Impact of COVID 19 On Lives Report

Impact of COVID-19 on Lives,
Livelihoods and Micro,

Small and Medium-Sized
Enterprises (MSMEs)
in Tajikistan
Impact of COVID-19 on lives, livelihoods and MSMEs (Assessment Report)
Authors: Shuhrat Mirzoev and Nezhat Sedaghat
The views and recommendations expressed in this report do not necessarily represent those
of the United Nations Development Programme.
All rights reserved. Readers are encouraged to use the report as a source for their own
publications. Due acknowledgement of UNDP and citation of the report need to be observed
when referenced in external publications. For online reference, please use link to the original
resource on the UNDP website.
Copyright UNDP © 2020
Design, cover and graphics: Iskandar Mirzoganiev and Vladimir Kazberovich

Published: September, 2020
Contents
Foreword...................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Abbreviations.............................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Executive summary.................................................................................................................................................................... 8
BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................................11
Context and objectives............................................................................................................................................................ 12
Methodology.............................................................................................................................................................................. 12
Approach......................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Sampling design............................................................................................................................................................ 14
Limitations................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT................................................................................................................ 18
Economic growth......................................................................................................................................................................19
Private sector development.................................................................................................................................................. 24
Labor market.............................................................................................................................................................................30
Financial sector......................................................................................................................................................................... 35
General government budget.................................................................................................................................................40
MEASURES UNDERTAKEN TO MITIGATE THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF COVID-19....... 42
IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON LIVES AND LIVELIHOODS................................................................................ 49
Key characteristics of surveyed households....................................................................................................................50
Jobs and employment............................................................................................................................................................52
Overview........................................................................................................................................................................52
Overall implication of COVID-19 on livelihoods...................................................................................................56
Migrant labor.............................................................................................................................................................................59
Informal sector...........................................................................................................................................................................61
Finance and consumption..................................................................................................................................................... 64
Social dimensions..................................................................................................................................................................... 71
Education....................................................................................................................................................................... 72
Health.............................................................................................................................................................................. 75
Key findings from in-depth interviews................................................................................................................................80
Jobs and employment................................................................................................................................................80
Finance and consumption.......................................................................................................................................... 81
Education....................................................................................................................................................................... 83
Health..............................................................................................................................................................................85
IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON MSMEs................................................................................................................87
Key characteristics of surveyed entrepreneurs...............................................................................................................88
Operational aspects.................................................................................................................................................................91
Impact on operations and viability...........................................................................................................................91
Supply chains and value chains...............................................................................................................................98
Cross-border trade.................................................................................................................................................... 100
Employment.............................................................................................................................................................................. 101
Overall impact on workforce.................................................................................................................................... 101
Informal sector............................................................................................................................................................ 103
Financing and commercial return...................................................................................................................................... 106
Key findings from in-depth interviews............................................................................................................................... 110
Operational aspects................................................................................................................................................... 110
Financing and commercial return............................................................................................................................112
POLICY RESPONSE AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................... 115
Overview of approaches to COVID-19 response.............................................................................................................116
Economic repositioning for recovery..................................................................................................................................118
Recommendations to support lives and livelihoods (HHs)......................................................................................... 120
Recommendations to support MSMEs............................................................................................................................. 126
ANNEX 1: KEY MACROECONOMIC INDICATORS FOR TAJIKISTAN, 2015–2020.....................................................133

ANNEX 2: LIST OF SECTORS AND SUB-SECTORS REPRESENTED BY MSMEs.......................................................134
ANNEX 3: IMPLICATIONS OF COVID-19 ON BUSINESSES IN TAJIKISTAN..................................................................135
ANNEX 4: SURVEY FINDINGS REGARDING SOCIAL COHESION..................................................................................139
ANNEX 5: QUALITY OF INTERVIEWS: A SELF-ASSESSMENT (HHs)..............................................................................141
ANNEX 6: QUALITY OF INTERVIEWS: A SELF-ASSESSMENT (MSMEs).......................................................................143
ANNEX 7: LIST OF PARTNERS IN ATTENDANCE OF VIRTUAL CONSULTATION SESSIONS................................144
ANNEX 8: TAJIKISTAN’S COVID-19 COUNTRY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE PLAN.....................................146
ANNEX 9: DECREE OF THE PRESIDENT OF TAJIKISTAN ON COVID-19 COUNTER MEASURES........................149
ANNEX 10: GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS USED IN THE ASSESSMENT...........................................................................151
ANNEX 11: REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................................................153
Foreword
Globally, COVID-19 pandemic has put tremendous pressure not only on
health care systems but on the socio-economic situation. The crisis has
exposed and jeopardized inefficiencies in the countries’ social protection
system, food security, trade and financing strategies and Tajikistan is not an
exception. Development experts forecast contraction of Tajikistan’s economy
up to 2% of GDP which is comparable with a consequence of the civil war
in 1990th and of the global financial crisis in 2008–2009. Since the early
stages of COVID-19 pandemic, in response to the Prime Minister’s National
Action Plan to mitigate the risk of COVID on socio-economic development of
Tajikistan, UNDP, along with other UN sister agencies and development partners, has been supporting the
Government of Tajikistan, with procurement of critical medical supplies, assessing the longer-term recovery
needs and helping the country develop an integrated and inclusive response to the pandemic and its
impact on people, economy and environment.
To help an evidence based targeted recovery response, UNDP Tajikistan Office initiated a comprehensive
assessment of socio-economic impact of COVID-19, in close collaboration with the Government and inputs
from all development partners. The aim of the assessment was to understand the immediate, medium
and longer-term impact of COVID-19 across all regions in the country on lives and livelihoods of people of
Tajikistan as well as on micro, small and medium sized enterprises and the informal sector. The assessment
is based on primary and secondary sources of information and the findings highlight the need to mount
a robust response to provide direct assistance to vulnerable people in rural and urban areas, accelerate
reforms, build resiliency at household and institutional level for quick adaptation to socio-economic
challenges, and introduce innovative ways of functioning and service delivery.
This Report is an attempt to trigger a wider debate about inclusive, equitable and sustainable development
in the context of pandemic and post-COVID impact but also to contribute to evidence based new
programming and policies in the Republic of Tajikistan.
The assessment was conducted by team of consultants: Mr. Shuhrat Mirzoev, national expert and Ms.
Nezhat Sedaghat, international expert, in collaboration with the Limited Liability Company ‘Tahlil va
Mashvarat,’ a member of ‘Z-Analytics Group’, under the overall guidance of UNDP management and day to
day supervision of Sustainable Economic Development team led by Ms. Zebo Jalilova.
UNDP is particularly grateful to the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, State Committee on
Investments and State Property Management, Agency on Statistics under the President of Tajikistan,
Chamber of Commerce of Tajikistan, Tourism Development Center, National Association of Business
Women of Tajikistan and other partners, civil society and private sector representatives for their
contribution to the Assessment, sharing data and information, and collaboration at different stages of the
report preparation. UNDP Tajikistan Office acknowledges support and contribution of the UNDP Istanbul
Regional Hub, UN Agencies, development partners, as well as leadership of respective thematic groups
within the Development Coordination Council (DCC) for sharing secondary data and contributing in
enriching the report.
As a long-term development partner of Tajikistan, UNDP will continue its collaboration with the Government
of Tajikistan, development partners, civil society and private sector to support response to COVID-19
impact as well as to promote achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Tajikistan.
Dushanbe, September 2020 Dr. Pratibha Mehta,

Resident Representative,
UNDP in Tajikistan
Foreword 5
Abbreviations
ADB Asian Development Bank
ASMR Agency on State Material Reserves
CAA Civil Aviation Agency
CAR Credit at risk
CASE Central Asian Stock Exchange
CBR Central Bank of Russia
CESCD Committee on Emergency Situations and Civil Defense
CIS Commonwealth of the Independent States
CIT Corporate income tax
CJSC Closed joint stock company
COVID-19 Coronavirus infection
CPRP Country Preparedness and Response Plan
CTD Committee on Tourism Development
DCC Development Coordination Council
DRS Districts of republican subordination
DSSI Debt Service Suspension Initiative
EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
EDFS Electronic and digital financial services
EEU Eurasian Economic Union
ESF Entrepreneurship Support Fund
EU European Union
FDI Foreign direct investment
GBAO Gorno-Badakhshan autonomous oblast
GDP Gross domestic product
GIZ German Agency for International Cooperation
GNI Gross national income
HDI Human Development Index
HHs Households
IDIs In-depth interviews
IFIs International financial institutions
IMF International Monetary Fund
KfW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, German state-owned development bank
LFS Labor Force Survey
LIC Low-income country
LMIC Lower middle-income country
LNOB Leave No One Behind
LPI Logistics Performance Index
MCH Mother and child health(care)
MFIs Micro-finance institutions
MFOs Micro-finance organizations
MoA Ministry of Agriculture
MoEDT Ministry of Economic Development and Trade
MoES Ministry of Education and Science
MoEWR Ministry of Energy and Water Resources
MoF Ministry of Finance
MoHSP Ministry of Health and Social Protection of the Population
MoINT Ministry of Industry and New Technologies
MoLMEP Ministry of Labor, Migration and Employment of the Population
6 Impact of COVID-19 on Lives, Livelihoods and Micro, Small and MSMEs in Tajikistan
MoT Ministry of Transport
MRITP Market Responsive and Inclusive Training Program
MSMEs Micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises
NBFIs Non-bank financial institutions
NBT National Bank of Tajikistan
NDS National Development Strategy
NGO Non-governmental organization
NPL Non-performing loan
ODA Official development assistance
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
OJSC Open joint stock company
PO Public organization
RCA Revealed comparative advantage
RCF Rapid Credit Facility
ROA Return on assets
ROE Return on equity
SAPGWS State Agency for Procurement of Goods, Works and Services
SCISPM State Committee for Investment and State Property Management
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SOE State-owned enterprise
SSB State savings bank
SUE State unitary enterprise
TDR Total dependency ratio
TJS Tajik somoni
TSA Targeted social assistance
UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
USD United States dollars
VAT Value added tax
WB World Bank
WHO World Health Organization
WTO World Tourism Organization
Abbreviations 7
Executive summary
The coronavirus pandemic hit Tajikistan when its economy and livelihoods were already fragile following
several economic disruptions in the past decade. The economic implications of the COVID-19 outbreak
became apparent soon after the first cases were officially declared, and businesses and vulnerable
population groups have been on the front lines ever since. The impact of the pandemic on lives and
the health system has been unprecedented in Tajikistan’s post-civil war history. With individuals being
furloughed or laid off completely, and businesses experiencing a significant decline in scale, sales and
incomes, many people and entrepreneurs have been put under severe stress.
Against the backdrop of the COVID-10 outbreak, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
in coordination with the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan and other development partners has
commissioned a fairly comprehensive assessment of the socio-economic impact of COVID-19 on lives,
livelihoods and micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) in Tajikistan. The assessment is based
on the analysis of primary and secondary data, supported by the survey of households (HHs) and the
survey of MSMEs in four pre-selected economic sectors. The sample size for HHs is 1,000 and for MSMEs
is 700, complemented by in-depth interviews (150 HHs, including 100 women and girls and 100 youth, and
50 MSMEs). It should be noted that limitations of phone interviewing method, sensitivity of some of the
questions and inevitably different units used in the survey sometimes complicated aggregation.
The COVID-19 Impact Assessment Report provides comprehensive and contextually relevant information
about the impact of COVID-19 on the national scale and adds value to ongoing policy discussion between
the government and development partners to assist a coordinated response.
The report consists of 6 chapters and 11 annexes. They provide full description of the sample survey
methodology, analytical context of both primary and secondary data, key findings by relevant and
feasible disaggregation, classifications and triangulation. In so doing, the report draws on socio-economic
background and fundamental situation analysis, as well as unfolding situation and measures which will
help policy makers to provide a set of plausible and realistic recommendations. The Report specifically
highlights some of the important pre-existing socio-economic factors, and the unfolding economic
environment which determine the priorities as well as limitations for policy responses. These include
relatively high inflation, high unemployment rate (particularly amongst the youth), relatively sizable informal
sector, constrained fiscal space, predominance of state-owned enterprises in key industries, as well as
a high public debt ratio to GDP. Recommendations and suggested repositioning of Tajikistan’s economy
draw emphatically on these findings and observations.
A summary of key findings and recommendations grouped under the HHs and MSMEs is as follows,
although there are inevitable interactions and complementarity between the groups in the context of
respective demand and supply roles.
The survey of households (HHs):

The survey has focused on jobs and employment, informal sector, finance and consumption patterns, and
social dimensions (education and health). The crosscutting has been on the most at-risk population groups,
i.e. women and girls, youth (aged 15–24), migrant labor, and people with disabilities. The findings confirm
that: (i) domestic employment is dominated by men; (ii) social factors negatively affect women’s mobility,
education and skills and hence exacerbating their vulnerability to COVID-19 impacts; (iii) gender and age
disparities are evident with women and youth at higher risk of long-term unemployment; (iv) remittances
continue to play a significant role in domestic consumption and HH consumption; (v) the informal sector
has been expanding even prior to the pandemic and is likely to have expanded further due to COVID-19
impacts; (vi) incomes from self-employment, migrant labor and non-registered jobs have had the largest
declines as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak; (vii) the lack of savings and the presence of loans forces
HHs into further indebtedness; (viii) low level of education of the labor force prevail (60% of respondents
not having completed general secondary education); (ix) more than 84% of HHs with at least one member
with chronic illness were unable to receive timely medical treatment; and (x) there is high risk of perpetual
indebtedness of the sizeable proportion of the population, and risking expansion and intensification of
poverty.
The survey of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs):

The survey has focused on four economic sectors which have been affected most heavily by the
coronavirus pandemic (agriculture, light industry, personal services, tourism and hospitality). They have
been large contributors and/or emerging growth drivers to Tajikistan’s economy. The findings are
presented around MSMEs’ operational aspects and commercial viability, disruptions in supply chains and/
or value chains, cross-border trade, employment, informal sector, and finance. The findings confirm that:
(i) 63.1% of MSMEs were negatively affected by the coronavirus pandemic, with variations by economic
sectors and size of businesses; (ii) MSMEs in rural areas are more disadvantaged compared to MSMEs in
urban areas in terms of ease of access to business advisory services and markets; (iii) 83.1% of MSMEs that
are engaged in small-scale, cross-border trade had their sales declined due to border closures and travel
restrictions; (iv) almost 25% of affected MSMEs had to temporarily shut down; (v) the drop in wages is likely
to be larger for employees in smaller firms, as well as among younger employees; (vi) the share of women
and girls in informal employment is very large; (vii) the proportion of non-registered workforce varies by
economic sector (with agriculture being prevalent), (viii) 85.2% of affected MSMEs experienced a decrease
in sales as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak; (ix) outstanding loans pushed some MSMEs further into
indebtedness; and (x) 33% of all MSMEs stated that they would like the government to enforce nationwide
deferral of tax payments for all types of private businesses.
Recommendations:
The recommendations draw on the socio-economic implications of the COVID-19 outbreak as described
in the report, a number of common denominators in the region as well as OECD and beyond, review of all
recent assessments by development partners in Central Asia, and also the key findings from the survey on
lives and livelihoods. The crucial element of viability of the recommended measures is a decisive factor in
proposing them.
The recommendations are grouped by HHs and MSMEs, within the short to medium/long-term horizon
and highlighting their relevance and connection to the Sustainable Development Goals for 2030, with
a view of longer-term policy objectives in Tajikistan. The triangulations between key findings, policy
recommendations and their links to SDGs are tabulated in addition to the textual elaborations in the report.
The crucial element of viability of the recommended measures is a decisive factor in proposing them.
Households:
Against the backdrop of falling incomes and furloughed or lost jobs, and rising socio-economic vulnerability
of households, recommendations to support lives and livelihoods (HHs) include:
Short-term measures:
• Provide emergency financial support to HHs whose incomes have been disrupted.
• Adopt measures to prevent further rise in HH spending and ensuring food security.
• Encourage employers to adopt flexible working and pay arrangements with their workers.
• Ensure uninterrupted and effective provision of social and care services to the population, such as
quality health care, education and containing domestic violence incidents.
Medium- to long-term measures:

• Address structural labor market constraints (e.g. improve regulation in order to streamline recruitment
policies and procedures, implement a dispute resolution mechanism).
• Create jobs domestically which would contribute to inclusive and transformational growth
• Provide incentives for formalization of economic activity by reducing the fiscal/tax burden for legal
commercial entities and the self-employment.
Executive summary 9
• Encourage greater corporate social responsibility among employers by adopting flexible working
arrangements and expand the share of vulnerable people in the workforce).
• Invest in human capital (e.g. vocational education and training, digital solutions).
• Invest and expand in physical capital and social services especially the TVET and health sectors).
MSMEs:
Businesses have been hit particularly hard by the coronavirus pandemic. Many MSMEs experienced a fall
in sales, incomes and a disruption in their supply chains. Accounting for these well-documented challenges
through primary and secondary data analysis, recommendations to support MSMEs include:
Short-term measures:
• Ensure temporary support to provide financial relief to struggling MSMEs.
• Provide liquidity to affected MSMEs on concessional terms.
• Support the demand and employment through infrastructure construction.
• Subsidize professional business advisory services.
• Provide temporary support to self-employed people.
Medium- to long-term measures:

• Improve the business environment, e.g. minimize excessive regulation of private sector.
• Increase competitiveness.
• Enhance financial inclusion and literacy among MSMEs and market support systems.
• Strengthen public-private dialogue.
Background
BACKGROUND 11
CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), in partnership with the Government of Tajikistan,
has initiated an assessment of the impact of COVID-19 outbreak on lives, livelihoods, and micro-, small-
and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs)1 with a specific focus on at-risk population groups, vulnerable
households, women and youth.
While an immediate impact of COVID-19 has been on lives and livelihoods, it has also affected the formal
and informal sectors of the Republic of Tajikistan through MSMEs and entrepreneurship. The economic crisis
triggered by COVID-19 makes it difficult for MSMEs to survive and maintain operations because of cash flow
issues, labor constraints, supply or demand disruptions, and their limited capacity to respond to shocks of
this magnitude due to fragility of support structures and lingering financial constraints. Perhaps the greatest
immediate negative effect has been on employment, exacerbating socio-economic vulnerabilities and
weakening resilience to withstand economic shocks. The longer-term impact on poverty, inequality and
human development is likely to have significant negative consequences on lives and livelihoods in Tajikistan.
In this context, UNDP has supported the Government of Tajikistan and relevant stakeholders to better
assess and address the short and medium-term socio-economic impact of the COVID-19 crisis and
contribute to devising relevant policy recommendations that would enable the Government of Tajikistan
to adequately respond and create a conducive environment for rapid recovery in the short and medium
term. The assessment has generated much needed evidence base for potential catalytic programmatic
interventions to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the lives of the people in Tajikistan.
The outcome enables UNDP and other partners to support immediate, medium and long-term recovery
through technical assistance interventions, as well as new partnerships, with particular focus on MSMEs,
vulnerable population such as women, youth, labor migrants, and people with disability. The applied
interventions could also set the base for scaling up innovative adaptation practices and emergency
coordination processes in order to keep focus on critical vulnerability pockets and emerging inequalities,
thus directly improving the lives of Tajikistan’s citizens.
METHODOLOGY
APPROACH
The assessment consists of: (i) two complementary national surveys (of households and MSMEs), and
(ii) socio-economic impact assessment, which includes the analysis based on secondary data and a
macroeconomic outlook. The surveys were carried out over the period between June 25th and July 27th,
2020. In parallel, the socio-economic assessment drew from available secondary data published by
international financial institutions and other partners, including the Government of Tajikistan.
The assessment is divided into three levels: macro, meso and micro. On macro level, the focus has been
on the macroeconomic fundamentals and outlook based on available evidence, as well as government
For simplicity and clarity, the acronym ‘MSMEs’ throughout the report refers to not only micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises,
1
but also individual entrepreneurs and dehkan farmers.
policy and counter-measures to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on livelihoods and entrepreneurship.
On meso level, the analysis comprehensively reviews and presents the challenges and opportunities of
business environment including informal sector and recommends further plausible actions to support
MSMEs in the four sectors across the country, building on primary and secondary data. On micro level, the
assessment focuses on households through the livelihoods and welfare improvement lens vis-a-vis policy
implementation that follows through on macro and meso levels. Several at-risk vulnerable population
groups are further assessed on the basis of primary data collected through the surveys, such as women
and girls, youth, returning labor migrants, and people with disabilities.
The overall purpose of the surveys is to understand the immediate and longer-term impact of COVID-19 on
livelihoods (for HHs) and business practices and prospects (for MSMEs). Both surveys align quantitative and
qualitative indicators and objectives with the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and
the principle of leaving no one behind (LNOB).2 In certain respects the two sets are also complementary to
one another, by way of representing the supply and the demand sides for labor and consumption.
The main survey instrument was the questionnaire, with various modules adapted for interviews with
relevant target groups. Interviews consisted of general (lasting up to 30 minutes) and in-depth (averaging
80 minutes) interviews and targeted various groups among household members and representatives of
MSMEs. Most interviews were carried out in Tajik language and by phone, although some interviews were
also carried out in other languages (e.g. Russian and Uzbek) and based on face-to-face meetings as the
risk of COVID-19 somewhat subsided in July 2020. The method and length of the interviews has resulted
in high probability of non-sampling errors. The limitations of the survey, and the problems that the survey
team encountered, are summarized in sub-section 1.3.
TABLE 1: IMPACT ASSESSMENT AT HOUSEHOLD LEVEL AND MSME LEVEL.
Households MSMEs
• To identify the COVID-19 crisis impact, • To measure the impact of COVID-19 on the work
challenges and needs of HHs across of MSMEs and their viability/resilience in key
geographic locations, and in urban and economic sectors and across the regions.
rural areas.
• To determine how HHs, particularly those • To identify the way how MSMEs are currently
which are most at-risk,3 cope/withstand the coping (closing, downsizing, repurposing, etc.)
financial, social and other challenges. and to map out their challenges/needs.
• To assess the impact on HH consumption, • To assess the impact on vulnerable groups (i.e.
poverty, behavior and human development women, youth, labor migrants, and people with
(e.g., access to education and health care disabilities) employed in, or headed by, MSMEs.
services, financial inclusion, and others).
• To measure the impact of COVID-19 on • To measure the impact of COVID-19 on informal
informal sector (focusing on women, youth sector and casual workers and assess the way
and labor migrants) and coping strategies. they are coping with pandemic implications.
• To determine if HHs (and vulnerable groups • To determine if MSMEs and employees use
within these HHs) use any innovative any innovative adaptation practices (e.g., inter-
coping or adaptation practices. sectoral employment shifts, etc.).
2
This is in line with the 2018 Voluntary National Review of the Achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the
Republic of Tajikistan produced by the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade (MoEDT) of the Republic of Tajikistan.
3
Have at least one member of the household who belongs to one of four vulnerability groups (i.e. is a woman, or a child aged 15–24,
or a labor migrant, or a person with disability).
Background 13
The surveys aimed to achieve several objectives:
• provide specific insights on the formal and informal sectors and their redress/recovery potential;
• focus on the most at-risk (i.e. vulnerable) population,4 including women, youth, labor migrants, and
people with disabilities);
• identify any innovative adaptation practices, particularly those that are employed by MSMEs, and
coping mechanisms adopted by HHs to avoid the deterioration in livelihoods and welfare;
• determine emerging inequalities, which directly affect livelihoods and human development; and
• flesh out differences in impact and resilience among HHs and MSMEs in various clusters (e.g., urban
and rural areas, geographic locations, and various economic sectors).
SAMPLING DESIGN
The primary sample contains 1,000 households (HHs) and 700 MSMEs5 in the Republic of Tajikistan.6 To
account for significant attrition and anticipated non-response rate the number of reserve primary sampling
units (PSUs) comprised 200 % of the number of respondents in the primary sample. Hence, the reserve
sample included about 2,000 additional HHs and 1,400 additional MSMEs.
The geographical spread of the sample consisting of 1,000 households (HHs) is proportional to regional
distribution of population in Tajikistan. The sample of HHs was initially stratified in the following way:
1. By gender: at least 50 % of respondents within PSUs (i.e. within HHs) are women and girls.7
2. By age group: at least 30 % of respondents within PSUs (i.e. within HHs) are youth aged 15–24;
3. By incidence of labor migration: at least 25 % of respondents within PSUs (i.e. within HHs) have at least
one member of their household who is a labor migrant;8
4. By incidence of disability: at least 10 % of respondents within PSUs (i.e. within HHs) have at least one
member of their HH who is a person with disability.9
5. The survey did not distinguish between other HH characteristics as potential strata, or specifically
accounted for other vulnerability factors such as impoverishment (financial deprivation). While the
survey aimed to capture monetary/income poverty through the questionnaire(s), poor HHs were not
specifically made a stratum because neither LLC ‘Tahlil va Mashvarat,’ a member of Z-Analytics Group,
nor UNDP had advance knowledge of poverty distribution among HHs. At the same time, data from
past surveys10 demonstrates that it is highly likely that poverty is significantly more prevalent among
HHs in rural areas. Therefore, the sample of HHs accounts for this hypothesis (and likelihood) and
makes sure that 72 % of HHs reside in rural areas so as to capture income poverty.
4
While there are many factors associated with vulnerability, this assessment examines young people aged 15–24 who are: members
of low-income or vulnerable households, members of migrants’ family or labor migrants themselves (but currently stuck at home and
unemployed), NEET category, or living with disability. Vulnerabilities may emerge for many young people while aged 15–24, as it is
a time of rapid physical, sexual, social and emotional change. During this time of change, young people may display an increased
level of risk-taking behaviour including the misuse of alcohol and other drugs as well as susceptibility to violent narratives. Given the
complex nature of disadvantage, vulnerable young people may be in need of multiple welfare and health services, and policy settings
that maximise participation in school and employment.
5
The acronym MSMEs refers to micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises, individual entrepreneurs and dehkan farmers.
6
The survey team deemed that a rounded-up sample size of 1,000 households and 700 MSMEs (including individual entrepreneurs
and dehkan farmers). The sample of 1,000 HHs is nationally representative from a statistical point of view, while the sample of 700
MSMEs includes sufficient representation in each of the four selected economic sectors.
Although female respondents will be earmarked at 50 % of the sample, the survey is not specifically seeking to capture women-
7
headed households. This was neither prescribed in the Terms of Reference, nor discussed in meetings with UNDP.
8
This suggested proportion of HHs with labor migrants is fully in line with findings reported by the World Bank’s «Listening to
Tajikistan: Survey of Wellbeing (L2TJK).» The share of HHs with migrants in latest round (completed in January 2018) was 26 %.
9
This suggested proportion is in line with the proportion of people with disabilities in previous similar surveys, such as 18 % in the
report by Mirzoev, S. 2018. Market Responsive and Inclusive Training Program (MRITP) Survey Report. Dushanbe, p.24.
10
Such as the World Bank’s «Listening to Tajikistan: Survey of Wellbeing (L2TJK),» which ran between Dec’2017 and Oct’2018.
TABLE 2: SAMPLING DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN TAJIKISTAN.
Additional characteristics for selection

Preliminary
Final
proportional 30 % of young
Region | Strata sampling 50 % of female
sampling respondents
distribution respondents (no.
distribution (15–24 y.o.) (no.
of respondents)
of respondents)
Dushanbe — urban 103 100 50 30
GBAO — urban 4 10 5 3
GBAO — rural 24 20 10 6
DRS — urban 31 30 15 9
DRS — rural 198 200 100 60
Soghd oblast — urban 76 80 40 24
Soghd oblast — rural 223 220 110 66
Khatlon oblast — urban 62 60 30 18
Khatlon oblast — rural 279 280 140 84
Sub-total — urban: 276 280 140 84
Sub-total — rural: 724 720 360 216
TOTAL 1,000 1,000 500 300
The sample of 700 MSMEs is proportional to the general population of primary sampling units (PSUs), i.e.
private enterprises in Tajikistan. The sample was stratified in the following way:11
1. By type of enterprise: micro enterprises, including individual entrepreneurs (52.1 %), dehkan farms
(26.4 %), small enterprises (14.3 %), and medium enterprises (7.1 %).
2. By geographic location: Dushanbe (20 %), Soghd oblast (30.7 %), Khatlon oblast (31.4 %), DRS (16.4 %),
and GBAO (1.4 %).
The following sampling outcomes were reached:
• About 35 % of the sample comprised women-led enterprises and women entrepreneurs;
• Dehkan farmers comprised approximately 26 % of the sample;
• At least 20 MSMEs (out of 150 MSMEs in the sample) were engaged in cross-border trade; and
• At least 50 MSMEs or individual entrepreneurs reportedly had employees with disabilities.
Sampling was carried out using propensity score matching.

11
Background 15
TABLE 3: SAMPLING DISTRIBUTION OF MSMEs IN TAJIKISTAN.
Legal entities Individual entrepreneurs

Region TOTAL
Dehkan
Small Medium Patent Certificate
farms
Agribusiness12 15 10 – – 205 210
of which: woman-owned 4 1 – – 83 81
Tourism and hospitality13 30 5 – 35 – 70
of which: woman-owned 11 -- – 12 – 23
Light industry14 20 30 30 5 – 105
of which: woman-owned 4 3 15 – – 29
Personal services15 35 5 170 105 – 315
of which: woman-owned 16 1 55 38 – 110
TOTAL: 100 50 200 145 205 700
TOTAL (woman-owned): 35 5 70 50 83 245
MSMEs were clustered by economic sectors. Based on the standardized growth accounting exercise
leading up to this assessment, four relatively broad economic sectors were chosen. These sectors
represent more than 40 % of Tajikistan’s economy and include sectors exhibiting the greatest expansion
in employment and value addition (i.e. contribution to GDP growth) during 2015–2019. Besides, these
sectors are also reportedly most sensitive to external shocks and are therefore most at-risk in terms of
employment, economic activity, and dependency on individual consumption patterns in Tajikistan.
Each sample size reflects estimation of the sample with a 95 % confidence level and 5 % error margin.
The samples are nationwide and were drawn from lists (or registries) of households and MSMEs from
government and non-government sources, including LLC ‘Tahlil va Mashvarat’, UNDP, Accelerate Prosperity,
the Agency for Statistics under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan, the Trade and Industry Chamber
of the Republic of Tajikistan, amongst other sources.
12
May include any sub-sector depending on dehkan farmers and other MSMEs (including producers of agricultural inputs,
processors, sales firms, intermediary companies, and others).
13
E.g., hotels, guesthouses, tourist firms, guides, national and international tour operators, recreational sites (such as ski resort,
swimming pools), natural habitats/zoos, and others).
14
With particular focus on textile and clothing sub-sector; also including furniture developers, sewing firms, production of food
products, footwear, leather, paper products, handcrafts, and others.
15
E.g., beauty industry, nursing, restaurants, cafeterias and coffee shops, catering and delivery services, ateliers, internet cafes,
home improvement services, plumbing, car washing and maintenance services, gardening services, home/fabric cleaning services,
translation services, event management services, taxi services, and others.
LIMITATIONS
The assessment presented a comprehensive picture of immediate and potential longer-term impact of
COVID-19 outbreak on lives and livelihoods, and MSMEs, but there were some unavoidable limitations:
• It may be too early to assess impact because Tajikistan is not yet past the COVID-19 outbreak, while
the socio-economic situation is still unfolding against the backdrop of restrictions and mitigation
measures undertaken by the Government of Tajikistan. Therefore, the assessment captures immediate
and short-term effect of the COVID-19 outbreak on livelihoods and MSMEs, but longer-term effect is
often extrapolated on the basis of primary and secondary data.
• An impact assessment implies estimation of the net change in the situation or circumstances, which in
turn requires establishment of quantitative and qualitative baselines. The assessment has revealed that
most baselines referred to pre–2020 data, which can provide a reasonable baseline scenario. Some
observables, such as poverty and vulnerability and select labor market indicators (e.g., average salaries
broken down by sector), relied on government statistics from earlier years such as 2018.
• The survey was carried out in June-July 2020, i.e. following the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in
Tajikistan. This presented fieldwork challenges because some respondents could have been sick and
unavailable for interview, and a large number of interviews was conducted by phone.16 This has led to
delays in the completion of fieldwork.
• Phone interview is a limited survey instrument, which the survey team was obliged to use in the
presence of social distancing measures and the risk of coronavirus infection in Tajikistan. The use of
phone limits the time of interviews, hence shortening the number of questions asked and often require
follow up or further clarification.
• High non-response rates were prevalent among MSMEs. A large number of MSMEs from the primary
sample chose not to complete interview in full, requiring subsequent replacement by the survey team
which had an adverse time and cost implication on the overall survey. Another group of MSMEs were
unavailable for interview at all under any circumstances, which again exhausted the reserve sample
and required more time to meet the ‘quotas’ for each stratum.
• Responses to monetary questions (e.g. on consumption or financial resources) from both sets of
respondents (HHs and MSMEs) were sometimes restrained due to sensitivity or caution. This led to
limited analytical value of some responses recorded in the database for further analysis.
• Where primary data was incomplete or inconclusive, reasonable assumptions were made to arrive at
conclusions to explain observations, supported by evidence from secondary data. At the same time,
when the sample turned out to be small in some strata, responses could not always be extrapolated to
explain the situation in the general population of HHs or MSMEs.
• For the purpose of the assessment, unit of measurement varied from individuals to HHs or sub-groups
of respondents which complicates integration and/or interpretation of key findings.
• In many instances, phone registries that were obtained by the survey team turned out to be rather
outdated, often with many missing entries (e.g. active phone numbers). This has resulted in some
delays in the preparation for fieldwork due to the time needed for validation.
16
Due to high degree of mobile network penetration rates in the regions, and possession of mobile (or landline) phones by all
respondents, phone interviews were chosen.
Background 17
Socio-economic assessment
This chapter aims to provide a fairly comprehensive context of the main socio-economic factors in recent
years right up to the COVID-19 outbreak. By doing so, a clearer point of reference has been created
against which some of the immediate as well as longer-term effects of the pandemic can be viewed. As
the analysis below demonstrates, Tajikistan’s socio-economic environment had been affected by a number
of challenges prior to the pandemic and over a number of years. Hence, there are complexities involved
in isolating the direct impact of the unfolding global and regional crisis since January 2020. While the
pandemic is inevitably worsening, the existing bottlenecks and persistent challenges should not be solely
held up as the cause of those poor performances or policy challenges. The overall long-term impact is
also narrowing the plausible policy options for recovery and postponing it compared to pre-COVID-19
projections.
The socio-economic assessment includes comparative data for key macroeconomic fundamentals and
social indicators for pre-pandemic and current period, most of which support the view expressed above.
A more elaborate analysis of detectable immediate and longer-term effects of the coronavirus pandemic
on business, lives and livelihoods is provided in Chapters 3 and 4, based upon key findings of the sample
surveys of the households and micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs).
ECONOMIC GROWTH
The economy of Tajikistan has been growing steadily over the past few years, with real GDP growth
reaching 7.5 % or $ 8,180.5 million in 2019.17 Since 2000, the growth rate has marked an annual average
rate of 7.6 %, which is much higher than the average of other economies in the Caucasus and Central
Asia region (5.6 %) and low-income countries (also 5.6 %).18 Tajikistan’s economy grew at an even larger
pace in 2015–2016 when other countries in the region experienced a slowdown due to the sharp drop
of hydrocarbon prices and recession in the Russian Federation. These relatively high growth rates are in
line with the figures from the National Development Strategy (NDS) of the Government of the Republic of
Tajikistan for the period until 2030, which correspond to the ‘industrial’ (or moderate) scenario.19
However, the COVID-19 outbreak yielded negative changes in the country’s domestic output (See Table 4).
According to the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, Tajikistan’s economy grew at the real rate
of 3.5 % during January-June 2020, which is markedly lower than in the first six months of the preceding
year (7.5 %). In January-June 2020, nominal GDP amounted to 32,444.6 million somoni or $ 3,240.7 million.
The year-on-year decline is mainly attributed to the COVID-19 outbreak, resulting in lower cargo turnover
(by 0.2 %), passenger turnover (by 19.5 %), construction (by 4.6 %), sales (by 5.2 %), retail trade (by 1.1 %), and
paid services to the population (by 14 %).20
At the same time, the size of Tajikistan’s economy increased nominally by almost 60 % from 2015 to
2019, with per-capita gross national income (GNI) equaling $ 1,030 in 2019. According to the World
Ministry of Economic Development and Trade; Agency on Statistics under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan.
17
18
Source: World Bank online database. Partly, this is because economic growth in Tajikistan has been less affected by exogenous
shock that adversely affected growth of many other developing countries, such as the burst of dotcom bubble in 2001, the global
financial crisis in 2008–2009, and the collapse of commodity prices in 2015–2016. Tajikistan’s growth slowed down to 3.9 % at the time
of the global financial crisis in 2009, but the degree of decline was much less severe than the Caucasus and Central Asia as a whole.
19
In particular, the ‘industrial’ scenario anticipates growth rates to be at least 6.7 % in 2020, 6.9 % in 2025, and 7.8 % in 2030.
20
Agency on Statistics under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan.
Socio-economic assessment 19
Bank methodology,21 Tajikistan is classified as a low-income country (LIC), the only such country in the
Commonwealth of the Independent States (CIS) and one of only 29 countries (out of 218) to be in this
category.22 This represents a particular challenge for policy makers because so far the persistently high
growth rates since early 2000s have not translated into higher disposable incomes and a greatly improved
welfare of the population. It may also take the country several years to recover lost output due to COVID-19
restrictions, and the most effective way to do so is to ensure and sustain private sector led economic growth.
FIGURE 1: TAJIKISTAN’S GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT FIGURE 2: GROWTH ACCOUNTING

FIGURE 1: TAJIKISTAN'S GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT FIGURE 2: GROWTH ACCOUNTING IN TAJIKISTAN,
IN NOMINAL AND REAL TERMS, 2015–2023.23 IN TAJIKISTAN, 2000–2018.
IN NOMINAL AND REAL TERMS, 2015-2023.1 2000-2018.
140 000 9,0 Capital Stock
8,0 Labor
7,3 7,6 8,0 14,0
Growth rate (percentage points)

120 000 7,8
6,9 12,0 Total Factor Productivity
7,0
100 000 7,1 7,5 Real GDP
10,0
% change in GDP
6,0
Million somoni
6,0 8,0
80 000 5,0
4,7 6,0
60 000 4,0
4,0
3,0 2,0
40 000
2,0 0,0
20 000 -2,0
1,0
0 0,0 -4,0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 -6,0
2012
2010
2011
2017
2006
2009
2013
2014
2016
2005
2008
2015
2018
2002
2000
2001
2003
2004
2007
Nominal GDP (in millions of Tajik somoni)
Real GDP growth rate (in %)
/Source:
/Source: Agency for Statistics
Statistics under
under the
thePresident
Presidentof
ofthe
theRepublic
RepublicofofTajikistan
Tajikistan(Figure
(Figure
1) 1)
andand the
the Asian
Asian Development
Development Bank
Bank (Figure
(Figure 2).
2).
Key growth drivers
FIGURE
The main3:growth
TRENDSdrivers
IN CONSUMER PRICES AND
are construction, light industryFIGURE 4: GROWTH
(e.g. textiles DECOMPOSITION
and clothing), electricity,BYand
VALUE
services
2
CURRENCY VOLATILITY IN TAJIKISTAN, 2018-2020. ADDED IN TAJIKISTAN, 2015-2020.
(namely, rising proceeds from tourism and the financial sector, and various personal services). However,
the IMF
120,0estimates that Tajikistan’s economy will 24 contract up 8,0to 2 % in 2020, which implies a significant
Exchange rate (Q1-2018 = 100)
economic
115,0 downturn that will require targeted crisis mitigation measures. The last time Tajikistan’s
24
Inflation (cumulative %)
20
% change (real growth rate)
economy 6,0
110,0 contracted so sharply was only caused by the civil war in the 1990s, while the lowest recorded
16
year-on-year
105,0 GDP growth rate was 3.9 % in 2009, following 4,0
the global financial crisis. Therefore, such low
projections for Tajikistan are unprecedented12in the past 25 years, suggesting that the socio-economic
100,0
consequences
95,0 of COVID-19 outbreak are likely 8 to be severe. 2,0 At the same time, the degree to which
90,0
each sector has been affected by the COVID-19 outbreak appear to be lagged and will become more
4 0,0
85,0
measurable later in the year as the situation gradually unfolds. 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
80,0 0
-2,0
Q1-2019
Q2-2019
Q1-2018
Q2-2018
Q3-2018
Q4-2018
Q3-2019
Q4-2019
Q2-2020
Q1-2020
In addition, capital formulation has been another growth driver for Tajikistan since the mid-2000s,
-4,0
although it was mainly driven by public investment. The share of private investment has remained low.
The private investment
Consumer accounts
inflation, period average (%for onlycumulative)
change, 4.4 % of GDP on average since 2000, well
Agriculture
below the average
Industry
of the CIS countries
Exchange rate (TJS atper21 %.
25
Theaverage)
1 USD, period low level of private investment is featured not only
Construction inand
Trade domestic
hospitality capital
Exchange rate (TJS per 1 RUB, period average) Transport and comms Services (other)
/Source:
Source:
21 Agency for Statistics under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan and the National Bank of Tajikistan.
https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups. Tajikistan
has only ever ‘moved’ into the lower-middle-income country (LMIC) category in 2015, with a GNI of $ 1,080.
22
Low-income economies are defined as those with a GNI per capita of $ 1,035 or less in 2019 (calculated using the World Bank’s
Atlas method).
The forecasts for 2020–2023 are in line with the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan “On Forecasts of Main
23
Macroeconomic Indicators of the Republic of Tajikistan for 2021–2023” (#421 dated July 30, 2020).
IMF. 2020. Staff Report on the Republic of Tajikistan. Request for Disbursement under the Rapid Credit Facility (RCF). Washington,
24
DC, p.4.
25
World Bank Group. 2018. Tajikistan: Systemic Country Diagnostics. Washington, DC.

1 The forecasts for 2020‐2023 are in line with the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan "On Forecasts of
Main Macroeconomic Indicators of the Republic of Tajikistan for 2021‐2023" (#421 dated July 30, 2020).
2
formation, but also in the TABLE 4: REAL GDP GROWTH FORECASTS FOR TAJIKISTAN, 2019–2021.
cross-border inflow. Update 2019 2020f 2020f
Net inflow of foreign direct IMF May’20 7.5 –2.0 7.5

investment (FDI) substantially World Bank April’20 7.5 1.7 3.7
declined after the outbreak EBRD May’20 7.5 –1.0 5.0
of COVID-19 and is unlikely to
recover to pre-2020 level in ADB July’20 7.5 –3.6 7.0
the near future. In the period MoEDT July’20 7.5 4.7 7.6
of 2010–2019, the size of
FDI inflow to Tajikistan was / Source: IMF Country Report No. 20/151 (May 2020); 2020 Global Economic Prospects
3.2 % of GDP, lower than the (World Bank); Asian Development Outlook Supplement (ADB, July 2020); Regional Econom-
4 % average of low-income ic Prospects (EBRD, May 2020 Update); and the MoEDT estimates (July 2020).
economies.26 According to the
IMF projections, FDI inflows are likely to drop to 1.2 % of GDP in 2020 and pick up to 2.5 % of GDP in 2021.
These projections have some ground, particularly because the balance of payments statistics shows that in
the first quarter of 2020 FDI inflows dropped by 2.5 % of GDP year-on-year (from $ 53.7 million in Q1-2019
to $ 18.3 million in Q1-2020 respectively).
While there has been a universal consensus that Central Asia including Tajikistan, like the rest of the world,
had to face downward adjustments to the 2020 estimate, most of the projections were initially made based
on two scenarios:
• Assumptions and impact under the baseline scenario: containment measures, including quarantines,
travel restrictions, and international border closures, are lifted by the end of the second quarter of
2020, allowing for the resumption of economic activity; and
• Assumptions and impact under the adverse scenario: the efforts and restrictions to contain the
outbreak spill into the third quarter of 2020.
As the world is already well into the third quarter, it is plausible to base the analysis on the second
scenario. The forecasts for 2021 are widely different and all may prove over-optimistic. By way of a
passing example, according to the Bank of England, recovery in the United Kingdom is estimated at best
to take nine quarters.
Consumer prices
Consumer inflation in Tajikistan has been contained within single digits, averaging 6.2 % year-on-year
during 2015–2019.27 At the same time, as an immediate impact of the pandemic, inflation in January-
June 2020 was relatively high and caused by a sharp decline in imports of staple foods and retail market
speculation, which in turn led to panic buying, particularly in urban areas. Prices peaked in March and
April 2020 — 1.6 % and 2.2 % respectively, due to panic buying flour, canned food products, and personal
hygiene and protective items, in addition to supply scarcities. However, once the initial reactions slowed
down, consumer prices in June 2020 deflated by 1.1 % compared to the previous month.28
In the first half of 2020, consumer prices rose by 7.5 % year-on-year (or by 4.3 % between January and June
2020), compared to 6.6 % during the same period in the previous year. Inflation in the second half of 2020
is expected to be lower than in the first few months the year due to depressed demand for goods and
services, lower disposable incomes, decline in business activities, and virtual standstill in private investment.
26
This makes a sharp contrast to remittances, another form of cross-border financial inflow. Remittances to Tajikistan accounted
for 35.3 % of GDP on average in the same period, substantially higher than 5.6 % for low-income countries. Unlike FDI, however,
remittances are typically spent for consumption without adding to capital formulation and long-term growth.
27
28
Ibid.
140
140000
000 9,0
9,0 Capital
CapitalStock
Stock
Labor
Labor 8,0
8,0
7,3
7,3 8,0
8,0 14,0
14,0 7,6
7,6

120
120000
000 7,8
7,8
6,9
6,9 12,0
12,0 Total
TotalFactor
FactorProductivity
Productivity
7,0
7,0
100
100000
000 7,1
7,1 7,5
7,5 Real
RealGDP
GDP
10,0
10,0
% change in GDP
% change in GDP
6,0
6,0
Million somoni
Million somoni
6,0
6,0 8,0
8,0
80
80000
000 5,0
5,0
4,7
4,7 6,0
6,0
Currency
60
60000volatility
000 4,0
4,0
4,0
4,0
3,0
3,0 2,0
2,0
40
40000
000
Another major macroeconomic fundamental to2,0 take
2,0 note of 0,0
during
0,0 the COVID-19 outbreak is volatility of
20
20000
000 currency (somoni). Exchange rate of somoni against
the national -2,0 the US dollar and the Russian ruble is
-2,0
1,0
1,0
important00for individuals (linked to borrowing and 0,0incomes)-4,0
0,0 and
-4,0 MSMEs (linked to access to finance).
2015
20152016
20162017
20172018
20182019
20192020
20202021
20212022
20222023
2023 -6,0
-6,0
Specifically, Tajik somoni depreciated by 9.5 % against the Russian ruble between January 2018 and June
2012
2012
2010
2010
2011
2011
2017
2017
2006
2006
2009
2009
2013
2013
2014
2014
2005
2005
2008
2008
2015
2015
2016
2016
2018
2018
2002
2002
2000
2000
2001
2001
2003
2003
2004
2004
2007
2007
2020 (and by 8.7 % inGDP
Nominal
Nominal the first
GDP(in
(in sixofmonths
millions
millions ofTajik of 2020 alone), which effectively lowered incomes available to
Tajiksomoni)
somoni)
families in Tajikistan.
Real
29
RealGDP This
growthis
GDPgrowth because
rate
rate(in
(in%)%) admittedly more than 70 % of incomes of labor migrants are remitted
back home in Russian rubles in accordance with the Central Bank of Russia. Hence, continued appreciation
/Source:
/Source:Agency
of somoniAgency for
forStatistics
against Statisticsunder
underthe
the Russian thePresident
ruble Presidentofofthe
means that theRepublic
RepublicofofTajikistan
the valueTajikistan (Figure
(Figure1)1)and
of household andthe
theAsian
incomes AsianDevelopment
DevelopmentBank
becomes Bank(Figure
(Figure
proportionately
2).
2).
lower. In turn, this constrains consumer demand and slows down business activity.
FIGURE 3: TRENDS IN CONSUMER PRICES AND FIGURE 4: GROWTH DECOMPOSITION BY VALUE

FIGURE
FIGURE3:3:TRENDS
TRENDSIN
INCONSUMER
CONSUMERPRICES
PRICESAND
AND FIGURE
FIGURE4:4:GROWTH
GROWTHDECOMPOSITION
DECOMPOSITIONBY
BY
30VALUE
VALUE
CURRENCY VOLATILITY IN TAJIKISTAN, 2018–2020. ADDED IN TAJIKISTAN, 2015–2020.
22
CURRENCY
CURRENCYVOLATILITY
VOLATILITYIN
INTAJIKISTAN,
TAJIKISTAN,2018-2020.
2018-2020. ADDED
ADDEDIN
INTAJIKISTAN,
2015-2020.
120,0
120,0 24
24 8,0
8,0
115,0
115,0
20
20

110,0
110,0 6,0
6,0
1616
105,0
105,0
4,0
4,0
100,0
100,0 1212
95,0
95,0 2,0
2,0
88
90,0
90,0
44 0,0
0,0
85,0
85,0
2015
2015 2016
2016 2017
2017 2018
2018 2019
2019 2020
2020
80,0
80,0 00
-2,0
-2,0
Q1-2019
Q1-2019
Q1-2018
Q1-2018
Q2-2018
Q2-2018
Q3-2018
Q3-2018
Q4-2018
Q4-2018
Q2-2019
Q2-2019
Q3-2019
Q3-2019
Q4-2019
Q4-2019
Q2-2020
Q2-2020
Q1-2020
Q1-2020
-4,0
-4,0
Consumer
Consumerinflation,
inflation,period
periodaverage
average(%(%change,
change,cumulative)
cumulative) Agriculture
Agriculture Industry
Industry
Exchange
Exchangerate
rate(TJS
(TJSper
per1 1USD,
USD,period
periodaverage)
average) Construction
Construction Trade
Tradeand
andhospitality
hospitality
Exchange
Exchangerate
rate(TJS
(TJSper
per1 1RUB,
RUB,period
periodaverage)
average) Transport
Transportand
andcomms
comms Services
Services(other)
(other)
/Source:
/Source:
/Source: Agency
Agency
Agency for
forforStatistics
Statistics
Statistics under
under
under the
thethePresident
President
President ofof
ofthe
thetheRepublic
Republic
Republic ofof
ofTajikistan
Tajikistan
Tajikistan and
andand
thethe
theNational
National
National Bank
Bank
Bank of of
ofTajikistan.
Tajikistan.
Tajikistan.
Another concern is continued depreciation of Tajik somoni against the US dollar, namely by 16.3 %
between
January 2018 and June 2020 (and by 6.4 % in the first six months of 2020).31 This is important for
businesses because, while the demand for dollar-denominated credit is high, lending in foreign currency
has increased the vulnerability of smaller businesses (as well as individual entrepreneurs and dehkan
farmers). This also pushes the prices for imported goods and services in Tajikistan’s economy, which are
highly sensitive to cost-of-living increases, currency depreciation, and external price shocks.
More recently, but prior to the pandemics, Tajikistan was hit by adverse economic shocks due to a sharp
drop in commodity prices,32 a significant economic slowdown in major trading partners33 and a loss in
competitiveness.34 Economic growth has continued to be driven by growth in remittances and public
investment, although both are slowing down too soon since the beginning of 2020. Accordingly, low foreign
investment and lower domestic demand

mean that future economic growth is likely to be unsustainable
1in the presence of external shocks and restrictions that are meant to contain the COVID-19 outbreak.
The forecasts for 2020‐2023 are in line with the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan "On Forecasts of
1 The forecasts for 2020‐2023 are in line with the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan "On Forecasts of
Figures for 2020 are based on the MoEDT's projection of 4.7% growth of domestic output in Tajikistan (as of July 30, 2020 in line
2 Figures for 2020 are based on the MoEDT's projection of 4.7% growth of domestic output in Tajikistan (as of July 30, 2020 in line
229 Ibid.
with the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan #421 "On the forecast of main macroeconomic indicators of
with the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan #421 "On the forecast of main macroeconomic indicators of
30
Figures for 2020 are based on the MoEDT’s projection of 4.7 % growth of domestic output in Tajikistan (as of July 30, 2020 in line
the Republic of Tajikistan for 2021‐2023").
the Republic of Tajikistan for 2021‐2023").
with the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan #421 “On the forecast of main macroeconomic indicators of the
Republic of Tajikistan for 2021–2023”).
National Bank of Tajikistan.
31
32
Particularly for oil and metals, such as gold and aluminum. Tajikistan is a non-oil economy, but there is a high correlation with the
changes in oil price because over 80 % of remittances are coming from oil-rich Russia.
33
Especially Russia and Kazakhstan (both countries are oil exporters).
34
Owing to a decrease in the value of Tajik somoni by more than 70 % against the U.S. dollar during 2015–2019.
According to EBRD, demand conditions in Tajikistan are expected to significantly worsen in 2020,35 although
limited containment measures are expected to provide businesses the opportunity to stay afloat.
Poverty reduction
While the economy of Tajikistan has been growing at a robust pace, job creation and poverty reduction has
stagnated. Since 2009, poverty has fallen by approximately 1 % each year, which shows the slowing pace of
poverty reduction efforts.36 The poverty level has decreased from around 80 % in 2000 to 45 % in 2010 and
further down to 27.5 % of the population in 2019.37 Poverty incidence is still prevalent among women and
girls, particularly in rural areas, such as due to more limited access to jobs.38 One of the reasons why poverty
persists is the lack of adequately remunerated jobs, which forces many citizens into labor migration. Another
reason is that household incomes are mainly used for consumption, with little or no savings, which reduces
resilience to withstand economic and financial hardships and increases vulnerability. It is highly likely that
the gains from past years of poverty reduction may be lost due to the COVID-19 situation.
The Agency for Statistics under the President estimated that poverty reduction efforts in 2015–2016 had
not resulted in expansion of the middle class in Tajikistan.39 In 2016, the middle class40 was estimated
to equal 23 % of the population and is sensitive to seasonality. Nearly half of those who belonged to the
middle class resided in the Soghd province. The same report indicates that households which belong
to the middle class had, on average, fewer number of children, women and elderly people. While latest
figures on the proportion of the population in ‘middle class’ category are unavailable, the share of middle
class is likely to shrink as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak. This may happen due to income distribution
which is skewed more towards the top and the lower income groups. The implication of a shrinking middle
class is an expected slowdown in both consumption and savings.
Impressive poverty reduction and investment in the delivery of public services, such as in education,
had also resulted in higher Human Development Index (HDI) score. Tajikistan’s HDI score improved from
0.642 in 2015 to 0.656 in 2019 (with Tajikistan ranking 125th out of 189 countries), suggesting steady
progress in the quality of life and human development. However, the inequality-adjusted HDI was 0.574,
i.e. 11 % lower than the HDI, which signifies a loss in human development due to inequality. Also, average
annual HDI growth is slowing due to rapid population growth and economic challenges.41 In addition, the
Gender Development Index (GDI) value stands at 0.799, which is significantly lower than neighboring
countries in Central Asia.42 While it is early to assess the HDI trend in 2020, the COVID-19 outbreak will
probably result in further slowing down of HDI growth in Tajikistan and, in particular, a decline in GNI per
capita, which is highly likely to have an immediate and significant effect on the standard of living. This
is also likely to further widen the gender gap in GNI per capita, which equaled $ 1,044 for women and
$ 5,881 for men in 2018.43
35
EBRD. 2020. Regional Economic Prospects. COVID-19: From Shock to Recovery. May 2020 Update. London, p.6.
36
World Bank. 2019. Tajikistan Country Economic Update: Heightening Fiscal Risks in Tajikistan. Washington, D.C., p.23.
37
38
Agency for Statistics under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan: https://www.stat.tj/ru/welfare-of-the-population.
Agency for Statistics under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan. 2016. Middle Class in Tajikistan: Assessment, Dynamic and
39
Characteristics. Dushanbe, p.12 (http://stat.ww.tj/pages/TJK_middle_class5_formatted_rus.pdf).

40
According to estimations based on an empirical model produced by the Agency for Statistics under the Government of the
Republic of Tajikistan and supported by the World Bank, the ‘middle class’ in Tajikistan was defined in 2016 by income level as follows:
from 38.35 somoni per person per month (vulnerable middle class) to 498.71 somoni per person per month (upper middle class). The
threshold was 1.8 times larger than the national poverty level in 2016, and was broadly in line with similar methodologies in other
countries.
UNDP. 2019. Human Development Report 2019. New York, p.306.
41
42
In comparison, GDI values for Uzbekistan and the Kyrgyz Republic are 0.939 and 0.959 respectively.
43
UNDP. 2019. Human Development Report 2019. Briefing Note for Countries on the 2019 HDR. New York, p.5.
PRIVATE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT
The Government of Tajikistan has undertaken a number of important interventions, which improved the
investment climate between 2015–201944 and smoothened the severity of impact from the pandemic.
Tajikistan has been recognized as one of the top 10 reformers in the World Bank’s Doing Business 2020,
although its score and ranking is comparatively low and had started from a very low base. Tajikistan’s ease-
of-doing business ranking has moved upwards to the 106th rank, with a score of 61.3 out of 100.45 However,
at the same time Tajikistan is considered the worst performer in competitiveness in the Eurasia region, with
a score of 52.4 (out of 100) and rank of 104th (out of 141 countries) according to the World Economic Forum’s
Global Competitiveness Index (GCI). The GCI further shows that Tajikistan received relatively low scores on
business dynamism, financial system, product market, and market size.46 This evidence suggests that the
private sector was already constrained and challenged pre-COVID.
FIGURE 5: COMPOSITION OF GROSS

DOMESTIC PRODUCT (GDP) IN TAJIKISTAN, FIGURE 6: SELECTED ECONOMIC INDICATORS
FIGURE 5:
FIGURE 5: COMPOSITION
COMPOSITION OF
OF GROSS
GROSS DOMESTIC
DOMESTIC FIGURE 6:
FIGURE 6: SELECTED
SELECTED ECONOMIC
ECONOMIC INDICATORS IN
INDICATORS IN
JANUARY-JUNE 2020. IN TAJIKISTAN, 2015–2020.
33
47
PRODUCT (GDP)
PRODUCT (GDP) IN
IN TAJIKISTAN,
TAJIKISTAN, JANUARY-JUNE
JANUARY-JUNE 2020.
2020. TAJIKISTAN, 2015-2020.
TAJIKISTAN, 2015-2020.
40,0
40,0 6,0
6,0
Agriculture
G&S
Agriculture
ofG&S
33 546;
546; 30,0
GDP
30,0
55 638;
638; ofGDP
importof
Industry
Industry 4,0
4,0
11%
11%
ofimport
17%
17%
Percentof
20,0
20,0
Construction
Construction
Percent
66 311;
311;
2,0
Monthsof
20% 2,0
20% 10,0
10,0
66 246;
246; Trade and
and
Months
Trade
19%
19% hospitality
hospitality
Transport and
and 0,0
0,0 0,0
0,0
22 577;
577; 8%
8% Transport
2015 2016
2015 2016 2017
2017 20182018 20192019 2020
2020
22 665;
665; communications
communications
55 462;
462; 8%
8% Other services
services Total reserves
Total reserves (in
(in months
months ofof import
import of
of G&S)
G&S)
17% Other FDI, Tajikistan
Tajikistan (in
(in %
% of
of GDP)
GDP)
17% FDI,
Remittances inflow
Remittances inflow (in
(in %
% of
of GDP)
GDP)
/Source: Agency
/Source: Agency for
for Statistics
Statistics under the
the President of
of the Republic
Republic of
of Tajikistan.
Tajikistan.
/Source: Agency for Statisticsunder
under thePresident
President of the
the Republic of Tajikistan.
There is a continuous crowding-out effect by the large state-owned enterprise (SOE) sector is still
sizeable, which deters potential market entry by smaller private firms and discourages the creation of
FIGURE
FIGURE 7: ECONOMICALLY
7: ECONOMICALLY
a level-playing ACTIVE
field in terms
ACTIVE POPULATION
of competition
POPULATION andAND FIGURE
accessFIGURE
AND 8: ECONOMICALLY
to resources.
8: ECONOMICALLY
48 INACTIVE
It is againstINACTIVE POPULATION
this backdrop of
POPULATION
AVERAGE WAGES IN TAJIKISTAN, 2015-2020. 4 AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN TAJIKISTAN, 2015-2018.
systemic
AVERAGE challenges
WAGES that the COVID-19
IN TAJIKISTAN, outbreak is unfolding
2015-2020. 4 in Tajikistan, affecting
AND UNEMPLOYMENT MSMEs. Besides,
IN TAJIKISTAN, 2015-2018.
through
000 SOEs the government continues 1to
33 000
exercise control3over
1 500
500 500 strategically important sectors, such 70,0 as
3 500 70,0
electricity and heating, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, mining, food processing, construction, transport 65,0 unemployment
registeredunemployment
65,0
22 500
500 11 250
250 3 000
000
and telecommunications, aviation, and others. The impact of3 large SOEs on availability of credit is 60,0
also
60,0
persons
somoni
'000persons
Tajiksomoni
22 000
000 11 000
000 22 500
500 55,0
persons
55,0
'000persons
2 000 50,0
50,0
4411 500
500 750
750 2 000
These interventions (i.e. investment climate reforms) include: (i) business regulation, such as inspections reform (e.g. use of risk
45,0
45,0
11 500
500 of permits law through the roll out of electronic
Tajik
planning
000 and reducing frequency and duration of inspections), (ii) implementation
'000
11 000 500 40,0

ofregistered
500 40,0
'000
permits system, (iii) consolidation of all investment incentives in Tajikistan with the view to introducing a more transparent mechanism
35,0
500 250 11 000
000 35,0
for500 250
their enactment, (iv) tax administration (e.g. tax instruments and regimes), (v) introduction of public-private partnership legislation
30,0
500 30,0
and its0implementation, notably in the energy sector,0(vi) improving corporate500 governance of private sector entities, (vii) improved
25,0
0 to credit, and (viii) and greater public-private 0dialogue, represented mainly by business associations, donors, and relevant 25,0
access
%%of
2015 2016
2015 2016 2017
2017 2018
2018 2019
2019 2020
2020 00 20,0
20,0
state institutions. 2015 2016 2017 2018
2015 2016 2017 2018
45 Total
World
Total employment,
Bank. 2020. Doing
employment, '000 persons
Business
'000 persons2020: Comparing Business Regulation in 190 Economies. Washington, D.C., p.4 and p.8.
Registered unemployment,
unemployment, '000 '000 persons
persons Studying but
Studying but not
not working
working (in
(in '000
'000 persons)
persons)
Registered
World
46
Economic
Nominal Forum.
wages 2019. The
(in somoni
somoni perGlobal
month)Competitiveness Report 2019. Geneva, p.12 andnor
Neither working
working p.542.
studying (in
(in '000
'000 persons)
persons)
Nominal wages (in per month) Neither nor studying
47 Real wages
Realdirect
Foreign wages (in somoni
(in somoni(FDI)
investment per
perandmonth;
month; in 2015 prices)
in 2015 figures
remittances prices) for 2020 correspondUnemployed
Unemployed (with
to actual (with incomplete
incomplete
reported secondary
figures secondary education;
as of June education;
30, in %)
in
2020. Total%)
reserves for 2020 correspond to actual reported figures as of March 30, 2020.
/Source: Agency
/Source: Agency forfor Statistics
Statistics under
under the
the President
President of
of the
the Republic
Republic of
of Tajikistan.
Tajikistan.
48
Mirzoev, S. and Sobirzoda, R. 2019. Leveraging SME Finance Through Value Chains in Tajikistan. ADBI Working Paper Series,
No.1020. Tokyo, p.2 (https://www.adb.org/publications/leveraging-sme-finance-through-value-chains-tajikistan).

significant, given the very concentrated financial sector and sizeable share of non-performing loans. In
2019, there were more than 1,100 SOEs in operation, of which 24 were large SOEs whose assets accounted
for approximately 42 % of GDP.49 In total, these large SOEs account for about 30 % of total employment and
continue to receive sizeable support from the state at the expense of taxpayers’ contributions. In hindsight,
continued subsidization of SOEs in the aftermath of the COVID-19 outbreak is likely to further strengthen
the position of SOEs at the expense of private MSMEs which are more disadvantaged in terms of access to
financial resources and governmental support.
Micro, small and medium-sized enterprises
Micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) play an important role as a source of employment,
but their contribution to GDP remains low (about 30 %), compared to the OECD average of 50 % in 2018.50
According to government sources, the share of MSMEs in total employment in Tajikistan equals about
35 %.51 The economy outside industrial complex (i.e. extractives and manufacturing) is dominated by self-
employed individuals, as well as small52 family-run companies. MSMEs are commonly regarded as part of
the growth transmission mechanism contributing to the wellbeing of households. However, MSMEs are
mainly operating in low productivity sectors53 and growth prospects for businesses are being held further
back by regulatory and economic impediments.
TABLE 5: BREAKDOWN OF ACTIVE MSMEs IN TAJIKISTAN (AS OF 1 JANUARY 2020).
Legal entities Individual entrepreneurs

Region Dehkan TOTAL
Small Medium Patent Certificate
farms
Dushanbe 5,166 359 24,785 10,365 0 40,675
GBAO 370 14 2,182 1,071 485 4,122
DRS 2,494 124 16,589 6,106 32,155 57,468
Soghd 5,596 267 35,499 10,957 62,334 114,653

Khatlon 5,230 186 26,283 6,105 60,647 98,451
TOTAL: 18,856 950 105,338 34,604 155,621 315,369
/Source: Agency for Statistics under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan.
Based on June 2020 data reported by the Agency for Statistics under the President, there were 623,500
commercial taxpayers (including dehkan farms and individual entrepreneurs), of which only 52.5 % were
active (or 327,478 commercial taxpayers). Such a high proportion of inactive taxpayers suggests either
that they evade tax payments and continue working informally, or that many are idle due to their inability
to access resources or cumbersome business environment. This argument is supported by government
data. During the period between January 2018 and June 2020, there were more MSMEs that shut down
compared to startups — namely, 2,979 new MSMEs registered but 3,134 MSMEs closed down. Meanwhile,
the total number of individual entrepreneurs rose by 32,436 during the same period. Hence, self-
49
Or 30 % of GDP excluding current assets as receivables.
50
OECD. 2019. SME and Entrepreneurship Outlook 2019. Policy Highlights. Geneva, p.3.
As a comparison, 10 years ago the share of SMEs in total formal employment was approximately 48 % (IFC, 2009).
51
52
According to the World Bank, about 70 % of formal private sector firms have fewer than 10 employees, while the average size of
MSMEs in Tajikistan equals 16 employees.
53
Strokova, V. and Ajwad, M. 2017. Jobs Diagnostic Tajikistan: Strategic Framework for Jobs. World Bank. Washington, DC, p.2 and p.23.
employment is on the rise while legal commercial entities are increasingly closing down. And that trend
only marginally accounts for anticipated consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak, which is likely to push
some MSMEs (and individual entrepreneurs) further into closure or significant hardship.
In both cases of the self-employed and MSMEs, the main question is the tenacity of keeping the
businesses profitable enough to last beyond a threshold. Normally, the failure ratio of startup MSMEs in
advanced economies is the highest during the first three years. In many ways, startups in Tajikistan face
similar existential challenges due to cumbersome business environment and other impediments. But this
threshold is expected to drop drastically in the post-pandemic era, at least in the medium-term perspective.
The majority of entrepreneurs operate in agriculture, e.g. small-holder farmers, traders and service
providers.54 Between June 2019 and June 2020, the total number of active commercial taxpayers rose
by 4.4 %, mainly due to the increase in the number of dehkan farmers and individual entrepreneurs (by
patent).55 The proportions are rather striking — e.g. 49.3 % of all active commercial taxpayers are dehkan
farmers, followed by another 44.4 % who are individual entrepreneurs. Only the remaining 6.3 % are
micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises. Medium-sized enterprises represent only 0.3 % of the total
number of active commercial taxpayers in Tajikistan, reinforcing the view about the ‘missing middle’ in
Tajikistan’s private sector.56
A very small proportion of MSMEs shows that many entrepreneurs are in fact reluctant to register as a
legal entity due to cumbersome taxation and government regulation. This disincentive also pushes local
entrepreneurs into informal employment to their workforce, which reduces operational costs as well as
visibility. Due to COVID-19, many MSMEs will face exacerbated problems, including inability to maintain
full-scale operations due to external lockdown measures, depressed demand, and disruption of supply
linkages and logistics. In effect, severe cash flow constraints may push an even larger number of MSMEs
into informal economy or complete closing down.
Sectoral overview
The four pre-selected sectors for the survey of MSMEs consist of agriculture (including cross-border
traders), manufacturing (specifically, light industry), tourism and hospitality, and personal services. The
survey results show that private businesses in these economic sectors are some of the most affected by
the COVID-19 outbreak in terms of negative effects on their employment, sales and turnover.
Agriculture
Agriculture in Tajikistan is the most densely populated of all economic sectors by self-employed (i.e.
individual entrepreneurs), including dehkan farms.57 According to the Agency for Statistics under the
President, in 2018, only 35.6 % of total employment in agriculture had a legally binding labor contract (i.e.
525,100 persons), of which 45 % were women. The share of horticulture in total agricultural output has
been growing, and 41 % of aggregate agricultural output was produced by dehkan farmers in 2019. Many
dehkan farms are also engaged in cross-border trade, which has been severely affected by COVID-19 due
to border restrictions. Agricultural productivity remains generally low compared to neighboring countries,
whereas wheat and cotton continue to dominate crop production and account for approximately 36 % and
25 % of Tajikistan’s total cropped area, respectively.
54
At the same time, other important sectors with relatively high density of MSMEs include: (i) retail trade, (ii) social and personal
services (e.g., beauty industry), (iii) construction (particularly construction materials), (iv) manufacturing (including food industry, light
industry, and others), and (v) financial services.
55
56
Ibid.
Mid-sized, privately owned commercial farms, which are distinct from household plots.
57
Individual and family owned farms occupied 70.3 % of the total agricultural land in 2019, necessitating the
provision of business advisory services and the continuation of farming reform. However, approximately
35 % of agricultural land remains within the dehkan farm system. The implementation of land reform and
greater freedom in terms of crop production has soared the number of dehkan farms in Tajikistan from
123,379 to 171,975 over 2015–2019, i.e. an increase by 39.4 %. In the meantime, dehkan farmers who have
the right to split off from the collective are often reluctant to do so because of high costs, administrative
burdens, and accrued debts that are transferred with the land.58 These bottlenecks can only be expected
to persist longer and more intensely in the post-COVID-19 context.
Manufacturing (light industry)

In Tajikistan, manufacturing is characterized by its large contribution to industrial output. In 2019, there
were 2,164 enterprises operating in industry, of which 1,744 enterprises (or 80.6 %) were engaged in
manufacturing sub-sectors such as textiles and clothing, furniture developers, sewing workshops, food
products, footwear, leather and fur products, paper products, and handicrafts. This dominant proportion
of manufacturing enterprises, light industry prevailing, played a crucial role in their inclusion into the
survey. In addition, 13.8 % of newly created commercial entities in 2019 were manufacturing firms, which is
second only to trading firms and is followed by construction with 12.8 % of all new entities in 2019. In 2018,
total employment in manufacturing was approximately 84,000 persons, of which 66 % was contractual
employment. In the meantime, only 27.3 % of those who had a labor contract were women.59
During January-June 2020, manufacturing enterprises increased their output by 17.1 % in comparison
with the same period last year which may often be explained by the lag between the order and the
production phases and explains that industrial output may not necessarily mean that it has grown despite
COVID-19. Based on data for the first six months of 2020, manufacturing comprises 56.5 % of total industry
output.60 Past assessments61 suggested that although productivity is higher than in other sectors, there is
considerable scope for its further growth.62 Accordingly, textiles and clothing (including footwear, leather
and fur products) equals 10 % of total manufacturing output in the first quarter of 2020 and is dominated by
smaller firms which are sensitive to disruption in sales and supply chains.
Tourism and hospitality

According to the World Tourism Organization (WTO), tourism sector in Tajikistan comprised 2.4 % of GDP
in 2018, whereby inbound tourists reportedly generated about $ 180 million,.63 although the data may not
be accurate. The Agency for Statistics under the President estimates that the tourism sector (except the
hospitality sub-sector) generated $ 24.3 million, i.e. just 0.3 % of GDP.64 The tourism sector is perhaps most
sensitive, barring civil aviation and cross-border trade, to the COVID-19 outbreak and related restrictions
on movement of people and goods. Restrictions imposed due to the COVID-19 outbreak resulted in the
tourism sector generating a mere 34.9 million somoni, equivalent to just 0.11 % of GDP.65
58
At the same time, while land, house, and kitchen garden areas are privatized, larger farming infrastructure such as stables,
machinery, and processing units must be purchased for individual use.
59
60
Ibid.
USAID. 2016. Tajikistan Jobs Diagnostic. Dushanbe, p.24 and p.45. See also World Bank. 2018. Tajikistan Systemic Country
61
Diagnostic. Washington, DC, p.12 and p.18.

62
‘Output per worker’ is a less preferred measure of productivity than ‘value added per worker’ or ‘total factor productivity.’
Tourism and hospitality sector is still underdeveloped but its importance in the survey is evidenced through: (i) its prioritization
63
by the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan, and (ii) rising number of entrepreneurs who provide services and induce broader
positive spillovers for the economy.
64
Agency for Statistics under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan. 2020. Socio-Economic Situation of the Republic of
Tajikistan: January - March 2020. Dushanbe, p.271.
65
Agency for Statistics under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan. 2020. Socio-Economic Situation of the Republic of
Tajikistan: January - June 2020. Dushanbe, p.290.
While official data are disputed, the Committee for Tourism Development of the Republic of Tajikistan
reported that the number of tourists who visited Tajikistan in 2019 comprised more than one million and
rose by 21.5 % compared to the previous year.66
According to the World Bank,67 a visitor in Tajikistan spends, on average, between $ 800 and $ 1,400 for a
6 to 12-day stay, excluding airfare, which is significantly below the global average.68 Based on WTO data,
tourists spent on average $ 173.8 per day in 2018.69 At the same time, conditions are favorable — e.g., half
of the global tourism workforce is under the age of 25, while almost 70 % of Tajikistan’s population is under
the age of 30. In general, tourism and hospitality is seen as a sector with great potential for Tajikistan’s
economy.
Recent studies70 showed that the tourism value chain had included an estimated 20,000 jobs in 2017, which
was largely split between accommodation (e.g. hotels, guesthouses) and transportation (e.g. tour operators,
recreational sites). In 2018, only 32.5 % of total employment in ‘hotels and restaurants’ sub-sector were
under a labor contract, of which 48.1 % were women. At the time, approximately 70 % of firms were younger
than five years and the firms involved were generally small.71 The Agency for Statistics under the President
reported that in March 2020 the tourism sector consisted of 215 businesses, which is 61.7 % more than in the
same period last year. Besides, the hospitality sub-sector in Tajikistan consists of 188 hotels, 26 hostels and
motels, 45 sanatoriums, 18 recreational and health centers, 4 tourist bases, and others.
Personal services
In Tajikistan, a variety of personal services72 have been steadily on the rise and dominated by individual
entrepreneurs (based on certificate or patent). In 2018, total estimated employment in personal services
equaled 317,900 persons, of which an estimated 40.3 % were under a labor contract. Only 29.7 % of
contractual employment were women. Notably, these services rose at a greater pace in urban areas and
particularly in larger cities. According to the Agency for Statistics under the President, about 30,900 firms
provided fee-based services in 2019, of which 47.2 % of total output is reportedly generated by small
firms. Of all commercial entities who provided fee-based personal services in 2019, 34.1 % were household
services, 15.5 % were passenger transportation services, 15.1 % were communication services, 13.5 % were
education services, 5.6 % were medical services (including nursing and elderly care), and 9.7 % represented
other categories (e.g., beauty services, home improvement services, and others).
The total estimated contribution of personal services comprised 16.6 % of GDP in 2019, although
differentiated (or isolated) contribution of private firms remains difficult. In the first six months of 2020,
MSMEs contributed 36.6 % to total output from the provision of personal services (i.e. $ 28.6 million out
of $ 78.2 million).73 Approximately 70 % of MSMEs that provide personal services are in fact individual
entrepreneurs. It is difficult to break down these numbers by sub-services — such as beauty industry,
cleaning services, delivery services, and others, as they are neither collected nor reported.
66
At the same time, WTO data suggests that the number of tourists rose from 141,000 in 2017 to 1,035,000 in 2018 (an increase
by 140.1 %). This appears unlikely and questions credibility of official government statistics on inbound tourism. This view is further
reinforced given that revenues generated from tourism in 2017 and 2018 has only risen by 0.2 %.
67
Source: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/opinion/2019/12/03/how-to-develop-tourism-in-tajikistan.
68
According to UNWTO, adventure tourists worldwide spend an average of $ 3,000 on an 8 day-trip.
69
Source: https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/suppl/10.5555/unwtotfb0762010020142018201910.
70
Dermastia, M. et al. 2017. Value Chain Analysis of the Tourism Sector in Tajikistan. Washington, DC, p.10.
According to the Agency for Statistics under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan, there were 160 tourist companies
71
(excluding recreational sites, hotels, guesthouses, etc.) which operated in the country in 2019.
72
E.g. beauty industry, nursing, restaurants, cafeterias and coffee shops, catering and delivery services, ateliers, internet cafes,
home improvement services, plumbing, car washing and maintenance services, gardening services, home/fabric cleaning services,
translation services, event management services, taxi services, and others.
73
International trade
The COVID-19 situation has negatively affected Tajikistan’s total trade. During January-June 2020,
exports to other CIS countries declined by 30.6 % in comparison with the same period last year. In the
first six months of 2020, Tajikistan’s exports stood at $ 654.4 million, while imports equaled $ 1,504.3
million, creating a trade balance deficit of $ 849.9 million. Imports from non-CIS countries have also
declined, comprising 20.6 % less than in the same period last year. Total imports also declined by 4 %,
compared to January-June 2019.74
The export concentration and heavy dependence on natural resources also make Tajikistan’s exports
vulnerable to volatile international commodity prices. International market prices for copper, aluminium
and cotton have been falling since early 2018 and are expected to further drop in the next few years.
Specifically, copper prices fell by 19.8 % during January 2018 and May 2020, while aluminium and cotton
prices fell by 30.5 % and 28.1 % respectively in the same period.75 The price decrease also continued during
the coronavirus pandemic. A reversal of this trend requires systemic and long term measures, such as an
overhaul of Tajikistan’s export and production structure, and investment in value chain development.
TABLE 6: TOP 7 EXPORTED PRODUCT GROUPS FROM TAJIKISTAN (in million US$ ).
Exports (in million US$ )

Product groups Jan-June Jan-June
% change
2019 2020
Precious and semi-precious stones and metals 124.7 303.8 143.5
Mineral products 182.3 118.1 –35.2
Non-precious metals and products (including aluminium) 105.0 99.2 –5.5
Cotton fiber 56.1 46.3 –17.5
Electricity 40.1 31.4 –21.6
Textile and clothing (excluding cotton fiber) 31.2 28.2 –9.8
Plant products (including fruits and vegetables) 14.5 15.9 9.7
MSMEs’ price competitiveness and absorptive capacity of new employment has weakened significantly
in the past decade, not least because exports are concentrated on products with inelastic demand. Since
1995, there have been only very small changes in the composition of Tajikistan’s exports. The country
continues to rely on a few commodities for its export revenue, such as gold (18.2 % of total value of exports),
raw aluminium (15.5 %), zinc ore (14.3 %), lead ore (10.0 %), copper ore (6.7 %), raw cotton (5.6 %), other ores
(5.5 %), and cement (3.7 %).76 Tajikistan would benefit from concentration of exports on goods which yield
comparative advantage. According to UNCTAD data from 2018,77 Tajikistan has the greatest revealed
comparative advantage (RCA) in the following top 10 product groups: spices (RCA = 86.7), hides and skins
(RCA = 76.5), fruits and nuts (RCA = 62.4), crude vegetable materials (RCA = 48.6), cotton (RCA = 24.4), wool
and other animal hair (RCA = 20.2), crude minerals (RCA = 18.9), oil seeds and oleaginous fruits (RCA = 18.6),
iron and steel (RCA = 13.6), and coal (RCA = 11.9).78 These product groups are starkly different from the
74
Ibid.
IMF Primary Commodity Prices online database (https://www.imf.org/en/Research/commodity-prices) and the World Bank
75
Commodity Markets online database (https://www.worldbank.org/en/research/commodity-markets).

76
These 8 products make up approximately 80 % of the total value of Tajikistan’s exports.
Source: https://unctadstat.unctad.org/EN/RcaRadar.html.
77
78
When a country has a revealed comparative advantage for a given product (RCA >1), it is inferred to be a competitive producer
and exporter of that product relative to a country producing and exporting that good at or below the world average. A country with a
revealed comparative advantage in product i is considered to have an export strength in that product.
current composition of Tajikistan’s exports, suggesting that the country continues to rely on exporting
commodities in which it does not have a comparative advantage.
Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan are major destinations of exported goods from
Tajikistan. Russia also is Tajikistan’s largest trading partner, with trade turnover having reached almost $ 1
billion in 2019.79 In turn, small-scale cross-border trade occurs among producers and traders of agricultural
products along the Tajik-Afghan, Tajik-Kyrgyz and, more recently, Tajik-Uzbek border, although government
statistics on small-scale cross-border trade is not publicly reported.
TABLE 7: TOP 7 IMPORTED PRODUCT GROUPS TO TAJIKISTAN (in million US$ ).
Imports (in million US$ )

Product groups Jan-June Jan-June
% change
2019 2020
Mineral products (including natural gas and electricity) 292.3 291.7 –0.2
Plant products (including fruits and vegetables) 148.8 179.1 20.4
Chemical products (incl. pharmaceutical, beauty products) 172.0 167.2 –2.8
Food products (including beverages and drinks) 124.4 147.5 18.6
Non-precious metals and products 150.5 141.2 –6.2
Machines and equipment (including household appliances) 200.8 139.9 –30.3
Transport vehicles 159.7 100.6 –37.0
Tajikistan has a great scope to enhance its connectivity to the rest of the world, with significant room for
improvement. According to the World Bank’s logistic performance index (LPI), Tajikistan ranks 134th out
of 160 economies, substantially lower than Kazakhstan (ranked 71st), the best performer in Central Asia.
Tajikistan’s overall LPI score is much lower than the average of transitional countries, while slightly better
than that of low-income countries. The country’s scores are modest on both customs and trade-related
infrastructure. The Word Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness report ranked Tajikistan as 91st out
of 141 economies in infrastructure provision (or 111th specifically for transport infrastructure) in 2019.80
Once Tajikistan recovers from the immediate and medium-term economic implications of the pandemic,
infrastructure development and trade facilitation could potentially help overcome Tajikistan’s disadvantage
for integration to the global economy as a landlocked country.
LABOR MARKET
Employment and wages
An assessment of the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on Tajikistan’s labor market requires a good
understanding of the underlying constraints and challenges that it faces. Tajikistan’s labor market is weak,
generally characterized by low-productivity, disguised unemployment and low wages, with workers often
under-paid, unskilled and disincentivized. Although the Government of Tajikistan is undertaking measures
to create jobs, reform its vocational education and training (VET) system, and develop high-productivity
industries (such as construction, extractives, and manufacturing), the mismatch between supply and
demand for skills and competencies continues to be an impediment to Tajikistan’s economic development.
Agency for Statistics under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan (https://www.stat.tj/ru/tables-external-sector).
79
80
K. Schwab. 2019. The Global Competitiveness Report 2019. Geneva: Switzerland, p.542.
In May 2020, the labor force81 comprised 2.447 million people, having risen by 3.6 % in the preceding 12
months. Total employment was 2.395 million people in May 2020, which is 3.7 % higher compared to May
2019. Despite 7 % annual economic growth between 2015 and 2019, employment rose only by about 4 % in
the same period,82 such as due to sluggish wage growth and labor migration. In particular, wages rose by
an impressive 60.1 % between January 2015 and May 2020, comprising $ 137.2 per person per month, but
inflation adjustment yields the growth of average monthly wages by 22.5 % in the past 5.5 years (i.e. in real
FIGURE
FIGURE
terms, 5: COMPOSITION
5: COMPOSITION
average OFOF
wages only GROSS
GROSS
rose each year).83 FIGURE
byDOMESTIC
DOMESTIC
4.1 % 6: SELECTED
FIGURE ECONOMIC
6: SELECTED ECONOMIC INDICATORS
INDICATORSIN IN
PRODUCT (GDP) IN IN
TAJIKISTAN, JANUARY-JUNE 2020. 3 3
PRODUCT (GDP) TAJIKISTAN, JANUARY-JUNE 2020. TAJIKISTAN, 2015-2020.
As a classic case of small, low-income economy with predominantly 40,0
40,0 low-productivity primary sectors,6,06,0
Agriculture
Agriculture
Months of import of G&S

Months of import of G&S
agriculture remains the biggest employer, having expanded from 41 % of total employment in 1991 to
about 60.8 % 3 in
3 546; 2018. This is followed by services (30.3 % of total employment), construction (4.3 %) and
30,0
Percent of GDP
546; 30,0
Percent of GDP
5 638;
5 638; Industry
Industry 4,04,0
manufacturing11%
11% (3.5 %).
17%However,
17%
wages differ significantly by sector. In May 2020, average monthly wages
in agriculture were equal to $ 52.2 per month, $ 132 in services,
Construction 20,0$ 230 in construction, and $ 168.5 in
20,0
6 311;
6 311; Construction
manufacturing. In real terms, monthly wages went down by 5.2 % year-on-year in May 2020.84 2,02,0
20%
20% 10,010,0
6 246;
6 246; Trade
Tradeandand
Alarmingly, 2.311 million people
19%19% are hospitality
neither studying nor contributing to economic activity, representing
hospitality
42.6 % of the working-age population (i.e. people 0,00,0
15–65) in 2018. The proportion of those0,00,0
2 577; 8%8%
2 577; Transport
Transport andaged above
and
who are neither working2 665; nor studying 2015
in Tajikistan is rising each year, 2015 2016
which 2017
2016may 2017 2018
have 2018201920192020
serious 2020
negative
2 665; communications
communications
5 462;
5 462;
repercussions for livelihoods
8% and welfare. These Total reserves (in months of import
people are unlikely to have stable source(s) of income,
Total reserves (in months of of
import G&S)
of G&S)
8% Other
Otherservices
services
17%17% FDI,FDI,
Tajikistan (in %
Tajikistan (inof
% GDP)
of GDP)
although some of them are probably working informally. It is also mostly the case that informal sector Remittances inflow
Remittances (in %
inflow (inof
% GDP)
of GDP)
workers tend to be poorer (and younger) than formal sector workers.85 This means that implications of
/Source: Agency
/Source: for for
Agency Statistics under
Statistics thethe
under President of thethe
President Republic of Tajikistan.
the COVID-19 outbreak are highly likely to of
have Republic of Tajikistan.
the negative impact on young informal sector workers,
particularly as enterprises are shutting down or temporarily seizing commercial activity.
FIGURE 7: ECONOMICALLY ACTIVE POPULATION FIGURE 8: ECONOMICALLY INACTIVE

AND
FIGURE AVERAGE
FIGURE WAGES INACTIVE
7: ECONOMICALLY
7: ECONOMICALLY TAJIKISTAN,
POPULATION
ACTIVE POPULATION AND POPULATION
AND FIGURE
FIGURE AND UNEMPLOYMENT
8: ECONOMICALLY
8: ECONOMICALLY INACTIVE POPULATION
INACTIVE POPULATION
2015–2020.
AVERAGE
AVERAGEWAGES
86
WAGESIN IN
TAJIKISTAN, 4 4
2015-2020. IN
ANDTAJIKISTAN, 2015–2018.
UNEMPLOYMENT
AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN IN
3 000
3 000 1 500
1 500 3 500
3 500 70,0
70,0
% of registered unemployment
% of registered unemployment
65,0
65,0
2 500
2 500 1 250
1 250 3 000
3 000
60,0
60,0
'000 persons
Tajik somoni
'000 persons
Tajik somoni
2 000
2 000 1 000
1 000 2 500
2 500 55,0
55,0
'000 persons
'000 persons
2 000 50,0
50,0
1 500
1 500 750750 2 000
45,0
45,0
1 000 500 1 500
1 500 40,0
1 000 500 40,0
1 000
1 000 35,0
35,0
500
500 250
250 30,0
30,0
500500
0 0 0 0 25,0
25,0
2015 2016
2015 2017
2016 2018
2017 2019
2018 2020
2019 2020 0 0 20,0
20,0
2015
2015 2016
2016 2017
2017 2018
2018
Total employment,
Total employment, '000 persons
'000 persons
Registered unemployment,
Registered unemployment, '000 persons
'000 persons Studying butbut
Studying notnot
working (in '000
working (in '000persons)
persons)
Nominal wages
Nominal wages (in somoni perper
(in somoni month)
month) Neither working
Neither nornor
working studying
studying(in '000 persons)
(in '000 persons)
Real wages
Real (in somoni
wages (in somoni perper
month; in 2015
month; prices)
in 2015 prices) Unemployed
Unemployed(with incomplete
(with incomplete secondary education;
secondary in %)
education; in %)
/Source:
/Source:
/Source:Agency
Agency
Agencyfor
for Statistics
Statistics
for under
under
Statistics thethe
the
under President
President of the
of
President thethe
of Republic
Republic of Tajikistan.
Republic Tajikistan.
of Tajikistan.
The registered unemployment figures are uncharacteristically low, standing at only 51,734 persons in
May 2020. Furthermore, the level of education among the unemployed is deteriorating. In particular,
81
Includes total employment and officially registered unemployment.
82
Agency for Statistics: https://www.stat.tj/ru/tables-real-sector.
83
The minimum wage in Tajikistan is 400 somoni as of May 2020, representing an increase by 22.4 % in real terms since 2015.
84
85
Strokova, V. and Ajwad, M. 2017. Jobs Diagnostic Tajikistan: Strategic Framework for Jobs. World Bank. Washington, DC, p.34.
86
The latest available figure from May 2020 is used to represent the year 2020 in Figure 7.

3 Foreign direct investment (FDI) and remittances figures for 2020 correspond to actual reported figures as of June 30, 2020. Total
3 Foreign direct investment (FDI) and remittances figures for 2020 correspond to actual reported figures as of June 30, 2020. Total
reserves for 2020 correspond to actual reported figures as of March 30, 2020.
the proportion of individuals with incomplete secondary education in registered unemployment rose
from 13.9 % in 2000 to 41.6 % in 2010 and further to 65.3 % in 2018.87 This indicates the deteriorating
quality of the labor force in Tajikistan, and partly explains why productivity gains88 in the economy have
been marginal. This also shows that the quality of Tajikistan’s domestic workforce, particularly young
graduates with no or little prior work experience, is persistently worsening. Reversing this trend will require
substantive changes to the quality of education domestic production.89 This evidence shows the persistent,
historical weaknesses of Tajikistan’s labor market, which were not caused by COVID-19 but surely
heightened in terms of inherent risks as a result of the pandemic.
Large families and absence of spouses (men) for most of the year increase women’s and girls’ marginal
propensity to engage in subsistence farming, thus restricting them to basic housework and child care in the
remaining free time, often at the expense of earning income or attending educational institutions.90 Other
studies91 had also reaffirmed that women’s labor participation rates in Tajikistan are constrained by domestic
responsibilities. In particular, in 2016, the share of inactive women who reported domestic responsibilities
was the primary reason for their inactivity is much higher in Tajikistan (60.5 %) than in other Central Asian
countries (e.g. 11 % in Kazakhstan and 35 % in the Kyrgyz Republic). Furthermore, in 2020, 84 % of work by
women in rural areas was unpaid, compared to approximately 30 % of work carried out by men in rural
areas.92 According to the survey findings from 1,000 households, described in greater detail in Chapter 3, the
COVID-19 outbreak appears to have further increased women’s unpaid work responsibilities, such as child
care and housework. Women in higher age groups are more likely to have higher workforce participation
rates in rural areas as they no longer have to care for young children. It is however difficult to find jobs
for either women or men over 40 years of age in Tajikistan. The average job search time for women is 7.8
months, compared to 7.6 months for the country average and 8 months in rural areas. In line with this, only
45.1 % of women eventually found a job (of those registered as unemployed) against 54.9 % of men in 2018.93
These figures are likely to be higher due to challenges facing businesses and the coronavirus pandemic.
New and better jobs is one of the means to reduce poverty and financial vulnerability, but Tajikistan has
consistently struggled with this, which have led many citizens to seeking work in Russia. Labor migration
represents the most sought-after exit strategies for citizens, particularly in rural areas. Another reason
for low job creation (and wage growth) is the oversized public sector, including the quasi-fiscal sector,
comprising state-owned enterprises, which crowds out private businesses or deters market competition.
In 2018, the government sector and the private sector in Tajikistan accounted for 20 % and 71.3 % of total
employment respectively.94
Remittances
Tajikistan was at the receiving end of a negative spillover effect when economic situation worsened in
Russia against the backdrop of the COVID-19 outbreak. Specifically, remittances from labor migrants

87
Productivity in services has declined and employment in manufacturing — despite its recent surge — declined from 46 % to 17 %
88
during 1991–2016. Thus, stimulating productive employment among SMEs is key to structural transformation in Tajikistan.
89
Despite the fact that Tajikistan has become a major exporter of its labor overseas, cheap labor force has not translated into a
comparative advantage. In practice, uneducated workforce creates social pressures because increasingly under-educated and
vulnerable population groups in rural Tajikistan are struggling for jobs and subsistence.
90
It is thus evident that the perception of the value of education is higher among men as investing in girls’ education is usually
thought to bring about less benefits to her respective family especially after early marriage.
91
Khitarishvili, T. 2016. Gender Inequalities in Labor Markets in Central Asia. Paper prepared for the joint UNDP/ILO conference on
Employment, Trade and Human Development in Central Asia. Almaty, pp.26–35.
92
ADB. 2020. Women’s Time Use In Rural Tajikistan. Manila, pp.32–42.
93
Between 2015 and 2018, these proportions have only marginally changed for the government sector (from 19.4 % to 20 %), but the
94
share of private sector in total employment rose from 64.5 % to 71.3 % during the same period.
declined by 28.2 % in the first six months of 2020 and equaled $999 million.95 The Central Bank of Russia
(CBR) reported that remittances from Russia to Tajikistan in Q1–2020 declined by 19.4 % year-on-year — the
second largest drop in remittances among all CIS countries (except Kazakhstan).96
At the same time, labor migration continues to fuel Tajikistan’s GDP growth through consumption, with
remittances comprising about US$ 2,731 million in 2019 (or 35.3 % of GDP). However, this is down from 4,219
million in 2013 which was equivalent to 49.6 % of GDP. The decline is mainly caused by the challenging eco
nomic situation in the Russian Federation and restrictions on labor migrants. The European Bank for Recon
struction and Development (EBRD) had previously estimated that a one percentage-point drop in growth
in Russia would translate into a decline in growth of 0.25 percentage points in the Central Asian countries
(excluding Kazakhstan).97 Hence, the expected decline in growth in 2020 and 2021 will have negative
consequences for employment and disposable incomes in Tajikistan. This highlights the country’s high
degree of vulnerability to external economic environment, with implications on growth, trade and livelihoods.
Structurally, Tajikistan is highly exposed to Russia through remittances and currency channels.98 In 2019,
remittances comprised about 47 % of average monthly wages of Tajikistan’s population.99 According to
FinExpertiza, each migrant labor from Tajikistan remitted back home $ 195 on average in the first quarter
of 2019. This is the second lowest amount among labor migrants from CIS countries,100 compared to the
average three-month wage of $ 414.7 in Tajikistan during Q1–2019.101 These figures demonstrate that: (i)
labor migrants are working in lower-skilled and lower-paid jobs in Russia, compared to migrants from other
CIS countries, and (ii) incomes of their families/households heavily depend on remittances.
Soon after social distancing measures had been put in place in Russia and Kazakhstan, many migrants
were laid off or furloughed and stopped sending money back home, thus lowering the incomes of
their families in Tajikistan.102 Studies have shown that remittances alleviate poverty, improve nutritional
outcomes, and reduce child labor in disadvantaged households.103 Therefore, a drop in the volume and
value of remittances in the first six months of 2020 may increase the proportion of financially poor and
disadvantaged population in Tajikistan. The rapid fall in oil prices in the first six months of 2020 and the
negative impact of COVID-19 on the Russian economy left an estimated 530,000 migrant workers (5.3 % of
Tajikistan’s population) unable to return to work at the start of the 2020 migrant work season.104
The volume of remittances from Russia often exceeds Tajikistan’s annual revenue budget105 and foreign
direct investment (FDI) and makes Tajikistan one of the world’s most remittance-dependent countries.
95
96
Source: https://www.cbr.ru/vfs/statistics/CrossBorder/Personal_Remittances_CIS.xlsx.
97
EBRD. 2016. Regional Economic Prospects in EBRD Countries of Operations. May 2016. London, p.9.
98
According to FinExpertiza, about 188,000 working-age labor migrants from Tajikistan settled in Russia. Source: https://finexpertiza.
ru/press-service/researches/2020/trud-migrant/.
99
National Bank of Tajikistan (https://nbt.tj/ru/payments_balance/analytical_representation.php) and Agency for Statistics under the
President of the Republic of Tajikistan (https://www.stat.tj/ru/welfare-of-the-population and https://www.stat.tj/ru/tables-real-sector).
For example, labor migrants from Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan remitted back, on average, $ 418 and $ 536 respectively. Source:
100
https://finexpertiza.ru/press-service/researches/2019/summa-den-perevoda-migranta/.
101
According to estimates by the Ministry of Labor, Migration and Employment of the Population of the Republic of Tajikistan, there
102
are more than 530,000 Tajik citizens (of which 14.5 % are women) working in Russia and Kazakhstan as labor migrants. Besides, the
total number of migrants increased by 13 % in 2019 in comparison with the previous year.
103
In 2020 remittances to countries in Central Asia (including Tajikistan) are expected to fall by approximately 28 % due to the
combined effect of the global coronavirus pandemic and lower oil prices. Source: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-
release/2020/04/22/world-bank-predicts-sharpest-decline-of-remittances-in-recent-history.
104
Asian Development Bank. 2020. Republic of Tajikistan: Growth Assessment. Dushanbe, p.12.
According to the Ministry of Finance, general government revenues equaled 23,216.1 million somoni, or $ 2,436 million, in 2019
105
(Source: http://minfin.tj/index.php?do=static&page=budget). This amounts to 89.2 % of remittances from labor migrants.
Remittance inflow has thus been affluent, and this has been also supporting livelihoods of the population.
As a result of the coronavirus pandemic, the World Bank estimates that remittances globally will face the
sharpest decline in recent history.106 Since almost half of incomes are composed of receipts from labor
migrants which are remitted back to their households in Tajikistan, the decline in remittances has sharply
and immediately affected livelihoods and poverty incidence. With less money fueling Tajikistan’s economy
through consumption, the fiscal burden will also increase. Continued reliance on remittances, while
reducing poverty, fails to offset negative externalities as a result of missed opportunity costs for women in
their socio-economic lives and personal aspirations.107
Besides, abandoned households as a result of men-dominated migration are likely to be poorer, which
inevitably results in higher percentage of out-of-school children and learning outcomes (UNICEF, 2011).108
Abandoned households are usually more financially vulnerable, and this in turn leads to the presence
of direct positive correlation between abandonment and child labor, and abandonment and informal
employment. The latter affects attendance in educational institutions since affected children are more
likely to enter the informal labor market at the expense of schooling hours. Therefore, the linkage between
migration and dropout rates is significant — i.e. girls from migrant households are now likely to complete
fewer years of schooling, and also boys are more likely to drop out from school once their migrant parent
stops sending money back home.
Demographics
Tajikistan is one of the most rapidly growing countries in terms of the size of its population (it doubled in
less than 33 years since early 1980s), and certainly the fastest growing countries in Central Asia in terms
of crude birth rates (25.6 live births per 1,000 population in 2018). Between 2000 and 2019, Tajikistan’s
population increased by 49 %, i.e. from 6,126.7 million to 9,127 million respectively. As of January 2019,
the country’s population was 9,127 million with 49.5 % men and 50.5 % women. Nearly 73.6 % live in rural
areas, while 35.5 % of the gross population (or 39.9 % of rural population) lives in the poorest Khatlon oblast
where population density is the highest. The population is relatively young (with mean age at 26.3 years in
2019) and 62.4 % of the population is within working age, reflecting high fertility rates and rising workforce.
In 2018, life expectancy at birth was 75 years (73.3 years for men and 76.9 years for women).
Furthermore, total dependency ratio (TDR)109 is one of the lowest among CIS countries. Tajikistan’s TDR
was 60.5 % in 2019, compared to 63.9 % in 2010 and 85.6 % in 2000. This indicates that the population
of Tajikistan is becoming progressively younger, contributing to the growing workforce. The result is that
the country’s labor force is relatively young and will continue to steadily grow in the next few decades
(because total fertility rates are also the highest in the CIS).110 These trends require a constant effort to
create jobs, which can only be achieved through the expansion of private sector.
The relatively young age at the time of first marriage for women is not surprising given the cultural and
traditional communities that are prevalent in Tajikistan, with 8.5 % of girls marrying at the age 15-19 (UNICEF,
2013). In conservative communities in remote and rural areas, the investment in education is not always
considered worthwhile as many girls marry at a young age. This is not immediately captured in official
statistics and represents a significant challenge in ensuring equitable access to opportunities and gender
equality between women and men.
106
Source: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2020/04/22/world-bank-predicts-sharpest-decline-of-remittances-in-
recent-history.
107
The integrated labor migration survey and the panel survey of 3,133 households conducted in August 2010. (source: «The Impact
of Migration and Remittances on Welfare,» Agency on Statistics under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan, 2011).
The study «Impact of Labor Migration on Children Left Behind in Tajikistan» points to mixed responses to effects of migration on
108
the quality of education.

109
As used by the UN Population Division and is estimated as follows: ((Age 0-14 + Age 65+) / Age 15–64).
Source: UN Population Division (https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/Fertility/).
110
Nevertheless, woman-headed households dominate rural Tajikistan because 88.2 % of international labor
migration was dominated by men in 2018, leaving a large gap in required labor in the domestic market.
Relatively low migration participation rates by women are explained by rising proportion of their time
spent on domestic responsibilities and other unpaid activities. At the same time, the share of women
among labor migrants increased from 6.6 % in 2010 to 13 % in 2019. On average, this has had a positive
effect on women’s earnings from labor migration. As households seem unable to diversify with respect to
destination, they expand into new occupations by increasingly sending women to work in housekeeping,
caring and other service jobs.
FINANCIAL SECTOR
Overview
In Tajikistan, financial services for individuals and MSMEs are offered by 16 commercial banks and 58
non-bank financial institutions (NBFIs).111 The banking sector comprises 16 banks, of which 6 are classified
by the National Bank of Tajikistan (NBT) as systemically important. The five largest banks account for
approximately 70 % of total bank assets in Tajikistan.112 The top-three credit purposes from financial
institutions are consumption, foreign trade and agribusiness. The fragility of Tajikistan’s banking sector
constrains access to finance,113 as well as the range of consumer products and services offered by MSMEs.
Despite a relatively large number of financial institutions, return on assets (ROA) in the banking sector has
only marginally improved from 0.8 % in 2015 to 2.1 % in 2019, while return on equity (ROE) in the banking
sector was 7.7 % in 2019, compared to 5.5 % in 2015.114 This demonstrates that financial institutions in
Tajikistan have relatively low returns from the provision of financial services, and a large proportion of
associated risk is shifted onto consumers. In turn, this leads to persistently high cost of credit, such as for
entrepreneurial or consumption purposes.
FIGURE 9: PROFITABILITY INDICATORS AND NON- FIGURE 10: SELECT MONETARY INDICATORS
FIGURE
FIGURE9:9:PROFITABILITY
PERFORMING PROFITABILITY
LOANS ININDICATORS
INDICATORSAND
TAJIKISTAN, AND NON-
NON-
2015–2020. FIGURE
FIGURE
IN 10:
10:SELECT
SELECT
TAJIKISTAN, MONETARY
MONETARYINDICATORS
2015–2020. INDICATORSININ
PERFORMING
PERFORMINGLOANS
LOANSININTAJIKISTAN,
2015-2020. TAJIKISTAN,
2015-2020.
1515 5050 120
120 20,0
20,0
% of all loans from banks and MFIs
% of all loans from banks and MFIs
17,5
17,5
% of total loan portfolio
% of total loan portfolio
1010 4545
100
100
4040 15,0
15,0
55 8080 12,5
12,5
% of GDP
% of GDP
3535
00 60
60 10,0
10,0
3030
Percent
Percent
2015
2015
2016
2016
2019
2019
2018
2018
Q1-2020
Q1-2020
Q2-2020
Q2-2020
2017
2017
7,5
7,5
-5-5 2525 4040
5,0
5,0
-10
-10 2020 20
20 2,5
2,5
1515
-15
-15 00 0,0
0,0
1010
2017
2017
2015
2015
2016
2016
2018
2018
2019
2019
Q2-2020
Q2-2020
Q1-2020
Q1-2020
-20
-20 55
-25
-25 00
Credit
Credittotoprivate
privatesector
sector(in(in%%ofofGDP)GDP)
Return
Returnononassets
assets(ROA)
(ROA) Return
Returnon
onequity
equity(ROE)
(ROE) Deposit-to-loan
Deposit-to-loanratio ratio(in(in%%ofoftotal
totalcredit
creditportfolio)
portfolio)
NPLs
NPLs(banks
(banksand
andMFIs)
MFIs) Foreign
Foreigncredit
credittotototal
totalcredit
credit(in(in%%ofoftotal
totalcredit
creditportfolio)
portfolio)
/Source:
/Source:National
NationalBank
BankofofTajikistan
Tajikistan(NBT).
(NBT).
/Source: National Bank of Tajikistan (NBT).
111
Although,
FIGURE
FIGURE 11: prior
11:BANK
BANK toLOANS
the domestic
LOANS BY banking
BYTYPE
TYPEOFOFsector crisis in 2015–2016,
BORROWERS
BORROWERS there were
FIGURE
FIGURE 12: 137
MFIfinancial
12:MFI LOANSinstitutions.
LOANS BY
BYTYPE
TYPEOFBankruptcy and solvency
OFBORROWERS
BORROWERS
issues led to the closure of a large number of micro finance organizations (MFOs), which were reduced from 125 in 2012 to 58 in 2019.
AND
ANDAVERAGE
AVERAGELENDINGLENDINGRATES
RATESININTAJIKISTAN,
TAJIKISTAN,2015- 2015- AND
ANDMFI MFILENDING
LENDINGININLCUs LCUsININTAJIKISTAN,
TAJIKISTAN,2015-
2015-
5 5 ‘Oriyonbank’, SSB ‘Amonatbank’, CJSC ‘Spitamenbank’, OJSC ‘Bank 6 6 Eskhata’, and OJSC ‘Alif Bank’.
2020.
2020.
112
OJSC 2020.
2020.
113
12IMF.
125002016. Republic of Tajikistan: Financial System Stability
500 30,0 Assessment.
30,0 2500
2500 IMF Country Report No.16/41. Washington, DC,100,0
p.19.
100,0
st rate (in %; annual average)
st rate (in %; annual average)
of loans disbursed by MFIs

of loans disbursed by MFIs
114
National Bank of Tajikistan (NBT): https://nbt.tj/files/suboti-moliyavi/2020/19.05.2020/FSI %20march %202020 %20rus.pdf.
25,0
25,0
1010000
000 2000
2000
75,0
75,0
Million somoni
Million somoni
Million somoni
Million somoni
20,0
20,0
7 7500
500 1500
1500
Socio-economic assessment
5 5000
000
15,0
15,0
1000
1000
50,0
50,0 35
10,0
10,0
25,0
25,0
2 2500
500 500
500
5,0
5,0
The COVID-19 outbreak resulted in the rise of non-performing loans (from 27 % of total loan portfolio
in December 2019 to 31 % of total loan portfolio in June 2020) and the decrease of ROA (from 2.1 % in
December 2019 to 1.9 % in June 2020) and ROE (from 7.7 % in December 2019 to 7 % in June 2020). Due
to economic implications of the coronavirus pandemic, all three financial soundness indicators have
worsened to 2018 levels.
The microfinance sector in Tajikistan has been growing rapidly in the past several years,115 albeit from a
very low base, and it provides an important source of finance to MSMEs, as well as a crucial opportunity to
save. Financial participation has been growing from a very low base116 and increased more than fourfold to
11.5 % of adults over the age of 15 having account at a financial institution in 2015–2019. The World Bank’s
Findex data for Tajikistan shows that the proportion of women with bank account rose rapidly from about
9.1 % in 2014 to 42.1 % in 2017,117 whereas the gap between men and women in account ownership was
approximately 10 % in 2017.118 In addition, savings in financial institutions increased from 0.9 % of women
in 2014 to 9.4 % in 2017. Rural financial penetration increased over the same period, although not yet
reaching the low-income country average, while more than a quarter of Tajikistani adults reported having
borrowed money in the past year in 2014. While the preference for informal savings and borrowing is still
strong, there is a great potential for further growth of microfinance sector, but its rapid growth, especially
in an environment of limited regulatory capacity and weak financial consumer capability, has presented
significant risks.
Credit and deposits
Banks and non-bank financial institutions (NBFIs) in Tajikistan rely heavily on debt as the primary source
of finance to businesses, which is collateralized and guaranteed by third parties, such as other banks
or international development partners.119 At the end of June 2020, outstanding credit to private sector
was $ 547.4 million or 8.4 % of GDP, compared to $ 475.3 million or 5.8 % of GDP in the first six months
of 2019.120 Without large firms, credit to private sector becomes less than 5 % which is very low. This is
mainly attributed to low consumer confidence in banks and high cost of credit, resulting in the rise of non-
performing loans121 and firm closures. Meanwhile, domestic credit to SOEs increased by 54.3 % between
2015 and 2020, thus crowding out private sector.
Banks often lend to private enterprises in foreign currency (62 % of outstanding bank loans), while
88.1 % of outstanding loans to MSMEs from NBFIs are made in local currency. This is symptomatic
of a high degree of dollarization of Tajikistan’s banking system. Besides, banks appear to be less
115
At the same time, there has been a decline in the number of market players and branches in terms of development within the
structure of the financial sector. For example, the number of microfinance institutions went down from about 120 in 2014 to 67 in 2018,
driven primarily by a sharp reduction of microcredit organizations (MCOs) from 42 to 6, followed by micro-deposit organizations (from
42 to 25) and, to a lesser extent, microcredit funds (MCFs) from 36 to 31. The sharp drop in the total number of MFIs also led to a
reduction of branches, from 415 in 2014 to 336 in June 2018. The reduction of branches in the presence of movement restrictions and
social distancing also meant that individual account holders are likely to have experienced problems accessing their accounts and
withdrawing money from ATMs and branches.
World Bank Financial Inclusion database (Findex). In 2011, the percentage of adults over 15 years having account at financial
116
institution in Tajikistan was 2.5 %, compared to a significantly expanded 47 % in 2017.

117
World Bank. 2018. The Global Findex Database 2017. The resource can be accessed at the following link: https://globalfindex.
worldbank.org/sites/globalfindex/files/2018-08/Global %20Findex %20Database.xlsx.
World Bank. 2018. The Global Findex Database 2017. Measuring Financial Inclusion and the Fintech Revolution. Washington,
118
DC, p.126.
For example, through various hedging instruments such as risk-sharing facilities and first-loss risk covers.
119
According to World Bank data for 2018 (the latest year for which data was available), Tajikistan’s share of domestic credit to
120
private sector compares unfavorably to other countries in Central Asia: 23.7 % of GDP in Uzbekistan, 23.9 % in the Kyrgyz Republic,
and 25.9 % in Kazakhstan, but only 12.3 % in Tajikistan.
121
NBFIs had been lending to MSMEs too quickly relative to income growth, and over-exposed in lending to non-hedged borrowers.
This partly accounted for severe portfolio deterioration among MFOs between 2015 and 2017. Financial institutions also relied too
heavily on collateral, which discouraged many otherwise eligible MSMEs from accessing credit.
7,5
7,5
of total
total
from ba
ba
Perce
Perce
%
%
201
201
-5
-5 25
25
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
Q1-202
Q1-202
Q2-202
Q2-202
40
40
5,0
5,0
loans from
20
20
% of
-10
-10 20
20 2,5
2,5
%
15
15
all loans
-15
-15 00 0,0
0,0
10
10
2017
2017
2015
2015
2016
2016
2018
2018
2019
2019
Q2-2020
Q2-2020
Q1-2020
Q1-2020
-20
-20 55
of all
-25
-25 00
% of
resilient to a severe currency shock — according to IMF’s 2016 estimates, a depreciation of the somoni
%
Credit
Credit
122to
toprivate
privatesector
sector(in (in%%ofofGDP)
GDP)
by 50 % lowers
Return
Returnon
the banking
onassets
assets(ROA)
(ROA)
system’s
Return
credit
Returnon
onequity
at(ROE)
risk (CAR) to 19 %.
equity(ROE)
In June
Deposit-to-loan
Deposit-to-loanratio
2020,
ratio(in
foreign
(in%%ofoftotal
totalcredit
currency
creditportfolio)
portfolio)
denominated
NPLs loans
NPLs(banks
(banks and comprised
andMFIs)
MFIs) 50.9 % of financial institutions’Foreign
total credit
Foreign loan portfolio
credittotototal
totalcredit and
credit(in 47.9 %
(in%%ofoftotal ofportfolio)
totalcredit
credit financial
portfolio)
institutions’ total liabilities.123 The financial institution’s portfolio quality is ultimately conditional on
/Source:
/Source:National
NationalBank
BankofofTajikistan
Tajikistan(NBT).
(NBT).
the extent to which they lend in foreign currency — a greater proportion of dollar-denominated loans
lowers the quality of credit portfolio.
FIGURE11:
FIGURE
FIGURE 11:
11: BANK
BANK
BANK LOANS
LOANS
LOANS BYBY
BY TYPE
TYPE
TYPE OFOF
OF BORROWERS
BORROWERS FIGURE
FIGURE 12:
FIGURE12: MFI
12:MFI LOANSBY
MFILOANS
LOANS BYTYPE
BY TYPE
TYPEOFOF
OF BORROWERS
BORROWERS
BORROWERS
AND
AND AVERAGE AND
AVERAGELENDINGAVERAGE
LENDING RATESLENDING
RATES IN
INTAJIKISTAN,
TAJIKISTAN,2015-
2015- BORROWERS
AND
ANDMFI ANDIN
MFILENDING
LENDING MFI
IN LENDING
LCUs
LCUs IN IN LCUs2015-
INTAJIKISTAN,
TAJIKISTAN, 2015-
RATES
2020.55 IN TAJIKISTAN, 2015–2020.124
2020. IN TAJIKISTAN,
2020.66
2020. 2015–2020.125
12
12500
500 30,0
30,0 2500
2500 100,0
100,0
annual average)
average)
by MFIs
MFIs
10
10000
000 25,0
25,0 2000
2000
75,0
75,0
disbursed by
somoni
Million somoni
somoni
Million somoni
20,0
20,0
%; annual
loans disbursed
77500
500 1500
1500
15,0
15,0 50,0
50,0
Million
Million
1000
1000
(in %;
55000
000
10,0
10,0
rate (in
25,0
25,0
of loans
22500
500 500
500
Interest rate
5,0
5,0
% of
00 0,0
0,0 Interest 00 0,0
0,0
%
2015
2015
2016
2016
2019
2019
2017
2017
2018
2018
Q2-2020
Q2-2020
Q1-2020
Q1-2020
Q1-2020
Q1-2020
Q2-2020
Q2-2020
2015
2015
2016
2016
2019
2019
2017
2017
2018
2018
Other
Other Others
Others
Individ.
Individ.entrepreneurs
entrepreneurs Individual
Individualentrepreneurs
entrepreneurs
Private
Privatefirms
firms MSMEs
MSMEs
/Source:
/Source:National
NationalBank
BankofofTajikistan
Tajikistan(NBT).
(NBT).
/Source: National Bank of Tajikistan (NBT).
In 2019, 21.3 % of total bank loans were disbursed to individual entrepreneurs, while MSMEs received
31 % of all bank loans (compared to 50.1 % in 2010 and 40.4 % in 2015) and SOEs accounted for 25.4 %
(compared to 11.7 % in 2000 and 9.5 % in 2015). As for the micro-finance institutions (MFIs), almost half of
their total credit portfolio (48.7 %) was loaned out to individuals for consumption purposes, followed by
individual entrepreneurs (33.4 %) and MSMEs (14.5 %). Historically, MFIs do not lend much to SOEs. The
latter also appear to be better shielded against directed (or weakly collateralized) lending practices, which
are still occurring in some banks.126 In addition, individual entrepreneurs seem to be more eager to get
loans from MFIs, as total volumes of MFI lending to individuals have been kept stable over time, and have
actually surpassed those of banks since 2017. This could be a combination of better terms provided by
MFIs, lower appetite of banks for MSME segment of the private sector, and lack of trust by bank customers.
The biggest impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on MSMEs and individual borrowers have come during the
period between May and June 2020, but banking sector statistics for these months were not available at

the time of drafting this assessment report. Comparison of January-June 2020 with the same period last
year revealed that the volume of bank lending to businesses increased by 11.6 %, equaling $ 371.3 million
55 Data for 2020 corresponds to statistics for end‐June 2020 (https://nbt.tj/ru/statistics/statistical_bulletin.php).
Data for 2020 corresponds to statistics for end‐June 2020 (https://nbt.tj/ru/statistics/statistical_bulletin.php).
at the end of June 2020. Bank lending to individual entrepreneurs during the same period rose by 20.9 %,
66 Data for 2020 corresponds to statistics for end‐June 2020 (https://nbt.tj/ru/statistics/statistical_bulletin.php).
Data for 2020 corresponds to statistics for end‐June 2020 (https://nbt.tj/ru/statistics/statistical_bulletin.php).
comprising $ 130.1 million at the end of June 2020. This is despite the fact that the cost of credit from banks,
on average, decreased from 23.8 % in June 2019Page 3 of 35 Page 3 of 35
to 22.6 % in June 2020 in local currency and from 15.5 %

122
IMF. 2016. Republic of Tajikistan: Financial System Stability Assessment. IMF Country Report No.16/41. Washington, DC, p.20.
123
National Bank of Tajikistan (NBT): https://nbt.tj/files/suboti-moliyavi/2020/19.05.2020/FSI %20june %202020 %20rus.pdf.
124
Data for 2020 corresponds to statistics for end-June 2020 (https://nbt.tj/ru/statistics/statistical_bulletin.php).
125
Data for 2020 corresponds to statistics for end-June 2020 (https://nbt.tj/ru/statistics/statistical_bulletin.php).
Recent support from international development partners, as well as strengthened regulation of banking activity, has been
126
welcomed, but Tajikistan’s banking sector remains blighted by weak corporate governance and sub-standard credit and risk
management practices.
to 11.3 % in foreign currency. This could indicate measures undertaken by the National Bank of Tajikistan
encouraging financial institutions to lend on more favorable terms to local entrepreneurs.
Similarly, lending from MFIs to private enterprises (including MSMEs) in January-June 2020 increased
by 2.7 %, comprising $ 38 million. Conversely, in the same period, lending to individual entrepreneurs
decreased by 30.4 %, comprising $ 50 million. Consumption loans to individual borrowers have also
dropped by 13 % year-on-year, equaling approximately $ 100 million at the end of June 2020.
Access to finance is severely constrained and the range of consumer products and services offered to
MSMEs is limited. The cost of credit is prohibitively high, averaging in June 2020 an annualized 22.6 % in
local currency and 11.3 % in foreign currency.127 High cost of credit is explained mainly by greater risk of
problem debts (evidenced by high rates of non-performing loans (NPLs))128 and high overall portfolio risks
due to economic uncertainty. High dependence on volatile sources of income (e.g. from remittances and
informal employment) and high cost of credit led to over-indebtedness and financial constraints of a large
number of borrowers.129 Mortgage loans are short-termed and highly priced, while leasing credit is often
subsidized by development partners (such as GIZ and KfW) and not sustainable.
For most MSMEs (as well as individual borrowers), loan repayment in foreign currency is problematic,
which led to some banks offering to bear the risk of currency exchange. However, these are exceptional
cases and most borrowers struggle with eligibility (and, in particular, collateral) requirements, interest and
repayment structures for foreign currency denominated credit. In most cases, collateral requirements
represent 150 % to 200 % of the value of credit, which crowds out most micro and small enterprises, as well
as individual entrepreneurs. In addition, currency conversion through bank terminals or branch offices is
limited which constrains cash liquidity of MSMEs in foreign currency. Risk-sharing facilities are often sector
specific, enabling financial institutions to lend to a particular target group. Credit facilities at affordable
rates and flexible terms, particularly those that are not restricted to few sectors or target groups, are often
in short supply, significantly restricting access to credit.130
The number of depositors has been on the rise until banking sector crisis undermined confidence in the
banking system, and has continued to steadily increase since then.131 Average term of time deposits has
declined132 and at least four banks became insolvent since the crisis.133 In April 2020, the total volume of
new deposits in banks by individuals rose by 28.9 % year-on-year and reached $ 1,097 million, while the
total volume of deposits in banks by enterprises (including MSMEs) rose by 13.9 %, reaching $ 4,201 million.
More recent data on deposits covering the first six months of 2020 was not available in the six-month
Banking Statistics Bulletin published by the National Bank of Tajikistan. Besides, dollarization of deposits
remains high, creating risks from unhedged borrowers.134
Financial inclusion
Financial participation in Tajikistan improved significantly during 2015–2019, although from a very low base.
In 2020, the share of adults with a bank account rose to 65 %, compared to 47 % in 2017 according to the
latest Findex data.135 The number of bank payment card holders rose by 73 % since 2015, comprising more
127
National Bank of Tajikistan (NBT): https://nbt.tj/files/statistics/kredit_ru.xls.
128
NPLs in the banking sector steadily declined but peaked in 2016, reaching 47.6 % of total credit in the banking system.
Pratt, R. 2016. Borrowing by Individuals in Tajikistan: A Review of the Attitudes and Capacity for Indebtedness. Summary Issues
129
and Observations. Dushanbe, p.4.

130
Shokhboz Asadov and Roman Mogilevskii. 2018. Financial Inclusion, Regulation, Literacy and Education in Tajikistan. ADBI
Working Paper Series. No.847. Manila, pp. 13-15.
With 11.5 % interest for deposits in local currency and 5.6 % in foreign currency.
131
132
On average, from 856 to 810 days for individual depositors, and from 877 to 717 days for legal entities.
133
Agroinvestbank, Tojiksodirotbank, Tojprombank and Fononbank. The last two were shut down and liquidated.
IMF. 2020. Staff Report on the Republic of Tajikistan. Request for Disbursement under the Rapid Credit Facility (RCF). Washington,
134
DC, p.6.
135
Global Financial Inclusion database: https://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/global-findex.
than 2.5 million individuals in April 2020. An increasing number of financial institutions and their outreach
to smaller towns across Tajikistan has led to a rise in the number and regional spread of payment terminals
(by 15 %) and the total number of bank accounts between 2015 and 2020.136 However, advancement in
financial participation is limited to: (i) strong preference among the population, particularly in rural areas,
for informal savings and borrowing, (ii) high risks associated with reaching out to traditionally underserved
areas, and (iii) weak financial capability and indebtedness of consumers of the financial services.137 In
general, this shows the pre-COVID-19 persistent problems with regards to financial inclusion of the
population in Tajikistan.
Electronic and digital financial services

Tajikistan has also introduced a number of measures to digitalize financial services, such as through
mobile money solutions, electronic wallets, and web-based cashless payments. As of May 2020, 9 % of
all transactions were carried out using electronic payment instruments (via mobile phone and Internet),
compared to 1.6 % in 2015.138 These transactions represent about $ 130.4 million. Although these EDFS
solutions need to be further supported by various providers and their networks, m-money and e-wallets
are given special attention – e.g. by OJSC ‘Alif Bank’, OJSC ‘IMON International’, OJSC ‘Bank Eskhata’ and
others – due to high usage rates of mobile services in the population and as a means to reach remote
areas.139 These measures are complementary to the ongoing payment systems oversight reform. The NBT
recognizes that EDFS can be a powerful tool for directing remittance flows into the formal finance sector
and accumulate them there in the form of savings.140
Securities and capital market
The securities market in Tajikistan is at its infancy and capital market regulation has only just been
centralized. Tajikistan’s stock exchange, the Central Asian Stock Exchange (CASE),141 was established in
2015 as a platform for organized trading of securities. Since then, only one bank (OJSC ‘Bank Eskhata’) has
been listed as a company on the stock exchange.142 Listing of firms and financial institutions on the CASE
appears to be limited, most likely due to persistent currency volatility and other market risks, which in turn
reduces the appeal of listed securities to potential customers.143 Local banks have limited or, particularly
amongst banks that face liquidity shortages, no access to international debt markets. Access to local
currency funding also remains a challenge for financial institutions, while capital markets are virtually non-
existent for enterprises to raise money.144
136
By 41 % for individuals and by 12 % for legal entities.
Roy Pratt. 2016. Borrowing by Individuals in Tajikistan: A Review of the Attitudes and Capacity for Indebtedness. Summary Issues
137
and Observations. Dushanbe, p.4.

138
As of January 2020, Tajikistan has had 10.04 million mobile connections, which represents 107 % of the total population. About
139
92 % of these are pre-paid mobile connections and 51 % of all mobile phone users have some sort of 3G broadband connectivity.
According to the GSMA Mobile Connectivity Index, Tajikistan scored 52.01 (out of 100) on mobile network infrastructure and 63.1 (out
of 100) on consumer readiness. Source: https://datareportal.com/reports/digital–2020-tajikistan.
140
It has to be noted that these remittance flows often do not remain in the form of savings in the formal finance sector in Tajikistan.
One of the factors influencing the cash-out of remittances is the immediate need for consumption for majority of households, which
is beyond the influence of financial inclusion tools. EDFS can also help to reduce (or eliminate) additional transaction costs by
transferring remittances from an e-wallet to a savings account should the user decide to save within the formal finance sector.
141
Source: https://www.case.com.tj/en/. GMEX Group, one of the largest companies in the United Kingdom (UK) that offers innovative
solutions and technologies in the field of financial markets, is a majority shareholder.
142
In April 2017, OJSC ‘Bank Eskhata’ issued the country’s first corporate bonds in local currency (for a total amount of 20 million
somoni (an equivalent of about US$ 2.3 million)). To date, no other bank or NBFI has issued corporate bonds or stocks through CASE.
143
World Bank. 2020. Doing Business 2020: Economy Profile for Tajikistan. Washington, D.C., p.35.
144
Tajikistan’s first stock exchange, Central Asian Stock Exchange (CASE), was established in April 2015 as a platform for organized
trading of securities. GMEX Group, one of the largest companies in the UK that offers innovative solutions and technologies in the
field of financial markets, is a majority shareholder. In April 2017, OJSC «Bank Eskhata» decided to issue the country’s first corporate
bonds in local currency (for a total amount of 20m somoni (US$ 2.3 million)). To date, no other bank has issued corporate bonds or
stocks through the CASE and Bank Eskhata’s bonds appear less appealing to individuals and corporate customers (SMEs) in the
presence of local currency volatility.
GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET
The economic implication of the COVID-19 outbreak resulted in a 4.5 % revenue shortfall of the general
government budget in January-June 2020. More than 80 % of this shortfall is attributed to declining tax
receipts. The revenue items which were hit the hardest include: (i) internal value added taxes (14.5 %
shortfall against the original plan), (ii) corporate income taxes (11.3 % shortfall), and (iii) non-tax revenues
(9.6 % shortfall). In total, the revenue outturn of the general government budget at the end of June 2020
was equivalent to 9,816.4 million somoni. The revenue outturn in the first six months of 2020 was 10.3 %
lower year-on-year and is equivalent to 30.3 % of GDP.
The COVID-19 situation has necessitated changes in budget legislation. Following the recommendations
from the IMF, the Law of the Republic of Tajikistan “On the State Budget of the Republic of Tajikistan for
2020” was amended and supplemented (#1692 dated July 4, 2020), in particular figures on revenues,
expenditures, and overall budget balance. To that end, aggregate expenditure estimates for 2020 were
revised down by 9.6 % from 26.1 billion somoni to 23.6 billion somoni. This demonstrates a concerted effort
between the government and development partners aimed at greater fiscal consolidation and discipline in
resource allocation in the presence of health and economic risks.
The consolidation of budgetary accounts145 has led to the budget deficit reaching about 3.8 % in 2019, with
the deficit expected to rise sharply in 2020 due to the coronavirus pandemic. The Ministry of Finance
estimates that the budget deficit in 2020 will be 3.7 % of GDP (equivalent of 3.1 billion somoni), narrowing
to 2.4 % of GDP in 2021 and 2.6 % of GDP in 2022. The IMF estimates that the deficit will widen further in
2020, possibly reaching 6.1 % of GDP or 5.1 billion somoni.
FIGURE 13: REVENUE PERFORMANCE OF THE FIGURE 14: PUBLIC SPENDING FROM THE
GENERAL
FIGURE GOVERNMENT
FIGURE13:
13:REVENUE BUDGET IN
REVENUEPERFORMANCE
PERFORMANCE OFTAJIKISTAN,
OFTHE
THE GENERAL
FIGURE
FIGURE14: GOVERNMENT
14:PUBLIC
PUBLIC SPENDINGBUDGET
SPENDING FROM BYGENERAL
FROMTHE
THE GENERAL
JANUARY-JUNE
GENERAL 2019 – JANUARY-JUNE
GENERALGOVERNMENT
GOVERNMENT BUDGET
BUDGETIN 2020.
INTAJIKISTAN,
TAJIKISTAN, ECONOMIC BUDGET
GOVERNMENT
GOVERNMENT ITEMS,
BUDGETJANUARY-JUNE
BY
BYECONOMIC 2020.
ECONOMICITEMS,
ITEMS,
JANUARY-JUNE
JANUARY-JUNE2019
2019- -JANUARY-JUNE
JANUARY-JUNE2020.
2020. JANUARY-JUNE
JANUARY-JUNE2020.
2020.
9000,0
9000,0
8000,0
8000,0 Capital
Capitalexpenditure
expenditure(total)
(total)
Million somoni
somoni
7000,0
7000,0
6000,0
6000,0 Pensions
Pensions
5000,0
5000,0
4000,0
4000,0 Social
Socialsecurity
securityand
andsocial…
social…
Million
3000,0
3000,0
2000,0
2000,0 Interest
Interestpayments
payments(debt)
(debt)
1000,0
1000,0
0,0
0,0 Purchase
Purchaseofofgoods
goodsand…
and…
Plan
Plan Outturn
Outturn Plan
Plan Outturn
Outturn
Wage
Wagebill
bill(salaries)
(salaries)
H1-2019
H1-2019 H1-2020
H1-2020
Tax
Taxrevenue
revenue(total)
(total) Non-tax
Non-taxrevenue
revenue(total)
(total) 00 1 1000
000 22000
000 33000
000 44000
000
Income
Incometax
tax Corporate
Corporateincome
incometaxtax Outturn
Outturn Plan
Plan Million
Millionsomoni
somoni
Value
Valueadded
addedtaxtax Customs
Customsduties
duties
/Source:
/Source:Ministry
MinistryofofFinance
Financeofofthe
theRepublic
RepublicofofTajikistan.
Tajikistan.
/Source: Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Tajikistan.
Public spending for social sectors comprised 46.8 % of the general government budget in line with
general government expenditures in the first six months of 2020, and had gradually expanded until
FIGURE
FIGURE
2020. 146 15:
15:PUBLIC
PUBLICnominal
However, SPENDING
SPENDING FROM
FROMrates
growth THE
THEGENERAL
GENERAL
mask GOVERNMENT
GOVERNMENT
efficiency BUDGET
BUDGET
and equity BY
BYinSECTORS,
issues SECTORS,
resourceJANUARY-JUNE
JANUARY-JUNE
allocation across
2020.
2020.
sectors and institutions. Revenue shortfall and further expected fiscal consolidation measures led to the
decrease in expenditure
Public
for all sectors in January-June 2020. The largest fall in public spending against
Publicadministration
administration
the original plan was recorded Education in public administration (41.7 %), education (21.8 %), culture and sports
Education
(18.6 %), industry and constructionHealth
Health (15.8 %), and social insurance and social protection of the population
Social
Socialinsurance/protection
insurance/protection
(15.3 %). The urgent needs for health and social expenditure stemming from the outbreak will inevitably
Housing
Housingand
andcommunal
communalservices
services
lead to widening of theand
Culture
budget
Cultureand sports
sports
deficit, at least in the mid-term perspective.
Fuel
Fueland
andenergy
energycomplex
complex
145
Republican and sub-national
Agriculture,
Agriculture,fishery
fisheryand
government expenditures plus externally-financed Public Investment Program (PIP).
andhunting
hunting
146
Ministry ofIndustry
Industryand
Finance:andconstruction
construction
http://minfin.tj/index.php?do=static&page=budget.
Transport
Transportand
andcommunications
communications
Other
Othereconomic
economicactivities
activities
40 Expenditures
Expendituresnot
notclassified
classifiedelsewhere
elsewhere
00
Impact of COVID-19 on Lives, Livelihoods and Micro, Small and MSMEs in Tajikistan
250
250 500
500 750
750 1 1000
000 1 1250
250 1 1500
500 1 1750
750 22000
000 22250
250 22500
500 22750
750
Million
Millionsomoni
somoni
Outturn
Outturn Plan
Plan
FIGURE 13: REVENUE PERFORMANCE OF THE FIGURE 14: PUBLIC SPENDING FROM THE GENERAL
GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET IN TAJIKISTAN, GOVERNMENT BUDGET BY ECONOMIC ITEMS,
JANUARY-JUNE 2019 - JANUARY-JUNE 2020. JANUARY-JUNE 2020.
The9000,0
total wage bill was executed only by 90.5 % against the original plan, which was partly caused by
Capital expenditure (total)
payment
8000,0 delays in some districts and cities. Expenditure outturn
Million somoni for the purchase of goods and services
7000,0
equaled
6000,076.7 % against the original plan, demonstrating that non-essential procurement and other activities
Pensions
(such5000,0
as current repairs) in all public institutions have been put off until later in the year.
4000,0 Social security and social…
In order
3000,0to implement the measures to counter the spread of COVID-19, general government budget for
the 2000,0
health
1000,0
sector has been increased by 1.6 billion somoni in Interest excesspayments (debt)
of the originally approved budget (of
1.8 billion somoni) for 2020. In the first six months of 2020, thePurchase
0,0 health ofsector
goods budget
and… equaled 860.6 million
somoni. Moreover, Plan in order
Outturn
to ensurePlan Outturn
social protection of medical and social workers, in line with the Decree
Wage bill (salaries)
of the President ofH1-2019
the Republic of TajikistanH1-2020#1378 (dated May 1st , 2020), 12.4 million somoni were allocated
from the TaxReserve Fund of the President
revenue (total) of the
Non-tax revenue Republic of Tajikistan for paying a monthly
(total) 0 1 000wage
2 000supplement
3 000 4 000
Income tax Corporate income tax
in the amount of one monthly salary to medical workers directly involved Outturn in the Plandiagnosis andsomoni
Million treatment
Value added tax Customs duties
of/Source:
COVID-19 in of
Ministry medical
Financeand
of thequarantine facilities across the country.147 Besides, for procuring medical
equipment and other medical supplies, 13.4 million somoni were allocated from the Contingency Fund of the
Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Tajikistan, and a further 9.3 million somoni from the Epidemiological
Fund of the Ministry of Health and Social Protection of the Population of the Republic of Tajikistan.
FIGURE PUBLICSPENDING
FIGURE 15: PUBLIC SPENDING FROM
FROM THE
THE GENERAL
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
GOVERNMENT BUDGET
BUDGET BY SECTORS,
BY SECTORS, JANUARY-JUNE
2020.
JANUARY-JUNE 2020.
Public administration
Education
Health
Social insurance/protection
Housing and communal services
Culture and sports
Fuel and energy complex
Agriculture, fishery and hunting
Industry and construction
Transport and communications
Other economic activities
Expenditures not classified elsewhere
0 250 500 750 1 000 1 250 1 500 1 750 2 000 2 250 2 500 2 750
Million somoni
Outturn Plan
/Source:
/Source:Ministry
MinistryofofFinance
Financeofofthe Republic
the of of
Republic Tajikistan.
Tajikistan.
Public external debt has steadily declined from a record-high 50.4 % of GDP in 2017 to 45.2 % of GDP in
2018, but servicing costs put an additional strain on the government budget. In 2019, public external debt
was 35.3 % of GDP. In the first six months of 2020, servicing costs amounted to 7.4 % of total expenditures.
In general, rising debt servicing costs further constrain an already limited fiscal space. Besides, publicly
guaranteed financing of large infrastructure projects, comprising more than 12 % of GDP during 2015–
2019, effectively depleted the fiscal space and weakened the government’s ability to use fiscal buffers.148
According to the World Bank, more than 40 % of Tajikistan’s total debt repayments are due in the next five
years.149 This indicates severely limited fiscal and borrowing space to absorb economic shocks,150 including
the implications of the COVID-19 outbreak.
147
To date, two stages of payments have been completed in accordance with the established procedure, in particular: (i) 4.2 million
somoni was disbursed in May 2020 with the coverage of 5,269 workers in the health sector, and (ii) 6.8 million somoni was disbursed
in June 2020 with the coverage of 8,617 workers in the health sector.
148
Consequently, IMF increased the risk of debt distress from «low» pre-2015 to «high» in 2017 due to the limited borrowing capacity
and the need to «put debt on a downward trend» alongside «greater prioritization of public investment and improvements in efficiency
to create fiscal space for important infrastructure projects.» Source: https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2020/01/17/pr2012-tajikistan-
imf-executive-board-concludes–2019-article-iv-consultation-with-the-republic.
149
World Bank. 2019. Tajikistan Country Economic Memorandum: Nurturing Tajikistan’s Growth Potential. Washington, D.C., p.4.
Aggregate revenue shortfall in the first five months of 2020 (i.e. January-May 2020) comprised 15.6 %, with tax revenues 14 %
150
below the original plan.

Page 4 of 35

Measures undertaken to
mitigate the socio-economic
implications of COVID-19
To mitigate the adverse impact of the COVID-19 outbreak151 on lives, livelihoods and the economy, the
Government of Tajikistan has undertaken a number of important measures which streamlined and
strengthened the coronavirus monitoring system, set up vital coordination and communication structures,
and introduced specific actions to support vulnerable population and entrepreneurship.
In January 2020, the Government of Tajikistan established a COVID-19 Interagency Task Force which
was chaired by Deputy Prime Ministers and provided oversight and guidance regarding response
measures. The Task Force consisted of representatives of the Ministry of Health and Social Protection
of the Population (MoHSP), the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade (MoEDT), the Ministry of
Education and Science (MoES), the Committee of Emergency Situations and Civil Defense (CESCD), and
the Committee on Tourism Development (CTD).
In March 2020, following the Decree of the President of the Republic of Tajikistan,152 a Republican Task
Force on Strengthening Activities Countering COVID-19 has been created. This new body replaced the
previous Task Force, which functioned between January and March 2020, and is chaired by the Prime
Minister. The Republican Task Force coordinates the government’s response measures, assesses the
situation, and liaises with development partners. The Task Force reports daily to the President of the
Republic of Tajikistan and includes high-level representatives from each ministry and other government
institutions, the Secretary of the National Security Council of the Republic of Tajikistan, the General
Prosecutor, heads of relevant departments/divisions of the Executive Office of the President, and heads of
several large state-owned enterprises.
The Republican Task Force has subsequently developed an Action Plan for Prevention and Reducing the
National Economy’s Exposure to Potential Risks of COVID-19 (i.e. the ‘COVID-19 Country Preparedness and
Response Plan’), which was endorsed by the Prime Minister on March 19, 2020. The COVID-19 Country
Preparedness and Response Plan consists of 23 broadly defined measures for implementation during
March to December 2020, including:
• A health sector and social protection response package to assist the poor and vulnerable;
• A package of economic measures to ensure food security; and
• A package of economic measures to safeguard MSMEs prone to being severely affected.
The overall estimated cost of these proposed measures is $ 364 million (See Table 6). These measures
were prepared in close consultation with key international development partners, including the Asian
Development Bank (ADB), the World Bank (WB), the World Health Organization (WHO), the Delegation
of the European Union, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and the United Nations
Children’s Fund (UNICEF).
151
The World Health Organization (WHO) has defined four transmission scenarios for COVID-19: (i) countries with no cases (no
cases); (ii) countries with one or more cases, imported or locally detected (sporadic cases); (iii) countries experiencing case clusters
in time, geographic location and/or common exposure (clusters of cases); and (iv) countries experiencing larger outbreaks of local
transmission (community transmission). For more information, see: https://www.who.int/publications-detail/critical-preparedness-
readiness-and-response-actions-for-covid-19.
152
Although the Republican Task Force was created by the Decree of the President of the Republic of Tajikistan, it has not been
published on the official website of the President of the Republic of Tajikistan (http://www.president.tj).
Measures undertaken to mitigate the socio-economic implications of COVID-19 43

TABLE 6: ESTIMATED COST OF THE COVID-19 COUNTRY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE PLAN.
Initial cost
# Proposed mitigation measure
(in mln USD)
1. Health sector and social protection response package 176
1.1. Additional salary to medical personnel working with COVID-19 patients 2
1.2. Medical equipment and supplies (including personal protective equipment,
103
medicines, food, ventilators and ambulances)
1.3. Expansion of hospital capacity 37
1.4. Additional targeted social assistance for poor households 34
2. Economic measures to ensure food security and safeguard businesses 188
2.1. Food security measures (including agricultural inputs to farmers) 28
2.2. Support to businesses affected by COVID-19; targeting micro-, small- and
160
medium-sized enterprises (including tax breaks and concessional credit)
TOTAL: 364
/Source: Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Tajikistan.
On March 19, 2020, the Ministry of Health and Social Protection of the Population (MoHSP) prepared its
own Country Preparedness and Response Plan (CPRP), which identified priority areas in the ten pillars of
strategic response to the COVID-19 outbreak. These pillars and their estimated costs are shown in Table 7.
The CPRP has also identified a ‘reasonable worst-case scenario’ with around 200 COVID-19 cases, 40–50
severely ill critical patients and several infection clusters throughout Tajikistan with 50 % of staff from
essential services being either in quarantine or isolation.
TABLE 7: ESTIMATED COST OF THE COVID-19 COUNTRY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE PLAN.
Initial cost
Proposed priority areas (response measures)
(in mln USD)
Priority area 1: Country-level coordination 3.0
Priority area 2: Risk communication and community engagement 4.5
Priority area 3: Surveillance (e.g. of severe acute respiratory infections) 5.0
Priority area 4: Points of entry (including rapid health assessment, online data
20.8
management system, and other related measures)
Priority area 5: Case investigation and rapid response 4.0
Priority area 6: National laboratory system 20.0
Priority area 7: Infection prevention and control 15.4
Priority area 8: Case management 21.0
Priority area 9: Multi-sectoral action plan to mitigate socio-economic implications 8.0
Priority area 10: Logistics and supply management 10.0
TOTAL: 111.7
/Source: Ministry of Health and Social Protection of the Population of the Republic of Tajikistan.
Health measures
It is important to recognize that no COVID-19 cases were recorded by the Government of Tajikistan at
the time of endorsing the CPRP by the Prime Minister. The government confirmed its first 15 laboratory
diagnosed cases of COVID-19 on April 30, 2020. From then on and until 24 September 2020, the country
reported 9,520 positive COVID-19 cases and 74 deaths.153 At the same time, the MoHSP reported that
87.1 % of infected individuals have successfully recovered from COVID-19 symptoms.
Admittedly, Tajikistan’s health sector is fragile154 and historically underfunded. During 2000–2019, public
resource allocation for the health sector comprised, on average, 6 % of the general government budget
and 1.5 % of GDP. Therefore, in order to implement measures to counter the spread of COVID-19, public
resources for the health sector for 2020 were increased by 1.6 billion somoni in excess of originally
approved budget (the approved sector budget is 1.8 billion somoni).
In addition, to ensure social protection of medical and social workers, 12.4 million somoni were allocated
from the Reserve Fund of the President of the Republic of Tajikistan. These funds are used for paying a
monthly wage supplement in the amount of one monthly salary to medical workers directly involved in the
diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 in medical and quarantine facilities. Furthermore, 13.4 million somoni
were earmarked from the Contingency Fund of the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan and additional
9.3 million somoni were allocated from the Epidemiological Fund of the Ministry of Health and Social
Protection of the Population (MoHSP) for the procurement of medical equipment and other medical supplies.
Moreover, the government has ensured that its vital health programs, such as maternal and child health
(MCH) programs, remain fully funded and prioritized at the time when the government’s resources are
largely shifted to combat the COVID-19 outbreak. For instance, pregnant women and young children will
continue to have health check-ups without risk of infection in accordance with adjusted MCH protocols.
During the coronavirus pandemic and the resulting economic downturn, sub-national governments will
closely monitor a potential increase in the cases of domestic violence and psychological stress.
Travel restrictions
As an initial response measure, Tajikistan has closed its border with the People’s Republic of China (PCR)
in January 2020, and citizens from five high-risk countries were not permitted to enter Tajikistan from
February 2020. The Civil Aviation Agency has suspended all flights and closure of all airports throughout
Tajikistan from March 20, 2020. This was done the next day after the Republican Task Force, chaired by
the Prime Minister, endorsed its COVID-19 Country Preparedness and Response Plan (CPRP). From May 5,
2020 all individuals arriving from overseas have been subject to mandatory 14-day quarantine.
Trade and food security measures

Tajikistan’s traditional trading partners have all decreased their exports in the aftermath of the COVID-19
outbreak (e.g. Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation). Besides, the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU)155
introduced restrictions on exports of food items to non-member states such as Tajikistan, and the Russian
Federation has also embargoed wheat exports from April 26, 2020.156 Since Tajikistan relies heavily on
food imports, these measures led to the rise of food prices in the first six months of 2020. In response, on
March 30 the Ministry of Agriculture has introduced quotas on exports of wheat and flour.
153
Daily reports of the Ministry of Health and Social Protection of the Population of the Republic of Tajikistan. For more information,
see http://www.moh.tj (accessed on 28 September 2020).
154
There is a lack of qualified medical personnel to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the Agency for Statistics
under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan, it only has 20.9 doctors per 10,000 people as of 2020. Besides, there is only one
laboratory in Tajikistan which fully meets international standards for COVID-19 testing, and prior to the outbreak the supply and
productive capacity for personal protective equipment and medical supplies was insufficient to meet demand.
The EEU member states include Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, and the Russian Federation.
155
Kazakhstan, Tajikistan’s main supplier of wheat, declared a state of emergency in April 2020 and imposed export restrictions
156
on certain types of food products, including wheat flour, white sugar, sunflower seeds/oil, valid until at least mid-April 2020, and
announced export quotas in April 2020 for wheat (200 thousand tons) and wheat flour (70 thousand tons).

To further counter emerging food security risks, the Government of Tajikistan encouraged farmers to
increase agricultural production,157 utilized the state food stocks158 to avoid shortages, and controlled
market prices for food products and medical supplies. Moreover, the Government of Tajikistan has also
placed exemptions on value added taxes (previously 18 %) on imported basic food products such as sugar,
vegetable oil, wheat and rice, to lower their market price domestically. This measure was introduced on
April 1, 2020. From April 25, 2020 the government has also imposed a ban on the export of food products
such as rice, lentils, potatoes, eggs, beans and meat until the end of the year.
Social distancing measures

From March 2020, some businesses temporarily closed (e.g. hotels, restaurants, etc.) and recreational
events (e.g. sports and cultural events) were postponed until later in the year. These were self-imposed
measures undertaken by businesses and other non-governmental organizations. Official meetings and
events were also cancelled or postponed by the Government of Tajikistan. In April 2020, the Dushanbe
municipality cancelled festivities and celebrations. Mosques were also closed down for attendance and
prayers and have not yet re-opened. Similarly, on April 27, 2020 all educational institutions and markets
(bazaars) temporarily shut down following guidance from the Republican Task Force. On May 5, 2020
the Ministry of Education and Science (MoES) has extended the temporary closure of all educational
institutions until August 17, 2020. On April 30, 2020 the Parliament endorsed new legislation which made
wearing of masks in public places compulsory and social distancing as a recommended measure.
Fiscal measures
The Government of Tajikistan has adopted fiscal consolidation measures and restraint regarding non-
priority spending, although critical capital investments are retained in order to safeguard jobs. In 2020,
the fiscal deficit is projected to reach 3.7 % of GDP (according to the Ministry of Finance) or 6.1 % of GDP
(according to IMF), and revenues declined by 4.7 % against earlier estimates in the first six months of 2020.
This has resulted in the Government of Tajikistan successfully negotiating a $ 189.5 million disbursement
under IMF Rapid Credit Facility (RCF) instrument. Discussions with other development partners led to the
disbursement of additional financing such as from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the World Bank, the
Delegation of the European Union, partner UN organizations, and others. The Government of Tajikistan is
also preparing fiscal consolidation measures that can be implemented over the medium term to ensure
debt sustainability.159 In March 2020, the IMF approved a total debt relief to Tajikistan of $ 28.49 million
through the Catastrophe Containment and Relief Fund. The Government of Tajikistan was also granted
another debt relief equaling $ 63.4 million in potential savings under the G20 Debt Service Suspension
Initiative (DSSI).160 These financial resources were also included in the supplementary budget, which was
approved by the Parliament of the Republic of Tajikistan in July 2020 to counter the COVID-19 impact.
In consultation and close coordination with development partners, the Government of Tajikistan has
amended its annual budget legislation161 on July 4, 2020. The amended legislation revises down revenue
and expenditure estimates for 2020, widens fiscal balance, and adjusts the composition of spending by
157
Such as in-kind support by the Government of Tajikistan to dehkan farmers and other agricultural producers in the form of
agricultural inputs (including seeds and fertilizers).
The Government of Tajikistan has been supported by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the UN World Food
158
Programme (WFP) in carrying out a National Food Supply Assessment to assess crop and food stocks. In the medium term, the
Ministry of Agriculture is initiating the preparation of the National Investment Plan for the Sustainable Development of the Agricultural
Sector and Food Security for the period 2021–2030. The first draft will be available later in the year.
159
The joint IMF-World Bank Debt Sustainability Analysis completed in December 2019, i.e. before the shock, found that Tajikistan
remains at high risk of debt distress. The post-COVID-19 fiscal expansion and increased concessional borrowing as well as slower
growth will increase total public debt from 45.4 % of GDP in 2019 to 47.6 % of GDP in 2020 (baseline scenario).
160
Source: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/debt/brief/covid-19-debt-service-suspension-initiative (accessed on August 25, 2020).
On April 15, 2020, the World Bank’s Development Committee and the G20 Finance Ministers endorsed the Debt Service Suspension
Initiative (DSSI) in response to a call by the World Bank and the IMF to grant debt-service suspension to the poorest countries to help
them manage the severe impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Law of the Republic of Tajikistan ‘On the State Budget of the Republic of Tajikistan for 2020.’ (#1693 dated July 4, 2020).
161
sectors and economic line items. In addition, the amended budget legislation introduces the following
temporary measures162 which are intended to support businesses and livelihoods:
• Property tax holiday for all individuals (from May 1, 2020 until September 1, 2020); and
• Income tax rate for individual deposits in financial institutions is reduced by 50 % in accordance with
Article 127 of the Tax Code of the Republic of Tajikistan (from June 1, 2020 until December 31, 2020).
Furthermore, the Government of Tajikistan is providing lump-sum assistance equivalent to minimum

wage to vulnerable households and other socially disadvantaged groups. Most health workers receive
supplemental pay to their monthly wages, while tariff increases on utility services (e.g. electricity, water
and communal services) have been postponed until the end of 2020. Although there had been isolated
reports of delayed salary payments in the second quarter of 2020, these delays were mostly dealt with
and salaries fully disbursed by respective financial bodies. The government is also providing free medical
care to citizens placed under medical care/treatment and COVID-19 patients, as well as sick leave and
compensation benefits.
Business support measures

Business support measures introduced by the Government of Tajikistan are in line with the Decree of the
President of the Republic of Tajikistan ‘On Countering the Socio-Economic Impact of COVID-19 Outbreak
on the Republic of Tajikistan’ (#1544 dated June 5, 2020) and the Country Preparedness and Response
Plan (CPRP) prepared by the Republican Task Force and endorsed by the Prime Minister. The full package
of business support measures is estimated to cost approximately $ 160 million in line with the CPRP and is
intended to support MSMEs and employment through temporary tax concessions and relief to domestic
producers and entrepreneurs. According to June 2020 estimates of the Ministry of Finance, these
measures are estimated to cost more than 600 million somoni in forgone tax revenue.
Specifically, amended annual budget legislation introduces the following measures to support MSMEs:
• Tax holidays and fee waiver for late submission of tax declarations for businesses in the tourism and
hospitality sector, recreational and sports centers, sanatoriums, food places, international passenger
transport and air navigation (from April 1, 2020 until September 1, 2020);
• Tax exemption for individual entrepreneurs operating under a patent in local markets (bazaars), trading
centers, shopping malls and consumer service points, including beauty salons, fashion houses,
hairdressers and sewing workshops (from May 1, 2020 until August 1, 2020);
• Exemption of businesses which import disinfectants, medical supplies and personal protective
equipment, other medical equipment and instruments for equipping medical laboratories, and other
supplies required for COVID-19 testing from value added taxes (VAT), excises and customs duties (from
July 1, 2020 until September 1, 2020);163
• Exemption of medical facilities, hotels and sanatoriums, which are hosting, diagnosing and/or treating
COVID-19 patients free of charge from corporate income tax (CIT), value added taxes (VAT), and
automobile road user tax (from July 1, 2020 until December 31, 2020);
The Tax Committee under the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan has also introduced moratorium on
tax and audit inspections of businesses. In the meantime, the Tax Committee and the Ministry of Finance
are also drafting the amended Tax Code of the Republic of Tajikistan, which is meant to provide further
‘breathing space’ for businesses which have been affected by the coronavirus pandemic.
162
All of these measures have become retrospectively effective from April 1, 2020.
The list of products/supplies which are exempt from VAT, excise duties and customs duties is approved by the Government of
163
Tajikistan upon submission by the Ministry of Health and Social Protection of the Population (MoHSP) in consultation with the Ministry
of Finance.

Through the state-owned Entrepreneurship Support Fund (ESF)164 under the Ministry of Finance, the
government is disbursing concessional loans to struggling MSMEs in need of urgent financing as a result of
COVID-19, including businesses which produce and/or import food and medical products.
Monetary and financial measures

The National Bank of Tajikistan (NBT) has undertaken several measures to ease monetary and liquidity
conditions of local financial institutions, which is intended to increase risk-hedged volumes of lending to
MSMEs. The NBT has relaxed enforcement of prudential requirements to ease banking pressures and
maintain credit provision to businesses and individual borrowers. In April 2020, the NBT recommended the
banks to review loan terms to support borrowers facing temporary difficulties. It also recommended banks
to waive penalties for businesses and individuals that face hardships in repaying their loan obligations
between May 2020 and October 2020. To accommodate these the NBT waived supervisory sanctions
(until September 1, 2020) against those banks that are providing adequate loan loss provisions and as a
result fail to meet capital adequacy ratio and liquidity ratio. As a result, banks have already restructured
more than 60,000 loans to MSMEs.
Despite a temporary waiver of penalties, financial institutions are required to ensure that established
prudential requirements are met. The NBT has recommended that they do not pay dividends or bonuses
to shareholders but keep these profits to boost capital. Financial institutions are exempt from paying fees
for the settlement system and have been asked to avoid non-essential expenditures. To reduce further
dollarization, the income tax rate for interest income on domestic currency deposits was lowered by 5 %
until December 31, 2020.
On May 1, 2020 the NBT has cut the policy interest rate from 12.75 % to 11.75 % to support businesses. It
has also allowed a one-time 5 % exchange rate depreciation in March 2020 and greater exchange rate
flexibility to align the official rate with the market rate. On April 1, 2020 the NBT has also lowered required
reserve ratios from 3 % to 1 % for local currency deposits and from 9 % to 5 % for foreign currency deposits.
Furthermore, interest rate on bank deposits have been lowered from 12 % to 6 % from July 1, 2020 until
December 31, 2020.
The Entrepreneurship Support Fund is in the process of being restructured into a state-owned bank ‘Sanoatsodirotbank’.
164
Impact of COVID-19 on
lives and livelihoods

KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS
The survey consisted of 1,000 households who were distributed by geographic locations in Tajikistan
proportionate to the distribution of the general population. In particular, 34 % of households (HHs) reside
in Khatlon oblast, representing the largest group, while only 3 % are in GBAO (the smallest group). In total,
38.4 % of respondents were heads of their respective HHs (112 out of 384 are women), with 33.1 % siblings
of heads of HHs, and 18 % spouses of heads of HHs (of which 98.9 % were women). The remaining 10 % of
respondents are shown in Figure 17. Approximately 69.2 % of HHs are located in rural areas, with 30.8 % of
HHs residing in urban areas (i.e. towns and cities).
FIGURE16:16:
FIGURE COMPOSITION OF SURVEYED FIGURE
FIGURE 17:
17: COMPOSITIONOFOF RESPONDENTS BY
HOUSEHOLDS COMPOSITION
BY
OF
OF SURVEYED
SURVEYED
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS. STATUS 17: COMPOSITION
FIGURE IN COMPOSITION OF RESPONDENTS
RESPONDENTS BY
BY
HOUSEHOLDS
HOUSEHOLDS BY GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS.
BY GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS. STATUS INTHETHE HOUSEHOLD.
HOUSEHOLD.
STATUS IN THE HOUSEHOLD.
Dushanbe;
FIGURE 16: COMPOSITION OF SURVEYED FIGURE 17: COMPOSITION Head
Head of
OF RESPONDENTS of HH
HH BY
Dushanbe; 1;
FIGURE
FIGURE 16:16: COMPOSITION
COMPOSITION OFOF SURVEYED
99;
99; 10%
SURVEYED FIGURE17:
FIGURE 17:COMPOSITION
1; 0%1; 0%
COMPOSITION 0% OFRESPONDENTS
OF RESPONDENTS BY BY
HOUSEHOLDS
FIGURE BY GEOGRAPHIC
16: COMPOSITION LOCATIONS.
10%
OF SURVEYED STATUS
FIGUREIN
17:THE HOUSEHOLD.
1; 0%
COMPOSITION OF Son/Daughter
RESPONDENTS BY
HOUSEHOLDS
HOUSEHOLDS BYBY GEOGRAPHIC
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS.
LOCATIONS.
GBAO; STATUS IN THE
STATUS IN THE HOUSEHOLD.
HOUSEHOLD.
3; Son/Daughter
HOUSEHOLDS BY GEOGRAPHIC GBAO;
LOCATIONS.
Dushanbe; STATUS IN 91;
THE
91; 9% 3; 0%
0%
9% HOUSEHOLD. Head of HH
Dushanbe; 31; 3% 31; 3% 6; 1%
1;6;0% Spouse/Partner
Head of HH
Dushanbe;
99; 10% 1%
1; 0% Spouse/Partner
Head of HH
Dushanbe;
99; 10% 1; 0% 1;0%0% Head of HH
Soghd
Soghd 99; 10% 1;3;0% Son/Daughter
GBAO; 1; 0%
3; 1;
0% 0% Son/Daughter-in-law
Son/Daughter
oblast; 99; 10% GBAO; 91; 9% 3;1;3;0%
180; 0% 384;
384; 39%
Son/Daughter-in-law
Son/Daughter
oblast; GBAO;
31; 3% 180; 18%
18%
91; 9%3;6; 0%
1%
0% 39% Son/Daughter
Spouse/Partner
299; 91; 9% 3;
299; 30%
30% Khatlon
GBAO;
31; 3%
31; 3% 91; 9%6;6;1% 1%
0% Grandchild
Spouse/Partner
Grandchild
Spouse/Partner
Soghd Khatlon 31; 3% 3; 0% 6; 1% Spouse/Partner
Soghd oblast; 3; 0% Son/Daughter-in-law
Father/Mother
Son/Daughter-in-law
Soghd
oblast; oblast; 180; 18% 3; 0% 384; 39% Father/Mother
Soghd
oblast; 340; 34% 180; 18% 3; 0% 384; 39% Son/Daughter-in-law
oblast;
299; 30% 340; 34% 180; 18% 384; 39% Son/Daughter-in-law
Grandchild
oblast;
299; 30% 231; Khatlon
DRS; 180; 18% 384; 39% Sister/Brother
Grandchild
299; 30%DRS; 231; Khatlon Sister/Brother
Grandchild
299; 30%
23% Khatlon
oblast; 331;
331; 33%
33% Grandchild
23% Khatlon
oblast; Father/Mother
Niece/Nephew
Father/Mother
oblast;
340; 34% Niece/Nephew
Father/Mother
oblast;
340; 34% Father/Mother
DRS; 231; 340; 34% Sister/Brother
Not
DRS; 231; 340; 34%
331; Not related
Sister/Brother
related
Sister/Brother
DRS;
23%
DRS;231;
23%231;Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). Figure 16: N=1,000;331;33%
33% Sister/Brother
/Source:
/Source: COVID-19
COVID-19 Impact
23%
Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). Figure 16: 331;
331;33%
N=1,000; Figure
Figure 17: N=1,000. Niece/Nephew
Niece/Nephew
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). Figure 16: N=1,000;
23% 33%
Figure 17:17: N=1,000.
N=1,000. Niece/Nephew
Niece/Nephew
Not
Notrelated
related
Not
Notrelated
related
/Source: COVID-19
Among
/Source: Impact
COVID-19 Assessment
theCOMPOSITION
surveyed
Impact Survey
respondents,
Assessment (June-July
483
Survey out of2020).
(June-July 1,000Figure
2020). HHs 16:
Figure 16:N=1,000;
were women
N=1,000;Figure 17:
17:N=1,000.
which
Figure is slightly
N=1,000. below the minimum
FIGURE
/Source:
FIGURE
/Source: 18:
COVID-19
18: Impact
COMPOSITION
COVID-19 Impact OF
Assessment
OF RESPONDENTS
Survey (June-July
RESPONDENTS
Assessment Survey BY
BY
(June-July AGE
2020).
AGE
2020). FIGURE
Figure
FIGURE
Figure 19:
16:16:N=1,000;
19: COMPOSITION
Figure 17:
COMPOSITION
N=1,000; Figure 17: OF
N=1,000. SURVEYED
OF19 %
N=1,000. SURVEYED
anticipated 50 % of the sample. Of the total number of women who were surveyed,
GROUP AND were young (i.e.
GROUP AND GENDER.
aged 15–24 GENDER. HOUSEHOLDS BY
years). At the same time, the proportion ofHOUSEHOLDS BY GEOGRAPHIC
youth among male GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS AND
respondentsLOCATIONS
was higherAND
(33.3 %)
MIGRANTS.
MIGRANTS.
relative
FIGURE
FIGURE toCOMPOSITION
18:18: female respondents.
COMPOSITION OFOF Overall, 26.4 %
RESPONDENTS
RESPONDENTS BY of allFIGURE
BYAGE
AGE respondents
FIGURE19: were young. OF
19:COMPOSITION
COMPOSITION OFSURVEYED
SURVEYED
FIGURE 600
18: COMPOSITION AGE FIGURE 19:
GENDER. OFOF RESPONDENTS
RESPONDENTSBY BYAGE 19:COMPOSITION OF
OFSURVEYED
FIGURE 18: COMPOSITION FIGURE 400 COMPOSITION SURVEYED
GROUP
GROUP AND
600GENDER.
AND HOUSEHOLDS
400
HOUSEHOLDS BY
BYGEOGRAPHIC
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS
LOCATIONSAND
AND
households
households
FIGURE
GROUP 18:GENDER.
COMPOSITION OF RESPONDENTS FIGURE 19:
350 COMPOSITION OF SURVEYED HOUSE
Numberofofhouseholds
AND GENDER. HOUSEHOLDS BY GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS AND

Numberofofhouseholds
GROUP AND
500
500 HOUSEHOLDS
MIGRANTS.350
MIGRANTS. BY GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS AND
BY AGE GROUP AND GENDER. HOLDS BY300
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS AND MIGRANTS.
400
MIGRANTS.300
MIGRANTS.
600 400
600 400250
400
250
households
600
households
400
of households
600 200
of households
300 400
350
350
200
500 300
500
households
households
of households
of households
350
350
300
300150
150
500
500
200
Number
400 200
400 300
300
250100
250100
Number
400
400
100 250
250
200
200 50
50
300
300 100
300300 150 0
200
200
150
of of
0
of of
2000
Number
Number
200 0 150
150
100
100
Dushanbe
Dushanbe GBAO GBAO Khatlon
Khatlon DRS
DRS Soghd
Soghd
Number
Number
Female Male
Number
Number
200
200 Female Male 100
100
oblast
oblast oblast
oblast
Number
Number
100100 5050
100100 50500
0HHs without labor migrant(s)
15-24 years old 25 years and older HHs with labor migrant(s)
0 0 15-24 years old 25 years and older 0HHs without laborGBAO
0 Dushanbe
Dushanbe migrant(s)Khatlon
GBAO Khatlon
HHs withDRS
DRS
labor migrant(s)
Soghd
Soghd
0 0 Female
Female Male
Male Dushanbe GBAO
Dushanbe GBAO Khatlonoblast
Khatlon
oblast DRS
DRS oblast
Soghd
Soghd
oblast
/Source: COVID-19
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey
FemaleAssessment Survey
Impact (June-July
Male 2020). Figure 18: N=1,000; Figure 19: N=1,000.
(June-July 2020). Figure 18: N=1,000; Figure 19: N=1,000.
Female Male oblast
oblast oblast
oblast
15-24
15-24 years
years oldold 2525 years
years and
and older
older HHswithout
HHs withoutlabor
labormigrant(s)
migrant(s) HHswith
HHs withlabor
labormigrant(s)
migrant(s)
15-24 years
oldold 2525 years and older
15-24 years years and older HHswithout
HHs withoutlabor
labormigrant(s)
migrant(s) HHswith
HHs withlabor
labormigrant(s)
migrant(s)
/Source:
/Source: COVID-19
/Source: COVID-19
COVID-19 Impact
ImpactImpactAssessment
Assessment
Assessment Survey
Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020).
2020). Figure18:18:N=1,000;
Figure N=1,000;Figure
N=1,000; Figure19:
Figure 19:N=1,000.
19: N=1,000.
N=1,000.
/Source:
/Source: COVID-19
COVID-19 Impact
Impact Assessment
Assessment Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020). Figure18:18:N=1,000;
Figure N=1,000;Figure
Figure19:
19:N=1,000.
N=1,000.

In general, 37.9 % of all surveyed HHs reported having at least one migrant labor, with regional variations
showing a stark difference between urban and rural areas. This suggests strong positive correlation
between HHs’ income level and having migrant labor. For example, 26.3 % of HHs from Dushanbe (26 out
of 99) reported having at least one labor migrant, compared to 39.1 % of HHs from Soghd oblast (117 out of
299) and 45 % of HHs from districts of republican subordination, or DRS (104 out of 231). This shows that
HHs in urban areas are less likely to send their HH members away on labor migration in comparison with
HHs in rural areas.
Interestingly, 59.6 % of female respondents indicated that they have a HH member who is a migrant, but in
accordance with statistics from the Agency for Statistics under the President this is not representative of
the gender breakdown of all migrant labor in Tajikistan (whereby the majority are men). The higher share of
women in migrant labor may be partly explained by higher demand for them due to wage discrepancies, as
well as lower HH income with more female members, especially amongst the women-headed HHs.
FIGURE
FIGURE 20: COMPOSITION OF LABOR MIGRANTS FIGURE 21: COMPOSITION OF SURVEYED
FIGURE 20:
20: COMPOSITION
COMPOSITION OF
OF LABOR
LABOR MIGRANTS
MIGRANTS IN
IN FIGURE
FIGURE 21:
21: COMPOSITION
COMPOSITION OF
OF SURVEYED
SURVEYED
IN
THETHE SURVEYED
SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS
HOUSEHOLDS BY GENDER.
BY GENDER. HOUSEHOLDS
HOUSEHOLDS WITH PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
THE SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS BY GENDER. HOUSEHOLDS WITH PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY
WITH PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY AND
AND
AND GENDER.
GENDER.
GENDER.
80
80
disabled
withdisabled
70
70
60
60
HHswith 50
50
persons
persons
40
40
Male;
Male;
ofHHs
153; Female; 30
153; 40%
40% Female; 30
Numberof
226;
226; 60%
60% 20
20
Number
10
10
0
0
Category
Category 11 Category
Category 22 Category
Category 33
Male
Male Female
Female
/Source: COVID-19
/Source:COVID-19 Impact
COVID-19Impact Assessment
ImpactAssessment Survey
AssessmentSurvey (June-July
Survey(June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020). Figure
Figure 20: N=1,000; Figure 21: N=1,000.
/Source: 2020). Figure 20:20: N=1,000;
N=1,000; Figure
Figure 21:21: N=1,000.
N=1,000.
Similarly, 12.2 % of all surveyed HHs reported having at least one person with disability, including 69
FIGURE 22:
22: EMPLOYMENT
FIGURE and OF RESPONDENTS FIGURE
FIGURE 23: EMPLOYMENT OF
OF RESPONDENTS IN THE
women
DURING
EMPLOYMENT
53 men. Of 122 OFpersons
RESPONDENTS persons23:
with disability, 30 PAST hadEMPLOYMENT
Category RESPONDENTS
I disability, INhad
82 persons THE
DURING MARCH-MAY
MARCH-MAY (BY (BY TYPE
TYPE OF
OF WORK).
WORK). PAST 33 MONTHS
MONTHS (BY
(BY TYPE
TYPE OF
OF WORK
WORK AND AND GENDER).
GENDER).
Category II disability, and the remaining 10 persons had Category III disability.
Yes,
Yes, another
another
employer
FEMALE
employer
TABLE 8: AVERAGE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS BY KEY GROUPS.
FEMALE
Yes, own
own business
business or
235;
235; 24%
24% Average
Yes,
dehkan
orNo.of No. of No. of No. of No. of
dehkan farm
farm MALE
no. of HH female HH MALEmale HH children youth retired
Haven't
Haven't worked
worked in
in the
396;
396; 40%
40% members
last 3 months
members
the members under 15 (15–24) persons
last 3 months 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
0% 20% 40%
HHs with a labor migrant Yes,
7.5 3.6 3.8 2.4 60% 80%
1.2 100%
0.5
Yes, own
own business
business % of respondents (HHs)
% of respondents (HHs)
(outside
(outside Tajikistan)
HHs without a labor migrant 6.4
Tajikistan) 3.2
Yes, 3.2 2.1 1.0 0.5
13; 1%
13; 1% 229; Yes, another
another employer
employer
229; 23%
23% Yes,
Yes, another
another Yes, own
Yes, own business or dehkan farm
Dushanbe employer 6.1
employer (outside
2.8 3.3 business
Haven't
or
1.8dehkan farm 1.1 0.4
(outside Haven't worked
worked inin the
the last
last 33 months
months
113; Tajikistan)
113; 11%
11% Tajikistan) Yes,
Yes, own
own business (outside Tajikistan)
GBAO Did
Did not 6.2at
not work
work at all
all 3.1 Yes, 3.1 business
another employer
(outside
1.6(outsideTajikistan)
1.1
Tajikistan) 1.0
14; Yes, another employer (outside Tajikistan)
14; 1%
1% Did
Did not
not work
work at
at all
all
Khatlon oblast 7.0 3.6 3.5 2.4 1.0 0.5
/Source:
/Source: COVID-19
COVID-19 Impact
Impact Assessment
Assessment Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020). Figure
Figure 22:
22: N=1,000;
N=1,000; Figure
Figure 23:
23: N=1,000.
N=1,000.
DRS 6.3 3.1 3.2 2.1 0.9 0.5
Soghd oblast 7.3 3.5 3.7 2.4 1.2 0.6
TOTAL (average): 7.0 3.3 3.4 2.2 1.0 0.5
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). N=1,000.
Impact of COVID-19 on lives and livelihoods 51

JOBS AND EMPLOYMENT
OVERVIEW
The latest comprehensive, relevant data are provided by the Labor Force Survey 2016 (LFS 2016),165
published in 2017, and covering some aspects as lately as 2017. A summary of their findings related to main
features of Tajikistan’s labor market would serve well as the backdrop to the present assessment, with the
strong assumption that they may have changed little in structure or substance since 2017. The data portray
discrepancies which have widened over the past decade and a half, especially in terms of rural-urban
employment and gender structure. The features provide some long-term and structural phenomena with
the labor market in Tajikistan that even without the outbreak would have been in need of specific labor and
employment policy reforms.
According to the LFS 2016, the rural economy has remained by far the largest source of employment. The
share of employment in the rural areas has only slightly decreased from 80 % to 75.4 % during 2004 and 2016.
Overall, formal sector employment in Tajikistan is dominated by men whose likelihood of market entry and
employability are higher compared to women. The proportion of employed men has increased from 53.4 %
in 2004 to 59.5 % in 2016, with the reversal trend for women over the same period, decreasing from 46.6 %
to 40.5 %. The share of women among those who hold top management positions was 24.1 %.
The age structure of employment has seen a gradual decline in the proportion of young people166 as
opposed to the adult employment rate, which has constantly grown from 56.3 % in 2004 to 68.9 % in 2016.
In general, the women’s employment rate (40.5 %) was significantly lower than men’s (59.5 %) and the youth
unemployment rate (15–29 years old) stood at 10.6 %. twice higher than the adults (30–75 years old) and
more than 1.5 times more than the national average. The gender gap in labor market reflects women’s
domestic responsibilities and other social factors (such as spousal refusal) which affect employment and
employability. This is also supported by survey findings as shown in Figure 26. Relatively low employment
participation rates of women reflect a long standing pattern, which was demonstrated by earlier
assessments by UNDP.167
Unskilled workers formed the largest group (27.4 %), compared to professionals (14.8 %) and service and
trade workers (11 %). Amongst the employed youth, 58.7 % did not have matching education for their
acquired qualifications. This rate was slightly lower for the adults, standing at 50.2 %. This can imply a
generally an economy with average low-productivity.
According to LFS 2016, the share of informal employment was 15.6 % of the total number of employed
persons. The majority of persons employed in the informal sector168 were men (79.8 %), consisting of those
working for their own account (30.9 %) and as employees (29.3 %). Furthermore, a large number of workers
with informal employment were engaged in the formal sector, forming 16.2 % of the total employees in
the formal sector. Notably, 29.4 % of the total employed population had informal employment without any
social security, paid sick leave and paid annual leave.
165
http://oldstat.ww.tj/en/img/de8558ce74dda7d9d14c5f7b0cdea0a2_1518005366.pdf
LFS 2016 uses a slightly different description of young-age population compared to the present survey; 15–29 compared to
166
15–24 respectively, which subsequently also affects the description of adults working age.
Khitarishvili, T. 2016. Gender Inequalities in Labor Markets in Central Asia. Paper prepared for the joint UNDP/ILO Conference on
167
Employment, Trade and Human Development in Central Asia. Almaty. p.6 and p.20.
168
With regard to Informal sector and informal employment, it should be noted that according to ILO’s recommended methodology,
agriculture was excluded from the calculation of employment in the informal sector by LFS 2016. If included, the ratios for informal
employment would have been much higher. The informal employment included all persons aged 15–75 years old who were engaged
in unregistered private business or worked in unregistered enterprises where the accounting of the income and expenses were not
maintained or recorded.
Furthermore, available data suggest that the private sector’s role in the economy remains limited, contri
buting on average over the recent years to only 13 % of formal employment and 15 % of total investments.
In the context of the recent survey related to COVID-19 outbreak, it should be noted that it is not a Labor
Force Survey, nor a Household Budget Survey, hence differences in methodology and scope of the
questionnaires should be emphatically noted. In this survey, for instance, period of 3 preceding months
(March-May) was considered to allow for a more comprehensive context of employment status, as well
as associated changes in income and consumption for HHs and production and staffing for MSMEs. The
choice of period as well as the nature of the questionnaires were meant to provide the supply and demand
sides to the labor market and consumption of goods and services. The response rate to questions on
employment, employability and other labor market characteristics were understandably reserved, with at
least some respondents preferring not to disclose information. Reasons for non-disclosure differ and could
include stigma attached to being unemployed, lack of trust in the interviewers, and reluctance to disclose
income for tax purposes. This could have had some implications on the main findings of the assessment.
Furthermore, although no specific question referred to more technical issues such as labor productivity,
the selected sectors can be assumed to be characterized by low productivity, judged by the wages,
level of qualifications of the workforce, and lack of competitive opportunities. This is further verified and
compounded by the share of capital investment expenditure, especially in human resources, both in public
and private sectors (See Chapter 5 for further details).
TABLE 9: TOP 10 ECONOMIC SECTORS IN WHICH RESPONDENTS WERE EMPLOYED (March-May 2020).
1st option 2nd option 3rd option

Agriculture (including subsistence farming) 87 13 0
Education (including private tutoring/mentoring) 61 13 1
Construction, building trades and architecture 59 3 3
Health and pharmaceutical industry 48 11 1
Retail trade (including cross-border trade) 39 7 0
Transport industry and transportation services 27 6 3
Social services (including nursing and care) 27 6 1
Manufacturing and processing (including textiles) 30 4 0
Business and administration (w/o secretarial work) 30 0 1
Cleaning, laundry, dry cleaning, and domestic work 18 5 0
TOTAL: 426 68 10
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). N=426.169
In total, 491 out of 1,000 respondents170 reported having been employed in the three months between
March 2020 and May 2020. This finding is evidently higher than registered unemployment rates because
people are generally reluctant to register as unemployed due to lack of incentives, lack of trust in the job
centers, and stigmatization of financially disadvantaged population. The choice of the period allowed for
most of the immediate effects of the pandemic to be translated into the job market, as well as inclination
of retaining employment for a minimum period of three months. It is plausible that respondents worked
on more than one job as a result of needing to earn more income. The majority of those who had a job in
the three months concerned were dehkan farmers and other agricultural producers (representing 16.9 %
of the total employment), and 11 % engaged in the construction sector as plasterers, bricklayers, electrical
169
Not everyone responded to the question or provided meaningful analysis which could have brought value to the analysis.
Responses from adolescents, which represent 1 % of the total sample (i.e. 3 respondents aged 16 and 7 respondents aged 17),
170
were discounted from the calculation. Their exclusion does not significantly alter the survey findings.

workers, fitters, crane operators, and other specialists. At the same time, 22.8 % of respondents worked
in education and health sectors, often in public sector institutions, which signifies the important role that
FIGURE 20: large
Tajikistan’s COMPOSITION OF LABOR
public sector MIGRANTS
plays MIGRANTS
in IN FIGURE
formal employment. Two21:other
COMPOSITION OF SURVEYED
biggest sectors were retail trade
THE SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS OF LABOR
BY GENDER. IN FIGURE 21: COMPOSITION
HOUSEHOLDS OF SURVEYED
WITH PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY AND
(often salespersons
THE SURVEYED in local markets
HOUSEHOLDS and bazaars, or cross-border
BY GENDER. HOUSEHOLDS traders)
WITH and transportation
PEOPLE WITH services
DISABILITY AND (e.g.,
GENDER.
taxi and lorry drivers, or road maintenance specialists).
GENDER.
80
80
HHs with disabled

There were significantly more respondents reporting having 70been employed by a private enterprise in
Number of HHs with disabled

70
urban areas (32.1 %) compared to rural areas (13.1 %). Partnerships
60
60 (including dehkan farms) comprise
20.9 % of employment in rural areas, compared to 6.4 % of employment
50 in urban areas. Similarly, 25.4 %
50
persons
of employment in rural areas were self-employed (e.g. individual entrepreneurs), while this proportion in
persons
40
Male; 40
isMale;
urban areas 153;
only40%16 %. These findings correspond to the general
Female; 30 structure of economic sectors and labor
153; in
40% Female; 30
Number of
market features the country. A larger
226; 60% share of adults worked 20 in private enterprises compared to young
226; 60% 20
people (18.4 % compared to 9.8 % respectively). Significantly10more men were self-employed (25.1 %) than
10
women (16.7 %), while 18 out of 491 of all respondents (3.7 %) 0
who reported having been employed over
0
March-May 2020 stated working for an unregistered enterprise, i.e. informal
Category 1 economy.
CategoryThis
2 proportion
Category 3
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
of people working on a non-registered basis is not representative of the actual MalesizeFemale
of informal sector in
Male Female
Tajikistan because carrying out interviews by the phone may have affected the quality of responses to
sensitive
/Source: questions
/Source: COVID-19
COVID-19 such
Impact
Impact as on informal
Assessment
Assessment Survey employment
Survey(June-July
(June-July (See20:
2020).Figure
2020). FigureFigures
20: 22Figure
N=1,000;
N=1,000; and
Figure23).
21:21: N=1,000.
N=1,000.
FIGURE 22: EMPLOYMENT OF RESPONDENTS

FIGURE
FIGURE 23: EMPLOYMENT OF RESPONDENTS IN THE
FIGURE 22: EMPLOYMENT OF
22: EMPLOYMENT OFRESPONDENTS
RESPONDENTS FIGURE23:
FIGURE 23: EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT OFOF RESPONDENTS
RESPONDENTS IN THE
IN THE
DURINGMARCH-MAY
DURING MARCH-MAY (BY
(BY TYPE
TYPE OF WORK).
OFWORK).
WORK). PAST 3 MONTHS (BY TYPE OF WORK AND GENDER).
PAST 3 MONTHS (BY TYPE OF WORK AND GENDER).
DURING MARCH-MAY (BY TYPE OF PAST 3 MONTHS (BY TYPE OF WORK AND GENDER).
Yes,another
Yes, another
employer
employer FEMALE
FEMALE
Yes,own
Yes, ownbusiness
businessoror
235; 24%
235; 24% dehkanfarm
dehkan farm
MALE
MALE
396; 40%
396; Haven't
Haven'tworked
workedininthe
the
last
last33months
months
0%0% 20%
20% 40% 40% 60% 60% 80% 80% 100%
100%
Yes,
Yes,own
ownbusiness
business % of respondents
% of (HHs)
respondents (HHs)
(outside
(outsideTajikistan)
Tajikistan)
13; 1%
13; 1% Yes, another
Yes, employer
another employer
229;
229;23%
23% Yes,
Yes,another
another Yes, own
Yes, ownbusiness
business or or
dehkan
dehkanfarmfarm
employer
employer(outside
(outside Haven't worked in the lastlast
3 months
Haven't worked in the 3 months
113; Tajikistan)
113; 11%
11% Tajikistan)
Did
Yes, own
Yes, ownbusiness
business (outside
(outsideTajikistan)
Tajikistan)
Didnot
notwork
workatatallall Yes, another employer (outside Tajikistan)
14; 1% Yes, another employer (outside Tajikistan)
14; 1% Did notnot
work at at
all all
Did work
/Source: COVID-19
/Source: COVID-19 Impact
Impact Assessment
AssessmentSurvey
Survey(June-July
(June-July2020).
2020).Figure 22:
Figure N=1,000;
22: N=1,000;Figure 23:23:
Figure N=1,000.
N=1,000.
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). Figure 22: N=1,000; Figure 23: N=1,000.

Only 4.2 % of all young girls (aged 15–24) in the surveyed HHs had a job in the three months concerned,
compared to 13.1 % of young boys. There is gender discrepancy amongst both the youth and the adults (as
well as the elderly) in Tajikistan’s labor market, with only marginal change over the past generation. Similar
discrepancy in the proportion of those who had a job is also visible among adult men (81.9 %) and adult
women (30.8 %), and among elderly men (76.2 %) and elderly women (27.5 %). The survey showed that in
1,000 HHs there were 2,271 men and 732 women who had had a job during March-May 2020, equaling
on average 3 HH members employed in each HH. Bearing in mind that on average, there are 7 members
in each HH (See Table 8), it means that more than 40 % of all HH members have been employed in the
period concerned. This is a much higher ratio than in high-income economies, indicating the structural
differences in job and labor markets and that gender disparity in employment has widened over time. This
demonstrates that workforce participation rates are relatively high among surveyed HHs. However, as
Figures 22–23 show, this also implies that many are employed informally or temporarily and mainly in low-
paid jobs, exacerbating income volatility and increasing financial vulnerability. Besides, gender disparities
are significant. Men occupy more than 3/4 of the total (reported) employment whereas women on average
have fewer opportunities to get a job, due to family obligations or restrictions, child-care responsibilities,
housework and other reasons. These are further confirmed by fundamentally different reasons between
Page 6 of 35
Page 6 of 35

men and women for not seeking employment. Whereas for men it is likely to be a temporary reason, such
as the uncertainties about COVID-19, for women the reasons are more structural, such as HH obligations or
lacking in required qualifications (See Figure 24).
FIGURE 24: WAYS IN WHICH EMPLOYMENT OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS HAS BEEN AFFECTED BY
COVID-19.
FIGURE 24: WAYS IN WHICH EMPLOYMENT OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS HAS BEEN AFFECTED BY COVID-19.
TOTAL
Urban
Rural
Adults
Youth
Female
Male
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
Proportion of respondents (HHs)
Closure of business/enterprise Workers furloughed by employer Workers on voluntary vacation

Working shorter hours from home Paid leave (known return date) Working regular hours from home
Working longer hours from home Unpaid leave (known return date) Permanent leave (unlikely return)
Unpaid leave (unknown return)
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). Figure 24: N=238.
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). Figure 24: N=238.
Key findings:
FIGURE 25: PROPORTION OF RESPONDENTS (WHO HAD BEEN EMPLOYED IN THE PRECEDING 3 MONTHS)
WHOSE EMPLOYMENT WAS AFFECTED BY THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK (BROKEN DOWN BY KEY TARGET
1. GROUPS).
Public sector continues to be a significant urban, formal employer in Tajikistan, as reflected in the
representative
100,0 sample, based upon which a large proportion of respondents were employed in the
public sector such as educational institutions and health facilities.
90,0
% of those affected by COVID-19
2. In 80,0
general, the structure of employment in the sample is consistent with the labor market features in
70,0
Tajikistan regarding sectoral, regional, gender and age composition of employment. 59,4
60,0 53,3 55,0 53,8
51,3 48,8
3. Employment
50,0 rate during
42,3 6 months the47,5
first of46,3
the
pandemic aftermath among the respondents
was reportedly
40,0
higher than expected (40 % of all HH members). However, the majority
35,9 of jobs held
by respondents are relatively low-paid and in low-productivity activities, including agriculture or
27,3
30,0
production for own consumption, which will have long-term implications for sustainability of income
20,0
and economic growth.
10,0
4. Domestic
0,0 employment is dominated by men whose likelihood of market entry and employability are
relatively higher
Male compared
Female to women
Youth in Tajikistan.
Adults Rural This finding
Urban also holds
Dushanbe GBAOtrueKhatlon
for youthDRS
(aged 15–24)
Soghd
and COVID-19
/Source: has onlyImpact
marginally changed
Assessment Surveysince the early
(June-July 2020).2000s.
N=238.
5. Social factors, such as unpaid and larger share of housework, childcare and marital obligations affect

women’s mobility and time management, which disadvantages them in terms of employment and
employability. These are compounded by weaker access to information, options for self-development,
social biases about girls’ education and career seeking, and responsibilities for health care of
extended family members. These are visibly prevalent in rural areas (See ADB, 2020). Notably, this
provides a rather sharp contrast with pre-market liberalization, whereby like all other CIS countries,
Tajikistan had a more equitable gender participation in its labor market.
6. Structural, long-term unemployment seems to apply more to women than men.

FIGURE 24: WAYS IN WHICH EMPLOYMENT OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS HAS BEEN AFFECTED BY COVID-19.
TOTAL
OVERALL
Urban IMPLICATION OF COVID-19 ON LIVELIHOODS
Rural
Adults
OfYouth
the 491 individuals who were employed at the time of the survey, 238 (48.5 %) reported their
employment
Female status or working conditions having been affected by the COVID-19 outbreak. A relatively
lower
Maleproportion of affected residents in GBAO is explained by low employment of respondents, which is
different from Soghd oblast where employment is much higher, hence increasing job vulnerability. Same
logic is0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
applied when comparing the proportions among men and women, whereby significantly more
men reported having been employed and expected Proportionto ofearn a living(HHs)
respondents for their HH. In rural areas, residents
have greater variety of coping mechanisms, particularly if they happen to have a land plot or livestock
Closure of business/enterprise
which smoothens the negative impact ofWorkers furloughedin
likely changes byemployment
employer Workers
(such on voluntary
as through vacation
subsistence
Working shorter hours from home Paid leave (known return date) Working regular hours from home
farming). This could
Working also imply
longer hours that rural Unpaid
from home HHs have
leaveless exposure
(known and lessPermanent
return date) vulnerability
leaveto shocks
(unlikely return)
compared to urban
Unpaid HHs, but
leave (unknown if they fall into poverty trap, then it is likely that they will experience more
return)
sustained
/Source: poverty
COVID-19 in the
Impact long term.
Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). Figure 24: N=238.
FIGURE 25: PROPORTION OF RESPONDENTS (WHO HAD BEEN EMPLOYED IN THE PRECEDING
FIGURE 25: PROPORTION
3 MONTHS) OF RESPONDENTS
WHOSE EMPLOYMENT (WHO HADBY
WAS AFFECTED BEEN
THEEMPLOYED IN THE PRECEDING
COVID-19 OUTBREAK 3 MONTHS)
(BROKEN DOWN
WHOSE EMPLOYMENT WAS
BY KEY TARGET GROUPS). AFFECTED BY THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK (BROKEN DOWN BY KEY TARGET
GROUPS).
100,0
90,0
% of those affected by COVID-19
80,0
70,0
59,4
60,0 53,3 55,0 53,8
51,3 48,8
47,5 46,3
50,0 42,3
40,0 35,9
27,3
30,0
20,0
10,0
0,0
Male Female Youth Adults Rural Urban Dushanbe GBAO Khatlon DRS Soghd
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). N=238.


Since the COVID-19 outbreak, 117 out of 509 respondents (23 %) had tried to find paid jobs but it is
unclear how they may have sought employment, e.g. via employment centers or simply by looking
out for job announcements in local media outlets or word of mouth or gathering at some casual labor
hiring spots. In the meantime, only 16.8 % of women and girls had been seeking paid jobs since the
COVID-19 outbreak, compared to 34.1 % of men. In addition, 32.4 % of young people were also in search
of employment opportunities, compared to 19.3 % of adults. This difference is probably attributed to
the relatively higher mobility of young people relative to adults. As noted earlier, women are more
constrained than men, both socially, domestically and most probably in required skills and qualifications,
which significantly restricts their market entry, employment, and employability.
The majority of the remaining 392 respondents who did not seek to find paid jobs since the COVID-19
outbreak had in fact claimed that they: (i) were engaged in housework which prevents them from
looking out for a job (27 % of all respondents not seeking employment), (ii) are awaiting for the situation
to improve (21.4 % of respondents), (iii) perceive that there are no jobs (16.3 % of respondents), (iv) have
entered retirement age (15.1 %), and (v) are studying or intend to study (8.4 %).
Page 7 of 35

TABLE 10: TOP 10 REASONS FOR NOT SEEKING EMPLOYMENT SINCE THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK.171
Men Women TOTAL
Housework 3 103 106

Awaiting the COVID-19 situation to improve 48 36 84
There are perceivably no jobs in the market 25 39 64
In retirement (or considering retirement) 17 42 59
Studying (or intending to study) 18 15 33
Child caretaking responsibility (including pregnancy or lactation) 0 27 27
Temporary sickness (except chronic disease or disability) 7 14 21
Spouse does not allow 0 12 12
Disability (preventing mobility or limiting employability) 4 8 12
Awaiting to leave Tajikistan on labor migration 10 1 11
TOTAL: 132 297 429
As captured by Figure 26 below, only 2 % of men had stopped seeking work due to household
responsibilities, as opposed to 35 % of women. Similarly, 15 % of men were not seeking jobs due to being
engaged in studying, as opposed to only 5 % of women, most probably both amongst the youth age
group. Furthermore, for nearly 10 % of women, childcare was the reason for not seeking jobs, whereas
none amongst men indicated that factor. These observations signal the fundamental and structural
gender discrepancies in the employment and labor market contexts in Tajikistan. This means that most
probably unemployment is more structural and prolonged for women, as compared to men due to more
significant lack of qualifications, social and economic mobility barriers, and lack of opportunities for
professional training.
With regard to the reasons they had lost their work, Table 11 summarizes the findings. Notably, 15.6 % of
respondents said that they were forced to close their business, meaning either filing for bankruptcy of their
enterprise or voiding certificates (or patents) as individual entrepreneurs. In addition, 3.4 % of workers were
put on unpaid leave with unlikely return to their workplace which effectively means that they were fired as
a result of reduction of the activities and staffing at their workplace. Other employers had reportedly found
some alternative ways of adapting to circumstances, such as allowing to work shorter hours from home
(21 out of 238 workers, or 8.8 % of all respondents) or putting workers on leave while also preserving their
remuneration (18 out of 238 workers, or 7.6 % of all respondents). To that end, the cost of job retainment is
the sole responsibility of employers, i.e. there are no publicly-funded job retainment schemes in Tajikistan.
Generally, the findings of the survey are consistent with some other recent assessments. According to a
recent World Bank report,172 domestic employment sharply deteriorated in May. The share of household
reporting that no member had worked in the preceding 7 days spiked from 20 % in March to nearly 40 %
in May. The share of household heads reported as having worked in May fell by 16 percentage points over
the same period. Nearly 63 % of respondents report changes to the working conditions of members due to
COVID-19, and about 8 % of those who halted work were reported as ‘unlikely to resume.’
171
Respondents could choose more than one response option (through a multiple-choice question), which is why the total number of
affirmative responses (N=429) does not necessarily correspond to the sample size (N=392).
World Bank. 2020. Tajikistan: Country Snapshot. Dushanbe, April 2020.
172

FIGURE 26:TOP
FIGURE 26: TOP1010REASONS
REASONS FOR
FOR NOT
NOT SEEKING
SEEKING EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT SINCE
SINCE THE THE COVID-19
COVID-19 OUTBREAK.
OUTBREAK.
Female
Male
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Housework Awaiting the COVID-19 situation to improve
There are perceivably no jobs in the market In retirement (or considering retirement)
Studying (or intending to study) Child caretaking responsibility (incl. pregnancy/lactation)
Temporary sickness (except chronic disease or disability) Spouse does not allow
Disability (preventing mobility or limiting employability) Awaiting to leave Tajikistan on labor migration
TABLE 11: WAYS IN WHICH EMPLOYMENT WAS AFFECTED BY THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK.
FIGURE 27: THE MAIN REASONS WHY LABOR FIGURE 28: WHILE MIGRANTS CANNOT LEAVE
MIGRANTS HAVE NOT RETURNED TO TAJIKISTAN
Men TAJIKISTAN,
Women Youth HAVE THEY BEEN
Adults RuralABLE TO SECURE
Urban TOTAL
(FROM THEIR DESTINATION COUNTRY). SOME PAID JOB OR WORK IN THE COUNTRY?
Closure of business/enterprise 28 9 9 28 23 14 37
100%
9; 2% by employer Border20
Number of respondents (HHs)
Workers furloughed 790% 12 15 20 7 27

closures and 80%
Workers on14%
49; voluntary vacation travel 15 6 70% 5 16 16 5 21
Working shorter hours from home restrictions
14 760% 3 18 15 6 21
They have a 50%
Paid leave (known return160; 46%
date) job 8 5 40% 2 11 10 3 13
30%
Working regular hours from home 7 6 1 9 7 6 13
20%
133; 38%
Working longer hours from home Financial7 3 10% 1 12 8 2 10
difficulties 0%
Unpaid leave (known return date) 4 5 2 7
TOTAL RURAL URBAN 4 5
MALE FEMALE YOUTH ADULTS9
(15-24) (>=25)
Permanent leave (unlikely return) 5 3 1 7YES 4NO 4 8
Unpaid leave (unknown return date) 6 0 2 4 4 2 6
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). Figure 27: N=379; Figure 28: N=379.
Paid leave (unknown return date) 3 2 1 4 2 3 5
FIGURE 29: THE
Respondents NATURE
did OF RESPONDENTS' 55
not specify FIGURE
13 30: PROPORTION
19 49 OF WOMEN
45 IN23
SURVEYED
68
EMPLOYMENT IN THE PAST 3 MONTHS (BY GENDER). HOUSEHOLDS WHO HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED IN THE
TOTAL: 172 66 3 MONTHS
PAST 58 (BY180 158
AGE GROUPS). 80 238
100% 300
Proportion of respondents
Number of respondents
/Source:
80%COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). N=238. 250
60% 200
In any impact assessment, establishing the counterfactual is important. Therefore, the survey has also
(HHs)
40%
(HHs)
150
determined
20%
that in the absence of the COVID-19 outbreak, 376 respondents (out of 1,000) would have
probably engaged in own entrepreneurial activity and a further 100 88 respondents (out of 1,000) would
0%
have scaled up their
Full-time existing
Part-time business.
Part-time On average,
Temporary Did not more than 50 60 % of respondents from urban areas
and youthemployee
argued employee
that theyemployee
would have opened
employee specifytheir own business
0 if their current circumstances were
(contract) (contract) (w/o (w/o
different and more conducive. However, this was a hypothetical question FORMALwhich helped to determine
INFORMAL the
DID NOT SPECIFY
contract) contract)
degree of vulnerability MALE
of the surveyed
FEMALE
HHs. The finding reiterates the importance
MALE
of entrepreneurial
FEMALE
spirit
in Tajikistan and also highlights constraints that the COVID-19 outbreak imposes on people’s lives and
aspirations.
Page 8 of 35

Key findings:
1. Compared to urban areas, HHs in rural areas appear to have a greater possibility of coping options
to withstand the risk of falling incomes and changes in employment. This is because HHs in rural
areas are more likely to have ownership of land plots, cattle, or orchards which can be utilized for
subsistence farming or generate alternative sources of subsistence and income at the time of hardship.
The survey hypothesized that HHs in urban areas would have fewer coping options available to them,
which was confirmed through the survey.
2. Almost a quarter of respondents (23 %) have tried to find paid jobs since the COVID-19 outbreak, which
could indicate that the outbreak must have contributed to the pre-COVID 19 rising unemployment
levels. Of those who did not seek employment, many are either not available for work (e.g. due to
family obligations) or awaiting the risk of coronavirus pandemic to subside.
3. Gender and age disparity are also evident among respondents seeking employment. Women are more
at risk of long-term unemployment, measured by barriers to entry and reasons for not seeking jobs.
There are significantly more young men looking out for jobs since the COVID-19 outbreak than any
other demographic category.
4. Some of the sample HHs contained an entrepreneur member. The local entrepreneurs’ coping
strategies appear to be limited. For instance, the most common actions taken by entrepreneurs were:
(i) closure of business, (ii) furloughing of staff, or (iii) placing staff on vacation. Only a small fraction of
entrepreneurs
FIGURE
FIGURE 26:26:
TOPTOP initiated
10 REASONS
10 REASONS flexible
FORFOR
NOTand
NOT adaptive
SEEKING
SEEKING approaches,
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT such
SINCE
SINCE
THEas allowing
THE
COVID-19 staff
COVID-19 to work remotely and
OUTBREAK.
OUTBREAK.
for shorter hours.
5. The COVID-19 outbreak has restrained entrepreneurial activity. A large share of respondents indicated
Female
Female
that they would have probably engaged in entrepreneurial activity (37.6 %) or scaled up their business
(8.8 %). However, this is highly hypothetical, depending on the perception of the respondents only, in
the
Male absence of more comprehensive appraisal of the business environment without the pandemic.
Male
0% 0% 10%10% 20%
20% 30%30% 40%40% 50%
50% 60%
60% 70%70% 80%
80% 90%
90% 100%
100%
MIGRANT LABOR Proportion
Proportion
of respondents
of respondents
(HHs)
(HHs)
Housework
Housework Awaiting
Awaiting
thethe
COVID-19
COVID-19
situation
situation
to improve
to improve
According
There toare
There
are theperceivably
survey,
perceivably no 37.9 %
jobs
no jobs ofthe
in the
in allmarket
surveyed HHs reported
market having
In retirement (or at
In retirement (or least
considering one
considering migrant
retirement)labor, as pointed
retirement)
out earlier.
Studying A(ortotal
Studying of 13.5 %
intending
(or intending of all surveyed HHs reportedChild
to study)
to study) having
Child two or
caretaking
caretaking more migrant.
responsibility
responsibility
(incl.
(incl.This means that
pregnancy/lactation)
pregnancy/lactation)
almost 40 %
Temporary HHs
Temporary in Tajikistan
sickness
sickness
(except
(except have
chronic
chronic atdisease
diseaseleast one migrant.Spouse
or disability)
or disability) In Spouse
total, the
doesdoes surveyed
not not allow HHs reported having 624
allow
Disability
migrant Disability
labor,(preventing
of(preventing
whichmobility
mobility
86.9 % or limiting
or limiting
were employability)
employability)
outside Tajikistan inAwaiting
theAwaiting
to leave
to leave
preceding Tajikistan
12Tajikistan
on labor
months, on mainly
labor
migration
migration
working in
construction,
/Source:
/Source:
COVID-19 retail
COVID-19 trade,
Impact
Impact and care/personal
Assessment
Assessment Survey
Survey
(June-July services
(June-July
2020).
2020). inN=392.
the Russian Federation. At the time of the survey,
N=392.
83.4 % of all migrants were away from home and outside the country.
FIGURE 27: THE MAIN REASONS WHY LABOR FIGURE 28: WHILE MIGRANTS CANNOT LEAVE
FIGURE
FIGURE
27:27:
THETHE
MAIN
MAIN
REASONS
REASONS
WHYWHY
LABOR
LABOR FIGURE
FIGURE
28:28:
WHILE
WHILE
MIGRANTS
MIGRANTSCANNOT
CANNOT
LEAVE
LEAVE
MIGRANTS
MIGRANTS
MIGRANTS
HAVE
HAVE
HAVE
NOT
NOTNOT
RETURNED
RETURNED
RETURNED
TOTAJIKISTAN
TOTO
TAJIKISTAN
TAJIKISTAN
TAJIKISTAN,
TAJIKISTAN,
TAJIKISTAN,
HAVE
HAVE
HAVE
THEY
THEY
THEY
BEEN
BEEN
BEEN
ABLE
ABLE
ABLE
TOTO
TO SECURE
SECURE
SECURE
(FROM
(FROM THEIR
(FROM
THEIR
THEIR DESTINATION
DESTINATION
DESTINATION COUNTRY).
COUNTRY).
COUNTRY). SOME
SOME
SOMEPAID
PAID
PAIDJOB
JOB OROR
JOB OR WORK
WORK
WORK INTHE
IN THE
IN THE COUNTRY?
COUNTRY?
COUNTRY?
100%
100%
9; 2%
9; 2% Border
Border
90%90%
closures
closures
andand 80%80%
49;49;
14%14% travel
travel 70%70%
restrictions
restrictions 60%60%
They
Theyhave
have
a a 50%50%
160;
160;
46%
46% jobjob 40%40%
30%30%
20%20%
133;
133;
38%
38% Financial
Financial 10%10%
difficulties
difficulties 0% 0%
TOTAL
TOTAL
RURAL
RURAL
URBAN
URBAN
MALE
MALE
FEMALE
FEMALE
YOUTH
YOUTHADULTS
ADULTS
(15-24)
(15-24)
(>=25)
(>=25)
YES
YES NONO
/Source:
/Source:
COVID-19
COVID-19
Impact
Impact
Assessment
Assessment
Survey
Survey
(June-July
(June-July
2020).
2020).
Figure
Figure
27: 27:
N=379;
N=379;
Figure
Figure
28:28:
N=379.
N=379.
FIGURE
FIGURE
Impact of29:
EMPLOYMENT
29:
THE
EMPLOYMENT
THE
COVID-19NATURE
NATURE
on
IN THE
livesOF
IN THE
PAST
OF
RESPONDENTS'
and
PAST
RESPONDENTS'
livelihoods
3 MONTHS
3 MONTHS (BY(BY
GENDER).
FIGURE
FIGURE
30:30:
GENDER). HOUSEHOLDS
PROPORTION
HOUSEHOLDS
PROPORTION
WHOWHOHAVE
OFOF
HAVE
WOMEN
BEEN
WOMEN
BEEN
IN SURVEYED
EMPLOYED
IN SURVEYED
EMPLOYED IN THE
IN THE
59
PAST
PAST
3 MONTHS
3 MONTHS(BY(BY
AGEAGE
GROUPS).
GROUPS).
100%
100% 300300
nts
nts
nts
nts
80%80% 250250
On average, the migrants were outside Tajikistan for about 249 days in the preceding 12 months, i.e. they
spent 68.2 % of their time away from their HHs, often leaving behind their spouses and children. There are
regional variations, however. For instance, migrants from GBAO had spent on average 347 days (out of
365 days) outside Tajikistan, compared to 229 days (out of 365 days) being away from home by migrants
from DRS. This variation could be explained by: (i) lack of labor market opportunities in their respective
geographic locations, and, consequently, (ii) greater variation in real or probable poverty incidence across
the geographic locations within Tajikistan.
According to the survey results, at least 46 % of all migrant labor have been affected by the border closures
and other travel restrictions, limiting the possibility to return to Tajikistan. Another 14 % reported financial
difficulties but they may not necessarily be attributable to COVID-19 situation because many migrants have
continuously been financially constrained, often forcing them to choose the cheapest lodging and meals in
the destination country. In turn, 80 % of migrants who are currently in Tajikistan argued that border closures
prevented them from leaving the country for work. Only 32 % of them have been able to secure some
paid jobs in Tajikistan while others are awaiting travel restrictions to be lifted in order to continue working
in Russia and other neighboring countries such as Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and Uzbekistan. In
the meantime, it is presumptuous to expect the demand for migrant labor to remain unaffected in the
destination countries and that once restrictions are lifted, migrant labor will all return to their pre-COVID
jobs and marketplaces. And 10 out of 16 returning migrants who have found some paid jobs in Tajikistan
argued that their current earnings did not compensate for the income they would have earned abroad.
In general, 292 out of 379 HHs (or 77 % of all surveyed HHs that reported having at least one migrant
labor) reported that the migrants support them financially by regularly remitting money back home. The
remaining 23 % either receive support from migrant labor on ad hoc basis or not at all, citing their financial
struggles. This means that HHs are heavily dependent on these remittances, which have been adversely
affected by border and travel restrictions imposed by governments in response to the COVID-19 outbreak.
Besides, according to the World Bank, remittances have greatly contributed to the decline in poverty rate
to 27.4 % in 2018, which confirms their significant role not only in HH incomes and consumption levels, but
also on the income distribution strata.
TABLE 12: THE MAIN REASONS OF MIGRANT LABOR FOR RETURNING TO TAJIKISTAN (PRE-COVID).
Men Women Youth Adults Rural Urban TOTAL
Family obligations or commitments 8 11 9 10 15 4 19
Homesick (want to see family) 3 5 2 6 6 2 8
Seasonality (temporary nature of job) 4 0 1 3 4 0 4
Difficulty obtaining work abroad 3 1 1 3 2 0 4
Financial difficulties 2 1 1 2 2 1 3
Deportation by host country 2 1 0 3 2 1 3
Other different reasons 5 10 4 5 7 2 9
TOTAL: 21 29 18 32 39 11 50
These findings stress the particularly high financial vulnerability of migrant labor for several reasons: the
unknown period of borders closures, the high probability of diminished economic activities and demand
for emigrant labor in recipient countries after the borders re-open and the lack of alternative domestic
employment opportunities. The data are further verified by the Word Bank report,173 which provides the
following conclusions: (i) Tumbling remittances are expected to push the poverty rate higher; (ii) Future
migration expectations have evaporated (or significantly diminished), and (iii) The share of HHs with current
migrants abroad remains quite high.
Key findings:
1. The labor market is characterized by high ratios of employment in informal sector or migration; both
mostly in low-skill and short-term contexts.
2. The workforce and the labor market in Tajikistan heavily feature migrant labor (40 % of HHs reported
having at least one migrant member).
3. Remittances continue to play a significant role in fueling domestic consumption and contributing to
HH incomes. Almost one in four HHs have at least one migrant labor. The COVID-19 outbreak has
significantly affected those HHs’ incomes and consumption.
4. One of the pre-survey hypotheses was that HH consumption would go down as a result of falling
incomes. This is confirmed by the findings, given that about 77 % of surveyed HHs reported that the
migrants support them financially, which increases HH vulnerability through exposure to changes in
employment of migrant labor in Russia and other neighbouring countries.
5. Travel restrictions negatively affected migrant labor from Tajikistan. Almost half of all migrant labor
had difficulties returning to Tajikistan from their destination countries due to border restrictions. At the
same time, 68 % of migrant labor could not leave Tajikistan to work abroad, and only one third of them
could find some paid jobs in the country.
INFORMAL SECTOR
The size of informal economy in Tajikistan continues to be large, affecting coping options available to
citizens. At the same time, credibility and accuracy of data on the informal sector largely depend on open
and honest responses which at times have been difficult to collect through phone interviews. Notwith
standing these limitations, respondents cautiously reported informal employment through the survey.
Overall, 36.7 % of respondents who reported having a job over March-May 2020 (i.e. 180 out of 491
persons) had in fact worked informally, without a contract or for an unregistered enterprise. The proportion
of informally employed workers is different among men (42.7 %) and women (33.8 %) and is relatively
high in both groups. Geographically, informal workers are almost evenly spread out; 35.6 % of workers in
rural areas are informally employed, compared to 30.5 % of workers in urban areas. At the same time, the
share of the youth (aged 15–24) who are informally employed is much higher than the share of informally
employed adults. Specifically, 46.6 % of the youth were informally employed, compared to 28.6 % of adults.
This could be partly explained by: (i) lower education level of the youth compared to adults, which forces
them to seek informal employment to provide for their HHs; and (ii) rising demands of local employers in
the formal economy who often seek labor with skills or experience, which young people may not possess;
and (iii) lower wages and not having to observe any labor law and regulations making it more commercially
attractive for employers.
World Bank. 2020. Tajikistan: Country Snapshot. Dushanbe, April 2020.

173

difficulties
difficulties 0%
0%
TOTAL
TOTAL RURAL
RURAL URBAN
URBAN MALE
MALE FEMALE
FEMALEYOUTH
YOUTHADULTS
ADULTS
(15-24)
(15-24) (>=25)
(>=25)
YES
YES NO
NO
/Source:
/Source:COVID-19
COVID-19Impact
ImpactAssessment
AssessmentSurvey
Survey(June-July
(June-July2020).
2020).Figure
Figure27:
27:N=379;
N=379;Figure
Figure28:
28:N=379.
N=379.
FIGURE 29: THE NATURE OF RESPONDENTS’ FIGURE 30: PROPORTION OF WOMEN IN SURVEYED
EMPLOYMENT
FIGURE
FIGURE29: THEIN
29:THE THE PAST
NATURE
NATURE OF 3 MONTHS
OFRESPONDENTS'
RESPONDENTS' HOUSEHOLDS
FIGURE
FIGURE30: WHO HAVEOF
30:PROPORTION
PROPORTION BEEN
OF EMPLOYED
WOMEN
WOMEN IN IN THE
INSURVEYED
SURVEYED
(BY GENDER).IN
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT INTHE
THEPAST
PAST33MONTHS
MONTHS(BY GENDER). PAST
(BYGENDER). 3 MONTHS
HOUSEHOLDS
HOUSEHOLDS (BY HAVE
WHO
WHO AGE
HAVEGROUPS).
BEEN
BEENEMPLOYED
EMPLOYEDININTHE
THE
PAST
PAST33MONTHS
MONTHS(BY(BYAGE
AGEGROUPS).
GROUPS).
100%
100% 300
300
of respondents
respondents
of respondents
respondents
80%
80% 250
250
60%
60% 200
200
(HHs)
(HHs)
40%
40%
(HHs)
(HHs)
150
150
Proportion of
20%
20%
Number of
100
100
Proportion
Number
0%
0%
Full-time
Full-time Part-time
Part-time Part-time
Part-time Temporary
Temporary Did
Didnot
not 50
50
employee
employee employee
employee employee
employee employee
employee specify
specify 00
(contract)
(contract) (contract)
(contract) (w/o
(w/o (w/o
(w/o FORMAL
FORMAL INFORMAL
INFORMAL DID
DIDNOT
NOTSPECIFY
SPECIFY
contract)
contract) contract)
contract)
MALE
MALE FEMALE
FEMALE MALE
MALE FEMALE
FEMALE
/Source:
/Source:COVID-19
COVID-19Impact
ImpactAssessment
AssessmentSurvey
Survey(June-July
(June-July2020).
2020).Figure
Figure29:
29:N=491;
N=491;Figure
Figure30:
30:N=491.
N=491.
Page 8 of 35
FIGURE 31: BREAKDOWN OF NON-REGISTEREDPage 8 of 35
(i.e. INFORMAL) EMPLOYMENT AND SUBSISTENCE
FARMING AMONG
FIGURE 28: SURVEYED
BREAKDOWN RESPONDENTS.(i.e. INFORMAL) EMPLOYMENT AND SUBSISTENCE FARMING
OF NON-REGISTERED
AMONG SURVEYED RESPONDENTS.
Adults
Youth
Female
Male
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
Informal own-account worker Informal worker for a dehkan farm
Contributing HH member in a formal enterprise Informal worker for a formal enterprise
Informal worker for an individual entrepreneur Paid worker in another HH
Contributing (and paid) worker in own HH Producer of goods for own consumption
Own an informal own-account enterprise
FIGURE
While 29: ASemployment
informal A RESULT OFinHAVING
Tajikistan’s FIGURE
BEENdomestic market 30: AShigh,
is already A RESULT OFfurther
it could HAVING BEEN AFFECTED
expand due
AFFECTED BY COVID-19, WOULD YOU ACCEPT A BY COVID-19, WOULD YOU ACCEPT A NON-
to COVID-19 outbreak to the detriment of government revenues and the population’s low resilience to
NON-REGISTERED (INFORMAL SECTOR) JOB? REGISTERED (INFORMAL) JOB?
withstand future socio-economic shocks. In particular, 38.6 % of all respondents emphasized that they
would 300
ADULTSaccept
(>=25) a non-registered job as a result of having been affected by the COVID-19 situation. The
proportion of respondents willing to consider transitioning into informal employment or seeking their first
YOUTH (15-24)
250
job in the informal sector varies between 33.3 % and 43.5 %200 depending on the target group (See Figure 32).
URBAN
The share of respondents willing to accept a non-registered150 job is predictably higher among those who
(HHs)
RURAL
reported their job/work having been affected by the COVID-19 outbreak (See Figure 33).
FEMALE 100
Notably,MALE
the shares of women and youth working informally in 50 the formal sector, both around 16 %, is higher
than for men,0%
at approximately
20% 40% 10 %.
60% Because
80% of the lower barriers
100% 0 to entry in the informal sector, there are
more women employed % ofon a non-registered
respondents (HHs) basis than men. Besides, informal
Affected work isDidoften
employment available
not affect to
employment
young, inexperienced YESand unskilled
NO workers, whereas women may be more inclined YES toNO seek informal jobs
because of the flexibility that informality provides to them.
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). Figure 29: N=1,000; Figure 30: N=491.
62
FIGURE 31: MAIN REASONS WHY RESPONDENTS WOULD
Impact of COVID-19 ACCEPT
on Lives, A NON-REGISTERED
Livelihoods and Micro, Small(INFORMAL
and MSMEsSECTOR)
in Tajikistan
JOB.
TABLE
FIGURE13:28:DISTRIBUTION
BREAKDOWNOF OFNON-REGISTERED
OF INFORMAL EMPLOYMENT AMONG
(i.e.INFORMAL)
INFORMAL) RESPONDENTS
EMPLOYMENT (SURVEYED HHs).
ANDSUBSISTENCE
SUBSISTENCE FARMING
174
FIGURE 28: BREAKDOWN NON-REGISTERED (i.e. EMPLOYMENT AND FARMING
AMONG
AMONG SURVEYED
FIGURESURVEYED RESPONDENTS.
RESPONDENTS.
28: BREAKDOWN OF NON-REGISTERED (i.e. INFORMAL) EMPLOYMENT AND SUBSISTENCE FARMING
AMONG SURVEYED RESPONDENTS. Men Women Youth Adults
Adults
Adults
Informal
Youth
Adults
Youth own-account worker 119 41 45 115
Informal
Youth worker for a dehkan farm
Female
Female 22 14 13 23
Female
Male
Contributing
Male household member in a formal enterprise 21 14 5 30
Male
0%worker
Informal
0% 5% 10%
5% 10% a15%
for 15% 20%enterprise
formal
20% 25% 30%
25% 30% 35%
35% 40%
40% 45%
45% 50%
50%55%
55%60%
60%65%
65% 70% 75%
1470% 75% 80%
1480%85%
85%90%
90% 95%100%
5 95% 100%
23
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
Proportionofofrespondents
Proportion respondents(HHs)
(HHs)
Informal worker for an individual entrepreneur 18 8 6 20
Informalown-account
own-accountworker worker Proportion of respondents (HHs) worker for a dehkan farm
Informal
Informal
Paid worker in another household Informal worker
14 for a dehkan 11 farm 8 17
Contributing
Contributing HHHHmember
Informal own-account member inina aformal
worker formalenterprise
enterprise Informalworker
Informal
Informal workerfor
worker foraaaformal
for formalenterprise
dehkan enterprise
farm
Contributing
Informal (and
Informal paid)
worker
worker
Contributing HHfor worker
foran
member inina own
anindividual
individual household
entrepreneur
entrepreneur
formal enterprise Paidworker
Paid
Informal 16ininanother
worker
worker another HH
HH
for a formal 7 enterprise 4 19
Contributing
Informal worker
Contributing (andpaid)
(and paid)
for workerininown
anworker
individual ownHH HH
entrepreneur Producer
Paid ofofgoods
worker
Producer goods
in another
forforown
ownconsumption
HH consumption
ProducerOwn of goods for
aninformal
informal
Contributing (and
own consumption
own-account
paid) worker enterprise
in own HH
14 4
Producer of goods for own consumption
7 11
Own an own-account enterprise
Own an
/Source:
/Source: informal
Own anImpact
COVID-19
COVID-19 own-account
informal
Impact
own-account
Assessment
Assessment enterprise
enterprise
Survey
Survey (June-July2020).
(June-July 2020).N=180.
N=180. 9 1 2 8
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). N=180. 2020). N=180.
FIGURE 32: AS A RESULT OF HAVING BEEN FIGURE 33: AS A RESULT OF HAVING BEEN
FIGURE29:
FIGURE 29:AS
ASAARESULT
RESULTOF OFHAVING
HAVINGBEEN
BEEN FIGURE30:
FIGURE 30:AS
ASAARESULT
RESULTOFOFHAVING
HAVINGBEEN
BEENAFFECTED
AFFECTED
AFFECTED BY
FIGURE 29: ASCOVID-19,
A RESULT WOULD YOU
OF HAVING ACCEPT A
BEEN AFFECTED
FIGURE 30:BY
ASCOVID-19,
A RESULT WOULD
OF YOU
HAVING ACCEPT
AFFECTED
AFFECTED BY
BY COVID-19,
COVID-19, WOULD
WOULD YOUACCEPT
YOU ACCEPTAA BYCOVID-19,
BY COVID-19, WOULD
WOULD YOU
YOU ACCEPT
ACCEPT AABEEN
NON-AFFECTED
NON-
NON-REGISTERED
AFFECTED BY (INFORMAL
COVID-19, WOULD SECTOR)
YOU JOB?
ACCEPT A BY
NON-REGISTERED
COVID-19, WOULD(INFORMAL) JOB?
NON-REGISTERED(INFORMAL
NON-REGISTERED (INFORMALSECTOR) JOB? A
SECTOR)JOB? REGISTERED(INFORMAL)
REGISTERED YOU ACCEPT
(INFORMAL)JOB?
JOB? A NON-
NON-REGISTERED (INFORMAL SECTOR) JOB? REGISTERED (INFORMAL) JOB?
300
300
ADULTS(>=25)
ADULTS (>=25)
respondents
300
respondents
ADULTS (>=25) 250

250
respondents
YOUTH (15-24)
YOUTH (15-24) 250
YOUTH (15-24) 200
200
URBAN
URBAN 200
(HHs)
(HHs)
URBAN 150
RURAL 150
(HHs)
RURAL 150
of
RURAL
ofof
FEMALE
FEMALE 100
100
Number
Number
FEMALE 100
Number
MALE
MALE 5050
MALE 50
0%0% 20% 40%
20% 40% 60%60% 80% 80% 100%
100% 00
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 Affectedemployment
employment Did
Didnot
notaffect
affectemployment
employment
% of respondents (HHs) Affected
% of respondents (HHs) Affected employment Did not affect employment
% of respondents (HHs) YES NO
YES
YES NO
NO YES NO
YES NO YES NO
/Source:COVID-19
/Source:
/Source: COVID-19Impact
ImpactAssessment
Assessment
Assessment Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020). Figure
Figure 29:
29: N=1,000;
N=1,000; Figure
Figure 30:N=491.
33:30: N=491.
COVID-19 Survey
Impact Assessment (June-July
Survey 2020).
(June-July Figure
2020). 32:
Figure N=1,000;
29: Figure
N=1,000; Figure N=491.
30: N=491.
FIGURE31:
FIGURE
FIGURE 31:
34: MAIN
MAIN
MAIN REASONS
REASONS
REASONS WHY
WHYRESPONDENTS WOULD
RESPONDENTS ACCEPT
WOULD A NON-REGISTERED
ACCEPT (INFORMAL SECTOR)
A NON-REGISTERED
FIGURE 31: MAIN REASONSWHY
WHYRESPONDENTS
RESPONDENTSWOULD
WOULDACCEPT
ACCEPTAANON-REGISTERED
NON-REGISTERED (INFORMAL
(INFORMAL SECTOR)
SECTOR)
JOB.
(INFORMAL
JOB. SECTOR) JOB.
JOB.
000 25
2525 50
5050 75
7575 100
100
100 125
125
125 150
150 175 200
150 175
175 200 225
200 225 250
225 250 275
250 275 300
275 300 325
300 325 350
325 350 375
350 375 400
375 400
400
Number
Numberofofrespondents (HHs)
respondents(HHs)
(HHs)
I Ican
I can receive
receive
can receive more
more
more money
money
money I can't
can'tafford
I Ican't affordto
afford topay
to paythe
pay thesocial
the socialtaxes
social taxes
taxes
I Ihave
I havehavenono choice
choice
no //The
/ The
choice The only
only jobs
onlyjobs available
jobsavailable are
availableare informal
areinformal
informal I would
wouldaccept
I Iwould acceptbut
accept butwill
but willcontinue
will continuelooking
continue lookingfor
looking forother
otherjobs
jobs
MyMyMyHHHH
HH will
will support
support
will support me
me
meif ifneeded
if needed
needed Socialsecurity
Social
Social securitybenefits
security benefitsare
benefits arenot
are notimportant
not importanttotome
important me
Did
Did Did not
not
not specify
specify
specify
/Source:
/Source:
/Source: COVID-19
COVID-19
COVID-19 Impact
Impact
Impact Assessment Survey
Assessment
Survey 2020).
(June-July N=386.
2020). N=386.
/Source: COVID-19 Impact AssessmentSurvey
Survey(June-July
(June-July2020).
2020).N=386.
N=386.
174
Respondents could have picked more than one response choice, which is why these numbers cannot be aggregated.

Page 9 of 35
Page 9 of 35
Page 9 of 35

Notwithstanding the COVID-19 situation risking to potentially expand the informal sector in Tajikistan,
respondents seem to be equally likely to accept a non-registered (i.e. informal sector) job in the absence of
COVID-19 and its effects on their employment and livelihood. This again shows that informal economy is on
the rise in any case.
Key findings:
1. Employment among surveyed respondents was reportedly higher than the national average, but a
large share of it was non-registered employment. One of the pre-survey hypotheses was that informal
sector in Tajikistan is relatively large, although it is problematic to measure its size in any economy,
even if triangulation methods were to be used. According to the survey, almost 37 % of employment is
reportedly non-registered (i.e. consisting of non-registered jobs).
2. The informal sector in Tajikistan has been expanding even before the COVID-19 outbreak, partly due to
excessive business regulations and incentives of market players to minimize costs.
3. The COVID-19 outbreak is likely to have expanded Tajikistan’s informal sector. On average, almost
40 % of respondents would reportedly accept a non-registered, informal job as a result of having been
affected by the COVID-19 situation. There are significantly more young people who are informally
employed than adults and is partly attributable to declining education level of the youth and rising
demands of local employers. Consequently, the COVID-19 outbreak affected employment of youth
more extensively than that of adults.
FINANCE AND CONSUMPTION
The backdrop to the impact of COVID-19 on incomes and the potential adverse effects on poverty
incidence and depth provides the context for better understanding the continued challenges as well as the
added ones ahead. Over the past decade, Tajikistan had made steady progress in reducing poverty, which
was strongly associated with the economic growth performance oat an annual average of 7 %. Between
2000 and 2018. However, poverty reduction can not only rely on remittances, but on well-formulated,
plausible and applicable policies regarding inclusive growth, facilitating private sector investments and
productive activities, employment, and income distribution, amongst other things.
In that context, the rate of job creation in Tajikistan has not kept pace with the growing population,
especially regarding the youth, hence exacerbating the economy’s vulnerability to external shocks.
In addition, non-monetary poverty indicators in rural areas remain high. According to latest data and
information available, mostly 2018–2019, only 36 % of the population in rural regions have access to safe
drinking water. Tajikistan scores 0.53 in the Human Capital Index, which is lower than the average for its
region but higher than the average for its income group.
An additional challenge for Tajikistan is its high vulnerability to climate change and natural disasters, which
would require better prepared and adapted management. Admittedly, this is an ongoing challenge for
most of the world, including industrially developed, high income economies. According to the World Bank,
between 1992 and 2016, natural and climate-related disasters in Tajikistan resulted in considerable GDP
losses of roughly US$ 1.8 billion and affecting all the population directly or indirectly.
The economic effect of the COVID-19 outbreak on lives and livelihoods ultimately depends on the net
financial and well-being implications due to loss of incomes and quality of life at HH level. To that end, the
COVID-19 outbreak in Tajikistan has already had significant footprints. The only caveat is that only 65.3 %
the 1,000 HHs chose to respond to questions pertaining to income and consumption. Respondents were
somewhat reluctant to disclose information about consumption and income of their respective HH.
FIGURE 35: REPORTED MONTHLY INCOME EARNED BY HOUSEHOLDS PRIOR TO THE COVID-19
OUTBREAK (i.e. BEFORE
FIGURE 32: REPORTED JANUARY
MONTHLY 1, 2020),
INCOME IN CURRENT
EARNED PRICES (TAJIK
BY HOUSEHOLDS PRIORSOMONI)
TO THE AND BY MAIN
COVID-19 OUTBREAK (i.e.
TARGET
BEFORE GROUPS.
JANUARY 1, 2020), IN CURRENT PRICES (TAJIK SOMONI) AND BY MAIN TARGET GROUPS.
3 500,0 3 250,4
Average monthly income (in Tajk somoni)
3 153,5 3 140,7
3 000,0 2 770,0 2 814,2

2 679,7 2 590,6
2 475,1 2 485,2 2 511,2 2 461,7 2 523,0
2 429,0
2 500,0
2 086,8
2 000,0
1 500,0
1 000,0
500,0
0,0
Total Rural Urban Youth (15- Adults Male Female Dushanbe GBAO Khatlon DRS Soghd HHs with HHs with
areas areas 24) (>=25) oblast oblast disabled labor
person(s) migrant(s)
/Source:COVID-19
ImpactAssessment
Assessment Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020). N=653
N=653 (but(but
for for
eacheach target
target group,
group, the sample
the sample size size is different).
is different).
According to the survey, the 653 HHs in Tajikistan earned on average 2,679.7 somoni per month (or 382.8
FIGURE per
somoni 33: person
PERCENTAGE OF AVERAGE
per month). MONTHLY
These earnings FIGURE 34:
vary significantly byTHE SIZE OF locations
geographic SAVINGS THAT HHs HAD
and gender. For
INCOME THAT RESPONDENTS HAVE STOPPED PRIOR TO THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK (i.e. BEFORE 1
instance, on average, women-headed HHs earn about 10.8 % less than men-headed HHs. Besides, HHs
RECEIVING AS A RESULT OF COVID-19 OUTBREAK. JANUARY 2020).
in DRS earn on average 515.9 somoni per person per month, compared HHs in GBAO with 336.6 somoni
40 37,5 350 321
per person per month, or Khatlon oblast with 360.4 somoni per person per month. The geographical and
% of average monthly income
300
gender35variations by the survey confirm the situation analysis as a pre-COVID trend. But the decline in the
30 are largely associated with the pandemic, according250
incomes to the survey.
23,8 175 200
(HHs)
25
19,8
150
(lost)
The short-term
20 impact of the COVID-19 outbreak has translated first and foremost
97 into falling incomes
100
earned by HH members. Tables 14-15 present a revealing picture of 24
15 the reported short-term impact 50 of
50 15
government-imposed
10 (and health-related) restrictions on monthly HH incomes in Tajikistan. The largest
0
margin 5of change in monthly income is attributed to: (i) individual entrepreneurs (53.4 % decline), (ii)
Up to 1 Up to 1 Up to 1 Up to 6 Up to 12 More
l migrant0 labor (52.3 % decline), and (iii) informal workers (43.8 % decline). day In other
week words,
month the months
months COVID-19 than 12
outbreak has hit MENthem particularly
WOMEN hard, at least in the short term. Other sources of income have alsomonths
AVERAGE been
negatively and significantly
/Source: COVID-19 affected,
Impact Assessment with
Survey the decline
(June-July 2020).in pension
Figure benefits
33: N=63; Figure(or
34:other
N=682.social benefits) most
commonly explained by social distancing and self-isolation measures adopted by many HHs. In other
words, many people were somewhat reluctant to collect their social benefits, such as pensions, because
it required them to visit branches of financial institutions at the time when social distancing was highly
recommended by the government. This also shows that for a brief period utility companies and financial
institutions have not uniformly addressed the payment structure or adapted to the situation, e.g. which
could have prevented overcrowding in their offices across the country.
Pay differentials continue to be relatively high between men and women and across different geographic
locations. On average, women-headed HHs earn about 10.8 % less than men-headed HHs and there are
significant variations in HH incomes between the regions.
The real reduction in income and consumption are probably not fully captured, given the role of provision
of goods and services for own use, especially in agriculture and rural sectors. According to the LFS 2016,
the great majority of the sample population (2,757,272 persons) was engaged in unpaid housework or
homecare in their households out of which 82.7 % were women. Another most numerous cluster included
persons who took care or cared for children living in their households (1,985,867 persons) out of which, as
in the previous case, the absolute majority were women (75.8 %).
Figure 36 provides the data for the average percentage decline in the monthly income (23.8), with a
fairly considerable discrepancy for men (37.5) compared to women (19.8). The fall in incomes has been

Page 10 of 35

TABLE 14: PERCENT DECLINE OF MONTHLY HOUSEHOLD INCOME (May-June 2020) DUE TO COVID-19 OUTBREAK (BY KEY TARGET GROUPS).
66
Dushan Khatlon Soghd
Rural Urban Youth Adults Men Women GBAO DRS TOTAL
be oblast oblast
Formal work for an employer 28.4 35.6 32.0 30.3 35.5 25.0 43.6 13.4 32.6 18.7 33.4 30.8
Informal work for an employer 48.5 31.1 38.7 46.0 30.0 60.8 29.2 -- 42.5 51.9 42.8 43.8
Self-employment (registered) 51.2 57.7 71.7 43.4 50.4 57.1 37.7 43.3 61.3 42.9 41.9 53.4
Self-employment (non-registered) 46.2 26.9 25.9 48.8 40.5 47.1 28.3 85.0 46.6 38.8 40.3 42.9
Income from labor migrants 54.0 46.9 61.5 49.2 53.8 51.1 54.6 41.5 48.5 60.3 49.3 52.3
Rent of property or asset 48.0 5.0 45.0 28.8 42.5 26.7 -- -- 30.0 -- 48.3 35.7
Pension benefits 17.4 7.1 27.1 10.8 17.6 11.6 5.9 0.0 23.4 4.3 15.0 14.4
Other social benefits 17.5 12.5 15.8 15.3 15.6 15.3 42.0 -- 5.3 44.0 0.0 15.4
Income from own farming activity 18.8 23.8 18.8 19.9 17.8 22.6 35.0 15.7 21.7 20.5 16.9 19.6
TABLE 15: SAMPLE SIZE OF HOUSEHOLDS REPORTING A DECLINE OF MONTHLY INCOME DUE TO COVID-19 OUTBREAK (BY KEY TARGET GROUPS).
Dushan Khatlon Soghd

Rural Urban Youth Adults Men Women GBAO DRS TOTAL
be oblast oblast
Formal work for an employer 290 150 129 311 242 198 55 16 163 84 122 440
Informal work for an employer 112 42 46 108 85 69 20 1 53 42 38 154
Self-employment (registered) 98 51 53 96 82 67 10 3 39 45 51 149
Self-employment (non-registered) 77 16 24 69 60 33 6 2 41 24 20 93
Income from labor migrants 276 88 91 273 160 204 21 10 110 103 120 364
Rent of property or asset 10 4 6 8 8 6 0 0 7 1 6 14
Pension benefits 257 108 79 286 167 198 27 19 136 79 104 365
Other social benefits 28 20 10 38 23 25 5 1 17 10 15 48
Income from own farming activity 160 30 55 135 119 71 4 7 63 42 74 190
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). N=653. Note that the totals are derived by adding only: rural and urban; youth and adults; men and women; and all
regions.
2 475,1 2 485,2 2 511,2 2 461,7 2 523,0
2 429,0
Average monthly income (in Taj

2 500,0
2 086,8
2 000,0
1 500,0
1 000,0
compounded
500,0 by the reduced purchasing power due to inflationary pressures on prices, particularly basic
consumption. The strongest factor in pushing up the average HH expenditure was the increase of food
0,0
prices, cited by 64.5 %
Total Ruralof the
UrbanHHs, followed
Youth (15- Adultsby higher
Male expenditure
Female Dushanbe on medical
GBAO Khatlon supplies,
DRS cited HHs
Soghd by with
18.4 %
HHs of
with
the HHs. These are alarming
areas signs24)
areas of a potential
(>=25) widening and deepening oblastof poverty incidence in Tajikistan,
oblast disabled labor
against a backdrop of the relatively high indebtedness HHs, claiming an average of 29.4 % of the HH
monthlyCOVID-19
/Source: incomeImpact
for repayment
AssessmentofSurvey
loans(June-July
in men-headed HHs.(but
2020). N=653 Theforwomen-headed
each target group,HHs are onsize
the sample aniseven a
different).
steeper slope towards poverty trap with 39 % of their incomes going into loan payment.
FIGURE 36: PERCENTAGE OF AVERAGE MONTHLY FIGURE 37: THE SIZE OF SAVINGS THAT HHs HAD
FIGURE
INCOME33: PERCENTAGE
THAT OF AVERAGE
RESPONDENTS MONTHLY
HAVE STOPPED FIGURE
PRIOR TO34: THE
THE SIZE OFOUTBREAK
COVID-19 SAVINGS THAT
(i.e. HHs HAD 1
BEFORE
INCOME THAT RESPONDENTS HAVE STOPPED PRIOR TO THE
RECEIVING AS A RESULT OF COVID-19 OUTBREAK. JANUARY 2020). COVID-19 OUTBREAK (i.e. BEFORE 1
RECEIVING AS A RESULT OF COVID-19 OUTBREAK. JANUARY 2020).
40 37,5 350 321
% of average monthly income
35 300
30 250
23,8 200 175
(HHs)
25
19,8
150
(lost)
20 97
100 50
15
50 24 15
10
0
5 Up to 1 Up to 1 Up to 1 Up to 6 Up to 12 More
0 day week month months months than 12
MEN WOMEN AVERAGE months

According to the World Bank,175 food prices were already amongst the main drivers of inflation in Tajikistan
during 2019. In lieu of the drop in the incomes, the food consumption would eventually have to drop too,
leading to potential long-term malnutrition and their aftermaths, especially for children and vulnerable groups.
According to Figure 38, up to 17 % of all surveyed HHs have fallen back into poverty as a result of
significant financial hardship and inability to afford even some of the basic food products for their HHs.
About 15.7 % of all sampled HHs reported being unable to make utility payments due to loss of income. In
total, 672 HHs (67.2 %) reported some type of implication associated with the experienced loss of income.
FIGURE
FIGURE38:
35:AVERAGE
AVERAGE INCOME
INCOME PER FIGURE
PER FIGURE 39: MAIN
36: MAIN IMPLICATIONS
IMPLICATIONS OF REDUCED
OF REDUCED INCOME INCOME
OF YOUR
FIGURE 35: AVERAGE INCOME PER FIGURE 36: MAIN IMPLICATIONS OF REDUCED INCOME OF YOUR
PERSON
PERSONPER
PERMONTH
MONTH COMPARED
COMPARED
PERSON PER MONTH COMPARED
TO OF YOUR
HOUSEHOLD HOUSEHOLD DUE TO THE COVID-19
HOUSEHOLD DUE TO THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK (IN LAST
DUE TO THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK (IN THEOUTBREAK
30 30
THE LAST
NATIONAL POVERTY
TO NATIONAL LINE.
POVERTY
TO NATIONAL LINE.LINE.
POVERTY (IN
DAYS). THE LAST 30 DAYS).
DAYS).
500,0 Could not buy basic food products…
500,0 Could not buy basic food products…
Average monthly income (in TJS)
382,8
Average monthly income (in TJS)
400,0 382,8 Could not make communal/utility…

400,0 Could not make communal/utility…
300,0 Could not buy additional groceries and…
300,0216,5 Could not buy additional groceries and…
216,5 180,6
200,0 180,6 Could not make loan repayments…
200,0 Could not make loan repayments…
100,0 Could not buy fuel or other energy…
100,0 Could not buy fuel or other energy…
0,0 Could not make loan repayments (interest)

0,0 Could not make loan repayments (interest)
National poverty line
HHs below poverty

Average income of
HHs of
(inflation-adjusted)
Could not pay office rent (for own…

HHs below poverty

Average income of
of
surveyed HHs
surveyedincome
Could not pay office rent (for own…

Page 10 of 35
Average income
Could not pay rent for property/assets in…

line
Could not pay rent for property/assets in…

line
Average
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). Figure 35: N=653; Figure 36: N=1,000.
/Source:/Source: COVID-19
COVID-19 Impact Assessment
Impact Assessment Survey (June-July
Survey (June-July 2020).38:
2020). Figure Figure 35: Figure
N=653; N=653;39:
Figure 36: N=1,000.
N=1,000.
FIGURE 37: DOES ANY MEMBER OF YOUR FIGURE 38: OUTSTANDING LOANS AMONG
FIGURE 37: DOES ANY MEMBER OF YOUR FIGURE 38: OUTSTANDING LOANS AMONG
175
HOUSEHOLD HAVE
World Bank. 2020. OUTSTANDING
Tajikistan: LOANS Dushanbe,
Country Snapshot. (i.e. SURVEYED
April 2020. HOUSEHOLDS BY KEY TARGET GROUPS.
HOUSEHOLD HAVE OUTSTANDING LOANS (i.e. SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS BY KEY TARGET GROUPS.
DEBT)?
DEBT)?
Impact of COVID-19 on lives and livelihoods

NO PREGNANT WOMAN IN HH
PREGNANT WOMAN IN HH
67
PREGNANT WOMAN IN HH
EMPLOYMENT NOT AFFECTED
EMPLOYMENT AFFECTED
EMPLOYMENT AFFECTED
Up to 17 % of all surveyed HHs are likely to experience income poverty (as demonstrated by inability of 17 %
of HHs to afford basic consumption according to survey results). Some 15.8 % of the total sample reported
that their average monthly income was lower than the inflation-adjusted national poverty line (extrapolated
to be equivalent to 216.5 somoni per person per month, based on data from the Agency for Statistics under
the President of the Republic of Tajikistan).
There are also noticeable variations regarding income effects, according to age, gender and rural-urban
dichotomy, as captured by Table 14. The largest decline in monthly earnings was reportedly experienced
by individuals who are: (i) individual entrepreneurs (53.4 %), (ii) migrant labor (52.3 %), and (iii) informal
workers (43.8 %). Figure 39 shows that the decline in monthly earnings led to inability of affected HHs to
afford basic food supplies, make utility payments, and repay loans.
Approximately 10.3 % of the respondents (i.e. 103 out of 1,000 HHs) could not make loan payments which
deepens their indebtedness and limits future access to finance. At the same time, 272 HHs reported at least
one member of their HH having an outstanding loan. This means that nearly 38 % of all HHs (which have
with outstanding loans) reported being unable to meet principal repayments. on their outstanding loans.
Evidently, most of the loans are essentially either for immediate basic consumptions and utility bills or for
repayment of existing debts, risking an accumulative spiral of debt-trap (See Table 16 and Figures 40 and
41). In the absence of financial inclusion and lack of access to regulated, formal borrowing channels, the
risk of spiral poverty and indebtedness traps are quite real.
TABLE 16: NUMBER OF SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS WITH OUTSTANDING LOANS (BY TARGET GROUPS).
Men Women Youth Adults Rural Urban TOTAL
Consumption loan(s) 99 101 46 154 135 65 200
Business loan(s) 29 13 10 32 29 13 42
Mortgage loan(s) 18 12 5 25 19 11 30
TOTAL: 146 126 61 211 183 89 272

Approximately 10.3 % of the general sample could not make loan payments which deepens their indebted
ness and limits future access to finance. At the same time, 272 HHs reported at least one member of their
HH having an outstanding loan. This means that nearly 38 % of all HHs with outstanding loans reported
being unable to meet repayments. Figure 40 further shows that having a vulnerable person within a HH,
such as a person with disability or pregnant woman or person whose employment was negatively affected
by COVID-19 situation, increases the likelihood that this HH has an outstanding loan. For instance, 31.1 %
of HHs who have a person with disability admitted having an outstanding loan compared to 26.7 % of HHs
without a person with disability. Similarly, 32.4 % of HHs who have at least one member whose employment
was negatively affected by COVID-19 situation have an outstanding loan, compared to 27.3 % of HHs
without members whose employment was negatively affected.
Couldnot
Could notpay
payrent
rentfor
forproperty/assets
property/assetsin…
in…
line
(inflation-ad
Average monthly income (i
Nationalpov
surveye
Averagein
HHs below
Averagein
lin
po
(inflation-a
surveye
i
i
HHs belo
300,0 Could not buy additional groceries and…
Average
Average
216,5 0 0 2525 5050 7575 100
100125
125150
150175
175200
200
National
180,6 Number
Number ofof respondents
respondents (HHs)
(HHs)
200,0 Could not make loan repayments…
100,0 COVID-19
/Source: ImpactAssessment
AssessmentSurvey Could
Survey(June-July
(June-July not buy
2020).
2020). fuel or35:
Figure
Figure other
35: energy…
N=653;
N=653; Figure36:
Figure 36:N=1,000.
N=1,000.
Could not make loan repayments (interest)
FIGURE 0,0 40: DOES ANY MEMBER OF YOUR FIGURE 41: OUTSTANDING LOANS AMONG
FIGURE37:
FIGURE 37:DOES
DOESANY
ANYMEMBER
MEMBEROF
OFYOUR
YOUR FIGURE38:
FIGURE 38:OUTSTANDING
OUTSTANDINGLOANS
LOANSAMONG
AMONG
HHs below poverty

Average income of
Average income of
HOUSEHOLD HAVE OUTSTANDING LOANS Could notSURVEYED
pay office rent HOUSEHOLDS BY KEY TARGET
TARGET GROUPS.
(for own…
HOUSEHOLDHAVE HAVEOUTSTANDING
OUTSTANDINGLOANS
LOANS(i.e.
(i.e. SURVEYEDHOUSEHOLDS
HOUSEHOLDSBYBYKEY
KEYTARGET
surveyed HHs
HOUSEHOLD SURVEYED GROUPS.
(i.e. DEBT)?
DEBT)? GROUPS.
DEBT)? Could not pay rent for property/assets in…
line
NOPREGNANT
NO PREGNANTWOMAN
WOMAN 0HH
ININ HH25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
PREGNANT
PREGNANT WOMAN
WOMAN ININ
HHHH
EMPLOYMENTNOT
AFFECTED
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). Figure 35: N=653; Figure 36: N=1,000.
EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT AFFECTED
AFFECTED
FIGURE 37: DOES ANY MEMBER OF YOUR FIGURE

NO 38:
NOLABOR
LABOR OUTSTANDING
MIGRANT
MIGRANT ININ
HHHHLOANS AMONG
HOUSEHOLD HAVE OUTSTANDING LOANS (i.e. SURVEYED
LABOR
LABOR HOUSEHOLDS
MIGRANT
MIGRANT ININ
HHHH BY KEY TARGET GROUPS.
DEBT)? NO
NODISABLED
DISABLEDPERSON
PERSONININ
HHHH
00 100
100 200
200 300
300 400
400 500
500 600
600 700
700 800
800 900
9001000
1000 DISABLED PERSON
DISABLED ININ
PERSON HHHH
Number
Numberofofrespondents
respondents(HHs)
(HHs)
0 0 200
PREGNANT WOMAN IN HH 200 400400 600
600 800800 1000
1000
YES
YES- -BUSINESS
BUSINESS YES
YES- -CONSUMPTION
CONSUMPTION EMPLOYMENT NOT AFFECTED
YES YES
YES- BUSINESS
- BUSINESS YES
YES- CONSUMPTION
- CONSUMPTION
YES- -MORTGAGE
MORTGAGE
EMPLOYMENT AFFECTED NO
NO
YES
YES- MORTGAGE
- MORTGAGE NONO
/Source: NO LABOR MIGRANT IN HH38: N=1,000.
/Source:COVID-19
COVID-19Impact
ImpactAssessment
AssessmentSurvey
Survey(June-July
(June-July2020).
2020).Figure
Figure37:
37:N=1,000;
N=1,000;Figure
Figure 38: N=1,000.
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). Figure 40: N=1,000; Figure 41:
LABOR MIGRANT N=1,000.
IN HH
FIGURE
FIGURE39:
39:THE
THESIZE
SIZEOF
OFSAVINGS
SAVINGSTHAT
THATHOUSEHOLDS
HOUSEHOLDSHAD
HAD
NO PRIOR TO
TOTHE
PRIORPERSON
DISABLED IN COVID-19
THE COVID-19OUTBREAK.
HH OUTBREAK.
Although
0 100 200 incomes of surveyed
300 400 500 600HHs 700 have
800 fallen between 19 %
900 1000 and 53 % in the preceding 30 days, the share
DISABLED PERSON IN HH
350
of HHs350being unable to purchase food supplies 321
321support their livelihoods appears to be relatively low, at
to
(HHs)
respondents(HHs)
least300
temporarily, at 17 % as described above. In comparison, absolute poverty level
300 0 in Tajikistan
200 400 600 was800stated
1000
to be250
27.5 % in 2019 and, according
YES - BUSINESS
176
to the Agency for Statistics under the President, 53.4 % of average
YES - CONSUMPTION
ofrespondents
250
monthly HH income is spent on purchasing food supplies.177 This could be explained by YES
not -only varying
200YES
200 - MORTGAGEimpact, NO 175
YES - BUSINESS
175 CONSUMPTION
degree of short-term but also because of savings that YES HHs reportedly have usedNO
- MORTGAGE to ‘smoothen’
150
their consumption
150 pattern over the preceding 30 days (See Figure 42).
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment97Survey (June-July 2020). Figure 37: N=1,000; Figure 38: N=1,000. 97
Numberof
100
100 5050
Number
FIGURE
5039: 24
FIGURE
5042:THE
THESIZE
SIZEOF
24 OFSAVINGS
SAVINGSTHAT
THATHOUSEHOLDS
HOUSEHOLDSHAD
HADPRIOR
PRIORTO
TOTHE
THECOVID-19
COVID-19OUTBREAK.
1515
OUTBREAK.
00
350 Up 321
Uptoto1 1day
Up
Uptoto66months
months Up
day Uptoto1212months
months More
More Up
Uptoto1 1week
than 1212
than week Up
Uptoto1 1month
month
300 months
months
/Source:
/Source:COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). N=682.
250 COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). N=682.
200 175
150
97
100 Page 11 of 35
Page 11 of 35 50
50 24 15
0
Up to 1 day Up to 1 week Up to 1 month Up to 6 months Up to 12 months More than 12
months
/Source:
/Source: COVID-19 ImpactAssessment
COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020). N=682.
N=682.
Accordingly, 321 HHs (out of 682 HHs that reported having savings)(47.1 %) had savings equivalent to
approximately one month of their average monthly cost of consumption; and a further 175 HHs (25 %)
indicated that they had savings equivalent to up Page 11 of 35
to 6 months of their average monthly cost of consumption.
On the contrary, 12.1 % of all surveyed HHs (or 121 out of 1,000 HHs) live paycheck to paycheck, meaning

176
https://tj.sputniknews.ru/country/20191226/1030454543/tadzhikistan-uroven-bednosti-rahmon-otchet.html.
Agency for Statistics under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan. 2020. Food Security and Poverty. #4–2019. Dushanbe,
177
p.83.

that they are extremely vulnerable to socio-economic shocks. These HHs are most likely to slip into
extreme poverty and are highly unlikely to withstand any further drops in their incomes due to job losses.
Accordingly, 47.1 % of HHs that reported having savings had savings equivalent to approximately one month
of their average monthly cost of consumption; and a further 25 % of HHs that they had savings equivalent
to up to 6 months of their average monthly cost of consumption. On the contrary, 12.1 % of all surveyed HHs
(or 121 out of 1,000 HHs) live paycheck to paycheck, meaning that they are extremely vulnerable to socio-
economic shocks. These HHs are most likely to slip into extreme poverty and are very unlikely to withstand
any further drops in their incomes due to job losses.
FIGURE 40: INTENDED USE OF ANOTHER LOAN (IF TAKEN IN THE NEXT 30 DAYS) BY SURVEYED
HOUSEHOLDS.
HOUSEHOLDS.
HOUSEHOLDS.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Food (staples) Medical supplies Agricultural inputs Utility payments

0% Trade 10% 20% 30% (labor migrants)
Travel 40% 50% Loan repayment
60% 70% 80% supplies 90%
House 100%
Home repairs Proportion
Clothing (for of respondents
HH members) (HHs)
Rent payment (house) Construction (non-business)
Ceremonies and rituals Maintenance (car) Other different uses
Food (staples) Medical supplies Agricultural inputs Utility payments
/Source:
/Source: COVID-19 ImpactAssessment
COVID-19 Impact AssessmentSurvey
Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020). N=317.
N=317.
Trade Travel (labor migrants) Loan repayment House supplies
Home repairs Clothing (for HH members) Rent payment (house) Construction (non-business)
DueCeremonies
to financial
anddifficulties,
rituals some HHs are(car)
Maintenance also more likely to take
Other another
loan. In total, 31.7 % of all surve
different uses
yed HHs were considering borrowing funds (or taking another loan if already with outstanding debt) in the
following
FIGURE 41:30
THEdays at the
MAIN time of CAUSING
REASONS responding to the survey.TO
HOUSEHOLDS Of SPEND
these HHs,
MORE61.8 % are most
DURING likely to spend
THE COVID-19
the new loan
OUTBREAK (i.e.on
INpurchasing
THE PAST 30 food supplies (mainly, staples) and another 12.9 % of HHs intend to purchase
DAYS).
medical supplies (including but not limited to face masks, antiseptics, medicinal drugs, and other items).
Increased cost of care for elderly HH members
FIGURE
FIGURE 41:44:
THE
Increased
THE
cost MAIN
MAIN REASONS
of child REASONS
CAUSING
CAUSING
care (out-of-school
HOUSEHOLDS TO SPEND MORE DURING THE COVID-19
children) HOUSEHOLDS TO SPEND MORE DURING THE COVID-19
OUTBREAK
OUTBREAK (i.e.
(i.e. IN IN
THETHE PAST
PAST 30 30 DAYS).
DAYS).
Sickness and/or contracted disease by HH members
Rising cost of medical

Increased cost of treatment (in medical
care for elderly facilities)
HH members
Rising prices for medical supplies and medicine
Increased cost of child care (out-of-school children)
Increased need for medical supplies and medicine
Rising food prices
Rising cost of medical treatment (in medical facilities)
Rising prices for medical supplies and medicine 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Increased need for medical supplies and medicine YES NO
Rising food prices
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
YES NO
FIGURE 42: THE USE OF VARIOUS INFORMATION CHANNELS BY SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS.7
/Source: COVID-19
/Source: COVID-19Impact AssessmentSurvey
Impact Assessment Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020). N=1,000.
N=1,000.
1000
900
In total,
800 64.5 % of all HHs admitted that rising food prices caused them to spend more in the preceding
30 days,
FIGURE 70042:compared
THE USE OFto aVARIOUS
pre-COVID period which CHANNELS
INFORMATION was before 1BY st
January 2020.HOUSEHOLDS.
SURVEYED 18.4 % of all HHs
7 argued
600
500
1000
70
400
ondents (HHs)
300
800
200
700
100
600
0
500
that rising prices for medical supplies (such as face masks and antiseptics) and medicine, as well as panic
buying, has forced them into spending more in the preceding 30 days, compared to a pre-COVID period.
In hindsight, market speculation and panic buying have also led to rising food prices which, in turn, forced
nearly 2/3 of surveyed HHs into spending more (See Figure 44).
Key findings:
1. Pay differentials continue to be relatively high between men and women, and across different
geographic locations within Tajikistan. On average, women-headed HHs earn about 10.8 % less than
men-headed HHs. There are also significant variations in the size of HH incomes between the regions
with the highest and lowest population, and density of employers.
2. Incomes from self-employment, migrant labor and non-registered jobs have had the largest declines
(43 %–53 %) as a direct result of the COVID-19 outbreak. This is consistent with the pre-survey
assumption that individual entrepreneurs, migrant labor, and informal sector workers are the most
financially vulnerable to changes in employment.
3. It is highly likely that up to 17 % of all surveyed HHs have fallen back into poverty as a result of
substantial financial difficulties and their inability to purchase food or pay monthly utility bills. At the
same time, further empirical analysis may be required to validate this finding.
4. 43.9 % of all respondents indicated having some savings which provides a financial cushion to
withstand the implication of changes in employment. Observations have also shown that only 24 % of
all HHs had savings equivalent to more than one month of their aggregate consumption. 12.1 % of all
surveyed HHs continue living paycheck to paycheck and have little to no savings.
5. A relatively high share of HHs that have at least one member with an outstanding loan (38 % of 272
HHs) have difficulties meeting repayment, with consequences on future access to finance. This is a
direct consequence of falling incomes due to COVID-19 outbreak and is likely to raise the proportion of
non-performing loans unless they are restructured (e.g. payment is delayed).
6. The absence of savings and the presence of loans forces HHs into further indebtedness. 31.7 % of HHs
were considering to borrow in the preceding 30 days.
7. More than 15 % of HHs were unable to make utility payments due to loss of income, which has resulted
in the loss of revenues for the utility companies.
8. The bulk of the outstanding debt or new borrowing intended to be spent on basic consumption, such
as food supplies, utility payments, medicine, and repayment of existing debts, and not necessary for
improving living standards through better education or health, or investment.
9. Nearly 65 % of HHs stated that they increased their spending in the 30 days preceding the survey,
which was mainly caused by the perceived shortage of food and medical supplies.
10. A sizeable proportion of HHs will require targeted social assistance in order to pre-empt their falling
(back) into poverty or exacerbating their financial difficulties. The crisis underscores the need to tackle
long-term structural reforms to the business environment to support long-term recovery and resilience.
SOCIAL DIMENSIONS
In general, 90 % of surveyed HHs had undertaken some self-isolation measures, particularly in the last
30 days prior to the survey. This proportion is similar across various target groups by gender, geographic
locations, and age. Specifically, 83 % of surveyed HHs used television channels, while web-based
(online) resources were used by 32 % of surveyed HHs, and text messages through mobile phones
by 15.5 % of surveyed HHs. Text messages from ‘official sources’ (i.e. from mobile network operators
or government agencies such as the Ministry of Health and Social Protection of the Population of the
Republic of Tajikistan) were considered more trusted by HHs than, for example, online resources. This
could be explained by: (i) lack of access to Internet and limited computer skills and/or browsing skills
among respondents, and (ii) greater access to (and ownership of) mobile phones and in-built text
messaging software.

FIGURE 41: THE MAIN REASONS CAUSING HOUSEHOLDS TO SPEND MORE DURING THE COVID-19
TABLE 17: TOP
OUTBREAK (i.e. 5
INMOST WIDELY
THE PAST USED INFORMATION CHANNELS BY SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS.
30 DAYS).
Increased cost of care for elderly HH members

No. of HHs Level of trust178
Increased cost of child care (out-of-school children)
Television channels 830 8.0
Internet (online
Rising cost resources)
of medical treatment (in medical facilities) 162 6.6
Rising prices for medical supplies and medicine
Internet (social networks) 158 6.7
Increased need for medical supplies and medicine
Text messages (mobile) 155 8.1
Rising food prices
Community meetings 96 6.4
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). N=1,000. Proportion of respondents (HHs)
YES NO
The useCOVID-19
/Source: of various information
Impact channels
Assessment resulted 2020).
Survey (June-July in 83.6 % of all surveyed HHs stating increased
N=1,000.
knowledge of coronavirus infection or other infectious diseases. HHs in urban areas were slightly more
advantaged because of greater access to a greater variety of digital means of communication.
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Television Internet Internet (social Local Radio Text Paper notices Community Hotline Other
channels (websites) networks) newspapers channels messages in meetings (phone)
(phone) neighborhood
YES NO
/Source:COVID-19
ImpactAssessment
Assessment Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020). N=1,000.
N=1,000.

7 The category 'Other' includes medical staff/facilities, family doctor, workplace, HH members, and educational institutions.
EDUCATION
Page 12 of 35
Although the mean average age of 1,000 respondents was 37.7 years, the highest level of education which
was completed by 58.2 % of respondents did not exceed general secondary education (grades 1–11). All
respondents were aged between 16 and 87, with 94 % of them were of working age between 18 and 63.
Besides, 101 respondents had only completed basic education (grades 5–9), while 4 respondents did not
obtain any education above primary (grades 1–4). This could also explain some of the baseline conditions
of HHs in Tajikistan, which are characterized by relatively low employability and low productivity of the
workforce.
The coronavirus pandemic is unlikely to have had a significant short-term impact on employability and
productivity, as opposed to incomes and employment, but it has exacerbated people’s vulnerabilities. More
importantly, it is the long-term impact of potentially prolonged interruptions in education, for which many
countries in the west have started discussions. Tajikistan will not be an exemption regarding a potentially
irreversible long-term fall-outs should the closures and/ or affected quality of education continue to the
new school year.
178
On a scale between 1 and 10, where 1=’Don’t trust the source’ and 10=’Most trusted source’ (as perceived by surveyed HHs).
179
The category ‘Other’ includes medical staff/facilities, family doctor, workplace, HH members, and educational institutions.
FIGURE 46:
FIGURE 43: THE
THE HIGHEST
HIGHESTLEVEL
LEVELOF
OFFORMAL
FORMALEDUCATION
EDUCATIONOBTAINED
OBTAINEDBYBY
RESPONDENTS (BY(BY
RESPONDENTS GENDER).
GENDER).
Female
Male
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
Refuse to answer No level completed Primary (grades 1-4)

Master's degree Bachelor's degree SVET
IVET Basic education (grades 5-9) Higher education
The Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Tajikistan has closed educational institutions
FIGURE
since 44:27,
April HAS CLOSURE
2020. Initially,OF
theEDUCATIONAL FIGURE
nationwide school closure was45: HAS CLOSURE
planned only untilOF EDUCATIONAL
May 10, 2020 but
subsequently extended until August 17, 2020 when the new academic year will commence.181 The IN ANY
INSTITUTIONS AFFECTED YOUR HOUSEHOLD180IN INSTITUTIONS AFFECTED YOUR HOUSEHOLD
ANY WAY? (BY GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS) WAY? (BY KEY TARGET GROUPS)
transfer of schoolchildren from one grade to another took place according to the results of their academic
progress
400 from September to April of the 2019–2020 academic 100% year. This is mainly because the school
Proportion of respndents (HHs)
closure
350 has only impacted a small proportion of school curriculum
90% instruction. Graduation exams for
schoolchildren
300 of 9th and 11th grades were carried out over80% June 15–24, 2020 and the procedure for
university
250 entrance examinations was the same as last year.70%
60%
200 50%
The 150
closure of schools has reportedly affected 28.2 % of surveyed HHs. Adults were affected more by
40%
the closure (30 % of all HHs), compared to young people aged 30%
15–24 (23.1 % of all HHs). Similarly, 31.1 % of
100
HHs which reported having at least one person with disability 20% has been affected by school closure. The
50
regional disparity is notable: only 17.2 % of HHs from Dushanbe 10% reported having been affected by school
0
closure, compared to
Dushanbe GBAO
36.8 % of
Khatlon
HHs from
DRS
Soghd
Soghd
oblast and 32.3 %
0% of HHs from GBAO. The three most
likely reasons for this disparity
oblastcould be that: (i) residents in Dushanbe
oblast MALE have greater
FEMALE YOUTH access
ADULTS to audio-visual
RURAL URBAN
means of education and communication than in other geographic locations, (ii) Dushanbe has the highest
YES NO
density of private educational
YES NO institutions, including kindergartens, and private tutoring courses compared
to other COVID-19
/Source: geographic locations,
Impact andSurvey
Assessment (iii) the proportion
(June-July of Figure
2020). children
44: under home
N=1,000; Figureschooling is relatively higher
45: N=1,000.
in Dushanbe than in other geographic locations in Tajikistan.
Further data regarding disaggregation by income levels would serve a more detailed account of the
FIGURE 46:
mitigation AVERAGE
methods MONTHLY
during schoolPAYMENT
closures andFORwould
INTERNET
henceCONNECTIVITY
serve a clearerBY SURVEYED
policy HOUSEHOLDS
analysis. Data in UK, for
(IN CURRENT PRICES; IN TAJIK SOMONI).
instance, indicate that on average the higher income HHs have spent 6 hours more every week compared
80 75,0 71,6 72,5
to lower income
64,8 HHs on educational activities
67,6 for their
65,0 children during the school closures. 67,0
Monthly payment (in TJS)
70 59,3 59,6 55,9

60
Among
50 the 282 HHs (out of 1,000) who were affected by school closure, 63.8 % had school-aged children
who40
30
no longer were studying, 22.3 % had preschool-aged children who no longer attended early childhood
education
20 facilities, 15.6 % had students aged 18 and above who no longer attended professional
educational
10 institutions (e.g. primary and secondary VET institutions and universities). In addition, 9.2 % of
282 0HHs had teachers who had stopped attending educational institutions due to school closure which
Total Rural areas Urban areas HHs with HHs with Dushanbe GBAO Khatlon DRS Soghd oblast
had also perceivably implied the reduction of theirlabor
disabled monthly remuneration. oblast
180
The academic year in general secondary education in Tajikistan begins on 1 September and ends on 10 June, although all final
/Source: COVID-19
examinations Impact concluded
are practically Assessment
by Survey
25 May.(June-July 2020). N=494.
In addition, according to the decision of the Republican Headquarters for the Prevention of the Spread of COVID-19, chaired by
181
the Prime Minister, vacations in preschool institutions in Tajikistan will be extended until the epidemiological situation in the country is
stabilized.

Page 13 of 35

No level completed Refuse to answer Primary (grades 1-4) No level completed Primary (grades 1-4)
Refuse to answer No level completed Primary (grades 1-4)
Bachelor's degree Master's degree SVET Bachelor's degree SVET
Master's degree Bachelor's degree SVET
Basic education (gradesIVET
5-9) Higher education Basic education (grades 5-9) Higher education
IVET Basic education (grades 5-9) Higher education
urvey (June-July 2020). /Source:
N=1,000.COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). N=1,000.
CATIONAL FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE47:
45:HAS
44: HASCLOSURE
HAS CLOSUREOF
CLOSUREOFEDUCATIONAL
OFEDUCATIONAL
EDUCATIONAL FIGURE
FIGURE48:45:
HAS CLOSURE
HAS CLOSUREOF EDUCATIONAL
FIGURE 44: HAS CLOSURE OF EDUCATIONAL FIGURE 45: HAS CLOSURE OFOF EDUCATIONAL
EDUCATIONAL
OUSEHOLD IN INSTITUTIONS
INSTITUTIONS
INSTITUTIONS AFFECTED
AFFECTED YOUR
AFFECTEDYOUR
YOURHOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD ININANY
IN INSTITUTIONS
INSTITUTIONS AFFECTED
AFFECTEDYOUR
YOURHOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD IN ANY
INSTITUTIONS AFFECTED YOUR HOUSEHOLD IN INSTITUTIONS AFFECTED YOUR HOUSEHOLD IN IN
ANY
ATIONS) ANY
WAY?WAY?
ANY (BY(BY
WAY? KEYGEOGRAPHIC
TARGET
(BY LOCATIONS)
GROUPS)
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS) ANY WAY?
WAY? (BY(BY KEY
KEY TARGET
TARGET GROUPS)
GROUPS)
ANY WAY? (BY GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS) WAY? (BY KEY TARGET GROUPS)
100%
400 100%
400 100%
respndents (HHs)

90% 90%

350 90%
350
80% 80%
300 80%
Number ofofrespondents
300 70% 70%

250 70%
25060% 60%
200 60%
20050% 50%
50%
150
15040% 40%
40%
Proportion
30%
100 30%
100 30%
20%
50 20%
50 10% 20%
10%
0 10%
0 0% 0%
DRS Soghd Dushanbe GBAO Khatlon DRS Soghd 0%
Dushanbe
MALE GBAO Khatlon ADULTS
FEMALE YOUTH DRS RURAL
Soghd
URBAN MALE FEMALE YOUTH ADULTS RURAL URBAN
oblast oblast oblast MALE FEMALE YOUTH ADULTS RURAL URBAN
oblast oblast
YES NO YES NO
YES NO YES NO
YES NO
urvey (June-July 2020). Figure 44:
/Source:
/Source: N=1,000;
COVID-19 Figure
Impact 45: N=1,000.
Assessment Survey (June-July 2020).47:
Figure 44: N=1,000;
48:Figure 45: N=1,000.
/Source:COVID-19
Impact Survey
Survey 2020).
(June-July Figure
2020). N=1,000;
Figure Figure Figure
44: N=1,000; N=1,000.
45: N=1,000.
Furthermore, 79.1 % of the 282 HHs who were affected by school closure had to increase care for children
AYMENT FOR INTERNETFIGURE
immediately
FIGURE CONNECTIVITY
46:46: AVERAGE
following
AVERAGE BY
schoolSURVEYED
MONTHLY
MONTHLY closure. HOUSEHOLDS
PAYMENT
This isFOR
PAYMENT FOR
mainly INTERNET to CONNECTIVITY
related CONNECTIVITY
INTERNET BYBY
school-aged children SURVEYED atHOUSEHOLDS
stayingHOUSEHOLDS
SURVEYED home
MONI). (IN
starting CURRENT
(IN CURRENTsince April PRICES;
2020.
PRICES; IN TAJIK SOMONI).
By theSOMONI).
IN TAJIK time the survey was carried out, children had been at home for at least six
weeks. 80 71,6 HHs72,5
of75,0 71,6 GBAO said they72,5
67,6 65,0 80 About 64.7 %75,0
64,8 from Dushanbe and67,0
67,6
67,6
90 % of HHs71,6
65,0 from 72,5had to increase care
67,0
for
67,0
70 64,8 59,6 59,3 65,0 59,6 of 1,000 mentioned

children as a result of school closure. Interestingly, only 40 respondents out 55,9 that they
70 59,3 55,9 59,6

60 55,9
had60 to50take leave from their workplace in order to manage increased caretaking responsibility, whereas
50
another
40
40 30 respondents said that they agreed with their employer to work at home so that they could
30
look30after their children. Assuming these responses pertain to female HH members, the low proportions of
20
these two
20
10 groups may reflect the low rate of women’s participation in the formal sector, as well as the lower
10
rate of0
0the employed men in childcare responsibilities.
as HHs with HHs with DushanbeTotal GBAO Khatlon
Rural areas DRSHHs Soghd
Urban areas with oblast
HHs with Dushanbe GBAO Khatlon DRS Soghd oblast
disabled labor oblast disabled labor oblast
person(s) One of the alternative ways to safeguard person(s)
migrant(s) the continued
disabled labor learning of children includes distance learning,
migrant(s)
oblast
but it also requires the presence of various conditions within HHs. For instance, 49.4 % of all surveyed
HHs
urvey (June-July 2020). reported
N=494.
/Source: having
COVID-19 Internet
Impact connection
Assessment Surveybut 10.6 % 2020).
(June-July of HHsN=494.
mentioned very low and insufficient speed for
/Source: COVID-19
educational ImpactThus,
purposes. Assessment Surveyshowed
the survey (June-Julythat
2020). N=494.
there are only 38.8 % of HHs who had good-quality
Internet connection through modem router or optic fiber, which may be used for educational and learning
purposes. At the same time, further clarification revealed that about 60 % of respondents only had Internet
connection through their mobile phones, and not personal computers such as desktops, laptops or tablets.
According to a recently completed Education Rapid Needs Assessment (ERNA),182 78.3 % of surveyed
schools and 61.7 % of district/oblast education departments
Page 13 of 35 stated that distance learning was timely,
Page 13 of 35
Page 13 of 35
particularly in the context of temporary school closure. In the meantime, more than 4/5 of respondents

were skeptical about readiness of general secondary educational institutions to distance learning. In
particular, top five commonly shared factors constraining access to distance learning include: (i) no internet
connectivity either at school or at children’s homes (or both), (ii) lack of computers (or tablets) owned or
used by children, (iii) teachers not being adequately trained to supervise/monitor distance learning, (iv)
poor conditions at children’s homes which prohibit the use of various distance learning tools, and (v)
financial difficulties of children’s families which prevent children from maintaining regular communication or
access to various distance learning tools (such as utility payments, Internet and mobile network usage fees,
and others). The report further asserts that people with disabilities and ethnic minorities are less likely to
benefit from the potential roll out of distance learning, such as due to limited learning materials for children
with disabilities and in languages other than Tajik.
Mirzoev, S. 2020. Education Rapid Needs Assessment (ERNA) Summary Report. Commissioned and funded by UNICEF Tajikistan.
182
Dushanbe, pp. 18–19.
Dushanbe GBAO Khatlon DRS Soghd
oblast oblast MALE FEMALE YOUTH ADULTS RURAL URBAN
YES NO
YES NO
FIGURE 49: AVERAGE MONTHLY PAYMENT FOR INTERNET CONNECTIVITY BY SURVEYED

FIGURE 46: AVERAGE
HOUSEHOLDS MONTHLY
(IN CURRENT PAYMENT
PRICES; FORSOMONI).
IN TAJIK INTERNET CONNECTIVITY BY SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS
80 75,0 67,6 71,6 72,5
64,8 65,0 67,0
70 59,3 59,6 55,9

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
disabled labor oblast
/Source: COVID-19
/Source: Impact
COVID-19 Assessment
Impact Survey
Survey 2020).
(June-July N=494.
2020). N=494.
The expenditure on Internet connectivity among surveyed HHs was relatively low, perhaps highlighting
that HHs prefer lowest-cost broadband usage plans offered by Internet network operators. Besides, the
expenditure also included average monthly cost of mobile Internet, which significantly tilts the average
monthly payment downwards. Therefore, average monthly payment for Internet connectivity among 494
HHs equaled 64.8 somoni, which represents a mere 2.4 % of their average monthly HH income.
Page 13 of 35
Equitable access to education and learning is vital when considering the implementation of alternative
modes of education during school closure, as mentioned earlier. According to the survey results, 49.7 %
of the HHs without person(s) with disability reported having no Internet connectivity, The ratio was higher
(57.4 %) for HHs with at least one HH member with disability. A relatively smaller proportion of HHs from
Dushanbe reported having no Internet connectivity (43.4 % of all HHs) compared to HHs from GBAO
(58.1 %) or Khatlon oblast (55 %). In sum, Internet connectivity appears to be a major impediment across the
board.
Key findings:
1. The survey confirms low level of education of the labor force whereby the average education
level amongst the respondents was low, with 60 % of respondents averaging 37.7 years not having
completed the secondary school.
2. Almost 30 % HHs were affected by the closure of educational institutions in Tajikistan. Adults bore
the brunt of closure of educational institutions, not least due to increased housework and care
responsibilities.
3. 79 % of affected HHs had had to increase care for children immediately following school closure.
4. According to the survey, women-headed HHs with school-aged children were the most affected by the
closure of educational institutions.
5. Many HHs only have Internet connectivity through their mobile network operators, while those who
have broadband connection reported that the speed was too low to be used for educational purposes.
6. Besides, the schools most probably would not have had the structure and equipment to conduct
distant learning in an effective and regular manner. The full implications of the missed-out school time
would only be clear in the medium and long term.
HEALTH
Health considerations are at the forefront of HHs’ daily lives, particularly against the backdrop of risks
associated with COVID-19 and other diseases (such as pneumonia). According to various studies, people
with underlying health conditions183 are at greater risk of contracting coronavirus or succumbing to other
183
Examples of chronic illnesses include diabetes, asthma, cancer, heart disease, hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, and others.

illness which is exacerbated by the coronavirus infection. Accordingly, 16.7 % of all surveyed HHs reported
having at least one member of their HH who suffers from a chronic illness.
Overall, 84.4 % of those who have had chronic illness were unable to receive medical treatment due to
patient congestion or closure (or quarantine) of a number of medical facilities across Tajikistan in order to
enable due ‘absorption’ of patients with coronavirus (or pneumonia) symptoms. Besides, social distancing
and self-isolation have also contributed to patients opting not to visit medical facilities. Elderly HH
members and adults (aged 25 and older) were the two largest groups of patients with chronic illness who
have been unable to receive medical treatment during the COVID-19 outbreak. Moreover, the condition of
25 out of 141 patients with chronic illness (or 10.6 %) had reportedly resulted in health complications as a
result of being unable to receive medical treatment during the outbreak.
TABLE 18: TYPE OF TREAMENT THAT PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC ILLNESS HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO
RECEIVE DUE TO THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK (BY RURAL AND URBAN AREAS).
Rural Urban TOTAL
Regular consultation with medical specialist 20 5 25
Regular treatment procedure (at home or in a medical facility) 9 2 11

Emergency treatment procedure (at home or in a medical facility) 5 1 6
Medically certified test (e.g. blood test) 2 3 5
Emergency consultation with medical specialist 5 0 5
Surgery 2 2 4
FIGURE47:
FIGURE 50:THE
THENUMBER
NUMBEROFOFHOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD FIGURE48:
FIGURE 51:IFIFMEMBERS
MEMBERSOFOFYOUR
YOURHOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD
MEMBERSSUFFERING
MEMBERS SUFFERINGFROMFROMCHRONIC
CHRONICILLNESS
ILLNESS SUFFERINGFROM
SUFFERING FROMCHRONIC
CHRONIC ILLNESS
ILLNESS HAVE
HAVE BEEN
BEEN
WHO HAVE
WHO HAVEBEEN
BEENUNABLE
UNABLETOTORECEIVE
RECEIVEMEDICAL
MEDICAL UNABLETO
UNABLE TORECEIVE
RECEIVEMEDICAL
MEDICAL TREATMENT,
TREATMENT, DID
DID IT
TREATMENT AS
TREATMENT AS AA RESULT
RESULT OF
OFCOVID-19
COVID-19OUTBREAK.
OUTBREAK. IT RESULT
RESULT IN HEALTH
IN HEALTH COMPLICATIONS?
COMPLICATIONS?
3; 2% 2; 1% 90
80
Below 18
70
years old 60
Aged 18-24 50
59; 42% 40
25 years or 30
77; 55% 20
older
10
Elderly 0
members Rural Urban
YES NO
Out of 1,000 respondents, 20.8 % chose not to attend medical facilities out of fear of contracting the virus
FIGURE 49:itSINCE
or passing THE START
on to other HH members; but 60.7 % of allFIGURE
OF THE COVID-19 50: HAVE
respondents YOU (OR
continued to ANOTHER MEMBER
visit medical facilitiesOF
as
OUTBREAK, HAVE YOU BEEN RELUCTANT YOUR HOUSEHOLD) FALLEN SICK WITH COMMON
usual (with taking any precautions). This is despite the known risks for elderly and adults, as well as the
(UNSURE)
fact 30.3 %ABOUT VISITING
of surveyed HHsAreported
MEDICALhaving
FACILITY
pregnantSYMPTOMS WHICH
(or lactating) ARE
women. CHARACTERISTIC
The total number of OF COVID-
pregnant
IN YOUR AREA WHEN YOU NEEDED TO? 19 OR PNEUMONIA?
women included 148 young girls (aged 15–24) and 155 adults (aged 25 and above). The mean age of
I chose not to visit medical
pregnant (or lactating) women is 25.6
facility years.
1200
r of respondents (HHs)
1000
I visited medical facility
208; 21%
76 but took precautionary 800
Impact of COVID-19
measures on Lives, Livelihoods and Micro, Small and MSMEs in Tajikistan
600
I visited medical facility as
usual 400
126; 12%
607; 61% I had limited access to 200
Elderly
TREATMENT AS A RESULT OF COVID-19 OUTBREAK. RESULT
0 IN HEALTH COMPLICATIONS?
Elderly
NuN
WHO HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO RECEIVE MEDICAL
members UNABLE
0 TO RECEIVE MEDICAL TREATMENT, DID IT
members Rural
90 IN HEALTH Urban
TREATMENT
3; 2% AS A RESULT 2;
OF1%COVID-19 OUTBREAK. RESULT RuralCOMPLICATIONS?
YES NO Urban
(HHs) (HHs)
80 YES NO
Below 18 90
3; 2%
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment 7047: N=141; Figure 48: N=107.
2; 1%Survey (June-July 2020). Figure
years old
of respondents
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 80
6047: N=141; Figure 48: N=107.
Below 18 2020). Figure
Aged 70
years 18-24
old 50
of respondents
59; 42% 60
40
FIGURE 59; 52:42%
SINCE THE START OF THE COVID-19 Aged 18-24 FIGURE50
30 53: HAVE YOU (OR ANOTHER MEMBER OF
FIGURE 49: SINCE THE START OF THE 25 years
COVID-19 or FIGURE 40 50: HAVE YOUFALLEN(OR ANOTHER MEMBER OF
OUTBREAK,
FIGURE HAVETHE
49: SINCE YOU BEEN
START RELUCTANT
OF
77; 55% THE COVID-19 FIGURE 20
YOUR HOUSEHOLD)
50: HAVE YOU (OR ANOTHER SICK WITH COMMON
MEMBER OF
older
Number
OUTBREAK, HAVE YOU BEEN RELUCTANT 25 years or YOUR 30 HOUSEHOLD)
10 FALLEN SICK WITH COMMON
(UNSURE) ABOUT
OUTBREAK, VISITING
HAVE YOU BEEN A MEDICAL
RELUCTANT FACILITY
Elderly SYMPTOMS
YOUR WHICH
HOUSEHOLD)
200 ARE
FALLEN CHARACTERISTIC
SICK WITH OF
COMMON
(UNSURE) ABOUT VISITING77; 55% older
YOUA MEDICAL FACILITY SYMPTOMS WHICH ARE CHARACTERISTIC OF COVID-
Number
IN YOUR ABOUT
(UNSURE) AREA WHEN
VISITING A NEEDED
MEDICALTO? FACILITY SYMPTOMS10 OR
COVID-19 PNEUMONIA?
WHICH ARE CHARACTERISTIC
members Rural UrbanOF COVID-
IN YOUR AREA WHEN YOU NEEDED TO? Elderly 19 OR PNEUMONIA?
0 YES NO
IN YOUR AREA WHEN YOU NEEDED TO? I chose not tomembers
19 OR PNEUMONIA?
visit medical Rural Urban
Ifacility
chose not to visit medical 1200
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment 1200 47: N=141; Figure YES
Survey (June-July 2020). Figure NO
48: N=107.
(HHs)
facility
(HHs)
1000
I visited (June-July
medical facility 2020). Figure
1000 47: N=141; Figure 48: N=107.
208; 21% I visited
tookmedical facility
respondents
but precautionary 800
208; 21%
ofofrespondents
but took precautionary
measures 800
FIGURE 49: SINCE THE START OF THE COVID-19
measures FIGURE
600 50: HAVE YOU (OR ANOTHER MEMBER OF
I visited medical facility as 600
OUTBREAK,
FIGURE 49:HAVE
SINCEYOU
THE BEEN
STARTRELUCTANT
Iusual
visited
OF THEmedical facility as
COVID-19 YOUR
FIGURE
400HOUSEHOLD) FALLEN
50: HAVE YOU SICK WITH
(OR ANOTHER COMMON
MEMBER OF
126; 12% usual 400
(UNSURE)
OUTBREAK,ABOUT
HAVEVISITING
YOU12%
126; A MEDICAL
BEEN RELUCTANT FACILITY SYMPTOMS
YOUR WHICH ARE
HOUSEHOLD) CHARACTERISTIC
FALLEN OF COVID-
SICK WITH COMMON
607; 61% I had limited access to 200
IN YOUR
607; 61% AREA WHEN
(UNSURE) ABOUT43; YOU
VISITING NEEDED
A MEDICAL
Imedical TO?
had limited FACILITY
access to 19 OR PNEUMONIA?
SYMPTOMS
200 WHICH ARE CHARACTERISTIC OF COVID-
Number
4% facility
0
Number
43; 4% I chose not to visit medical
IN YOUR AREA WHEN YOU NEEDED medical TO?
facility
facility
19 OR1200
PNEUMONIA?
0
16; 2%
DRS
Soghd
Total
Urban
Rural
Khatlon
Dushanbe
GBAO
oblast
(HHs)
oblast
16; 2% I chose
Does not to visit medical
not apply
DRS
Soghd
Total
Urban
Rural
Khatlon
Dushanbe
GBAO
oblast
1200
oblast
Does not apply
facility 1000
(HHs)
208; 21% 1000
of respondents
but took precautionary 800 YES NO
208; 21% measures YES NO
of respondents
but took precautionary 800
600
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment SurveyI measures (June-July
visited medical facility 2020).
as Figure 49: N=1,000; Figure 50: N=1,000.
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). Figure 49:
600
N=1,000; Figure 50: N=1,000.
usual(June-July 2020). Figure 52:
I visited medical facility as
N=1,000; Figure 53: N=1,000.
400
126; 12% usual
607; 61% 400
200
126; 12% I had limited access to
Number
607;
The total 61%
number 43; 4%
of respondents medical facility
who thought
accessthat they may have contracted
FIGURE 51: SOURCES OF INFORMATION USED
I had limited FOR
to 200
TREATMENT 0 OF ALLEGEDcoronavirus
PNEUMONIA infection (or
OR COVID-19
FIGURE 51: SOURCES OF INFORMATION USED FOR TREATMENT OF ALLEGED PNEUMONIA OR COVID-19
Number
succumbed 43;
16;
to pneumonia) 4%
2% medical facility
was relatively low, equaling 128 out0 of 1,000 respondents (See Figure 53).
DRS
Soghd
Total
Urban
Rural
Khatlon
Dushanbe
GBAO
oblast
AMONG SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS (BYnotRURAL AND URBAN AREAS).
oblast
Does apply
AMONG SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS 16; 2% (BY RURAL AND URBAN AREAS).
DRS
Soghd
Total
Urban
Rural
Khatlon
Dushanbe
GBAO
Many respondents (53 out of 128 respondents, or 41.4 %) sought specialized medical facility in another
oblast
oblast
Does not apply
location, followed by personal beliefs and assumptions (16 responses, or 12.5 %) YES and NOonline consultation,
Urban
including
/Source: Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). Figure 49: N=1,000; YES
the use of web-based sources of information (14 responses, or 10.9 %).50:InN=1,000.
COVID-19 Figure NO meantime, these
the
Urban
/Source:
figures COVID-19
should Impact Assessment
be interpreted Survey (June-July
with caution because2020). Figure 49: N=1,000;
respondents’ Figure 50:of
understanding N=1,000.
the symptoms of the
coronavirus
Rural
infection may differ (and the degree by which it may differ remains unknown).
Rural
FIGURE 51: SOURCES OF INFORMATION USED FOR TREATMENT OF ALLEGED PNEUMONIA OR COVID-19
FIGURE
AMONG54:SURVEYED
FIGURE SOURCES
51: SOURCESOF
OFINFORMATION
INFORMATION
HOUSEHOLDS USEDAND
USED
(BY RURAL FORURBAN
FOR TREATMENT
TREATMENT OFOF
AREAS). ALLEGED
ALLEGED PNEUMONIA
PNEUMONIA OR
OR COVID-19
0%
AMONG 10%
SURVEYED 20% 30%(BY RURAL
HOUSEHOLDS 40% AND URBAN
50% 60%
AREAS). 70% 80% 90% 100%
COVID-19
0% AMONG 10% SURVEYED
20% HOUSEHOLDS
30% 40%(BY RURAL
50% AND60%
URBAN AREAS).
70% 80% 90% 100%
Urban
Specialized medical facility in another location
Urban Personal beliefs and assumptions
Specialized medical facility in another location Personal beliefs and assumptions
Online consultation Specialized medical facility in my area
Online consultation Specialized medical facility in my area
Familiar/known medical specialist in another location
Rural Familiar/known medical specialist in my area
Familiar/known medical specialist in another location
Rural Familiar/known medical specialist in my area
Advice from friends and relatives Knowledge from open sources (websites, etc.)
Advice from friends and relatives Knowledge from open sources (websites, etc.)
Other
0%
Other 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020).
Proportion N=128.
of respondents (HHs)
Specialized medical facility in another location Personal beliefs and assumptions
Specialized
Online medical facility in another location
consultation Personal beliefs
Specialized and assumptions
medical facility in my area
Online consultation
Familiar/known medical specialist in another location Specialized medical facility
Familiar/known medical in my area
specialist in my area
Familiar/known
Advice medical
from friends specialist in another location
and relatives Familiar/known
Knowledge frommedical specialist
open sources in my area
(websites, etc.)
Advice from friends and relatives
Other Knowledge from open sources (websites, etc.)
Other Page 14 of 35
Page 14 of 35
/Source:
/Source:
/Source:
COVID-19
COVID-19 Impact
Impact
COVID-19
Assessment
Assessment
Impact Survey
Assessment
Survey (June-July
(June-July
Survey 2020).2020).
(June-July
N=128.
N=128.N=128.
2020).
On average, HHs reportedly spent nearly 1,217 somoni in the past 30 days to treat common symptoms of
pneumonia or COVID-19. This is equivalent to 45.4 % of average monthly HH income. Adults spent 50.9 %
of their monthly income on treatment costs, compared to 32.6 % of monthly income of young HH members.
Besides, HHs from Dushanbe reported having spent Page 14 of 35
72.5 % of their average monthly income on treatment
Page 14 of 35
costs
(which are significantly higher in Dushanbe than in other geographic locations), compared to 66.9 %
of average monthly income by HHs from Khatlon oblast and 17.7 % of average monthly income by HHs
from districts of republican subordination (DRS). These variances are explained by: (i) price differentials,
(ii) availability (i.e. supply) of professional consultation, treatment protocols and medical supplies, and (iii)
adherence to social norms (e.g. residents in some communities are more inclined to use ‘traditional’ means
to treat diseases rather than antibiotics and other medical drugs).

FIGURE 55: AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SPENDING ON TREATMENT OF COMMON SYMPTOMS OF
FIGURE 52: OR
PNEUMONIA AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD
COVID-19 SPENDING
IN THE PAST ON(IN
30 DAYS TREATMENT
CURRENT OF COMMON
PRICES; SYMPTOMS
IN TAJIK OF PNEUMONIA
SOMONI).
OR COVID-19 IN THE PAST 30 DAYS (IN CURRENT PRICES; IN TAJIK SOMONI).
2 000,0 1 783,3
1 687,0
Total spend on treatment (in
1 800,0
1 600,0
1 400,0 1 303,7 1 266,0
1 216,8 1 148,2
1 200,0 1 028,0
somoni)
1 000,0 807,8
800,0 576,8
600,0
400,0 290,0
200,0
0,0
Total Rural Urban Dushanbe GBAO Khatlon DRS Soghd Youth (15- Adults (25
areas areas oblast oblast 24) and older)
Average monthly spending on health measures exceeded 40 % of average monthly HH income in 23 HHs,
which represents 2.3 % of the total sample. In other words, 2.3 % of all HHs are experiencing catastrophic
health expenditures due to the COVID-19 situation.
TABLE 19: PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES UNDERTAKEN BY HOUSEHOLDS TO PREVENT/REDUCE THE

RISK OF CONTRACTING THE CORONAVIRUS INFECTION (BY KEY TARGET GROUPS).
Youth Adults Men Women TOTAL

Face masks 255 674 482 447 929
Regular use of sanitizers 241 634 448 427 875
Regular hand washing 215 586 408 393 801
Regular use of other disinfectants 162 441 279 324 603
Self-isolation at home 78 245 151 172 323
Avoiding public places and groups 38 88 79 47 126
Increased vitamin intake 27 83 41 69 110
Social distancing (away from home) 25 72 43 54 97
Social distancing (home and away) 27 62 47 42 89
Did not take any precautions 0 5 4 1 5
In addition to having treated the common symptoms, respondents also undertook precautionary measures
to reduce the risk of contracting the coronavirus infection (See Table 19). On average, HHs had spent 197.9
somoni in the last 30 days on these precautionary measures. The cost of precautionary measures appears
to have been higher among men (207.3 somoni) than among women (180.6 somoni); and also higher in
rural areas (214.7 somoni) than in urban areas (185.3 somoni). Men are perceivably more mobile, requiring
them to spend more on hand sanitizers, face masks, and other disinfectants. The relatively higher cost in
rural areas is explained by scarce supply and higher price of these precautionary measures compared to
towns and cities. More than 85 % of respondents emphasized that they would prefer undertaking similar
precautionary measures in the next 30 days to reduce the risk of infection.
Furthermore, psychological stress and mental health are other increasingly noted factors across the
countries which need to be properly accounted to understand the social impact of the COVID-19
outbreak on lives and livelihoods in Tajikistan. In particular, 21.9 % of all respondents admitted that they
Page 15 of 35

had experienced psychological stress and anxiety, such as due to heightened risk of contracting the
coronavirus infection, concern for their relatives, loss of income (and paid work), increased responsibility to
care for children during school closure, and other reasons.
FIGURE
FIGURE53:
56:THE
THEPROPORTION
PROPORTIONOFOF RESPONDENTS
OFRESPONDENTS
RESPONDENTS FIGURE
FIGURE54:
57:DID
DIDPSYCHOLOGICAL
PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS
STRESSAND
FIGURE 53: THE PROPORTION FIGURE 54: DID PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS AND
WHO EXPERIENCED
WHO EXPERIENCED PSYCHOLOGICAL
EXPERIENCEDPSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS
PSYCHOLOGICALSTRESS
STRESSAND ANXIETY THAT
AND ANXIETY YOU
THATEXPERIENCED DUE
YOU EXPERIENCEDTO COVID-
WHO AND ANXIETY THAT YOU EXPERIENCED DUE TO COVID-
ANXIETY AS
AND ANXIETY A RESULT OF THE
AS A RESULT COVID-19
OFCOVID-19
THE COVID-19 19DUE
LEDTO
TOCOVID-19
OTHER HEALTH
LED TOCOMPLICATIONS?
OTHER HEALTH
ANXIETY AS A RESULT OF THE 19 LED TO OTHER HEALTH COMPLICATIONS?
OUTBREAK.
OUTBREAK. COMPLICATIONS?
OUTBREAK.
100% 100%
100% 100%
(HHs)
90%
(HHs)
90%
respondents(HHs)
90%
respondents(HHs)
90%
80% 80%
80% 80%
70%
70%
70%
60% 70%
60% 60%
50% 60%
50% 50%
40% 50%
40% 40%
30% 40%
30%
Proportion
20% 30%
Proportion
20% 30%
10% 20%
10% 20%
0% 10%
0% 10%
Total Rural Urban HHs with HHs with
Total Rural Urban HHs with HHs with 0%
areas areas disabled labor 0%
areas areas disabled labor Rural Urban
person(s) migrant(s) Rural Urban
YES NO YES NO
YES NO YES NO
/Source: COVID-19
ImpactAssessment
AssessmentSurvey (June-July
Survey 2020).
(June-July Figure
2020). 56: N=1,000;
Figure FigureFigure
53: N=1,000; 57: N=1,000.
54: N=1,000.
There are significantly higher proportion of individuals from Soghd oblast who reportedly experienced
psychological
FIGURE stress (86
55: AVERAGE respondents,
MONTHLY SALARY equivalent
FROM to 28.8 % of all 56:
FIGURE respondents
AVERAGEfrom Soghd SALARY
MONTHLY oblast) inFROM
FIGURE 55: AVERAGE
comparison with DRS MONTHLY SALARY FROM to 18.6 %
(43 respondents, FIGURE
of all56: AVERAGE MONTHLY SALARY FROM
CURRENT PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYER equivalent
BY AMOUNT CURRENT respondents from DRS)
PRIVATE SECTOR or GBAOBY
EMPLOYER (only 2
GENDER
CURRENT PRIVATE
respondents, SECTOR
equivalent EMPLOYER
to 6.5 % BY AMOUNT CURRENT
of all respondents from(INGBAO). PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYER BY GENDER
(IN CURRENT PRICES; IN TAJIK SOMONI). CURRENT PRICES; IN TAJIK SOMONI).
(IN CURRENT PRICES; IN TAJIK SOMONI). (IN CURRENT PRICES; IN TAJIK SOMONI).
40 1 400,0
At the
40 same time, psychological
34 stress and anxiety has led to other health complications among1 89
1 400,0 out of
1 258,2
(HHs)
34 258,2
respondents(HHs)
(Tajik
35
21935respondents, or nearly 9 % of all respondents who participated
1 200,0 in the survey. This is a relatively high
salary(Tajik
1 200,0
number
30
30 of respondents with psychological stress and anxiety, which merits
1 000,0
940,1 greater availability and access
940,1
to psychological counseling and other professional 1 000,0
support for HHs during this difficult period.
monthlysalary
25 822,6
25 822,6
somoni)
20 800,0
somoni)
20 800,0
Averagemonthly
Regarding
15 the relative gender 11
share in caring for the unwell HH members, the LFS 2016 provides some
600,0
15 11 follows. The highest average duration600,0
detailed
10
data,
9 summarised as
9 7 of time spent on this type of work was
7 400,0
40.710hours per week, equivalent to full-time job2by ILO standards.
400,0 This average weekly amount of work
Number
Average
5
was 5carried out solely by women who were engaged 2 in caring or providing gratuitous support to the HH
200,0
0 200,0
members
0 aged 18 years and above with a disability,
400 somoni 401-1,000 1,001-1,500 1,501-2,000 More than
dealing with problems associated with elderly persons
400 somoni 401-1,000 1,001-1,500or1,501-2,000 More than 0,0
who were or suffering
less from mental
somoni somoni physical
somoni illnesses
2,000 or other sick
0,0 persons. Men, by comparison, spent on
ALL (AVERAGE) WOMEN MEN
or less somoni somoni somoni 2,000
average half of that time for similar work withsomoni 20.4 hours per week.ALL (AVERAGE) WOMEN
somoni
MEN
Key findings:
1. The COVID-19 outbreak has had additionally negative effects on HH members with chronic illnesses
which require regular treatment or consultation.
2. More than 84 % of HHs (who have had at least one HH member with chronic illness) were unable to
receive timely medical treatment due to patient congestion or closure of a number of medical facilities
on quarantine and in a number of cases resulting in health complications.
3. More than 20 % of all HHs reported social distancing and self-isolation measures which they had
adopted, and which have subsequently prevented them from visiting medical facilities when required.
Instead, these HHs sought online/phone consultations and web-based resources which helped them
replace face-to-face consultation with a medical specialist at a medical facility.

4. Almost 13 % of all HHs reported that at least one member of their HH may have contracted pneumonia
(or symptoms which are commonly assumed to be characteristic of the coronavirus infection). These
findings should be interpreted with caution because respondents’ knowledge and understanding of
COVID-19 may differ by demographic groups or geographic locations.
5. Those HHs where at least one member reportedly contracted pneumonia (or COVID-19) had spent,
on average, 1,217 somoni in the preceding 30 days on medical treatment and consultation. This is
equivalent to more than 45 % of average monthly HH income, which further exacerbates an already
challenging financial situation that many HHs faced due to the COVID-19 outbreak.
6. Psychological stress and anxiety have also been mentioned and in need of addressing. Nearly 22 % of
respondents had experienced psychological stress and anxiety due to heightened risk of contracting
the coronavirus infection, concern for their relatives, loss of income (and paid work), increased
responsibility to care for children during school closure, and other reasons.
KEY FINDINGS FROM IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS
In addition to the general sample of 1,000 HHs, the survey has also carried out in-depth interviews (IDIs)
with 165 HHs, 100 women and girls, and 100 young people (aged 15–24). The three target groups are
overlapping. These interviews took on average 80 minutes each. The purpose of IDIs with selected HHs
was to better understand the underlying baseline conditions and other characteristics such as coping or
adaptation strategies, issues of access to resources or public services, employability, income generation
and consumption patterns, susceptibility to domestic or social violent, and personal outlook.
In general, the findings from the IDIs were found to be broadly consistent with the findings from the
survey’s general sample of 1,000 HHs. Therefore, this section presents only the main findings which differ
from the earlier narrative and may add value to the previous analysis.
JOBS AND EMPLOYMENT

IDIs were conducted with representatives of 165 HHs, of which 63 of them (38.2 %) had reportedly worked
in the preceding three months, predominantly for large enterprises (23 respondents), medium-sized
enterprises (13 respondents) and as individual entrepreneurs (12 respondents).
In Tajikistan, the workforce is generally less resilient to economic and financial disturbances, but some
respondents stated that they had more than one job, whereby formal sector employment is often
complemented by some non-registered (i.e. informal sector) job. Others had an informal sector job but did
not seek registered employment because they could not find jobs suitable to their skills, due to lacking the
required skills or a university degree. Some did not actively seek jobs in the formal economy as they did
not believe that there were any suitable ones available in the market. This is also important in the context
of frictional unemployment and inter-temporal changes in employment. This appears to be relatively low
in Tajikistan due to a mismatch in skills and level of education with the demand in the labor market. This
also contributes to the weak resilience and coping mechanisms because the loss of jobs due to COVID-19
cannot be replaced by other alternatives easily and therefore is likely to have a prolonged disruptive effect
on incomes and livelihoods. The table below summarizes the responses by the interviewees regarding
what they consider the government should do.
The most preferable measure proposed by the respondents was financial compensation to the
population, most likely in the form of Targeted Social Assistance (TSA) to most vulnerable and financially
disadvantaged persons. The second most widely shared measure expected from the government was to
control market prices for essential food and medical products
TABLE 20: MEASURES THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF TAJIKISTAN SHOULD
UNDERTAKE IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK
ON HOUSEHOLDS.
Number of affirmative responses

Financial compensation to the population 41
Control (and reduce) food prices 40
Did not specify 18
Material assistance to vulnerable HHs 17
Free supply of masks and disinfectants 13
Increased and timely payment of salaries 8
Other (15 different responses) 28
Notably, there were few respondents who received some sort of social assistance from the government.
For instance, only one out of 165 respondents reportedly received unemployment benefits; only two out
of 165 respondents received cash transfers; only two out of 165 respondents received child and family
benefits; and only 9 out of 165 HHs were eligible for compensation payments as vulnerable HHs.
Key findings:
1. The population expects the Government to take measures in order to secure monetary or material
compensation, especially in the form of TSA to the most vulnerable and financially disadvantaged
HHs. They are also concerned about recent increase in food prices which has negatively affected their
average monthly cost of living.
2. Those who have non-registered jobs are unlikely to transfer to formal sector employment due to
the lack of skills, education and lack of information. A relatively sizeable share of those who have
registered jobs are also likely to have a side job in the informal sector (34.9 %). Thus, the former group
are less resilient to withstand labor market shocks, while the latter have a greater number of coping
options which potentially reduce their vulnerability.
FINANCE AND CONSUMPTION

The average monthly salary of 63 respondents was equivalent to 940.1 somoni, but with significant wage
gaps between men and women. For instance, women earned, on average, 34.6 % less than men in the
reporting period. Women’s minimum pay was 200 somoni, which is two times lower than the minimum
monthly wage (equivalent to 400 somoni), while men’s minimum pay was 500 somoni. This disparity in
remuneration in the private sector is likely to have widened further in the presence of COVID-19.
As observed in the general sample survey, the COVID-10 outbreak has had a detrimental effect on
livelihoods, particularly due to unforeseen changes in income. For 63 respondents their earnings
comprised approximately 55.5 % of their HHs’ average monthly income. This is significant because it shows
the degree of dependency of other HH members on the respondents’ monthly earnings. Interestingly,
women’s earnings are higher than men’s as a share of their respective HHs’ average monthly income. This
could be explained by the fact that many women in the sample are in fact the heads of their HHs because
their spouses and, in some instances, other HH members are migrant labor who are outside the country,
which puts additional financial burden on women heads.

YES
YES NO
NO YES
YES NO
NO
/Source:
/Source: COVID-19
COVID-19 Impact
Impact Assessment
Assessment Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020). Figure
Figure 53:
53: N=1,000;
N=1,000; Figure
Figure 54:
54: N=1,000.
N=1,000.
FIGURE 58: AVERAGE MONTHLY SALARY FROM FIGURE 59: AVERAGE MONTHLY SALARY FROM
FIGURE
FIGURE 55:
55: AVERAGE
AVERAGE MONTHLY
MONTHLY SALARY
SALARY FROM
FROM FIGURE
FIGURE 56:
56: AVERAGE
AVERAGE MONTHLY
MONTHLY SALARY
SALARY FROM
FROM
CURRENT PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYER BY CURRENT PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYER BY
CURRENT
CURRENT PRIVATE
PRIVATE SECTOR
SECTOR EMPLOYER
EMPLOYER BYBY AMOUNT
AMOUNT CURRENT
CURRENT PRIVATE
PRIVATE SECTOR
SECTOR EMPLOYER
EMPLOYER BYBY GENDER
GENDER
AMOUNT (IN CURRENT PRICES; IN TAJIK SOMONI). GENDER (IN CURRENT PRICES; IN TAJIK SOMONI).
(IN
(IN CURRENT
CURRENT PRICES;
PRICES; IN
IN TAJIK
TAJIK SOMONI).
SOMONI). (IN
(IN CURRENT
CURRENT PRICES;
PRICES; IN
IN TAJIK
TAJIK SOMONI).
SOMONI).
40
40 11 400,0
400,0
34
34 11 258,2
258,2
respondents (HHs)
(HHs)
salary (Tajik
(Tajik
35
35 11 200,0
200,0
30
30
of respondents
940,1
940,1
11 000,0
000,0
monthly salary
25
25 822,6
822,6
somoni)
somoni)
20
20 800,0
800,0
Average monthly
15
15 1111 600,0
600,0
Number of
99
10
10 77
Number
400,0
400,0
Average
55 22
200,0
200,0
00
400
400somoni
somoni 401-1,000
401-1,000 1,001-1,500
1,001-1,500 1,501-2,000
1,501-2,000 More
Morethan
than 0,0
0,0
or
orless
less somoni
somoni somoni
somoni somoni
somoni 2,000
2,000 ALL
ALL(AVERAGE)
(AVERAGE) WOMEN
WOMEN MEN
MEN
somoni
somoni
/Source:
/Source:COVID-19
/Source: COVID-19
COVID-19Impact
Impact
Impact Assessment
Assessment
Assessment Survey
Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020).
2020). Figure
Figure
Figure 55:
55: N=63;
58: N=63; N=63;
FigureFigure
Figure 56:
56: N=63.
59: N=63. N=63.
A direct negative consequence of COVID-19 has been a 23.8 % decline in average monthly salary of
63 respondents, ranging from 19.8 % decline for women and 37.5 % decline for men. This difference is
attributed to pay differentials between men and women, i.e. women already earn lower wages which
means that there is a bottom threshold for how much further women’s monthly earnings can drop. Hence a
smaller proportionate loss of income by women compared to men. This can be partly explained by the fact
that there are significantly more men than women who are individual entrepreneurs and migrant labor, and
these two groups are among those who have been hit the hardest by the coronavirus pandemic.
FIGURE 60: AVERAGE MONTHLY SALARY (OF THE FIGURE 61: PERCENT OF AVERAGE MONTHLY
FIGURE
FIGURE
PAST 357:
57:AVERAGE
AVERAGE
MONTHS) ASMONTHLY
AMONTHLY SALARY
SALARY
SHARE OF (OF
(OFTHE
THE
RESPONDENTS’ FIGURE
FIGURE58:
SALARY 58:PERCENT
THATPERCENTOF
OFAVERAGE
AVERAGE
RESPONDENTS MONTHLY
HAVEMONTHLY
STOPPED
PAST
PAST33MONTHS)
MONTHS) AS
ASAASHARE
SHAREOF
OFRESPONDENTS'
RESPONDENTS'
AVERAGE MONTHLY HOUSEHOLD INCOME. SALARY
SALARY THAT
THAT RESPONDENTS
RESPONDENTS HAVE
HAVESTOPPED
RECEIVING AS A RESULT OF COVID-19STOPPED
OUTBREAK.
AVERAGE
AVERAGEMONTHLY
MONTHLYHOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLDINCOME.
INCOME. RECEIVING
RECEIVINGASASAARESULT
RESULTOF
OFCOVID-19
COVID-19OUTBREAK.
OUTBREAK.
7070 40
40 37,5
37,5
% of average monthly HH income
% of average monthly income (lost)

58,9
58,9
60
60 55,5
55,5 3535
46,2
46,2 30
30
50
50
23,8
23,8
25
25
40
40 19,8
19,8
2020
Page 16 of 35
Page 16 of 35
30
30
1515
20
20
1010
1010 55
00 00
MEN
MEN WOMEN
WOMEN AVERAGE
AVERAGE MEN
MEN WOMEN
WOMEN AVERAGE
AVERAGE
/Source:
/Source:COVID-19
COVID-19Impact
ImpactAssessment
AssessmentSurvey
Survey(June-July
(June-July2020).
2020).Figure
Figure57:
57:N=63;
N=63;Figure
Figure58:
58:N=63.
N=63.
The impact
FIGURE
FIGURE 59:IFof
59: the
IFYOUR
YOUR decline in incomes
HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD HAS isCHILDREN
HAS compounded
CHILDREN further
FIGUREfor60:
FIGURE 44 DO
60:out of
DOYOU 165
YOU respondents
BELIEVE
BELIEVE THAT(26.7 %)
THAT who
EDUCATIONAL
EDUCATIONAL
had ARE
WHO
WHO outstanding
AREAFFECTED
AFFECTED debtBYobligations.
BY TEMPORARY
TEMPORARY In particular,
SCHOOL44 respondents
SCHOOL statedIN
INSTITUTIONS
INSTITUTIONS that a sizeableSHOULD
INTAJIKISTAN
TAJIKISTAN share of their
SHOULD HHs’
RE-OPEN?
RE-OPEN?
monthly income
CLOSURE,
CLOSURE, WHAT
WHATIS isISYOUR
spent
YOURon loanCONCERN
MAIN
MAIN repayments,
CONCERN on average, 37 % of monthly HH income. The gender
ABOUT
ABOUT
disaggregated
THEIR
THEIR EDUCATION
EDUCATION figures
AND
AND stand at 29.4 % of average monthly income in men-headed HHs and 39 % of
DEVELOPMENT?
DEVELOPMENT?
average monthly income in women-headed HHs.
82
0%
0% 10%
10%20%
20%30%
30%40%
40%50%
50%60%
60%70%
70%80%
80%
Impact of90%
90%100%
100% on Lives, Livelihoods and Micro, Small and MSMEs in Tajikistan
COVID-19
Percent
Percentofofrespondents
respondents(HHs)
(HHs) 0%
0% 10%
10% 20%
20% 30%
30% 40%
40% 50%
50% 60%
60% 70%
70% 80%
80% 90%
90%100%
100%
Children
Childrenare
arenot
notattending
attendingschool
schooland
andnot
notlearning
learning Proportion
respondents(HHs)
(HHs)
Children
Childrencannot
cannotstudy
studyatathome
home(unsuitable
(unsuitableconditions)
conditions)
In hindsight, any proportion of income that women-headed HHs need to spend on anything other than basic
consumption would be problematic 45 % of women-headed HHs earn, on average, no more than 1,000
somoni per month which is barely sufficient to cover minimum cost of meals and utility bills. Even those
women-headed HHs which are relatively better off earn on average no more than 3,000 somoni per month.
Since HHs have on average 7 members, this amount barely covers their aggregate consumption needs.
Key findings:
1. Gender inequality is evident, which contributes to greater vulnerability of women in the workforce. On
average, women earn 34.6 % less than men in Tajikistan. This wage gap between men and women is
likely to have widened even further due to the COVID-19 outbreak.
2. Women contribute more to the HHs’ average monthly earnings than men (58.9 % by women compared
to 46.2 % by men), particularly if they are members of women-headed HHs. However, the decline in
men’s average monthly earnings has been much higher than that of women’s.
EDUCATION
The education level of Tajikistan’s workforce is a cause for concern. While the highest level of education
obtained by most respondents’ was general secondary education, there were also few respondents
who reportedly completed vocational education and training (17.6 % of all respondents, a total of 29 out
of 165 respondents, including 8 men and 21 women). A total of 23 out of 29 respondents had obtained
a certificate upon completion of professional skills-development courses in initial and secondary VET
institutions, as well as private enterprises and other entities.
IDIs showed that 67.3 % of HHs (111 out of 165 respondents) were affected by the closure of educational
institutions starting from the end of April 2020. For women-headed HHs, this proportion rises to 84.2 % (out
of 76 women-headed HHs that have children below 18 years). Many HHs have also had to adjust the HH
members’ work schedule and costs to accommodate school and pre-school age children at home in order
to provide them with school meals and ensure continued learning during the temporary closures.184
TABLE 21: HOUSEHOLDS’ COPING OPTIONS DURING THE CLOSURE OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.
1st 2nd
TOTAL
option option
Voluntarily undertake assignments without teacher supervision 39 5 44
Undertake assignments as instructed by teacher(s) 34 8 42
Maintain communication with teacher(s) remotely 25 4 29
Neither studying nor working (engaged in HH activities) 21 8 29
Obtained learning materials to study independently 10 11 21
Awaiting further instruction from educational institution 5 5 10
Enrolled (or plan to enroll) in a distance learning course 6 3 9
No one studies in HH (i.e. no children below 18 years) 25 0 25
TOTAL: 165 44 –
184
In 84.6 % of surveyed HHs, parents are the primary caretakers of their children (namely, in 140 HHs which have children below 18
years of age).

Temporary closure of educational institutions has resulted in HHs exploring alternative ways of ensuring
continued education and learning for their children. In 31.4 % of 140 HHs which had children below 18 years,
children voluntarily undertook assignments without teachers’ supervision but under their primary carers
(parents or grandparents). This, however, does not guarantee the required standards of education could be
provided by non-professional teaching or supervision. Besides, the broader aspects of learning at schools
would be missing such as play-time, learning in groups, learning to share and participate in group activities,
amongst other things. The HHs are aware of the disruptive effect that temporary closures may have on
early childhood development and learning. In addition, 42 HHs (30 % of HHs with children) reported that
their children had undertaken assignments as instructed by their teachers, and 29 HHs highlighted that
they (parents and children) maintained remote communication with teachers. Another 20.7 % of HHs
mentioned that they had the means and sources to obtain some learning materials which had enabled their
children to continue to study independently. On the other
FIGURE 57: AVERAGE MONTHLY SALARY (OF THE
hand, a further 29 HHs said that the temporary
FIGURE 58: PERCENT OF AVERAGE MONTHLY
closures had led to their children increasing
PAST 3 MONTHS) AS A SHARE OF RESPONDENTS' their time dedicated
SALARY THATto housework and other
RESPONDENTS HAVE HH related
STOPPED
activities, including working
AVERAGE MONTHLY HOUSEHOLD INCOME.on HH-owned land plots. To a certain degree, these variations may reflect
RECEIVING AS A RESULT OF COVID-19 OUTBREAK.
differences in income levels of the HHs concerned.
70 40 37,5

58,9
Importantly,
60 9 HHs (out of 140 HHs which have55,5 children below
35 18 years) mentioned that since the
temporary closure
46,2 of educational institutions their children30
had been looking for paid jobs (temporary,
50
part-time or full-time jobs), and another 16 HHs stated that 25their children already had some paid jobs
23,8 in
their 40
HHs (mostly, dehkan farms or producers of agricultural crops or livestock breeders).
19,8 This shows that
17.9 %30of out-of-school children entered the labor market to20earn a living and support the livelihood of their
respective HHs. While the age of these children could not be 15 determined, it is evident that the need to
20 the livelihood of HHs from an early age exacerbates school dropouts, particularly among girls.
support 10
10 5
More than 50 % of HHs who had school-age children (73 out of 140 HHs) reported an additional cost of
0 0
caretaking responsibilities
MEN
for children not
WOMEN
attending schools.
AVERAGE
This included
MEN
but not limited to the
WOMEN
need
AVERAGE
to secure hot meals, provide for means of communication for children, and procure learning materials for
/Source: COVID-19
children Impact
so that they doAssessment Surveythe
not fall behind (June-July 2020). Figure 57: N=63; Figure 58: N=63.
curriculum.
FIGURE 62: IF
FIGURE 59: IF YOUR
YOURHOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLDHASHASCHILDREN
CHILDREN FIGURE
FIGURE 60:63:
DODOYOU YOU BELIEVE
BELIEVE THAT
THAT EDUCATIONAL
WHO AFFECTEDBY
WHO ARE AFFECTED BYTEMPORARY
TEMPORARYSCHOOL
SCHOOL EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS INSTITUTIONS
IN TAJIKISTAN IN TAJIKISTAN
SHOULD RE-OPEN?
CLOSURE, WHAT IS
CLOSURE, WHAT IS YOUR
YOURMAIN
MAINCONCERN
CONCERNABOUT
ABOUT SHOULD RE-OPEN?
THEIR
THEIR EDUCATION
EDUCATION AND ANDDEVELOPMENT?
DEVELOPMENT?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of respondents (HHs) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Children are not attending school and not learning Proportion of respondents (HHs)
Children cannot study at home (unsuitable conditions)
Children cannot study at home (financial difficulties) Only kingergartens and schools should reopen
Children will fall behind their peers at school Only preschool institutions should reopen
Children cannot study at home (have to help at home) Educational institutions should not reopen
Children cannot study at home (no contact with school) Educational institutions should reopen
Children are not communicating with their peers Only lyceums, colleges and universities should reopen
Children risk being prone to petty crime and violence Only universities should reopen
Children risk being radicalized or religiously influenced Don't know
Despite the risk of contracting the coronavirus infection, 33 % of all HHs believed that kindergartens and
schools should reopen. Another 26.1 % believed that only the pre-school institutions should reopen. This
is directly related to parents’ (and grandparents’) concerns about the disruption in children’s learning and
development, caused by the temporary closure of educational institutions. There is also significant concern
over education staff’s wellbeing and health, which translated into 58 % of the 165 respondents believing
that education staff should be put on paid leave for the duration of the temporary closure. Only 27.3 % of
respondents argued in favor of continuing to work as usual without needing to take additional precautions
which would affect employment.
Key findings:
1. Women-headed HHs were particularly concerned about the temporary closure of educational
institutions in Tajikistan. They have fewer coping strategies and their average monthly earnings are
relatively low, and yet they are forced to adapt their working schedules or agree on flexible working
arrangements with their employers in order to increase supervision and caring responsibilities at home.
2. 20 % of HHs who have children below 18 years reported that their children did not study at all. Instead,
these children either looked out for paid work or increased their HH responsibilities.
3. In total, more than half of all HHs were keen for kindergartens and/or schools to reopen as soon
as possible. This is because they are concerned about: (i) their children’s disrupted learning and
development over a prolonged period of time, and (ii) the cost implication which is becoming
increasingly hard to hear in the context of COVID-19 risks and HHs’ rising spending needs.
4. In some cases, the demand for child labor within or outside the HHs has increased due to school
closures and falling incomes of the HHs.
HEALTH
HH members with chronic illness are particularly exposed to health risks. In addition to findings from
the general sample of 1,000 HHs, the IDIs showed that people with chronic illness were unable to carry
out their usual activities, on average, for approximately 14.6 days (in the preceding 30 days).185 This is a
significant impediment, which hamstrings employability and likelihood of welfare improvement (even in the
absence of the COVID-19 outbreak).
Chronic illness, disability186 and other medical condition has a cost implication, which deepens financial
disadvantage of such HHs. In total, 125 out of 165 HHs (75.8 %) stated that none of their members were
covered by health insurance. Only 22 HHs were covered by health insurance through their workplace and
another 12 HHs are covered by health insurance through private insurance firms. This is another risk factor
as a result of: (i) relatively underdeveloped insurance sector, and (ii) low demand for insurance services of
any kind, particularly among HHs in rural areas.
About 20 % of respondents adopted self-isolation measures in response to the COVID-19 outbreak,
while another 15 % had reported significant stress and anxiety associated with the risk of contracting the
coronavirus infection. This highlights the importance of availability of required professional psychological
support for vulnerable individuals, and the importance of awareness raising efforts by the Government in
order to increase understanding of the risks and encourage the population to become more responsible
for their and their HH members’ wellbeing.
It is impossible to determine whether domestic violence has been the result of the COVID-19 outbreak
or has heightened a pre-existing situation due to self-isolation at home, schools closure, heightened
anxiety and frustration due to loss of income, amongst other reasons. A total of 16.4 % of HHs (27 out of
165) reported that they had observed domestic violence in their neighborhood in the preceding 30 days.
Regardless of whether COVID-19 was the trigger point, the proportion of HHs reporting domestic violence
incidents is another cause for concern.
On average, 15.5 days for women and 10.9 days for men (in the past 30 days).
185
186
E.g. amputated limbs, delayed development, visual impairment, mental disability, and others.

FIGURE
FIGURE 64:
FIGURE61:
61: HOW
HOW
HOW HAS
HAS
HAS YOUR
YOUR
YOUR BEHAVIOR
BEHAVIOR
BEHAVIOR OROR
OR FIGURE 65: IF
62:
FIGURE 62: IF YOU
IF YOUHAVE
YOU HAVEOBSERVED
HAVE OBSERVEDAN
OBSERVED ANINCREASE
AN INCREASE
INCREASE
ATTITUDE
ATTITUDE CHANGE
ATTITUDECHANGE ASAA
CHANGEAS
AS ARESULT
RESULTOF
RESULT OFTHE
OF THECOVID-
THE COVID- IN
IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCESINCE
VIOLENCE
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SINCETHE
SINCE THECOVID-19
THE COVID-19
COVID-19
19COVID-19 OUTBREAK?
19OUTBREAK?
OUTBREAK? OUTBREAK, HOW DID
OUTBREAK, HOW DID YOU FINDOUT
YOU FIND
FIND OUTABOUT
OUT ABOUTIT?
ABOUT IT?
IT?
100%
90%
(HHs)
Didnot
Did notobserve
observe
80%
70%
0%
0% 10%
10%20%
20%30%
30%40%
40%50%
50%60%
60% 70%
70% 80%
80% 90%
90%100%
100% Fromother
From other
60%
Proportion
respondents(HHs)
(HHs) sources
sources
50%
Nothingchanged
Nothing changed From
Fromthe
thevictim
victim
Adoptedself-isolation
self-isolationmeasures
measures 40%
Adopted
Proportion
Becamestressed
Became stressedand andanxious
anxious 30%
Respectedsocial
Respected socialdistancing
distancingmeasures
measures From
Fromneighbors
neighbors
Becamemore
Became moreattentive
attentiveto
tosafety
safety 20%
Carefullyobserved
Carefully observedpersonal
personalhygiene
hygiene 10%
10%
Other
Other 0%
0%
/Source:
/Source: COVID-19
/Source:COVID-19 ImpactAssessment
COVID-19Impact
Impact Assessment
Assessment Survey
Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020).
(June-July Figure
Figure
2020). 61:
61: N=165;
64: N=165;
Figure Figure
Figure
N=165; 62:
62:N=165.
65: N=165.
Figure N=165.
Key findings:

1. Health insurance generally is neither popular nor mandatory among the population. This sentiment
extends to both public and private insurance. Only 24.2 % of all respondents reported having some
health insurance. This poses additional financial and health risks for HHs which have member(s) with
chronic illness or disability or other medical condition.
2. The need for professional psychological support is evident, particularly in the presence of a large
proportion of financially disadvantaged and vulnerable HHs. About 15 % of HHs reported stress
and anxiety as a direct consequence of the COVID-19 outbreak, which is likely to have remained
unattended to, particularly in urban areas.
3. More than 16 % of HHs reported domestic violence at the time of conducting the survey, which may or
may not be a direct consequence of the COVID-19 outbreak. Regardless, the share of HHs reporting
domestic violence is relatively high. Due the likelihood of some HHs choosing not to trust interviewers
with such information via phone interviews, the true number of cases of domestic violence in the
reporting period may be higher than what has been reported.
4. Due to the sensitivity of the question and responding via phone interviews, the true number of cases of
domestic violence in the reporting period may be higher than what has been reported.
Page 18 of 35
Page 18 of 35
Impact of COVID-19
on MSMEs

KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF SURVEYED ENTREPRENEURS
In total, the sample includes 295 micro enterprises (42.1 %), 347 small-sized enterprises (49.6 %), and 58
medium-sized enterprises (8.3 %), with sufficient representation in all geographic locations in Tajikistan.
The survey sample of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) also consists of individual
entrepreneurs and dehkan farmers. For simplicity and ease of reference, this broad group is referred to as
‘MSMEs’ throughout the assessment report. The sample distribution is consistent with the original sampling
plan, with variations not exceeding the conventional statistical discrepancy level (of 5 %).
If migrant labor is taken out of the equation, MSMEs in Tajikistan drive job creation. On average, MSMEs
employ 13.2 workers (3.4 workers in micro enterprises compared to 14.5 workers in small-sized enterprises
and 55.1 workers in medium-sized enterprises). Due to the spread of MSMEs across geographic locations
(based on government registry of legal commercial entities and individual entrepreneurs in Tajikistan), the
sample is geographically spread out as follows: 109 MSMEs in the districts of republican subordination
(15.6 % of the sample), 148 MSMEs in Dushanbe (21.1 %), 14 MSMEs in GBAO (2 %), 217 MSMEs in Khatlon
oblast (31 %), and 212 MSMEs in Soghd oblast (30.3 %).
The predominance of micro- and small-sized enterprises and the low average number of employees and
limited scales of production have direct implications on cost-efficiency of investments. The “missing middle”
of MSMEs in Tajikistan often deters growth transmission and hampers growth prospects. The economy
is dominated by individual entrepreneurs, as well as a few large companies and state-owned enterprises
(SOEs) which effectively crowd out smaller firms. In addition, domination of SOEs in many key industries
skews MSMEs towards smaller-scale operations, due to a business environment that becomes markedly
harsher as businesses get bigger. As a result of these disincentives for growth, many businesses remain
small and do not realize benefits from economies of scale. The sample composition confirms this general
observation about MSMEs in Tajikistan.
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE 63:
63: COMPOSITION
66: COMPOSITION
COMPOSITION OF
OF MSMEs
OF BY
MSMEs
MSMEs BY BY FIGURE
FIGURE64:
67: COMPOSITION
COMPOSITION OFOF
MSMEs
OF MSMEs
MSMEs BYBY
BY GEOGRAPHIC
ECONOMIC
ECONOMIC
ECONOMIC SECTOR
SECTOR
SECTOR IN TAJIKISTAN.
IN TAJIKISTAN.
IN TAJIKISTAN. GEOGRAPHIC
LOCATION
GEOGRAPHICANDLOCATION
SIZE OF AND
LOCATIONOF SIZE OF
ENTERPRISE
AND ENTERPRISE
IN IN IN
TAJIKISTAN.
SIZEBYOF ENTERPRISE
FIGURE 63: COMPOSITION OF MSMEs BY FIGURE 64: COMPOSITION MSMEs
ECONOMIC SECTOR IN TAJIKISTAN.
TAJIKISTAN.
TAJIKISTAN.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION AND SIZE OF ENTERPRISE IN
TAJIKISTAN.
250
250
Number of respondents (MSMEs)
225
(MSMEs)
250
225
200
respondents (MSMEs)
225
200
70; Agriculture
70; Agriculture 175
200
175
10% 70; Agriculture
10% 150 175
150
ofrespondents
10% 125150
Light industry 125
210; 30% LightLight
industry
industry 100 125
210; 30%
210; 30% 100
100
75
75
75
Personal
Personal
50
50
314; 45% Personal
services
50
2525
Numberof
314; 45% 314; 45% 106; 15% services

services 025
Number
106; 15% 0
106; 15% Tourism andand
Tourism 0 DRS
DRS Dushanbe GBAO Khatlon
Dushanbe GBAO Khatlon SoghdSoghd
Tourism
hospitalityand
hospitality DRS Dushanbe GBAOoblastKhatlon
oblast Soghd
oblast
oblast
hospitality oblast oblast
Microenterprises
Micro enterprises Small enterprises
Small enterprises
Medium enterprises
Micro Small enterprises
Medium enterprises
enterprises
Medium enterprises
/Source:COVID-19
ImpactAssessment
Assessment Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020). Figure
Figure 63:
66: N=700;
N=700; Figure
Figure 67:
64: N=700.
N=700.
FIGURE 65: COMPOSITION OF MSMEs BY TYPE OF FIGURE 66: COMPOSITION OF MSMEs BY

88
FIGURE ENTREPRENEURSHIP
65: COMPOSITION AND
OF MSMEs BY TYPE
SIZE.Impact OF
of COVID-19 FIGURE
on Lives,66: COMPOSITION
Livelihoods
GEOGRAPHIC OF
and Micro,
LOCATION AND MSMEs
Small
SIZE BYMSMEs in Tajikistan
OF and
ENTERPRISE.
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
400 AND OF
SIZE.MSMEs BY TYPE OF FIGURE
GEOGRAPHIC
350
66: COMPOSITION
LOCATION AND OF MSMEs
SIZE OF BY
ENTERPRISE.
ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND SIZE. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION AND SIZE OF ENTERPRISE.
spondents
spondents
350 300
400 350
300 250
ents
ents
350
400 250 350
300
200
Es)
Es)
ts
ts
10%
10% 150
150
of respondent
respondent
Light
Lightindustry
industry 125
125
210;
210;30%
30% 100
100
75
75
Personal
Personal 50
50
Number of
314;
314;45%
45% services
services 25
25
Number
106;
106;15%
15% 00
The sample contains significantly moreTourism
Tourism and
MSMEs and in the following top DRS
DRS Dushanbe
Dushanbe GBAO
10 sub-sectors: GBAO
(i) Khatlon
KhatlonandSoghd
restaurants Soghd
hospitality
hospitality oblast
oblast oblast
oblast
cafeterias (170 MSMEs or 24.3 %), (ii) processing of agricultural products (83 MSMEs or 11.9 %), (iii) beauty
industry (74 MSMEs or 10.6 %), (iv) production of crops (61 MSMEs or 8.7 %),
Micro
Micro (v) textiles and
enterprises
enterprises clothing
Small
Small (60
enterprises
enterprises
MSMEs or 8.6 %), (vi) horticulture (46 MSMEs or 6.6 %), (vii) accommodation
Medium and lodging (31 MSMEs or
Mediumenterprises
enterprises
4.4 %), (viii) home products (24 MSMEs or 3.4 %), (ix) home improvement services (21 MSMEs or 3 %), and (x)
/Source:
/Source:
booking COVID-19
COVID-19 Impact
servicesImpactAssessment
Assessment
and event Survey
Survey(June-July
management (June-July
services 2020).
2020).
(bothFigure
Figure63:
63:
tied at 19N=700;
N=700;
MSMEs Figure
Figure 64:
64:N=700.
or 2.7 % N=700.
of the total sample).
FIGURE 68: COMPOSITION OF MSMEs BY FIGURE 69: COMPOSITION OF MSMEs BY

FIGURE
FIGURE65:
65:COMPOSITION
COMPOSITIONOF
OFMSMEs
MSMEsBY
BYTYPE
TYPEOF
OF FIGURE
FIGURE66:
66:COMPOSITION
COMPOSITIONOF
OFMSMEs
MSMEsBYBY
TYPE OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND SIZE. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION AND SIZE OF ENTERPRISE.
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
ENTREPRENEURSHIPAND
ANDSIZE.
SIZE. GEOGRAPHIC
GEOGRAPHICLOCATION
LOCATIONAND
ANDSIZE
SIZEOF
OFENTERPRISE.
ENTERPRISE.
400
400 350
350
of respondents
respondents
of respondents
respondents
350
350 300
300
300
300 250
250
250
250 200
200
(MSMEs)
(MSMEs)
(MSMEs)
(MSMEs)
200
200
150
150
150
150
Number of
Number of
100
100
100
100
Number
Number
50
50 50
50
00 00
Dehkan
Dehkanfarm
farm Individual
Individual Private
Privateenterprise
enterprise Agriculture
Agriculture Light
Light Personal
Personal Tourism
Tourismand
and
entrepreneur
entrepreneur industry
industry services
services hospitality
hospitality
Micro
Microenterprises
enterprises Small
Smallenterprises
enterprises Micro
Microenterprises
enterprises Small
Smallenterprises
enterprises
Medium
Mediumenterprises
enterprises Medium
Mediumenterprises
enterprises
/Source:
/Source:
/Source: COVID-19
COVID-19Impact
COVID-19 Impact
ImpactAssessment
Assessment
Assessment Survey
Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020).
2020). Figure
Figure
Figure 65:
65:N=700;
68: N=700;N=700;
FigureFigure
Figure
69: 66:
66:N=700.
N=700. N=700.
The private sector landscape in Tajikistan is dominated by individual entrepreneurs and small-scale
FIGURE
FIGURE 67:
67:COMPOSITION
enterprises. COMPOSITION
The sample is OFOFMSMEs
MSMEswith
consistent BY FIGURE
BY this landscapeFIGURE 68:
68:COMPOSITION
COMPOSITION
and includes OF
OF
353 individual MSMEs
MSMEsBYBY
entrepreneurs
ECONOMIC
ECONOMIC SECTOR
SECTOR AND
AND TYPE
TYPEOF
OF ECONOMIC
ECONOMIC SECTOR
SECTOR AND
AND GENDER
GENDER OF
OF
(50.4 % of the sample), 185 dehkan farmers (26.4 %), and 162 private-sector legal commercial enterprises
ENTREPRENEURS.
ENTREPRENEURS. RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT.
(23.1 %). In turn, services are dominated by individual entrepreneurs (working under a patent or a certificate)
and 350
micro
350 enterprises, while light industry has the largest share
350of medium-sized enterprises compared to
350
respondents (MSMEs)
(MSMEs)
any other
300 economic sector covered in the survey.
of respondents
respondents
300 300
300
250
250
250
250
200
200
Of 210 MSMEs in agriculture, 185 were dehkan farmers which is equivalent to 88.1 % of all sample MSMEs
(MSMEs)
(MSMEs)
150
150 200
200
of respondents
in agriculture.
100
100 Similarly, 84.7 % of all MSMEs in personal services 150
150
were individual entrepreneurs (namely,
Number of
266 out50 of 314 MSMEs). About 2/3 of all individual entrepreneurs reportedly operated under a patent, while
50
Number
100
100
the remaining
00 1/3 operated under a certificate.187 In Tajikistan, 75.3 % of all individual entrepreneurs work
Agriculture
Agriculture Light
Lightindustry
industry1, Personal
Personalmost
Tourism
Tourism 5050
under a patent (as of January 2020), of and
and
whom are engaged in the services sector and retail trade.
Number of
services
hospitality 00
Both categories of individual entrepreneurs have been negatively affected by the COVID-19 outbreak.
Number
Worker
Workercontracted
contractedby byaaregistered
registeredenterprise
enterprise Agriculture
Agriculture Light
Lightindustry
industry Personal
Personal Tourism
Tourismand
and
IndividualWorker
entrepreneurs
Worker ininaaregisteredoperating
registered dehkan
dehkanfarm under a patent had their fixed monthly fees raised byservices
farm 8 % in accordance
hospitality
with the degree
Dehkan of
Dehkanfarmer the Ministry of Finance (#11) and the Tax Committee (#1-f) dated 23 January 2020. In
farmer
Individual
Individualentrepreneur
entrepreneur(patent)
(patent) Men
Men WomenWomen
effect, thisIndividual
nominal
Individual increase(certificate)
entrepreneur
entrepreneur of fixed monthly patent fees represented adjustment for inflation.188 Individual
(certificate)
entrepreneurs operating under a certificate pay income taxes as a percentage of monthly income which,
/Source:
/Source:COVID-19
COVID-19Impact
ImpactAssessment
AssessmentSurvey
Survey(June-July
(June-July2020).
2020).Figure
Figure67:
67:N=700;
N=700;Figure
Figure68:
68:N=700.
N=700.
for many entrepreneurs, have fallen by a significant margin.
In addition, 152 enterprises were limited liability companies (LLCs), while 13 out of 185 dehkan farms in the
sample are non-registered. A dehkan farmer is allowed to remain non-registered in line with Article 3 of the
Law of the Republic of Tajikistan “On dehkan farmers” provided that its size does not exceed 50 workers
(#1289 dated 15 March 2016).189 There were onlyPage 19 of 35
Page 19 of 35
9 joint stock companies (JSCs) in the sample.

While individual entrepreneurs who work under a certificate only pay a one-time fee (at the time of registration) and monthly taxes,
187
those that work under a patent are required to make fixed monthly payments which cover income tax and social payments.
188
Monthly patent fees range from 61 somoni (housekeeping) to 800 somoni (transport of cargo weighing more than 20 tons) for 50
different patents corresponding to different types of commercial activities in retail trade, transportation, and services.
189
Non-registered dehkan farmers are regarded as individual entrepreneurs.
Impact of COVID-19 on MSMEs 89

Micro enterprises Small enterprises Micro enterprises Small enterprises
Micro enterprises Small enterprises Micro enterprises Small enterprises
Medium enterprises Medium enterprises
Medium enterprises Medium enterprises
/Source:COVID-19
Impact Assessment
Assessment Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020). Figure
Figure 65:
65: N=700;
N=700; Figure
Figure 66:
66: N=700.
N=700.
FIGURE67:
COMPOSITION
OFOF MSMEs
MSMEs BY FIGURE
FIGURE 71:
68: COMPOSITION OF MSMEs BY
FIGURE
BY 67: COMPOSITION
ECONOMIC SECTOR OF
AND MSMEs
TYPE BY FIGURE
BY 68: COMPOSITION
ECONOMICCOMPOSITION
SECTOR
OF MSMEs
OFGENDER
AND MSMEs BY
ECONOMIC
ECONOMIC SECTOR AND TYPE OF
SECTOR AND TYPE OF ECONOMIC SECTOR
ECONOMIC SECTOR AND
AND GENDER
GENDER OF
OF
OF ENTREPRENEURS.
ENTREPRENEURS. OF RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT.
ENTREPRENEURS. RESPONDENT.
350 350
350 350
(MSMEs)
respondents
300 300
respondents(MSMEs)
300 300
250
250 250
200 250
200
(MSMEs)
150 200
(MSMEs)
150 200
ofofrespondents
100 150
100 150
50
50 100
Number
0 100
0 50
Agriculture Light industry Personal Tourism and
Agriculture Light industry Personal 50
services Tourism and
hospitality 0
Number
services hospitality 0
Number
Worker contracted by a registered enterprise Agriculture Light industry

Personal Tourism and
Worker
Workercontracted by adehkan
in a registered registered
farmenterprise Agriculture Light industryPersonal
services Tourism and
hospitality
Worker
Dehkaninfarmer
a registered dehkan farm services hospitality
Dehkan farmer
Individual entrepreneur (patent) Men Women
Individual
Individual entrepreneur
entrepreneur (patent)
(certificate) Men Women
Individual entrepreneur (certificate)
/Source:COVID-19
Impact Assessment
AssessmentSurvey
Survey(June-July 2020).
(June-July Figure
2020). 70: N=700;
Figure Figure
67: N=700; 71: N=700.
Figure 68: N=700.
The age and gender of respondents was also sufficiently balanced. The sample includes 52 % men and
48 % women, whereas the average age of respondents was 44.6 years. The survey team carried out
interviews with men and women in decision-making positions in their respective enterprises. For instance,
there were 379 respondents (out of 700) who were Page 19 of 35
co-owners or shareholders of their enterprise, 232
Page 19 of 35
respondents who were executive directors or chief executive officers, and 30 respondents who were chief
operations officers or chief finance officers. This group comprised 91.6 % of respondents in the sample.
TABLE 22: COMPOSITION OF THE WORKFORCE AMONG SURVEYED MSMEs.
Light Personal Tourism and

Agriculture
industry services hospitality
Individual entrepreneur (certificate) 18 39 137 40

Individual entrepreneur (patent) 0 42 151 23
Dehkan farmer 136 0 7 0
Worker in a registered dehkan farm 37 0 0 0
Worker contracted by a registered enterprise 6 5 10 7
Self-employed (unregistered) 10 7 8 0
Paid worker in own HH 0 6 1 0
Unpaid worker in own HH 0 4 0 0
Worker in a non-registered dehkan farm 3 0 0 0
Worker w/o contract in a registered enterprise 0 2 0 0
Unpaid worker in another HH 0 1 0 0
TOTAL: 210 106 314 70
More than 50 % of MSMEs (356 out of 700) reported operating in urban areas, while 3.7 % stated that they
operated in both urban and rural areas. It is logical that MSMEs sell their products or services mainly in
urban areas because of the larger market and the customers’ higher purchasing power relative to rural
areas. The physical location of MSMEs and the geographic location of their economic activity were found
to be similar. Among 700 MSMEs in the sample, some were founded as recently as 2020 (e.g. individual
entrepreneurs) while a few others, mostly medium-sized enterprises, were established as far back as the
1930’s and 1950’s.
Understandably, phone interviews constrained the survey team’s ability to obtain a more accurate number
of formal sector and informal sector employment. Notwithstanding this limitation, 6 % of all surveyed
MSMEs reported employing workers informally (i.e. on a non-registered basis). Overall, MSMEs reported
that at the time of conducting the survey they employed 9,204 workers, of which 26.9 % were in fact non-
registered jobs (including casual employment and unpaid work in households). This finding is generally
consistent with previous assessments, which showed that the proportion of all wage employees in the
informal sector increased from 28 % to 39 % between 2007 and 2013 (World Bank, 2017).190 The survey
further found that, on average, women occupy the majority of part-time and temporary jobs. For instance,
73.6 % of part-time casual jobs and 69.4 % of temporary/hourly casual jobs are occupied by women.
Informal employment is especially prevalent in agriculture and services.
FIGURE69:
COMPOSITIONOF WORKFORCEIN THE FIGURE
OFWORKFORCE 73:
FIGURE70: PROPORTION
70:PROPORTION OF
PROPORTIONOF MSMEs IN
OFMSMEs
MSMEs IN EACH
EACH
FIGURE
IN 69: COMPOSITION
THE SURVEYED MSMEs OF
BY WORKFORCE
GENDER FIGURE
IN THE ECONOMIC SECTOR THAT EMPLOY IN EACH
WORKERS
SURVEYED MSMEs BY GENDER AND
SURVEYED MSMEs BY GENDER AND ECONOMIC SECTOR THAT EMPLOY WORKERS
ECONOMIC SECTOR THAT EMPLOY WORKERS
AND EMPLOYMENT.
EMPLOYMENT. FROM THE
FROMTHE SELECTED
THESELECTED VULNERABLE
SELECTEDVULNERABLE GROUPS.
VULNERABLEGROUPS.
GROUPS.
EMPLOYMENT. FROM
66000 100,0
100,0
000
(MSMEs)
respondents(MSMEs)
Number of workers in surveyed MSMEs
55500 Other
500 Other
55000 75,0
75,0
000
44500
500 Family members
of respondents
Family members
44000 (unpaid)
(unpaid) 50,0
50,0
000
33500
500 Temporary/Hourly
Temporary/Hourly
(casual) 25,0
25,0
33000
000
% of
22500
500 Temporary/Hourly
Temporary/Hourly
%
(contractual)
(contractual) 0,0
0,0
22000
000
Agriculture Light
Agriculture Lightindustry
industry Personal
Personal Tourism
Tourism
andand
1 1500
500 Part-time (casual)
(casual) services hospitality
1 1000
000
Youth
Youth(aged
(aged15-24)
15-24) Women
Women and girls
and (15(15
girls and above)
and above)
500
500 Part-time
Retirees
Retirees(60
(60and
andabove)
above) Returning
Returningmigrant
migrant labor
labor
00 (contractual)
(contractual)
Relative
Relativeofofmigrant
migrantlabor
labor People
Peoplewith disabilities
with disabilities
Men
Men Women
Women
/Source:COVID-19
/Source:
COVID-19 Impact
Impact Assessment
Assessment
Assessment Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020).
(June-July Figure
Figure
2020). 69:
69:N=700;
72: N=700;
Figure Figure
Figure
N=700; 70:
70:N=700.
73: N=700.
Figure N=700.
FIGURE71:
FIGURE 71:HAS
HASTHE
THE COVID-19
COVID-19 OUTBREAK
OUTBREAK FIGURE
FIGURE72:
72:HAS
HASTHE
THECOVID-19
COVID-19OUTBREAK
OUTBREAK
OPERATIONAL ASPECTS
AFFECTEDYOUR
AFFECTED YOUR FIRM'S
FIRM'S OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS IN
IN ANY
ANY AFFECTED
AFFECTEDYOUR
YOURFIRM'S
FIRM'SOPERATIONS
OPERATIONSININANY
ANYWAY?
WAY?
WAY?(BY
WAY? (BYECONOMIC
ECONOMIC SECTORS)
SECTORS) (BY
(BYSIZE
SIZEOF
OFENTERPRISE)
ENTERPRISE)
IMPACT
Tourism and ON OPERATIONS AND VIABILITY
Tourismand Medium
Medium
hospitality
hospitality enterprises
enterprises
Personal
According
Personal to the survey,
services
63.1 % of MSMEs felt the negativeSmall effect of the COVID-19 outbreak on their
services Small
firm’s operations. This is equivalent to 442 out of 700 enterprises.
enterprises
enterprises
Border closures and travel restrictions
have had a detrimental effect on operations of enterprises in the tourism and hospitality sector, such as
Light industry
Light industry Micro
hotels, guest houses, tour operators (particularly those enterprises that are servicing foreign tourists into Tajikistan),
Micro
Agriculture enterprises
and others. Individual entrepreneurs and enterprises in the services sector were also significantly
Agriculture
affected, with 0%
many 20%
hairdressers,
40% 60%
beauty
80%
salons,
100%
restaurants and0% cafeterias needing
0%
50% to temporarily100%
50% close
100%
0% 20%
their operations Proportion 40%
due to restrictions60% 80%
imposed 100%
by the Government of the Republic
Proportion of of Tajikistan.
respondents These
(MSMEs)
of respondents (MSMEs) Proportion of respondents (MSMEs)
immediate effects are in of
Proportion fact very similar
respondents to majority of countries across the world. The difference,
(MSMEs)
however, would be on
Highly negative impact
the depth and duration
Negative impact
of these effects, and the ultimate resilience
of businesses
Negative impact
towards No full
Highly or partial
negative
impact
impactrecovery.Negative impact
Positive impact
No impact
Negative impact
Positive impact
No impact Positive impact No impact Positive impact
190
Strokova,
/Source: V. andImpact
COVID-19 Ajwad,Assessment
M. 2017. JobsSurvey
Diagnostic Tajikistan:
(June-July Strategic
2020). Framework
Figure Jobs. World
forFigure
71: N=700; Bank. Washington, DC, p.33.
72: N=700.

In general, there is an above average representation of MSMEs in economic sectors particularly affected
by the COVID-19 outbreak, which include tourism and hospitality, construction, wholesale and retail trade,
FIGURE
FIGURE 69:
transport69:COMPOSITION
COMPOSITION
(including OF
OFWORKFORCE
WORKFORCE
air transport), agriculture,IN
INTHE
THE
and FIGURE
FIGURE
personal 70:
70:PROPORTION
servicesPROPORTION
(e.g. beauty OF
OFMSMEs
MSMEs
industry). IN
INEACH
Thus,EACH
it was not
SURVEYED
SURVEYED MSMEs
MSMEs BY
BY GENDER
GENDER AND
AND ECONOMIC
ECONOMIC SECTOR
SECTOR THAT
THAT EMPLOY
EMPLOY WORKERS
WORKERS
surprising that 63.1 % of MSMEs which are heavily represented in the four economic sectors selected for
EMPLOYMENT.
EMPLOYMENT.
the survey were in fact negatively affected by the COVID-19FROM
FROMTHETHESELECTED
SELECTEDVULNERABLE
outbreak. VULNERABLEGROUPS.
GROUPS.
66000
000 100,0
100,0
% of respondents (MSMEs)
% of respondents (MSMEs)
On5the other hand, 5.8 % of MSMEsOther (or 30 out of 700 MSMEs, mainly operating in agriculture and light
5500
500 Other
industry),
55000000 reported that the COVID-19 outbreak has positively 75,0
75,0affected their commercial operations.
Some44500agricultural producers benefitted
500 Family from
Family rising prices and anxiety among the population, which
members
members
led44consumers
000
000 to spend more money than usual on food supplies
(unpaid)
(unpaid) 50,0
50,0 in order to cope with anticipated
shortages.
33500
500 Since then, however, theTemporary/Hourly
Government of the Republic of Tajikistan has encouraged domestic
Temporary/Hourly
agricultural
33000000 producers to increase their production and sell25,0
(casual)
(casual) domestically,
25,0 which briefly increased the
benefits
22500500 for dehkan farmers. Other businesses,
Temporary/Hourly
Temporary/Hourlyparticularly in light industry, repurposed their production
which
22000 has enabled them to supply sanitary
000 (contractual)and protective equipment
(contractual) 0,0
0,0 such as face masks, antiseptics
Agriculture
Agriculture Light
Lightindustry
industry Personal
Personal Tourism
Tourismandand
and1 1500
other
500 disinfectants, and paper products
Part-time
(e.g.
Part-time(casual)
(casual)
tissues, paper towels, toilet paper, etc.) domestically.
services
hospitality
A handful
000 of businesses, mostly in services, has seen a surge in commercial income due to the nature
1 1000
of their
500
500
operations. Examples of such businesses includeYouth
Part-time
Part-time
delivery
Youth (agedservices,
(aged 15-24)
15-24) cleaningWomen services,
Women and Internet
andgirls
girls
(15
(15and
andabove)
above)
and computer services, and others. A few firms in the Retirees
Retirees
tourism (60
and(60and
andabove)
above) sectorReturning
hospitality Returning
were migrant
alsomigrant labor
labor
positively
00 (contractual)
(contractual)
affected due Men to a seasonal surge in demand for local sightseeingRelative
Relativeofofmigrant
migrant
and labor
labor
recreational People
Peoplewith
services, with
disabilities
disabilities
and in the
Men Women
Women
temporary absence of travel/recreational alternatives outside Tajikistan caused by border closures.
/Source:
/Source:COVID-19
COVID-19Impact
ImpactAssessment
AssessmentSurvey
Survey(June-July
(June-July2020).
2020).Figure
Figure69:
69:N=700;
N=700;Figure
Figure70:
70:N=700.
N=700.
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE 74:
71:
71:HASHAS
HAS THE
THE
THE COVID-19
COVID-19
COVID-19 OUTBREAK
OUTBREAK
OUTBREAK FIGURE
FIGURE 75:
FIGURE72: HAS
72:HAS THE
HASTHE COVID-19
THECOVID-19 OUTBREAK
COVID-19OUTBREAK
OUTBREAK
AFFECTED
AFFECTED
AFFECTEDYOUR YOUR FIRM’S
YOURFIRM'S OPERATIONS
FIRM'SOPERATIONS ININ
OPERATIONSIN ANY
ANY
ANY AFFECTED
AFFECTED YOUR
AFFECTEDYOUR FIRM’S
YOURFIRM'S OPERATIONS
FIRM'SOPERATIONS INANY
OPERATIONSIN
IN ANYWAY?
ANY WAY?
WAY?
WAY? (BY
WAY?(BY ECONOMIC
(BYECONOMIC SECTORS)
ECONOMICSECTORS)
SECTORS) WAY?
(BY (BY
(BYSIZE SIZE
SIZEOF OF ENTERPRISE)
OFENTERPRISE)
ENTERPRISE)
Tourism
Tourismandand Medium
Medium
hospitality
hospitality enterprises
enterprises
Personal
Personal
services
services Small
Small
enterprises
enterprises
Light
Lightindustry
industry
Micro
Micro
enterprises
enterprises
Agriculture
Agriculture
0%
0% 50%
50% 100%
100%
0%
0% 20%
20% 40%
40% 60%
60% 80%
80% 100%
100%
Proportion
respondents(MSMEs)
(MSMEs)
Proportion
respondents(MSMEs)
(MSMEs)
Highly
Highlynegative
negativeimpact
impact Negative
Negativeimpact
impact Highlynegative
Highly negativeimpact
impact Negativeimpact
Negative impact
Noimpact
No impact Positiveimpact
Positive impact Noimpact
No impact Positiveimpact
Positive impact
/Source:
/Source:
/Source:COVID-19
COVID-19Impact
COVID-19 ImpactAssessment
Impact Assessment
Assessment Survey
Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020).
2020). Figure
Figure
Figure 71:
71:N=700;
N=700;
74: N=700; Figure
Figure
Figure 72:
72:N=700.
75: N=700.N=700.
The larger the size of enterprise, the higher is its ability to withstand economic disturbances. Medium-
sized enterprises were marginally better able to cope with the fallout from the COVID-19 outbreak than
micro enterprises and small-sized enterprises. In particular, 79.6 % of medium-sized enterprises were
negatively affected by the COVID-19 outbreak, compared to 87 % of small-sized enterprises and 86.7 %
of micro enterprises (including individual entrepreneurs). While the survey results suggest increasingly
severe disruptions and mounting concerns among small businesses, larger enterprises are financially more
resilient to shocks. Geographically, the effect of COVID-19 is more or less evenly spread out across MSMEs
in different regions (ranging from 81.8 % of MSMEs in GBAO to 91.2 % of MSMEs in Dushanbe which are
reporting negative effect).
The main implications of the COVID-19 outbreak on businesses in the preceding 30 days were slightly
different for various target groups (See Annex 3), but most of them are essentially financial losses which
led to payment difficulties and deterred business growth. Notably, there were five commonly shared
Page 20 of 35
Page 20 of 35

implications on surveyed MSMEs: (i) being unable to repay outstanding loans, (ii) being unable to make tax
payments in full and on time, (iii) being unable to produce goods or provide services as before, (iv) being
unable to scale up commercial operations, and (v) being unable to remunerate workers in full.
FIGURE 73: THE MAIN IMPLICATIONS OF THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK ON MSMEs IN THE PAST 30 DAYS.
FIGURE 76: THE MAIN IMPLICATIONS OF THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK ON MSMEs IN THE PAST 30 DAYS.
Could not make loan repayments

Could not make tax payments on time
Could not make tax payments in full
Could not produce good(s) or provide service(s) as before
Could not scale up commercial operation(s)
Could not pay full salary for my worker(s)
Could not make utility payments
Was forced to borrow from friends and/or family
Could not meet the cost of inputs
Could not pay rent for property/assets
Could not get a new loan
Could not pay office rent
Could not implement marketing strategy (reach customers)
Was forced to borrow from banks and/or NBFIs
Had to raise prices of my/our good(s) and/or service(s)
Could not meet the cost of accessing market(s)
Could not pay for land use right(s)
Could not finance logistical costs of procuring inputs
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Proportion of respondents (MSMEs)
YES NO
/Source:
/Source:COVID-19
Impact Survey
Survey 2020).
(June-July N=700.
2020). N=700.
More than 25 % of MSMEs reported difficulties repaying outstanding loans, and 22.6 % of MSMEs stated
that they had difficulties filing in monthly tax payments. There are a number of other consequences of the
COVID-19
FIGURE 74: outbreak, some of which
HOW CONCERNED AREare
YOU presented
ABOUT in Figure 76 and
FIGURE 75:Annex
IF THE3,COVID-19
includingRELATED
inability to meet the
CLOSURES
risingIMPACT
THE cost of OF
inputs
THE(e.g. mineralOUTBREAK
COVID-19 fertilizers or
ONother imported
AND goods), having to
RESTRICTIONS borrow additionally
CONTINUE IN THE NEXT from
3
friendsFIRM'S
YOUR or relatives, as well asOPERATIONS
COMMERCIAL being unable(i.e.
to make rentMONTHS,
paymentsHOW or utility
LIKELYpayments.
IT IS THAT YOUR FIRM MAY
ECONOMIC ACTIVITY)? SHUT DOWN?
In general,
100% 81.6 % of surveyed MSMEs were concerned about100% the effect of COVID-19 on their economic
and commercial activities. Only 8.5 % of MSMEs were not concerned about the unfolding economic crisis
80%
and were reportedly unaffected by the COVID-19 outbreak. In 80% addition to financial concerns, businesses
often cited
60% the measures imposed by neighboring countries (such 60% as Kazakhstan) which limited exports
(MSMEs)
(MSMEs)
of food products and medical products, which could have sidelined MSMEs engaged in wholesale trade.
40% 40%
Besides, trade measures, coupled with restrictions in production and logistics, would have pushed up local
consumer20% prices, which in turn may have negatively affected returns
20% through depressed demand.
0% 0%
At the same Agriculture
time, the impact
Light of the COVID-19
Personal outbreak
Tourism and differs by sector. The share
Agriculture Light
of MSMEs who were
concerned about their commercial
industry operations
services was as high as 97.1 % in the tourism
hospitality and hospitality
industry services sector.
hospitality
This is because firms in tourism and hospitality sector are significantly more affected by border and travel
Very concerned Rather concerned
restrictions than any of the other
Undecided
three economic sectors. Next in
Rather not concerned
terms
Highly likelyof severity
Likelyare businesses in
Undecided
non-food manufacturing (light industry) and services. In agriculture, Unlikely
60 % of MSMEs Highlysaid
unlikely
that they were
/Source: COVID-19
concerned aboutImpact Assessment Survey
their operations (June-July
as a result 2020). Figure
of restrictions and74:measures
N=515; Figure 75: N=515.
imposed by the government to
counter the outbreak.

As far as regional variations are concerned, MSMEs in GBAO (90.9 %) and Khatlon oblast (89.2 %) were
more concerned about the consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak on their commercial operations than
anywhere else in the country, compared to 70.3 % of MSMEs in Soghd oblast.
The survey further revealed that, on average, shutdown risks are higher for younger and smaller firms. If
restrictions and closures continue on a broad scale, 33 % of affected MSMEs would not be able to continue

Could
Could not
not get
get aa new
new loan
loan
Could
Could not
not pay
pay office
office rent
rent
Could
Could not
not implement
implement marketing
marketing strategy
strategy (reach
(reach customers)
customers)
Was
Was forced
forced toto borrow
borrow from
from banks
banks and/or
and/or NBFIs
NBFIs
Had
Had to
to raise
raise prices
prices of
of my/our
my/our good(s)
good(s) and/or
and/or service(s)
service(s)
Could
Could notnot meet
meet the
the cost
cost of
of accessing
accessing market(s)
market(s)
Could
Could not
not pay
pay for
for land
land use
use right(s)
right(s)
Could
Could not
not finance
finance logistical
logistical costs
costs of
of procuring
procuring inputs
inputs
operations beyond one month. Another 33 % 0%
0%
of10%MSMEs
10% 20%
20%
would
30%
30%
be40%able 50%
40%
to
50%
continue
60%
60%
operations
70%
70% 80%
80%
between
90%
90% 100%
100%
3 to 6 months, which shows the majority of the private sectorProportion firms are
Proportion of highly vulnerable
of respondents
respondents (MSMEs)
(MSMEs) to economic
downturns and shocks. This is explained by the fact that younger and smaller businesses are likely to face
YES
YES NO
NO
more severe resource constraints than larger firms. It suggests that even though smaller firms may be no
more exposed
/Source: COVID-19than others
Impact to the COVID-19
Assessment Survey outbreak
(June-July 2020).and its economic effects, they are more susceptible,
N=700.
for instance due to lack of diversification and limited access to resources, and thus less able to cope with
economic disturbances.
FIGURE 77: HOW

HOW CONCERNEDARE ARE YOUABOUT
ABOUT FIGURE
FIGURE
78: IFIFTHE COVID-19 RELATED CLOSURES
FIGURE
FIGURE 74:
74: HOW CONCERNED
CONCERNED ARE YOU
YOU ABOUT FIGURE 75:
75: IF THE
THE COVID-19
COVID-19 RELATED
RELATED CLOSURES
CLOSURES
THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK ON AND
AND RESTRICTIONS CONTINUE IN THE NEXT 33
THE
THE IMPACT
IMPACT OFOF THE
THE COVID-19
COVID-19 OUTBREAK
OUTBREAK ONON AND RESTRICTIONS
RESTRICTIONS CONTINUE
CONTINUE IN IN THE
THE NEXT
NEXT 3
YOUR FIRM’S COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS (i.e. MONTHS,
MONTHS, HOW LIKELY IT IS THAT YOUR FIRM MAY
MAY
YOUR
YOUR FIRM'S
FIRM'S COMMERCIAL
COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS (i.e.
(i.e. MONTHS, HOW
HOW LIKELY
LIKELY IT
IT IS
IS THAT
THAT YOUR
YOUR FIRM
FIRM MAY
ECONOMIC
ECONOMIC ACTIVITY)? SHUT
SHUT DOWN?
DOWN?
ECONOMIC ACTIVITY)?
ACTIVITY)? SHUT DOWN?
100%
100% 100%
100%
respondents
respondents
ofrespondents
ofrespondents
80%
80% 80%
80%
60%
60% 60%
60%
(MSMEs)
(MSMEs)
(MSMEs)
(MSMEs)
40%
40% 40%
40%
Proportionof
Proportionof
Proportion
Proportion
20%
20% 20%
20%
0%
0% 0%
0%
Agriculture Light Personal
Personal Tourism
Tourism and Agriculture Light Personal
Agriculture Light and Agriculture Light Personal Tourism
Tourism and
and
industry
industry services
hospitality industry services hospitality
industry services hospitality
Very
Very concerned
concerned Rather
Rather concerned
concerned Highly
Highly likely
likely Likely
Likely Undecided
Undecided
Undecided
Undecided Rather
Rather not
not concerned
concerned Unlikely
Unlikely Highly
Highly unlikely
unlikely
/Source:
/Source: COVID-19
COVID-19 Impact
Impact Assessment
Assessment Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020). Figure
Figure 74:
74: N=515;
N=515; Figure
Figure 75:
75: N=515.
N=515.
In addition, 70.1 % of affected MSMEs believed that they would probably have to shut down altogether if the
COVID-related restrictions and closures continue for another three months. This is rather concerning as it
affects almost 9 out of 10 firms in tourism and hospitality (88.6 %), almost 7 out of 10 firms in the personal
services sector (68.5 %) and light industry (69.8 %), and 4 out of 10 firms in agriculture (40 %). At the same
time, the resilience of MSMEs differs geographically. For instance, 57.4 % of MSMEs in Soghd oblast said
that they might be forced to shut down if restrictions continued for another three months, compared to
81.8 % of MSMEs in GBAO and 81.1 % of MSMEs in Dushanbe. This geographic difference is partly attributed
to the proximity of businesses in the Soghd oblast to international trade routes and variety of logistical
hubs, while also being heavily represented by MSMEs in light industry which are better able to cope due to
their unmatched ability to repurpose production, at least temporarily.
FIGURE 76:
FIGURE 79: PLANS
PLANSTHAT
THATWERE
WERECANCELLED
CANCELLEDBY BY
MSMEs BECAUSE
MSMEs OF THE
BECAUSE OF COVID-19 OUTBREAK.
THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK.
Scaling up ongoing commercial operation(s)

Accessing additional inputs/supplies Page 21 of 35
Page 21 of 35
Increasing sales
Repaying the current loan
Receiving a new loan
Accessing new market(s) locally or internationally
Contracting of new vendors/suppliers
Opening of new business line (product or service)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
YES NO
/Source:COVID-19
ImpactAssessment
Assessment Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020). N=515.
N=515.
FIGURE 77: INNOVATIVE ADAPTATION FIGURE 78: INNOVATIVE ADAPTATION STRATEGIES

94
STRATEGIES EMPLOYED BY MSMEsImpact of COVID-19 onEMPLOYED
IN THE
30 DAYS IN RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19
PAST BY DEHKAN
Lives, Livelihoods FARMS
and Micro, INand
Small THEMSMEs
PAST 30
DAYS IN RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK.
in Tajikistan
OUTBREAK.
pted
60,0 100%
s)
FIGURE 76:
Amongst
FIGURE 76: PLANS
thePLANS THATWERE
515 affected
THAT WERE
MSMEs, CANCELLED
14.8 % were
CANCELLED BYMSMEs
BY MSMEs
not BECAUSE
yet BECAUSE
sure of howOF
OF THE
they
THE COVID-19
intended
COVID-19to OUTBREAK.
return to ‘normal’
OUTBREAK.
operations once the restrictive measures were eventually lifted. About 20 % of the MSMEs intended to
gradually re-employ
Scaling
Scaling up workers,
up ongoing
ongoing commercial
commercial while a further 25 % would gradually expand operations to pre-crisis level.
operation(s)
operation(s)
At the same time, 35.1 %
Accessing of dehkan
additional farmers
inputs/supplies
Accessing additional inputs/supplies
stated that no plans were cancelled, and they had continued
operating as usual. This mayIncreasing imply the relative security of more isolated, less exposed lines of production.
sales Increasing sales
Repayingthe
Repaying thecurrent
currentloan
loan
Innovation among MSMEs during the COVID-19 pandemic was found to be scarce. In total, about 28 %
Receivingaanewnewloan
loan
of affected MSMEs reported employing
Receiving innovative adaptation strategy in response to the coronavirus
Accessing
outbreak and
Accessing newthe
new market(s) locallyor
resulting
market(s) locally orinternationally
internationally
disruptions in MSMEs’ commercial operations. In the meantime, interviews
confirmed that MSMEs
Contracting
Contracting in fact
ofnew
of new referred to non-conventional ways of addressing their commercial and
vendors/suppliers
vendors/suppliers
employment
Opening of
Opening challenges
of new
new linewhen
businessline
business (product
(product asked about “innovative adaptation” to the unfolding situation. These
orservice)
or service)
non-conventional coping strategies adopted by MSMEs included: (i) transitioning to online marketing and/
0%0% 10% 20%
10% 20% 30%30% 40% 40% 50% 50% 60%
60% 70% 70% 80%
80% 90%
90% 100%
100%
or sales (24.3 % of MSMEs), (ii) scaling down the production of goods or provision of services in line with
Proportion
Proportion ofof respondents
respondents (MSMEs)
(MSMEs)
depressed demand (40.3 %), (iii) introducing new products or services to the local market such as face
YES NO
masks, antiseptics, delivery services, and online YES NO
consultations (27.1 %), and (iv) contracting new vendors or
suppliers
/Source: (17.4 %).Impact
/Source: COVID-19
COVID-19 About
Impact 25 % of dehkan
Assessment
Assessment farmers 2020).
Survey(June-July
Survey (June-Julyhave
2020).also utilized similar coping strategies.
N=515.
N=515.
FIGURE 77:
FIGURE
FIGURE 77: INNOVATIVE
80: INNOVATIVE ADAPTATION FIGURE78:
ADAPTATION STRATEGIESFIGURE
INNOVATIVEADAPTATION FIGURE 78:INNOVATIVE
81: INNOVATIVEADAPTATION
INNOVATIVE ADAPTATION
ADAPTATION STRATEGIES
STRATEGIES
STRATEGIES
STRATEGIES
STRATEGIES EMPLOYED
EMPLOYED BY
BY MSMEs
MSMEsIN
INTHE
THEPAST
PAST EMPLOYED BY DEHKAN FARMS ININ
THE PAST 3030
EMPLOYED BY MSMEs IN THE PAST 30 DAYS IN EMPLOYED BY DEHKAN FARMS IN THEPAST
EMPLOYED BY DEHKAN FARMS THE PAST 30
30 DAYS
DAYS IN
IN RESPONSE
RESPONSETOTOTHE
THECOVID-19
COVID-19 DAYS
DAYSININRESPONSE
RESPONSETO TOTHE
THECOVID-19
COVID-19OUTBREAK.
OUTBREAK.
RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK. DAYS IN RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK.
OUTBREAK.
OUTBREAK.
adopted
who adopted
60,0
60,0 100%
100%
Proportion of respondents (dehkan farms)
Proportion of respondents (dehkan farms)
90%
90%
strategy
adaptationstrategy
50,0
50,0
80%
80%
(MSMEs)who
40,0
40,0 70%
70%
innovativeadaptation
respondents(MSMEs)
30,0
30,0 60%
60%
50%
50%
20,0
20,0
40%
40%
10,0
%%ofofrespondents
10,0 30%
30%
innovative
0,0 20%
20%
0,0
Micro
Micro Small
Small Medium
Medium 10%
10%
enterprises
enterprises enterprises
enterprises enterprises
enterprises 0%
0% Scaled down Introduced new Moved to online Found new
Scaled down Introduced new Moved to online Found new
products and/or product(s) and/or marketing, sales or vendors/suppliers
Scaled products and/or product(s) and/or marketing, sales or vendors/suppliers
Scaleddown
downproducts
productsand/or
and/orservices
services services
services
service(s)
service(s)
outreach
outreach
Introduced new products and/or services
Introduced new products and/or services
Adopted online marketing, sales, etc. YES NO
Adopted online marketing, sales, etc. YES NO
Found new vendors/suppliers
Found new vendors/suppliers
/Source:COVID-19
Impact Assessment
Assessment Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020). Figure
Figure 77: N=144;
80: N=144; FigureFigure 78: N=88.
81: N=88.
In Tajikistan, businesses require systemic, sustained and hands-on support to help them adopt new work
processes, speed up digitalization of their operations and/or services, and interact with customers. In the
absence of such support, bar few business acceleration and professional support services (operating
mainly out of Dushanbe and Khujand), MSMEs will be unable to innovate and employ effective and
sustainable measures in order to adapt to a “new normal” of the post-COVID economic reality.
The COVID-19 outbreak has also negatively affected MSMEs’ customer base due to lower demand for
products and services. In total, 85.4 % of affected MSMEs stated that their customer base had decreased
as a result of nationwide restrictions. Businesses in tourism and hospitality were hit particularly hard, as
mentioned above, with 68 out of 70 MSMEs (97.1 %) confirming a decrease in customer base. A total of
90.3 % of micro enterprises reported decreasing customer base, compared to 57.1 % of medium-sized
enterprises. In response to the decrease in customer base, some MSMEs had resorted to text messaging
(22.5 %) and web-based resources (4.1 %) in order to reach out to clients and market their products. This
also shows that many MSMEs find it hard to adopt new sales channels, online marketing, and other digital
solutions that may help them mitigate the economic impact of the COVID-19 outbreak.
Impact of COVID-19 on MSMEs Page 22 of 35 95

Page 22 of 35

FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE 79:
79:
82: HOW
HOW
HOW HAS
HAS
HAS THE
THE
THE COVID-19
COVID-19
COVID-19 OUTBREAK
OUTBREAK FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
OUTBREAK FIGURE 80:
80: WAYS
WAYS
83: WAYS IN
ININ WHICH
WHICH
WHICH AFFECTED
AFFECTED
AFFECTED MSMEs
MSMEs
MSMEs
FIGURE 79:
AFFECTED
AFFECTED HOW
YOUR
YOUR HAS THE COVID-19
ENTERPRISE'S
ENTERPRISE'S OUTBREAK
CUSTOMER
CUSTOMER 80: WAYS
COMMUNICATING
COMMUNICATING IN WHICH
WITH
WITH AFFECTED MSMEs
CLIENTS/CUSTOMERS.
CLIENTS/CUSTOMERS.
AFFECTEDYOUR
AFFECTED YOURENTERPRISE'S
ENTERPRISE’S CUSTOMER BASE?COMMUNICATING
CUSTOMER COMMUNICATINGWITH WITHCLIENTS/CUSTOMERS.
CLIENTS/CUSTOMERS.
BASE?
BASE?
BASE?
100%
100% 600
600
of respondents
respondents

(MSMEs)
100% 600
500
500
respondents
(MSMEs)
80%
80%
80% 500
400400
60%
60%
(MSMEs)
(MSMEs)
respondents
400
60%
(MSMEs)
300300
respondents
of of
40%
40% 300
Proportion
Proportion
40% 200
200
Proportion
20%
20% 200
20% 100100
of of
100
0%0%
Number
00
0% Agriculture
Number
Agriculture LightLight Personal
PersonalTourism
Tourism
and and 0 Phone
Phone andand Web-based
Web-based Video-conferencing
Video-conferencing
Agriculture industry
Light
industry Personal
servicesTourism
services and
hospitality
hospitality messaging
messaging
Phone and platforms
platforms
industry services hospitality messaging platforms
Increased Unchanged
Increased Unchanged Decreased
Decreased YES
YES NONO
Increased Unchanged Decreased YES NO
/Source:
/Source:
/Source: COVID-19
COVID-19
COVID-19 Impact
Impact
Impact Assessment
Assessment
Assessment Survey
Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020).
2020). Figure
Figure
Figure 79:79: N=515;
N=515;
82: N=515; Figure
FigureFigure
83: 80:
80:
N=515. N=515.
N=515.
FIGURE
FIGURE 81:81: MAIN
MAIN FACTORS
FACTORS THAT
THAT AFFECTED
AFFECTED MSMEs'
MSMEs' COMMERCIAL
COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS (i.e.
(i.e. ECONOMIC
ECONOMIC
FIGURE
FIGURE 81:
84:
ACTIVITY)
ACTIVITY) MAIN
ASASAA FACTORS
MAIN FACTORS
RESULT
RESULT OF
OF THAT
THE
THE AFFECTED
THAT AFFECTED
COVID-19
COVID-19 MSMEs'
MSMEs’COMMERCIAL
OUTBREAK.
OUTBREAK. OPERATIONS
COMMERCIAL (i.e.(i.e.
OPERATIONS ECONOMIC
ECONOMIC
ACTIVITY)
ACTIVITY)ASASAARESULT
RESULTOF
OFTHE
THECOVID-19
COVID-19OUTBREAK.
OUTBREAK.
Self-isolation
Self-isolation of of
thethe population
population (customers)
(customers)
Closure Self-isolation
Closure
of of
restaurants, ofcafes
restaurants, the population
cafes and
and (customers)
other
other food
food places
places
Closure Closure
of Closure
restaurants,
of of cafes
beauty
beauty and other
salons,
salons, food places
hairdressers,
hairdressers, etc.
etc.
Closure of beauty
Requirement
Requirement to to
wearsalons,
wear hairdressers,
a mask
a mask in in public
public etc.
places
places
Requirement to wear a mask
Closure/Repurposing
Closure/Repurposing in
of of public
medical
medical places
facilities
facilities
Closure/Repurposing
Closure
Closure of of of medical
local
local facilities
markets/bazaars
markets/bazaars
Closure of local
Restricted
Restricted airair markets/bazaars
freight
freight movement
movement
Closure Restricted
Closure
of of
airspace air
airspace freight
forfor movement
passenger
passenger flights
flights
Closure
Closure
Closure of
of of airspace
land
land for
border
border passenger
with
with other
other flights
countries
countries
Closure of land border with other countries
0%0% 10% 20%
10% 20% 30%
30% 40%
40% 50% 50% 60%60% 70%
70% 80%
80% 90%
90% 100%
100%
0% 10% 20% 30%Number
40% respondents
50% 60%(MSMEs)
70% 80% 90% 100%
Number of of
respondents (MSMEs)
YES
YES NONO
YES NO
/Source:
/Source: COVID-19
COVID-19 Impact
Impact Assessment
Assessment Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020). N=515.
N=515.
/Source:
/Source:COVID-19 ImpactAssessment
COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020). N=515.
N=515.
Many businesses said that containment measures and nationwide closures imposed by the Government of
FIGURE
FIGURE 82:
82: PERCENTAGE
PERCENTAGE OF
OF TRADE
TRADE AMONG
AMONG FIGURE
FIGURE 83:83: AVERAGE
AVERAGE PERCENTAGE
PERCENTAGE DECLINE
DECLINE ININ
the Republic
FIGURE 82: of Tajikistan OF
caught them by surprise, leaving virtually no time to adapt. To that end, a number
MSMEs
MSMEs THAT PERCENTAGE
THAT WASWAS ACROSS
ACROSS TRADE
BORDERS
BORDERS AMONG
ININ THE
THE PAST FIGURE
PAST SALES
SALES 83: AVERAGE
AMONG
AMONG MSMEs
MSMEs PERCENTAGE
ENGAGED
ENGAGED DECLINE
ININ CROSS-IN
CROSS-
of factors
MSMEs THAT that
WAShave affectedBORDERS
ACROSS MSMEs’ operations
IN THE PAST as a result
SALESof the
AMONG COVID-19
MSMEs outbreak
ENGAGEDincluded:
IN (i) self-
CROSS-
1212 MONTHS.
MONTHS. BORDER
BORDER TRADE
TRADE (BY
(BY ECONOMIC
ECONOMIC SECTORS).
SECTORS).
12isolation
MONTHS. of the population, i.e. customers (51.8 % of affected
19 19
BORDERMSMEs),
TRADE (ii) (BY
closure of Tajikistan’s
ECONOMIC land border
SECTORS).
with20 neighboring
20
17 17
countries (48.2 %
19 of affected MSMEs), (iii) closure of airspace for passenger flights (51.3 %
0,00,0
20 0,0
Micro enterprises
Light industry
Small enterprises
Agriculture

Personal services
Medium enterprises
enterprises
industry
enterprises
Agriculture
hospitality
services
enterprises
18 18
of affected 17 MSMEs),15(iv) closure of local markets and bazaars (38.6 % of affected MSMEs), and (v) closure
of respondents
respondents
15
enterprises
industry
enterprises
Agriculture
hospitality
services
enterprises
in monthly sales
sales
18
16 16 -20,0
-20,0
of restaurants and other food places (20.4 % of affected MSMEs). These top five reasons have either
respondents
15
sales
16
14 14 -20,0
restrained or shut down economic activity in many 11 11 sectors, forcing MSMEs to channel their resources onto
Light
in monthly
Personal
14 12
12
(MSMEs)
(MSMEs)
-40,0
-40,0
and
11
Light
in monthly
staying
12 10afloat. 9 9
Personal
Micro
Medium
Small
(MSMEs)
-40,0
(average)
(average)
10
and
9
Micro
Medium
Small
-46,7
-60,0 -46,7
(average)
Tourism
10
of of
8 8 -60,0
-46,7
Tourism
Number
Number
8
6 6 -60,0
Many MSMEs rate the need to defer loan, rent and tax payments as the most important measures.-65,5 The
% decrease
% decrease
-68,4 -65,5
Number
6
4 4group of MSMEs believed that temporary tax holiday is -80,0 -80,0 -68,4
largest the single most important measure that
% decrease
-68,4 -65,5 -73,7

-73,7
4 2 -80,0
could22help MSMEs improve their commercial operations and recover from the -79,8
-79,8
negative
-83,0
-83,0 consequences -73,7
00 -100,0
-100,0 -83,0 -79,8
of the0 COVID-19
Less
Less thanoutbreak.
than 10-24% Anecdotal
10-24% 25-49% evidence
25-49% 50-74%
50-74% 75%
75% suggests
andand that MSMEs
-100,0 are being continually asked by tax
-100,0
-100,0
officials to make
Less 10% upfront
than
10% 10-24% payments
25-49% against 75%
50-74% their respective tax-120,0
and
more
more obligations,
-120,0 which severely -100,0undermines the
availability10%
of cash liquidity among MSMEs and moretheir attitude toward
-120,0 tax burden. This may have skewed
/Source:
/Source:
responsesCOVID-19
COVID-19 Impact
Impact
in favor Assessment
of Assessment
tax orSurvey
holiday Survey (June-July
tax (June-July
deferral, 2020).
2020). Figure
Figure
although 82:
82: N=71;
N=71;
tax-related Figure
Figure 83:83:
mitigation N=62.
N=62.
measures are recognized
to have had the greatest effect on the viability of businesses in many countries.

Page 23 of 35
Page 23 of 35
TABLE 23: TOP 10 MOST IMPORTANT (AND POPULAR) MEASURES THAT WILL HELP MSMEs TO IMPROVE
THEIR COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK.
Level of
Sample size
importance191
Temporary deferral of loan payment 9.33 27
Temporary deferral of rent payment 9.29 17
Temporary halting of loan payment 9.12 92
Temporary tax deferral 9.07 161
Specialized mentoring and advisory services 8.86 36
Temporary halting of rent payment 8.79 100

Hotline support for struggling businesses 8.79 28
Temporary tax holiday 8.77 218
Business incubation and acceleration services 8.74 23
Temporary halting of insurance payment 8.71 14
Key findings:
1. The COVID-19 outbreak has had a large immediate effect on smaller businesses. In particular, 63.1 % of
MSMEs were negatively affected, mainly due to closure of international borders and local markets.
2. The pandemic has affected MSMEs in four economic sectors to varying degrees. MSMEs in the tourism
and hospitality sector were most adversely affected by COVID-19 while businesses in agriculture were
the least affected.
3. A small proportion of MSMEs (5.8 %) has had a positive effect on their sales and turnover, such as due
to repurposing of production, nature of economic activity, and seasonality.
4. Larger businesses have a marginally greater ability to withstand economic shocks than smaller ones
due to greater financial viability and a multitude of coping options. The resilience of MSMEs to shocks
does not depend on geographic locations.
5. The most commonly shared negative implications of MSMEs included firms’ inability to repay
outstanding loans, pay taxes, produce goods or provide services in line with pre-COVID-19 level, scale
up commercial operations, and remunerate workers. For instance, more than 25 % of MSMEs reported
difficulties repaying outstanding loans, and 22.6 % of MSMEs have difficulties making regular tax
payments, suggesting low cash liquidity in the majority of surveyed MSMEs.
6. Although some MSMEs may not have been affected (yet) by the COVID-19 outbreak, they are
nevertheless concerned about the possible implications on their business operations. 81.6 % of MSMEs
were concerned about the effect of COVID-19 on their commercial operations, with up to 97 % of
MSMEs in tourism and hospitality compared to 60 % of MSMEs in agriculture.
7. A small fraction of surveyed MSMEs (6.3 %) are neither unaffected by nor concerned about the
COVID-19 outbreak and its potential implication on their economic activity. These are mainly firms
which have the lowest exposure to regional supply chains or medium-sized enterprises.
8. The shutdown risk is particularly high among affected MSMEs, suggesting symptomatically low resilien
ce to economic and financial shocks. Should nationwide restrictions and closures continue, about 33 %
of affected MSMEs would only be able to continue commercial operations for no more than a month.
On a scale between 1 and 10, where 1-least important and 10-very important.
191

9. In a scenario where the COVID-19 restrictions and closures would be limited to three months, it is
highly likely that the crisis would lead to shutting down of 70.1 % of affected MSMEs.
10. While few MSMEs adopted innovative adaptation strategies, 28 % of affected MSMEs employed non-
conventional coping strategy in response to the coronavirus outbreak, which included: (i) scaling down
the production of goods and services (40.3 % of MSMEs), (ii) introduction of new products or services
(27.1 %), (iii) transitioning to online marketing and/or sales (24.3 %), and (iv) contracting new vendors or
suppliers (17.4 %).
11. Few MSMEs resorted to digitalization in order to market their products/services or reach out to
customers. More than 85 % of affected MSMEs (440 out of 515 MSMEs) had their customer base
decreased, with 22.5 % of businesses using text messaging and 4.1 % of businesses using web-based
resources in order to reach out to clients and market their products.
12. Deferral of loan, tax, rent and utility payments are perceivably more important for MSMEs than other
measures which would help them to withstand the shock and recover from the pandemic.
SUPPLY CHAINS AND VALUE CHAINS

Any labor market disturbances, including macroeconomic and financial shocks, have a potentially
disruptive effect on supply chains and value chains. This is particularly magnified for private sector firms.
The COVID-19 outbreak resulted in the temporary disruption between MSMEs and vendors, suppliers,
clients, and markets. There are exceptions but they are rare. In total, 73.6 % of all surveyed MSMEs
reported that their supply chains and/or value chains have been negatively affected by the pandemic.
TABLE 24: TOP 10 IMPLICATIONS OF THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK ON MSMEs’ SUPPLY CHAINS.192
1st 2nd 3rd

TOTAL
response response response
Disruption of production (of goods or services) 204 22 7 233
Disruption of sales (due to lower consumer demand) 120 63 17 200
Constrained access to inputs 28 16 2 46
Difficulty transporting produced goods 20 19 2 41
Disruption of commercial distribution network(s) 29 6 4 39
Constrained access to facility/office (by consumers) 5 18 10 33
Disruption of transportation of inputs 10 11 3 24
Disruption of marketing activities 8 5 6 19
Unable to move sales/customer outreach online 3 3 1 7

Disruption of other logistics (besides transportation) 4 0 0 4
TOTAL: 515 163 57 –
In total, 31.7 % of MSMEs whose supply chains have been affected stated that their production was
disrupted, implying that offices, workshops and factories were reportedly closed since May 2020. This has
also constrained access to inputs and posed significant logistical challenges for many businesses, which in
Respondents were asked to provide more than answer choice (option), which are reflected in the table.
192
turn restricted inter-regional transportation services within the country. Besides, sales were understandably
disrupted due to the temporary closure of local bazaars and markets, and restricted international trade
(including small-scale cross-border trade). Other MSMEs have had difficulties reaching out to clients and
implementing their marketing activities, e.g. due to inability to adapt to the changing business environment
and limited flexibility of physical operations.
Disruption in commercial distribution networks was also a direct consequence of travel restrictions and the
threat of further spreading of the coronavirus infection, which forced many MSMEs to impose self-isolation
and furloughing measures towards their workforce. This has had an adverse effect on sales and turnover.
In terms of value chains, 41.3 % of affected MSMEs mentioned disruption in their relations with the clients.
A further 16.6 % of MSMEs reported constrained access to local markets (e.g. bazaars, grocery stores,
etc.) and 12.7 % of MSMEs stated that they had difficulties sourcing or procuring inputs from affiliated (or
contracted) vendors and suppliers across the country. Many MSMEs, particularly smaller businesses, did
not have the means to maintain regular communication with their customers and/or personnel, which also
led to 2.9 % of MSMEs having difficulties communicating with business partners. Restrictions imposed on
international travel have also led to constrained access to resources and markets for approximately 4 %
of affected MSMEs. Another 4.8 % of MSMEs were unable to duly plan their commercial operations due to
heightened uncertainty and risks.
TABLE 25: TOP 10 IMPLICATIONS OF THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK ON MSMEs’ VALUE CHAINS.193
1st 2nd 3rd

TOTAL
response response response
Disruption in customer relations 218 104 36 358
Constrained access to local market(s) 89 39 16 144
Disruption in sourcing/procurement 66 30 14 110
Constrained/Limited product development 17 23 7 47
Disruption in commercial activity planning 15 16 11 42
Constrained access to international markets 13 13 9 35
Communication difficulties with business partners 14 9 2 25
Disruption in supplier alignment/coordination 16 3 1 20
Decrease in demand of international markets 8 5 6 19
Constrained/Limited innovation 2 0 0 2
TOTAL: 515 247 104 –
As supply chains or value chains are disrupted, MSMEs should in general be agile and able to diversify
their markets. This is where business support organizations come into play, but they are clustered in large
cities such as Dushanbe and Khujand. They conduct and share market surveillance, help small businesses
build market networks of partners and suppliers, and share market analysis tools. However, a regional
disproportion in the availability of business support services creates a distinctly varied resilience of MSMEs
to the economic shock caused by the coronavirus pandemic. This means that, on average, MSMEs in urban
Respondents were asked to provide more than answer choice (option), which are reflected in the table.
193

areas are generally more capable to withstand the economic implications of COVID-19 in comparison with
FIGURE
MSMEs 79:
FIGUREin HOW
rural
79: HOW HAS
HAS THE
areas. THE COVID-19
COVID-19 OUTBREAK
OUTBREAK FIGURE
FIGURE 80:
80: WAYS
WAYS IN
IN WHICH
WHICH AFFECTED
AFFECTED MSMEs
MSMEs
AFFECTED
AFFECTED YOUR
YOUR ENTERPRISE'S
ENTERPRISE'S CUSTOMER
CUSTOMER COMMUNICATING
COMMUNICATING WITH
WITH CLIENTS/CUSTOMERS.
CLIENTS/CUSTOMERS.
BASE?
BASE?
Key findings:
100%
100% 600
600
respondents
(MSMEs)
ofrespondents
respondents(MSMEs)
1. The COVID-19 outbreak resulted in temporary disconnect
80% 500
500
of MSMEs with vendors, suppliers, clients,
80%
and markets, suggesting a significant, and most likely lasting impact on supply chains and value chains.
400
400
In 60%
total, 73.6 % of MSMEs reported that their supply chains and/or value chains have been negatively
(MSMEs)
60%
(MSMEs)
ofrespondents
300
affected by the coronavirus pandemic. 300
Proportionof
40%
40%
2. 31.7 % of MSMEs whose supply chains have been affected 200 stated that their production was disrupted,
Proportion
200
20%
followed by constrained access to inputs, lower sales,100
20% reaching out to clients and implementing
100
marketing activities, and disruption in commercial distribution networks. All of these factors contributed
Numberof
0%
0%
Number
0
0
to the reduction
Agriculture in Light
Agriculture sales and
Light turnover.
Personal
Personal Tourism
Tourism and
and Phone
Phone and
and Web-based
Video-conferencing
industry
industry services
3. 41.3 % of affected MSMEs indicated disruption in their interaction
hospitality with customers.
messaging
messaging platforms A further 16.6 % of
platforms
MSMEs reportedUnchanged
Increased
Increased
constrainedDecreased
Unchanged
access to local markets (e.g. bazaars, grocery
Decreased YES
YES
stores,
NO
NO
etc.) and 12.7 %
of MSMEs stated that they had difficulties sourcing or procuring inputs from affiliated (or contracted)
/Source: COVID-19
/Source: andImpact
COVID-19
vendors Impact Assessment
acrossSurvey
Assessment
suppliers Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020).
the country. 2020). Figure
Figure 79:
79: N=515;
N=515; Figure
Figure 80:
80: N=515.
N=515.
4. In general, MSMEs in rural areas are disadvantaged compared to MSMEs in urban areas in terms of
FIGURE
ease81:
FIGURE 81: MAIN
MAIN FACTORS
of access FACTORS THAT
THAT AFFECTED
to professional business MSMEs'
AFFECTED MSMEs' COMMERCIAL
advisory services and OPERATIONS
COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS (i.e.
(i.e. ECONOMIC
ability to diversify ECONOMIC
their markets (in the
ACTIVITY)
contextAS
ACTIVITY) ASofA RESULT
RESULT OF
Adisrupted OF THE
THE COVID-19
supply COVID-19
chains OUTBREAK.
OUTBREAK.
and/or value chains).
Self-isolation
Self-isolation of
of the
the population
population (customers)
(customers)
Closure
Closure of
of restaurants,
restaurants, cafes
cafes and
and other
other food
food places
places
CROSS-BORDER TRADE Closure
Closure of
of beauty
beauty salons,
salons, hairdressers,
hairdressers, etc.
etc.
Requirement
Requirement to
to wear
wear aa mask
mask in
in public
public places
places
In general, Closure/Repurposing
10.1 % of surveyed
Closure/Repurposing of MSMEs
medical
of medical were
engaged in cross-border trade194 between Tajikistan and other
facilities
facilities
neighboring countries.
Closure The
of
Closure of localmajority
local of these MSMEs are dehkan farmers, other agricultural producers
markets/bazaars
markets/bazaars
Restricted
Restricted air
and firms in light industry freight
freight movement
(mainly,
air textiles and clothing sub-sector). Since the COVID-19 outbreak, 83.1 %
movement
Closure of
of airspace for
for passenger flights
of MSMEs that were
Closure reportedly
airspace engaged
passenger flights in cross-border trade indicated that sales had declined due to
border closures and travel restrictions. Figure 84 provides a sectoral breakdown of the decline in sales
among MSMEs engaged in cross-border 0% trade 10%
0% due to
10% the COVID-19
20%
20% 30%
30% 40% outbreak.
40% 50%
50% 60%
60% 70%
70% 80%
80% 90%
90% 100%
100%
Number
Number of
of respondents
respondents (MSMEs)
(MSMEs)
In hindsight, a total of 28.6 % of MSMEs (20 outYES of 70) stated
NO
that more than half of their trade was across
YES NO
borders over the 12 months between May 2019 and May 2020. The goods that were sold across borders
Impact Assessment
/Source:
were COVID-19
mainly agricultural productsSurvey
Assessment Survey (June-July
(June-July
including 2020).
2020).
grapes, N=515.
N=515. dried apricots, onions, cotton, sweet cherries,
apricots,
potatoes, cucumber, and many others. In total, MSMEs indicated more than 70 items of traded products.
FIGURE
FIGURE 85: PERCENTAGE
FIGURE 82:
82: PERCENTAGEOF
PERCENTAGE OFTRADE
OF TRADE
TRADE AMONG
AMONG
AMONG FIGURE
FIGURE 86:AVERAGE
FIGURE 83:
83: AVERAGEPERCENTAGE
AVERAGE PERCENTAGE
PERCENTAGE DECLINE
DECLINE
DECLINE IN
IN
MSMEs
MSMEs THAT
MSMEs THAT WASACROSS
THAT WAS
WAS ACROSSBORDERS
ACROSS BORDERS
BORDERS IN
IN THE
THE PAST
PAST IN SALES
SALES
SALES AMONG
AMONG
AMONG MSMEs
MSMEsMSMEs ENGAGED
ENGAGED
ENGAGED IN IN CROSS-
IN CROSS-
CROSS-
IN
12 THE
12 PAST 12 MONTHS.
MONTHS.
MONTHS. BORDER
BORDER TRADE(BY
BORDER TRADE
TRADE (BYECONOMIC
(BY ECONOMIC
ECONOMIC SECTORS).
SECTORS).
SECTORS).
19
19
20
20 0,0
0,0
17
17
enterprises
industry
enterprises
Agriculture
hospitality
services
enterprises
18
Microenterprises
Lightindustry
Smallenterprises
Agriculture
andhospitality
Personalservices
Mediumenterprises
18
respondents
15
ofrespondents
sales
16 15 -20,0
monthlysales
16 -20,0
14
14
11
11
Light
inmonthly
12
(MSMEs)
Personal
12 -40,0
(MSMEs)
9 -40,0
Tourismand
9
(average)
Micro
Medium
10
Small
(average)
10
8 -46,7
-46,7
Tourism
-60,0
Numberof
8 -60,0
decreasein
Number
6
6
-65,5
%%decrease
4
4 -80,0
-80,0 -68,4 -65,5
-68,4
-73,7
2 -73,7
2 -79,8
-83,0 -79,8
-83,0
0
0 -100,0
-100,0
Less
Less than
than 10-24%
10-24% 25-49%
25-49% 50-74%
50-74% 75%
75% and
and -100,0
-100,0
10%
10% more
more -120,0
-120,0
/Source:
/Source: COVID-19
ImpactAssessment
Assessment Survey
Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020).
(June-July Figure
Figure
2020). 85:82:
Figure N=71;
N=71;
82: Figure
Figure
N=71; 86:83:
Figure N=62.
N=62.
83: N=62.

194
More than 50 % of these MSMEs carried out their economic activities within 30 kilometers from the border and were engaged in
small-scale cross-border trade.
Page 23 of 35
Page 23 of 35

According to MSMEs that are engaged in cross-border trade, goods were imported mainly from Russia
(17.6 % of MSMEs that import goods across borders), Uzbekistan (14.3 %) and Kazakhstan (8.8 %). The most
common destination of exports by surveyed MSMEs included Russia (21.4 %), Afghanistan (13.3 %), as
well as Uzbekistan and the Kyrgyz Republic (both at 12.2 %). All of these countries have imposed travel or
movement restrictions and closed their international borders. Since cross-border trade is the main source
of income for 53.5 % of MSMEs (38 out of 71 MSMEs), the decline in sales has already had a significant
negative effect on turnover and viability of commercial operations.
According to the survey results, MSMEs do not necessarily believe that cross-border business is likely to
recover quickly because businesses across the border are facing the same challenges and restrictions.
Many of these MSMEs require significant support which would help them strengthen risk management,
crisis management, and supply chain security. Although the impact on cargo and the movement of goods
appears to be less severe than air travel, largely because freight has been subjected to fewer restrictions
than passengers, cross-border trade is still restricted to avoid importing virus cases.
Key findings:
1. 10.1 % of MSMEs in Tajikistan engage in cross-border trade with other neighboring countries, and 28.6 %
of them stated that in the preceding 12 months more than half of their trade was across borders.
2. Since the COVID-19 outbreak, 83.1 % of MSMEs that are engaged in cross-border trade (i.e. 59 out of
71 MSMEs) had their sales decline due to border closures and travel restrictions. Since cross-border
trade is the main source of income for 53.5 % of MSMEs (38 out of 71 MSMEs), the decline in sales has
a significant negative effect on turnover and operations of MSMEs.
3. Nearly all MSMEs believe that cross-border trade is unlikely to recover quickly even after restrictions
on cargo movement are lifted between Tajikistan and its neighboring countries.
EMPLOYMENT
OVERALL IMPACT ON WORKFORCE

The surveyed MSMEs undertook a number of measures towards their workers in response to challenges
that they had faced due to the COVID-19 outbreak. About 24.5 % of affected MSMEs stated that they
had to temporarily shut down operations, most of them being individual entrepreneurs and small-sized
enterprises. Another 33.4 % of MSMEs allowed their workers to take leave, although some are either
unpaid or do not have a pre-determined return date. A smaller proportion of affected MSMEs (7.3 %)
allowed their workers to work from home (e.g. via teleworking), some of them shorter hours.
Dehkan farmers have undertaken broadly similar measures towards their workers but, importantly, 73.7 %
of all dehkan farmers indicated that they did not take any measures towards their workers. This is partly
attributed to: (i) sizeable non-registered employment among dehkan farmers, and (ii) relatively large
number of non-registered dehkan farms which have little to no legally binding obligations towards their
workers.
Significant financial losses due to depressed demand or inability to access markets and customers forced
many MSMEs, in all sectors and geographic locations, to furlough their workers or, at times, lay them off in
order to adjust the cost structure of their commercial operations. On average, 314 MSMEs furloughed 2.2
workers and dismissed 0.6 workers in response to the COVID-19 outbreak and economic implications on
businesses. MSMEs in light industry (106) and tourism and hospitality (70) furloughed, on average, 2.5 and
2.4 workers respectively, whereas 49 medium-sized enterprises reportedly laid off 1.6 workers (See Figures
85–86). The layoff and furloughing of workers is significant because, on average, 700 MSMEs employ 13.1
workers, of which 2.2 workers (16.8 % of all workers) were reportedly furloughed and 0.6 workers (4.6 % of

all workers) were reportedly laid off. Among 70 MSMEs in the tourism and hospitality sector, on average,
32.6 % of workers were furloughed and 9.5 % of workers were laid off. MSMEs in personal services
reported that, on average, 19.1 % of workers were furloughed and 5.6 % of workers were laid off. Agriculture
is the least affected of four economic sectors — on average, 210 MSMEs in agriculture furloughed 5.9 %
of their workers and laid off 2 % of their workers. Since there are no government-supported furloughing
schemes for struggling businesses in Tajikistan, MSMEs have had to bear the full brunt of the workforce
reduction to minimize wage bill.
TABLE 26: MEASURES UNDERTAKEN BY MSMEs TOWARDS WORKERS DUE TO COVID-19.195
1st measure 2nd measure 3rd measure TOTAL

Temporary closure of business 77 31 18 126
Unpaid leave 80 37 7 124
On leave with uncertain return date 62 39 21 122
On forced vacation 50 6 1 57
Work from home 45 8 1 54
Did not disclose (unknown) 33 10 2 45
Furloughed 27 11 2 40
On voluntary vacation 26 6 0 32
Sick leave 5 7 0 12
TOTAL: 405 155 52 –
FIGURE 87: THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF FIGURE 88: THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF WORKERS
WORKERS THAT MSMEs LAID OFF (i.e. FIRED THAT MSMEs FURLOUGHED (i.e. PLACED ON
OR DISMISSED) DUE TO DIFFICULTIES RELATED UNPAID LEAVE) DUE TO DIFFICULTIES RELATED
TO COVID-19. TO COVID-19.
Personal
Personal services
services 0,5
0,5 Personal services
Personal services 1,7
1,7
Light
Light industry
industry 0,7
0,7 Light industry
Light industry 2,5
2,5
Tourism
Tourism and
and hospitality
hospitality 0,7
0,7 Tourism and
hospitality 2,4
2,4
Agriculture
Agriculture 0,4
0,4 Agriculture
Agriculture 1,2
1,2
Rural
Rural 0,5
0,5 Rural
Rural 1,7
1,7
Urban
Urban 0,5
0,5 Urban
Urban 2,0
2,0
Medium
Medium 1,6
1,6 Medium
Medium 6,4
6,4
Small
Small 0,7
0,7 Small
Small 2,1
2,1
Micro
Micro 0,2
0,2 Micro
Micro 0,4
0,4
All
All (average)
(average) 0,6
0,6 All (average)
All (average) 2,2
2,2
00 0,5
0,5 11 1,5
1,5 22 00 22 44 66 88
Average
Average number
number of
of people
people (laid
(laid off)
off) Average number
Average number of
of workers
workers (furloughed)
(furloughed)
Furloughing measures, redundancies and dismissals by surveyed MSMEs have inevitably resulted in
the (temporary or permanent) drop in earnings of affected employees. According to MSMEs that have
undertaken measures towards their workforce, the drop in earnings appears to be considerably higher
Respondents were allowed to choose up to three answer choices (measures), which are duly reflected in the table.
195
for employees in smaller enterprises (including workers hired by individual entrepreneurs) as compared
to larger businesses, and that younger employees, as well as employees at or above retirement age, risk
losing out the most due to the COVID-19 outbreak.
Since dehkan farmers were less affected by the COVID-19 situation than other businesses. Hence, the
average number of workers furloughed by dehkan farmers was lower (0.8 workers) than those by other
MSMEs. No worker was reported dismissed by surveyed dehkan farmers. This may imply somehow being
better shielded than more exposed MSMES.
Key findings:
1. In total, 24.5 % of affected MSMEs had to temporarily close their business, most of them individual
entrepreneurs and small-scale enterprises. Besides, approximately 33 % of affected MSMEs allowed
their workers to take leave, although some are either unpaid or do not have a pre-determined return
date which raises uncertainty and risk of unemployment.
2. Not many MSMEs (only 7.3 % of the sample) allowed their workers to work from home. Those that did
have also agreed that their workers would telework and/or work shorter hours, which shows that some
businesses adopted flexible working arrangements to ensure that safety measures are adhered to and
minimize operational costs.
3. Employment most at risk is concentrated in MSMEs which operate in light industry and tourism and
hospitality sectors, and in larger businesses.
4. A modest number of MSMEs, mainly in agriculture (namely, 73.7 % of dehkan farmers), did not
undertake any measures towards their workers, which could either indicate large degree of informality
in agriculture relative to other sectors or that MSMEs would take measures at a later stage if COVID-19
related closures and restrictions persist in the coming months.
5. Furloughing of workers has been widely practiced across the board to adjust the cost structure of
dehkan farmers’ operations. According to responses from 314 MSMEs, on average, they furloughed 2.2
workers and dismissed 0.6 workers which demonstrates the effect of COVID-19 on employment.
6. The drop in wages is likely to be larger for employees in smaller enterprises, as well as among younger
employees and employees who are approaching (or above) retirement age. These groups of workers
in the four sectors are most negatively affected by the COVID-19 outbreak.
INFORMAL SECTOR
In total, MSMEs reported that 2,475 out of 9,204 workers are non-registered, including part-time, casual
workers, temporary/hourly casual workers, and contributing household members (paid and unpaid).
Therefore, informality in the workforce among the surveyed MSMEs is equivalent to 26.9 % of the total
workforce which is relatively high. Here, the unique nature of the four economic sectors selected for the
survey should be taken into consideration.
Informal employment is prevalent in agriculture (35 % of all workers), such as in dehkan farms, some of
which are allowed by legislation to be non-registered. The lowest proportion of informal sector workers is
in tourism and hospitality, accounting for 9.9 % of all workers there. The share of non-registered workers in
the remaining two sectors equals approximately 21 % of workers respectively. This finding provides a good
estimate of the size of the informal sector in each of the four economic sectors, as well as between men
and women, which affects the degree of impact of the COVID-19 outbreak.
Women comprise 68.2 % of informal sector jobs among the surveyed MSMEs which increases their
vulnerability to shocks. Such a high proportion of women and girls carrying out non-registered work has
deeper socio-economic implications, particularly with regards to women-headed households and women’s
future employability.

TABLE 27: WORKFORCE IN THE SURVEYED MSMEs BY INFORMAL (i.e. NON-REGISTERED) JOBS.
Part-time Temporary Working HH

TOTAL
(casual) (casual) members
Agriculture 579 478 444 1,501
of which: women 491 382 256 1,129
Light industry 191 113 42 346
of which: women 82 90 32 204
Personal services 190 224 163 577
of which: women 138 104 97 339
FIGURE
FIGURE84:
84:
THE
THEAVERAGE
AVERAGE NUMBER
NUMBER OFOF
WORKERS
WORKERS FIGURE
FIGURE85:
85:
THE
THEAVERAGE
AVERAGE NUMBER
NUMBER OFOF
WORKERS
WORKERS
Tourism
THAT
THATMSMEs and
MSMEs hospitality
LAID
LAID
OFF
OFF(i.e.
(i.e.
FIRED
FIREDOR
OR 10
DISMISSED)
DISMISSED) THAT
THAT19MSMEs
MSMEs 22 (i.e.
FURLOUGHED
FURLOUGHED (i.e.
PLACED 51 ON
PLACED ON
DUE
DUETO
ofTO
DIFFICULTIES
DIFFICULTIES
which: women RELATED
RELATED TOTO
THE
THECOVID-19
COVID-19
3 UNPAID
UNPAID
3 LEAVE)
LEAVE)DUE
DUE
TOTO
11DIFFICULTIES
DIFFICULTIES RELATED
17RELATED
TOTO
OUTBREAK.
OUTBREAK. THE
THECOVID-19
COVID-19 OUTBREAK.
OUTBREAK.
TOTAL: 970 834 671 2,475
of which: women:
Personal
Personal
services
services 0,50,5 714 579
Personal
Personal services 396 1,71,7
services 1,689
Light
Lightindustry
industry 0,70,7 Light
Light
industry
industry 2,52,5
/Source:
Tourism
Tourism COVID-19
andand Impact Assessment 0,7
hospitality
hospitality Survey
0,7 (June-July 2020). N=700.
Tourism
Tourism
andand
hospitality
hospitality 2,42,4
Agriculture
Agriculture 0,40,4 Agriculture
Agriculture 1,21,2
The COVID-19 Rural outbreak
Rural is likely
0,50,5to have expanded the informal sector employment
Rural
Rural because employers
1,71,7
were found toUrban be tempted to0,5
Urban reduce
0,5 the number of contracted workers. Urban
UrbanIn turn, this2,0measure
2,0 would
reduce the tax burden and overall costs. According
Medium
Medium 1,61,6 to 13.6 % affected Medium MSMEs, who had temporarily6,4
Medium laid
6,4
out workers due to the coronavirus
Small
Small 0,70,7outbreak, they would accept new workers
Small
Small
on a non-registered
2,12,1
(i.e.
informal or casual)Micro basis. 0,2
Micro The0,2percentage of MSMEs willing to acceptMicro workers
Micro
on a non-registered basis
0,40,4
varies between
AllAll economic sectors.
(average)
(average) 0,60,6For instance, 21.8 % of MSMEs in light industry as opposed to only
AllAll
(average)
(average) 2,22,2
8 % of MSMEs in agriculture were willing to do so. This is because many surveyed MSMEs in agriculture
were dehkan farmers0 and 0 0,50,5 1 1 1,51,5 2 2
individual entrepreneurs who either do not require 0 0 non-registered
2 2 4 4 workers
6 6 or8 8
Average
Average
number
numberof of
people
people
(laid
(laid Average
Average
number
number
of
do not always consider contributing household members as informal sector labor. In addition, individual of
workers
workers
(furloughed)
(furloughed)
entrepreneurs were marginally more inclined to accept non-registered workers (14.4 % of all individual
/Source:
/Source:
COVID-19
COVID-19
entrepreneurs Impact
inImpact
theAssessment
Assessment
sample) Survey
than Survey
(June-July
private(June-July
2020).
2020).
commercial Figure
Figure
legal 84:
84:
N=314;
N=314;
entities Figure
Figure
(11.7 %). 85:85:
N=314.
N=314.
FIGURE 89: IF YOU HAD TO LAY OUT WORKERS FIGURE 90: THE MAIN REASONS FOR WILLING
FIGURE
FIGURE 86:
86:IF IF
YOU
YOUHAD
HADTOTO
LAY
LAY
OUT
OUT
WORKERS
WORKERS DUE
DUE FIGURE
FIGURE
87:
87:
THE
THE
MAIN
MAINREASONS
REASONS FOR
FOR
WILLING
WILLING
TOTO
DUE TO THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK, WOULD YOU TO ACCEPT NON-REGISTERED (i.e. INFORMAL
TOTO THE
THECOVID-19
COVID-19 OUTBREAK,
OUTBREAK,WOULD
WOULDYOU
YOU ACCEPT
ACCEPT ACCEPT
ACCEPT
NON-REGISTERED
NON-REGISTERED (i.e.
(i.e.
INFORMAL
INFORMAL
ACCEPT NEW WORKERS ON A NON-REGISTERED SECTOR) WORKERS INTO MSMEs.
NEW
NEW WORKERS
WORKERS ON
ONAANON-REGISTERED
NON-REGISTERED(INFORMAL)
(INFORMAL) SECTOR)
SECTOR)
WORKERS
WORKERS INTO
INTO
MSMEs.
MSMEs.
(INFORMAL) BASIS?
BASIS?
BASIS?
I can
I can
no no
longer
longer
afford
afford
to pay
to pay
Medium
Medium enterprises
enterprises other
other
monetary
monetary
benefits
benefits
3; 5%
3; 5%
Small
Small enterprises
enterprises
8; 12%
8; 12% 3; 5%
3; 5% I can
I can
no no
longer
longer
afford
afford
to pay
to pay
Micro
Micro enterprises
enterprises taxes/
taxes/
social
social
payments
payments
Tourism
Tourism and…
and… 10; 10;
16%16%
I prefer
I prefer
to hire
to hire
workers
workers
without
without
additional
additional
paperwork
paperwork
Personal
Personal services
services
Light
Light industry
industry 5; 8%
5; 8% I won't
I won't
need
need
to deal
to deal
with
with
other
other
employer
employer
obligations
obligations
Agriculture
Agriculture
34;34;
54%54%
This
This
is the
is the
preference
preference
of new
of new
0%0% 20% 40%
20% 40% 60%
60% 80%
80% 100%
100% workers
workers
Proportion
Proportion of of respondents
respondents (MSMEs)
(MSMEs)
This
This
wayway
it will
it will
be beeasier
easier
to to
YES
YES NONO dismiss
dismiss
them themif/when
if/when
needed
needed
/Source:
/Source:
COVID-19
COVID-19
Impact
Impact
Assessment
AssessmentSurvey
Survey(June-July
(June-July
2020).
2020).Figure
Figure
86:86:
N=70;
N=70;
Figure
Figure
87:87:
N=70.
N=70.

Many MSMEs argued that informal employment is their workers’ own preference which is explained by: (i)
the higher propensity to withhold taxes and other social payments which increases their net payout, and (ii)
lack of required documents (e.g. passport, bank account, resume, and working history) which would have
qualified them for formal employment.
Other MSMEs indicated that accepting workers on a non-registered basis would help them avoid additional
paperwork. At the same time, some MSMEs were open to the fact that the presence of informal workers
would enable employers to “deal with them” more easily (e.g. dismiss or furlough) and eliminate the need
to comply with various legally binding employer obligations.
According to the survey, informal MSMEs in Tajikistan have struggled to pay their employees, many of
whom depend on daily wages for basic needs. At the same time, unlike their formal sector counterparts,
informal MSMEs are not eligible for government emergency business support. Similarly, their employees
cannot not qualify for unemployment insurance which severely constrains their coping options.
Had the COVID-19 outbreak not affected MSMEs the way that it has so far, MSMEs would still accept
workers on a non-registered basis, as verified by the trend over the past decade. On average, 26.2 %
of affected MSMEs would have accepted non-registered workers anyway. This proportion is equivalent
to 18.2 % among MSMEs in GBAO and 36 % among MSMEs in Khatlon oblast. The regional difference is
explained by higher density of MSMEs in agriculture and services in Khatlon oblast as opposed to GBAO
where MSMEs are more prevalent in light industry and tourism and hospitality. Therefore, the net effect of
the COVID-19 outbreak on informal sector employment is difficult to establish. Notwithstanding the need
for further empirical analysis to establish a cause-and-effect relationship, the COVID-19 outbreak is likely
to have further expanded informal sector employment because of financial difficulties and other economic
implications that MSMEs are facing as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.
Key findings:
1. Informality in the workforce among the surveyed MSMEs is reportedly equivalent to 26.9 % of all
workers which is relatively high compared to other economic sectors in Tajikistan. Considering that
informal businesses and informal employees in registered businesses often lack safety net, they are
naturally regarded as the most vulnerable and exposed to COVID-19.
2. The share of women and girls in informal employment is very large (68.2 % of all informal jobs), which
increases the vulnerability of female workers to economic shocks and has more profound socio-
economic implications on their future employment and employability.
3. The proportion of non-registered workforce varies by economic sector. Informal employment is
prevalent in agriculture (35 % of all workers), such as in dehkan farms, while the lowest share of
informal employment is in tourism and hospitality (9.9 %).
4. In total, 13.6 % of affected MSMEs who had temporarily laid out workers due to the coronavirus
outbreak would accept new workers on a non-registered (i.e. informal or casual) basis. This is
significant because MSMEs are willing to expand the share of non-registered workforce in response to
negative implications of the COVID-19 outbreak.
5. Individual entrepreneurs are more willing to accept non-registered workers (14.4 % of individual
entrepreneurs) than do private commercial enterprises (11.7 %); and MSMEs mostly said that it is their
workers’ own preference to seek informal sector employment.
6. On average, 26.2 % of affected MSMEs (135 out of 515) would have accepted non-registered workers
anyway, i.e. in the absence of the COVID-19 outbreak, with some regional variations. The COVID-19
outbreak is likely to have expanded informal sector employment.

FINANCING AND COMMERCIAL RETURN
MSMEs have had mixed short-term impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on their incomes. In total, 78.1 %
of affected MSMEs experienced a decrease in sales as a result of the coronavirus outbreak. There is a
sizeable number of dehkan farmers (in agriculture) who were affected but their sales are often subject to
seasonality considerations and thus were marginally affected, particularly in comparison with MSMEs in
tourism and hospitality and other MSMEs in the remaining two sectors.
Geographically, a very small share of MSMEs in GBAO reported a significant increase in their income from
sales attributed directly to the outbreak. These were businesses which benefited from road closures and
had little to no market competition in their area. In DRS, about 48.6 % of MSMEs reported that their income
from sales remained unchanged, mainly dehkan farmers, which could imply that they are either (i) more
resilient to shocks, or (ii) market their products predominantly in local area, which reduces exposure to
potential disruptions in distribution or logistics networks and other supply chains.
In general, 88.6 % of MSMEs in the tourism and hospitality sector reported significant decrease in their
monthly income from sales because of the COVID-19 outbreak, whereas the decrease averaged 87.3 %.
Conversely, there were no MSMEs in tourism and hospitality or personal services who reported that their
income from sales increased in any way (See Figure 91). This is attributable to the fact that in the presence
of international border closures, local tourist firms which offer guided tours, sightseeing tours, camping
and other recreational activities within Tajikistan could have experienced a rise in demand for recreational
activities but this has not happened due to social distancing and heightened health risks.
FIGURE
88: PROPORTIONOF OFMSMEs
MSMEsTHAT
THAT HAVE FIGURE
PROPORTIONOF OFMSMEs
MSMEs THAT HAVE
EXPERIENCED A CHANGE OFINCOME
IN MSMEs THATHAVE
FROM HAVE FIGURE89:
89: PROPORTION
EXPERIENCED A CHANGE OF
IN MSMEs THAT
INCOMETHAT HAVE
FROMHAVESALES
EXPERIENCED
EXPERIENCED AACHANGE
CHANGE INININCOME
INCOMEFROM SALES EXPERIENCED
FROMSALES EXPERIENCEDAACHANGE
CHANGEIN
ININCOME
INCOME FROM
FROM SALES
SALES
SALES
ASAS AS A
A RESULT RESULT
OFOFTHE OF THE
COVID-19 COVID-19 AS A RESULT OF THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK (BY
A RESULT THE COVID-19OUTBREAK
OUTBREAK(BY
(BY AS
ASAARESULT
RESULTOFOFTHE
THECOVID-19
COVID-19OUTBREAK
OUTBREAK (BY
(BY
OUTBREAK (BY ECONOMIC SECTORS).
ECONOMIC SECTORS). GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS).
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS).
ECONOMIC SECTORS). GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS).
100%
100%
Tourism andand
Tourism 90%
90%
hospitality
hospitality 80%
80%
Personal 70%
70%
Personal
services
services 60%
60%
50%
50%
Light industry
Light industry 40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%
Agriculture
Agriculture
10%
10%
0%
0%
0%0% 20%
20% 40%
40% 60%
60% 80%
80% 100%
100%
DRS
DRS Dushanbe
Dushanbe GBAO
GBAO Khatlon
Khatlon Soghd
Soghd
Proportion
Proportion of of respondents
respondents (MSMEs)
(MSMEs) oblast
oblast oblast
oblast
Significantdecrease
Significant decrease Minordecrease
Minor decrease
Significant
Significant decrease
decrease Minor
Minor decrease
decrease Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged Minorincrease
Minor increase
Minor
Minor increase
increase Significant
Significant increase
increase
Significantincrease
/Source:
/Source:
/Source: COVID-19
COVID-19
COVID-19 Impact
Impact
Impact Assessment
Assessment
Assessment Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July
Survey 2020).
2020).
(June-July Figure
Figure
2020). 88:N=700;
N=700;
91: N=700;
Figure 88: FigureFigure 89:N=700.
N=700.
92: N=700.
Figure 89:
In addition, 88.9 % of MSMEs offering personal services reported, on average, a 64.6 % fall in monthly
income
FIGURE
FIGURE
from
90:90:sales.
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
ThePERCENT
decline in
PERCENT monthlyININ
CHANGE
CHANGE
income fromFIGURE
sales is91:
FIGURE particularly
91:PROPORTION
PROPORTION prevalent among
OFMSMEs
OF MSMEs foodHAVE
THAT
THAT places
HAVE
such as
MONTHLY restaurants
INCOME and
FROMcafeterias,
MONTHLY INCOME FROM SALES OF MSMEs SALES beauty
OF MSMEsindustry (hairdressers,
EXPERIENCEDbeautyA salons,
CHANGE and
IN massage
SALES
EXPERIENCED A CHANGE IN SALES AS A RESULT AS Aparlors),
RESULT
and firmsBY
CAUSED
CAUSED inBY
other
THETHE sub-sectors such as event management
COVID-19OUTBREAK.
COVID-19 OUTBREAK. services
OFTHE
OF (e.g. all
THECOVID-19
COVID-19 festivities(BY
OUTBREAK
OUTBREAK andSIZE
(BY weddings
SIZE OF
OF were
prohibited). In the meantime, 11.1 % of MSMEs offering personal services reported that their monthly income
ENTERPRISE).
ENTERPRISE).
from sales has remained unchanged. These MSMEs included taxi services, delivery and catering services,
100100 100%
100%
ortion of respondents (MSMEs)
home/office cleaning services, and nursing and care services whose commercial operations were able to
rtion of respondents (MSMEs)
e in average monthly income
70,9 90%
in average monthly income
75 70,9 90%
better 75adapt to54,9
the
54,9COVID-19 situation. 80%
80%
70%
5050 70%
60%
60%
1062525 Impact
0,0 of COVID-19
0,0
0,0 on
0,0
50%
Lives, 50%
Livelihoods
40%
and Micro, Small and MSMEs in Tajikistan
0 40%
0 30%
Agriculture Light industry Personal Tourism and 30%
-25 Agriculture Light industry Personal
services
Tourism and
hospitality 20%
-25 services hospitality 20%
10%
-50 10%
Unchanged
Unchanged Minorincrease
Minor increase
Minorincrease
Minor increase Significantincrease
Significantincrease
/Source:COVID-19
ImpactAssessment
AssessmentSurvey
Survey(June-July
(June-July2020).
2020).Figure
Figure88:
88:N=700;
N=700;Figure
Figure89:
89:N=700.
N=700.
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE 90:93:
90: AVERAGE
AVERAGE
AVERAGE PERCENT
PERCENT
PERCENT CHANGE
CHANGE
CHANGE INININ FIGURE
FIGURE94:
FIGURE 91:PROPORTION
91: PROPORTIONOF
PROPORTION OF MSMEs
OFMSMEs
MSMEsTHATTHAT
THATHAVE
HAVE
MONTHLY
MONTHLY INCOME
INCOME FROM
FROM SALES
SALES OF
MONTHLY INCOME FROM SALES OF MSMEs OF MSMEs
MSMEs HAVE EXPERIENCED
EXPERIENCED A A CHANGE
CHANGE IN IN
SALES SALES
AS
EXPERIENCED A CHANGE IN SALES AS A RESULTA AS A
RESULT
CAUSED
CAUSED
CAUSED BY
BY BY THE
THE
THE COVID-19
COVID-19
COVID-19 OUTBREAK.
OUTBREAK.
OUTBREAK. RESULT
OF THEOF THE COVID-19
COVID-19 OUTBREAK
OUTBREAK (BY (BY
SIZE
OF THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK (BY SIZE OF OF SIZE OF
ENTERPRISE).
ENTERPRISE).
ENTERPRISE).
100
100 100%
100%

% change in average monthly income
70,9 90%
% change in average monthly income
70,9 90%
75
75 54,9
54,9 80%
80%
50 70%
70%
50
60%
60%
25
25 50%
0,0 0,0 50%
0,0 0,0 40%
00 40%
Agriculture Light
Lightindustry
industry Personal
Personal Tourism
Tourismand
and 30%
30%
Agriculture
-25
-25 services hospitality
hospitality 20%
20%
services
10%
10%
-50
-50 0%
0%
-75 -58,7
-58,7 Microenterprises
Micro enterprisesSmall
Smallenterprises
enterprises Medium
Medium
-75 -66,1 -64,6
-64,6
-66,1 enterprises
enterprises
-100
-100 -87,3
-87,3
Increased
Increased Unchanged
Unchanged Decreased
Decreased
Averagedecrease
Average decrease Averageincrease
Average increase
/Source:COVID-19
ImpactAssessment
AssessmentSurvey
Survey(June-July
(June-July2020).
2020).Figure
Figure90:
90:N=700;
N=700;Figure
Figure91:
91:N=700.
N=700.
The COVID-19 outbreak exacerbated liquidity shortages of MSMEs in Tajikistan. Of all affected MSMEs,
27 % reported that they had significant difficulties paying taxes and other fees. Another 15 % of affected
MSMEs had difficulties remunerating workers in full and on time. Most MSMEs expressed concern and
doubt over their ability to repay loans or make rent and utility payments. The likely size of the liquidity gap
for MSMEs is much larger than in OECD countries because wage costs of businesses in Tajikistan are not
expected to be compensated by the government.
FIGURE 95: AVERAGE PERCENT CHANGE IN MONTHLY INCOME FROM SALES OF MSMEs CAUSED BY
FIGURE 92: AVERAGE PERCENT CHANGE IN MONTHLY INCOME FROM SALES OF MSMEs CAUSED BY THE
THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK
COVID-19 OUTBREAK (BY TYPE
(BY TYPE OF MSMEs
OF MSMEs AND GEOGRAPHIC
AND GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS).
LOCATIONS).
0,0
Soghd
Micro
Men-led
Dushanbe
GBAO
MSMEs (all)
Women-led
Small
Medium
Khatlon
DRS
-10,0
% change in average monthly
-20,0
-30,0
Page 25 of 35
Page 25 of 35
income
-40,0

-50,0
-60,0 -52,7 -53,3 -53,3 -55,5
-57,0 -55,8 -56,7
-59,1 -61,2
-70,0 -62,9
-80,0
-80,0
-90,0

FIGURE 93: OUTSTANDING LOANS OF SURVEYED FIGURE 94: THE ORIGIN OF OUTSTANDING LOANS
The COVID-19
MSMEs outbreak
BY TYPE was also found to be particularly OF
OF LOAN. harsh for start-ups.
SURVEYED MSMEs.In the survey sample, only
1.4 % 800
of MSMEs were regarded as start-ups because they were reportedly registered on January 1, 2020 or
Internationally supported program
later. Start-ups have much lower ability to afford cash injections or have a track record which would have
Number of MSMEs
enabled
600 them to qualify for credit. Special fund (e.g. entrepreneurship
support fund)
Individual (friend, relative,
400
neighbour, etc.)
Non-bank financial institution
200 (NBFI)
Impact of COVID-19 on MSMEs

0
Commercial bank 107
Consumption Mortgage Business loan Agricultural Other types
loan loan of loans 0 200 400 600
YES NO Number of respondents (MSMEs)
YES NO
Prior to the COVID-19 outbreak,196 the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan has undertaken measures
to transition all businesses offering lodging and accommodation for tourists,197 as well as businesses
engaged in handicraft activities, to individual entrepreneurship under a patent. This measure significantly
simplified the procedures and cost of new market entry of businesses in these sub-sectors and has also
helped to partially mitigate the negative implications of financial disruptions caused by the coronavirus
pandemic on MSMEs.
There are many businesses in Tajikistan which borrow in foreign currency, but their commercial returns
are accrued in local currency, which puts them at a disadvantage and exposes to currency volatility. Rent
payment is also very problematic since many MSMEs could not generate meaningful returns during the
COVID-19 outbreak, which would have enabled them to free up cash in order to make rent payments.
Moreover, 3.9 % of affected MSMEs indicated that they had difficulties accessing credit, such as from
friends and relatives.
TABLE 28: TOP 10 WAYS IN WHICH COVID-19 OUTBREAK AFFECTED MSMEs’ FINANCIAL VIABILITY.
TOTAL
Difficulty paying taxes and other fees 238
Difficulty remunerating workers 132
Loan repayment difficulties (business) 100
Rent payment difficulties (use of office space) 99
Rent payment difficulties (use of land) 47
Difficulty paying other monetary benefits 44
Rent payment difficulties (use of other assets) 41
Loan repayment difficulties (other loans) 36
Constrained access to business loan(s) 12
Constrained access to other loan(s) 8
While many MSMEs faced financial difficulties, some of them have also had outstanding loan payments
which further weakened their financial sustainability. For instance, 22.9 % of all surveyed MSMEs stated that
they had outstanding loans, such as business loans, agricultural loans, and consumption loans. Nearly 33 %
of MSMEs in light industry and 27.7 % of MSMEs in personal services have had business loans at the time
of the survey, and 28.6 % of MSMEs in agriculture (mostly, dehkan farmers) had outstanding agricultural
loans. There were more medium-sized enterprises with outstanding business loans (32.8 % of medium-
sized enterprises), compared to small enterprises (22.5 %) and micro enterprises (21.4 %). This variation
is explained by the fact that larger businesses are more likely to require additional (and often external)
resources to finance their growth or expansion, compared to smaller businesses.
These outstanding loans are owed by surveyed MSMEs to commercial banks (27.1 % of all MSMEs), friends
and relatives (9.1 %), and various non-bank financial institutions (NBFIs) such as micro-finance organizations
and micro-credit organizations.
Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan #45 dated 25 January 2017 and Resolution of the Government of the
196
Republic of Tajikistan #605 dated 30 November 2019.

This only applies to lodging and accommodation in cities/towns which do not have hotels.
197
COVID-19
-70,0OUTBREAK (BY TYPE OF MSMEs AND GEOGRAPHIC
-70,0 -61,2LOCATIONS).-62,9
-62,9
% cha
change in average monthly % ch
0,0
-80,0
0,0
-80,0
Soghd
Micro
Men-led
Dushanbe
GBAO
(all)
Women-led
Small
Medium
Khatlon
DRS
-10,0
% change in average monthly

-80,0
Soghd
Micro
Men-led
Dushanbe
GBAO
-80,0
(all)
Women-led
Small
Medium
Khatlon
DRS
-90,0
-10,0
-90,0
MSMEs
-20,0
MSMEs
-20,0
/Source:
/Source: COVID-19
COVID-19Impact
ImpactAssessment
AssessmentSurvey
Survey(June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020). N=700.
N=700.
-30,0
-30,0
FIGURE 96: OUTSTANDING LOANS OF FIGURE 97: THE ORIGIN OF OUTSTANDING
income
-40,093:
FIGURE FIGURE 94: THE ORIGIN
-40,093:OUTSTANDING
FIGURE OUTSTANDINGLOANS LOANSOF OFSURVEYED
SURVEYED ORIGIN OF OF OUTSTANDING
OUTSTANDINGLOANS LOANS
income
SURVEYED MSMEs BY TYPE OF LOAN. LOANS OF SURVEYED MSMEs.
MSMEs-50,0BY
MSMEs-50,0 BY TYPE
TYPE OFOFLOAN.
LOAN. OF SURVEYED MSMEs.
MSMEs.
-60,0
800
800 -52,7 -53,3 -53,3 -55,5
-60,0 -57,0 -55,8 -52,7 -53,3 -56,7supported
Internationally
Internationally supported program
program -53,3 -55,5
-57,0 -59,1 -55,8 -61,2 -56,7
-59,1
Number of%MSMEs
Number of MSMEs
-70,0 -61,2 -62,9

-62,9
600-70,0
600 Special
Special fund (e.g. entrepreneurship
entrepreneurship
-80,0 support fund)
fund)
-80,0
400 Individual (friend, relative, -80,0
(friend, relative,
400
-90,0 -80,0
-90,0 neighbour,
neighbour, etc.)
etc.)
Non-bank financial
financial institution
institution
/Source: COVID-19
200
/Source:
200 COVID-19Impact
ImpactAssessment
AssessmentSurvey
Survey (June-July 2020). N=700.
(June-July 2020). N=700. (NBFI)
(NBFI)
Commercial
Commercial bank
bank
00
FIGURE
FIGURE93:
93:OUTSTANDING LOANS OF SURVEYED FIGURE 94: THE ORIGIN OF OUTSTANDING LOANS
OUTSTANDING
Consumption
Consumption
LOANS
Mortgage Business
Mortgage BusinessloanOFAgricultural
loan SURVEYED types FIGURE 94: THE ORIGIN OF OUTSTANDING LOANS
Othertypes
Agricultural Other
MSMEs
MSMEsBY
BYTYPE
TYPE
loan
loan OF
OFLOAN.
LOAN. loan
loan of loans
of loans OF SURVEYED
OF SURVEYEDMSMEs.
MSMEs. 00 200
200 400
400 600
600
YES NO Number
respondents(MSMEs)
(MSMEs)
800
800 YES NO YES NO
Internationallysupported
Internationally supportedprogram
YES program
NO
Number of MSMEs
Number of MSMEs
/Source:
AssessmentSurvey
Survey(June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020). Figure 93:(e.g.
N=700; Figure 94:
94: N=700.
600
600 COVID-19
/Source: Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). FigureFigure
Special
Special 93:
fund
fund
96: N=700; N=700;
(e.g. Figure
entrepreneurship
entrepreneurship
Figure 97: N=700. N=700.
supportfund)
support fund)
Individual(friend,
Individual (friend,relative,
relative,
InFIGURE
400
400
FIGURE 95:to
response
95: MEASURES THATMSMEs
COVID-19,THAT
MEASURES 29.6 %MSMEs BELIEVE
of surveyed THE GOVERNMENT
MSMEs
BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT toOF
were inclinedneighbour,
OFborrow
neighbour,
THE
THE REPUBLIC OF
OFTAJIKISTAN
from individuals
etc.)REPUBLIC
etc.) (56.5 % ofCAN
TAJIKISTAN CAN
UNDERTAKE
MSMEs)
UNDERTAKE ININORDER
and banking ORDER TOREDUCE
sector
TO REDUCEofTHE
(36.2 % THE
MSMEs).FINANCIAL
FINANCIALThe mainBURDEN
BURDEN OF THE
observation
OF THE
Non-bank
Non-bank
COVID-19
here is not OUTBREAK
COVID-19
financial
financialinstitution
institution the need forON
OUTBREAK new
ON MSMEs.
credit,
MSMEs.
200
200 (NBFI)
which is fairly common among MSMEs that face financial difficulties, but the fact that more than half of all
(NBFI)
MSMEs are willing to borrow from individuals rather than local financial institutions.
Commercial
Commercial bank
bank This demonstrates
00
that MSMEs are either
Consumption
Consumption non-bankable
Mortgage
Mortgage Business loan to beginOther
Agricultural
Business loan Agricultural with,
Other or have an outstanding loan from a financial institution,
types
types
loan loan of loans
loans 00 200
200 400
400 600 600
which constrains
loan their borrowing options loan or eligibility
of for additional financing. Number of respondents (MSMEs)
YES
YES NO
NO Number of respondents (MSMEs)
YES
YES NO
NO
/Source:COVID-19
Impact AssessmentSurvey
Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020). Figure 93: N=700; Figure 94: N=700.
FIGURE 10% 15% Assessment
0% 5% MEASURES 20% 25%MSMEs
30% 35% 40% 45%2020).
50%Figure
55%93: N=700;
60% OFFigure
65% 94:
75%N=700.
70% REPUBLIC
80% 85%TAJIKISTAN
90% 95% 100%
0% 5%98:10% 15% 20%THAT
25% 30% 35% BELIEVE
40% 45%THE GOVERNMENT
50% 55% 60% 65% THE
70% 75% 80% OF 85% 90% 95% 100%
CAN UNDERTAKE IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE FINANCIAL
Proportion of respondentsBURDEN OF THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK
(MSMEs)
FIGURE95:
FIGURE 95:MEASURES
MEASURESTHAT THATMSMEs
MSMEs BELIEVE
BELIEVE THE
Proportion
THE GOVERNMENT
of respondents
GOVERNMENT OF
OFTHE
(MSMEs)
THEREPUBLIC
REPUBLIC OF
OFTAJIKISTAN
TAJIKISTANCAN
CAN
ON MSMEs.
Deferral of tax payments Subsidized credit provision Financial support ON MSMEs.
UNDERTAKE
UNDERTAKE ININ
Deferral ofORDER
ORDER
tax TO
TO
payments REDUCE
REDUCE THE
THE FINANCIAL
FINANCIAL
Subsidized BURDEN
BURDEN
credit OF
OF
provision THE
THE COVID-19
COVID-19OUTBREAK
OUTBREAK
Financial support ON MSMEs.
Deferral of utility payments Procurement of medical supplies Any support
Deferral
Deferralofofutility
rent payments
payment Procurement of medical supplies
Preventing COVID-19 Any support
Ease of access to markets/bazaars
Deferral of rent payment Preventing COVID-19 Ease of access to markets/bazaars

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
Deferral of tax payments Subsidized credit provision Financial support
Deferral
Deferralofoftax payments
utility payments Subsidized
Procurementcredit provision
of medical supplies Financial
Any supportsupport
Deferral
Deferralofofutility payments
rent payment Procurement of medical supplies
Preventing COVID-19 Any of
Ease support
access to markets/bazaars
Deferral of rent payment Preventing COVID-19 Ease of access to markets/bazaars

While MSMEs offered a range of possible measures Page 26 of 35
that the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan could
Page 26 of 35
undertake to reduce the financial implication of COVID-19 on the private sector, the most critical measures
are financial. In total, 1/3 of all MSMEs stated that they would like the government to enforce nationwide
deferral of tax payments for private businesses across the board. This is consistent with responses of
MSMEs expressing concern about their ability to pay taxes. Approximately 10 % of MSMEs also said that
they would prefer the offer of subsidized credit through financial institutions, and another 8.6 % of MSMEs
would like to defer utility payments. Depressed demand and disrupted distribution networks explain why
only few MSMEs would prefer that the government eases off access to local markets (e.g. bazaars) and lifts
restrictions on market activity. Contrary to earlier assumptions, deferral of rent payment was mentioned
only by 4.1 % of all MSMEs. This could be partly explained by the fact that many businesses view their
Page 26 of 35
interaction with asset/property owners as not needing government intervention, or that such intervention is
unlikely to result in mutual agreement to defer rentPage 26 of 35
payment.


Key findings:
1. On average, 85.2 % of affected MSMEs experienced a decrease in sales as a result of the COVID-19
outbreak. Dehkan farmers appear to be less affected than other MSMEs in terms of changes in sales.
2. Income from sales has for the most part declined among surveyed MSMEs, although some businesses
indicated that their income from sales significantly increased in the aftermath of the COVID-19
outbreak, such as in services and agriculture.
3. Since the government is not expected to cover the wage cost of struggling businesses, especially in
private sector, and considering the financial difficulties that businesses are facing as a result of the
pandemic, the liquidity shortages among surveyed MSMEs are likely to be high.
4. A large share of MSMEs appear to be indebted, which weakens their financial sustainability. For
instance, 22.9 % of all surveyed MSMEs stated that they had outstanding loans. Nearly 33 % of MSMEs
in light industry and 27.7 % of MSMEs in personal services have business loans, and 28.6 % of MSMEs
(mostly, dehkan farmers) in agriculture have outstanding agricultural loans.
5. Outstanding loans pushed some MSMEs further into indebtedness due to the urgent need to borrow
again from various sources by 28.6 % of MSMEs. These MSMEs indicated that they were inclined to
borrow from individuals (56.5 % of MSMEs) and banks (36.2 % of MSMEs). This shows that MSMEs are
non-bankable, or already have a loan from a financial institution, which constrains their borrowing
options or eligibility for additional financing.
6. Of all affected MSMEs, 27 % reported that they had significant difficulties paying taxes (and other fees)
and another 15 % had difficulties remunerating workers. Most MSMEs expressed concern and doubt
over their ability to repay loans and make utility and rent payments.
7. Startup businesses, which comprise 1.4 % of the survey sample, are likely to have much lower ability to
afford cash injections and borrow from local financial institutions in Tajikistan.
8. In total, 33 % of all MSMEs stated that they would like the government to enforce nationwide deferral of
tax payments for all types of private businesses. Nearly 10 % of MSMEs also said that they would prefer
the offer of subsidized credit through financial institutions, and another 8.6 % of MSMEs would like to
defer utility payments. Contrary to earlier assumptions, deferral of rent payment was mentioned only
by 4.1 % of all MSMEs.
KEY FINDINGS FROM IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS

In addition to the general sample of 700 MSMEs, the survey team has also carried out in-depth interviews
(lasting, on average, 80 minutes) with 50 MSMEs. The purpose of in-depth interviews (IDIs) with selected
MSMEs was to better understand underlying baseline conditions and other characteristics, such as coping
or adaptation strategies, production and turnover, and the outlook of these enterprises.
In general, findings from in-depth interviews with MSMEs were found to be broadly consistent with findings
from the survey’s general sample of 700 MSMEs. Therefore, this section presents only the main findings
which differ from earlier narrative or add value to the previous analysis.
OPERATIONAL ASPECTS
Out of all surveyed MSMEs, 32 % operated in the agriculture sector; 34 % in tourism and hospitality; 20 %
in personal services, and 14 % in light industry. Of these MSMEs, 32 % were women-led enterprises and
women who are individual entrepreneurs. The proportion of surveyed MSMEs geographically is similar to
the regional distribution of the general sample of 700 MSMEs, including by type of enterprises.
Nearly 37 % of the surveyed MSMEs sell their products and services to adults, with another 27.4 % of
MSMEs stating that their products or services target a general clientele with no restriction by age or gender
or any other characteristics. There were 8 % of MSMEs that claimed to have either children, the elderly or
financially-disadvantaged people as a target group for their products or services. Examples of such MSMEs
are confectionary shops, cafeterias, sewing workshops, and sanatoriums.
The highest proportion of surveyed MSMEs (36 %) believed that concessional lending is absolutely critical
for their enterprises at this time. Another 16 % of MSMEs indicated that deferral of tax payments is critically
needed due to financial difficulties that they are facing. The remaining 48 % of the MSMEs considered other
factors as necessary measures: opening of international borders, external financial support for workers in
struggling businesses, deferral of rent payment (for office, equipment or land), lowering prices (for mineral
fertilizers, cotton in particular), deferral of loan repayments, and lower cost of customs clearance for
agricultural equipment. Since 75 % of dehkan farmers’ operations are seasonal, not every dehkan farm is
affected by the COVID-19 situation in the same way, as is also the case with regards to businesses in other
economic sectors.
FIGURE 99: THE DEMOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF MSMEs’ CUSTOMERS.

FIGURE 96: THE DEMOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF MSMEs' CUSTOMERS.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
Elderly/Older people Financially disadvantaged (poor) Children (23 years old and younger)
Women and girls Youth (18-24 years old) Everyone / All
Adults (25 years old and older)
FIGURE 97: COPING STRATEGIES THAT MSMEs PLAN TO EMPLOY AS A RESPONSE TO COVID-19
MSMEs
OUTBREAK. further emphasized that they would prefer the government to exempt vulnerable or struggling
businesses from paying taxes or temporarily reduce tax payments (either partially or in full). There were
some MSMEs that preferred
Increase the sizethat
of thethe
firmgovernment extend the period of restrictions, mainly due to health
risks, and financially
Hire more regulatedisadvantaged
consumer pricesworkers in order to prevent them from spiking. This was especially important
in relation to staple Hireproducts,
more youngas were the temporarily lower utility payments for electricity and water supply.
workers
Lowering Hire
utility
morepayment
returningfor water
labor supply is a particularly an acute issue for dehkan farmers who rely on
migrants
water supply forIncrease
irrigation. Dehkan
part-time workers
farmers and cross-border traders have also expressed their desire for
measures by the government regarding
Increase temporary workers
for concessional agricultural loans, interest-free credit, penalty
waivers for overdue loan payments, and lower prices for seeds, minerals and pesticides.
Hire more people with disabilities
Reduce full-time workers
In response to the COVID-19 outbreak and related effects on businesses, half of surveyed MSMEs want to
Hire fewer people with disabilities
increase the number of workers (i.e. increase firm size), 47.4 % of MSMEs would like to hire more financially-
disadvantaged workers (mainly motivated 0% by social
10% 20%considerations),
30% 40% 42.1 % 50% of60%MSMEs
70% want
80%to hire
90% more
100%
young workers (aged 15–24), 34.2 % of MSMEs want to hire more returning labor migrants, and 26.3 %
of MSMEs would like to increase the share of workers who are working part time as opposed to full time.
Furthermore, 26.3 % of MSMEs would like to hire more YES workers
NO on a non-registered basis, i.e. increase
the number of temporary casual workers. These last two coping
approaches suggest that more than a
quarter of enterprises are considering to reduce their recurrent costs by means of changing employment
arrangements for their workforce by moving full-time workers to part-time and non-registered basis.
Furthermore, intent to hire financially disadvantaged workers is likely to attract lower-skilled workers, which
FIGURE 98: ANNUAL
in turn may reduce the GROSS
wageTURNOVER OF SURVEYED
bill of respective MSMEs. MSMEs (IN CURRENT PRICES; IN TAJIK SOMONI).
345 714
350 000
r (in Tajik somoni)
111
ge annual gross
Impact300 000
of COVID-19 on MSMEs
250 000 228 513
200 000 156 184 159 500 159 365

150 000 122 147
Elderly/Older people Financially disadvantaged (poor) Children (23 years old and younger)
Women and girls Youth (18-24 years old) Everyone / All
Adults (25 years old and older)
FIGURE 100: COPING STRATEGIES THAT MSMEs PLAN TO EMPLOY AS A RESPONSE

FIGURE
TO 97: COPING
COVID-19 STRATEGIES THAT MSMEs PLAN TO EMPLOY AS A RESPONSE TO COVID-19
OUTBREAK.
OUTBREAK.
Increase the size of the firm

Hire more financially disadvantaged workers
Hire more young workers
Hire more returning labor migrants
Increase part-time workers
Increase temporary workers
Hire more people with disabilities
Reduce full-time workers
Hire fewer people with disabilities
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
YES NO
/Source:COVID-19
Impact Assessment
Assessment Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020). N=38.N=38.
Key findings:
FIGURE 98: ANNUAL GROSS TURNOVER OF SURVEYED MSMEs (IN CURRENT PRICES; IN TAJIK SOMONI).
1. About 30 % of affected MSMEs have vulnerable people as their main clientele groups, such as women
and
350girls,
000 youth, children and the elderly, which means that the COVID-19 outbreak has had visible
345 714
turnover (in Tajik somoni)
effect on the sales of goods and services to these groups.

Average annual gross
300 000
2. For 62 %
250 000
of surveyed MSMEs, 228concessional
513 and/or subsidized lending, temporary deferral of monthly
tax payments,
200 000
and opening of international borders are the top three crisis mitigation approaches
156 184 159 500 159 365
which are
150 000
perceived by MSMEs to be critical
122 to
147 the survival of businesses.
3. According to MSMEs, the government should temporarily exempt vulnerable or struggling enterprises
67 813
100 000
from paying taxes or temporarily reduce tax rates, control consumer prices, and eliminate market
50 000
speculation, and introduce temporary reductions in utility prices.
0
4. The drop in income and sales
Average (all
has led Average
Average
many MSMEs to plan new Light
(men- Agriculture
hiresindustry
and transition a higher
proportion of their
MSMEs) workforce from full-time
(women-led to part-time jobs, or from contractualservices
led MSMEs) employment to non-
hospitality
registered employment. MSMEs)
FINANCING AND COMMERCIAL RETURN
More than 80 % of MSMEs stated that their financial situation had worsened due to depressed demand,
restrictions and closures due to the COVID-19 outbreak. This has to be put against the background that
the gross annual turnover of 50 surveyed MSMEsPage 27 of 35
is relatively low, averaging 156,184 somoni in nominal
terms (or $ 15,147), with women-led MSMEs earning 87.1 % more than men-led MSMEs. This is partly
explained by a large number of women-led MSMEs being among larger businesses, such as in light
industry or agribusiness, that have higher earnings. In addition, the small sample size and other sampling
requirements may have contributed to such income disparity between women-led and men-led MSMEs.
On average, MSMEs in agriculture earn 80.4 % less than MSMEs in light industry. However, annual gross
turnover of MSMEs in any sector appears to be relatively low, averaging $ 6,576 in agriculture, $ 15,455 in
tourism and hospitality, $ 15,468 in personal services, and $ 33,527 in light industry.
About 75 % of surveyed dehkan farmers have had some difficulty paying taxes and remunerating their
workers, while 66.7 % of dehkan farmers had considerable payment difficulties. A few dehkan farmers
also mentioned that they had rent payment difficulties regarding their production activities, such as for
agricultural equipment and land use.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
YES NO
FIGURE 101: ANNUAL GROSS TURNOVER OF SURVEYED MSMEs

FIGURE 98: ANNUAL GROSS TURNOVER OF SURVEYED MSMEs (IN CURRENT PRICES; IN TAJIK SOMONI).
345 714
350 000
turnover (in Tajik somoni)
Average annual gross
300 000
250 000 228 513
200 000 156 184 159 500 159 365

150 000 122 147
100 000 67 813
50 000
0
Average (all Average Average (men- Agriculture Light industry Personal Tourism and
MSMEs) (women-led led MSMEs) services hospitality
MSMEs)
/Source:COVID-19
Impact Assessment
Assessment Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020). N=50.N=50.
FIGURE 102: WAYS IN WHICH THE COVID-19 FIGURE 103: VALUE OF GROSS MONTHLY
OUTBREAK HAS AFFECTED DEHKAN FARMERS’ SALES OF VARIOUS GROUPS OF AGRICULTURAL
FINANCIAL VIABILITY.
FIGURE 99: WAYS IN WHICH THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK PRODUCTS TRADED
FIGURE 100: VALUE BY DEHKAN
OF GROSS MONTHLY FARMERS
SALES OF (IN
FIGURE 99: WAYS IN WHICH THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK
HAS AFFECTED DEHKAN FARMERS' FINANCIAL VIABILITY. TAJIK
FIGURE SOMONI).
100: VALUE OF GROSS MONTHLY SALES
VARIOUS GROUPS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS OF
HAS AFFECTED DEHKAN FARMERS' FINANCIAL VIABILITY. Page 27 of 35
VARIOUS
TRADEDGROUPS OF AGRICULTURAL
BY DEHKAN PRODUCTS
FARMERS (IN TAJIK SOMONI).
TRADED BY DEHKAN FARMERS (IN TAJIK SOMONI).
Difficulty paying other
Difficulty
monetary paying other
benefits LEGUMINOUS CROPS 3 000
monetary benefits LEGUMINOUS CROPS 3 000
Rent payment difficulties (for POTATOES 11 180
Rent
usepayment difficulties (for
of land/equipment) POTATOES 11 180
use of land/equipment)
VEGETABLES 12 583
Loan repayment difficulties VEGETABLES 12 583
Loan repayment difficulties MELON CROPS 13 133
MELON CROPS 13 133
Difficulty remunerating
Difficulty remunerating GRAIN CROPS 16 457
workers
workers GRAIN CROPS 16 457
Difficulty
Difficultypaying
payingtaxes
taxes and
and FRUITS
FRUITS 30 500
30 500
other
otherfees
fees COTTON
COTTON FIBER
FIBER 65 650
65 650
0%
0% 25% 50%
25% 50% 75% 75% 100%
100%
0 020 000
20 000 40 000
40 000 60 80
60 000 000 80 000
000
Proportionof
Proportion ofrespondents
respondents(MSMEs)
(MSMEs)
YES
YES NO
NO Gross
Gross monthly
monthly salessales
/Source:
/Source:
/Source: COVID-19
COVID-19
Impact
Assessment Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020).
2020). Figure
Figure
Figure 99:99:
102: N=12; Figure
N=12;
N=12; 100:
Figure
Figure N=12.
100:
103: N=12.
N=12.
InFIGURE
FIGURE 101:PROPORTION
total, 56 %
101: PROPORTION OF
OF MSMEs'
of surveyed MSMEsMSMEs' AVERAGE
stated MONTHLY
that the
AVERAGE cost of INCOME
MONTHLY their SPENT
inputs
INCOME hadON
SPENT LOAN REPAYMENTS.
increased
ON LOAN either directly or
REPAYMENTS.
indirectly as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak. On average, these MSMEs stated that their costs of inputs
45
had increased
45 by 55.2 % across the board. Notably, dehkan
38,5 farmers stated that their inputs costs had
Percent of monthly income spent
36,8 38,5
40 36,8 to 46.7 % increase in the cost of inputs among MSMEs in tourism and
increased
40 by 99.6 %, compared
35 30,9
hospitality
35 sector,30,924.2 % increase in light28,4
industry, and 10 % increase28,8 in personal services. The increase in
repayment
30 28,4 28,8 25,7

repayment
the price
30 of inputs is mainly attributed to the closure of international borders and local markets,
25,7 24,3 which was
24,3
25
particularly problematic for enterprises in agriculture, and in tourism and hospitality.
25
20
20
15
loan
Outstanding
15 debt further undermines MSMEs’ resilience and ability to withstand economic shocks and
loan
10
shrinks10cash liquidity. In addition to the rising price of inputs, MSMEs have also been burdened by debt
onon
5
obligations,
50 mostly to the banks, but also to non-bank financial institutions and individuals (such as relatives
and friends).
0 Businesses
Average (all inAverage
agriculture are significantly
Average more indebted
(men- Agriculture than businesses
Light industry Personal in any of
Tourism andthe three
other economic sectors.
Average
MSMEs)(all This is demonstrated
Average
(women-led Average by theAgriculture
(men-
led MSMEs) fact that MSMEs in agriculture
Light industry spend
Personal
services on average
Tourism
hospitality and
MSMEs) (women-led
MSMEs) led MSMEs) services
38.5 % of their monthly income on loan repayments, compared to 25.7 % of monthly income of MSMEs in hospitality
MSMEs)
personal servicesImpact
/Source: COVID-19 or 24.3 % of monthly
Assessment income2020).
Survey (June-July of MSMEs
N=30. in tourism and hospitality.

0 20 000 40 000 60 000 80 000
YES NO Gross monthly sales
FIGURE
FIGURE 104: PROPORTIONOF
101: PROPORTION OFMSMEs'
MSMEs’AVERAGE
AVERAGE MONTHLY
MONTHLY INCOME
INCOME SPENT
SPENT ONON LOAN
LOAN REPAYMENTS.
REPAYMENTS.
45
38,5
40 36,8
35 30,9
28,4 28,8
on loan repayment
30 25,7 24,3
25
20
15
10
5
0
Average (all Average Average (men- Agriculture Light industry Personal Tourism and
MSMEs) (women-led led MSMEs) services hospitality
MSMEs)

Key findings:
1. The gross annual turnover of surveyed MSMEs is relatively low, averaging $ 15,147, but women-led
MSMEs appear to earn 87.1 % more than men-led MSMEs, and businesses in agriculture earn on
average 80.4 % less than businesses in light industry. The difference is partly attributed to small sample
size, but also happens to reflect the higher density of women-led MSMEs in the four economic sectors
chosen for the survey.
2. Significant tax payment and worker remuneration difficulties are reflections of MSMEs’ financial
difficulties and limited cash liquidity, which is another economic implication of the pandemic on local
businesses. The difficult situation of many MSMEs is further exacerbated by outstanding debt and
repayment obligations which on average takes 30.9 % of their monthly income.
3. The price of inputs has increased for 56 % of surveyed MSMEs due to COVID-19, and the increase
averaged 55.2 % across the board, with variations across economic sectors and type of business.
Page 28 of 35

Policy response and
recommendations

OVERVIEW OF APPROACHES TO COVID-19 RESPONSE
One of the main characteristics of the current crisis is that there are as yet no particular lessons which can
be universally applied to the countries and regions going through the pandemic regarding improvement
and resilience of the socio-economic environment, apart from emergency measures for containment of
the transmission of the virus. All countries are still in the learning and experimenting process and there
are considerable variations of the policies and support packages even amongst very similar economies,
including comparatively highly developed and more interdependent economies.
Factors such as economic performance, fiscal capacity, social and cultural norms, political will and
availability of required tools, products, infrastructure and management are decisive factors which lead to
different options and possibilities regarding crisis mitigation measures across the world. More crucially,
the pre-existing socio-economic constraints bear an inevitable weight on the options and possibilities
for governments to formulate their post-pandemic recovery measures. In Tajikistan, the tax base is
relatively small and the macroeconomic environment is challenging, which renders any fiscal incentives
for businesses and the population, such as through social assistance programs, a risky proposition. Large
informal sector also limits the range of potential employers targeted support programs. Further to this,
the underdeveloped value chains and cumbersome business environment constrain the likelihood of
facilitating private investment in potential growth-driving sectors.
To date, policy response by many countries have been mostly short or medium term and aiming at
sustaining household incomes and business activities to protect macroeconomic fundamentals, including
through a range of national plans or funds to gather and channel financial flows, mostly with Overseas
Development Aid (ODA) as an important component. Most of those measures were reactions to emergency
necessities and hence rather temporary, short-term and not viable on their own beyond the first phase
of the COVID-19 outbreak. This phase is explicitly or implicitly considered over by now, although border
and travel restrictions have not been fully reversed yet. As early as July 2020, more comprehensive
approaches, possibly accompanied by calculated plans and support packages and roadmaps have
become more emphatically required as confirmed by the unfolding situation in many countries around the
world. Tajikistan has adopted a similar approach, endorsing in June-August 2020 a package of measures
to mitigate the socio-economic impact of COVID-19, and focusing on short-term policy response. The crisis
also underscores the need to tackle long-term structural reforms to the business environment to support
long-term recovery and resilience.
While many developed economies have shown considerable capacity for public borrowing (issuing
treasury bonds, under-written by their respective governments or central banks), it is now becoming clear
that the domestic or external borrowing should also be kept at check, as the economies increasingly fear
moving away from initially soft budget constraints towards hard budget constraints. Some 7-8 months
into the pandemic outbreak and having taken a range of emergency, short-term measures in June-
August 2020, it is widely confirmed that Tajikistan’s resources are not limitless, especially through public
borrowing, and that the overall fiscal deficit for 2020 is projected by IMF to widen to 7.7% of GDP due to
sharp revenue shortfall and rising expenditure needs. Accordingly, the solution is no longer a matter of
only injecting liquidity into the market to revitalize economic activities, e.g. through Industry and Export
Bank ‘Sanoatsodirotbank’ and other financial institutions, unless there are purpose-built support packages
aiming at recovering supply and demand for goods and services in both public and private sectors.
More specifically, many developing economies have financed support packages through domestic
or international debt, but the ability of Tajikistan to do so is limited. The risk of debt distress remains
high, whereas public and publicly-guaranteed debt stood at 52.6% of GDP at the end of the first six
months of 2020. Furthermore, as a result of reduced revenues and increased expenditures in the
general government budgets, the overall fiscal space is narrowing almost universally. For countries
like Tajikistan, the limited fiscal space necessitates complex tasks of revision of their tax systems and
public finance management (PFM), while also ensuring that longer term reform priorities do not suffer
irreversibly. The new Tax Code will be entered into force in early 2021 against the backdrop of business
environment constraints and COVID-19 implications, while broader PFM reforms aimed at strengthening tax
administration, Treasury management, fiscal discipline, and accountability in the use of public resources
are being implemented across the board. For small economies like Tajikistan, it is important to prevent
people from sliding back into poverty and preserving the gains from past reform implementation efforts.
During May and June 2020, the OECD held two high-level regional discussions of the COVID-19 crisis in
the EU Eastern Partner (EaP) countries198 and Central Asia199 respectively, as well as a few virtual sessions
of the OECD Eurasia Competitiveness Roundtables, focusing on private sector development challenges
in the context of the crisis. While the similarities as well as the divergences between these countries were
noted, the consensus of these various forums is that the structural policies to support the recovery must
be aligned with longer-term goals. The most popular measures so far, according to the OECD, have been
those supporting employees/wages, which all countries implemented, albeit with different degrees of
coverage and intensity. The Government of Tajikistan preserved the originally planned increase in public
sector wages for employees in the social sectors. At the same time, the picture is more varied regarding
tax deferrals/relief. Low-income countries (LICs), such as Tajikistan with its $1,030 GNI per capita in 2019,200
have considerably fewer coping options as a result of limited fiscal space and monetary policy instruments,
and weak private sectors. Therefore, measures affecting government revenue performance are often
overlooked or carefully undertaken under the premise of financial commitments from development
partners. In Tajikistan, such measures included targeted social assistance (TSA) to vulnerable population
which is heavily supported by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, while temporary tax relief/
deferrals for businesses are largely compensated by development policy lending and the budget support
provided from bilateral and multilateral partners.
Building on the above approaches to COVID-19 response, the formulation of policy measures and
response packages in Tajikistan should account for critical and common challenges regarding the overall
macroeconomic environment and private sector growth, including:
• An already struggling private sector to create sufficient number of quality jobs for expanding formal
labor market, which requires extensive reform to stimulate private sector led growth;
• Large informal sector, which raises concerns about the formalization of economic activities;
• Domestic labor markets facing further pressures to adjust due to the large number of temporarily or
potentially long-term grounded migrant labor who are unable to return to work abroad, as most of the
destination economies are facing similar economic downturns;
• Need for a well-coordinated regional approach to overcome many existing trade facilitation challenges,
particularly around customs procedures and border management;
• Highly concentrated export profiles and undiversified economies, exposing them to external economic
risks through trade and migration channels;
• Weaknesses in the financial system, especially regarding the availability and affordability of financial
products to MSMEs and HHs, hedging of risks, and weak corporate governance;
• Sluggish implementation of structural reforms to improve the efficiency of the market and public
services, particularly regarding macroeconomic regulations and social safety nets.
198
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine.
199
https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/covid-19-crisis-response-in-central-asia-5305f172/.
200
According to the World Bank country classification by income level.
Policy response and recommendations 117

In terms of Tajikistan’s socio-economic development, the above-mentioned assessments alert policy
makers to the following considerations (i.e. constraints) that should be taken into account in the formulation
of recommendations:
• Insufficient investment in human capital development in order to enhance the overall level of
education and vocational skills of labor market participants;
• Slow pace of digitalization of public and private services, and limited ICT development;
• Weak capability and financial resources of the health system to cope with pandemic-related and other
emergency challenges, and to meet longer term country needs;
• High degree of vulnerability of the population to financial and economic shocks, such as due to
overindebtedness, inadequate income levels, and a large number of informal sector jobs;
• Limited flexibility of the education system to adapt to pandemic-related risks, which would necessitate
developing the capacity to roll out distance learning (especially in schools);
• Limited fiscal space and weak accountability of public finance management system, which undermine
the volume and coverage of social payments to at-risk population groups;
• Sizeable gender gaps with regards to employment and employability of women and girls, and other
vulnerable groups, and their prejudiced status at household and community level.
ECONOMIC REPOSITIONING FOR RECOVERY
For Tajikistan, ensuring long-term economic recovery and reducing disproportionate exposure to external
economic shocks will require steps to foster further diversification of economic activity and undertake long-
overdue reforms which have been sluggishly implemented (e.g. governance of state-owned enterprises
and competition policy framework) or have not translated into tangible policy outcomes (e.g. employment
policies, business environment, and others) over the years. Improving the overall environment for lives,
livelihoods and entrepreneurship will require the Government of Tajikistan to initiate and/or continue its
reform efforts in a comprehensive and sustainable way.
In view of the potential of the coronavirus-induced economic crisis for Tajikistan’s socio-economic
repositioning and the need to overcome critical challenges described in Section 6.1, the following
principles for recommendations should be applied:
• In line with some of the best practice of ‘Preserve, Strengthen and Rebuild’, job creation and job reten
tion should be at the forefront of the government’s efforts, such as through implementation of invest
ment projects and vocational education and training (VET) programs. This will preserve and increase
jobs, and improve skills for the changing labor market and its participants, including migrant labor;
• Social outcomes and financial returns in health, education and employment are not tangibly related
in underdeveloped financial markets such as Tajikistan. This can be tackled by concentrated
commitment to sustainable investment discipline, whereby an investor considers environmental,
social and corporate governance criteria to generate long-term competitive financial returns and
positive societal impact;
• Investing in local and regional value chains, and adopting trade facilitation measures (e.g. border
management, customs clearance procedures, and favorable trade terms for goods exhibiting the
greatest comparative advantage) should be prioritized to promote exports of goods and services and
enhance cross-border trade;
• Digitization of public services (e.g. utility payments, banking transactions, distance-learning modalities,
medical consultations) and reducing the cost of mobile and broadband services should be viewed
as not only a means to reduce costs for households and businesses, but also as a meaningful way to
gradually reduce informal economic activity;
• Any digitalization programme should ensure sufficient access to the tools and connectivity
infrastructure (e.g. Internet). Some best-practice programs could be adopted in Tajikistan, such as
donating used mobile phones to reduce the gaps in access, particularly in rural areas;
• MSMEs currently employing or committing to employ vulnerable population groups (such as women
and girls, youth, people with disabilities, returning migrants, and others) could be made eligible for
targeted and tailored government support as part of its crisis response package. This also includes
businesses which comply with labor and product technical regulations, meet job safety requirements,
and have standard labor contracts with employees;
• Supplying the private sector with affordable credit should be carefully managed in order to tailor to
the needs of struggling businesses. This also requires the introduction of innovative and risk-hedged
financing instruments (e.g. risk guarantees) and enforcement of consumer protection regulations;
• Enterprise support through affordable credit should also be complemented by sustained and
coordinated efforts to improve financial literacy and entrepreneurial skills among borrowers (including
potential borrowers), which would reduce over-indebtedness and incentivize the robust growth of
aspiring start-up businesses;
• Improving the business environment through better tax administration and well-functioning economic
institutions (e.g. economy and finance ministries, the National Bank of Tajikistan, and economic courts
and arbitrators) is undoubtedly important, but it also requires significant investment in human capital
through quality education and skills development. These will help improve the quality and productivity
of the labor force and competitiveness of Tajikistan’s labor market as a whole;
• The government’s long-term commitment to support human development should be matched with
appropriate public expenditure allocations to the social sectors, particularly for health and care services
(e.g. for elderly, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups), which have been chronically
underfunded. If also supported by effective measures to reduce corruption in the public sector, this
would strengthen the capacity to cope with pandemic-related emergency challenges in the future;
• A number of the proposed points above would also ultimately crowd in the private sector (domestic
or external) into more productive and complementary partnership with the public sector. Various
public-private partnership modalities could be explored to stimulate investment and improve investor
confidence in Tajikistan’s economy, which is a vital ingredient for growth;
• Investing in data management systems, diagnostics and vulnerability mapping is critical to building
credible evidence base and making informed policy decisions centered around the principle of
‘Leaving No One Behind’ and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). The government should
not lose sight of long-term development goals, and the coronavirus-induced crisis represents an
opportunity to reassess the pathway towards achieving the national SDG goals vis-a-vis the socio-
economic setback and risks.
At the same time, Tajikistan’s economic repositioning for recovery needs to be put into perspective. The
government has endorsed and is implementing a package of crisis mitigation measures, such as the
COVID-19 Country Preparedness and Response Plan (CPRP).201 The CPRP is also complemented by
several Presidential Decrees202 and Government Resolutions203 to counter the socio-economic implications
of the coronavirus outbreak. Furthermore, the President’s election program, published in September
2020, declares that by 2027 the government’s concerted efforts will: (i) double the volume of Tajikistan’s
GDP, (ii) reduce the proportion of poor to 18% of the population, (iii) increase the share of population with
an average income, and (iv) ensure sustainable economic development and improve competitiveness.
This is an ambitious development agenda and requires greater support to private sector, significant
private investment, and adaptive economic development (such as through digitization of services and the
implementation of e-governance reforms).
201
The CPRP was adopted in March 2020 and is on course to be implemented until December 2020 (See Annex 8).
E.g. the Decree of the President of the Republic of Tajikistan #1544 dated June 5, 2020 ‘On Countering the Impact of COVID-19
202
on Socio-Economic Spheres of the Republic of Tajikistan’ which consists of 27 specific measures to be implemented by the
Government of the Republic of Tajikistan and the National Bank of Tajikistan (See Annex 9) and the Decree of the President of the
Republic of Tajikistan #1580 dated August 4, 2020 ‘On Measures for Strengthening Social Protection of the Population and Raising
the Salaries of Civil Servants and Public Sector Workers, Pensions and Stipends.’
Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan #300 dated May 15, 2020 ‘On Introduction of the Mechanism for
203
Determining and Disbursement of Targeted Social Assistance in the Republic of Tajikistan.’

Accordingly, the proposed recommendations in the following Sections 6.3 and 6.4 carefully build on
the government’s existing policy response and are broken down by short-term measures (until the end
of 2020) and medium-to-long term measures (in the next 1-3 years) for the benefit of households and
entrepreneurs. They also draw on the relevant COVID-19 response packages adopted by other countries,
as described in Section 6.1, key findings of the nationwide surveys of HHs and MSMEs, and respective
linkages to relevant SDG goals/targets. The recommendations are grouped under specific measures as
well as time horizon, where applicable.
It is also important that the consolidated policy response is wrapped around the achievement of
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In Tajikistan, the national SDG framework is anchored in the
National Development Strategy (NDS) of the Republic of Tajikistan for the period until 2030.204 In 2016,
UN Agencies supported amendments in the regulations for the National Development Council (NDC)
under the President of Tajikistan to adopt provisions for monitoring and evaluation of national strategies
and programmes. The government has also committed to establishing a dedicated and sustainable
multi-stakeholder dialogue platform to specifically address SDG financing concerns. The NDC will enable
stakeholders to further discuss the socio-economic implications of COVID-19 in the context of achieving
the national SDG targets and agree on a meaningful policy response. The CPRP and other mitigation
measures implemented by the government would require to be assessed vis-a-vis implementation of the
NDS to determine the viability of achieving SDG targets in the context of post-pandemic recovery.
In hindsight, increased and excessive external borrowing, even if made available, would risk over-
indebtedness and put Tajikistan on an unsustainable fiscal trajectory, especially given its high debt-to-GDP
ratio and limited fiscal space due to rising debt servicing costs and other expenditure needs. Therefore,
while achieving SDG targets remains important, the resource mobilization and priority allocations should
be based on: (i) in the short term: preserving the gains from past efforts to reduce poverty and improve
the welfare of the population, and protect jobs; and (ii) in the medium to long term: stimulating inclusive
and transformational economic growth, creating productive jobs, and investing in human capital and
competitiveness. Hence, it is crucial to keep the mitigation measures as close to national SDG targets as
possible to minimize the ‘resource diversion’ risks of irreversible compromises on those goals.
As described earlier, the HHs and the MSMEs are not in isolation from one another, as they portray the
supply and demand sides for labor on the one hand, and goods and services on the other, through
consumption, production, market choices and economic activities. The recommendations below, therefore,
ought to be viewed in that crucial light.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUPPORT
LIVES AND LIVELIHOODS (HHs)
First and foremost, this is a human crisis and measures to support lives and livelihoods should be at the
forefront of the government’s response. As shown by the survey, there is a fairly high ratio of HHs who are
deemed vulnerable,205 such as due to indebtedness and inability to meet the cost of basic consumption.
Rising food prices and the cost of protective sanitary measures, as well as insufficient savings, are further
exacerbating exposure to economic risks associated with COVID-19 outbreak.
With the high probability of increased poverty and vulnerability, a coherent and complex response
package will require a whole of the government approach working in partnership with the private sector,
international development partners, and civil society organizations.
In particular, the Government of Tajikistan uses monitoring of the Mid-Term Development Program (MTDP) for 2016–2020 as the
204
basis for reviewing overall resource flows to finance the national SDG targets.
205
Up to 17% of all surveyed HHs are likely to experience income poverty (as demonstrated by inability of 17% of HHs to afford basic
consumption according to survey results).
Short-term measures
In the short term, measures should be undertaken by the government to subsidize and smoothen
consumption of most at-risk HHs and prevent them from sliding back (or drowning further) into poverty.
Therefore, implementation of the following groups of broad policy measures will be very important to
improve the socio-economic situation among HHs in Tajikistan:
1. Provide emergency financial support to HHs whose incomes have been disrupted due to COVID-19
(e.g. through expansion of the government’s Targeted Social Assistance Program and cash transfers to
vulnerable HHs, deferral or subsidization of utility payments, appropriate indexation of social payments,
and emergency credit products through financial institutions, specifically for women and girls);
2. Adopt measures to prevent further rise in HH spending and ensuring food security (e.g. imposing
domestic price controls for basic food products and medical supplies, managing local currency
volatility, and utilizing the government’s food reserves in the regions);
3. Encourage employers to adopt flexible working and pay arrangements with their workers, at least
temporarily, particularly for women and girls (e.g. working from home, remote interaction with work
peers, and use of other digital solutions), in order to preserve jobs that otherwise would have been
ceased, reduced or suspended, and to avoid salary arrears;
4. Ensure uninterrupted and effective provision of social and care services to the population, such as
quality health care and education (e.g. increased spending on health care services, and a roll out of
distance learning), and protect the safety and wellbeing of the population through the provision of
psychosocial support (e.g. for people who are experiencing anxiety and psychological stress, and
victims of domestic violence).
These measures are fully in line with survey findings, which showed that the priority requirements for HHs
are subsidies with their immediate basic consumption and at least temporary relief from tax obligations
and debt repayments. Their effective implementation would require concerted effort at community and
sub-national leveland would require involving local authorities and community leaders in discussing and
formulating necessary measures. Some degree of decentralization is therefore vital to the efficiency and
effectiveness of policies, administration, and service delivery.
Medium- to long-term measures

In the medium to long term, the Government of Tajikistan should seize the challenging situation and an
unfolding economic downturn as an opportunity to undertake the following proposed measures in order to
improve lives and livelihoods:
1. Address structural labor market constraints (e.g. improve regulation in order to streamline recruitment
policies and procedures, implement a dispute resolution mechanism for labor market participants, and
create jobs domestically which would contribute to inclusive and transformational growth) to increase
employment and employability of disadvantaged and vulnerable population groups, particularly
women and girls;
2. Provide incentives for formalization of economic activity, such as by reducing the fiscal/tax burden for
legal commercial entities and encouraging self-employment (i.e. individual entrepreneurs);
3. Encourage greater corporate social responsibility among employers (e.g. adopt flexible working
arrangements and expand the share of vulnerable people in the workforce);
4. Invest in human capital (e.g. vocational education and training, digital solutions) and expand social
services (e.g. increase public spending for the chronically underfunded health sector) to improve the
supply of skills and competencies in Tajikistan’s labor market.
The list of proposed measures to improve lives and livelihoods of HHs are shown in Table 29.

TABLE 29: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED MEASURES TO SUPPORT THE RECOVERY OF HOUSEHOLDS FROM THE IMPACT OF COVID-19 OUTBREAK.
122
Impact of COVID-19 on Lives and Livelihoods Link to SDG
# Proposed measure(s) / policy recommendation(s) goals, targets
Key finding(s) Source(s) and indicators
SHORT-TERM MEASURES (until the end of 2020)

1. Free subsidized treatment of patients with suspected Those HHs where at least one member Primary data Goal 3, Target
pneumonia or COVID-19 in medical facilities across the reportedly contracted pneumonia (or (Section 4.2.2) 3.b (Indicator
country, including home-based rehabilitation period (e.g. COVID-19) had spent, on average, more than 3.b.3)
required vitamin intake, sanitary measures, and others). 45% of their monthly HH income on medical
expenses.
2. Encouraging greater use of online or other means (e.g. More than 84% of HHs (who have had at Primary data Goal 3, Target
phone) for professional consultations to avoid patient least one HH member with chronic illness) (Section 4.6.2) 3.8 (Indicator
congestion in medical facilities. Setting up emergency toll- were unable to receive timely medical 3.8.1)
free hotlines for emergency treatment/counseling. treatment during the COVID-19 outbreak.
Undertaking nationwide awareness campaigns on More than 20% of HHs reported adopting
protective sanitary measures for individuals (e.g. hand social distancing and self-isolation measures,
washing) and businesses (e.g. delivery companies) via which have prevented them from visiting
most widely used and/or trusted media outlets. medical facilities.
3. Expansion of the government’s targeted social assistance Up to 17% of all surveyed HHs may have Primary data Goal 1, Target 1.3
(TSA) program for vulnerable HHs and increasing the size fallen back into poverty as a result of (Section 4.5) (Indicator 1.3.1)
of one-time social payment for most at-risk HHs (currently financial difficulties and their inability to Goal 1, Target 1.a
set at minimum monthly salary, i.e. 400 somoni), including purchase food or pay monthly utility bills. (Indicator 1.a.1)
the full coverage of those HHs that are living in extreme Besides, 12.1% of HHs continue living
poverty. Deferral of utility payments. Enforcing adequate paycheck to paycheck and have little to no
inflation adjustment (i.e. indexation) of social payments. savings.
4. Prioritizing the preparation of teachers/staff and children Almost 30% HHs were affected by the Primary data Goal 8, Target
in general secondary education for a roll out of distance closure of educational institutions. Adults (Section 4.6.1) 8.6 (Indicator
learning to mitigate potential interruption of the learning (especially women with school-aged 8.6.1)
process during the next academic year. Encouraging children) were most affected via increased Goal 5, Target
MSMEs, along with other employers, to adopt flexible housework and care responsibilities. 5.4 (Indicator
working arrangements for their workers to meet increased 5.4.1)
care responsibilities.
5. Greater engagement between teachers (including class 20% of HHs who have children below 18 Primary data Goal 4, Target
supervisors) and parents of school-aged children who are years reported that their children did not (Section 4.7.3) 4.3 (Indicator
reportedly not studying due to COVID-19. This work can be study at all. Instead, these children either 4.3.1)
done in partnership with local NGOs/CSOs. looked out for paid work or increased their
HH responsibilities.
6. Greater mobilization of resources and staff in the local 23% of respondents tried to find paid jobs Primary data Goal 10, Target
employment centers under the Agency for Labor and since the COVID-19 outbreak, indicating that (Section 4.2.2) 10.4 (Indicator
Social Protection of the Population, at least temporarily, to the outbreak must have contributed to pre- 10.4.1)
increase outreach and provide match-making services. COVID 19 rising unemployment levels.
Policy response and recommendations

7. Temporary waiver for the withdrawal of remittances in HH consumption went down as a result Primary data Goal 17, Target
foreign currency (e.g. U.S. dollars), which could be possibly of falling incomes remitted back home by (Section 4.3) 17.3 (Indicator
capped (say, at a median HH income for the next three migrant labor. 17.3.2)
months), and for the transfer and/or processing fees for Goal 10, Target
funds remitted through financial institutions and licensed 10.c (Indicator
money transfer systems. 10.c.1)
8. Gradual lifting of restrictions on travel of migrant labor Travel restrictions negatively affected Primary data Goal 10, Target
with strict protocols and procedures in place for COVID-19 migrant labor from Tajikistan: 50% had (Section 4.3) 10.7 (Indicator
testing and quarantine measures in Tajikistan for inbound difficulties returning, while 68% could not 10.7.2)
and outbound travelers. Bilateral agreements for leave, and only one third of them could find
temporary support of migrant labor in destination countries some paid jobs.
(e.g. Russian Federation), such as automatic and cost-free
work permit extensions and subsidized COVID-19 testing
for traveling migrants.
9. Temporary tax relief for employers, particularly with The COVID-19 outbreak is likely to have Primary data Goal 8, Target
regards to income taxes and social contributions, in order expanded Tajikistan’s informal sector. (Section 4.4) 8.3 (Indicator
to stimulate businesses to hire (or retain) workers on a On average, 40% of respondents would 8.3.1)
formal basis. accept a non-registered, informal job in the
aftermath of COVID-19.
10. Temporary extension of access to unemployment benefits Incomes from self-employment, migrant Primary data Goal 1, Target 1.2
to non-standard recipients, such as informal workers, self- labor and non-registered jobs have had the (Section 4.5) (Indicator 1.2.1)
employed (i.e. individual entrepreneurs), and returning largest declines (43%-53%) as a direct result Goal 1, Target 1.4
migrants. These benefits could be capped, such as at a of the COVID-19 outbreak. (Indicator 1.4.1)
national median salary threshold.
123
11. Deferral of loan payments for at-risk borrowers, creation 38% of HHs that have at least one member Primary data Goal 9, Target
124
of loan distress funds to better manage NPLs, and with an outstanding loan have difficulties (Section 4.5) 9.3 (Indicator
development of emergency credit products such as first- meeting repayment, with consequences 9.3.2)
loss risk covers (FLRCs), risk sharing facilities (RSFs), and on future access to finance. Accordingly,
credit lines with hedged risk of local currency volatility. 31.7% of HHs were likely to borrow in the
preceding 30 days.
12. Managing further devaluation of local currency due to Almost 65% of HHs stated that they Primary data Goal 2, Target
its direct negative effect on the prices of imported food increased spending, which was mainly (Section 4.5) 2.c (Indicator
products and putting in place temporary price controls for caused by the perceived shortage of food 2.c.1)
basic food products and medication across Tajikistan. and medical supplies.
13. Setting up of toll-free hotlines, mentoring and professional Compared to urban areas, HHs in rural areas Primary data Goal 11, Target
counseling services (e.g. to address psychological stress have greater number of coping options to (Section 4.2.2) 11.a (Indicator
or anxiety), with particular focus on urban residents. withstand the risk of falling incomes and 11.a.1)
Counseling services may be organized through public- changes in employment.
private partnerships and subsidized (e.g. by sub-national
governments or civil society organizations) so that they
come at no cost to the population. Psychological stress and anxiety have also Primary data Goal 3 (broadly)
been mentioned and in need of addressing. (Section 4.6.2
Nearly 22% of respondents had experienced and Section
psychological stress and anxiety due to the 4.7.4)
COVID-19 outbreak.
14. Provision of confidential and professional support to More than 16% of HHs reported domestic Primary data Goal 5, Target 5.2
victims of domestic violence, in partnership with local violence at the time of conducting the (Section 4.7.4) (Indicator 5.2.1);
community leaders, law enforcement, and NGOs/CSOs. survey, which may or may not be a direct Goal 11, Target 11.7
Nationwide awareness raising campaigns may be needed consequence of the COVID-19 outbreak. (Indicator 11.7.2);
to inform at-risk population of support available to them Regardless, the share of HHs reporting Goal 16, Target
(counseling, medical consultation, and legal advice). domestic violence is relatively high. 16.1 (Indicator
16.1.3)
MEDIUM- TO LONG-TERM MEASURES (in the next 1–3 years)
15. Greater enforcement of the Labor Code and respective Domestic employment is dominated by Primary data Goal 8, Target
bylaws, and encouraging greater transparency in regards men whose likelihood of market entry and (Section 8.5 (Indicators
to firms’ recruitment policies and procedures. Improving employability are relatively higher compared 4.2.1) and 8.5.2)
the system of small-scale dispute resolution between labor to women in Tajikistan. secondary
market participants in Tajikistan. data (Section
2.7)
16. Enforce regulations and encourage employers (including Social factors, such as unpaid and larger Primary data Goal 8, Target
MSMEs) to adopt flexible working arrangements for share of housework, childcare and marital (Section 4.2.1 8.5 (Indicator
their employees, in particular women who often have obligations disadvantage women and girls in and Section 8.5.2)
obligations such as housework, child care or marital terms of employment and employability. 4.2.2) Goal 5, Target
restrictions. Introduce temporary moratorium on tax and/ 5.5 (Indicator
or inspections for employers hiring women for white-collar 5.5.2)
and blue-collar jobs as an incentive to improve women’s
employability. Introducing administrative penalties and/or Structural, long-term unemployment seems Primary data
fines for employers which have a proven history of unfair to apply more to women than men. (Section 4.5
remuneration between women and men. Besides, on average, women earn 34.6 % and Section
less than men, while women-headed HHs 4.7.2)
earn 10.8 % less than men-headed HHs.

17. Progressively create sustainable, higher-paid and higher- The workforce and the labor market in Primary data Goal 8, Target
productivity jobs in the economic sectors with the greatest Tajikistan heavily feature migrant labor: 40 % (Section 4.3) 8.b (Indicator
potential for enhancing transformational growth, combined of HHs reported having at least one migrant 8.b.1); Goal
with strengthening of vocational education and training member and one in four HHs have at least 9, Target 9.2
(VET), such as for returning migrants and youth. one migrant labor. (Indicator 9.2.2)
18. Easing off government regulation of private sector entities According to the survey, almost 37 % of Primary data Goal 8, Target
and introducing fiscal incentives which would encourage employment is reportedly non-registered (Section 4.4) 8.3 (Indicator
firms to formalize and hire workers on a registered basis (i.e. consisting of non-registered jobs) and 8.3.1)
(could be already under way via the new Tax Code). are highly represented by women and girls Goal 8, Target
Provision of flexible, affordable and tailored VET courses in the four selected economic sectors (i.e. 8.5 (Indicator
for women and girls, e.g. in order to reduce women’s agriculture, light industry, personal services, 8.5.2)
overwhelming representation in informal jobs. and tourism and hospitality). Goal 8, Target
8.6 (Indicator
8.6.1)
19. Investing in human capital to ensure quality of education Level of education of the labor force is low Primary data Goal 4 (broadly)
and learning at all levels, and minimizing the dropout of (60 % of surveyed respondents with mean (Section 4.6.1)
children (especially girls) in general secondary education. age of 37.7 years not having completed the
secondary school).
20. Subsidizing the financial cost of Internet and mobile Many HHs only have Internet connectivity Primary data Goal 17, Target
services that is passed on to end users (e.g. temporary through their mobile network operators, (Section 4.6.1) 17.8 (Indicator
moratorium on excise tax payments by firms), and while those who have Internet reported slow 17.8.1); Goal
introduction of other fiscal incentives for network speed/quality. 9, Target 9.c
operators and IT firms. (Indicator 9.c.1)
/Source: The authors’ assessment based on the analysis of primary and secondary data.
125
RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUPPORT MSMEs
While the discussion on reducing the economic consequences of COVID-19 and policy response often
focus on macroeconomic fundamentals, the pandemic-induced slowdown inevitably affected the real
economy. In Tajikistan, the real economy is driven by businesses, mainly MSMEs.
In order to determine an appropriate policy response (i.e. measures) to help MSMEs, which are likely to
suffer more than larger firms, it is useful to view the degree of impact in a cycle of phases:206 (i) shutdown
impact, such as due to containment efforts adopted by the Government of Tajikistan; (ii) supply chain
disruptions, which are trade-induced and halt production; (iii) demand depression, resulting in the decline
in sales, overstretched credit, and prolonged reduction in HH spending; and (iv) recovery of economic
activity, which varies by economic sector as containment measures are gradually eased. In all likelihood,
the majority of MSMEs in Tajikistan are experiencing the first three phases, whereas containment measures,
such as border closures have not been fully lifted yet.
Short-term measures
In the short term, the magnitude of support from the government to MSMEs significantly depends on the
size of Tajikistan’s general government budget, its monetary and fiscal policy instruments, and various
proxies such as GDP per capita being a key determinant of the government’s ability to provide adequate
support to businesses without resorting to overseas development aid (ODA).
Tajikistan’s economy is projected to equal $ 8.7 billion in 2020, while its general government budget is
approximately $ 2.6 billion which is hamstrung by limited fiscal space due to rising debt servicing costs,
financing of large infrastructure projects, and rising social obligations. The range of monetary and fiscal
policy instruments is also limited, which means that the government should be strategic in terms of finding
an appropriate balance between fiscal/tax concessions (what most surveyed MSMEs desire), banking sector
regulation (e.g. MSMEs would benefit from a vast moratorium on loans), and macro-fiscal stability. This also
means that a number of measures that have been effectively introduced in developed countries and have
a significant cost (i.e. fiscal) implication may not be applicable to Tajikistan. Examples of such measures
include: (i) subsidies for the roll out of furloughing schemes by businesses, (ii) rent and utility subsidies which
would be financed out of the general government budget, (iii) interest-free emergency credit provision
which is at least partly co-financed by the general government budget, (iv) trade finance, and others.
In the short term, the following measures could be undertaken to support MSMEs which have been
negatively affected by the COVID-19 outbreak:
• Ensuring temporary support to provide financial relief to struggling MSMEs. As confirmed by survey
findings, tax,207 rent or utility payment reliefs (i.e. moratoria) are very important in enabling the
businesses to survive and to readjust to a newly emerging situation. Important as these subsidies are,
they are not viable beyond a certain period;208
• Provision of liquidity to affected MSMEs on highly concessional terms, particularly for those businesses
206
International Trade Center (ITC). 2020. SME Competitiveness Outlook. COVID-19: The Great Lockdown and Its Impact on Small
Business. Geneva, pp.29–30.
207
E.g. corporate income tax and social contributions, as well as acceleration of tax refunds (in particular, VAT).
208
A number of alternative measures could be considered, however, which would keep the necessary subsidies, but at the same time
would motivate a productive process in return for receiving the subsidies. A number of such targeted support packages are currently
in place in the UK, for instance and may be quite feasible to apply in Tajikistan, with some adjustments: (i) compensating businesses, by
proportionate tax exemptions, for their measures and costs regarding provisions for social distancing at their premises or for running
their businesses; (ii) niche markets, e.g. delivery of food and other basic consumption goods to MSMEs and HHs; (iii) subsidizing some
of the businesses, especially in food, hospitality and other selected economic sectors, by covering a certain percentage of the cost to
their clientele, which would motivate both demand and supply. Furthermore, an ‘Eat Out to Help Out’ scheme was launched in the UK
for the month of August, whereby the government would pay 50 % of meals per individuals who would eat out at 84,000 participating
cafes and restaurants (although there was a higher ceiling of maximum £10 per mean per person).
which have been affected by the COVID-19 outbreak and are more vulnerable to financing fluctuations.
This may include subsidized credit209 products, interest-free credit lines to long-term borrowers,
risk guarantee schemes (whereby the financial institution lends in foreign currency and collects in
local currency, bearing the risk of currency volatility) and first-loss risk covers in partnership with
international development partners;
• Supporting demand and employment through infrastructure construction, such as through increased
capital expenditure and state programs aimed at creating (or preserving) jobs. This is both a short
term and a longer term measure, and is likely to widen the fiscal deficit, but the presence of significant
employment risks210 and a sharp decline in private investments makes it an important measure for
MSMEs (e.g. in light industry, services and construction);
• Subsidization of professional business advisory services, specifically addressing the needs of
struggling (i.e. affected) MSMEs that have experienced disruption in supply chains, sales, customer
base, incomes, or are on the brink of shutting down. Navigating these unchartered waters is a
challenging task, particularly for smaller businesses, and they often require mentoring and advice to
recover and adapt their commercial operations. Implementing this measure would require mobilization
and coordination between business incubation and acceleration facilities, co-working workplaces,
and business associations, while subsidization of fee-based advisory services may be provided by
international development partners;
• Temporary support to self-employed people (i.e. individual entrepreneurs who comprise about 45 % of
all entrepreneurs in Tajikistan, excluding dehkan farmers, and were the most affected by the COVID-19
outbreak), at least temporarily, to help withstand the impact of depressed demand and declining sales.
This may include temporary waivers to monthly patent payments on a case-by-case basis,211 extended
deadlines for filling in tax returns, and suspension of tax audits/inspections.
The important factor of ‘Minimum Necessary Scale,’ leading to ‘Economies of Scale,’ plays a key role in
providing the required return on any investment, public or private, for making them viable and cost-efficient.
Given the predominance of individual and micro enterprises, according to the survey, with a sizeable
proportion producing for self-consumption, the ‘economies of scale’ which are meant to provide that
minimum necessary of production to provide the minimum return on investment is by and large missing.
The current best practices already indicate that sustain employment should be now closely connected to
sustainable businesses, which by and large will need to adjust to a leaner, more cost-efficient enterprises.
The implication is that there are likely to be more pressure on reducing the number of working staff on
average, as well as seeking diversification and adoption to the merging market demands which are
different from the pre-pandemic circumstances.
Medium- to long-term measures
The viability and sustainable growth of MSMEs in the medium to long term hinges upon a number of critical
enabling factors which must be in place, including:
• Improve the business environment, e.g. minimize excessive regulation of business by the government,
fully implement investment climate reforms, and strengthen tax policy and tax administration, all of
which would vastly improve the ability of MSMEs to withstand crises;
• Increase competitiveness, such as through effective enforcement of competition policies and
regulations and de-subsidization of state-owned enterprises through privatization which would
contribute to leveling the field for MSMEs vis-a-vis larger companies;
• Enhance financial inclusion and literacy among MSMEs, and market support systems, such as through
coordinated and tailored professional business advisory services, to encourage adaptive management
209
The SOE ‘Entrepreneurship Support Fund’ was mobilized to provide subsidized credit to MSMEs but has now been restructured
into SUE ‘Sanoatsodirotbank’ (Industry and Export Bank) and it is unclear if its new mandate assumes credit provision to MSMES
which have been affected by the COVID-19 outbreak.
210
Such as for migrant labor who are temporarily unable to return to their workplaces abroad.
211
For individual entrepreneurs who are working under a patent.

and development of functioning instruments to cope with economic challenges. Business incubation
and acceleration facilities would also provide the resources and networks help MSMEs overcome
particular market barriers (e.g. supply chain disruption or constrained access to digital solutions) and
ensure that there are across-the-board support structures in place which facilitate innovation and
business growth.
• Strengthening public-private dialogue, such as through business associations, commerce and
trade chambers, industry/supply chain actors, building on existing dialogue platforms.212 Strong and
sustainable public-private dialogue is an investment in effective communication between MSMEs and
the government, and would contribute to adaptive learning and timely incorporation of lessons learnt,
and agreeing a coordinated response to economic crises.
The list of proposed measures to help MSMEs recover from the economic and financial effects of the
COVID-19 outbreak are shown in Table 30. The list is neither exhaustive nor prescriptive, and builds on
survey findings as well as measures which are already being implemented by the Government of the
212
E.g. the Consultative Council for Improving the Investment Climate and sectoral working groups operationalized by the State
Committee for Investment and State Property Management of the Republic of Tajikistan.
TABLE 30: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED MEASURES TO SUPPORT THE RECOVERY OF MSMEs FROM THE IMPACT OF COVID-19 OUTBREAK.
# Proposed measure(s) / policy recommendation(s) Impact of COVID-19 on MSMEs Link to SDG

goals, targets and
Key finding(s) Source(s) indicators
SHORT-TERM MEASURES (until the end of 2020)

1. Relief and support measures, such as tax, rent and The COVID-19 outbreak has had a large Primary data Goal 8, Target 8.9
loan repayment deferrals should be prolonged at least immediate negative effect on 63.1 % of MSMEs, (Section 5.1, (Indicator 8.9.1)
until the end of 2020 for MSMEs in economic sectors particularly in the tourism and hospitality sector Section 5.4 Goal 9, Target 9.2

which have been the most affected by the COVID-19 and services. and Section (Indicator 9.2.1)
outbreak. Based on the survey findings and other 5.5.1)
recent assessments, these sectors include: (i) transport, Employment most at risk is concentrated in
including civil aviation, (ii) tourism and hospitality, (iii) MSMEs which operate in light industry and
services, iv) retail trade, and (v) small-scale cross- tourism and hospitality sectors.
border trade. Although businesses in other industries Many MSMEs, particularly in tourism and
were also affected, albeit to a varying degree, the hospitality and services sectors, are unable to
support to MSMEs in the above mentioned sectors repay outstanding loans, pay taxes, scale up
should be extended for a longer period. commercial operations, and remunerate workers.
2. While fiscal measures are inevitably required, they Of all affected MSMEs, 27 % reported that Primary data Goal 17, Target 17.1
should be carefully chosen to preserve macro-fiscal they had significant difficulties paying taxes (Section 5.4 (Indicator 17.1.1)
sustainability. Temporary tax relief, such as corporate and another 15 % had difficulties remunerating and Section Goal 17, Target 17.1
income tax and social contributions for MSMEs in the workers. 5.5.1) (Indicator 17.1.2)
most negatively affected sectors should be comple 33 % of all MSMEs stated that they would like the Goal 17, Target
mented by extending deadlines for filing tax returns (i.e. government to enforce nationwide deferral of tax 17.13 (Indicator
no late submission fees). Sub-national governments payments for all types of private businesses. 17.13.1)
may be temporarily allowed to retain a higher share of
tax receipts to finance spending needs, and taxpayers For 62 % of surveyed MSMEs, temporary deferral
may be exempt from tax audits (with exception to of monthly tax payments is one of top three crisis
criminal investigations). Land and property tax may be mitigation approaches which are perceived by
waived for MSMEs in the most affected sectors. MSMEs to be critical to their survival.
3. Mandatory utility payments (including prepayment Deferral of rent and utility payments would help Primary data Goal 10, Target
requirements for electricity, heating and gas) may MSMEs to withstand the shock and recover from (Section 5.1, 10.1 (Indicator
be temporarily reduced for struggling MSMEs. Rent the pandemic. For instance, 8.6 % of struggling Section 5.4 10.1.1)
payments could be temporarily suspended (also for MSMEs would like to defer utility payments. and Section
non-state property). 5.5.1)
129
4. The government could impose temporary price According to MSMEs, the government should Primary data Goal 2, Target 2.c
130
controls for staple foods and medical supplies, and temporarily control consumer prices and eliminate (Section (Indicator 2.c.1)
utilize food reserves in the regions to increase market speculation. 5.5.1)
domestic supply of essential goods.
5. Since many MSMEs are non-bankable (i.e. cannot meet Outstanding loans (reportedly present among Primary data Goal 9, Target 9.3
basic collateral requirements or high cost of credit), 22.9 % of surveyed MSMEs) pushed some of them (Section 5.4 (Indicator 9.3.2)
and startups are generally not eligible for credit from further into indebtedness due to the urgent need and Section
financial institutions, risk guarantees and first-loss to borrow again (by 28.6 % of MSMEs). 5.5.2)
risk covers should be introduced in partnership with
development partners to inject liquidity. Commercial The difficult situation of many MSMEs is further
banks are encouraged to introduce renewable exacerbated by outstanding debt and repayment
revolving loans to replenish working capital, absorb obligations which on average takes 30.9 % of their
the cost/risk of currency volatility (for loans disbursed monthly income.
in foreign currency), and defer loan repayment (without
penalties) for MSMEs in the most affected sectors.
In turn, the NBT could temporarily lift sanctions and
penalties for overdue loans, further lower the policy
interest rate and the income tax rate for interest
income on deposits for corporate clients.
6. Business support services should be expanded, Although some MSMEs may not have been Primary data Goal 9, Target 9.c
intensified and provided at a subsidized cost to affected yet by COVID-19, 81.6 % of them are (Section 5.1) (Indicator 9.c.1)
struggling MSMEs, such as through incubation and nevertheless concerned about the possible Goal 17, Target 8
acceleration facilities, co-working workplaces. This implications on their business operations. (Indicator 17.8.1)
could be done in coordination with development The shutdown risk is particularly high among
partners and local business associations. Even without affected MSMEs, suggesting symptomatically
the COVID-19 impact, MSMEs in Tajikistan remain less low resilience to shocks. Should nationwide
productive and struggle to grow or enter new markets. restrictions and closures continue, 33 % of
The coronavirus outbreak has also showed that MSMEs affected MSMEs would be unable to operate for
are unable to develop and implement a viable coping more than a month.
strategy. Thus, business advisory services would
expand outreach to underserved and vulnerable MSME 73.6 % of MSMEs reported that their supply
segments (e.g. start-ups and early stage businesses), chains and/or value chains have been negatively
focusing on coping strategies, adaptive marketing, affected by the coronavirus pandemic.
networking, financial planning, risk management, and In general, MSMEs in rural areas are
other areas. Business support services should also disadvantaged compared to MSMEs in urban
expand to MSMEs beyond large urban areas, and tailor areas in terms of ease of access to professional
to the needs of self-employed people (i.e. individual business advisory services and ability to diversify
entrepreneurs), dehkan farmers, and cross-border their markets.
traders. Through business support structures (e.g. the 28 % of affected MSMEs employed non-
new state-run business incubation network), MSMEs conventional coping strategy in response to
should be offered better access to digital solutions. This COVID-19, which included transitioning to online
may require temporary reduction (or deferral) of excise marketing and/or sales.
tax on mobile and Internet services for service providers.
7. In addition to fiscal and other measures, the Since the COVID-19 outbreak, 83.1 % of MSMEs Primary data Goal 9, Target 9.1
government should gradually lift border closures and that are engaged in cross-border trade had their (Section 5.2) (Indicator 9.1.2)
travel restrictions which would set MSMEs on a gradual sales decline. Since cross-border trade is the
recovery path. Customs duties may be reduced main source of income for 53.5 % of MSMEs, the
for small-scale cross-border traders, and customs decline in sales has had a negative effect on
procedures could be streamlined (e.g. helping to turnover and operations of MSMEs.
expedite clearance of essential goods).

8. Co-working workspaces and business acceleration Approximately 33 % of affected MSMEs allowed Primary data Goal 17, Target
facilities could reduce user fees and grant temporary their workers to take leave, although some are (Section 17.8 (Indicator
access (at a subsidized or no cost) to their facilities for either unpaid or do not have a pre-determined 5.3.1) 17.8.1)
self-employed persons and other MSMEs which have return date which raises uncertainty and risk of
struggled to keep their office space or interact with unemployment.
their workers.
MEDIUM- TO LONG-TERM MEASURES (in the next 1–3 years)
9. Employers should be encouraged to subsidize a Not many MSMEs (only 7.3 % of the sample) Primary data Goal 9, Target 9.c
portion of their workers’ utility costs (e.g. Internet allowed their workers to work from home. Those (Section (Indicator 9.c.1)
and mobile network connectivity) if the latter have no that did have also agreed that their workers would 5.3.1) Goal 17, Target
choice other than to work from home, which would telework and/or work shorter hours, which shows 17.8 (Indicator
reduce furloughing risk and help firms to maintain that some businesses adopted flexible working 17.8.1)
operations. This may be introduced into government arrangements to ensure that safety measures are
regulation in the long term. If smaller businesses adhered to and minimize operational costs.
do not have the means to do so, sub-national
governments should be encouraged to subsidize these
utility costs.
10. Fiscal incentives could be introduced for businesses Informality in the workforce among the surveyed Primary data Goal 8, Target 8.3
(including MSMEs), such as more favorable tax rates MSMEs is reportedly equivalent to 26.9 % of all (Section (Indicator 8.3.1)
and temporary tax reliefs for struggling MSMEs with workers which is relatively high compared to 5.3.2) Goal 8, Target 8.8
good history (or start-ups with clean balance sheets other economic sectors in Tajikistan. (Indicator 8.8.2)
and no double bookkeeping) in order to stimulate
The share of women and girls in informal
formalization of economic activity.
employment is very large (68.2 % of informal jobs).
The social contribution rate could be reduced, and
further concessions be made for MSMEs that
131
employ vulnerable groups (e.g. women and girls with 13.6 % of affected MSMEs who had temporarily
132
preschool-aged children, people with disabilities, and laid out workers due to COVID-19 would accept
others) in line with mandatory provisions in the Labor new workers on a non-registered basis.
Code and the Tax Code.
11. In the long term, as the securities market develops Significant tax payment and worker remuneration Primary data Goal 9, Target 9.3
(e.g. stock exchange) and corporate governance in the difficulties are reflections of MSMEs’ financial (Section (Indicator 9.3.1)
banking sector improves, the NBT should encourage difficulties and limited cash liquidity, which is 5.5.2) Goal 10, Target
financial institutions to offer a broader range of financial another economic implication of the pandemic on 10.5 (Indicator
instruments to businesses, with particular focus on local businesses. Secondary 10.5.1)
underserved and overlooked MSMEs. Other lending Access to finance is severely constrained and the data (Socio-
platforms could be facilitated in partnership with range of consumer products and services offered to economic
development partners, such as investment funds, as MSMEs is limited. The cost of credit is prohibitively assessment)
well as crowd-funding and angel investor platforms (e.g. high, averaging in June 2020 an annualized 22.6 %
for aspiring and promising but non-bankable MSMEs). in local currency and 11.3 % in foreign currency.
12. The government (via SCISPM, MoEDT, MoT, MoINT, The export concentration and heavy dependence Secondary Goal 10, Target
the Trade and Industry Chamber, and sub-national on natural resources also make Tajikistan’s data (Socio- 10.a (Indicator
authorities) should facilitate private investment in the exports vulnerable to volatile international economic 10.a.1); Goal
development of regional value chains — e.g. logistics commodity prices. assessment) 17, Target 17.5
hubs, warehouses, cold storage transportation, food (Indicator 17.5.1)
and minerals quality testing facilities, and digital portals Goal 17, Target
— such as through public-private partnerships and free 17.12 (Indicator
economic zones. Preferential trade facilitation measures 17.12.1); Goal
and bilateral trade agreements could be introduced to 17, Target 17.17
encourage cross-border trade of goods which have the (Indicator 17.17.1)
highest revealed comparative advantage (RCA).
13. The government should stimulate the growth of MSMEs The export concentration and heavy dependence Secondary Goal 17, Target
in higher-productivity sectors (e.g. garments and textiles, on natural resources also make Tajikistan's data (Socio- 17.11 (Indicator
ICT, construction, and various light industries), such exports vulnerable to volatile international economic 17.11.1)
as through the creation of free economic zones and commodity prices. Tajikistan continues to rely on assessment)
export promotion measures. Wherever practicable, the exporting commodities in which it does not have a
government and development partners should support comparative advantage.
the establishment of a diversified tradable sector, and
support the adoption of a growth path which allows for
multiple future upgrades in product set and production
techniques. Any future trade restrictions should be more
predictable and fully in line with the country's World
Trade Organization (WTO) obligations.
/Source: The authors’ assessment based on the analysis of primary and secondary data.
ANNEX 1: KEY MACROECONOMIC INDICATORS FOR TAJIKISTAN,
2015–2020
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020*
Nominal GDP (in current prices, mln TJS) 48,401.6 54,471.1 61,093.6 68,844.0 77,292.1 32,444.6
Real GDP growth (in percent) 6.0 6.9 7.1 7.3 7.5 3.5
Real GDP per capita growth (in percent) 3.6 4.4 4.8 5.1 5.2 –
Consumer price index, CPI (in percent, year-on-year) 5.7 6.0 6.7 5.4 7.3 4.3
Foreign direct investment, net inflows (in mln US$ ) 426.1 240.5 200.1 249.2 186.5 –
Average monthly wage, economy (in TJS per person) 912.0 988.9 1,171.0 1,256.0 1,352.1 1,368.9
Migrants’ remittances (in mln US$ ) 2,258.6 1,778.2 2,535.8 2,568.4 2,731.3 –
of which: in percent of GDP 28.7 25.6 35.5 34.2 33.7 –
Population below national poverty line (in percent) 31.3 30.3 29.7 29.5 27.5 –
Total government revenue (in mln TJS) 16,588.6 18,483.8 19,499.5 20,525.3 23,216.1 9,816.4
of which: tax revenue (in percent of total revenues) 64.0 60.5 75.5 76.2 67.9 73.1
of which: tax revenue (in percent of GDP) 21.9 20.5 24.1 25.5 20.4 22.1
PPG debt (in percent of GDP; source: IMF, May 2020) 34.3 42.1 50.4 47.9 44.6 52.8
Gross official reserves, total (in mln US$ ) 560.9 653.2 1,032.1 1,160.4 1,464.3 –
of which: in months of imports of goods and services 1.7 2.8 3.8 4.1 5.8 –
Exports of goods and services, total (in mln US$ ) 890.6 898.7 1.198.0 1,073.3 1,174.4 654.4
Imports of goods and services, total (in mln US$ ) 3,435.6 3,031.2 2,774.9 3,150.9 3,349.3 1,504.3
Current account balance (in percent of GDP) –6.0 –4.2 2.2 –5.0 –2.3 0.2
Credit to private sector (in percent of GDP) 22.7 19.2 13.7 12.3 11.9 8.4
Key policy rate of the NBT, end of period (in percent) 6.90 9.00 12.50 14.75 13.25 10.75
Broad money growth (annual change; in percent) 18.7 37.1 21.8 5.1 16.9 43.0
Return on assets (ROA) in banking system (in percent) 0.8 –2.8 0.5 1.9 2.1 1.9
Return on equity (ROE) in banking system (in percent) 5.5 –21.0 1.7 7.0 7.7 7.0
Non-performing loans, NPLs (in percent of total loans) 26.3 47.6 36.5 31.1 27.0 31.0
Foreign currency loans (in percent of total loans) 65.3 63.8 61.0 57.2 50.5 50.9
Lending rate in local currency, average (in percent) 25.8 24.1 29.6 28.2 23.5 23.5
Lending rate in foreign currency, average (in percent) 21.6 20.4 19.8 17.3 15.6 12.8
Deposit rate in local currency, average (in percent) 0.48 0.60 0.55 0.63 0.49 0.70
Deposit rate in foreign currency, average (in percent) 1.00 0.77 0.40 0.24 0.14 0.14
Population (in mln persons; end of period) 8,352.0 8,551.2 8,930.9 9,126.6 9,313.8 9,458.8
of which: labor force (in percent of population) 29.2 28.5 25.9 28.6 25.4 25.9
Nominal exchange rate, period-average (1 USD=TJS) 6.8558 7.8357 8.8211 9.4236 9.5301 10.0123
Nominal exchange rate, period-average (1 RUB=TJS) 0.1029 0.1152 0.1502 0.1396 0.1469 0.1439
/ Sources: Agency for Statistics under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan; the National Bank of Tajikistan; the Ministry of
Finance of the Republic of Tajikistan; International Monetary Fund (IMF); Asian Development Bank (ADB); and the World Bank.
/* Data for 2020 covers the period between January and June 2020, i.e. the first six months of the year.
ANNEX 1: KEY MACROECONOMIC INDICATORS FOR TAJIKISTAN, 2015–2020 133

ANNEX 2: LIST OF SECTORS AND SUB-SEC-
TORS REPRESENTED BY MSMEs
Number of Share of
# Sector and Sub-Sector MSMEs in the MSMEs in the
sample (N) sample (in %)
1. SERVICES — Restaurants, cafeterias, coffee shops and teahouses 170 24.3
2. AGRICULTURE — Processing of agricultural products 83 11.9
3. SERVICES — Beauty industry (hairdressers, beauty salons, etc.) 74 10.6
4. AGRICULTURE — Production of crops 61 8.7
5. LIGHT INDUSTRY — Textiles and clothing (incl. sewing workshops) 60 8.6
6. AGRICULTURE — Horticulture 46 6.6
7. TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY — Accommodation and lodging 31 4.4
8. LIGHT INDUSTRY — Home products (e.g. window panels, etc.) 24 3.4
9. PERSONAL SERVICES — Home improvement services 21 3.0
10. PERSONAL SERVICES — Event management services 19 2.7
11. TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY — Booking and event management 19 2.7
12. PERSONAL SERVICES — Internet and computer services 15 2.1
13. LIGHT INDUSTRY — Handicrafts 14 2.0
14. TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY — Sightseeing tours, trekking, etc. 13 1.9
15. AGRICULTURE — Livestock breeding 11 1.6
16. PERSONAL SERVICES — Car maintenance services 9 1.3
17. AGRICULTURE — Intermediary enterprises (large processors) 9 1.3
18. LIGHT INDUSTRY — Paper products 7 1.0
19. TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY — Other recreational activities 6 0.9
20. PERSONAL SERVICES — Delivery and catering services 4 0.6
21. PERSONAL SERVICES — Home/Utility cleaning services 2 0.3
22. LIGHT INDUSTRY — Footwear 1 0.1
23. TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY — Natural habitats, parks and zoos 1 0.1
TOTAL: 700 100.0
134 ANNEX 2: LIST OF SECTORS AND SUB-SECTORS REPRESENTED BY MSMEs

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANNEX 3: IMPLICATIONS OF COVID-19

YES ON BUSINESSES IN TAJIKISTAN
NO
/Source:
These areCOVID-19 Impact
additional andAssessment Survey (June-July
complementary findings2020). N=295.already covered and analyzed in the main text
to those
of the COVID-19 Impact Assessment Report (namely, Chapter 5 based on the survey of MSMEs).
FIGURE
FIGURE (i):
FIGURE (i): THE
(ii):THE MAIN
THEMAIN IMPLICATIONS
MAINIMPLICATIONS
IMPLICATIONS OFOF
OF COVID-19
COVID-19
COVID-19 ONON
ON MICRO-SIZED
SMALL-SIZED
MICRO-SIZED ENTERPRISES
ENTERPRISES
ENTERPRISES IN THE
IN THE PAST
PAST 30
30 DAYS.
DAYS.
IN THE PAST
FIGURE
FIGURE (i): 30MAIN
THE
(i): THE DAYS.
MAIN IMPLICATIONS OF COVID-19 ON MICRO-SIZED ENTERPRISES IN THE PAST 30 DAYS.
IMPLICATIONS OF COVID-19 ON MICRO-SIZED ENTERPRISES IN THE PAST 30 DAYS.
Could not
Could not finance logistical payoffor
costs land useinputs
procuring right(s)
Could
Could notfinance
Could
not finance
not meet logistical
the
logisticalcost costs
of
costs ofprocuring
accessing
of procuring inputs
market(s)
inputs
Could not finance logistical costs of procuring inputs
Had toCould
raise not
prices of the
my/our
Could good(s) and/or service(s)
Could not meet
meet the not
costpay
cost of for land
of accessing
accessing use right(s)
market(s)
market(s)
Was forced
Could to borrow
not implement
Could from
marketing banks and/or
strategy NBFIs
(reach…
Could notnot pay
pay for
for land
land use
use right(s)
right(s)
Could
Had to Could
raise
Could notimplement
prices
not meet the cost
of my/our of accessing
good(s)
marketing and/or
strategy market(s)
service(s)
(reach…
not implement marketing strategy (reach…
Had to Could
to Was
raise not implement
forced
prices to
of borrow
my/our frommarketing
good(s)banks strategy
and/orand/or (reach…
NBFIs
service(s)
Had raise prices of my/our good(s) and/or service(s)
Was forced to borrow Could
Could
from not
banks notpaypayoffice
and/oroffice
NBFIs rent
rent
Was forced to borrow from banks and/or NBFIs
Couldnot
Could
Could
Could notget
not
not getaoffice
pay
pay anew
newloan
office loan
rent
rent
CouldCould not pay
not pay full rentnot
salary
Could
Could for
not forproperty/assets
get
getmy a worker(s)
a new
new loanloan
Was forced
Could to
Could not
notborrow
Could
paynot
pay from
full
full meet friends
salary
salary the
forcost
for my
myand/or family
of inputs
worker(s)
worker(s)
Could Could
not pay
Could
Could not
not
not meet
rent
meet
meet forthethe
the costof
ofofinputs
property/assets
cost
cost inputs
inputs
CouldCould
Could Could
not scale
not
not up not
pay
pay rentmake
commercial
rent for utility payments
operation(s)
for property/assets
property/assets
CouldCould
not produce
Could not scale
not good(s)
Could
scale upnot
up or provide
make
commercial
commercial utilityservice(s)
paymentsas…
operation(s)
operation(s)
Could not produce
Could good(s)
not Could
scale
Could notor
up
not provide
commercial
make
make service(s)
utility
utilityoperation(s)
payments
payments as…
Wasnot
Could
Could forced
not to borrow
Could
produce
produce not payfrom
good(s)
good(s) full
or friends
orsalary
provide
provide forand/or
service(s)
service(s)family
my worker(s) as…
as…
Was
Was forced
forced to Could
toCould
borrow
borrownot make
notfrom
make
from taxtaxpayments
friends
friends payments
and/or ininfull
and/or family
family full
Could
Could
Could
Could not
notmake
not
not make
make
make taxtax
tax
taxpayments
payments
payments
payments ononintime
in full
time
full
Could
Could Could
not
Could not
not makenotmake
make tax loan
loanrepayments
tax payments
make payments on
on time
repayments time
Could
Could not
not make
make loan loan repayments
repayments 0% 0% 10%
10% 20%
20% 30%
30% 40%
40% 50% 60% 70%
70% 80%
80% 90%
90% 100%
100%
0%
0% 10%
10% 20%
20% 30%
30% 40%
Proportion 50% 60%
40%of respondents
50% 60% 70%
(MSMEs)
70% 80%
80% 90%
90% 100%
100%
Proportion
Proportion of
of respondents
respondents (MSMEs)
(MSMEs)
YES
YES NO
NO
YES
YES NO
NO
N=347.
/Source:
/Source:COVID-19
Impact Assessment
AssessmentSurvey
Survey
Survey(June-July 2020).
(June-July
(June-July N=295.
2020).
2020). N=295.
N=295.
FIGURE
FIGURE (ii): THEMAIN
(ii): THE MAINIMPLICATIONS
IMPLICATIONSOFOF COVID-19
COVID-19 ON ON SMALL-SIZED
SMALL-SIZED ENTERPRISES
ENTERPRISES IN THE PAST 30 DAYS.
IN THE
FIGUREPAST
(ii): 30 DAYS.
FIGURE (ii): THE MAIN IMPLICATIONS OF COVID-19 ON SMALL-SIZED ENTERPRISES IN
THE MAIN IMPLICATIONS OF COVID-19 ON SMALL-SIZED ENTERPRISES IN THE
THE PAST
PAST 30
30 DAYS.
DAYS.
Could not pay for land use right(s)
Could not finance logistical
Could notcosts
Could not pay of procuring
pay for
for land
land use inputs
use right(s)
right(s)
Had to raise
Could
Could not prices of
not finance
finance my/our costs
logistical
logistical good(s)
costs of and/or
of procuring
procuring service(s)
inputs
inputs Page 29 of 35
Had to Was
Had to raiseforced
raise prices to
prices of borrow
of my/our from
my/our banks
good(s)
good(s) and/or
and/or
and/or NBFIs
service(s)
service(s)
Could
Was
Was not meet
forced
forced to the cost
to borrow
borrow from
fromof accessing
banks
banks and/or
and/ormarket(s)
NBFIs
NBFIs
Could
Could not
not implement
meet
meet the marketing
the cost
cost of strategy
of accessing
accessing (reach…
market(s)
market(s)
Could
Could not
not implement Could notstrategy
implement marketing
marketing pay office
strategy rent
(reach…
(reach…
Could
Could not
Could not get
not payaoffice
pay new loan
office rent
rent
Could not payCouldrent for
Could notproperty/assets
not get
get a a new
new loan loan
Was forced to borrow
Could
Could not
not pay
payfrom
rentfriends
rent for and/or family
for property/assets
property/assets
Was
Was forced to Could
forced to borrownot
borrow from
frommeet the cost
friends
friends and/or
and/or of inputs
family
family
Couldnot
Could
Could notmeet
not makethe
meet theutility
costpayments
cost of
of inputs
inputs
Could not produceCouldgood(s)
Could notormake
not provide
make service(s)
utility
utility payments
payments as…
Could Could
Could not
not not scale
produce
produce up commercial
good(s)
good(s) or
or provide operation(s)
provide service(s)
service(s) as…
as…
Could
Could
Could notnot
not payup
scale
scale fullcommercial
up salary for my
commercial worker(s)
operation(s)
operation(s)
CouldCould
Could not
not paynotfull
pay make
full tax for
salary
salary payments
for my
my worker(s)in full
worker(s)
Could
Could not make tax payments
Could not make tax payments in
not make tax payments on intime
full
full
Could
CouldCould
not not make
not make
make tax loan repayments
tax payments
payments on
on timetime
Could
Could not
not make
make loanloan repayments
repayments 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0%
0% 10%
10% 20%
20% 30% 40%
Proportion
30% 50% 60%
40%of respondents
50% 70%
60%(MSMEs)
70% 80%
80% 90%
90% 100%
100%
Proportion
Proportion of
of respondents
respondents (MSMEs)
(MSMEs)
YES NO
YES
YES NO
NO
/Source:COVID-19
ImpactAssessment
Assessment Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020). N=347.
N=347.
/Source:
/Source: COVID-19
COVID-19 Impact
Impact Assessment
Assessment Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020). N=347.
N=347.
ANNEX 3: IMPLICATIONS OF COVID-19 ON BUSINESSES IN TAJIKISTAN 135

FIGURE(iii):
FIGURE (iii):
THETHE MAIN
MAIN IMPLICATIONS
IMPLICATIONS OF COVID-19
OF COVID-19 ON MEDIUM-SIZED
ON MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES
ENTERPRISES IN THE PAST 30 DAYS.
IN THE (iii):
FIGURE PAST THE30MAIN
DAYS.
IMPLICATIONS OF COVID-19 ON MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES IN THE PAST 30 DAYS.
Could not meet the cost of accessing market(s)
CouldCould
not finance logistical
not meet costs
the cost of procuring
of accessing inputs
market(s)
Could notcosts
Could not finance logistical pay for land use right(s)
of procuring inputs
Could not pay
Could not rent for land
pay for property/assets
use right(s)
Was forced to borrow
Could from
not pay rentfriends and/or family
for property/assets
Could not
Was forced to borrow from friends and/or pay office rent
family
Was forced to borrow from Couldbanksnot payand/or NBFIs
office rent
Had to Was
raiseforced
prices to
of borrow
my/our from
good(s)
banksand/or
and/orservice(s)
NBFIs
Had to raise prices of my/ourCouldgood(s) notand/or
get a service(s)
new loan
Could not meetnot
Could thegetcost of inputs
a new loan
Could not implement marketing strategy (reach customers)
Couldnot
Could notimplement
produce good(s) or provide
marketing strategyservice(s) as before
(reach customers)
Couldornot
Could not produce good(s) make service(s)
provide tax payments in full
as before
CouldCould
not not
make make utility payments
tax payments in full
Could not scale
Couldupnot
commercial
make utility operation(s)
payments
Could
Could notnot payup
scale fullcommercial
salary for my worker(s)
operation(s)
Could
Could not paynot
full make
salaryloan
for myrepayments
worker(s)
Could not make
Could tax payments
not make on time
loan repayments
Could not make tax payments on time 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0% 10% 20% Proportion of respondents (MSMEs)
30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
YES NO
YES NO
/Source:
/Source:COVID-19
COVID-19Impact
Impact Assessment
Assessment Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020). N=58.
N=58.
TABLE (i): THE MAIN IMPLICATIONS OF COVID-19 ON MSMEs (AGRICULTURE) IN THE PAST 30 DAYS.
FIGURE (i): AS A RESULT OF THE COVID-19 FIGURE (ii): IN WHAT
YES WAY HAVE
NO YOUR HOUSEWORK
TOTAL IN %
OUTBREAK, HAVE
FIGURE (i): AS HOUSEWORK
A RESULT OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES
COVID-19 RESPONSIBILITIES INCREASE
FIGURE (ii): IN WHAT AMONG
WAY HAVE YOURYOUR
HOUSEWORK
Could not AMONG
INCREASED
OUTBREAK, make HOUSEWORK
HAVE tax payments
YOUR on timeMEMBERS?
HOUSEHOLD
RESPONSIBILITIES HOUSEHOLD 44
MEMBERS?
RESPONSIBILITIES INCREASE 166
AMONG 210
YOUR 21.0
INCREASED
Could not AMONG YOUR
make loan HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS?
repayments HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS? 42 168 210 20.0
Child care
Could not make tax payments in full YES - for all 31 179 210 14.8
members 13; 3% Child care
YES - for all 20; 5%
176; 17%
members 22; 6% 13; 3%23 187 210 for elderly 11.0
Care
20; 5%
176; 17%
YES - for 22; 6% 21 189 210 for elderly10.0
Care
female 44; 11% Housework
YES - for
Was forced to borrow from128;friends
13%
and/or
female family
members
44; 11% 18 192 210
Housework
8.6
members
128; 13% YES - for male 18 192
228; 58% 210 for HH 8.6
Care
members members with
27; 3% YES - for male Care for HH
Could
669;not
67%produce good(s) or provide service(s) as
members before68; 17% 17 193
228; 58% 210
disability
members 8.1
withland
27; 3% Work on own
669; 67% 68; 17% disability
Could not get a new loan NO - no 17 193 210 on own land8.1
plot
Work
change
NO - no plot
change 11 199 210
Financial 5.2
obligations
Financial
Was forced to borrow from banks and/or NBFIs 9 201 210
obligations 4.3
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). Figure (i): N=1,000; Figure (ii): N=1,000.
Had to raise prices of my/our good(s) and/or service(s) 9 201 210 4.3
Could not implement marketing strategy (reach customers) 8 202 210 3.8
Could not meet the cost of accessing market(s) 5 205 210 2.4
Could not pay rent for property/assets 4 206 210 1.9
Could not pay office rent 3 207 210 1.4
Could not pay for land use right(s) 3 207 210 1.4
Could not finance logistical costs of procuring inputs 2 208 210 1.0
Page 30 of 35
Page 30 of 35

TABLE (ii): THE MAIN IMPLICATIONS OF COVID-19 ON MSMEs (LIGHT INDUSTRY) IN THE PAST 30 DAYS.
YES NO TOTAL IN %
Could not make loan repayments 33 73 106 31.1
Could not make tax payments on time 22 84 106 20.8
Could not scale up commercial operation(s) 22 84 106 20.8
Could not produce good(s) or provide service(s) as before 19 87 106 17.9
Could not pay full salary for my worker(s) 17 89 106 16.0
Could not make tax payments in full 14 92 106 13.2
Was forced to borrow from friends and/or family 13 93 106 12.3
Could not make utility payments 13 93 106 12.3
Could not meet the cost of inputs 9 97 106 8.5
Could not get a new loan 7 99 106 6.6
Was forced to borrow from banks and/or NBFIs 3 103 106 2.8
TABLE (iii): THE MAIN IMPLICATIONS OF COVID-19 ON MSMEs (SERVICES) IN THE PAST 30 DAYS.
YES NO TOTAL IN %
Could not finance logistical costs of procuring inputs 4 310 314 1.3
ANNEX 3: IMPLICATIONS OF COVID-19 ON BUSINESSES IN TAJIKISTAN 137

TABLE (iv): THE MAIN IMPLICATIONS OF COVID-19 ON MSMEs (TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY)
IN THE PAST 30 DAYS.
YES NO TOTAL IN %

Could not produce good(s) or provide service(s) as before
ANNEX 4: SURVEY FINDINGS REGARDING SOCIAL COHESION
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Information on Figures (i)-(x) was collected from in-depth interviews with households (HHs) in order to
establish the effect that the COVID-19 outbreak may have had on the nature and volume of housework
YES violence.
responsibilities of HH members, as well as domestic NO

FIGURE (i): AS A RESULT OF THE FIGURE (ii): IN WHAT WAY HAVE YOUR
COVID-19 OUTBREAK, HAVE HOUSEWORK HOUSEWORK RESPONSIBILITIES INCREASE
FIGURE (i): AS A RESULT
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COVID-19
INCREASED AMONG YOUR FIGURE
AMONG(ii):
YOURIN WHAT WAY HAVEMEMBERS?
HOUSEHOLD YOUR HOUSEWORK
OUTBREAK, HAVE
HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS?HOUSEWORK RESPONSIBILITIES RESPONSIBILITIES INCREASE AMONG YOUR
INCREASED AMONG YOUR HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS? HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS?
YES - for all Child care

members 13; 3%
20; 5%
176; 17%
22; 6% Care for elderly
YES - for
female 44; 11% Housework
members
128; 13%
YES - for male Care for HH
228; 58%
members members with
27; 3%
669; 67% 68; 17% disability
Work on own land
NO - no plot
change
Financial
obligations

FIGURE (iii): THE DEGREE TO WHICH HOUSEHOLD FIGURE (iv): THE DEGREE TO WHICH HOUSEHOLD
RESPONSIBILITIES HAVE INCREASED AMONG RESPONSIBILITIES HAVE INCREASED AMONG
HOUSEHOLD
FIGURE MEMBERS
(iii): THE ASWHICH
DEGREE TO A RESULT OF THE
HOUSEHOLD HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS
FIGURE (iv): THE DEGREEAS
TOAWHICH
RESULT OF THE
HOUSEHOLD
COVID-19 OUTBREAK.
RESPONSIBILITIES HAVE INCREASED AMONG COVID-19 OUTBREAK.
RESPONSIBILITIES HAVE INCREASED AMONG
HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS AS A RESULT OF THE COVID- HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS AS A RESULT OF THE COVID-
19 OUTBREAK. 19 OUTBREAK.
50 50
45
40 40
35
30
30
20 Page 30 of 35 25
20
10 15
10
0 5
Very Significantly Moderately Insignificantly Barely
significantly 0
Very Significantly Moderately Insignificantly Barely
significantly
WITH PRESCHOOL-AGE CHILD
W/O PRESCHOOL-AGE CHILD WITH SCHOOL-AGE CHILD W/O SCHOOL-AGE CHILD
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). Figure (iii): N=1,000; Figure (iv): N=1,000.
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). Figure (iii): N=1,000; Figure (iv): N=1,000.
FIGURE (v): IN WHAT WAY HAVE HOUSEWORK FIGURE (vi): SINCE THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK, HAVE
RESPONSIBILITIES INCREASED AMONG YOUR YOU NOTICED INCREASED CONFLICT BETWEEN YOUR
HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS? HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS?
Child care 800
712
f respondents (HHs)
13; 3% 700
ANNEX 4: SURVEY
20; 5% FINDINGS
22; 6%
REGARDING SOCIAL COHESION
Care for elderly 600
139
500
44; 11%
Housework 400
Very
significantly Significantly Moderately Insignificantly Barely
significantly
/Source: COVID-19
/Source: Impact
COVID-19 Assessment
Impact Survey
Survey 2020).
(June-July Figure
2020). (iii):(iii):
Figure N=1,000; Figure
N=1,000; (iv):
Figure N=1,000.
(iv): N=1,000.
FIGURE (v): IN WHAT WAY HAVE HOUSEWORK FIGURE (vi): SINCE THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK,
FIGURE (v): IN
FIGURE (v):WHAT
RESPONSIBILITIES WAY
IN WHAT HAVE
INCREASED
WAY HOUSEWORK
HAVEAMONG YOUR
HOUSEWORK FIGURE
HAVE (vi):
YOU
FIGURE SINCE
NOTICED
(vi): SINCETHE
THECOVID-19
COVID-19OUTBREAK,
INCREASED HAVE
CONFLICT
OUTBREAK, HAVE
RESPONSIBILITIES
RESPONSIBILITIES
HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS? INCREASED AMONG
INCREASED YOUR
AMONG YOUR YOU
BETWEEN YOUR HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS? YOUR
YOUNOTICED
NOTICED INCREASED CONFLICT
INCREASED CONFLICTBETWEEN
BETWEEN YOUR
HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS?
HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS? HOUSEHOLD
HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS?
MEMBERS?
Child carecare 800800
Child 712
712

13; 3%
13; 3% 700700
20; 5%
20; 5%
22; 6%
22; 6% CareCare
for elderly
for elderly 600600
500500
44; 11%
44; 11%
Housework
Housework 400400
300300
228;228;
58%58%
CareCare for HH
for HH 200200 144
144
68; 17%
68; 17% members
members withwith 71 71
disability
disability 100100 37 37 3636
Work on own
Work on own 0 0
landland
plotplot SIGNIFICANT
SIGNIFICANT MODERATE
MODERATE NONO CHANGEMODERATE
CHANGE MODERATESIGNIFICANT
SIGNIFICANT
INCREASE INCREASE
INCREASE INCREASE DECREASE DECREASE
DECREASE DECREASE
/Source:
/Source:
/Source: COVID-19
COVID-19
COVID-19 Impact
Impact
Impact Assessment
Assessment
Assessment Survey
Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020). Figure
Figure (v):(v): N=1,000;
N=1,000; Figure
Figure (vi):(vi): N=1,000.
N=1,000.

FIGURE (vii): IN THE PAST 30 DAYS, HAVE YOU FIGURE (viii): IN THE PAST 30 DAYS, HAVE YOU
NOTICED INCREASE IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN NOTICED INCREASE IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD?
FIGURE
FIGURE (vii):IN
(vii): INTHE
THEPAST
PAST30
30DAYS,
DAYS,HAVE
HAVEYOU
YOU INFIGURE
YOUR
FIGURE NEIGHBORHOOD?
(viii):
(viii): ININ THE
THE PAST
PAST 3030 (BYHAVE
DAYS,
DAYS, GEOGRAPHIC
HAVE YOU
YOU
FIGURE (vii): IN THE PAST 30 DAYS, HAVE YOU FIGURE (viii): IN THE PAST 30 DAYS, HAVE YOU
NOTICED
NOTICED
FIGURE INCREASE
INCREASE ININDOMESTIC
(vii): IN THE DOMESTIC
PAST VIOLENCE
VIOLENCE
30 DAYS, IN
HAVEIN IN
YOU NOTICED
LOCATIONS)
NOTICED
FIGURE INCREASE
INCREASE
(viii): IN ININ
THE DOMESTIC
DOMESTIC
PAST 30 VIOLENCE
VIOLENCE
DAYS, HAVE IN YOUR
IN YOUR
YOU
NOTICED INCREASE IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE NOTICED INCREASE IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN YOUR
YOUR
YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD?
NEIGHBORHOOD? NEIGHBORHOOD?
NEIGHBORHOOD? (BY
(BY INGEOGRAPHIC
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS)
LOCATIONS)
YOURNOTICED INCREASE IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN
NEIGHBORHOOD? NOTICED INCREASE
NEIGHBORHOOD? DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
(BY GEOGRAPHIC IN YOUR
LOCATIONS)
YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD? NEIGHBORHOOD?
100%
100% (BY GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS)
52;5%
52; 5%
100%
(HHs)
52; 5%
(HHs)
100%
52; 5% 80%
80%
59;6%
59; 6% YES
YES
80%
respondents
59; 6% YES
respondents
59; 6% YES 80%

60%
60%
60%
NO
NO 60%
NO 40%
40%
NO 40%
of of
40%
20%
20%
Proportion
DON'T 20%
Proportion
DON'T 20%
DON'T
KNOW
KNOW 0%0%
889;
889;89%
89% DON'T
889; 89% KNOW
KNOW
0% Dushanbe
0% Dushanbe GBAO
GBAO Khatlon
Khatlon DRSDRS Soghd
Soghd
889; 89% Dushanbe GBAO Khatlon DRS Soghd
Dushanbe GBAO oblast
oblast
Khatlon DRS oblast
oblast
Soghd
oblast
oblast oblast
oblast
YES NO YES
DON'T KNOW NO DON'T KNOW
YESYES NONO DON'T DON'TKNOW
KNOW
/Source:
/Source:
/Source:COVID-19
COVID-19
COVID-19Impact
Impact
Impact Assessment
Assessment
AssessmentSurvey
Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020).
(June-July Figure
Figure
2020). (vii):
(vii):
Figure N=1,000;
N=1,000;
(vii): Figure
Figure
N=1,000; (viii):
(viii):
Figure N=1,000.
N=1,000.
(viii): N=1,000.
/Source: COVID-19
/Source: ImpactImpact
COVID-19 Assessment Survey
Survey (June-JulyPage 31 of 35
2020). Figure
2020). (vii):(vii):
Figure N=1,000; Figure
N=1,000; (viii):
Figure N=1,000.
(viii): N=1,000.
Page 31 of 35
FIGURE (ix):
FIGURE (ix):ININTHE
THE PAST 30DAYS,
PAST 30 DAYS,HAVE
HAVE YOU
YOU FIGURE(x):(x):
FIGURE IN IN
THETHE PAST
PAST 30 DAYS,
30 DAYS, HAVEHAVE YOU
YOU NOTICED
FIGURE (ix): IN THE PAST 30 DAYS, HAVE YOU FIGURE (x): IN THE PAST 30 DAYS, HAVE YOU NOTICED
NOTICED
FIGURE
NOTICED
NOTICED INCREASED
(ix):
FIGURE IN(ix):
THE
INCREASED
INCREASED THECRIMINALITY
IN PAST 30 DAYS,
PAST HAVE
30 DAYS,
CRIMINALITY
CRIMINALITY (PETTY
YOU
HAVE
(PETTY
(PETTY YOU
CRIMES,
CRIMES, NOTICED
FIGURE
FIGURE
INCREASED
INCREASED INCREASED
(x):(x):
IN THE PAST
IN THE 30
PAST
CRIMINALITY
CRIMINALITY CRIMINALITY
DAYS,
30 DAYS,
(PETTY
(PETTY
HAVE
HAVE
CRIMES, (PETTY
YOU
THEFT,
CRIMES, CRIMES,
YOUNOTICED
NOTICED
ETC.)
THEFT, ETC.)
NOTICED
CRIMES, INCREASED
NOTICED
THEFT, CRIMINALITY
INCREASED (PETTY
CRIMINALITY CRIMES,
(PETTY CRIMES, INCREASED
INCREASED CRIMINALITY
IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD? ETC.)
(PETTY
CRIMINALITY CRIMES,
(PETTY CRIMES,THEFT,
THEFT, ETC.)
THEFT,
THEFT, ETC.) INETC.)
ETC.) IN YOUR
YOURINNEIGHBORHOOD?
YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD?
NEIGHBORHOOD? THEFT,
IN YOUR
IN YOURETC.)
NEIGHBORHOOD?
NEIGHBORHOOD?
THEFT,
THEFT, ETC.)
ETC.) 20; IN YOUR
IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD?
NEIGHBORHOOD? IN YOUR
IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD?
NEIGHBORHOOD?
27; 2% 26; 2% 100%
27;3%
3% 20;20; 2% 26; 2%
(HHs)
100%
27; 3%27; 3% 2%20; 2% 26; 2%

26; 2% 100%
100%
(HHs)
SIGNIFICANT 80%
of respondents
149; 15% SIGNIFICANT

INCREASE
80%
SIGNIFICANT
INCREASE 80%80%
of respondents
149; 15%
149; 15% INCREASE
INCREASE
MODERATE 60%
60%
MODERATE
MODERATE
INCREASE
MODERATE 60%60%
INCREASE
INCREASE 40%
INCREASE
NO CHANGE 40%
NONOCHANGE 40%40%
Proportion
CHANGE
NO CHANGE 20%
20%
Proportion
MODERATE 20%
20%
MODERATE
MODERATE
DECREASE 0%
778; 78% MODERATE
DECREASE 0%
DECREASE 0% RURAL URBAN
778; 78%
778; 78% DECREASE
SIGNIFICANT 0%
RURAL
RURAL URBAN
URBAN
SIGNIFICANT
DECREASE RURAL URBAN
SIGNIFICANT
DECREASE
DECREASE SIGNIFICANT INCREASE MODERATE INCREASE
DECREASE NOSIGNIFICANT
SIGNIFICANT
CHANGE INCREASE
INCREASE MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE INCREASE
INCREASE
DECREASE
SIGNIFICANT
NO
NOCHANGE
CHANGEINCREASE MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATEINCREASE
DECREASE
DECREASE
SIGNIFICANT DECREASE
NOSIGNIFICANT
CHANGE
SIGNIFICANTDECREASE
DECREASE MODERATE DECREASE
SIGNIFICANT
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). Figure (ix): DECREASE
N=1,000; Figure (x): N=1,000.
/Source:
/Source: COVID-19
COVID-19 Impact
Impact Assessment
Assessment Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020).Figure
2020). Figure(ix):
(ix):N=1,000;
N=1,000;Figure
Figure (x):
(x): N=1,000.
N=1,000.
/Source: COVID-19
ImpactAssessment
AssessmentSurvey
Survey(June-July
(June-July2020).
2020).Figure
Figure(ix):
(ix): N=1,000;
N=1,000; Figure
Figure (x):
(x): N=1,000.
N=1,000.

ANNEX 5: QUALITY OF INTERVIEWS: A SELF-ASSESSMENT (HHs)
Figures (i)-(vii) below demonstrate responses of interviewers who collected information from the HHs. As
such, this information represents the interviewers’ self-assessment of the quality of interviews.
FIGURE (i): WAS THERE ANYONE OTHER THAN FIGURE (ii): WHO WERE THE PERSON(S)
FIGURE (i): WAS THERE ANYONE OTHER THAN THE FIGURE (ii): WHO WERE THE PERSON(S) PRESENT
THE RESPONDENT
FIGURE (i): WAS PRESENT
THERE ANYONEDURING
OTHER THE THE
THAN PRESENT
FIGURE WITH
(ii): WHOTHE RESPONDENT
WERE THE DURING
PERSON(S) PRESENT
RESPONDENT PRESENT DURING THE INTERVIEW? WITH THE RESPONDENT DURING THE INTERVIEW?
INTERVIEW?
RESPONDENT
FIGURE (i): WASPRESENT DURING OTHER
THERE ANYONE THE INTERVIEW?
THAN THE THE
WITHINTERVIEW?
FIGURETHE (ii):RESPONDENT DURING
WHO WERE THE THE INTERVIEW?
PERSON(S) PRESENT
FIGURE (i): WAS THERE ANYONE OTHER THAN THE FIGURE
350 (ii): WHO WERE THE PERSON(S) PRESENT
RESPONDENT PRESENT DURING THE INTERVIEW? WITH THE
350
RESPONDENT DURING THE INTERVIEW?
RESPONDENT PRESENT DURING THE INTERVIEW? WITH THE RESPONDENT DURING THE INTERVIEW?
300
300 350
interviews
350
interviews
250
300
YES; 250
300
of interviews
YES;
Number of interviews
200
334; 250
250
200
YES;
334;
YES;
ofof
150
NO; 33% 200
200
Number
334; 150
NO; 334;
33%
Number
100
666;NO; 33%
33%
150
150
100
NO;
666;
Number
67%666; 10050
100
67%
666; 50
67% 50 0
67% 500 The spouse Child(ren) Child(ren) Adult HH Adults from
0 The spouse
of Child(ren)
aged Child(ren)
6 years aged 7-14 Adult
memberHH Adults
outsidefrom
the
0 Therespondent
spouse
of Child(ren)
aged Child(ren)
6 years
or younger
Adult HH
aged 7-14 Adults from
member outside
HH the
of spouse
The aged or
respondent 6Child(ren)
years aged 7-14
younger member
Child(ren) Adultoutside
HH the Adults
HHfrom
respondent
of or younger
aged 6 years aged 7-14 memberHH outside the
respondent or younger HH
YES NO
YES YES NO NO
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). N=1,000. YES NO

/Source:
/Source: COVID-19
COVID-19 Impact
Assessment Survey(June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020).N=1,000.
N=1,000.
FIGURE (iii): FOR HOW MUCH OF THE TIME WERE THE PERSON(S) PRESENT WITH THE RESPONDENT
FIGURE (iii):THE
FIGURE
DURING FOR HOW
(iii): FOR MUCH
HOW OFOF
MUCH THE
THETIME
TIMEWERE THE PERSON(S)
WERE THE PERSON(S)PRESENT
PRESENT WITH
WITH THETHE RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT DURING
DURING
FIGURE (iii): FORINTERVIEW?
HOW MUCH OF THE TIME WERE THE PERSON(S) PRESENT WITH THE RESPONDENT DURING
THE INTERVIEW?
THE INTERVIEW?
THE INTERVIEW?
FIGURE (iii): FOR HOW MUCH OF THE TIME WERE THE PERSON(S) PRESENT WITH THE RESPONDENT DURING
110 110
THE INTERVIEW?
110 100
100
100 90
110
90
90 80
interviews
100
80
ofofinterviews
80 70
90
70
70 60
of interviews
80
60 50
60
70
50 40
50
Number
60
40 30
Number
40
50
30 20
30
Number
40 10
20
20 0
30
10
10 The spouse of Child(ren) aged 6 years or Child(ren) aged 7-14 Adult HH member Adults from outside the
200 respondent younger HH
0
10
The spouse of Child(ren) aged 6 years or Child(ren) aged 7-14 Adult HH member Adults from outside the
0respondent
respondent younger
For a small amount of time
younger
1/4 of the time 1/2 of the time For all/most time HH
HH
ForAssessment Survey (June-July 2020). N=1,000. 1/2 of the time
respondent Foraasmall
smallamount
amount of
oftime
youngertime 1/4
1/4of
of the
the time
time 1/2 of the time For
For all/most
all/most time
time HH
/Source:
/Source:COVID-19
COVID-19Impact
ImpactAssessment
For Survey
a small amount
of time
Survey 1/42020).
(June-July N=1,000.
of the time
2020). N=1,000.1/2 of the time For all/most time

ANNEX 5: QUALITY OF INTERVIEWS: A SELF-ASSESSMENT (HHs) 141

FIGURE (iv): WHAT IS YOUR IMPRESSION FIGURE (v): WHAT IS YOUR IMPRESSION
OF FIGURE
HOW(iv):
FIGURE (iv):
WELLWHATWHAT
THE IS YOUR IMPRESSION
IS RESPONDENT
YOUR OFOF HOW
UNDERSTOOD
IMPRESSION HOW OFFIGURE (v):
HOW(v):
FIGURE WHAT
SERIOUS
WHAT IS
ISTHEYOUR
YOUR IMPRESSIONOF
RESPONDENT
IMPRESSION OFHOW
WAS HOW
THEWELL THE
WELLQUESTIONS RESPONDENT UNDERSTOOD
BEINGUNDERSTOOD
THE RESPONDENT ASKED? THE
THE SERIOUS
WHEN THE
ANSWERING
SERIOUS RESPONDENT WAS
QUESTIONS?
THE RESPONDENT WHEN ANSWERING
WAS WHEN ANSWERING
FIGURE
FIGURE (iv):
(iv): WHAT
QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS
WHAT IS
IS YOUR
BEING
BEING
YOUR IMPRESSION
ASKED?
ASKED?
IMPRESSION OF
OF HOW
HOW FIGURE
FIGURE (v):
(v): WHAT
QUESTIONS?
QUESTIONS?
WHAT IS
IS YOUR
YOUR IMPRESSION
IMPRESSION OF
OF HOW
HOW
WELL
WELL THE
THE RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT UNDERSTOOD
UNDERSTOOD THE
THE SERIOUS
SERIOUS THE
THE RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT WAS WAS WHEN
WHEN ANSWERING
ANSWERING
QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS BEING
BEING ASKED?
ASKED? QUESTIONS?
QUESTIONS?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Proportion of interviews Proportion of interviews
Proportion of interviews Proportion of interviews
0%
0% 10%
10% 20%
20% 30%
30% 40%40% 50%
50% 60% 60% 70%
70% 80%
80% 90% 90% 100%100% 0%
0% 10%
10% 20%
20% 30%
30% 40%
Very serious40% 50%
50% 60% 60% 70%
70% 80%
Serious 80% 90%90% 100%
100%
Very well Quite well Poorly Not so well A lot of difficulty Very serious Serious
Very well Quite well Poorly
Proportion
Proportion of Not so well
of interviews
interviews A lot of difficulty Not veryProportion
serious
Proportion of Not serious at all
of interviews
interviews
Not very serious Not serious at all
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). N=1,000. Very
Very serious
serious Serious
Serious
Very
Very well
/Source:well Quite
COVID-19 well
QuiteImpact Poorly
Poorly Not
well Assessment so
so well
NotSurvey AA lot
lot of
well (June-July of difficulty
difficulty
2020). N=1,000.
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). N=1,000. Not
Not very
very serious
serious Not
Not serious
serious at
at all
all
/Source:
/Source: COVID-19
COVID-19 Impact
Impact Assessment
Assessment Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020). N=1,000.
N=1,000.
FIGURE (vi): WHAT IS YOUR IMPRESSION OF HOW FIGURE (vii): HOW OFTEN DID THE RESPONDENT ASK
FIGURE
FIGURE
MUCH (vi):
(vi): WHATISIS
WHAT
DISTRACTION YOUR
YOUR IMPRESSION
IMPRESSION
THERE OF
OF HOW
WAS FOR THE FIGURE
FIGURE (vii):
(vii):
YOU (THE HOWOFTEN
HOW OFTEN
INTERVIEWER) DID
DID
FOR THE
THE RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT
ASSISTANCE, ASK
MUCH
HOW DISTRACTION
MUCH DISTRACTION
RESPONDENT THERE WAS
WHEN ANSWERING FOR THE
THERE THE
WASQUESTIONS?
FOR YOU
ASK (THE INTERVIEWER) FOR
YOU (THE INTERVIEWER)
CLARIFICATION ASSISTANCE,
OR EXAMPLES?FOR ASSISTANCE,
RESPONDENT
THE RESPONDENT
FIGURE
FIGURE (vi): WHEN
(vi): WHAT
WHAT IS ANSWERING
ISWHEN
YOURANSWERING
YOUR THE QUESTIONS?
IMPRESSION
IMPRESSION THE
OF
OF HOW
HOW CLARIFICATION
CLARIFICATION
FIGURE
FIGURE (vii): OR
OREXAMPLES?
(vii): HOW
HOW EXAMPLES?
OFTEN
OFTEN DID
DID THE
THE RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT ASK
ASK
QUESTIONS?
MUCH
MUCH DISTRACTION
DISTRACTION THERE
THERE WAS
WAS FOR
FOR THE
THE YOU
YOU (THE
(THE INTERVIEWER)
INTERVIEWER) FOR
FOR ASSISTANCE,
ASSISTANCE,
RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT WHEN
WHEN ANSWERING
ANSWERING THE
THE QUESTIONS?
QUESTIONS? CLARIFICATION
CLARIFICATION OROR EXAMPLES?
EXAMPLES?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0% 10% 20% 30% Proportion
40% 50% of60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
interviews
Proportion of interviews
Very little or no distraction 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0%
0% 10% VerySome
10% 20%
20% 30%
30% distraction,
40%
40%
little or 50%not60%
50%
no distractionserious
60% 70% 80%
70% 80% 90%
90% 100%
100% 0% 10% 20% 30%Proportion
40% 50%of 60%
interviews
70% 80% 90% 100%
SomeSome distraction,
distraction,
Proportion
Proportion ofbothering
not
of serious
interviews
interviews the respondent Proportion of interviews
SomeA great deal ofbothering
distraction, distractionthe respondent Rarely
Sometimes Fairly often Very often
AVery
Very little
little
great orof
or
deal nodistraction
no distraction
distraction 0%
0% 10%
10% 20%
20% 30%
30% 40%
40% 50%
50% 60%60% 70% 70% 80%
80% 90%90% 100%
100%
Rarely Sometimes Fairly often Very often
Some distraction,
Some Assessment
distraction, not
not serious
serious Survey (June-July 2020). N=1,000. Proportion
Proportion of
of interviews
interviews
SomeImpact
Some
/Source: COVID-19 distraction,
distraction, botheringSurvey
bothering
Assessment the respondent
the respondent
(June-July 2020). N=1,000.
AA great
great deal
deal of
of distraction
distraction Rarely
Rarely Sometimes
Sometimes Fairly
Fairly often
often Very
Very often
often
/Source:
/Source: COVID-19
COVID-19 Impact
Impact Assessment
Assessment Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020). N=1,000.
N=1,000.
Page 34 of 35
142
Page 34 of 35

Page 34 of 35
Page 34 of 35
ANNEX 6: QUALITY OF INTERVIEWS: A SELF-ASSESSMENT (MSMEs)
Figures (i)-(vii) below demonstrate responses of interviewers who collected information from the HHs.
As such, this information represents the interviewers’ self-assessment of the quality of interviews.
FIGURE
FIGURE (i): (i):
WAS WASTHERE ANYONE
THERE OTHER
ANYONE OTHER THAN
THAN THE FIGURE
THE FIGURE (ii):(ii):
WHO WERE
WHO THE
WERE PERSON(S)
THE PRESENT
PERSON(S) WITH
PRESENT WITH
FIGURE
FIGURE
RESPONDENT (i):
(i): WASWAS THERE
THERE
PRESENT ANYONE
ANYONE
DURING OTHER
OTHER
THE THAN
INTERVIEW?
RESPONDENT PRESENT DURING THE INTERVIEW? THE FIGURE
FIGURE
THE RESPONDENT (ii):
(ii): WHO
WHO WERE
WERE
DURING THE
THE
THE PERSON(S)
PERSON(S)
THE RESPONDENT DURING THE INTERVIEW? INTERVIEW? PRESENT
PRESENT WITH
FIGURE
THAN THE
RESPONDENT (i): WAS THERE
(i):RESPONDENT
PRESENT ANYONE OTHER
PRESENT
DURING THE THAN
DURING
INTERVIEW? THE FIGURE
WITH THE (ii): WHO WERE
RESPONDENT THE PERSON(S)
DURING THEPRESENT WITH
INTERVIEW?
FIGURE
FIGURE WAS
(i): WASTHERE
THEREANYONE
ANYONEOTHER
OTHER THAN THE THE
THAN THE RESPONDENT
FIGURE
FIGURE
160160
(ii):
(ii): WHO
WHO DURING
WERE
WERE THE THE
THE INTERVIEW?
PERSON(S)
PERSON(S) PRESENT
PRESENT WITH
WITH
RESPONDENT
THE INTERVIEW?
RESPONDENT PRESENT
PRESENT DURING THE INTERVIEW? THE RESPONDENT DURING THE INTERVIEW?
RESPONDENT PRESENTDURING
DURINGTHE
THE INTERVIEW?
YES;
INTERVIEW?
YES; THE
THE
140 RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT DURING
DURING THE
THE INTERVIEW?
INTERVIEW?
160140
of interviews
135;YES;19%19%
135; 160
120
140
interviews
160
120
160
135;YES;
19%
YES; 140
interviews
YES; 100
120100
140
interviews
140
of interviews
135;
135;19%
135;19%
19% 120
80
100 80
120
120
100
608060
100
100
Number
of of
408040
60 80
80
Number
60
204020
Number
60
60
Number
Number
040400
2040
NO; 565; 20 Co-owner / / Supervisor
Co-owner Supervisor Co-worker / / Junior
Co-worker staffstaff
Junior
NO; 565; 020
20 Another Colleague
81% 0 0 Co-owner
Another/ Supervisor Colleague /
Co-worker Junior staff
81%
NO; 565; 0shareholder
shareholder
Co-owner / / Supervisor Co-worker // / Junior
Juniorstaff
staff
NO; 565;
NO;
NO; 565;565; Co-owner
Another
Co-owner / Supervisor
Supervisor Co-worker
Colleague
Co-worker Junior staff
81% Another
Another
shareholder
Another
YESYES NO NO Colleague
Colleague
Colleague
81%
81%81% shareholder
shareholder
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). N=700. shareholder YES NO
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). N=700. YES
YES NO
YES NO
/Source:
/Source:
FIGURE COVID-19
/Source:
COVID-19
(iv): WHAT Impact
COVID-19
Impact Assessment
ISImpact
Assessment
YOUR Survey
Assessment
Survey
IMPRESSION (June-July
Survey
(June-July
OF HOW 2020).
(June-July
2020). N=700.
2020). N=700. (v): WHAT IS YOUR IMPRESSION OF HOW
N=700.
FIGURE
/Source:
FIGURE COVID-19
(iv): Impact
WHAT IS Assessment
YOUR Survey
IMPRESSION (June-July
OF HOW 2020). N=700.
FIGURE (v): WHAT IS YOUR IMPRESSION OF HOW
WELL THE
WELL THERESPONDENT
UNDERSTOOD THE
THE SERIOUS THE
SERIOUS THERESPONDENT
RESPONDENT WAS WHEN
WAS ANSWERING
WHEN ANSWERING
FIGURE
FIGURE (iv):
FIGURE
FIGURE
QUESTIONS
WHAT
(iv):
(iv): WHAT
(iv):
WHAT
BEING
ISASKED?
WHAT YOUR
ISIS YOUR
IS IMPRESSION
YOUR
YOUR IMPRESSIONOF
IMPRESSION
IMPRESSION HOW
OF
OFOF HOW
HOW
HOW FIGURE
FIGURE(v):
FIGURE
FIGURE (v):WHAT
(v):
(v):
QUESTIONS? WHAT IS
WHATIS
WHAT IS YOUR
ISYOUR
YOUR
YOUR IMPRESSION
IMPRESSION
IMPRESSION
IMPRESSION OF
OF
OF HOW
OF
HOW
HOW
WELLQUESTIONS
FIGURE
THE (iv): BEING
WHAT
RESPONDENT ASKED?
IS YOUR IMPRESSION
UNDERSTOOD THEOF HOW QUESTIONS?
FIGURE
SERIOUS (v):
THE WHAT IS
RESPONDENTYOUR IMPRESSION
WAS WHEN OF HOW
ANSWERING
WELL
WELL THE
WELL
THETHERESPONDENT
RESPONDENT
UNDERSTOOD
UNDERSTOOD THE
THE
THE HOW SERIOUS
SERIOUS
SERIOUS THE RESPONDENT
THERESPONDENT
THE RESPONDENT WAS
WAS WHEN
WAS WHEN
ANSWERING
ANSWERING
WELL
QUESTIONSTHEBEING
QUESTIONS
RESPONDENT
ASKED?
BEING
UNDERSTOOD THE
ASKED?
SERIOUS THE RESPONDENT WAS WHEN ANSWERING
QUESTIONS?
QUESTIONS?QUESTIONS?
QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS BEING
BEING ASKED?
ASKED? ANSWERING
QUESTIONS?
QUESTIONS BEING ASKED? QUESTIONS?
0% 0%10%10%
20%20%
30%30%
40%40%
50%50%
60%60%
70%70%
80%80%
90%90%
100%
100%
0% 0%10%10%
20%20%30%30% 40%40%50%50% 60%60% 70%70%80%80%90%90%100%
100%
Number
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% of50%interviews
60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of interviews
0%0% 10%
A lot of
10% 20%
difficulty
20% 30% 40% 50%
understanding
30% 40% 50% 60%
Poorly
60% 70%
70% 80%
80% 90%
90% 100%
100% Number of interviews
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0%A lot of difficulty
10% 20% 30% understanding
40% 50%
Number
Poorly70% 80% 90% 100%
60%
of interviews 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 30% 40%
40% 50%50% 60% 60% 70%70% 80%
80% 90%90%100%
100%
NotNot
so well Number
Number ofofinterviews
Quite wellwell
interviews 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%of50%
Number 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
interviews
A so
lot well
of difficulty understanding Quite
Poorly
Number of interviews Number
Number of
of interviews
interviews
AVery
lot ofwell
A lot difficulty
of understanding
difficulty understanding Poorly Poorly Not very serious
Not very serious Serious Very serious
AVery
lot ofwell
Not so well understanding
difficulty Quite well
Poorly Number ofSerious
interviewsVery serious
NotNot
soso well
well Quitewell
Quite well Not very serious Serious Very serious
/Source:
/Source: COVID-19
NotVery well
so well
COVID-19 Impact Assessment
Impact Assessment Survey
Quite well (June-July
Survey 2020).
(June-July N=700.
2020). N=700.
Very
Very well
well Not very serious
serious Serious
Serious Very
Veryserious
serious
Very well COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July 2020). N=700. Not very serious Serious Very serious
/Source:
/Source:
/Source:
/Source: COVID-19
COVID-19
Impact
Assessment Survey
Survey (June-July
(June-July
(June-July 2020).
2020).
2020). N=700.
N=700.
N=700.
FIGURE (vi): WHAT IS YOUR IMPRESSION OF FIGURE (vii): HOW OFTEN DID THE RESPONDENT
HOW MUCH DISTRACTION THERE WAS FOR ASK YOU (THE INTERVIEWER) FOR ASSISTANCE,
FIGURE
FIGURE(vi):(vi):
WHATWHATIS YOUR
IS YOURIMPRESSION OFOF
IMPRESSION HOW FIGURE (vii):
FIGURE HOW
(vii): OFTEN DIDDID
THE RESPONDENT ASK
THE
MUCH
RESPONDENT
DISTRACTION
WHEN ANSWERING THEHOW CLARIFICATION HOW
OROFTEN
EXAMPLES? THE RESPONDENT ASK
FIGURE
MUCH (vi): WHATTHERE
DISTRACTION WAS
ISTHERE
YOUR FOR
WAS THE
IMPRESSION
FOR THEOF HOW YOU (THE INTERVIEWER) FOR ASSISTANCE,
FIGURE
YOU (THE(vii): HOW OFTEN FOR
INTERVIEWER) DID THE RESPONDENT ASK
ASSISTANCE,
QUESTIONS?
RESPONDENT WHEN ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS? CLARIFICATION OROR
EXAMPLES?
FIGURE
MUCH (vi):
RESPONDENT
FIGURE (vi): WHAT
WHAT ISISYOUR
DISTRACTION
WHEN YOUR IMPRESSION
THERE WAS THE
ANSWERING
IMPRESSION OFHOW
FOR OF
THEHOW
QUESTIONS? FIGURE
YOU (vii):
(THE HOW OFTEN
INTERVIEWER)
CLARIFICATION
FIGURE (vii): HOW DID
FOR
EXAMPLES?
OFTEN DID THE RESPONDENT ASK
ASSISTANCE,
THE
FIGURE
MUCH (vi): WHAT
DISTRACTION
RESPONDENT WHENISTHERE
YOUR IMPRESSION
WAS
ANSWERINGFOR THE
THE OF HOW
QUESTIONS? FIGURE
YOU (THE (vii): HOW
INTERVIEWER)
CLARIFICATION OFTEN DID
FOR
OR EXAMPLES? THERESPONDENT
RESPONDENTASK
ASSISTANCE, ASK
MUCH
MUCHDISTRACTION
DISTRACTION THERE WAS
THERE FOR
WAS FORTHE
THE YOU
YOU(THE
(THEINTERVIEWER)
INTERVIEWER) FOR
FOR ASSISTANCE,
ASSISTANCE,
RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT WHENANSWERING
WHEN ANSWERING THE
THE QUESTIONS?
QUESTIONS? CLARIFICATION
CLARIFICATION OR EXAMPLES?
RESPONDENT WHEN ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS? CLARIFICATIONOR OREXAMPLES?
EXAMPLES?
0% 0%10%10%20%20% 30%30% 40%40% 50%50% 60%60% 70%70% 80%80%90%90%

100%
100%
0% 10% 20%Number 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
of interviewers
Number of interviewers
Number of interviewers 0% 0%10%10%20%20%30%30% 40%40%50%50% 60%60% 70%70% 80%80%
90%90%100%100%
0% 10% A20% great 30%
A great dealdeal 40%
of 50%
distraction 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
of distraction
0% 0%10%10%
20% 20%
Some 30% 30% 40%
distration, 40%50% 50%
bothering 60% 60%
to 70%
the 70%80% 80%
respondent 90%
90%100%
100% 0% 10% 20% Number30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
of respondents
A great
Some Number deal of distraction
distration,ofbothering
interviewers
to the respondent Number of respondents
SomeSome distraction,
SomeNumberNumber not
distration,
of
distraction, serious
bothering
ofnot seriousto the respondent
interviewers
interviewers Number of respondents
0% Rarely
10% 20% Sometimes
30% 40% 50%Fairly 60% 70% 80%
often Very90%
often100%
A great
Very little deal of distraction
ordistraction,
no
Some
Very little or distraction
not serious
no distraction Rarely
0%0% 10%10% 20%
20% Sometimes
30%
30% 40%
40% 50% Fairly
60%often
50% 60% 70% 80%Very
70% 80% 90%
90%often
100%
100%
A great
A great
Some deal
Very of distraction
deal
distration,
little ofno
or distraction
bothering to the respondent
distraction Rarely Number
Sometimes of respondents
Fairly often Very often
/Source: COVID-19
/Source: SomeSome
Some
COVID-19 Impact
distration, Assessment
bothering
distration,
distraction,
Impact bothering
not to
serious
Assessment Survey
the
to (June-July
respondent
the respondent
Survey 2020).
(June-July N=700.
2020). N=700. Number
of respondents
/Source: COVID-19
/Source: COVID-19
SomeSome
Very
Impact
distraction, Assessment
orImpact
distraction,
little Assessment
notnot
serious
no distraction
Survey (June-July 2020). N=700.
serious Survey (June-July 2020). N=700. Rarely Sometimes Fairly often Very often
VeryVery
littlelittle
or no or distraction
no distraction Rarely
Rarely Sometimes
Sometimes Fairly
Fairlyoften
often Very
Veryoften
often
/Source: COVID-19 Impact Assessment Survey (June-July
ANNEX 6: QUALITY OF INTERVIEWS: A SELF-ASSESSMENT (MSMEs)
2020). N=700.
143
Page 35 of 35
Page 35 of 35
Page 35 of 35
ANNEX 7: LIST OF PARTNERS IN ATTENDANCE
OF VIRTUAL CONSULTATION SESSIONS
The two virtual consultation sessions with national and international stakeholders were held on July 8,
2020 (for the presentation of preliminary results) and August 18, 2020 (for the presentation of final results
and the discussion on way forward).
# Name/Surname Affiliation (Organization/Company)
Government of the Republic of Tajikistan:
Representative of the Ministry of Economic Development and

1. Ms. Rano Karimova
Trade (MoEDT)
Representative of the State Committee on Investment and

2. Mr. Pirumsho Valizoda
State Property Management (SCISPM)
Senior Economist of the Secretariat of the Consultative Council

3. Ms. Manuchehra Madjonova on Improving Investment Climate under the President of the
Republic of Tajikistan
Secretary of the Consultative Council on Improving Investment

4. Mr. Zafar Alizoda
Climate under the Chairman of the Khatlon Region
Head of the Department in the Entrepreneurship Support Fund

5. Mr. Isfandiyor Usmonzoda
of Tajikistan under the Government of Tajikistan
Deputy Director of the State Institution ‘Formation and

6. Mr. Sulaimon Kurbonov
Development Entrepreneurship in Tajikistan’
Private sector:
7. Mr. Abdullo Kurbonov Director of Alif Bank
8. Mr. Ravshan Kurbanov CEO of 55 Group
9. Mr. Navruz Odinaev Director of the LLC ‘Himoya’
10. Mr. Jamshed Buzurukov Director of LLC ‘IsfaraFood’
11. Mr. Khayrullo Rizoev Director of LLC ‘Mevai Tilloi’
12. Mr. Mirzorahimi Ravshanzoda Deputy director of LLC ‘Oro Isfara’
13. Mr. Akmal Rakhmonov Deputy director of LLC ‘Afzali Soghd’
14. Mr. Pulot Ashurov Director of LLC ‘Apricot and K’
15. Mr. Najib Khamraev Deputy Director of CJSC ‘Avvalin’
16. Mr. Iskandar Ikrami Founder of Mazza café
17. Mr. Bakhtiyor Kadirov Founder of BotService
18. Mr. Jahongir Jalolov Co-Founder and Director of the ‘Colibri Innovation’
Civil society organizations and business support organizations:
19. Ms. Matluyba Salihova Director of the Public Organization ‘Peshraft’
20. Ms. Lola Nasreddinova Director of the Public Organization ‘Iroda’
21. Ms. Zarina Rajabova Director of Alif Academy
22. Mr. Rozik Chorshanbiev Country Manager of the Accelerate Prosperity Tajikistan
23. Mr. Bakhriddin Isamuddinov Director of the Tourism Development Center of Tajikistan
24. Ms. Karina Burykh Executive Director of the Business School (55 Group)
Director of Association of Microfinance Organizations of

25. Ms. Zebo Fadtiddinova
Tajikistan (AMFOT)
26. Mr. Shuhrat Abdulloev Expert on financial sector

Institute of Economy and Demography of the National
27. Ms. Farida Muminova Academy of Sciences; Expert on regional economic
development
28. Ms. Mahinakhon Suleimanova Director of Neksigol Mushovir, Agroinform.tj
29. Ms. Larisa Kislyakova Director of Union of Professional Consultants of Tajikistan
Deputy Director of National Association of Business Women in

30. Ms. Firuza Makhmudova
Tajikistan (NABWT)
31. Mrs. Manzura Rustamova Deputy Director of CCI of the Republic of Tajikistan
Mr. Melikuzi Qodirov Deputy General Director CCI of Soghd oblast
Mr. Sharaf Sangov Deputy General Director CCI of Khatlon oblast
32. Mr. Abdumubin Fayziev Executive Director of MAPEST
33. Mr. Bakhtiyor Shokirov General Director of LLC ‘Rushd’
34. Mr. Shavkat Bazarov Director of NASIP APK
35. Mr. Mirzoravshan Qobilov Director of PO ‘Quality Management Center’
36. Mr. Azizullo Avezov General Director of LLC ‘Business Consulting Group’
ANNEX 7: LIST OF PARTNERS IN ATTENDANCE OF VIRTUAL CONSULTATION SESSIONS 145

ANNEX 8: TAJIKISTAN’S COVID-19 COUNTRY PREPAREDNESS
AND RESPONSE PLAN
The Country Preparedness and Response Plan (CPRP) was developed by the Republican Task Force and
endorsed by the Prime Minister of the Republic of Tajikistan on March 19, 2020.
Deadline/
# Response measures Responsible agencies
Frequency
1. Timely implementation of instructions and Regularly Ministries and departments,
orders indicated in the Address of the (submission of local executive bodies of
President of the Republic of Tajikistan to monthly information) state power
the Parliament ‘On the Key Directions of the
Country’s Domestic and Foreign Policy’ and
those noted in the extended meeting of the
Government of the Republic of Tajikistan
‘On the Results of Social and Economic
Development in 2019 and Objectives for
2020.’
2. Analysis of the global and regional economic Monthly MoEDT, MoF, SCISPM, NBT,
situation, namely of the key trading partners in (until stabilization Tax Committee, Customs
light of COVID-19 pandemic and taking timely of the sanitary and Committee, and other
measures to reduce its adverse impact to the epidemiological relevant ministries and
national economy. situation in the departments and local
world) executive bodies of state
power
3. Taking practical measures to mobilize funds Regularly MoF, MoEDT, NBT and
and technical assistance from the international (submission of SCISPM
financial institutions and development monthly information)
partners to prevent adverse impacts of
external factors to the economy, namely for
ensuring macroeconomic stability and state
budget support and implementation of public
investment projects.
4. Conduct negotiations in the prescribed Second quarter of NBT, MoEDT, SCISPM, Tax
manner with International Monetary Fund 2020 Committee and Customs
(IMF) on the adoption of the New Economic Committee
Program.
5. Strengthening activities on increasing the Regularly Ministry of Agriculture (MoA),
production and stockpiling agricultural (submission of State Committee on Land
produce, including potato, wheat and oil crops, monthly information) Management and Geodesy
effective use of fallow land and ensuring 2–3 (SCLMG), Agency on State
harvests a year. Material Reserves (ASMR),
Agency on Land Reclamation
and Irrigation (ALRI), and
local executive bodies of
state power
6. Significant increase in production of import- Regularly Ministry of Industry and
substituting basic needs products in the (submission of New Technologies (MoINT),
country, including the production of flour, oil, monthly information) Ministry of Agriculture
pasta, sugar, rice, beans, poultry meat and fish, (MoA),and local executive
canned meat and vegetables. bodies of state power
7. Consider offering tax concessions to the Second quarter of MoF, MoINT, Ministry
domestic producers and entrepreneurs, as 2020 of Justice (MoJ), MoEDT,
well as significant reduction of non-tax audits SCISPM, Tax Committee,
and increasing the amount of loans extended NBT, and other supervision
with low interest rates and for longer period to authorities
the production business entities.
8. Abstaining from incurring secondary costs, Regularly MoF, NBT, and other relevant
undertaking performance assessment of (submission of ministries and departments
public institutions, taking necessary measures monthly information)
and seeking for additional sources of
financing of the budgetary expenses, ways of
mobilizing funds to the reserve funds, such as
stabilization fund for economic development.
9. Reinvigorating the process of increasing Regularly NBT, Ministry of Foreign
the international reserves and its effective (submission of Affairs (MFA), and other
management, use of national currencies of monthly information) relevant ministries and
the key trading partners of the Republic of departments
Tajikistan in foreign trade transactions taking
into account the interests of the national
economy.
10. Strengthening activities in regulating national Regularly NBT and other relevant
and foreign currency market, using effective (submission of ministries and departments
instruments of monetary assets and ensuring monthly information)
stability of inflation.
11. Implementation of necessary measures to Regularly until MoINT, MoA, Ministry of
find alternative directions for the import of raw stabilization of Transport (MoT), MoEDT,
materials, equipment and imported materials the sanitary and Customs Committee, and
from other countries for producing finished epidemiological other relevant ministries and
goods and products, establishment of new situation in the departments in cooperation
enterprises and implementation of production world with business
enterprises and infrastructure construction
projects.
12. Taking adequate measures in the Regularly SCISPM, MoINT, MoA, MoT,
implementation of public investment (submission of Ministry of Energy and Water
projects with the involvement of Chinese monthly information) Resources (MoEWR), and
capital and companies to ensure their timely local executive bodies of
implementation without any delays. state power
13. Strengthen activities in further diversification Regularly SCISPM, MoF, MoINT, NBT,
of the sources of foreign direct investments (submission and other relevant ministries
attraction. of quarterly and departments, executive
information) bodies of state power
14. Reinvigorating activities in presentation of Regularly SCISPM, MoF and NBT

investment opportunities in Tajikistan in (submission of
European countries, CIS, Arab countries and monthly information)
America.
15. In order to attract more direct investment to Regularly Ministry of Foreign Affairs
the economy of the Republic of Tajikistan to (submission of (MFA), and the SCISPM
organize a wide advocacy of the investment monthly information)
opportunities in the countries.
ANNEX 8: TAJIKISTAN’S COVID-19 COUNTRY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE PLAN 147

16. Timely implementation of public investment Regularly Ministry of Transport, Civil
projects in transport sector, seeking (submission of Aviation Agency, SUE
for alternative cargo and passenger monthly information) ‘Tajikistan Railways,’ and
transportation and reducing negative other relevant ministries and
impact of reduced cargo and passenger departments
transportation with China and other countries
vulnerable to COVID-19.
17. Taking measures to find sources of financing Regularly MoF, MoEDT, MoHSP, and
and allocation of additional targeted funds for (submission of SCISPM
the implementation of urgent anti-epidemic monthly information)
measures in the Republic of Tajikistan and
boosting cooperation with development
partners in this direction.
18. Taking timely measures for the prevention Regularly Anti-Monopoly Service, and
of price increase of consumer and medical (submission of other relevant ministries and
products and medicines. monthly information) departments
19. Taking necessary measures for opening Regularly Civil Aviation Agency (CAA),
new routes and increasing passenger (submission of Ministry of Transport
transportation via domestic air companies, monthly information)
reducing potential impact from termination of
communication with vulnerable countries and
ensuring sector’s development.
20. Prioritizing domestic products in the Regularly State Agency for
procurement of goods, works and services. (submission of Procurement of Goods,
monthly information) Works and Services
(SAPGWS)
21. In order to prevent emergence and spread Regularly MoHSP, MoF, MoEDT, and
of COVID-19 in the country to strengthen (submission of Agency on State Material
epidemiologic control at the quarantine and monthly information) Reserves (ASMR)
sanitary points of the border crossing points.
22. Provision of medical institutions with Regularly MoHSP, MoF, MoEDT,

necessary medicines, other supplies and (submission of SCISPM, and Agency on
equipment and food within the approved cost monthly information) State Material Reserves
estimates, and if necessary, to take measures (ASMR)
in the prescribed manner for allocation of
additional funds for the indicated purposes.
23. Strengthening activities to advocate the Until stabilization MoHSP, Committee on
recommendations of the World Health of the sanitary and Television and Radio
Organization (WHO) among residents on epidemiological
reducing the risk of infection in the country. situation
ANNEX 9: DECREE OF THE PRESIDENT OF TAJIKISTAN
ON COVID-19 COUNTER MEASURES
Decree of the President of the Republic of Tajikistan ‘On Prevention of the impact of the infectious disease
COVID-19 on the socio-economic spheres of the Republic of Tajikistan’ (#1544; June 5, 2020).
In accordance with Article 69 of the Constitution of the Republic of Tajikistan and in order to mitigate the
impact of COVID-19 on the socio-economic spheres of the Republic of Tajikistan, I order:
1. To the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan in accordance with the established procedure:
—— Undertake measures to provide sick leave notes and pay compensation to citizens of the Republic of
Tajikistan who are undergoing medical examination in connection with COVID-19;
—— Organize the cost-free care of citizens under medical examination and citizens infected with
COVID-19 at the expense of the envisaged targeted general government budget and extra-budgetary
funds;
—— At the expense of the reserve funds of the general government budget and extra-budgetary funds,
provide one-time assistance in the amount of the minimum wage to vulnerable population groups,
including participants in the World War II (1941-1945), citizens receiving social pensions, people with
disability, orphans, street children, low-income families, and families of labor migrants that are left
without a breadwinner;
—— Until the situation stabilizes, provide and pay allowances from the reserve funds of the general
government budget and extra-budgetary funds to the salary of medical workers who are directly
involved in the diagnosis and treatment of patients infected with COVID-19;
—— Until the end of 2020 in order to reduce the production costs of enterprises, prevent the rise in the
prices for domestic products, paid services to the population and inflation, postpone consideration
of the issue of raising tariffs for services, including electricity, water, irrigation, communications, and
communal services;
—— Allocate targeted resources from the reserve funds of the general government budget and extra-
budgetary funds for 2020 for the purchase and replenishment of state material resources, including
grain, agricultural seeds, pesticides and fuel;
—— From April 1 to September 1, 2020 provide tax holidays for tourism facilities, hotels, catering
organizations, health and sports centers, sanatoriums, international passenger traffic and air
navigation, and waive the accrual of interest for late payment of taxes for this period;
—— From May 1 to August 1, 2020 exempt small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that have
completely suspended their activities due to COVID-19 from paying rent for state property;
—— From May 1 to September 1, 2020 prohibit the application of tax liability measures to business entities
that have not paid social contributions on time;
—— From May 1 to August 1, 2020 exempt individual entrepreneurs working under the patent in markets,
shopping centers and consumer service points, including hairdressing salons, beauty salons, fashion
ateliers and sewing services from paying taxes;
—— From May 1 to September 1, 2020 establish immovable property tax holidays for individuals;
—— From July 1 to September 1, 2020 exempt from customs duties (value added tax, excise taxes and
duties) the import of materials for the production of disinfectants, medicines and protective clothing,
as well as equipment, tools and equipment for medical laboratories and materials for COVID-19
testing;
—— Exempt from taxation the activities of medical institutions, hotels and sanatoriums associated with the
gratuitous accommodation of citizens under medical examination or treatment of COVID-19 for an
appropriate period;
—— In order to maintain the income levels among the population from June 1 to December 31, 2020
reduce the income tax rate on individual deposits from 12 % to 6 %;
—— Regulate domestic prices for consumer goods, including medicines, medical supplies, masks,
antiseptics, as well as flour and flour products, sugar, vegetable oil, legumes, potatoes, soap and fuel;
ANNEX 9: DECREE OF THE PRESIDENT OF TAJIKISTAN ON COVID-19 COUNTER MEASURES 149

—— At the expense of the general government budget and extra-budgetary funds through the State
Institution ‘Entrepreneurship Support Fund under the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan’
allocate concessional credit resources to enterprises producing food and medical products,
especially women entrepreneurs;
—— Prioritize domestic producers in the purchase of government goods, works and services until the
situation stabilizes;
—— Intensify the process of implementing electronic government (e-government) to ensure remote work
of government agencies;
—— Provide comprehensive assistance in solving the problems of citizens of the Republic of Tajikistan
who are outside the country;
—— Ensure the provision of visas and work permits, and registration to foreign citizens engaged in
entrepreneurial or hired work in the Republic of Tajikistan, provided that there are no epidemiological
risks upon their arrival to the Republic of Tajikistan;
—— Extend the terms of visas for foreign citizens and stateless persons until the epidemiological situation
stabilizes and do not apply sanctions for non-compliance with the requirements of the remain rules in
the Republic of Tajikistan.
2. To the National Bank of Tajikistan:
—— Provide emergency credit resources to financial and credit organizations to maintain the liquidity
level of the banking system in the event of emergency within the framework of the current legislation;
—— Together with the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Tajikistan, undertake measures for the timely
implementation of international government payments within existing means;
—— Prioritize the exchange of foreign currency for foreign economic entities involved in the import of
essential goods, including medicines, grain, flour, vegetable oil, sugar and fuel, as well as those are
fulfilling state financial obligations;
—— Undertake regulatory measures to maintain the liquidity of financial institutions and create favorable
conditions in the access of businesses to credit and regulatory legal measures by adjusting the
refinancing rate and the required reserves;
—— Undertake measures within the existing capabilities of credit institutions to prevent risks associated
with the non-application of penalties by credit organizations to business entities and individuals who
are unable to fulfill their debt obligations from May 1 to October 1, 2020 for term loans;
—— Together with government agencies and financial credit institutions, undertake measures for the
remote use of electronic payment, payment of public paid services, fines and other mandatory
payments to the general government budget.
3. Regularly publish information in the media about measures taken to prevent the COVID-19 outbreak.
ANNEX 10: GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS USED IN THE ASSESSMENT
Dehkan farm Business entity engaged in production, storage, semi-processing and sale of
agricultural products which are based on the personal activities of one person or
joint activities of a group of individuals on the land and their property.213
Economic activity Any activity performed by a man or a woman (of any age) to produce goods or
provide services for use by others or for their own use.214
Employment Economic activity of persons aged 15–75 who during the past week carried
out any activity related to the production of goods or the provision of services
for payment or income for at least one full day for the preceding week.215 Other
relevant definitions, such as full-time employment, part-time employment, and
seasonal employment are fully aligned with the 2016 Labor Force Survey
undertaken by the Agency for Statistics under the President of the Republic of
Tajikistan.
Formal sector Commercial entities (including dehkan farms) or individual entrepreneurs that
are officially registered, pay taxes and undertake bookkeeping of own assets
and liabilities while engaging in economic activity.216 Dehkan farms comprising
between 1 and 50 members are not required to register as a legal commercial
entity.217
Household A basic residential unit in which economic production, consumption, inheritance,

child rearing, and shelter are organized and carried out. A household is a group
of people living together who use financial resources jointly to meet necessary
expenses, such as food, clothing, purchase of household equipment, and so on.218
Informal sector Commercial entities (including dehkan farms), households or individuals that are
engaged in economic activity but do not have a valid legal status.219 Individuals
are considered to be informally employed if they are engaged in economic activity
— on part-time, ad-hoc or full-time basis — but do not possess a labor contract (or
have not been offered one by their employer).
Labor migrant A person who is currently engaged in or was engaged in the past 6 months220 in
economic activity for payment/profit in a country in which he/she is not a citizen.
213
Law of the Republic of Tajikistan “On Dekhkan Farms” dated 15 March 2016 (No. 1289). Article 1.
214
Source: International Labor Organization (ILO). 2014 (https://ilostat.ilo.org/resources/methods/icls/).
Agency for Statistics under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan. 2017. Labor Force Environment in the Republic of Tajikistan.
215
Dushanbe, p.116.
Agency for Statistics under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan. 2017. Labor Force Environment in the Republic of Tajikistan.
216
Dushanbe, p.131. The definition has been slightly adapted for the purpose of this survey.
Law of the Republic of Tajikistan “On Dekhkan Farms” dated 15 March 2016 (No. 1289). Article 3.
217
A “household” differs from “family” in that: (i) household can consist of one member, while family has to consist of at least two
218
members; and (ii) members of a household do not have to be relatives, while members of a family must be relatives to each other.
Source: Agency for Statistics under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan. 2017. Labor Force Environment in the Republic of
Tajikistan. Dushanbe, p.116.
219
Ibid, p.132. The definition has been slightly adapted for the purpose of this survey.
220
The 6-month period takes into account seasonality adjustment, particularly in the context of Covid-19 pandemic.
ANNEX 10: GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS USED IN THE ASSESSMENT 151

Micro enterprise Legal commercial entity or individual entrepreneur with less than 5 contractual
workers (for dehkan farms and other producers of agricultural products — less
than 10 contractual workers).221
Medium enterprise Legal commercial entity or individual entrepreneur with at least 30 but less than
100 contractual workers (for dehkan farms and other producers of agricultural
products — at least 50 but less than 200 contractual workers).222
Person with disability A person with health disorder and persistent dysfunction of the body caused by
disease, injury, physical and mental deviation that resulted in limited functionality
and the need for social protection.223
Small enterprise Legal commercial entity or individual entrepreneur with at least 5 but less than
30 contractual workers (for dehkan farms and other producers of agricultural
products — at least 10 but less than 50 contractual workers).224
Unemployed An officially registered person aged 15–75 who has not engaged in economic
activity in the past week and is actively seeking employment.
Vulnerable person A person who is at risk of having limited social, educational, economic
opportunities, and at risk of natural and/or human-made disaster-prone zones.225
Woman-led An enterprise (firm, company or any other legal commercial entity) which is
enterprise owned, led or founded by a woman. At the time of the survey, overall operational
management responsibility for the enterprise (firm, company or any other legal
commercial entity) should be held by a woman, who may also partially or wholly
own the business.226
Youth Population aged 15–24.227
221
Agency for Statistics under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan (2019). Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Tajikistan for
2018. Dushanbe, p.219. This definition is similar to the definition of MSMEs used by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD). See https://www.oecd.org/mena/competitiveness/Empowering%20women-led%20SMEs.pdf (p.6).
222
Ibid.
Law of the Republic of Tajikistan “On Social Protection of People with Disability” dated 29 December 2010 (No. 675). Article 1.
223
224
Agency for Statistics under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan (2019). Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Tajikistan for
2018.
225
According to the definition used/suggested by UNDP Tajikistan.
This is the standard definition used by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in their flagship Women in
226
Business” programme in Central Asia and Eastern Europe. See http://www.ebrdwomeninbusiness.com/?s=about.

227
Although this definition differs from national legislation of the Republic of Tajikistan (which defines youth as population aged
14–30), it is commonly used as an international standard by the International Labor Organization (ILO), except school-to-work transition
studies where youth is population aged 15–29. For more details, see https://ilostat.ilo.org/glossary/youth/.
ANNEX 11: REFERENCES
1. Agency for Statistics under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan. 2020. Entrepreneurship in 2019.
Statistical Bulletin. Dushanbe. Also for 2018, 2017, 2016 and 2015.
2. Agency for Statistics under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan. 2020. Food Security and Poverty.
#4–2019. Dushanbe.
3. Agency for Statistics under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan. 2016. Middle Class in Tajikistan:
Assessment, Dynamic and Characteristics. Dushanbe.
4. Agency for Statistics under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan. 2017. Situation in the Labor
Market in the Republic of Tajikistan. Based on Labor Force Survey Conducted from July 20 to August
20, 2016. Dushanbe.
5. Agency for Statistics under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan. 2019. Statistical Yearbook of the
Republic of Tajikistan for 2018. Dushanbe.
6. Agency for Statistics under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan. 2020. Labor Market in the
Republic of Tajikistan 2019. Dushanbe. Also for 2018, 2017, 2016 and 2015.
7. Agency for Statistics under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan. 2020. Socio-Economic Situation
of the Republic of Tajikistan: January-March 2020. Dushanbe.
8. Agency for Statistics under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan. 2020. Socio-Economic Situation
of the Republic of Tajikistan: January-June 2020. Dushanbe.
9. Asadov, S. and Mogilevskii, R. 2018. Financial Inclusion, Regulation, Literacy and Education in
Tajikistan. ADBI Working Paper Series. No.847. Manila.
10. Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2020. Asian Development Outlook 2020. Manila. June 2020.
11. Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2020. How Are Countries in Asia and the Pacific Responding to
COVID-19? Manila. May 2020.
12. Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2020. Republic of Tajikistan: Growth Assessment. Dushanbe.
13. Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2020. Women’s Time Use In Rural Tajikistan. Manila.
14. Dall’Olio, A. 2019. How to Develop Tourism in Tajikistan? Opinion article in Asia-Plus newspaper.
Dushanbe. November 2019.
15. Decree of the President of the Republic of Tajikistan (#РП-1378 dated May 1, 2020). Accessed on
August 10, 2020 at http://www.president.tj/ru/node/22892.
16. Decree of the President of the Republic of Tajikistan ‘On Countering the Socio-Economic Impact of
COVID-19 Outbreak on the Republic of Tajikistan’ (#1544 dated June 5, 2020).
17. Dermastia, M. et al. 2017. Value Chain Analysis of the Tourism Sector in Tajikistan. Washington, D.C.
18. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). 2020. Regional Economic Prospects.
COVID-19: From Shock to Recovery. May 2020 Update. London.
19. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). 2016. Regional Economic Prospects in
EBRD Countries of Operations. May 2016. London.
20. FinExpertiza. 2019. Average Amount of Remittances by Migrant Labor. Press Release. Moscow.
December 2019. Accessed on August 7, 2020 at https://finexpertiza.ru/press-service/researches/2019/
summa-den-perevoda-migranta/.
21. FinExpertiza. 2020. Rating of Regions in the Russian Federation with High Concentration of Migrant
Labor. Press Release. Moscow. April 2020. Accessed on August 7, 2020 at https://finexpertiza.ru/press-
service/researches/2020/trud-migrant/.
22. Government of the Republic of Tajikistan. 2020. Action Plan for Prevention and Reduction of the
National Economy’s Exposure to Potential Risks of COVID-19. Dushanbe. March 2020.
23. International Finance Corporation (IFC). 2009. Business Environment in Tajikistan as Seen by Small
and Medium Enterprises. Washington, D.C. December 2009.
24. International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2020. IMF Executive Board Concludes 2019 Article IV Consultations
with the Republic of Tajikistan. Press Release. Washington, D.C. January 2020.
25. International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2020. Staff Report on the Republic of Tajikistan. Request for
Disbursement under the Rapid Credit Facility (RCF). Washington, D.C.
26. International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2016. Republic of Tajikistan: Financial System Stability Assessment.
IMF Country Report No.16/41. Washington, D.C.
ANNEX 11: REFERENCES 153

27. International Trade Center (ITC). 2020. COVID-19: The Great Lockdown and Its Impact on Small
Business. Geneva. June 2020.
28. Kemp, S. 2020. Digital 2020: Tajikistan. February 18, 2020. Accessed on August 10, 2020 at https://
datareportal.com/reports/digital-2020-tajikistan.
29. Khitarishvili, T. 2016. Gender Inequalities in Labor Markets in Central Asia. Paper prepared for the joint
UNDP/ILO Conference on Employment, Trade and Human Development in Central Asia. Almaty. p.6
and p.20.
30. Law of the Republic of Tajikistan ‘On Youth and State Youth Policy’ (#52 dated July 15, 2004).
31. Law of the Republic of Tajikistan ‘On Dehkan Farms’ (#1289 dated March 15, 2016).
32. Law of the Republic of Tajikistan ‘On Social Protection of People with Disability’ (#675 dated December
29, 2010).
33. Law of the Republic of Tajikistan ‘On the State Budget of the Republic of Tajikistan for 2020’ (#1650
dated November 26, 2019).
34. Law of the Republic of Tajikistan ‘On introducing additions to the Law of the Republic of Tajikistan on
the State Budget for 2020’ (#1693 dated July 4, 2020).
35. Law of the Republic of Tajikistan ‘On introducing amendments to the Law of the Republic of Tajikistan
on the State Budget for 2020’ (#1692 dated July 4, 2020).
36. Ministry of Economic Development and Trade (MoEDT). 2018. National Report on the Country’s
Implementation of Strategic Documents in the Context of Sustainable Development Goals. Dushanbe,
pp.87–92.
37. Ministry of Health and Social Protection of the Population of the Republic of Tajikistan (MoHSP). 2020.
COVID-19 Country Preparedness and Response Plan. Dushanbe. March 2020.
38. Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Tajikistan. 2019. Performance of the General Government Budget
of the Republic of Tajikistan in the First Half of 2019. Dushanbe. Accessed on August 3, 2020 at http://
minfin.tj/downloads/hisobot %202 %20kv %202019.pdf.
39. Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Tajikistan. 2019. Performance of the General Government
Budget of the Republic of Tajikistan in 2019. Dushanbe. Accessed on August 3, 2020 at http://minfin.tj/
downloads/хисобот_оид_ба_ичроиши_бучети_давлати_барои соли_2019.pdf.
40. Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Tajikistan. 2020. Performance of the General Government
Budget of the Republic of Tajikistan in the First Half of 2020. Dushanbe. Accessed on August 3, 2020
at http://minfin.tj/downloads/hisobot %202 %20kv %202020.pdf.
41. Mirzoev, S. 2018. Market Responsive and Inclusive Training Program (MRITP) Survey Report. Dushanbe.
Project report funded by the ADB Tajikistan Country Office.
42. Mirzoev, S. and Sobirzoda, R. 2019. Leveraging SME Finance Through Value Chains in Tajikistan. ADBI
Working Paper Series, No.1020. Tokyo.
43. Mirzoev, S. 2020. Education Rapid Needs Assessment (ERNA) Summary Report. Commissioned and
funded by UNICEF Tajikistan. Dushanbe.
44. National Bank of Tajikistan (NBT). 2019. Banking Statistics Bulletin #293. Dushanbe. December 2019.
Accessed on August 2, 2020 at https://nbt.tj/upload/iblock/bde/2019_12.pdf.
45. National Bank of Tajikistan (NBT). 2020. Banking Statistics Bulletin #299. Dushanbe. June 2020.
Accessed on August 2, 2020 at https://nbt.tj/upload/iblock/adb/2020_06.pdf.
46. Pratt, R. 2016. Borrowing by Individuals in Tajikistan: A Review of the Attitudes and Capacity for
Indebtedness. Summary Issues and Observations. Dushanbe.
47. Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan #401 ‘On Measures to Implement the
Decree of the President of the Republic of Tajikistan #1544 dated June 5, 2020 ‘On Countering the
Socio-Economic Impact of COVID-19 on the Republic of Tajikistan.’’ July 11, 2020.
48. Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan #421 ‘On the forecast of main
macroeconomic indicators of the Republic of Tajikistan for 2021–2023’. July 30, 2020.
49. Schwab, K. 2019. The Global Competitiveness Report 2019. Geneva.
50. Strokova, V. and Ajwad, M. 2017. Jobs Diagnostic Tajikistan: Strategic Framework for Jobs. World Bank.
Washington, D.C.
51. ‘Tahlil va Mashvarat’ Limited Liability Company. 2020. Inception Report: Assessment of COVID-19
Impact on Lives, Livelihoods and MSMEs in Tajikistan. LLC ‘Tahlil va Mashvarat’ is a member of
Z-Analytics Group. Project document. June 9, 2020.
52. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2020. COVID-19 Crisis
Response in Central Asia. OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19). Paris. June 4, 2020.
53. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2020. Supporting Private-
Sector Recovery in Central Asia. Summary Record. OECD Eurasia Webinars. June 10, 2020.
54. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2020. Supporting Recovery
and Enhancing Resilience. Summary. OECD Eurasia Webinars. May 27 – June 25, 2020.
55. United Nations (UN). 2020. United Nations Comprehensive Response to COVID-19: Saving Lives,
Protecting Societies, Recovering Better. New York. June 2020.
56. United Nations (UN) in Tajikistan. 2020. Integrated Socioeconomic Response Framework to COVID-19
(ISEF) for Tajikistan. Dushanbe. August 2020.
57. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). 2011. Impact of Labor Migration on Children Left Behind in
Tajikistan. Dushanbe. Prepared by Oxford Policy Management.
58. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2019. Human Development Report 2019. New York.
59. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2020. COVID-19: UNDP’s Integrated Response. New
York.
60. United States Agency for International Development (USAID). 2016. Tajikistan Jobs Diagnostic.
Dushanbe.
61. World Bank. 2018. Tajikistan: Systemic Country Diagnostics. Washington, D.C.
62. World Bank. 2018. The Global Findex Database 2017. Accessed on September 11, 2020 at https://
globalfindex.worldbank.org/sites/globalfindex/files/2018-08/Global %20Findex %20Database.xlsx.
63. World Bank. 2018. The Global Findex Database 2017. Measuring Financial Inclusion and the Fintech
Revolution. Washington, DC.
64. World Bank. 2019. Tajikistan Country Economic Memorandum: Nurturing Tajikistan’s Growth Potential.
Washington, D.C.
65. World Bank. 2019. Tajikistan Country Economic Update: Heightening Fiscal Risks in Tajikistan.
Washington, D.C.
66. World Bank. 2020. COVID-19: Debt Service Suspension Initiative. Brief. Washington, D.C. June 2020.
Accessed on August 25, 2020 at https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/debt/brief/covid-19-debt-service-
suspension-initiative.
67. World Bank. 2020. Fighting COVID-19: Europe and Central Asia Economic Update. Office of the Chief
Economist. Washington, D.C. Spring 2020.
68. World Bank. 2020. Doing Business 2020: Comparing Business Regulation in 190 Economies.
Washington, D.C.
69. World Bank. 2020. Doing Business 2020: Economy Profile for Tajikistan. Washington, D.C.
70. World Bank. 2020. Economic and Social Impacts of COVID-19: Update from Listening to Tajikistan:
Survey of Wellbeing (L2TJK). Dushanbe. July 2020.
71. World Bank. 2020. Tajikistan: Country Snapshot. Dushanbe, April 2020.
72. World Bank. 2020. World Bank Country and Lending Groups. Country Classification. Accessed on
August 23, 2020 at https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-
country-and-lending-groups.
73. World Bank. 2020. World Bank Predicts Sharpest Decline in Remittances in Recent History. Press
Release. Washington, D.C. April 2020.
74. World Economic Forum (WEF). 2019. The Global Competitiveness Report 2019. Geneva.
75. World Health Organization (WHO). 2020. Critical Preparedness, Readiness and Response Actions for
COVID-19. Interim Guidance. Geneva. June 2020.
Databases:
1. ADB’s COVID-19 Policy Database (https://data.adb.org/dataset/adb-covid-19-policy-database)

2. Database of 1,000 households (main interviews) prepared by LLC ‘Tahlil va Mashvarat’, a member of
Z-Analytics Group
3. Database of additional 165 households (in-depth interviews) prepared by LLC ‘Tahlil va Mashvarat’, a
member of Z-Analytics Group
ANNEX 11: REFERENCES 155

4. Database of 700 MSMes (main interviews) prepared by LLC ‘Tahlil va Mashvarat’, a member of
Z-Analytics Group
5. Database of additional 50 MSMEs (in-depth interviews) prepared by LLC ‘Tahlil va Mashvarat’, a
member of Z-Analytics Group
6. International Labor Organization (ILO) standards and guidelines on labor statistics (https://ilostat.ilo.org/
about/standards/icls/)
7. IMF’s Policy Responses to COVID-19 (https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/imf-and-covid19/Policy-Responses-
to-COVID-19#T)
8. National Bank of Tajikistan (NBT) list of financial soundness indicators for March 2020 (https://nbt.tj/
files/suboti-moliyavi/2020/19.05.2020/FSI %20march %202020 %20rus.pdf)
9. National Bank of Tajikistan (NBT) list of financial soundness indicators for June 2020 (https://nbt.tj/files/
suboti-moliyavi/2020/19.05.2020/FSI %20june %202020 %20rus.pdf)
10. UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) database of country-specific revealed
comparative advantage (https://unctadstat.unctad.org/EN/RcaRadar.html)
11. UN Population Division database (https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/Fertility/)
12. UN World Tourism Organization (WTO) database of country-specific indicators (https://www.e-unwto.
org/doi/suppl/10.5555/unwtotfb0762010020142018201910)
13. World Bank macroeconomic database (https://data.worldbank.org/country/tajikistan)
14. World Bank’s Global Financial Inclusion database (https://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/
global-findex)
Online resources:
1. Agency for Statistics under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan (https://www.stat.tj)
2. Central Asia Stock Exchange (https://www.case.com.tj/en/)
3. Central Bank of Russia (https://www.cbr.ru/vfs/statistics/CrossBorder/)
4. Ministry of Health and Social Protection of the Population (http://www.moh.tj)
5. Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Tajikistan (http://minfin.tj)
6. National Bank of Tajikistan (https://nbt.tj)
7. Office of the President of the Republic of Tajikistan (http://www.president.tj)
156

Impact of COVID 19 On Lives Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impact of COVID 19 On Lives Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impact of COVID-19 on Lives,

Livelihoods and Micro,

Authors: Shuhrat Mirzoev and Nezhat Sedaghat

Copyright UNDP © 2020

Design, cover and graphics: Iskandar Mirzoganiev and Vladimir Kazberovich

ANNEX 1: KEY MACROECONOMIC INDICATORS FOR TAJIKISTAN, 2015–2020.....................................................133

Dushanbe, September 2020 Dr. Pratibha Mehta,

The survey of households (HHs):

The survey of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs):

Medium- to long-term measures:

Medium- to long-term measures:

but also individual entrepreneurs and dehkan farmers.

TABLE 1: IMPACT ASSESSMENT AT HOUSEHOLD LEVEL AND MSME LEVEL.

Additional characteristics for selection

Dushanbe — urban 103 100 50 30

DRS — rural 198 200 100 60

Soghd oblast — urban 76 80 40 24

Soghd oblast — rural 223 220 110 66

Khatlon oblast — urban 62 60 30 18

Khatlon oblast — rural 279 280 140 84

Sub-total — urban: 276 280 140 84

Sub-total — rural: 724 720 360 216

TOTAL 1,000 1,000 500 300

The following sampling outcomes were reached:

Sampling was carried out using propensity score matching.

Legal entities Individual entrepreneurs

Agribusiness12 15 10 – – 205 210

Tourism and hospitality13 30 5 – 35 – 70

Light industry14 20 30 30 5 – 105

Personal services15 35 5 170 105 – 315

of which: woman-owned 16 1 55 38 – 110

TOTAL: 100 50 200 145 205 700

TOTAL (woman-owned): 35 5 70 50 83 245

FIGURE 1: TAJIKISTAN’S GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT FIGURE 2: GROWTH ACCOUNTING

Growth rate (percentage points)

Net inflow of foreign direct IMF May’20 7.5 –2.0 7.5

Growth rate (percentage points)

FIGURE 3: TRENDS IN CONSUMER PRICES AND FIGURE 4: GROWTH DECOMPOSITION BY VALUE

% change (real growth rate)

Characteristics. Dushanbe, p.12 (http://stat.ww.tj/pages/TJK_middle_class5_formatted_rus.pdf).

FIGURE 5: COMPOSITION OF GROSS

11 000 500 40,0

Micro, small and medium-sized enterprises

TABLE 5: BREAKDOWN OF ACTIVE MSMEs IN TAJIKISTAN (AS OF 1 JANUARY 2020).

Legal entities Individual entrepreneurs

GBAO 370 14 2,182 1,071 485 4,122

DRS 2,494 124 16,589 6,106 32,155 57,468

Soghd 5,596 267 35,499 10,957 62,334 114,653

Manufacturing (light industry)

Tourism and hospitality

Diagnostic. Washington, DC, p.12 and p.18.

Exports (in million US$ )

Commodity Markets online database (https://www.worldbank.org/en/research/commodity-markets).

TABLE 7: TOP 7 IMPORTED PRODUCT GROUPS TO TAJIKISTAN (in million US$ ).

Imports (in million US$ )

Months of import of G&S

FIGURE 7: ECONOMICALLY ACTIVE POPULATION FIGURE 8: ECONOMICALLY INACTIVE

Agency on Statistics under the President of the Republic of Tajikistan.

(Source: http://minfin.tj/index.php?do=static&page=budget). This amounts to 89.2 % of remittances from labor migrants.

the quality of education.

of loans disbursed by MFIs

Credit and deposits

institution in Tajikistan was 2.5 %, compared to a significantly expanded 47 % in 2017.

Dushan Khatlon Soghd