Impact of COVID-19 on the welfare of rural households in Nepal (Round 2)

Impact of COVID-19 on the welfare of
rural households in Nepal (Round 2)
Muzna Alvi and Prapti Barooah (EPTD)
Funded by USAID

COVID-19 in Nepal
▪ First case: February 15, 2020
▪ October 18, 2020: 132,246 cases, 739 deaths (Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/)
▪ Complete lockdown declared on 24 March after reporting second confirmed case- Contact tracing &
isolation, testing; Airport closed, social distancing, educational institution and religious places
closed, large gatherings banned; Restrictions on public transportation and other vehicle movement
between regions
▪ 15 June onwards- businesses permitted to operate following rules of social distancing and private
vehicles allowed on odd-even basis with passenger limitations
▪ 22nd July- Nationwide lockdown lifted, inter- and intra- district movement allowed
▪ 18th August- Complete lockdown announced in Kathmandu valley and other provinces till 16th
September

Phone survey
▪ Building on a large, representative household listing survey conducted in February 2020 to identify
summer maize farmers across four rural municipalities in Dang district, Province 5, Nepal
▪ Data collected in FTF zone of influence, covering primarily women farmers (70%)
▪ Phone credit of 100 NPR offered for each completed survey
▪ First round of phone survey conducted from late June to mid-July with 759 households; second round
conducted in September with 690 households
▪ Focus on behavioral responses to COVID-19, income changes, food and nutrition security, water
security, mobility, and incidence of child marriage

Response rate
▪ The number of respondents dropped to 690 in Round 2 as compared to 759 in Round 1- an attrition
rate of 9.1%, no significant gender-based difference
▪ Out of the 759 respondents surveyed in Round 1, 69 could not be reached in Round 2 since they did
not answer the calls despite 5 call attempts
▪ Of those who received the calls and could speak then, everyone gave their consent to take part in
the interview
▪ Average call duration was 35.4 mins- phone survey time increased due to call drops and network
issues; elderly respondents took time to understand and respond to questions, often sought help
from other family members; language issues with respondents in remote villages due to regional
dialects

Issue with speaker phones turned on
▪ Only 26% respondents had their speaker phone on- no statistically significant gender-based
difference
▪ Sharp decline in proportion of respondents using speaker phone in round 2 as compared to round
1- higher level of trust may have helped
N=690; Male=200
& Female=490
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
All Male Female All Male Female
Round 1 Round 2
ShareofHouseholds
Speaker phone Not on speaker phone

Household descriptives
▪ 490 female (71%) and 200 male (29%) respondents were interviewed in Round 2
▪ Round 1 survey covered 534 female (70%) and 225 male (30%) respondents, total respondents-
759
▪ 94% of the respondents were married, Round 1- 97% were married
▪ 82% respondents are part of male-headed households
▪ Average size of household is 5 members
▪ Marginal increase in proportion of respondents relying on agriculture and livestock as their primary
occupation- the lockdown may have forced them to get engaged in agriculture
▪ Decrease in unemployment among women- women who were unemployed earlier may have taken
up productive work to support family income

Occupation of respondents
▪ More than three-fourth (80%) respondents have
reported farming or raising livestock as their main
activity- 84% female and 72% male- increased as
compared to Round 1
▪ Marginal reduction in casual labour and
wage/salaried employment
▪ Decline in proportion of female respondents who
were not employed compared to Round 1
▪ 13% respondents reported change in occupation-
of these, 27% reported this was due to the
lockdown
▪ Of those who reported change in occupation, 17% moved from casual labour/wage labour/ salaried
employment towards agriculture; 26% who were not working earlier are engaged in agriculture now-
considerable reduction in unemployment from 52% in Round 1 to 40% in Round 2; and 9% who were
engaged in casual labour/wage labour/salaried job are unemployed now
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Round 1 Round 2
ShareofHouseholds
Agriculture & livestock Casual labour
Wage/salaried job Self-employed
Does not work
N=690; Male=200
& Female=490

Occupation of spouse
▪ Nearly half (49%) spouses of respondents are engaged in
farming or raising livestock as their main activity- showing
considerably higher involvement of women as compared
to men- increased as compared to Round 1 (36%)
▪ Reduction in casual labour and wage/salaried
employment among men (spouse of female respondents)
▪ Decline in proportion of spouses of male respondents who
were not working earlier
▪ 23% spouses (primarily men) had changed their
occupation since Round 1- of these, 51% (reported this
was due to the lockdown
▪ Higher proportion of male spouses had to change their
occupation due to the lockdown (68%) as compared to
female spouses (5%)
▪ Of those spouses who had changed their occupation, 73% moved from casual labour/wage labour/ salaried
employment towards agriculture; 50% who were not working earlier are engaged in agriculture now-
unemployment reduced from 30% in Round 1 to 22% in Round 2; and 7% who were engaged in casual
labour/wage labour/salaried job are unemployed now
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Round 1 Round 2
ShareofHouseholds
Agriculture & livestock Casual labour
Wage/salaried job Self-employed
Does not work
N=648; Male=193
& Female=455

Income loss due to Covid-19
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Round 1 Round 2
ShareofHouseholds
Income loss due to COVID-19 lockdown
N: All=690, Male=200, Female=490
▪ A high proportion of households (85%) continue to suffer loss of income due to COVID-19 in Round 2
▪ Marginal decline in the proportion of respondents who reported income loss due to the COVID-19 lockdown as
compared to Round 2- no significant change could be observed

Coping mechanisms to deal with loss of income-1/2
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Round 1 Round 2
ShareofHouseholds
Use savings Borrow money Sale of assets
Government transfers NGO transfers
▪ While Round 1 saw respondents primarily using their savings
(71%) to cope with the income loss, Round 2 data shows
higher proportion of respondents sold assets (21% in Round
2 and 9% in Round 1) and borrowed money (52% in Round 2
and 50% in Round 1)- suggests severe economic stress
among households
▪ Proportion of respondents who used savings fell to 65%,
although it remains the most common coping strategy;
respondents primarily used their own savings although a
higher proportion of women reported using their spouse’s
savings as compared to men
▪ Sharp decline in support from Government in Round 2 as
compared to Round 1
▪ A significantly higher proportion of women borrowed money
to cope with the economic stress as compared to men
▪ Rotating savings scheme (41%) and neighbors/friends (35%)
were the most common sources of borrowing for both men
and women
▪ A significantly higher proportion of men borrowed money
through cooperatives (19%) compared to women (9%)

Coping mechanisms to deal with loss of income-2/2
▪ Additionally, around 73% respondents in Round 2 shared that they reduced their expenditure to cope with the income
loss due to the lockdown
o A higher proportion of men reported doing this (76%) as compared to women (66%)
▪ Respondents primarily reduced their expenditure on the following- clothing (88%), food items- mostly fruits and red
meat (60%), mobile phone top-up (39%); no significant gender-based difference in results
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Food items
Utilities
Medical expenses
Children's education
Transportation
Clothing
Mobile phone topup
Agricultural inputs
Livestock needs
Social functions/festivals
Share of Households
Expenditure reduction as a coping strategy
Female Male All

Worked in the last 7 days- Respondent
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Round 1 Round 2
ShareofHouseholds Worked in the last 7 days- Respondent
Round 1: All=642, Male=195 female=447
Round 2: All=641, Male=193, Female=448
▪ Around 89% respondents reported being involved in productive work in the last 7 days during Round 2 survey- no
gender-based difference in results and no significant change from Round 1
▪ Around 59% respondents felt that the amount of time they spent working in the last 7 days is less compared to the time
they spent working during Round 1 survey (July); around 15% felt they were spending more time working during Round
2 as compared to Round 1
▪ Among those who felt that they were spending more time, primary reasons were their involvement in agriculture (67%)
and animal husbandry (11%)
▪ Among those who felt they were spending lesser time now, primary reason was lean season for agriculture

Worked in the last 7 days- Spouse
▪ There has been a significant increase in the proportion of spouses who were involved in productive work in the last 7
days during Round 2 survey as compared to Round 1
▪ Spouses of male respondents were more actively involved in productive work in the last 7 days as compared to spouses
of female respondents
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Round 1 Round 2
ShareofHouseholds
Worked in the last 7 days- Spouse
Round 1: All=601, Male=161 female=440
0%
20%
40%
60%
All Male Female
ShareofHouseholds
Comparison of time worked by spouse in the
last 7 days
Less than before Same as before More than before
N: All=480, Male=137, female=343

Decision maker for respondent’s income
▪ 69% female respondents earned less than their
spouse while around 22% reported similar earnings
as their spouse
▪ 40% male respondents had similar earnings as their
spouse while 35% earned more than their spouse
▪ Majority of the respondents across both rounds
shared that decisions involving how to use their
personal earnings were made jointly by them and
their spouse in the past 2 weeks
▪ Men have more control over their earnings - more
involvement of spouse and other household members
for women’s earnings
▪ A slightly lower proportion of female respondents
independently decided how to use their personal
earnings in the past 2 weeks-32% male and 29%
female in Round 2
▪ No significant change across both the rounds- both
male and female
▪ No significant difference in results (both male and
female) when the speaker is turned on vis-à-vis when
it is turned off
N: All=690,
Male=200,
Female=490
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Round 1 Round 2 Round 1 Round 2 Round 1 Round 2
All Male Female
ShareofHouseholds
Respondent Spouse
Respondent and spouse jointly Other HH members
Respondent and other HH members Spouse and other HH members
All members together Respondent has no earnings

Decision maker for spouse’s income
▪ There was a sharp increase in proportion of male
respondents who reported that decisions involving
how to use their spouse’s earnings were made
jointly by them and their spouse in the past 2
weeks from Round 1 (56%) to Round 2 (68%)
▪ There was a decrease in proportion of female
respondents who reported that decisions involving
how to use their spouse’s earnings were made
jointly by them and their spouse in the past 2
weeks from Round 1 (58%) to Round 2 (51%)
▪ On the one hand, more women than men said
their spouse managed their own earnings alone;
on the other hand, a higher proportion of women
than men said that they alone decide how to use
their spouse’s earnings. Correspondingly, fewer
women said that they decide jointly with their
spouse in Round 2
▪ No significant difference in results (both male and
female) when the speaker is turned on vis-à-vis
when it is turned off
Round 1: All=610, Male=169, female=441
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Round 1 Round 2 Round 1 Round 2 Round 1 Round 2
All Male Female
ShareofHouseholds
Respondent Spouse
Respondent and spouse jointly Other HH members
Respondent and other HH members Spouse and other HH members
All members together Spouse has no earnings

Mobility: leave the house to…. in the last 2 weeks (yes)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Round 1 Round 2
ShareofHouseholds Buy food Sell food Work Medical care Group meetings Socialize Collect water
N: All=690,
Male=200,
Female=490
▪ Compared to Round 1, more respondents
went out for group meetings and to socialize
over the past 2 weeks from the date of
survey for Round 2
▪ Significantly higher proportion of
women went out for group meetings
and socializing; highest proportion of
women in Round 2 went out for group
meetings
▪ Significantly higher proportion of men
went out for socializing
▪ More than 90% respondents- both men and
women still feel that their mobility has been
impacted due to the lockdown and they are
being able to get around less
▪ Around 80% respondents in Round 2
reported that they are being able to get
fruits and vegetables for their family,
corresponding figure in Round 1 was 73%-
some improvement due to relaxation of
lockdown restrictions

Impact of COVID-19 on migration
▪ 39% migrant workers have returned due to COVID-19
during Round 2 as compared to 32% during Round 1
▪ 24% of total migrant workers who had returned due to
COVID-19 have migrated for work again, others continue
to be at home
▪ Among those who have not returned, primary reasons for
staying back include- limited transportation
facilities/closure of transport routes (31%) and fear of
COVID-19 (27%). Only 1 person was reported to have
been employed in some other job locally
▪ Only 37% households who still have family members living
outside for work (either they didn’t return, or they have
gone back) reported receiving remittances during Round 2.
This is marginally lower than the proportion of households
receiving remittances during Round 1 (40%)
▪ 3% households reported new out-migration in the last 2
months (after Round 1)- majority of the new migrant
workers were men. Among these households, 38%
reported receiving remittances
N: Round 1=86
Round 2=80
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Less than before More than before Same as before
ShareofHouseholds
Comparison of remittance received
by households after COVID-19
Round 1 Round 2

Impact of COVID-19 on agriculture extension services-1/4
▪ Before the lockdown, agro-dealers were the most common primary source of information; during Round 1, there was a
gradual shift towards traditional knowledge however, agro-dealers still remained the most common primary source of
information; during round 2, traditional knowledge has emerged as the most common primary source of information
followed by agro-dealers
▪ Neighbors or family networks have also emerged as prominent information sources after the lockdown
▪ Group meetings, which were the second most common source of information (23%), had lost its significance
considerably after the lockdown perhaps due to social distancing norms and movement restrictions. With the lockdown
being gradually lifted, they are again appearing as the primary source of information for 17% respondents during Round
2, especially among women
▪ Fewer women (compared to men) rely on government extension agents for agricultural information - before and after
the lockdown
▪ Considerably higher proportion of women as compared to men rely on information received through neighbors or family
networks - before and after the lockdown
▪ While over 50 percent men and women during Round 1 felt that quality of extension services had worsened after the
lockdown, majority of the respondents in Round 2 felt there was no change in quality and timeliness (50%), and
frequency (43%) of agriculture extension sources since Round 1
▪ Around 56 percent respondents across both rounds feel that their farm productivity has suffered as they were unable to
access timely and quality agricultural information during the lockdown

Before lockdown: All=531, Male=137,
Female=394
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Before lockdown Round 2 Before lockdown Round 2 Before lockdown Round 2
All Male Female
ShareofHouseholds
Agriculture extension sources: Before and after the COVID-19 lockdown (Round 2)
Government Agro-dealers Traditional knowledge Neighbour/family Group meetings Mass media Field training Model farmer NGO

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Before lockdown Round 1 Round 2 Before lockdown Round 1 Round 2 Before lockdown Round 1 Round 2
All Male Female
ShareofHouseholds
Primary agriculture extension sources: Before and after the COVID-19 lockdown
Government Agro-dealers Traditional knowledge Neighbour/family Group meetings Mass media Field training Model farmer NGO
Before lockdown: All=531,
Male=137, Female=394
Round 1: All=499, Male=128,
female=371
Round 2: All=554, Male=143,
Female=411

0%
20%
40%
60%
Quality & Timeliness Frequency
ShareofHouseholds
Better Same Worse
▪ Majority of the respondents felt there was no change in
quality and timeliness, and frequency of agriculture
extension sources as compared to Round 1
▪ A relatively higher proportion of respondents (32%)
reported that the frequency of information had worsened
in the last month, as compared to those reporting worse
quality and timeliness of agricultural information in the
last month (19%)
0% 20% 40% 60%
Round 1
Round 2
Share of Households
Farm suffered due to inability to access
timely and quality agricultural information
N: Round 1=531,
Round 2=554
▪ Around 56% respondents across both rounds feel that their farm
has suffered due to their inability to access timely and quality
agricultural information
▪ Majority (80%) did not receive any agricultural
information/advice from the government after the lockdown
▪ Major issues faced by respondents were- limited availability of
inputs (52%), pest attack (38%), resulting in lower quantity of
yield (25%)

Food security
▪ Considerably lesser proportion of respondents in Round 2 were worried that they would not have enough food in the household in
the past 2 weeks and reported eating less food than required
▪ Higher proportion of women across both rounds reported consuming less food than required as compared to men
▪ However, a slightly higher proportion of respondents reported that they were unable to eat healthy and nutritious food in Round 2
as compared to Round 1- this has been the most common aspect of food insecurity among respondents for both rounds
▪ There has been an increase in the proportion of respondents in Round 2 who felt that access to food had changed in the last 2
weeks- from 25% in Round 1 to 36% in Round 2
0%
20%
40%
60%
Round 1 Round 2
ShareofHouseholds
Food insecurity
Insufficient food Unhealthy food
Skip meal Consume less food
Stay hungry Food access changed
0%
20%
40%
60%
Round 1 Round 2
ShareofHouseholds
Change in food access
Unable to obtain enough food Get food from different sources
Eat different foods Eat less food
Markets were shut down Limited transport facilities
Financial constraints
Round 1: All=171, Male=31, female=140

Dietary diversity
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
ShareofHouseholds
Number of Food Groups
Round 1: Minimum Dietary Diversity Score for Women
(MDD-W)
At least 5 food groups consumed in last 24 hours
MDD-W=0
39.5%
MDD-W=1
60.5%
N=534
N=490
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
ShareofHouseholds
Number of food groups
Round 2: Minimum Dietary Diversity Score for Women
(MDD-W)
At least 5 food groups consumed in last 24 hours
MDD-W=0
42.2%
MDD-W=0
57.8%
▪ The module on dietary diversity was administered only to female respondents (490) to calculate Women’s Dietary Diversity
Score (WDDS-10) based on 10 food groups
▪ Mean WDDS-10 was found to be around 4.9; mean for Round 1 was 5.1
▪ Compared to Round 1, there has been a marginal reduction in the MDD-W in Round 2- while 60.5% women had consumed at
least 5 food groups in the last 24 hours during Round 1 survey, the corresponding figure for Round 2 is slightly lower at 57.8%

Food consumption in the last 24 hours- Round 2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Grains, roots and tubers
Pulses
Nuts and seeds
Dairy
Meat, poultry, fish
Eggs
Dark leafy greens and vegetables
Vitamin-A rich fruits and vegetables
Other vegetables
Other fruits
Share of Households
N=490

Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH)
▪ 51% of the households have access to piped water- marginally higher than Round 1 (48%); no significant
change in drinking water sources
▪ Almost all households had heard about hand washing recommendations to avoid contamination of COVID-19
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Round 1 Round 2
ShareofHouseholds
Primary source of drinking water
Piped water Dug well/bore well/water pump Water from spring

Household Water Insecurity Experience Scale (HWISE)-1/4
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Round 1 Round 2
ShareofHouseholds
Frequency of worrying about water availability
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Round 1 Round 2
ShareofHouseholds Frequency of changing plans due to water availability

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Round 1 Round 2
ShareofHouseholds
Availability of drinking water

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Round 1 Round 2
ShareofHouseholds
Frequency of not washing hands when necessary

Household conflict-1/3
▪ Another confirmatory question was added at the beginning
of this module to enquire whether respondents were in a
private space with their speaker phone turned off.
▪ Only those who said “yes” to both were interviewed this
section- 95 male and 196 female.
▪ 39% of the married respondents couldn’t be asked this
module as their speaker phone was turned on or they were
not in a private space, this has improved significantly from
Round 1 wherein 62% married respondents were not
administered this module
▪ A considerably lower proportion of respondents- both male
and female- had their speaker phone turned on as
compared to Round 1
▪ Similarly, lower proportion of respondents in Round 2 were
not in a private space
▪ No significant gender-based difference in results
Round 2: All=479, Male =151, Female=328
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Round 1 Round 2
ShareofHouseholds
Not in a private space
Speaker phone turned on
Private space with speaker phones turned off

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Round 1 Round 2
ShareofHouseholds
Disagreement with spouse in the last 2 weeks
Rarely Sometimes Often Refused
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Round 1 Round 2
ShareofHouseholds
Easily worked out everyday problems with their
spouse in the last 2 weeks
Rarely Sometimes Often Don't know Refused
▪ A significantly higher proportion of women in Round 2 reported having disagreements with their spouse “sometimes”
and there was a corresponding reduction in those saying there were disagreement “rarely”, as compared to Round 1,
no significant change in results for male respondents
▪ Respondents and their spouses were observed to be more cooperative in terms of working out everyday problems

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Round 1 Round 2
ShareofHouseholds
Been afraid of spouse in the last 2 weeks
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Round 1 Round 2
ShareofHouseholds
Been afraid of other household member in the
last 2 weeks

Child marriage
▪ Only 6% of the respondents knew about underaged girls (below 18 years) getting married since the COVID-19
lockdown, corresponding figure during Round 1 was 4%
▪ There is no difference between male and female respondents
▪ All respondents disapproved of child marriage and said that they would not marry their underaged daughter if
they were faced with a similar situation
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Scheduled
earlier
Groom's
sudden
return
Health
uncertainty
Economic
uncertainty
General
uncertainty
Eloped Don't know
ShareofHouseholds
Reasons for child marriage
Round 1 Round 2
N: Round 1=32
Round 2=40

Children’s education-1/2
▪ Respondents with children in their households between the age
of 5-18 years were asked how many children from their
household were going to school before the lockdown and how
many were enrolled in school during the lockdown (at the time
of survey)
▪ 97% households (out of 354 HHs) reported that at least one
boy and 98% households (out of 293 HHs) reported that at
least one girl from their household was attending school before
the lockdown – high enrolment, no gender-based difference
▪ Fall in school enrolment during the lockdown- 68% households
reported at least 1 boy and 67% households reported at least 1
girl to have dropped out of school during the lockdown - no
gender-based difference
▪ Dropout rate for boys- 11%
▪ Dropout rate for girls- 8%
▪ The proportion of households who reported that at least one
boy and at least one girl from their household was enrolled in
school at the time of survey reduced to 29% and 33%,
respectively
419
131
373
121
Before lockdown During lockdown
No.ofboys/girlsenrolledin
school
Boys Girls

Children’s education-2/2
▪ Out of those households who reported at least one
boy attending school before or during the lockdown
(342), 94% said they will send their son to school
after it reopens
▪ Out of those households who reported at least one
girl attending school before or during the lockdown
(288), 97% said they will send their daughter to
school after it reopens
▪ Among those who said they won’t send their children
to school after it reopens, the primary reason for not
sending was reported to be fear of COVID-19
▪ Very few children who were still enrolled in school
were attending online classes during the lockdown-
15% for boys and 8% for girls
0%
10%
20%
30%
Boys Girls
Respondents who said at least one
boy/girl from their HH is attending online
classes
N: Boys=103, Girls=98

Conclusions
▪ Households have suffered severe economic losses due to COVID-19 and it continues to affect their economic
condition
▪ To cope with the income loss, households have primarily resorted to using their savings, borrowing money and
sale of assets
▪ Remittances for most families of migrant workers have reduced
▪ Water insecurity and food insecurity does not seem to be a major problem for now
▪ Next round coming up (planned for November)
▪ Will enable us to track indicators through time

Impact of COVID-19 on the welfare of rural households in Nepal (Round 2)

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Semelhante a Impact of COVID-19 on the welfare of rural households in Nepal (Round 2)

Semelhante a Impact of COVID-19 on the welfare of rural households in Nepal (Round 2) (20)

Mais de International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)

Mais de International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) (20)

Último

Último (20)

Impact of COVID-19 on the welfare of rural households in Nepal (Round 2)