COVID-19 Impact Monitoring Burkina Faso at the household level Brief No.6 — February 2021 KEY MESSAGES • At the start of the pandemic, a very high proportion of households Confirmed Cases of COVID-19 12000 Burkina Faso (53%) w ere food insecure. But over time, w ith the eas ing of restric- tive measures, and the economic recovery, they w ere only 26% 10000 food insecure during the sixth visit in January / February 2021; Total cases • Agricultural commercialization is not yet rooted in practices. Only 8000 one in ten agricultural households (11.9%) say they have sold part Number of people Active cases of their harvest; 6000 • In nominal ter ms, the average sale represents 80 percent of the 2018 poverty line. This income w ould therefore not be enough to 4000 live above the poverty line. For an effective fight against poverty, strong actions must therefore be carried out in order to increase 2000 agricultural income; • Three out of ten households say they have been affected by a 0 29-Dec-19 17-Feb-20 7-Apr-20 27-May-20 16-Jul-20 4-Sep-20 24-Oct-20 13-Dec-20 1-Feb-21 negative shock. In a context mar ked by a limitation of the social • protection system, most households suffer without doing anything; Tw o in five households (37.4%) believe that the state sufficiently 121 Deaths 9,397 Recovered meets their security needs. Source: INSD (as of February 1st, 2021) BACKGROUND This note presents the results of the sixth round of a nationally representative telephone survey (HFPS). The BFA Covid - 19 HFPS - Round 6 w as administered betw een January 15 and February 01, 2021. The follow ing modules w ere administered during the 6th round: Access to basic services; Employ ment and income; Agriculture; Food Safety; Shocks; and Conflicts. In addition to the 1,944 households interview ed successfully in the fifth w ave, in order to maintain the sample size, 84 other h ouse- holds w hich had not been interview ed successfully in the previous rounds but w ho had not refused to participate in the survey . the investigation w ere called during this sixth w ave. 24 households w ere excluded from the sample for the sixth w ave because they refused to participate in the fifth w ave. 2008 households (96.96% of 2,071 attempts) w ere contacted and 1,985 (95.85% ) were successfully interview ed. Among those contacted, 18 households categorically refused to be interview ed. For the sake of simplicity, this note focuses on modules related to food security, agr icultural income, shocks, and conflicts. FOOD SECURITY Dur ing Rounds 2, 3 and 4, a questionnaire module made it possible to collect answ ers to a number of questions on food security. More precisely, the questions asked make it possible to construct a measurement scale of food insecurity (FIES: Food Insecurity Ex perience Scale in English). At the start of the pandemic, a very high proportion of households (53% ) , just over half, w ere food insecure. Figure 1: Distribution of households according to the lived As demonstrated in prev ious notes, the impact of the Covid - food insecurity measurement scale 19 on employ ment and household income w as very pro- nounced at the onset of the crisis. Many lost their jobs and experienced a decline in income. Whether it is income from employ ment, non - agricultural businesses, agricultural in- July-August 2020 21.3 25.6 24.9 28.2 come, or even remittances. To deal w ith the drop in income, many have had no choice but to reduce their food consump- tion. But over time, the easing of restrictive measures, and the economic recovery, w e are w itnessing a reduction in the proportion of households that are food insecure. They w ere November-December 2020 30.7 31.7 22.1 15.6 only 26% during the sixth vis it in January / February 2021. This improvement is undoubtedly due to the combined effect of an adjustment on the part of households, but also of better incomes compared to the beginning of the crisis . It is also January-February 2021 41.0 32.7 17.4 9.0 important to note the effect of seasonality on income and access to food, especially for rural households involved in agricultural activities. Indeed, the per iod dur ing w hich the sixth w ave was implemented corresponds to the period just 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% after the agricultural harvest per iod, w hen households have Food secure Mildly food insecure Moderately food insecure Severely food insecure more access to self - produced crops. 1 Burkina Faso • COVID-19 IMPACT MONITORING AGRICULTURE Taking advantage of the crop harvest period, this sixth round of the HFPS survey asked useful questions about the farm, including crop type, area, use of inputs, and commercialization. Sorghum, corn and millet are by far the most popular crops among farmers (Figure 2). Corn cultivation is more present in urba n areas, w hile sorghum cultivation is more w idespread in rural areas. On average, a household operates 2.4 hectares of land. Th e size of farms varies slightly depending on the area of residence and the standard of living of the household. Figure 2: Main crops Figure 3: Incom e com pared to past campaigns Sorghum 100% 0.0 0.9 41.7 6.9 6.5 11.4 Maize 29.1 90% Millet 18.6 80% 38.7 39.0 Cotton 2.2 36.9 37.0 Peanut 2.1 70% 35.3 Paddy rice 2.0 Sesame 1.8 60% 13.2 11.3 Cowpea 0.8 50% 8.5 6.6 8.8 Yam 0.6 Eggplant 0.3 40% Mango 0.3 30% Okra 0.2 44.1 45.2 42.0 48.7 45.1 Other 0.1 20% Cassava 0.1 10% Cabbage 0.1 0% 4.0 2.2 4.4 0.0 2.3 chilli pepper 0.0 Potato 0.0 Urban Rural Non poor Poor Onion 0.0 Location Poverty status National Sorrel 0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 Much higher Higher The same Lower Much lower Unfortunately, agricultural commercialization is not yet rooted in practices. Only one in ten agricultural households (11.9%) say they have sold part of their harvest. The impact of Covid - 19 on farm income is mixed ( Figure 3). Compared to the prev ious crop year, a large proportion of households (47.5%) report that their income has increased. At the same time, another large propor tion (43.5%) say that their income is low er compared to past campaigns. Only 8.8% say the income is unchanged. But overall, the proportion for w hom income increased is higher than the proportion for w hom it decreased. Regarding the use of agr icultural inputs, the most w idely used inputs are animal traction (around 80% nationally) and organic ferti- lizers (76%) (Figure 4). Slightly low er are the use rates for inorganic fertilizers (about 59%) pesticides / herbicides (48%) . The use of w age labor is rather limited, especially for households in rural areas and poor households, this is probably due to the si gnificant contribution of family labor. The non - use of inputs is attributable mainly to tw o reasons: the lack of need (probably due to a lar ge contribution of family labor) and the lack of means to have these inputs (Figure 5). In particular, the economic element is s trongly present in the reasons for not using all inputs, especially for organic (57%) and inorganic (73%) fertilizers. Figure 4: Rate of use of agricultural inputs Figure 5: Reasons for not using inputs Urban Animal traction Location Rural Paid labor Poverty status Non poor Pesticide / herbicide Poor Organic fertilizer National Inorganic fertilizer 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 Engrais inorganique Engrais organique Pesticide/herbicide Travail salarié Traction animale Other Do not need to use Not enough money to buy them Price increase 2 Burkina Faso • COVID-19 IMPACT MONITORING CHOCS Dur ing the sixth round, 30 percent of households reported exper iencing at least one shock in the past four w eeks. Four types of shocks stand out w ith high scores (Figure 6). These are: (i) illness of a household member earning an income (38.1%); (ii) the increase in the price of the main foods consumed (23.7%); (iii) poor harvest due to a lack of labor (13.1%) ; and (iv) theft of crops, money, livestock or other property (10.9%). There are some notable differences depending on location and poverty status. For example, the shocks relating to the increase in the price of the main foods consumed is more pronounced f or poor and households outside the capital. Theft of crops, money, livestock or other assets affects non - poor households mor e. In a context mar ked by a limitation of the insurance system and the social protection system, most households experience thes e shocks w ithout doing anything (30.4%). 25% of households relies on help from family or friends, or on their ow n savings, and 17.2% sells their assets to cope w ith shocks (Figure 7). Figure 6: Type of shock affecting households Figure 7: Strategy adopted to cope w ith the shock Illness of an earning household member Increase in the price of the main foods… Poor harvest due to lack of labor Theft of crops, money, livestock or other… Another shock Job Loss Loss of important contact Increase in the price of inputs Lower selling price of production Bankruptcy of a non-agricultural family… Death or disability of an active adult… Death of a person sending money to the… Invasion of rodents or insects causing… 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 CONFLIT AND VIOLENCE The majority of Bur kinabè households believe that they live in a locality w here the level of security is high or very high (72.2%). But it should be noted that in Ouagadougou, only 46.6 percent of households think that the level of security is high or very high (Figure 8). The poor are more convinced of the safety of their locality compared to the non -poor. Most households (81.5%) report that the level of social relations and trust in their locality is high or very high ( Figure 9). Only 37.4% of households believe that the state sufficiently meets their security needs. Those w ho live in Ouagadougou are the least satisfied (21.3% satis- fied) w ith the actions of the state. The non - poor tend to be more demanding and consequently less satisfied (33.5% satisfied) compared to the poor (42.8% satisfied). Figure 8: Perceived level of security in the locality Figure 9: Social relations and trust in the locality Ouagadougou Ouagadougou Location Location Other urban Other urban Rural Rural Poverty status Poverty status Non poor Non poor Poor Poor Nation Nation al al 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very low Low Neutral Student Very high Very low Low Neutral Student Very high This brief was prepared by Clarence Tsimpo Nkengne, Marco Tiberti, and Prospere Backiny -Y etna from the World Bank, Zakaria Koncobo f rom the INSD, and Adama Tiendrebeogo f rom the WAEMU Commission. The team benefit- ted from useful advice and comments from Christophe Rockmore. The report was prepared with guidance f rom Souk- ey na Kane, Maimouna Mbow Fam, Kofi Nouve, Pierella Paci, Johan A. Mistiaen, Jean-Pierre Chauffour, Boureima Ouedraogo, and Jean Edouard Odilon Doamba. For further details on the data, visit http://surveys.worldbank.org/cov id-19 or http://www.insd.bf/n/ 3