J U LY, 2 0 2 0 COX’S BAZAR PANEL SURVEY: RAPID FOLLOW-UP ROUND 1 IMPACTS OF COVID-19 ON FOOD SECURITY IN COX’S BAZAR: FOOD CONSUMPTION, COPING AND ASSISTANCE CBPS BRIEF 3, POVERTY AND EQUITY GP 2 This brief presents findings on consumption, coping and basic needs from the Cox’s Bazar Panel Baseline Survey (CBPS) conducted between March – August, 2019 in combination with findings from the first rapid follow-up on a sub-sample of the baseline households conducted between April-May 2020. Baseline data was collected from 5,020 households across camp and host settlements (camp settlements are defined as areas within the camp boundaries set by the government, UNHCR and IOM jointly, host settlements are defined as all areas outside of the camp boundaries within the district). A 3-hour walking distance was used as a cut-off to segregate host areas as being high and low exposure to the influx. In addition to baseline pre-COVID findings, the analysis presents updated topline statistics on the current situation of access to basic needs drawn from a rapid phone follow-up of 3,150 households across camps, high and low exposure host communities. KEY MESSAGES LOW EXPOSURE (LE) HOSTS WHO HOST COMMUNITY ACCESS TO FOOD ASSISTANCE IN CAMPS FACED SHARPER INCOME AND ASSISTANCE IS LOW, COMING HAD TO REVERT BACK TO FIXED WORK DECLINES DUE TO COVID LARGELY FROM THE GOVERNMENT COMMODITY VOUCHERS DUE TO LOCKDOWNS ALSO REPORTED MORE IN THE FORM OF BASIC FOOD COVID-19 REGULATIONS DRIVING DIFFICULTY IN ACCESSING BASIC ASSISTANCE AS PART OF THE COVID THE PERCEPTION OF REDUCED NEEDS. RESPONSE. ASSISTANCE AMONG CAMP HOUSEHOLDS. More urbanized, LE hosts faced a sharper 1 out of 7 host households report receiving contraction in economic activity than their some form of assistance since March 1, with 96 percent of camp households reported more rural, High exposure (HE) counter- three quarters being new recipients of as- receiving WFP food assistance in March but parts, in terms of work and income losses. sistance (compared with the beginning of more than half of them reported receiving In line with these findings on economic 2020) and the vast majority in the form of less food than usual from this assistance. impacts, LE hosts also report more difficul- basic food. High exposure households re- While the entitlement and caloric value of ties in meeting basic food needs during the port receiving marginally more assistance assistance provided per capita have not lockdowns, and having to borrow money to from NGOs than low exposure households. changed, the shift in modality to fixed food purchase food at higher rates than HE hosts. baskets due to new COVID-19 regulations has brought initiatives to improve nutrition- al intake and dietary diversity by the human- itarian response to a temporary halt, and may be driving these adverse perceptions. Bangladesh’s local economy started experiencing impacts of the COVID-19 crisis in early to mid-March, with the first case being reported on 7 March. A full countrywide lockdown was in place from 26 March-28 May. This brief analyzes reported consumption patterns and food coping mechanisms adopted in the pre-COVID-19 period (March-August 2019) along with broad findings on access to basic needs and assistance during the COVID-19 lockdowns (April-May 2020). CBPS BRIEF 3, POVERTY AND EQUITY GP 3 HOST COMMUNITY PRE-COVID, HOSTS REPORTED Figure 1: Median and average calorie WIDESPREAD ACCESS TO ALL BASIC consumption per capita per day among hosts FOOD GROUPS, BUT REPORTED during the baseline survey (Mar-Aug '19) C O N C E R N S O N D I E T A R Y D I V E R S I T Y. 3.200 On average, both high and low exposure 3.100 calories per capita per day host households consumed 10 out of the 12 3.000 basic food groups in the week preceding the 2.900 CBPS baseline survey1, consuming 2,240 cal- 2.800 ories per capita per day on average. Howev- 2.700 er, more than 2 out of 3 hosts reported not 2.600 being able to consume their preferred foods or having to consume limited variety of foods 2.500 Median Average due to a lack of resources across the reduced All hosts High exposure Low exposure coping strategy scale.2 Nevertheless, reports of having to resort to moderate to severe cop- ing strategies were low, suggesting that these ries per person3, whereas in low exposure ar- concerns related to the quality of food access eas this stands at 49 percent of households. rather than quantity. While the average number of food groups LOW EXPOSURE HOUSEHOLDS REPORTED consumed is the same across the two areas, HIGHER DEPRIVATION ACROSS FOOD 38 percent of host households living in low SECURITY INDICATORS PRE-COVID: exposure areas consumed fewer than 10 food LOWER CALORIC CONSUMPTION AND groups compared to 31 percent in the high D I E T A R Y D I V E R S I T Y, H I G H E R A D O P T I O N OF MODERATE TO SEVERE FOOD-COPING exposure areas.4 These low exposure house- STRATEGIES. holds also reported adopting more severe food-coping strategies at higher rates than About 60 percent of high exposure host high exposure households. households were consuming more than the WHO-recommended minimum of 2,100 calo- 1 The CBPS Baseline survey was conducted between March-August 2019. 3 For planning purposes, the World Health Organization 2 Coping Strategy Index (CSI) is a component used as a (WHO) and the U.S. Committee on International Nutrition proxy indicator of household food insecurity according to recommend that an average of 2,100 kcal per person/ the Food and Nutrition Security Conceptual Framework, per day be used as an initial planning figure. Since in addition to Food consumption scores and Household implementation of revised Memoranda of Understanding Hunger Scales. CSI is based on a list of behaviors (coping (MoUs) (UNHCR/WFP, July 2002; WFP/UNICEF, February strategies) and combines: (i) the frequency of each 1998), the three agencies have adopted 2,100 kcal as strategy (how many times each strategy was adopted?); their initial planning figure for calculating energy require- and (ii) their (severity) (how serious is each strategy?) for ments and designing food rations. households reporting food consumption problems. For the CBPS, the CSI was used to capture utilization of the 4 This could reflect underestimation of consumption due coping strategies across a 4-week recall period only, and to more food consumption away from home, which is not frequency. higher in urban areas. CBPS BRIEF 3, POVERTY AND EQUITY GP 4 Figure 2: % of host households reporting adoption of food-coping strategies in the 4 weeks preceding the baseline interview (2019) Spent a whole day and night without eating anything 7% 3% Went to sleep at night hungry 16% 16% No food to eat of any kind in house 17% 11% Had to eat fewer meals in a day 29% 26% Had to eat smaller meals than they needed 47% 42% 66% Had to eat foods that they did not want to eat 71% Had to eat a limited variety of foods 69% 69% 69% Unable to eat the kinds of foods preferred 73% Note 1: Darker bars in the figure represent high exposure hosts while the lighter bars represent low exposure hosts. The bars are classified by severity of the indicators. THESE PRE-COVID DIFFERENCES WERE shares of consumption from self-production. P O S S I B LY D R I V E N B Y F O O D P U R C H A S E Under normal circumstances, greater de- AND CONSUMPTION TRENDS INHERENT TO MORE URBANIZED REGIONS. pendence on food outside of home in urban communities contributes positively to dietary These patterns of lower caloric consumption diversity. Yet, in context of the COVID-19 cri- in more urbanized low exposure areas5 are sis and the subsequent mobility restrictions, consistent with findings from the national these market-reliant LE hosts have been ex- Household Income and Expenditure Survey posed to larger economic shocks, which have (2016) and may be driven by the fact that ur- posed threats in turn to food security. ban areas are likely to have a higher share of LOW EXPOSURE HOSTS FACED LARGER food consumed outside the home, which is WORK AND INCOME SHOCKS, WHICH not accounted for in consumption data6. Low T R A N S L A T E D I N T O G R E A T E R D I F F I C U LT Y exposure hosts are also more likely to depend IN FOOD ACCESS DURING THE COVID-19 LOCKDOWNS. on purchases for consumption while high ex- posure regions, by virtue of being more reliant 50 percent of low exposure hosts said they on agriculture, reported marginally higher were not able to purchase basic needs in the 7 days prior to the follow-up survey7 as opposed to 34 percent of high exposure hosts. Low ex- 5 According to the 2011 census, high exposure areas (comprised of Ukhia and Teknaf upazilas) accounted for posure hosts were also more likely (63 percent) 62 percent of the rural population of Cox’s Bazar, while to have had to borrow money for buying food low exposure areas (which include Cox’s Bazar Sadar) accounted for 48 percent of this rural population. Within during this period than hosts in Ukhia and the CBPS sample, 92 percent of the households in high Teknaf (49 percent). This is in line with larg- exposure areas are rural whereas in low exposure areas, er labor market shocks faced by the same, as 82 percent of the households are in rural areas. elaborated in the previous brief in the series. 6 Food away from home is not accurately measured by the standard consumption module used by the HIES and the CBPS and it is believed that this gap in measurement contributes to the rural-urban divide in consumption pat- terns observed assuming that there is higher consump- 7 The CBPS high-frequency follow-ups Round 1 was con- tion of food away from home in more urbanized areas. ducted between April-May, 2020. CBPS BRIEF 3, POVERTY AND EQUITY GP 5 Higher difficulties in basic food access in Cox’s sumption of basic foods paired with high reli- Bazar among relatively more urbanized com- ance on market purchase of food. The impli- munities have therefore evidently been driven cations of this finding for food security cannot by (i) greater labor market disruptions and be directly measured through phone surveys losses in purchasing power;8 and (ii) limited at this time. scope for reliance for self-production and con- A SMALL SEGMENT OF THE HOST COMMUNITY REPORTED RECEIVING ASSISTANCE, L A R G E LY F R O M T H E G O V E R N M E N T A N D I N T H E F O R M O F B A S I C F O O D . 15 percent of the hosts reported receiving some form of assistance since March 1; three fourth of this assistance was newly received i.e. not part of previously running programs.In line with CBPS baseline findings, more than 90 percent of this assistance came from the government. High ex- posure hosts were marginally more likely to receive assistance from NGOs than low exposure hosts. 75 percent of the assistance received was through distribution of food and other basic needs, 22 percent through work or jobs programs where in-kind basic needs assistance was pro- vided and 3 percent received cash transfers. A source of the NGO assistance is WFP, they started a district-wide support program for vulnerable hosts due to COVID-19. This support includes in- kind food transfers and cash transfers. RECENTLY DISPLACED ROHINGYA baseline survey10 ii) the produce available in Cox’s Bazar may be different from what the Rohingya NUTRITION AND DIETARY DIVERSITY consumed in Myanmar leading to dissatisfaction WERE MAIN PRE-COVID CONCERNS FOR regarding access to preferred foods. THE CAMP POPULATION LIVING UNDER UNIVERSAL FOOD AID COVERAGE. Figure 3: Access to different food groups in Despite higher than adequate calorie intake per camps, share of households in camps, CBPS capita, at baseline (March-August 2019), more baseline than 90 percent of Rohingya households in camps Milk and milk 14% reported not being able to either consume their products Meat 34% preferred foods or having to consume a limited Eggs 56% variety of foods due to lack of resources, which Fruits 64% is consistent with their high dependence on the Oils and fats 70% Legumes, nuts and seeds limited variety of foods received through aid. 85% White tubers and roots 94% This could be explained by two factors: i) households Fish and other seafood 98% Sweets 100% in camps are overwhelmingly dependent on food Vegetables 100% aid , which is able to only provide a more limited 9 Spices,condiments 100% and beverages basket of food, particularly at the time of the Figure 1: Share of employment sectors, by gender, among hosts Cereals 100% 8 Cox’s Bazar Panel Survey: Rapid Follow-up Brief: Impacts of COVID-19 on Work and Wages in Cox’s Bazar, Poverty and Equity GP, World Bank. 9 CBPS Brief V: Food consumption and access for the Host and Rohingya populations in Cox’s Bazar 10 The CBPS was conducted between March-August 2019. According to the UNHCR-WFP Joint Assessment Mission (JAM) Report 2019, as of March 2019, about 65 percent of the refugee population was receiving their food entitlements through in-kind modality which consists of rice, lentils and oil only but providing the daily requirement of 2,100 kcal per person per day. 21 percent of the population received complementary food vouchers in addition to in-kind provided by a range of food security partners which added vegetables, eggs, fish and spices to the basket for targeted vulnerable households. CBPS BRIEF 3, POVERTY AND EQUITY GP 6 MAJOR INITIATIVES TAKEN BY THE HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE TO ADDRESS GAPS IN DIETARY DIVERSITY AND NUTRITION HAVE BEEN STALLED DUE TO COVID 19. Figure 4: % of camp households reporting adopting of food-coping strategies in the 4 weeks preceding the interview, CBPS baseline Spent a whole day and night without eating anything 3% Went to sleep at night hungry 20% No food to eat of any kind in house 15% Had to eat fewer meals in a day 38% Had to eat smaller meals than they needed 58% Had to eat foods that they did not want to eat 93% Had to eat a limited variety of foods 91% Unable to eat the kinds of foods preferred 94% The transition to WFP’s SCOPE value-voucher modality, which allows for more dietary diversity (20 items: 12 fixed, 8 flexible) was underway during the CBPS baseline survey period. By March 2020, right before the government lockdowns were initiated, 72 percent of the population had transitioned to value-voucher modality. In addition, WFP, in collaboration with Relief Interna- tional had also piloted a farmer’s market in select camps to provide greater access to a variety of foods while also allowing small host-community farmers to sell their produce in camps as an extension of the aid delivery system. From 26 March onwards however, accessory operations such as farmers’ markets were halted, and camps shifted to an essential operation only modality with all camp residents now reverting to receiving commodity voucher: a fixed food basket with consideration to broad food preferences and nutritional value. THE SHIFT IN MODALITY HAS LED clearly been enhanced in camps in response TO PERCEIVED REDUCTION OF FOOD to the crisis with 13 percent of households re- ASSISTANCE IN RESPONSE TO THE COV I D - 1 9 PA N D E M I C . porting receiving more services than usual. 96 percent of camp households reported get- ting food assistance from WFP in March 2020 Figure 5: Assistance received by camp but more than half of them reported receiv- households in March-April 2020, and perceived amounts received in comparison to ing “less food” than usual. This perception of pre-COVID 19 periods less food than before is possibly driven by the 100 shift of modality, where a fixed basket of food 90 seems more restrictive despite containing the 80 same total monetary and caloric value of food 70 60 entitlement received in the value-voucher mo- 50 dality which provides more flexibility in basket 40 composition. 30 20 10 Despite restrictions in the modality of food as- 0 sistance delivery, there is evidence of strength- WFP Hygiene/sanitation Health Rent/Shelter Food kits, WASH Assistance assistance ened delivery of WASH services to mitigate the Assistance assistance potential spread of the Coronavirus. Hygiene Less Same More and sanitation assistance mechanisms have