世界发展银行-Monitoring-COVID-19-Impacts-on-Households-in-Ethiopia,-Report-No.-8---COVID-19-and-the-Rural-Economy----Evidence-from-High-Frequency-Phone-Surveys_8页_1mb

Summary of "COVID-19 and the Rural Economy: Evidence from High Frequency Phone Surveys"

Core Content

This document presents findings from a high-frequency phone survey (HFPS-HH) conducted in Ethiopia between April 2020 and January 2021, focusing on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the rural economy. The survey tracked households with access to a phone, with the majority of respondents being household heads. It provides insights into how the pandemic affected rural livelihoods, particularly in terms of farming activities, livestock management, income, and access to assistance.

Main Points

1. Impact on Farming Activities

• Farming Continuity: Most rural households (over 90%) were able to plant normally between June and October 2020, with the exception of early months when mobility restrictions and lack of affordable seeds and fertilizers posed challenges.
• Income Loss: In April 2020, about 25% of rural households reported reduced income from farming. By November 2020, this number had declined, but income losses had not yet fully recovered.
• Harvesting: Only 4% of rural households reported challenges in harvesting due to the pandemic, with the main issue being the inability to hire labor. Households that sell their products had mixed expectations about production levels, while those that consume internally had more pessimistic outlooks.

2. Impact on Livestock Activities

• Livestock Ownership: Over 60% of rural households kept livestock, with cattle, sheep, goats, and poultry being the most common.
• Livestock Sales: In September 2020, 36% of households expressed a desire to sell livestock, and 90% of them were able to do so. However, only 26% received higher prices, while 37% sold at lower prices due to market disruptions and limited transportation.
• Challenges: Reduced access to markets, feed, and health services were the primary challenges faced by livestock households.

3. Assistance Received

• Limited Assistance: Few rural households received assistance during the pandemic, with only about 10% receiving help in April 2020.
• Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP): The PSNP was the most significant source of assistance, benefiting 8 million people in rural Ethiopia. However, only 5% of rural households participated in the program in April 2020, and this number dropped to less than 1% in November 2020 due to the PSNP’s seasonal transfer schedule.
• Other Assistance: Some households received support from NGOs, religious institutions, or government programs, but these were less common and fluctuated over time.

4. Coping Strategies

• Coping Mechanisms: About 11% of households relied on savings, and the same proportion reduced food consumption. Fewer households reduced non-food consumption or sold assets.
• Income Reduction: By October 2020, the percentage of households experiencing income reductions had decreased, but 60% of those affected did not implement any coping strategies.
• Vulnerability: Rural households were more vulnerable to income shocks compared to urban households, with fewer relying on savings and more doing nothing to cope.

5. Food Insecurity

• Food Insecurity Levels: Between May and October 2020, 39–46% of rural households experienced food insecurity. This was higher during the planting season and in rural areas.
• Understatement Risk: Food insecurity in rural areas might be underestimated due to the survey's focus on households with phone access, which tend to be better-off.

Key Information

• Survey Methodology: The HFPS-HH is a subsample of the 2019 Ethiopia Socioeconomic Survey (ESS), focusing on households with phone access. This sample is not representative of all rural households due to lower phone penetration in rural areas (about 40%).
• Sample Size: Over 3,249 households were surveyed across nine rounds, with 553 rural households interviewed in the final round (January 2021).
• Economic Resilience: The Ethiopian economy showed resilience over time, with employment recovering quickly to pre-pandemic levels, but many households moved to more vulnerable jobs.
• External Shocks: The pandemic's effects were compounded by the 2020 locust invasion and price fluctuations, which significantly impacted rural livelihoods.

Conclusion

Rural Ethiopia, home to 80% of the population, was relatively resilient to the initial shocks of the pandemic. While the majority of farming households continued their activities, some faced challenges due to mobility restrictions and input unavailability. Livestock activities were less affected, with most households able to sell their livestock. However, the overall impact on rural incomes was significant, especially in the early months, and assistance to rural households remained limited. The PSNP was the primary source of support, but its seasonal nature meant that it was not available during the peak of the pandemic. Rural households were more vulnerable to income shocks and had fewer coping strategies compared to urban households.

References

• Berhane G., Hirvonen K., Hoddinott J., Kumar N., Seyoum Taffesse A., Yohannes Y., Tefera M., Nishan B., Lind J., Sabates-Wheeler R., Strickland A. (2015). The Implementation of the Productive Safety Nets Programme and the Household Asset Building Programme in the Ethiopian Highlands, 2014: Program Performance Report.
• De Roo, N., De Boef, W. (2020). Rapid country assessment: Ethiopia. The impact of COVID-19 on the food system.
• Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) (2020). FAO 2020-2021 La Niña advisory.
• IFDC (2020). COVID-19 Africa Fertilizer Watch Dashboard.
• REACH (2020). Ethiopia Secondary Analysis of Market and Price Monitoring Data Following COVID-19 Restrictions.
• Wieser, C., Ambel, A.A., Bundervoet, T., Tsegay, A.H. (2020). Monitoring COVID-19 Impacts on Households in Ethiopia: Results from a High-Frequency Phone Survey of Households.
• World Bank Group (2017). International Development Association Project Appraisal Document for the Ethiopia Rural Safety Net Project.

Figures and Data Highlights

• Figure 1: Rural households with reduced income from farming activities decreased over time, bottoming out in October 2020.
• Figure 2: Over 90% of households in rural and urban areas were able to farm normally in the months following the pandemic.
• Figure 3: Mobility restrictions and limited labor availability were the main challenges during the early months of the pandemic.
• Figure 4: Unaffordability of inputs was the main reason for not planting normally, especially in early months.
• Figure 5: 64% of households affected by the pandemic during harvesting cited the inability to hire workers.
• Figure 6: Market access was the primary challenge for livestock households during the pandemic.
• Figure 7: Price drops and limited transportation were the main reasons for not selling livestock.
• Figure 8: Over 37% of livestock sales occurred at lower prices than before the pandemic.
• Figure 9: About 43–47% of rural households needed agricultural extension services, with a slight increase in receipt over time.
• Figure 10: Only about 10% of rural households received assistance in April 2020.
• Figure 11: Assistance to rural households fluctuated over time, mainly driven by free food distribution.
• Figure 12: The PSNP was the primary source of assistance, especially in the early months of the pandemic.
• Figure 13: Over half of rural households did not apply any coping strategies to manage income reduction.
• Figure 14: Food insecurity levels were highest in rural areas and during the planting season.