Docstoc

CLIENT HOUSEHOLDS PROFILE 2007

Document Sample
CLIENT HOUSEHOLDS PROFILE 2007 Powered By Docstoc
					CLIENT HOUSEHOLDS
    PROFILE 2007
                                                               Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 2

Sampling and Methodology........................................................................................................................... 4

Village Profile ................................................................................................................................................ 8

Client Profile................................................................................................................................................ 11

    Demographics and AMK Household information.................................................................................... 11

    Household Inflows and Income Sources (last 12 months) ..................................................................... 12

    Household Outflows and Expense Sources (last 12 months) ................................................................ 15

    Cash-flow analysis: Seasonality of Household inflows & Outflows ........................................................ 17

    Household Assets................................................................................................................................... 20

    Household Vulnerability .......................................................................................................................... 24




                            AMK - SOCIAL AND MARKET RESEARCH REPORT
 THIS REPORT HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY AMK'S TRAINING, RESEARCH AND MARKETING (TRAM) DEPARTMENT.
KHLOK BOTTRA WROTE THE REPORT, EXCEPT FOR THE SAMPLING SECTION (WRITTEN BY OLGA TORRES) AND THE
VILLAGE PROFILE SECTION (DRAFTED BY DITH SAMNANG AND LY ROTTANAK). DITH SAMNANG AND LY ROTTANAK
 CONDUCTED THE FIELDWORK AND PROVIDED ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS. FLORENCE MILAN PRODUCED THE SYNTAX.
                         VONG PHEAKYNY ALSO CONTRIBUTED TO THE ANALYSIS.




              AMK – TRAM                                                 AMK Client Profiles 2007                                          Page 1
Executive Summary

This report describes the profile of 300 AMK client households based on the household cash-flow survey
for 2007. This profile applies simple descriptive statistics and it is based on the following six main
categories of analysis:

       Demographics: Most of AMK clients in the sample are married women. Their average age is 41
       years, 62% are literate and only 10% could attend secondary school. The average household
       size is 5.4 members; a little over half of these are adults and 3.4 are income earners. Of the
       children living in AMK client households, about 51% are in school, 22% are not in school and
       27% are not yet of school age. There is no gender difference in the children currently in school,
       but the drop-out rate for girls is higher than boys (27% vs. 18%), which is consistent with the
       Cambodia Inter-Censal Population Survey 2004. AMK clients and AMK heads of household are,
       on average, under-educated with their average years of schooling lower than the figures found in
       the Cambodia Socio-Economic Survey (2004). Also, women had access to fewer years of formal
       education than men.

       Cash inflow sources: Rural households depend on a mixed array of diverse and complementary
       activities. Nearly every household is involved in farm and non-farm as well as other economic
       activities. Farming activities such as crops, livestock and CPRs are one of the main cash earners
       for most households, particularly rice farming. Non-farm activities are often ranked as the first
       main cash inflow source, particularly casual labor, salaried employment, petty trade and food
       processing. Other economic activities include mainly loans and remittances. Salaried
       employment, although not as common as casual labor, is one of the most important cash earners
       for those households.

       Cash outflow sources: Food is one of the main expenses and often the first ranked expense,
       indicating the relative poverty of the households. Main outflows include expenses on basic needs
       (especially food and schooling), investments in farm and non-farm activities, ceremonies, loan
       payments, health-related expenses and expenditures on household materials and assets.
       Interestingly, investments on farm-activities are rarely the first main expense in the household,
       with non-farm activities more likely to be ranked first in the yearly household expenses.
       Households often mention expenses in loan payments, ceremonies, clothing, health, schooling,
       but comparatively they represent only a small share of the household yearly outflows.

       Cash-flow patterns: There are seasonality patterns of inflows and outflows in rural households.
       The months with higher cash inflows are December to March and the months with lowest cash
       inflows are August and September. Crops contribute to the high cash income pattern during the
       harvest season (December and January). Livestock sales increase in March and CPRs collection
       are mainly in February and March. Non-farm activities such as casual or salaried labor,
       manufacturing, services and petty trade present rather large and constant income flows for the
       whole year. Cash outflows in the household show similar patterns as cash inflows. Food is the
       most important outflow and accounts for the largest cash expense in the households. The main
       seasonal variation is linked to ceremonies such as wedding, traditional and religious rituals
       (especially from December to May) and investments in crop production (from May to July). Non-
       farm investments and expenditures on health and schooling are important and happen throughout
       the year. Expenses on livestock inputs or CPRs and loan servicing are constant throughout the
       year and comparable in size with investments in crop production.

       Assets: About 94% of the households own cultivable land, with over half reporting only one plot.
       However, land is not evenly distributed among households, with 62% owning land less than 1.74
       Ha, the average land area. A little over half of the households could produce enough rice to be
       self-sufficient. Regarding other assets, 58% own cows, 42% own pigs and 9% own buffaloes and
       all of the households own at least one asset of relatively modest value (worth less than $100).



        AMK – TRAM                            AMK Client Profiles 2007                    Page 2
        About half of AMK client households live in ‘permanent houses’ and most houses are in good
        condition and built on stilts, with a zinc/tin roof and either wood or thatch walls, but about 92%
        lack toilet facilities. Only 45% of the households could afford health care without having to borrow
        money or sell assets and only 14% expect all of their school-age children to complete secondary
        school. Generally, AMK clients have good relationship with others in their communities.

        Vulnerability: Compared to last year, half of the households thought their economic situation
        stayed the same, 34% thought it improved and 13% thought it worsened. When the household
        yearly income decreased, this was due mainly to sickness in the household (32%), poor
        agricultural season (27%) or natural disasters (19%). It is noted that household diets did not
        worsen proportionally with income decrease, with only 9% stating that their diets worsened
        compared with 13% whose economic situation worsened. In addition, 29% of the households
        surveyed went through a difficult situation in the last 12 months. The crises include family matters
        (19%), business trouble (10%) and external shocks (5%). To cope with these crises, the
        households applied different coping strategies: 14% of the households increased their economic
        activities; 13% spent past savings; 12% borrowed money or gold; and another 6% had to reduce
        consumption or sell assets. Nearly all of the households reported some or a lot of difficulty in
        paying large expenses, and only 5% could afford large expenses with no difficulty.

These client profile results are comparable with the results of the Client Profile produced in 2005 except
for the following features:
         Drop-out rates for children were higher in 2007 than in 2005, however no definite assertions on
         poverty levels can be made because the survey tools applied different questions for this particular
         section.
          AMK client households in 2007 show proportionally more permanent and semi-permanent
         housing and less temporary structures than the ones in 2005 and from the CIPS 2004, where
         there were more permanent and temporary housing and less semi-permanent housing.




        AMK – TRAM                              AMK Client Profiles 2007                      Page 3
Sampling and Methodology

This study is based on a sample of 375 households collected between February and May 2007 in 9
provinces. Of the 375 households, 300 households are AMK clients and the other 75 are non-clients. In
each of the nine provinces, a random sample of AMK clients and non-clients was selected in the ratio of 4
to 1 as shown in the table below. Note that for AMK clients, only new client households were interviewed.

The final sampling design was decided in 2005 and reflects that growth of AMK in order to keep the
original sampling of 2006 representative. Concretely, since there was a growth of 83.5% in total group
clients from 2006 to 2007, it was necessary to interview approximately 300 clients (i.e. 83% of the original
360 sample of exiting clients collected in 2006).1

The sampling methodology used is a two-stage random selection process resulting in a self-weighting
sample. In the first stage, 25 villages have been randomly selected proportionate to the size of new client
population in all of AMK operational areas.2 In the second stage, in each of the 25 villages, 12 clients
were randomly selected applying simple random sampling. The 25 villages were chosen from the list of
all VBs with more than 14 active clients as of 31 December 2006.3

Table a below shows the results of the first stage, with the distribution of the sample by province. First,
AMK determined the minimum 19 villages proportional to provincial distribution of VBs with new clients by
using only the integers and dropping the decimals in the distribution. Secondly, the remaining 6 villages
were chosen randomly among the total list of new clients in all provinces, selecting 6 random numbers
from the cumulated list of all new clients in all provinces and picking the 6 villages that contained each
client. Random numbers were selected within the boundaries of the cumulated list of clients (i.e. the sum
of clients over the list) in order to avoid biases towards clients from smaller VBs; otherwise smaller and
larger VBs would have had the same probability of being selected.

                          Table a: Distribution of the sample (% in parenthesis): Selection of Villages
                                  Existing Total                                       Village Sample
                                   NEW Group              Villages                               Additional
                                                                            Initial Villages                               Total
                                      Clients           Proportional                               Villages
                                                                              [Stage 1-a]                                 Villages
                                     (Dec.06)             Sample                                 [Stage 1-b]
Banteay Meanchey (BMC)              2,017 (6%)               1.5                    1                  1                       2
       Battambang (BTB)            3,961 (12%)               2.9                    2                  1                       3
  Kampong Cham (KCH)               4,918 (14%)               3.6                     3                 2                       5
Kampong Chhnang (KHH)               2,723 (8%)               2.0                     1                                         1
   Kampong Speu (KSP)               2,593 (8%)               1.9                    1                  1                       2
   Kampong Thom (KTH)              6,388 (19%)               4.7                     4                                         4
Oddar Mean Chey (OMC)               3,000 (9%)               2.2                     2                                         2
            Pursat (PST)            2,158 (6%)               1.6                    1                  1                       2
        Siem Reap (SRP)            6,579 (19%)               4.8                     4                                         4
                    Total             34,337                                        19                 6                       25


In the second stage, in each village 12 clients were chosen using simple standard sampling, i.e. equal
probability of being selected. Table b below shows the summary of sampled clients by province.




1
  The total figure of group clients as on 31/Dec/05 was 34,697 and the total figure of group clients as of 31/Dec/06 was 63,668.
2
  25 villages were selected because it is estimated that two-member teams can interview 12 clients per village per day (in addition to
3 non-clients) as will be described shortly.
3
  Due to the characteristics of AMK group loans, it is possible to have less than 14 clients who are active in a given date in a Village
Bank. The sampling requires an absolute minimum of 14 households for fieldwork (12 client households plus 2 replacements).



          AMK – TRAM                                        AMK Client Profiles 2007                                  Page 4
                                    Table b: Summary Sample Distribution (% in parenthesis)
                                                                                   Sampling
                    Existing Group Clients                  Number of
                                                                          AMK Clients       Non-clients          Total
                                                             Villages
            BMC                               2,017 (6%)         2          24 (8%)         6                    30 (8%)
             BTB                             3,961 (12%)         3         36 (12%)         9                   45 (12%)
            KCH                              4,918 (14%)         5         60 (20%)         15                  75 (20%)
            KHH                               2,723 (8%)         1          12 (4%)         3                    15 (4%)
             KSP                              2,593 (8%)         2          24 (8%)         6                    30 (8%)
             KTH                             6,388 (19%)         4         48 (16%)         12                  60 (16%)
            OMC                               3,000 (9%)         2          24 (8%)         6                    30 (8%)
             PST                              2,158 (6%)         2          48 (8%)         12                   60 (8%)
             SRP                             6,579 (19%)         4         24 (16%)         6                   30 (16%)
            Total                                 34,337        25        300 (100%)        75                 375 (100%)


On average, it took 58 minutes to travel from the branch office to the villages with small variations among
provinces: villages were more remote in BMC and SRP provinces (with averages of 103 and 84 minutes
respectively) and more easily approached in OMC (with 8 minutes of travel time). Average travel time
was 69 minutes in KCH; 59 minutes in KTH: 57 minutes in PST; 44 minutes in KSP; 30 minutes in KHH
and 27 minutes in BTB. The distribution of time traveled to reach the villages is shown in Graph A below.


                    Graph A: Histogram of Minutes from Branch to Location (MFBL)

                                    80




                                    60
                        Frequency




                                    40




                                    20




                                                                                          Mean = 57.88
                                                                                          Std. Dev. = 28.236
                                     0                                                    N = 375

                                         0      20     40     60     80      100    120
                                                              MFBL



Once in the village, information on who of the pre-selected client sample is present at the village at the
time of the interview (and thus, the number of clients that had to be chosen from the replacement list) was
facilitated by AMK’s Village Bank President (VBP). The first interviewee was introduced by the VBP but
subsequent households were introduced by the previous interviewee. Note that while the VBPs helped
identify non-client s’ dwellings, the selection was random and performed by the fieldwork team.

Finally, the interviewees were informed how the research department is different from the regular
operations department and assured the interviewees that their information would be treated with complete
confidentiality. Clients who were pre-selected but quit between 31 December 2006 and the actual time of
the survey were only interviewed if they stated their desire to borrow again within the next 6 months (i.e. if
they were classified as “dormant” clients as opposed to “deserting” clients). Other clients that exited AMK



        AMK – TRAM                                             AMK Client Profiles 2007                                  Page 5
between 31 December and the time of the fieldwork were dropped from the list and the fieldwork team
choose another client from the replacement list.

The average replacement rate was 20% and it is mainly due to the nature of rural villages in Cambodia:
often many households are absent at one particular time or season of the year.4 This is because they are
busy in the fields, because they migrated temporarily or they are attending a local celebration (wedding,
funeral, etc) or they share transport to attend the nearby market. While it is common to prepare 2
replacements for each 12 clients, in this study 13 randomly selected replacements have been included for
each 12 randomly selected client households. By establishing a longer list of potential replacements,
random selection of clients can be assured.

In each village, the same proportion of client-non-client households was interviewed: 3 non-client
households for every 12 client households. The non-client households are not currently AMK clients and
thus they may borrow from other MFIs or informal lenders. Non-client households were selected
randomly within the village: in each village one member of the team selected one non-client and the
other team member selected two non-clients. The VBPs provided the information of the location of non-
client dwellings and households were randomly selected making sure they were not close together. This
is believed appropriate as villages in rural Cambodia have no spatial clustering of wealth. The specific
procedure for the random walk during 2007 fieldwork was the following: one team member was to
interview after her/his allotted 3rd and 6th client, while the other team member was to interview after
her/his allotted 3rd client only. Note that the 3rd client would be the 3rd dwelling but that the 6th client
would be the 7th dwelling in the sequence of interviews. They chose a house to the left of the client
household they just interviewed (one team member choose left when facing the main door of the dwelling
and the other team member choose left from his sitting position in the interview from the previous client).
All exceptions to these rules have been documented to facilitate searching for the non-client households
in following years.5 In addition, during 2007 description of the non-client dwelling were added to the
questionnaire for most villages in 2007 in order to facilitate finding the non-client household in the future.6

Graph B shows the map of Cambodia providing the overall distribution of the sample throughout the
country.




4
  There is no noticeable difference in replacement incidence by interviewer (64 cases for Rottanak and 61 cased for Samnang). The
replacement figures by province are: BMC (25%); BTB (28%); KCH (22%); KHH (25%); KSP (25%); KTH (21%); OMC (17%); PST
(15%); SRP (13%).
5
  Specifically the exceptions were:
- For Sambuor, Poy Char, Phnum Srok village in BMC, the 1 village in KHH, the 2 villages in KSP, the 2 villages OMC and the 4
villages in SRP, the 2006 random walk rule applied. These villages coincide with the beginning of the 2007 fieldwork before the
random walk rule was updated.
- In Prey Totoeng, Ou Ta Ki, Thma Koul, BTB non-client s dwellings were not necessarily on the left of corresponding client dwelling
because there was no dwelling on the immediate left or there was nobody in the non-client household to interview. Thus, the
interviewer kept on turning left until an available non-client dwelling was found. The rest of the 2007 random walk rule applied
normally.
                                                                                                              th
- In Nikom Khnong, Chrouy Sdau, Thma Koul, BTB, on of two first non-client dwelling was chosen after the 4 client (instead of the
  rd         rd                                                       rd
3 client / 3 dwelling). This is because the dwellings of clients 3 and 4rth are very near. The other non-client dwellings where
chosen according to the 2007 random walk rule.
                                                                                                          th                      rd
- In Tnoat village, Trea commune, Baray district, KTH, both non-client dwellings were chosen after the 5 client (instead of the 3
          rd              th          th                                                rd  th      th
client / 3 dwelling and 6 client / 7 dwelling). This is because the dwellings of the 3 , 4 and 5 clients were all nearby (very
close to each other).
6
  The only exceptions are the following 5 villages: Sambour, Poy Char, Phnum Srok, BMC (2 with descriptions and 1 with no clear
location); Kruos, Rolea B’ier, Rolea B’ier , KHH (3 locations unknown); Chob, Khnar Pou, Soutr Nikom, SRP (2 with descriptions and
1 location unknown); Phnum Dei, Trapeang Thum, Prasat Bakong, SRP (1 with descriptions and 2 locations unknown); and Lvea,
Trapeang Thum, Prasat Bakong, SRP (1 with descriptions and 2 locations unknown).



          AMK – TRAM                                      AMK Client Profiles 2007                                Page 6
             Graph B - Geographical Distribution of the Total Sample




AMK – TRAM                         AMK Client Profiles 2007            Page 7
The survey tool is AMK’s household cash-flow survey, which was designed in 2005 and was
applied to the sample of 2006 as well as this sample in 2007. In addition to the household
cash-flow survey, a community survey was completed for all villages where fieldwork took
place.7 The most interesting highlights are described in the following section.


Village Profile

In addition to the household cash-flow survey, a community survey was completed for all
villages where fieldwork took place. This information was provided by the Credit Officer
and/or Area Manager in charge of the particular village. The objective is to provide a general
overview of the communities/villages where fieldwork took place and covered four main
areas: demographics of the community; credit providers; infrastructure; and incidence of
natural or non-natural disasters. Each of these will be summarized below in bullet points:

1) Location and general demographics of the village
         In 76% of the villages the roads were in good condition while bad and excellent roads
         were 12% each.
         The average number of households in a village is 217, which a maximum of 934 and
         minimum of 51 households. The average size is 4.8 persons per household.
         Both farm and non-farm activities are the main economic activities of the households.
         In more than 75% percent of villages (19 out of 25 villages surveyed) people migrate
         more than 3 months a year. Villagers migrate to domestic or international
         destinations to find jobs during periods of inactivity for their main economic activities
         (mainly January to May).

2) Finance providers
There are MFIs/MFOs operating in 80% of all villages surveyed. Their presence is detailed in
Table 1 below. In addition, 4 villages (16%) had more than 10 clients using the services of
informal credit/finance activities such as money lenders or in-kind traders.

                                   Table 1: MFIs/MFOs by provinces
                                        BMC      BTB     KCH     KHH     KSP     KTH     OMC      PST     SRP
    Licensed MFIs
    Prasac
    TPC
    Amret
    Credit
    Hatha Kaksekar
    Vision Fund
    CEB
    Other MF operators
    Racha
    CCFF
    SKIP
    LWF
    Entean Rong Roeung                             (
    North-West Development                         (
    Okenden                                (

3) Basic infrastructure
Villages where fieldwork took place seem poor in terms of facilities regarding
healthcare or secondary school facilities, as detailed in table 2 below. Markets in the

7
 The characteristics and details of the household’s cash-flow survey and the community survey can be found in the
server at Z:\Research\Research - Finalized Reports and Studies\2006 and before\2006\AMKSurveyTools.pdf.



    AMK – TRAM                                     AMK Client Profiles 2007                             Page 8
villages are usually small and traditional (selling meat, fish and vegetables and open
only in the morning or the evening). There are only 4 villages (16%) with a market or
bazaar and most villagers buy fertilizers or pesticides from outside their villages
(usually in the commune or district market). In 18 villages (72%) there are services
available for livestock or agricultural activities. There are 6 villages (24%) with
access to electricity; in other villages people use kerosene or battery lamps. There is
only 1 village with access to piped drinking water and most of villagers use water
from rain water, well, pond or river. It is interesting to note that all villages surveyed
have access to network coverage for mobile phone.

                                  Table2: Distances to all infrastructures.
                                                                 Distance to all infrastructures (Km)
                    Facilities                     Freq     %        Avg     Median      Mode      Std.     Min     Max
       Referral Hospital                               0        0%   10.5          10         5     6.94     0.5      25
        Health Center                                  2        8%   5.15            4        3     4.31     0.5      15
        Private Clinic with midwife                   20     80%         3           3        3     2.47     0.5          7
        Primary School                                12     48%     2.57            3      0.1     2.25     0.1          7
        Lower Secondary School                         2        8%   5.66            5        5     4.81     0.2      20
        Upper Secondary School                         0        0%   9.36            7        5     7.97       1      40
         Market/bazaar/trading center                  4     16%     4.93            5        5     3.45     0.5      12
         Shop for pesticide…                           5     20%     6.68            5        5     5.07     0.5      20
         Livestock/Agricultural worker                18     72%       7.3           5        5    10.38     0.1      30
         Access to Electricity                         6     24%       9.5           7       20     6.92     1.5      20
         Access to piped drinking water                1        4%      23         20        20    20.38     0.5      70
        Access to network for mobile phone            25    100%

In addition, during the past 24 months, the 11 villages (44%) accessed or benefited from food
for work programs, ten villages (40%) from relief assistance and 11 villages (44%) have self
help groups of any kind.


4) Incidence of natural/non-natural disasters
None of the villages surveyed lost crops due to natural disasters (flood, drought, etc.) every
year but they commonly happened once in 2 to 10 years, with 52% incidence of floods and
48% incidence of droughts. However, the damage from most natural disasters has been
assessed as manageable. Non-natural disasters also affected 36% of them (9 out of 25
villages); these include land grabbing or no further access to CPR, but in 89% of the cases
this was assessed as manageable.


Comparisons of villages in 2006 and 2007
Finally, the following paragraphs compare the information between the villages surveyed in
2006 and 2007 but differentiating the results in 2007 between the 5 provinces which were
also surveyed in 2006 and the remaining 4 provinces surveyed only in 2007.8

8
    For the 5 common provinces, the survey took place in 13 villages in 2007 and 30 villages in 2006 as detailed below:
    Provinces (5)                  Villages 2006 (30)                                  Villages 2007 (13)
        BMC         Boeng Veng, Prey Changha Lech, Ta Nong,             Sambour, Thmei Cheung
                    Ph’av Thmei, Ta Trai, Andoung Khlong, Svay
                    Sa, Paoy Snuol, Kouk Lun, Chhuk
         BTB        Chrey Muoy, Chhoung Tradak                          Prey Totoeng, Nikom Khnong, Sla Kram
         SRP        Pak Pan, Tnoat kambot, Anlong, Run                  Kampong Ko Pir, Chob, Phnum Dei, Lvea
         KSP        Krang Snuol, Champu Preoks, Ponhea Aong,            Yos Chour, Rovieng
                    Krang Ta Char, Prey Thum, Trapeang Antong,
                    Tang Banteay B



     AMK – TRAM                                      AMK Client Profiles 2007                                Page 9
 Table 4 shows that the villages interviewed in 2006 and in 2007 share the same basic
 characteristics, except for the number of available lenders (particularly informal lenders),
 which is likely linked to the reduced number of markets/bazaars (see grey areas). Also
 noteworthy is the lack of local health centers and the reduced number of primary schools in
 the villages of new provinces surveyed in 2007. Other smaller differences include: variation in
 incidence of flood versus drought and increased reliance on farm-based activities. However,
 given the staff growth in the last year, differences may also be due to less experienced staff
 answering the same questionnaire.


                    Table 3: Comparing Community Surveys 2006 and 2007.
                                                                            Survey 2006       Survey 2007    Survey 2007
 Area/Topic                                                                  5 common          5 common         4 new
                                                                             provinces         provinces      provinces
 Location
   Distance from Branch to Location                                            32 Km           39.77 km       39.33 km
   Road Condition (Good)                                                        77%              77%            75%
 Demographics
   Average number of households                                                 181              212             227
   Average household size                                                       5.17             4.77            4.83
   Average people migrate more than 3 months/year in a village                  93%              77%             83%
 Main economic activities
   Farm                                                                      33% (10/30)       46%(6/13)      58%(7/12)
   Non farm                                                                  67% (20/30)       54%(7/13)      42%(5/12)
 Finance providers
   Formal MFIs/MFOs (excluding ACLEDA)                                       67% (20/30)      77% (10/13)    83% (10/12)
   Informal lenders / MFOs                                                   73% (22/30)       15% (2/13)     25% (3/12)
 Basis Infrastructures
   Percentage of villages have referral hospital                              3% (1/30)          0% (0/13)     0% (0/12)
   Percentage of villages have local health center                            20% (6/30)        15%(2/13)       0% (0/12)
   Percentage of villages have private clinic with midwife or healer         93% (28/30)       77% (10/13)    83% (10/12)
   Percentage of villages have primary school                                83% (25/30)        69% (9/13)     33% (4/12)
   Percentage of villages have lower secondary school                         17%(5/30)         15% (2/13)     8% (1/12)
   Percentage of villages have upper secondary school                         3% (1/30)          0% (0/13)     0% (0/12)
   Percentage of villages have market/Bazaar/Trading Center                  90% (27/30)        31% (4/13)      8% (1/12)
   Percentage of villages have shop for pesticides, fertilizer, agro-chem     10% (3/30)        31% (4/13)     16% (2/12)
   Percentage of villages with livestock / agriculture extension service     83% (25/30)        69% (9/13)     75% (9/12)
   Percentage of villages have accessed to electricity                        13% (4/30)        15% (2/13)     33% (4/12)
   Number of villages have accessed to piped drinking water grid              0% (0/30)          8% (1/13)     0% (0/12)
   Percentage of villages have accessed to network for mobile phone          97% (29/30)      100% (13/13)   100% (12/12)
Community activities
   Food for work program                                                     37% (11/30)       46% (6/13)     42% (5/12)
   Relief assistance                                                         40% (12/30)       54% (7/13)     25% (3/12)
   Self help groups of any kind                                              43% (13/30)       38% (5/13)     50% (6/12)
Incidence of natural/non natural disasters
   Every year                                                                 3% (1/30)        8% (1/13)      0% (0/12)
   Once in 2-4 years                                                         67% (20/30)      54% (7/13)      42% (5/12)
   Once in 5-10 years                                                        30% (9/30)       31% (4/13)      50% (6/12)
   Never                                                                      0% (0/30)        8% (1/13)      8% (1/12)
   Drought/long dry spells                                                   77% (23/30)      38% (5/13)      67% (7/12)
   Flood                                                                     33% (10/30)      46% (6/13)      58% (5/12)
 Other Natural disaster                                                       27% (8/30)      46% (6/13)      42% (5/12)
 Other Non-natural disaster                                                   27% (8/30)      38% (5/13)      33%(4/12)




      PST         Tuol Thma, Buor Srangae, Snay Toul, Kandal,    Chheu Tep/Teb, Anlong Kray
                  Prey Smach, Kampeaeng, Prey Srakum




   AMK – TRAM                                  AMK Client Profiles 2007                            Page 10
Client Profile

The client profile is based on the following six categories of analysis:
           - Demographics and household information
           - Household cash inflows and sources (last 12 months)
           - Household cash outflows and sources (last 12 months)
           - Cash-flow patterns (seasonality of household inflows and outflows in the last 12
               months)
           - Household assets
           - Household vulnerability (food security, variations in income and incidence of
               crises)


Demographics and AMK Household information

This section provides demographic information on AMK client households, AMK individual
clients and heads of AMK households. The information was gathered by interviewing a
person representative of AMK households.

     1. AMK individual clients

•    87% of our interviewees are women and 13% are men. Most of the interviewees (89%)
     are AMK clients.
•    Most of our AMK clients in the sample are female (86%) and only 14% are male.9 Most of
     them are married and about 16% are widows.
•    AMK clients in the sample are on average 41 years old, with the youngest client being 19
     years old and the oldest at 74 years old.
•    Regarding their position in the family, the majority of AMK clients are spouses (61%) and
     household heads (34%).
•    About 62% of AMK clients surveyed are literate, which is below the average adult literacy
     rate for rural Cambodia of the CIPS 2004 (72%). Only 10% of the clients attended school
     and could reach secondary school.
•    If disaggregated by gender, the percentage of female AMK clients (41%) who cannot read
     or write is bigger than percentage of male AMK clients (20%). Only 6% of female
     household heads could attend secondary school, compared with 21% of male AMK
     clients. The average years of schooling for AMK clients are 2.6 years – for men 4 years
     and for women 2.4 years. These figures are lower than the average years of schooling
     found in the Cambodia Socio-Economic Survey (CSES 2004). These suggest AMK
     clients are generally under-educated and female AMK clients are less educated than
     male AMK clients.

     2. AMK Households

•    The average household size for AMK clients is 5.4 persons, slightly above the national
     rural household size of 5.0 according to the CIPS of 2004. The maximum household size
     in the sample was a household with 12 members and the smallest ones were single-
     person households.
•    The average number of income earners in the household is 3.4. About 33% of the main
     income earners in the household are a combination of both men and women, 36% of
     them are men and 31% are women.
•    Most households have more adult members than children with an average of 2.9 adults
     and 2.5 children. That is, on average, about 57% of the household members are adults
     and 43% are children.
•    Of the children living in the household, about 51% are in school, 22% are not in school
     and 27% are not yet of school age (i.e. below 6 years old). There is no gender difference

9
 This is comparable with AMK’s outreach information as of May 07 (i.e. the time the fieldwork finished): 85% clients
were women and 15% were men.



    AMK – TRAM                                    AMK Client Profiles 2007                                Page 11
     in the children currently in school, but the drop-out rate for girls is higher than boys (27%
     vs. 18%). These figures, though not directly comparable, are consistent with the CIPS
     2004: the drop-out rate for girls is higher than for boys. There is not much difference in
     the drop-out rates for girls (27% in sample vs. 30% for national benchmark), but the drop-
     out rate for boys in AMK’s sample is lower than the re-calculation of CIPS 2004 figures
     (18% vs. 24% respectively).
•    Of the adults living in the household, 57% are female and 43% are male. The average
     age of adult is 38 and 68% of them are married. In about 13% of AMK households, every
     single adult member is illiterate. About 37% of the households have at least one adult
     member who could attend secondary school.

     3. AMK Household Head

•    Of the household heads, 34% are AMK clients and 67% are not.
•    77% of the household heads are male and 23% are female. The household heads are on
     average 43 years old and most are married.
•    32% of the household heads cannot read or write and 18% attended secondary school.
•    If disaggregated by gender, 40% of female household heads cannot read or write
     (compared with only 30% of male household heads). The average years of schooling for
     AMK clients are 3.4 years – for men 3.7 years and for women 2.3 years. These figures
     are lower than the average years of schooling found in the Cambodia Socio-Economic
     Survey (2004).These suggest household heads are under-educated and female
     household heads are less educated than male household heads. The household heads’
     education is, on average, higher than that of AMK clients.


Household Inflows and Income Sources (last 12 months)

Cambodian rural households typically depend on a diverge range of income sources
composed of a combination of agricultural, livestock, fisheries/aquatic resources, forestry and
other income generation activities such as wage labor, small business, and rental assets or
remittances. In order to estimate the main sources of cash inflows and outflows and the cash-
flow patterns or rural households, the survey and the analysis have been divided in 3 main
sources:

         Farm activities, which include crops (rice, vegetables and fruits), livestock (pigs,
         poultry and cattle) and Common Property Resources (CPR). CPR is a term used for
         resources that all residents in an area have a right to exploit, such as forests,
         pastures, rivers and lakes. In the questionnaire it refers to plants and animals
         collected and includes fishes and wood as well as bamboo, palm leaf, fruits, roots,
         wild vegetables, frogs, land crabs, birds, snakes, rats or rabbits, etc. The term
         ‘chamka’ is used when land is used for vegetable growing and other non-rice
         productive purposes.

         Non-Farm Activities, which include ‘casual labor’, ‘salaried labor’, ‘manufacturing’
         and ‘services’. ‘Casual labor’ refers to part-time or temporary jobs in agriculture or
         non-agriculture sectors or as a result of temporary migration. ‘Salaried labor’ includes
         employment with regular salary both in the private and public sectors. ‘Manufacturing’
         refers to any transformation process undertaken within the household and with
         materials procured or obtained in the area of residence (cottage industries); most
         commonly the products of manufacturing activities are sold to middlemen or traders
         who visit regularly. Examples of manufacturing activities include: food processing,
         rice alcohol, palm sugar, textiles and handicrafts, thatch and mats, etc. ‘Services’
         refers to income obtained through self-employment that does not involve any
         transformation process and most commonly refers to (petty) trade. In addition to trade,
         services also include transport business, small groceries, hairdressing, ceremonies
         planner, etc.




    AMK – TRAM                             AMK Client Profiles 2007                      Page 12
           Other sources of inflows, which include remittances (domestic and international),
           sales, rental and income from loans. Loans received and loans provided have been
           included in the analysis. While loans received are not sources of income, they have
           been included in order to assess their contribution to the overall household inflow
           pattern. Loans provided refer to small loans granted to other members of the
           community; this is a common savings mechanism and should not be confused with
           the economic activity of “money-lending”. Pawning assets has been considered as a
           “type of sale” within the sources of income: while pawning usually implies selling at a
           worse price, it is also cheaper to buy the asset back. Finally, “provas” (a word in
           Khmer that means “sharing” and that traditionally applies to both share-cropping and
           to “share-livestocking” has been considered as a type of rental. There are two main
           differences between traditional Cambodian “provas” and common rental. First, other
           rental arrangements are usually pre-paid but in “provas” the rental is post-paid, i.e.
           rice is given after harvest or the calf is divided after delivery (commonly, the owner of
           the cow will receive the first calf while the household caring after the animal will
           receive the second calf). Secondly, in case of asset loss or a calamity, no full
           payment is expected (at least not in cash) while in the other common rental
           arrangement, the full amount will be paid even if the loss was due to external forces
           beyond the control of the household.

     Graph 1: 3 main types of economic activities                          Nearly all rural households undertake at
                              43%
                                                                           least one farm activity and at least one
                                                                           non-farm activity and 43% also benefit from
                              97%
                                                                           other inflow sources (excluding receiving
                                                                           loans).10 Rural households undertake
                                                                           economic activities for consumption as well
                             100%                                          as for cash income. Graph 2 provides a
                                                                           more detailed description of economic
                                                                           activities undertaken for cash income in
                    AMK client households
                                                                           rural household, specifying the percentage
        Farm               No n-Farm                    Other inflo ws     of households engaged in each particular
                                                                           activity.
                 Graph 2: Cash Inflow in the Household by activities (% of Total sample)
 Other Inflow s - Income from LoansGiven           4%

           Other Inflow s - LoansReceived                                                                       100%

           Other Inflow s - RentalSaleUsed                  15%

        Other Inflow s - RentalSaleOtherinc                14%

               Other Inflow s - Remittances                      20%

                    Non-Farm - Petty trade                               28%

                      Non-Farm - Services                                       39%

                Non-Farm - Manufacturing                                             45%

                 Non-Farm - Salaried labor                               30%

                  Non-Farm - Casual labor                                                        64%

                               Farm - CPR                                                                    94%

                          Farm - Livestock                                                                    95%

                             Farm - Crops                                                                       99%

                                              0%              20%              40%         60%         80%    100%




10
  Graph 1 excludes loans received from other inflow sources. All household interviewed were new AMK clients, and
thus all had received loans within ones year at the time of the survey.



     AMK – TRAM                                           AMK Client Profiles 2007                           Page 13
Rural households depend on a variety of activities for cash inflows, concretely:
        Farm activities: nearly all of the households are involved in cropping activities (99%),
        livestock (95%) and CPR (94%). Rice farming remains the most common farming
        activity.
        Non-Farm activities: The most common activities are casual labor (64%);
        manufacturing-related activities (45%); services-related activities (39%); salaried
        employment (30%); and remittances (20%). Food processing is the most common
        and a main cash earner in manufacturing-related activities. Petty trade is the most
        common and a main cash earner in services-related activities.

However, the number of cash income activities that a household undertakes does not
necessarily reflect those activities that generate more income for the households.

     Graph 3: Main Cash Inflow Sources                   Graph 3 shows that both farm and non-
     (% of HHs that rank 1st, 2nd, or 3rd)               farm activities are equally important as
                                                         main income earners within rural
                        44%
                                                         households. Farm and non-farm activities
                                                         are the main income earners for 83% and
                                                         86% of the households respectively. The
                        86%                              main income sources have been defined
                                                         as those with the highest percentage of
                                                         rural households that rank the activity as
                        83%                              one of their 3 main sources of income.

                AMK client households
                                                         Graph 4 provides information on the
      Farm           Non-Farm           Other inflow s
                                                         single activity that contributed the highest
                                                         percentage of cash inflow to the
      Graph 4: Main Cash Inflow Sources                  household, with 52% of the households
           (% of HHs that rank 1st)                      ranking non-farm activities as the number
                                                         one cash earner in the household, and
                        6%
                                                         42% of the households for farm activities.
                                                         Only 6% of the households cited other
                        52%                              inflows as the 1st main source of inflow to
                                                         their households.


                        42%


                AMK client households
      Farm           Non-Farm           Other inflow s




In order to assess the individual main income earners within each category, Graph 5 provides
detailed information on the activities reported as main cash inflows over the past 12 months.
Blue bars show the accumulated amounts of those activities ranked first, second or third by
the interviewee and red bars show only the first recorded rank.

The main cash inflows sources have been defined as those with the highest percentage of
rural households that rank the activity as one of their 3 main sources of inflows. As shown in
Graph 5, these are: crops (57%); CPR (38%); casual labor (38%); loans received (33%);
services (31%); livestock (24%); pretty trade (23%); manufacturing-related activities (23%);
remittances (6%); rental & other income (5%); rental sale used (1%); and income from loans
provided (1%).




 AMK – TRAM                               AMK Client Profiles 2007                        Page 14
                             Graph 5: Main Cash Inflows Source in the Household
                                   (% of client households of the sample)
                                                      0%
           O t he r Inf lo ws - Lo a ns G iv e n       1%
                                                          1%
      O t he r Inf lo ws - Lo a ns R e c e iv e d                                                   33%
                                                      0%
      O t he r Inf lo ws - R e nt a lS a le Us e d     1%

 O t he r Inf lo ws - R e nt a lS a le O t he rinc         3%
                                                             5%

          O t he r Inf lo ws - R e m it t a nc e s        2%
                                                                6%

                 N o n- F a rm - P e t t y t ra de                  9%
                                                                                       23%

                    N o n- F a rm - S e rv ic e s                         13 %
                                                                                                 31%

            N o n- F a rm - M a nuf a c t uring                      11%
                                                                                       23%

             N o n- F a rm - S a la rie d la bo r                           16 %
                                                                                          26%

               N o n- F a rm - C a s ua l la bo r                        12 %
                                                                                                          38%

                                 F a rm - C P R                     8%
                                                                                                          38%

                          F a rm - Liv e s t o c k             4%
                                                                                       24%

                               F a rm - C ro ps                                               29%
                                                                                                                                  57%

                                                     0%                          20%                      40%                      60%             80%

                           % o f HHs that rank as o ne o f the 3 main inflo ws         % o f H H s t ha t ra nk a s t he 1s t m a in inf lo w



The red bars show that crops are the number one cash earner, followed by salaried
employment, services-related activities, casual labor and manufacturing-related activities. It is
noted that salaried employment, although not as common as casual labor, is one of the most
important sources of cash inflow.

Although the whole sample of clients had active loans at the time of the survey, about 33% of
the households ranked loans as one of their main cash inflows and only 1% ranked them as
the first main cash inflow in the household. Note that while loans are not income, they have
been included in the analysis because they are cash inflows in the household.


Household Outflows and Expense Sources (last 12 months)

Graph 6 shows the types of expenses that households list most frequently. These are: food,
clothing, loans, ceremonies, health, inputs for farm crops, inputs for livestock and CPR, non-
farm investment, schooling, household materials and other assets, gold and jewelry, land
purchase and others.

However, the fact that expenses are frequent or occur in a certain percentage of households
does not imply that these are the highest expenses incurred by the household. Graph 7
provides the percentage of households that rank each type of expenses as the main cash
outflow in the household. The blue bars represent the percentage of households that rank
each expense as one of the 3 main expenses and the red bars the percentage of those that
rank as the 1st main expense in the household. Food is predominantly the most important
expense in the household, with 96% ranking as one of the 3 main and more than half (57%)
as the 1st main expense. Although more than half of the households spend mainly on
ceremonies, only about 5% rank them as the first main expense in the household.




  AMK – TRAM                                                        AMK Client Profiles 2007                                             Page 15
 Graph 6: Main Expenditures in the Household (% of client households of the sample)
                       Others            1%


               Gold or jewelry                                        16%


 Household materials/assets                                                                     46%


                  Buying land                     6%


                 Ceremonies                                                                                                                   99%


                Paying loans                                                                                                                 100%


       Non-Farm investment                                                                                               73%


     Farm livestock or CPR                                                                                                     80%


                  Farm crops                                                                                                          88%


                        Health                                                                                                              94%


                   Schooling                                                                                       67%


                     Clothing                                                                                                                100%


                         Food                                                                                                                100%


                                    0%                           20%                    40%               60%               80%              100%


                     Graph 7: Ranking of main expenditures in Rural Households
                               (% of client households of the sample)
                               0%
                   Others        1%

                               0%
            Gold or jewelry             4%

                                                  10 %
Household materials/assets                                            24%

                                   2%
               Buying land           4%

                                         5%
              Ceremonies                                                                                 56%

                               0%
              Paying loans                        10%

                                                         16 %
     Non-Farm investment                                                          32%

                                   2%
    Farm livestock or CPR                     8%

                                    3%
               Farm crops                                                   29%

                                        5%
                    Health                                      19%

                                   1%
                Schooling                     9%

                               0%
                  Clothing                   7%

                                                                                                          57%
                     Food                                                                                                                         96%

                              0%                           20%                          40%               60%                  80%                 100%
                 % of HHs that rank as one of the 3 main expenses                       % of HHs that rank as the 1st m ain expense




Graph 8 shows similar information on the ranking of main expenditures in rural households.
Almost all of the households rank basic needs as one of the 3 main expenses in the
household and over half of them rank as the 1st main expense.
Farm investment is one of the main expenses for 35% of the households, but only 4% of the
households rank it as the first main. Non-farm investment and expenses on household



 AMK – TRAM                                                                 AMK Client Profiles 2007                                  Page 16
materials/assets are the main expenses in 32% and 24% of the households respectively, and
are the first main expense in 16% and 10% of the households respectively. Households often
mention expenses in loan payments, ceremonies, clothing, health, schooling, but
comparatively they represent only a small share of the household yearly outflows.

                           Graph 8: Ranking of main expenditures in Rural Households
                                     (% of client households of the sample)

                     O t he rs
                                    0%
                                     1%

           S a v ing & G o ld
                                    0%
                                          4%

                                          5%
              C e re m o nie s
                                                                                        56%

           Lo a ns s e rv ic e
                                    0%
                                               10%

 N o n- F a rm Inv e s t m e nt
                                                     16%
                                                                   32%

                      H e a lt h
                                          5%
                                                       19%

          A s s e t B uilding
                                                12%
                                                             28%

       F a rm Inv e s t m e nt
                                          4%
                                                                     35%

                     B a s ic s
                                                                                          58%
                                                                                                                    98%

                                   0%                 20%                40%            60%                80%     100%

         % of HHs that rank as one of the 3 main expenses          % of HHs that rank as the 1st m ain expense



While loan servicing is ranked as one of the main cash outflows by 10% of the households, it
is ranked as the first main cash outflow by none of them. Note that loans received were
considered as a main cash inflow by 33% of households (Graph 5). Thus, loan servicing
expenses do not seem to burden households outflows proportionally to the perceived
importance of the loans received in the yearly cash inflows.


Cash-flow analysis: Seasonality of Household inflows & Outflows

Cash-flow analysis looks into the seasonality of household inflows and outflows of cash
during the last 12 months. Household inflows refer to cash income derived from income
activities that each household has engaged in the last 12 months. Household outflows refer to
the household expenses undertaken during the last 12 months.

To show the information on the seasonality of flows (i.e. where inflows and outflows occur),
the contribution of each flow in the total household income or expenditure has been estimated.
Thus, the seasonality graphs of inflows (income) and outflows (expenditure) have been
weighted by the relative importance of the flows (income or expense), measured as the
percentage of households that rank them as the 1st, 2nd or 3rd main inflow or outflow.

While the exact figures of each flow were not provided by the clients, these weighted figures
provide a seasonality measure of the importance of each flow in typical households over the
last 12 months. Graph 9 and 10 show the seasonality of cash inflows and outflows in the
household accordingly.




  AMK – TRAM                                                   AMK Client Profiles 2007                          Page 17
                    Graph 9: Cash-Inflow Patterns for Main Income Activities
                          (Weighted by the importance of the inflow)




 1         2            3            4      5           6            7            8   9         10           11        12
                                                            Months
      Non-Farm - Services                       Non-Farm - Petty trade                Non-Farm - Salaried labor
      Non-Farm - Casual labor                   Farm - CPR                            Farm - Livestock
      Farm - Cropping                           Non-Farm - Manuf acturing             Other Inflow s - Remittances
      Other Inflow s - RentalSaleOtherinc       Other Inflow s - RentalSaleUsed       Other Inflow s - LoansReceived
      Other Inflow s - LoansGiven



Some of the most important features regarding the patterns of cash inflows and outflows
include:

        The months with higher incomes are December to March and the months with lowest
        incomes are August and September.
        Farm activities contribute to the higher income in December, January and March
        because rice is harvested in December and January.
        Other farm inflows are less important. Livestock are sold for cash in March just
        before Khmer New year. CPRs such as plants and animals are collected from forests,
        lakes, mountains, etc mainly in February and March after harvest season.
        Non-farm activities such as casual or salaried labor, manufacturing, services and
        petty trade present rather large and constant income flows for the whole year.
        Manufacturing and services-related activities earn higher income during dry season
        than rainy season. Salaried labor shows a constant flow, while casual labor peaks in
        December and January during harvest season.
        Other inflow activities present rather small portions of cash inflows in the household.
        Remittances are small but show a high seasonality in April (Khmer New Year) and
        October (Pchum Ben). As noted above, all of households received loans during the
        last 12 months and the seasonality shows the peaks in July (rice-planting season)
        and October (Pchum Ben).
        Cash outflows in the household show similar patterns as cash inflows, with high
        expenses from December to March and the months with lowest expenses on August
        and September.
        The main seasonal variation is linked to ceremonies and investments in crop
        production. Ceremonies such as weddings, traditional and religious rituals are the
        main expenditures that occur from December to May, and October (Pchum Ben).
        Investments in crop production occur mainly from May to July, the times for land
        preparation, seedling and transplanting.
        Food is the largest expense in most client households and shows a constant flow
        over the year. Non-farm investments are the next most important expense and
        happen throughout the year.




 AMK – TRAM                                      AMK Client Profiles 2007                              Page 18
        Expenditures on health and schooling are comparable in size and marginally
        important in the total household’s cash outflows. While health-related expenses show
        no variations throughout the year, expenses on schooling drop during vacation
        months (from July to September). Loan servicing is also marginally important and
        constant throughout the year.
                   Graph 10: Cash Outflow Patterns for Client Households
                         (weighted by importance of expense flow)



                                                                                              Others
                                                                                              Gold or jew elry
                                                                                              Household materials/other assets
                                                                                              Buying land
                                                                                              Clothing
                                                                                              Paying loans
                                                                                              Ceremonies
                                                                                              Farm crops
                                                                                              Farm livestock or CPR
                                                                                              Non-Farm investment
                                                                                              Health
                                                                                              Schooling
                                                                                              Food

 1      2      3      4         5        6      7        8      9      10         11    12
                                          Months


        Other marginal expenses include inputs for livestock or CPRs, which are constant
        throughout the year and comparable in size with investments in crop production.
        Other expenses include household materials or other durable assets, clothing,
        jewelries and land. Most spending on household materials or other durable assets
        concentrates on the first three months of the year after the harvest season. Spending
        on clothing peaks during ceremonies such as in April (Khmer New Year) and October
        (Pchum Ben). Buying jewelry or land is traditionally a saving/investment behavior
        when households have disposable income, during the post-harvest season.
Another interesting piece of information provided by the cash-flow analysis is that households
invest their surplus in productive activities or save in cash or other instruments (land,
gold/jewelry, durable assets and household items, livestock, provide small loans to others,
etc).

Graph 11 shows that 72% of client households were able to save, reinvest in their economic
activities or accumulate assets.

     Graph 11: Saving/Investment Behavior                           Graph 12: Savings - Total AMK Client
                                                                                Households
     100%
                                                                                       In Bank/MFI
                                                                                            0%
                                                                             Provide                 Others
                                                                              Loans                                     Cash
                                72%                                                                   4%
                                                                                                                        36%
                                                                               1%
      50%


                                28%
      0%
                     AMK Client Households
                                                                    OtherAssets                                Gold
      No money to save/invest       Savings/Investment                  41%                  Land              14%
                                                                                              4%




 AMK – TRAM                                      AMK Client Profiles 2007                                     Page 19
Graph 12 offers specific information about how rural households (re)invest their profits and
save: 36% of all savings are kept in cash, 41% are used to buy assets, 14% are invested in
gold/jewelry, 1% is used to provide loans and other 4% are saved mostly in rice. It is
noteworthy that 0% of these cash savings are kept in banks or MFIs.

Household Assets

The analysis of household assets explores the following four areas:
         - Physical assets
                    o Stock of cultivable land (including rice self-sufficiency), livestock and
                       household durable assets
                    o Type of housing and sanitary facilities
         - Human assets
         - Social capital


Physical Assets

      Province             Average Plot              Average Land Area (Ha)            About 94% of AMK client households have
                                                                                       cultivable land and, on average, they have 1.74
         BMC                         2.46                             3.00
                                                                                       Ha per household. The table here shows the
         BTB                         1.44                             1.93             information on the average plot, average land
         KCH                         1.33                             1.40             area by provinces in the sample. Across the total
         KHH                         1.67                             0.62
                                                                                       sample, the average plot is 1.49 and the average
                                                                                       land area is 1.74 Ha.
         KSP                         1.38                             1.18             BMC has the largest average plot (2.46) and the
         KTH                         1.48                             1.56             second largest average land area (3 Ha). OMC
         PST                         1.13                             1.38             has the second smallest average plot (1.29) but
                                                                                       the largest average land area (3.38 Ha).
         SRP                         1.25                             1.18
        OMC                          1.29                             3.38
        Total                        1.49                             1.74



 Graph 13: Number of Plots owned by AMK Client
      Households (% of HHs in the sample)                                         Graph 13 shows the number of plots owned by
                                                                                  AMK client households. Only 6% interviewed
                                   > 3 Plots                                      have no land. More than half of the households
                                      3%                     No Land
               3 Plots                                                            (56%) own 1 plot of land. 38% of the
                                                               6%
                 6%                                                               households own more than average number of
     2 Plots                                                                      plots (1.49). Only 3% of the sample has more
      29%                                                                         than 3 plots of land.



                                                               1 Plot
                                                               56%

               No Land   1P lo t     2 P lo ts   3 P lo ts    > 3 P lo ts




Graph 14 gives detailed information on total land area owned by AMK client households. 23%
of the households have land equal or less than 0.5 Ha. About 70% of the households have
total land less than or equal to 2.5 Ha. Only 30% of the household have land more than 2.5
Ha. It is noted that only 38% of the households have land more than the average land area of
1.74 Ha. The benchmark of 0.5 Ha is important for analysis because that is the minimum
amount necessary for survival.




 AMK – TRAM                                                     AMK Client Profiles 2007                        Page 20
              Graph 14: Total Land Area owned by AMK Client Households
                                (% of HHs in the sample)
    100%                                       3%
                                                                      >5 Ha
                                               3%
     90%
                                                6%                    Betw een >4.5 Ha and <=5 Ha
     80%                                        6%                    Betw een >4 Ha and <=4.5 Ha
     70%                                        13%                   Betw een >3.5 Ha and <=4 Ha
     60%                                        9%                    Betw een >3 Ha and <=3.5 Ha

     50%                                                              Betw een >2.5 Ha and <=3 Ha

     40%                                        25%                   Betw een >2 Ha and <=2.5 Ha

     30%                                                              Betw een >1.5 Ha and <=2 Ha

     20%                                        23%                   Betw een>1 Ha and <=1.5 Ha

                                                                      Betw een >0.5 Ha and <=1 Ha
     10%
                                                6%                    <=0.5 Ha
         0%
                                                                      No land
                      AMK Client Households

Because of the importance of rice as a staple food in the Khmer diet, it is interesting to know
the yearly rice needs of a household. The rice requirements to be self-sufficient have been
quoted in other studies at 240 kg per adult/per year and 120 kg per child/per year. If the
amount of rice produced in a particular household exceeds the amount required to consume,
the household is self-sufficient.

Graph 15 shows that 53% of AMK client households could produce enough rice to be self-
sufficient during the last 12 months, while other 48% could not.


Graph 15: Rice sufficiency (% of HHs)        Graph 16: Rice Sufficiency by poverty groups
  100%                                          60%
                                                          54%
                      HH with no
                                                50%
                         Rice
  75%                 Sufficiency
                         47%                    40%                                          35%
                                                                                                     34%
                                                                30%                    31%
  50%                                           30%

                       HH with                  20%                        17%
                         Rice
  25%                 Sufficiency
                         53%                    10%


   0%                                            0%
                AMK Client Household                            No                           Y es
                                                                    Poor    Medium   Better-Off




However, this data on its own does not provide sufficient information to determine poverty
levels since there are prosperous households that undertake other activities beyond farming.
In order to answer this question, Graph 16 shows the results when the information is further
analyzed by poverty groups, showing that the percentage of the poor households falling
below the self-sufficient threshold is larger than in the other poverty groups. In other words,
poor households are more likely to produce less amount of rice than required to consume
within the household.

This data further stresses the importance of complementary sources of income that rural
households (especially the poor) undertake to meet their families’ needs.




 AMK – TRAM                              AMK Client Profiles 2007                                   Page 21
           Graph 17: Assets: Livestock                           Graph 18: Assets owned by Households
               (% of total sample)                                         (by price of items)
    100%
                                                                                                                00
                                                                            % HH with mo dest value assets (<$ 1 items)
                                                                            % o f HH with mid-range value assets
                                           P ig 42%
                                                                            % o f HH with high value assets (>$ 500 items)
    75%
                                                            100%
                                                                                   100%

                                                             80%
    50%

                                           Co w 58%          60%

    25%                                                      40%                                                   30%

                                            B ufffalo                                              17%
                                                             20%
                                               9%
     0%
                    AMK Client Household                      0%
                                                                                        AMK Client Household


Graph 17 shows the types of livestock owned by AMK client households. More than half of
the households (58%) own cows, 42% own pigs and 9% own buffaloes.

Graph 18 shows three types of assets owned by AMK client households. ‘Relatively modest
value Assets’ are assets worth less than $100, ‘Mid-range value Assets’ are worth between
$100 to $150 and ‘High value Assets’ worth more than $500. All of AMK client households
own at least one asset classified as ‘Relatively modest value Assets’, mostly plow, harrow
and bicycle. In addition, 17% of the households own at least one asset classified as ‘Mid-
range value Assets’ such as mobile phone, generator, water pump, etc. Also, 30% of the
households own at least one high-value asset, mostly motorcycles and plowing or threshing
machines.

The table below shows the types of floor, roof and walls that describe the conditions of
houses. Each item in each type is arranged from bad to good conditions.

 Type of Floor                             Type of roof                      Type of walls
 - mud floor or rudimentary stilts         - thatch/leaves                   - bamboo/thatch
 - wooden/stone stilts                     - tin/zinc sheets                 - low quality wood/logs
 - cement base/expensive wood stilts       - tiles/other good materials      - brick/cement/high quality wood

                                    Graph 19: Assets: House
                                                                   Brick/cement/high quality w ood
   100%

    90%                       54%                                  Low quality w ood/logs

    80%
                                                                   Bamboo/thatch
                              42%
    70%
                              26%                                  Tiles/other good materials
    60%

    50%                       39%                                  Tin/zinc sheets

    40%                       35%                                  Thatch/leaves
    30%
                                                                   Cement base/expensive w ood
    20%                       79%                                  stilts
    10%                                                            On w ooden/stone stilts
                              19%
     0%                                                            Mud floor or rudimentary stills
                      AMK Client Households




 AMK – TRAM                                   AMK Client Profiles 2007                                   Page 22
Graph 19 gives information about distribution of households based on their house conditions.
Most households have floor with wooden/stone stilts, 19% have mud floor and only 2% have
floor with cement base or expensive wood stilts. For the type of roof, 35% have thatch or
leaves, 39% have tin or zinc sheets and 26% have tiles or other good materials. For the type
of walls, over half of the households (54%) have low quality wood or logs, 42% have bamboo
or thatch and only 4% have brick or cement or high quality wood.

          Graph 20: Asset - Toilet Facility                          Graph 20 shows that about 92% of the
                                                                     households do not have toilet facility.
                                 Ow n pit
                               toilet/latrine
                                                                     No household have flush toilet. Small
       Shared pit
      toilet/latrine                6%
                                                Flush toilet         portions of households have shared or
                                                    0%               owned pit toilet or latrine.
           2%

             Bush, field,
              no facility
                92%



The information on housing and toilet facilities has been compared with the information
provided by the CIPS 2004 and summarized in the table below. The CIPS 2004 classified a
building structure as “temporary” if the roof was made of bamboo, thatch, grass or
plastic/synthetic sheets and the walls were made of bamboo, thatch, reeds or earth or
salvaged/improvised materials. A housing structure classified as “permanent” if the roof was
made of wood, plywood, concrete, brick, stone, galvanized iron, aluminum, other metal sheets,
asbestos cement and tiles and if the walls were made of wood, plywood, concrete, brick,
stone, galvanized iron, aluminum, other metal sheets and asbestos cement sheets. A housing
structure is classified as “semi-permanent” if the roof is permanent and the walls temporary or
vice versa.

                                                   Housing Construction                            Housing Facilities
                                    Temporary           Semi-permanent        Permanent        HH without toilet facilities
 CIP 2004 (rural figures)           28.4%              27.5%                  44.1%            83.6%
 AMK total sample                   17.6%              32.4%                  50%              91.7%

The table shows that AMK client households present similar housing structures and amenities
to that the sample of CIPS 2004 in rural areas but AMK client households show proportionally
more permanent and semi-permanent housing and less temporary structures. These are
different from the figures for new AMK client households in the Client Profile 2005 where
there were more permanent and temporary housing (49% and 29.7%) and less semi-
permanent housing (21.3%). More importantly, fewer AMK client households have toilet
facilities than those of the general rural population.

Human assets

Human assets are measured by health and education prospects.

 Graph 21: Necessity to borrow money or                          Graph 22: Expected education of school-age
  sell assets when have health problems                              children in AMK client households

                       Often                                                                              No ne o f them
                                                                             No t available               will co mplete
                       12%                                                        28%                      seco ndary
                                                                                                              scho o l
                                    Never
                                                                                                                21%
                                     45%
                                                                          A ll o f them will
           Seldom                                                                                                   No t all o f
                                                                              co mplete
            43%                                                                                                     them will
                                                                             seco ndary
                                                                                                                   co mplete
                                                                               scho o l
                                                                                                                   seco ndary
                                                                                  14%
                                                                                                                     scho o l
                                                                                                                      37%




 AMK – TRAM                                             AMK Client Profiles 2007                                 Page 23
    Graph 21 shows that 45% of the households could afford health care on their own, 43% of the
    households seldom borrow money or sell assets when have health problems, while other 12%
    often do so. Graph 22 shows the expected education of school-age children in AMK client
    households. Of those households with school-age children, most households (87%) send at
    least one of their school-age children to school, while other 13% do not. As seen in Graph 22,
    14% of the households expect all of their children currently in school to complete secondary
    education, 21% think not all of their children will complete secondary school and 21% say
    they do not expect any of their children to finish secondary school. An additional 28% of the
    households either do not have school-age children or do not have any children currently in
    school.


    Social capital

    Social capital is measured by the relationships of clients in the community.

Graph 23: Relationship to others in the community                                      Graph 23 shows that AMK clients
                                                                                       generally have good relationship with
                                      Few go o d
                                  friends/relatives
                                                                                       others in their community with most of
                                         1%                                            the households have many or some
          A ll go o d                                    So me go o d                  good friends or relatives. 15% said they
     friends/relatives                                friends/relatives                have good relationship with all of friends
             1 5%                                            15%
                                                                                       or relatives. Only 1% of the households
                                                                                       said they have only a few good friends
                                                                                       or relatives. About 27% of the
                                                                                       households have at least one member
                                                                                       who is part of any civic group such as
               M any go o d                                                            tong-tine, pagoda group, youth group or
            friends/relatives
                  69%
                                                                                       farmer/trader groups.




    Household Vulnerability

    This section provides information on vulnerability by looking at the evolution of the economic
    situation of the households, food security, incidence of crises and coping strategies.

         Graph 24: Evolution of Economic Situation in                                           Graph 25: Main causes of decrease in the
         Household (Cash Inflow) in the last 12 months                                                 household's total income
                                                                                                                Others
           100%
                                                                                                                 12%              Sickness
                                          13%                              Decreased greatly
                                                                                                                                    in the
           80%
                                                                                                 Job loss                        household
                                                                                                   5%                                32%
                                                                           Decreased

           60%                            49%
                                                                                                Poor sales
                                                                           Stayed the same
                                                                                                   5%
           40%
                                                                           Increased
                                                                                                      Poor
           20%                            34%                                                     agricultura              Natural
                                                                           Increased greatly
                                                                                                   l season               disaster
             0%                                                                                       27%                   19%
                                AMK Client Households



    Graph 24 shows that compared to last year, half of the households thought their economic
    situation stayed the same, 34% thought it improved as opposed to 13% of the households
    who thought it worsened. Only 3% of the households reported their economic situation/
    income decreased greatly.



      AMK – TRAM                                                     AMK Client Profiles 2007                            Page 24
Graph 25 further explores main causes of decrease in the household’s economic situation.
When the household economic situation deteriorated, this was due mainly to sickness in the
household (32%); poor agricultural season (27%) and natural disasters (29%). Other marginal
causes include poor sales (5%), job loss (5%) and others (12%, mostly other family problems).

Graph 26 shows that 74% of the households reported that their diet stayed the same, in 19%
of the households the diet improved but it worsened for 7% of the households. Graph 27
shows that, at the same time, 80% of the households reported they eat enough (although not
necessarily what they want), 11% eat enough and what they want and other 9% of the
households sometimes do not have enough food to eat. Note that none of the households
stated that they often did not have enough to eat.

       Graph 26: Household Diet (last 12 months)                      Graph 27: Household Situation About Food
                                                                                   (last 12 months)

                                                                                            11% 9%
                               Worsened
              Im proved           7%
                 19%
                                                                                             80%



                          Stayed the                                     Often not enough to eat
                          sam e 74%                                      Sometimes not enough to eat
                                                                         Enough but not alw ays w hat w e w ant to eat
                                                                         Enough and the kinds of food w e w ant to eat




It is noted that although 3% of households reported their economic situation/income
decreased greatly (Graph 24), no household reported that they often did not have enough
food to eat, but their diet worsened or stayed the same. Also for the case of those whose
income decreased slightly, more households reported their diet rather stayed the same than
those whose diet worsened. For those whose income stayed the same, most had their diet
stay the same. All of the households whose income increased slightly or greatly improved
their diet in the last 12 months.

This is important because rural households facing a crisis, among other things, reduce food
expenses as a coping strategy. 29% of the households surveyed went through a difficult
situation in the last 12 months. Graph 28 reveals that in case of a crisis, about 55% of
households reported they reduce the quality of food and only 5% reduce the number of meal
as coping strategies.

                Graph 28: Crises in the Household in the last 12 months

               60%                                 55%

               50%

               40%
                                                                             29%
               30%

               20%

               10%            5%

                0%
                      HH had less than 3    HH had w orse food        HH w ent through
                         meals a day                                  difficult situation




 AMK – TRAM                                AMK Client Profiles 2007                                Page 25
Graph 29 and 30 provide more detailed information on three types of crises faced by AMK
client households. Crises are categorized as below:

          -   Family crisis: these involve great expenditures in various family matters such as
              loss of family member or sicknesses in the family, marriage, other family events
              such as death and funerals or child birth and accidents.
          -   Business trouble: these include loss of enterprise assets, business or enterprise
              failure and loss of job or wage employment.
          -   External shocks: these include crop damage or other damages due to natural
              disasters and land conflict or land.

    Graph 29: % of HHs with crises (by type)               Graph 30: Total Incidence of crises (by type)

                           External
                          sho cks 5%                                         External
                                                                             shocks
                           B usiness
                                                                               14%
                          tro uble 10%




                                                                  Business                     Family crisis
                       Family crisis                               trouble                        56%
                          19%                                        30%




                  AMK Client Households



Graph 29 and Graph 30 show incidence of crises faced by AMK client households. Graph 29
shows that 19% of households face crises related to family matters, 10% have trouble with
business matters and 5% are affected by external shocks. Graph 30 does not analyze at the
household level but shows the share of each type of crises: as many as 56% of the crises are
related to family matters, mostly sickness or major events such as funeral, death or child birth.
30% are business trouble where most are concerned with business or enterprise failures.
Other 14% are affected by external shocks, mostly crop damage due to natural disasters.

 Graph 31: Incidence of crises by well-being groups              In AMK sample, the total number of
                                                                 crises (102) exceeds the number of
                             Better-off                          households (86) facing a crisis. This
                                3%                               means a household might face more
                                                                 than one crisis related to either family
                 Medium
                                                                 or business or external shocks. Also,
                  34%
                                                                 if tabulated with poverty groups, the
                                                                 poor households account for 63%, the
                                          Poor                   medium households for 34% and the
                                          63%                    better-off households for only 3%.




AMK client households apply different coping strategies in face of crises described above,
which are linked to the degree of difficulty involved. These are:
        a) spend past savings
        b) borrow money/gold or food
        c) increase economic activities
        d) and reduce consumption or sell assets




 AMK – TRAM                                AMK Client Profiles 2007                        Page 26
 Graph 32 shows the percentage of households choosing each of the coping strategies above.
 In the event of crises, 14% of the households increased economic activities for additional
 wage, 13% spent past savings, 12% borrowed money or gold and other 6% had to reduce
 consumption or sell assets as a coping strategy.

Graph 32: % of HHs with different coping strategies                  Graph 33: Coping with large expenses
                                                                             (Grade of Difficulty)
                                                Reduce
                                              co nsumptio
                                                n o r sell
                                               assets 6%
                                                                                     No
                                                                                  difficulty
                                                Increase                             5%
                                               eco no mic
                                              activities 14%                                           some
                                                                                                     difficulty
                                                                                                       35%
                                               B o rro w
                                               mo ney o r
                                               go ld 12%
                                                                      a lot of
                                                                     difficulty
                                                                        60%

                                               Spend past
                                               savings 13%




                  AMK Client Households


 Finally, with regards to the household capacity to afford large expenses in case of crises,
 Graph 33 shows that almost all of the households find it hard to pay large expenses with as
 many as 60% having a lot of difficulty and 35% having some difficulty. Only 5% could afford
 large expenses with no difficulty.




  AMK – TRAM                              AMK Client Profiles 2007                         Page 27

				
DOCUMENT INFO