 96 96 97 80 60 % 40 20 0 All Male Female Phnom Plain Tonle Sap Coastal Plateau Penh and and urban Mountain areas All Gender Region Source: ID Poor Sample 20 Cash transfers frequency and amounts as expected: Beneficiaries received an average of US$113 from the relief cash transfer program since June 2020 How many times did you receive the transfer so far? How much did you receive in total? 4% 150 $136 $113 100 $91 USD 43% 53% 50 $47 0 1 time 2 times 3 times 1 time 2 times 3 times Total Source: IDPoor Sample 21 Most households spend the cash transfers on food, a significant portion also spend on essential items What did you do with the money that you received? 100 Food 98 58 Other essential items 47 15 Paid back loan 12 2 Other 13 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % ID Poor LSMS 22 Markets continue to function well ensuring food availability remains robust In the last 7 days, was your household able to buy… ID Poor 100 100 Rice 98 LSMS 100 Fish or meat ID Poor 100 100 LSMS 99 100 Vegetable or ID Poor 100 100 fruit LSMS 99 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % Round 1 Round 2 Note: the proportion difference between round 1 and round 2 23 Most households were able to access health services between May and August In the last 7 days, was your household able to buy Since the last interview, have you or any household medicine…? members …? 100 100 2 2 30 34 80 80 44 45 57 55 60 73 60 60 % 98 100 100 98 % 40 40 69 66 55 56 20 39 20 42 45 26 0 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 0 R1 R2 R1 R2 LSMS ID Poor LSMS ID Poor LSMS ID Poor Need medical treatment Access medical treatment Yes No Not try Yes No 24 9 in 10 households had children attending school before the school closures due to COVID-19 “Before the school closures due to COVID-19, have children aged 6-17 attended school …? ” LSMS IDPoor No No 8% 11% Yes Yes 92% 89% 25 The share of households with children engaged in learning activities increased since May 2020 In the last 7 days, have the children engaged in Types of education or learning activities… education or learning activities? Listened Watched apps assignem Met with 66 teacher ID Poor 82 90 LSMS 20 66 Complete ID Poor 45 44 ent 80 d 80 LSMS 29 76 32 75 29 learning ID Poor Mobile 70 14 69 68 % 70 58 66 LSMS 32 63 63 64 62 ID Poor 24 10 TV 60 59 LSMS 47 14 2 to radio ID Poor 0 50 LSMS 3 All Urban Rural Bottom 40 Top 60 2 LSMS ID Poor 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Round 1 Round 2 Round 1 Round 2 Note: Schools were closed in mid-March and partially reopened on 7 September 2020 26 Children in the poorest households are less likely to have met with a teacher than richer households Types of education or learning activities by Types of education or learning activities by urban and rural bottom 40 and top 60 Met with teacher 45 Met with teacher 51 48 41 Listened to radio -1 Listened to radio -1 -5 -2 Watched TV -36 Watched TV -33 -33 -14 Mobile apps learning -26 Mobile apps learning -24 -28 -28 Completed assignement 2 Completed assignment -5 9 10 -50 0 50 100 -50 0 50 100 % % Rural Urban Bottom 40 Top 60 Source: LSMS Sample Note: the proportion difference between round 1 and round 2 27 Implementation plan Baseline (Round 1) May–June 2020 Knowledge, Behavior, Access, Employment, Income Loss, Food insecurity, Coping Follow-up (Round 3) mechanism, Safety Net October–November 2020 Follow-up (Round 2) August–September 2020 Access, Employment, Income Loss, Food insecurity, Safety Net, Migration Additional contributions for the HFPS was received from the Public Financial Management and Service Delivery Trust Fund contributed by Australia and the European Union. Additional contributions for the HFPS was received from the Public Financial Management and Service Delivery Trust Fund contributed by Australia and the European Union. 28 Thank you Wendy Karamba and Kimsun Tong led the Cambodia High Frequency Phone Survey (HFPS) that comprised of Maheshwor Shrestha and Sokbunthoeun So. Nuppun Research Consulting implemented the survey with technical and financial support from the World Bank. Additional 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. Contact: Wendy Karamba (wkaramba@worldbank.org) Kimsun Tong (ktong@worldbank.org)