LSMS GUIDEBOOK September 2019 Trees on Farms: Measuring Their Contribution to Household Welfare Forestry Agricultural Module Old-growth natural A Guidebook for Designing Household Surveys Modules forest (all types) Managed Secundary, Plant/Herb/ plantation forest Rangelands regenerating forest Grass/Roots Scrublands Grasslands Agroforestry areas Woodlots Fallow areas Savannahs Pasture Fruit trees Tree cash crops Non-production trees (shade, aesthetics, etc) Trees on Farm Module Daniel C. Miller, Juan Carlos Muñoz-Mora, Alberto Zezza, and Josefine Durazo LSMS GUIDEBOOK September 2019 Trees on Farms: Measuring Their Contribution to Household Welfare A Guidebook for Designing Household Surveys Daniel C. Miller University of Illinois Juan Carlos Muñoz-Mora Universidad EAFIT Alberta Zezza World Bank Josefine Durazo World Bank ABOUT LSMS The Living Standards Measurement Study (LSMS), a survey program housed within the World Bank’s Develop- ment Data Group, provides technical assistance to national statistical offices in the design and implementation of multi-topic household surveys. Since its inception in the early 1980s, the LSMS program has worked with dozens of statistical offices around the world, generating high-quality data, developing innovative technologies and improved survey methodologies, and building technical capacity. The LSMS team also provides technical support across the World Bank in the design and implementation of household surveys and in the measurement and monitoring of poverty. ABOUT THIS SERIES The LSMS Guidebook series offers information on best practices related to survey design and implementation. While the Guidebooks differ in scope, length, and style, they share a common objective: to provide statistical agen- cies, researchers, and practitioners with rigorous yet practical guidance on a range of issues related to designing and fielding high-quality household surveys. The series aims to achieve this goal by drawing on the experience accumu- lated from decades of LSMS survey implementation, the expertise of LSMS staff and other survey experts, and new research using LSMS data and methodological validation studies. Copyright © 2019 The World Bank. Rights and Permissions This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ igo. Under the Creative Commons Attribution license, you are free to copy, distribute, transmit, and adapt this work, including for commercial purposes, under the following condition: Attribution—Please cite the work as follows: Miller, D.C., Muñoz-Mora, J.C., Zezza, A., Durazo, J. (2019). Trees on Farms: Measuring Their Contri- bution to Household Welfare. A Guidebook for Designing Household Surveys. Washington DC: World Bank. Disclaimer The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this Guidebook are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. Living Standards Measurement Study (LSMS) World Bank Development Data Group (DECDG) lsms@worldbank.org surveys.worldbank.org/lsms data.worldbank.org Cover images: F. Amadu, DC Miller Cover design and layout: Deirdre Launt TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS...............................................................................................................................V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................................................................ VI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................................. VII 1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................... 1 2. TREES ON FARMS AND THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS................................................................ 3 3.TREES ON FARMS IN EXISTING HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS .................................................................................... 4 4. MODULE OPTIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL AND MULTI-TOPIC HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS............................. 7 KEY DEFINITIONS.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................9 FEATURES OF THE SHORT VERSION........................................................................................................................................................................... 10 FEATURES OF THE STANDARD VERSION................................................................................................................................................................ 10 FEATURES OF AN EXTENDED VERSION.................................................................................................................................................................. 12 5. TREES ON FARMS MODULE: THE STANDARD VERSION IN DETAIL ............................................................... 14 6. CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................................................ 19 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................................................... 20 ANNEXES........................................................................................................................................................................... 23 ANNEX A: SAMPLE CLASSIFICATION OF TREES ON FARMS BY TYPE.............................................................................................. 23 ANNEX B: TREES ON FARMS MODULE TEMPLATE......................................................................................................................................... 25 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Number of trees on farms-related questions in LSMS-ISA, by module and country........................................................5 Figure 2: Categories of trees on farms in relation to survey modules...........................................................................................................6 Figure 3: Standard version of a household survey for trees on farms............................................................................................................8 Figure 4: Source of collected firewood in Mali field test of survey modules .........................................................................................11 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Content summary for the Trees on Farms Module for Multi-Topic Household Surveys..................................................8 Table 2: Potential module implementation based on survey interest.............................................................................................................9 LIST OF BOXES Box 1: What is a tree?..............................................................................................................................................................................................................10 Box 2: Pilot testing the ToF modules in Mali...............................................................................................................................................................11 Box 3: Extended ToF module, building on the standard ToF module with elements from the Forestry Module (FM), Woodfuels Module (WM) and Land Tenure Module (LM) .............................................................................................................................13 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS CAPI Computer-Assisted Personal Interview CCAFS  CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research CSA Climate Smart Agriculture FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations GPS Global Positioning System ICRAF World Agroforestry Center IFRI International Forest Resources and Institutions research network IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change L&MICs Low- and Middle-Income Countries LSMS Living Standards Measurement Study LSMS-ISA Living Standards Measurement Study – Integrated Surveys on Agriculture NBS National Bureau of Statistics NSO National Statistical Office OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development PROFOR The Program on Forests SDG Sustainable Development Goals ToF Trees on Farms UN United Nations v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document was made possible by funding from The Program on Forests (PROFOR) through activity #TF017937. The authors would like to thank Raka Banerjee, Gero Carletto, Luc Christiaensen, Peter Dewees, Talip Kilic, Gbe- misola “Mimi” Oseni, Frank Place, and Giulia Ponzini for their comments and other inputs during the preparation and review of this guidebook. Special thanks are due to Ismael Yacoubou Djima and the field team that tested the modules in Mali. vi  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Guidebook presents a module template for integrating information on trees on farms and agroforestry practic- es into multi-topic and agricultural household surveys in low- and middle-income countries (L&MICs). It provides a toolbox for survey practitioners—national statistical organizations, government ministries and agencies relevant to agricultural and environmental issues, non-government and civil society organizations, research institutions, private sector actors, and other stakeholders—to improve understanding of the contribution of trees on farms to house- hold welfare and livelihoods.The guidebook also provides insights into data collection that can be used in relation to assessing agroforestry and climate smart agriculture practices and impacts. Implementation of the module presented here will generate information that decisionmakers, researchers, and others can use to understand the stock of trees on farms and links between on-farm trees and household welfare. Trees on farms are widespread across the developing world and provide a range of socio-economic and environ- mental benefits. Half of agricultural land in L&MICs is estimated to have at least 10 percent tree cover, representing nearly a billion hectares of land and more than 800 million people. These on-farm trees range from sporadically oc- curring trees to areas dominated by a single tree crop, through large forest-like stands.These trees on farms perform important ecological functions that deliver environmental benefits such as erosion control, carbon sequestration, and biodiversity conservation. Trees on farms are also key to many rural livelihoods. They have been shown to sup- port increased agricultural yields, boost incomes, and improve dietary diversity, among other benefits. As such, trees on farms are key to advancing multiple international development goals. The role and contribution of trees on farms underscores the importance of reliable information on their prevalence and management as well as their links to livelihoods and broader economies. Yet such knowledge remains lacking, particularly at the national scale where many policy decisions relating to land use are made. As a result, trees on farms are often left out of forest-related and agricultural statistics, natural resource assessments, policy, and legisla- tion. This guidebook is designed to help address this knowledge gap. It presents a questionnaire template to collect in- formation on trees on farms and describes how to use it. The questionnaire module gathers together in one place relevant questions from existing multi-topic household survey questionnaires, other topical modules (e.g. on for- estry) and other resources related to agroforestry and on-farm trees. It integrates lessons learned from the imple- mentation of tree- and forest-related questions in the context of multi-topic household surveys in countries across Africa, including Ethiopia, Malawi, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Tanzania, and Uganda. This specific module was field- tested in Mali in early 2018. This trees on farms (ToF) module is designed to complement existing modules on agriculture, forestry, and livestock, among others. Questions fºrom the ToF module can be directly inserted into these existing modules or adapted according to need and context. This guidebook provides information on how the module may be used in these different ways. The ToF module has two main objectives: • Generate basic statistics for key variables related to trees on farms and agroforestry, including on cultivation, management, and use of different kinds of trees on farms; and • Measure the contribution of trees on farms to household assets and income. The module can be used to collect information in the following domains: • The stock and management of trees grown for production purposes, including cash crops, fruit, timber, woodfuel, and other products; vii • The stock and management of on-farm trees that may not have a direct productive function, such as trees grown for shade or aesthetic reasons; • Use of trees for energy and construction; and • Sale and consumption of tree-related products. Information on the stock of trees on farms, the inputs needed to grow them, and associated values enables calculation of a measure of income from trees on farms.Together with information from a full socio-economic household survey, this measure makes it possible to quantify the contribution of trees on farms to the household economy. Gender is a cross-cutting topic in the module. Ownership, management, and production and sale of products derived from trees on farms often varies according to gender. Questions aimed at capturing these distinctions are throughout the module. The questionnaire presented here is adaptable to different stakeholder interests and capacities. It includes three main formats. The first is a short version with 23 questions that can be implemented as part of an already existing survey, where users want to have a general overview of the presence and contribution of trees on farms. The second is a standard version, comprising just under 100 questions. It adds to the short version by allowing for collection of more comprehensive data on the manage- ment and uses of on-farm tree products and services.This version enables a more complete understanding of the role of trees on farms in the household economy. Finally, an extended version provides a full set of questions that can be tailored to capture detailed data on additional dimensions of the prevalence, management, use, and benefits of both trees on farms and forestry. Users should consider all three questionnaires as templates that can be expanded, reduced, and adapted to meet specific data and statistical needs. This is essential for developing survey questionnaires that effectively respond to the information needs of stakeholders and decisionmakers. 1. Introduction This guidebook presents a questionnaire module template areas across the developing world (IAASTD, 2009; Godfray et and related information to facilitate data collection of trees al., 2010;The Royal Society, 2009; FAO, IFAD, & WFP, 2015;The on farms in multi-topic and agricultural household surveys in Government Office for Science, 2011). As world food demand low and middle-income countries (L&MICs). It offers a practi- grows and population density increases, the opportunity cost cal toolbox for improving the understanding of the contribu- of land will also increase, and on-farm tree planting may also tion of trees on farms to household welfare and livelihoods. face greater competition from crop cultivation. Indeed, the The guidebook also provides insights into data collection in global trend toward industrial intensification of agriculture is relation to the agroforestry and climate smart agriculture driving tree cover loss not only in forest areas (Hansen et al., practices and impacts. Implementation of the module present- 2013; DeFries, Rudel, Uriarte, & Hansen, 2010) but also in ex- ed here will generate information that decisionmakers and isting agroforestry systems (Waldron, Justicia, & Smith, 2015; survey practitioners can use to understand the stock of trees Siebert, 2002; Fischer, Zerger, Gibbons, Stott, & Law, 2010). on farms and the links between on-farm trees and household In the face of these changes, knowledge of the prevalence welfare. and nature of on-farm trees as well as their socio-economic Rising food prices, rapid urbanization, robust economic and environmental contributions is especially important. Yet growth, and widening inequality (among other changes) over such knowledge remains lacking, particularly at the national the past decade have fundamentally transformed the environ- scale where many policy decisions relating to land use are ment in which agriculture operates in developing countries. made (Miller et al., 2017). Trees on farms, particularly those These changes affect not only farmer cropping patterns and that do not yield cash crops, are often overlooked in research livestock management practices, but also the role natural re- and policy on agriculture.Trees are usually considered the do- sources (both cultivated and uncultivated) play in their live- main of forestry. However, forestry as a field is largely focused lihoods. on trees in forests rather than outside them. At the same time, the focus in agriculture is usually on annual (or tradi- Natural forests and environmental incomes typically recede tional cash) crops. The organization of extension and other as populations grow and land pressures increase (Lambin and services often reflects this division, with agriculture and for- Meyfroidt 2011; Angelsen et al., 2014). On-farm tree plant- estry typically separated into different institutions (Foresta et ing has sometimes compensated for lost forest ecosystem al., 2013). As a result of this institutional separation, trees on services (Place, Garrity, Mohan, & Agostini, 2016) and trees farms are usually left out of statistics, natural resource assess- on farms have been shown to provide a significant source of ments, policy, and legislation for both forestry and agriculture income (Miller, Muñoz-Mora, & Christiaensen, 2017). Further, (Miller et al., 2017). the demand for tree products – such as fruits for dietary di- versification and timber for construction – are also boosted This guidebook is designed to help address this knowledge by increasing incomes and urbanization, providing an addi- gap. It presents a module template to collect information on tional impetus to on-farm tree cultivation. On-farm trees also trees on farms and describes how to use it. The next section play a key role in many climate smart agricultural approaches reviews the main ways in which trees on farms may contrib- (FAO, 2013; World Bank, 2017). ute to household welfare, poverty reduction, and realization of the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (UN, 2015). However, an estimated doubling in total world food produc- Section 3 presents the current state of affairs on data collec- tion is needed over the next few decades in order to ensure tion related to trees on farms in multi-topic household living food security, especially in fast-growing human populations 1 2  TREES ON FARMS: MEASURING THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO HOUSEHOLD WELFARE standards surveys. Section 4 states the goals of the ToF mod- ule template and describe the main data collection domains in the three versions of the module. Section 5 describes the proposed standard module in more detail, walking the read- er through the specifics of the questionnaire1 and Section 6 concludes. The standard version of the proposed ToF module (which also embeds an option for the short version) is includ- ed as an Annex. 1 The terms “module” and “questionnaire” are used interchangeably in this guidebook. Generally, “questionnaire” is used to refer to a stand-alone survey instrument, while “module” is used to identify one part of a larger questionnaire. The ToF module template presented here can be implemented as a stand-alone questionnaire (but integrated in a survey that includes other questionnaires), or as a module in an agricultural questionnaire that includes other modules, such as those developed through LSMS-ISA on forestry, livestock, and fisheries (www. worldbank.org/lsms). 2. Trees on Farms and the Sustainable Development Goals Trees on farms are widespread across the developing world percent for all rural households (Miller et al., 2017). These and provide a range of socio-economic and biophysical ben- benefits stem from the productivity and cost-effectiveness efits. Half of agricultural land in L&MICs is estimated to have of agroforestry systems in many contexts. A raft of research at least 10 percent tree cover, representing nearly a billion now suggests that, on average, agroforestry can lead to a dou- hectares of land and more than 800 million people (Zomer bling of crop yields (Garrity et al., 2010; Pretty, Morison, & et al., 2016). These on-farm trees, which range from sporadi- Hine, 2003; Pretty & Bharucha, 2014; Waldron et al., 2015). cally occurring trees to areas dominated by a single tree crop The main reason for this productivity increase is the ecosys- through large forest-like stands, perform important ecological tem services provided by trees, including soil improvement functions, such as soil nutrient provision, soil erosion control, through nitrogen fixation, reduction of crop stress through carbon sequestration, habitat for animals, and greater struc- microclimate buffering by trees, and regulation of water flows tural connectivity, among others (Place et al. 2016; Zomer through hydraulic uplift of deep water by tree roots, among et al., 2016). As such, they serve as a key basis for biodiver- others (Reed et al., 2017). sity conservation (Bhagwat, Willis, Birks, & Whittaker, 2008; The increased yields and dietary diversity stemming from Schroth & da Mota, 2013) and climate change adaptation and agroforestry systems can contribute directly to advancing the mitigation (Zomer et al., 2016; Mbow et al., 2014). first two SDGs: ending poverty and achieving food security. At the same time, agroforestry—the integration of trees On-farm provision of wood can boost energy security among with crops—can increase yields while advancing multiple in- marginalized rural populations (SDG 7), and can also help ternational development goals (Waldron et al., 2017; Garrity promote equity and improve human well-being more gener- et al., 2010). For this reason, high-level policy documents in ally (e.g. SDGs 3, 5, 10) by enabling smallholder family mem- many countries now explicitly call for the integration of trees bers (particularly women) to have more time and resourc- into farming systems (e.g. Government of India, 2014; Gov- es available for education and farm production rather than ernment of Malawi, 2011; Republic of Kenya, 2014), and agro- walk long distances to collect woodfuel (Sharma et al., 2016; forestry is a critical element in realizing several of the UN Kiptot, Franzel, & Degrande, 2014). By reducing the need to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (UN, 2015; Waldron cut down natural forests for woodfuel and providing habitat, et al., 2017; World Agroforestry Centre, 2017). agroforestry contributes to SDG 15 on ecosystem protec- tion and restoration (Sharma et al., 2016). Finally, trees on Agroforestry can provide basic subsistence, natural in- farms can make major contributions to mitigating and adapt- surance, and a means to generate income and build assets ing to global climate change (SDG 13). For example, trees for many rural households in L&MICs (Garrity et al., 2010). on farms are estimated to add 200 million tons of carbon For example, a recent study using nationally representative, annually to agricultural lands and have been found to foster geo-referenced household survey data from five African resilience to climatic shocks (Zomer et al., 2016; Minang, Du- countries collected under the LSMS-ISA initiative found that guma, Bernard, Mertz, & van Noordwijk, 2014; Shibu, 2009; on-farm trees contributed an average of 17 percent of to- Garrity et al., 2010). tal annual gross income for tree-growing households and 6 3 3.Trees on Farms in Existing Household Surveys Information on trees on farms can be collected through a va- Integrating information on trees on farms with other as- riety of surveys and questionnaires.These include: agricultural pects of the household economy enables decisionmakers to censuses; agricultural and forestry surveys, including modules design and implement programs to maximize the contribu- on forest and environmental income (Bakkegaard et al., 2016; tion of trees on farms to poverty reduction and other so- Wunder, Angelsen, & Belcher, 2014); household income and cio-economic and environmental objectives. expenditure surveys; living standards or multi-topic house- Typically, LSMS surveys are nationally representative and hold surveys; and other administrative records. Population also representative of at least some of the different regions in and housing censuses, service delivery surveys (e.g. from ex- a country. The sample size can vary from about 3,000 house- tension agencies) may also include data relating to trees on holds to more than 20,000 households but is generally kept farms. below 8,000 to facilitate management of the data quality-con- Remote sensing techniques, from satellite imagery to aerial trol process. Surveys are conducted through face-to-face photography, also provide information on trees on farms. Ad- interviews, increasingly with the use of Computer Assisted vances in remote sensing are allowing finer grained analyses Personal Interview (CAPI) technologies, and generally cover a of tree cover across the globe (Lausch, Erasmi, King, Magdon reference period of 12 months. LSMS surveys are implement- & Heurich, 2017; Asner et al., 2017; Burke & Lobell, 2017; Jean ed by National Statistical Offices (NSOs), often with support et al., 2016; Guan et al., 2016; Hansen et al., 2013) and can from the World Bank and other development partners. Ques- provide insights into agricultural yields (Burke & Lobell, 2017; tionnaires are designed with inputs from a data user group, Guan et al., 2016) and even poverty dynamics (Jean et al., which includes key line ministries and other stakeholders in- 2016). Remotely sensed data forms an increasingly important terested in obtaining information from the survey. complement to on-the-ground surveys and questionnaires, For a well-designed ToF module to be implemented, it is which remain indispensable in understanding details relating important for relevant stakeholders with knowledge of trees to on-farm tree management and impacts. on farms to share their expertise and play an active role in This guidebook focuses on multi-topic and other integrat- the survey preparation. This guidebook aims to equip such ed surveys such as the Living Standards Measurement Study stakeholders with a tool to engage in that process. (LSMS) surveys. Such surveys create indicators and provide A distinctive feature of LSMS surveys is their inclusion of the opportunity to monitor them over time as well as build several questionnaires that target information at the individ- knowledge of how different aspects of household livelihoods ual, household, and community levels. They include a house- relate to each other and result in welfare and development hold questionnaire, a community questionnaire, a price ques- outcomes for different socio-economic groups. Specifically, tionnaire, and, in some cases, questionnaires on agriculture, multi-topic household surveys aim to: gender, fisheries, livestock, and forestry. The household ques- • Measure poverty and well-being and understand their ma- tionnaire is made up of sections on education, health, em- jor determinants; and ployment, assets, income sources, and more. Information on agriculture is often collected via a section in the household • Provide evidence for planning, monitoring, and evaluating questionnaire. It is also sometimes collected through a sep- economic policies and social programs in relation to their arate, more detailed questionnaire which includes modules impact on household living standards, especially those of on crop production, agricultural labor, the use of inputs and the poor. extension services, and some questions on trees on farms. 4  TREES ON FARMS IN EXISTING HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS  5 The community questionnaire targets information on local tree-related resources” were present throughout the differ- infrastructure, availability of public services, and distances ent modules. to major markets—in general, information that is expected Community module generally included information on to vary across communities rather than across households the presence of forest and timber product prices, while the within a given location. household module gathered information about use of tim- Existing multi-topic household surveys include some ques- ber products as the main material for construction. All the tions relevant to trees on farms, though the information solic- information on “Firewood and charcoal” was found in the ited often remains limited. Limited information in turn poses household module. Finally, as expected, information about a barrier for investigating the prevalence of tree-related prac- “Governance and institutions” was available in the commu- tices at the household level and their interaction with house- nity module. hold welfare.To overcome this hurdle, researchers have taken Figure 1 summarizes the number of questions related to an indirect approach using related questions that provide a trees on farms in the different modules of LSMS-ISA surveys broad idea of the role of trees on farms in the household. across the five countries in the study by Miller et al., (2016). For instance, Miller, Muñoz-Mora and Christiaensen (2016) identified a range of questions relevant to trees on farms in Figure 1 Number of trees on farms-related questions in LSMS-ISA implemented in five African countries. Four catego- LSMS-ISA, by module and country ries of tree-related questions were identified: Household Community Community Agriculture Number of questions UGA ETH related to • Assets, management and access to tree-related resources: Trees on Farm questions related to cultivation and management of Agriculture different kinds of trees; access and use of timber and Agriculture NER Household 40 30 other tree-related products (e.g. fruit, nuts, etc.) within 20 the household and the community; Agriculture Household 10 • Benefits from forest-related services: questions on forest- TZN Agriculture Community related activities with possible economic benefits; Household MW NGA • Firewood and charcoal: questions related to access, marketing and use of firewood and charcoal within Community households; and Community Household Agriculture • Governance and institutions: questions related to local UGA = Uganda MW = Malawi governance and management of forest resources. ETH = Ethiopia NER =Niger On average, LSMS-ISA in the study countries included TZN = Tanzania NGA = Nigeria 47 forest or tree-related questions, with the number vary- Note: Survey rounds covered the years 2010-2014. ing widely: Malawi averaged 100 forest-related questions in the 2010-11 and 2013-14 survey rounds, but Niger only Questions such as those described above have been used had 25. Questions about “Firewood and charcoal” were the as an indirect measure of the role of agroforestry on house- most common (31 percent of the total tree/forest-related hold welfare. However, the lack of the specific questions on questions), usually relating to use as an energy source (e.g. agroforestry has posed several difficulties in understanding for lighting or cooking). The second most frequent ques- the dynamics of trees in broader agriculture-forest land- tion area related to “Assets and access to resources,” with scapes and their socio-economic and environmental con- 19 percent of total forest-related questions falling into this tribution. For example, lack of precision in location of trees category. Here, questions about floor and roofing materials described in existing LSMS-ISA surveys made it difficult to were the most common. Very few questions were asked re- distinguish between the services received from trees located garding “Governance and institutions,” though Malawi was an on the farm or those from a nearby natural forest. To fill this exception. In Malawi, questions were also asked about en- and other gaps relating to the socio-economic contribution trepreneurship based on forest-products (i.e. “Benefits from of forests, FAO, PROFOR, and LSMS, together with CIFOR forest-related services”). Questions on “Assets and access to and IFRI have developed a new forestry module (Bakkegaard 6  TREES ON FARMS: MEASURING THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO HOUSEHOLD WELFARE et al., 2016). The forestry module offers in-depth understand- The trees on farms module presented here therefore com- ing of the role of forests and wild products in household wel- plements both the forestry and agricultural modules (Figure fare and livelihoods. Implemented on its own or integrated in 2). It seeks to provide further information on the presence existing LSMS surveys, this forestry module allows collection and role of trees in those plots located within agricultural of information on important dimensions such as: (i) Forest land considered either as a direct productive resource (e.g., changes and clearance; (ii) Forest institutions; and, (iii) Envi- fruit trees, tree cash crops) or as unproductive yet valuable ronmental Services. resource that may offer other types of services to house- holds (e.g. pollination, erosion control, and other ecosystem The forestry module offers a comprehensive approach to services). The common interaction between forestry, agricul- the different services and benefits that a household might de- ture, and agroforestry practices mean that there is necessarily rive from trees in nearby forests. However, with the excep- some overlap among the different modules. The three mod- tion of managed plantation forest, woodlots, fallow areas, and ules (forestry, agriculture, and trees on farms) have been de- some areas for agroforestry, on-farm trees are neglected in signed to be interoperable; the current module on trees on the forestry module, which excludes cultivated and unculti- farms can stand on its own or be used in conjunction with vated agricultural products from agricultural lands (e.g. crop- the other two. land, pasture, crops harvested in agroforestry and silvopasto- ral systems, orchards, etc.). Figure 2 Categories of trees on farms in relation to survey modules Forestry Agricultural Module Old-growth natural Modules forest (all types) Managed Secundary, Plant/Herb/ plantation forest Rangelands regenerating forest Grass/Roots Scrublands Grasslands Agroforestry areas Woodlots Fallow areas Savannahs Pasture Fruit trees Tree cash crops Non-production trees (shade, aesthetics, etc) Trees on Farm Module Note: This diagram is adapted from Figure 2 in Bakkegaard et al. (2016) 4. Module Options for Agricultural and Multi-Topic Household Surveys This section presents three different module options – short, Most of the information collected by the ToF module builds standard, and extended – that survey practitioners can use on traditional household agriculture modules by using three to capture key dimensions of trees on farms in a multi-topic main strategies: (i) inclusion of trees on farms-related options household survey. It builds directly on experience using ex- in existing questions; (ii) follow up questions to identify the isting tree-related information in LSMS-ISA surveys as pre- specific contributions of trees on farms; and, (iii) identifying sented in Miller et al. (2016) and in creating the forestry-fo- the stock of non-productive trees on farms. These strategies cused household survey module (Bakkegaard et al., 2016).The could be implemented with either the short version of the overall focus of this survey module is on the socio-economic module, which includes key questions often missing in the contribution of trees on farms. Other information-gathering traditional agricultural or forestry modules; or the extended approaches and questionnaires would be needed to collect version, which collects data on a more compressive suite of important information on their environmental or other con- dimensions throughout the entire LSMS-ISA survey. In either tributions. Indeed, where possible, such approaches should be case, when the module is implemented along with the stan- used in combination with the questionnaire presented herein dard agricultural survey, practitioners will need to carefully to gain a full picture of the multi-faceted contributions made check each question to avoid repetition or omission of trees by trees on farms. on farms-related options in the context of typical questions in the agricultural survey (e.g. construction material, agricultural The three versions of the module differ in the level of detail production, etc.). that can be gauged from each, but they are similar in approach and have two main shared objectives: Figure 3 shows the main sections where specific trees on farms-related questions could be integrated into a house- • Generate basic statistics on key variables related to trees hold survey that includes an extended agricultural module. on farms and agroforestry, including cultivation, manage- Community level questionnaire commonly used in LSMS-type ment, and use of different kinds of trees on farms; and surveys are less relevant as their questions usually refer to a • Measure the contribution of trees on farms to household nearby forest located off-farm — a dimension that is extensively assets and income. covered in the forestry module (Bakkegaard et al., 2016). Trees on farms can impact household welfare across dif- The extended agricultural and household modules have an ferent dimensions and as such could potentially be relevant ample variety of dimensions that will provide comprehensive to multiple sections of a multi-topic household survey. An understanding on the stocks, as well as the role of the trees advantage of this ToF module is that it can be implemented on farms in household livelihoods. Nevertheless, practitioners within existing and new surveys. Indeed, the module herein might be interested in only a limited set of questions, depend- is based on harmonization of already existing questions as ing on their specific needs. well as select additional questions shown to be important in smaller-scale case studies. Table 1 provides a brief overview of the main trees on farms domains and the sections where they should be included. The In some cases, the ToF module could be considered a com- trees on farms modules are initially designed as an addition to plement to the forestry module, which is recommended for LSMS-ISA and similar questionnaires, which provide a com- use in many circumstances where the ToF module would be plete overview of the agricultural, household and communi- relevant, as it rounds out information on the different ways ty environment. Nonetheless, users interested in creating a people may use trees in their day-to-day lives. stand-alone survey on trees on farms or in implementing the 7 8  TREES ON FARMS: MEASURING THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO HOUSEHOLD WELFARE Figure 3 Standard version of a household survey for trees on farms Trees on Farms in a Household Agricultre Survey Agricultural Module Household Module Agricultural Energy Consumption/Food Plots inputs Source security Cultivated plots Uncultivated plots Seeds Source Self-consumption Non-tree Forest or Labor Time crops fallow allocation Tree cash Collecting tree Non-farm HH Gardens Housing crops products enterprises Other uses Equipment Source Fruit trees Collecting tree construction products material Trees for timber and firewood Source of material Trees on farms domains Table 1. Content summary for the Trees on Farms Module for Multi-Topic Household Surveys Trees on Farms Survey Section Remarks Domain Questions are asked in the household questionnaire, as follow up in the household survey section on energy source and construction material, among others. Many household ques- tionnaires already include energy and/or housing sections; in such cases, incorporate these Energy and Housing and energy forest-specific questions into those existing sections. Where similar questions already exist, construction material be sure the question and answer options reflect the forestry-specific options herein. These questions will allow understanding on whether households use trees on farms as a main source of energy, construction, etc. Questions are asked during the household questionnaire. For questionnaires that already Time and household labor Time use have Time Use sections, be sure these questions are incorporated, as they allow understand- allocation ing of the time spent on collection of trees on farm-related products. Cultivated plots Tree cash crops Questions are asked for productive plots/parcels. Responses will be useful to estimate the Fruit trees stock of trees on farm, labor allocation, harvesting, gender roles, tree uses, and external Production trees on Trees for timber and support for on-farm tree management. Note that when used in a survey that has a food farms firewood consumption section, there is the possibility of overlap on some self-consumption products. Self-consumption (tree Survey designers and data analysts will need to consider this to avoid double-counting. products) Other (non- Uncultivated plots Questions are asked for plots/parcels where trees are present but not explicitly for production) trees Forest and/or fallow productive purposes. These questions are meant to capture information on non-production on farms Gardens trees such as those in fence rows or that provide shade, among others. MODULE OPTIONS FOR AGRICULTURE AND MULTI-TOPIC HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS  9 module within another type of household survey can easily KEY DEFINITIONS customize the module(s) presented here plus other modules All versions of this module include questions asking specific from LSMS-ISA (e.g. crops module). When implemented as details about trees. Because there is no standard approach part of a larger survey, modules and placement of questions for determining exactly which crops should be classified as will need to be carefully reviewed to avoid repetition of ques- trees, a first step in preparing to implement any of these tions or awkward questionnaire flow. modules will be to define what does and does not qualify as The three versions of the ToF module presented here are a tree. Box 1 provides advice on how to deal with this dilem- a starting point for customization, based on implementation ma. Each survey planning team should work with local tree/ needs and interests.The short version could be incorporated forestry experts to establish a definition and classification of into already- established household survey where users want trees that fit within their country context and survey needs. to have a general overview of the presence and contribution This module is concerned with trees on non-forested land. of trees on farms. The standard version adds to the short Narrowly defined, “trees on farms” would only include trees version by collecting more comprehensive data on the man- present on land cultivated by the household (farms). Howev- agement and uses of on-farm tree products and services.This er, practically speaking, the term “trees on farms” is used as version enables a more complete understanding of the role of shorthand to refer to all trees not in forested areas. As this trees on farms in the household economy. Finally, the extend- guidebook and accompanying module are focused on collect- ed version uses a full set of questions to capture the broad ing household level data, “trees on farms” refers to any trees range of dimensions through which a household may benefit on any land the household either uses or owns, regardless from the presence, management, and use of trees on farms. It of the primary use of that land. To measure the full range of expands the detail of data collected for tree production and resources and benefits that trees provide, this definition en- can include integration with separate, more detailed modules compasses both planted and naturally-occurring trees; trees on forests, agriculture, woodfuel, and land-use tenure. on their own plot or interspersed with other cultivated land Survey practitioners are encouraged to adapt a version (farms); any trees on land used for pasture or other purpos- based on their needs, and the country’s specific character- es; and even trees in a garden or front yard of a house. This istics, taking into consideration the limitations within which module also collects data on woodlot and forested areas that each survey operation might take place. A customized trees are on the household’s land. When used together with com- on farms module can be designed by combining elements plementary forestry modules, such areas may be addressed from the different versions, possibly adding self-tailored ques- either in the trees on farms module or the forestry module. tions to meet additional survey needs.Table 2 provides exam- ples of the different combinations of modules that survey im- plementers may want to use based on their specific interests. Table 2. Potential module implementation based on survey interest Additional Modules Survey interest ToF Module Household Agriculture Forestry Others The extent of trees on farms in rural household Short X X economies More accurate overview of rural household econo- Standard X X my in places where trees on farms are likely present or Short Specific interest in the economic contributions of Standard X trees on farms Detailed understanding of rural household economy in places that rely on trees on farms and forests Standard X X more than agriculture Woodfuel & Comprehensive understanding of rural household Extended X X X Land Use economy within the broader landscape context (optional) 10  TREES ON FARMS: MEASURING THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO HOUSEHOLD WELFARE Their approach can be replicated elsewhere by pre-clas- BOX 1: WHAT IS A TREE? sifying crops that are likely to grow in a given country or region and then identifying which ones may derive from trees. Identifying trees on farms is not always a straightforward The approach the authors used and advocated was to classify task.There is no standard approach to classify crops as trees. three main types of trees on farms in plots with cultivated Indeed, there is no widely accepted definition of what consti- crops: fruit trees, tree cash crops, and trees for timber, wood- tutes a tree. The Encyclopedia of Life, a collaborative project that gathers scientific information for all species of life on fuel, and other non-fruit or crop purposes. The remaining Earth (Parr et al., 2014), provides comprehensive descrip- crops would be classified as plants/herb/grass or roots. Based tions that can be used to categorize plants as trees or not. on this classification scheme, surveys can collect information To qualify as a tree, the plant should be a woody perennial on the stock of trees on farms without adding extra modules. with an elongated stem or trunk that supports branches and The crop classification used by Miller et al. (2016) can be con- leaves. The FAO defines a tree along these lines, but speci- sidered a reference, but classification should be modified as fies that such a plant may have a single main stem or, in the appropriate given national and local circumstances and defi- case of coppice, several stems having a more or less definite nitions of a “tree.” crown (FAO, 2012). Often, trees are also defined as having a certain height, with shorter plants meeting similar criteria For uncultivated plots, the short version includes a few ques- referred to as shrubs. The minimum height to qualify as a tions beyond the base agricultural module to better capture tree varies and the FAO advises that height limits for trees information about trees that may be found in home gardens and shrubs be interpreted with flexibility, with the boundary (ornamental gardens or plots that may be omitted from ag- between the two typically ranging from 5 to 7 meters (FAO, riculture land modules), forest or wooded land, and other 2012). Bamboos and palms meeting the above criteria are “unproductive” areas used or owned by the household that usually classified as trees whereas plants like bananas and may include trees. cassava are not. Coffee and sometimes even tea plants are classified as trees (Miller et al., 2017), but they may also be Once implemented, the short version will provide a gen- identified as shrubs depending on the height definitions used. eral overview of the presence of trees on farm/land across The guidance provided here suggests that, beyond the min- households surveyed. As this version is intended to be incor- imum criteria defined by FAO and Parr et al., (2014) above, porated into existing crops modules, it means users will also classification of plants as trees for trees on farms modules is capture the characteristics collected for other crops (such best determined according to specific country context and/ as land uses, cropping systems, etc.) that also pertain to the or survey interest. trees therein. The short version allows a broad sense of the prevalence of trees on farms, especially those in cultivated plots, but does not provide detailed information on the range FEATURES OF THE SHORT VERSION of trees or their management, uses, and socio-economic con- The short version of the trees on farms module provides a tribution. This version comprises about 25 questions and is brief overview of the stock of trees on farm, encompassing intended for surveys where there is relatively limited justifi- a basic set of tree-related questions for both productive un- cation or resources for a more extensive ToF module. productive plots. No additional questions are added to the household questionnaire, which includes information on con- FEATURES OF THE STANDARD VERSION struction materials, etc. The standard version of the trees on farms module collects In an ideal scenario, a survey designer interested in the extensive information on the stock, uses, and interaction of stock of on-farm trees might systematically implement a sep- trees on farms with the different household dimensions. It arate, detailed module on trees grown on farms and prod- builds on the simple version with the basic classification of ucts obtained from them. However, such a comprehensive trees and includes more detailed tree questions at the land approach could substantially increase the duration of the in- parcel and plot levels as well as a set of questions asked at terview (potentially leading to increased survey fatigue and the household level. This version can be used on its own or less reliable information) and overall fieldwork (which may be incorporated into standard household and agriculture house- beyond available survey resources). To overcome this hurdle, hold surveys. Miller et al. (2016) validated a classification of tree crops that Unlike the short version, the standard version includes can be easily implemented using an existing crop list (Annex A). information related to household livelihoods. Even though MODULE OPTIONS FOR AGRICULTURE AND MULTI-TOPIC HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS  11 BOX 2: PILOT TESTING THE TOF MODULES IN MALI The modules presented in this guidebook were pilot tested in Mali in early 2018 as part of a national-scale survey (Enquête sur la mesure des Rendements et l’Identification des Variétés du Sorgho, ERIVaS). The survey modules were tested using a randomly selected subset of 300 households that reported having at least one parcel containing trees during the post-planting phase of the agricultural cycle. Of the 300 households, 298 responded to the survey, 264 of which harvested products from the trees on their farms. Based on the results, some questions were revised to improve the survey. Overall, the experience showed that the modules work in practice and provide some results that give a sense of what might be possible in other contexts. For the section on energy and construction materials, the Mali sample shows that trees play a key role as the main source of energy and material for construction. The vast majority of households used tree products for the roof of their homes (93 percent) and used collected firewood as their main source of cooking fuel (98 percent). Firewood was collected from a variety of locations as shown in Figure 4. Results from the time use section of the survey module suggest that only 20 percent of individuals in the sample spent time collecting firewood. However, for these people the average number of weekly hours spent on this activity is substantial, with more than ten hours reported on average. The production trees on farms section shows that the land area devoted to trees for production purposes is substantial (more than three ha), but household labor is relatively minimal (less than two person-days was devoted to managing trees annually). A substantial portion of tree production contributed to household welfare, especially for nutrition purposes (64 percent of tree products reported, mainly fruits, were used to enhance nutrition) but also for sale (27 percent of tree products were either sold directly or transformed (e.g. nuts to oil, and sold). Finally, the section on trees for non-production purposes showed that such trees comprised a relatively small portion of land among respondents but had value for shade (33 percent of households with non-productive trees reported this value) and as a source of medicine (20 percent of households reported this value). This last section is not found in previous LSMS-ISA surveys and its results help shed new light on the non-production values trees may have for households. members of a given household may rely on trees as part of Figure 4: Source of collected firewood in Mali field test of their livelihoods, information on the source and time alloca- survey modules tion has been traditionally neglected in LSMS-type surveys. For instance, timber and non-timber products are mentioned as important energy source for lighting or cooking as well as a material for construction, but information on the location where 13.13% these materials were collected is often lacking in LSMS-ISA sur- veys. The standard version devotes attention to gathering addi- tional information on potential uses of trees on farms. 37.37% For cultivated plots, the standard version includes addi- tional questions about the characteristics of each category 29.29% of tree and how they are managed. In particular, it asks about the number of trees, how they were adopted (e.g. through planting, natural regeneration, etc.), approximate area with trees, among other aspects that will provide a more complete 20.20% overview of the presence and importance of trees on farms from the point of view of production. For uncultivated plots, the standard module adds a more detailed description on the uses considered unproductive and gathers information about quality of land where trees are present. The standard Own woodlot Community woodlot module also collects information on land tenure and gender Forest reserve Unfarmed areas near Community dimensions. 12  TREES ON FARMS: MEASURING THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO HOUSEHOLD WELFARE Implementing the standard version, users will be able to al-forest landscapes.Alternative options for creating an extended generate detailed statistics on the presence of trees on farms version entail combining the standard version of the ToF module in cultivated and uncultivated plots, and the monetary and with specific modules on land (Carletto, Gourlay, Murray, Zezza, non-monetary contribution of trees to household welfare. 2016), gender (Kilic & Moylan, 2016), among others. These data are absent to a significant extent in the current standard household surveys. More generally, such information on trees on farms is almost always unavailable in existing na- tionally-representative data sources. The standard version of the module comprises about 100 questions. FEATURES OF AN EXTENDED VERSION An extended version of the trees on farms module can cover a wider range of topics relating to the interaction of house- hold livelihoods, trees on farms, forestry, and agriculture and could be used to better understand the characteristics and socio-economic contribution of trees on farms. This version should include the sections and questions in the standard version and complement them with relevant questions from the forestry module and from the agriculture modules of the LSMS-ISA questionnaires. Tree product questions can be ex- panded into a separate roster, allowing respondents to report information on multiple products harvested from each tree type; more information. Depending on the specific data and policy needs, the extended version can also probe further into woodfuel and land tenure characteristics, both of which have been covered in detail in recently published guidelines (GSARS, 2018 and FAO, World Bank, & UN-Habitat, 2019, respectively). Survey planners and designers should take great care when incorporating sections from a variety of modules, ensuring that the flow of questions remains accurate. Skip instructions and enabling rules will need to be revised to en- sure that, even when some questions are removed and others added, each question is still asked when intended. Finally, the extended version should include a community-level question- naire to complement data collected at the household level by gathering information on community management and gover- nance details that may be relevant to privately held trees on farms. Box 2 presents a suggested table of elements for an extended module. The main advantage of an extended version of the trees on farms module will be the possibility to distinguish between the tree-related services coming from nearby forests and those lo- cated on farms. Such data collection can allow analysis on the substitution of trees on farms for natural and other forests. An extended version of the module is meant for use in contexts where forests are of particular importance and decisionmakers are interested in the dynamics of land use in broader agricultur- MODULE OPTIONS FOR AGRICULTURE AND MULTI-TOPIC HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS  13 BOX 3: EXTENDED TOF MODULE, BUILDING ON THE STANDARD TOF MODULE WITH ELEMENTS FROM THE FORESTRY MODULE (FM), WOODFUELS MODULE (WM) AND LAND TENURE MODULE (LM) Community Questionnaire: Forestry Module (FM) FM_COM_Module A: Seasonal calendar FM_COM_Module B: Most important forest and wild products FM_COM_Module C: Units and pricing FM_COM_Module D: Community benefits FM_COM_Module D1: Practices FM_COM_Module D2: Support FM_COM_Module E: Governance FM_COM_Module E1. Forest institutions Household Questionnaire: Forestry Module (FM) + Trees on Farms Module (ToF) + Woodfuels Module (WM) A general household member roster, collecting basic characteristics of household members WM_2: Woodfuel (optional) WM_3: Charcoal (optional) FM_HH_Module A: Seasonal calendar (Forestry Module) FM_HH_Module A1: Income from forest and wild products FM_HH_Module A2: Other forest-related income sources FM_HH_Module B: Forest resources – energy, health and construction (trees on farm must be explicitly included, and can do so by merging this with ToF_Module A: Role of trees on farms in housing and energy) FM_HH_Module B1: Forest resource base FM_HH_Module B3: Forest and health ToF_Module B: Time use (firewood collection). Optional: incorporate these time use questions into a more detailed table of various time-use activities. Agricultural Sections: include Standard ToF module The Following ToF Modules can be administered on their own or merged with more detailed counterpart sections from agricul- ture modules such as the ones in LSMS-ISA surveys: LM (optional): can be incorporated into ToF_Module C below. ToF_Module C: General characteristics of agriculture parcels & presence of trees on farms ToF_Module D: Detail on crop allocation and inputs & presence of trees within each plot ToF_Module E: Production and Uses of Trees on farms 5. Trees on Farms Module: The Standard Version in Detail The standard ToF module of the household survey aims to Questions in the template module provided here can be ad- provide a complete picture of the management and use of on- ministered as a somewhat stand-alone module or incorporat- farm trees at the household level, with particular reference ed into already existing multi-topic questionnaires. to the contribution of such trees to household income.2 The For a stand-alone module, the sections and questions can be module elicits information on different kinds of trees cultivat- administered in the formatted order. These topic-specific ed, managed, and used within the household. It looks at sea- sections will need to be preceded by at least two general sonal dynamics and measures tree-related inputs and outputs household survey sections: a section for interview details directly and monetarily. (location and contact information on the household plus Survey implementers will need to tailor the timeframe interview tracking details) and at least a basic household appropriately for both local context and survey needs. The member roster (list of household members with basic timeframe used throughout this module is “past 12 months”. characteristics on each person in the household). Another option is to change the reference period to refer to If the module will be part of multi-topic household survey with the most recent growing season or “past growing season”, agriculture modules, most questions from Sections A and providing a clear definition of the calendar period covered, B can be incorporated into existing sections on Housing based on local seasonality. The timeframe should be consis- Characteristics, Energy, and Time Use.The four filter ques- tent throughout this module and any agricultural modules as tions for Trees on Farms (ToF) will move to Section C (see well. Section A below for further guidance). The questions in The household is the level of observation at which the the parcel and plot sections (C and D, respectively) would sample is drawn and interviews are conducted. Some sec- be merged with the same sections for agriculture. When a tions collect information from household members at more question from ToF is similar to one from Agriculture, ask detailed geographic levels (plots, parcels, etc). This module it only once, ensuring the wording and answer options en- consists of five sections: (A) Trees on farms in housing and compass the needs of both thematic areas. All other ques- energy; (B) Time allocation of household members for fire- tions should be inserted where they make most sense for wood collection, a component of tree management; (C) Gen- the flow of the interview, which may be interspersed with eral characteristics of parcels containing trees; (D) Inputs for agriculture questions. Skips will need to be revised as ap- trees on farms at the plot level; and (E) Details on Production propriate to ensure questions are asked when expected. and other uses of trees at the tree type level. The four ini- For example, the stand-alone ToF module only asks about tial sections build a complete understanding on the presence, land tenure when trees are present on a given parcels; management, and stock of trees on farms while the remaining however, in multi-topic surveys, this information will likely section focuses on household livelihood dimensions. be collected from all parcels. Whereas agriculture surveys focus on collecting detailed information from cultivated land, a combined survey will need to collect more details 2 The contribution of forest related products in household income on uncultivated land when trees are present. For example, is extensively covered by the forestry module (Bakkegaard et al., 2016). In this agriculture sections usually collect soil characteristics only case, the trees on farms module will strengthen information on income derived from trees on farms, especially on production plots, but it does not emphasize for cultivated land; when combined with the ToF module, environmental income or other forest related income. An extended version of these questions need to be asked of all land with trees, the module could incorporate such questions to gain a full portrait of household income in cases where they may derive income from land outside their holdings (or regardless of cultivation status. farmland used). 14  TREES ON FARMS MODULE THE STANDARD: VERSION IN DETAIL  15 If a forestry module is also being incorporated into existing the ToF module. It is important that enumerators under- multi-topic questionnaires (such as LSMS or LSMS-ISA stand this includes both productive and non-productive questionnaires), there may be further overlap with the ToF trees. When a trees on farms module is implemented sections and their questions. Similar to the guidelines de- within a more extensive household module some of these tailed above for incorporating ToF with agriculture mod- questions may not be relevant or may already be included ules, careful review is needed when merging these mod- in existing sections. In such cases, practitioners need to ules to determine the appropriate placement and enabling include the new questions where appropriate for overall rules for trees on farms questions. flow. Three examples of placement options are: Deciding the placement of the first interview questions o For surveys that plan to interview only house- (Section A, Question 1- 4 regarding the presence of trees on holds that have trees on farms: this set of questions land owned or cultivated by the household) will depend on should be at the start of the questionnaire (as in the target household sample to be interviewed and the pres- the version provided). ence of additional modules, as they determine which house- o For surveys that (a) plan to include a broader holds qualify as having “trees on farms” and which should be sample of households, some of which are expect- interviewed and/or asked the forest-related questions. In the ed to have trees on farms, and (b) do not include order presented in the template, only households that report more detailed agriculture data collection: this set having trees on farms will be asked any of the ToF module. of questions would be asked at the start of Sec- However, if the module is part of a more extensive question- tion C. Sections A and B would be asked of all naire, there may be interest in asking questions in Section A households, as it is possible for households to and B to all households. In this case, these questions (Sections use trees in these ways even without having ac- A and B) will need to be incorporated into already existing cess, ownership, or user rights to land with trees. similar sections and the main trees on farms filter questions should be moved to the start of Section C. If the multi-topic o For surveys that (a) plan to include a broader sam- survey being used includes an agriculture section, then several ple of households, some of which are expected to questions in Sections C and D would likely be asked for all have trees on farms, and (b) where trees on farms parcels and plots (regardless of tree presence). In these cas- questions will be incorporated into more detailed es, the trees on farms filter questions could be incorporated agriculture section: Q1 will likely already be part into the initial agriculture section (usually a parcel roster); of the agriculture section; Q2 should be added a positive response on this question can then “enable” the to ensure capturing non-productive trees on less/ inclusion of the trees on farms parcel and plot questions that non-productive parcels; Q3 and Q4 can be asked in have been integrated into the relevant agriculture sections as sequence, or at the start of tree-specific questions. well as the stand-alone section on Tree Production and Uses In this case, skip instructions should be revised to (Sections E). Questionnaire skip patterns will need to be re- accommodate the merging of agriculture and trees viewed carefully to ensure that the trees on farms questions, on farms modules, as many of the questions in the when spread throughout a larger questionnaire in this way, parcels and plots section may apply to both trees are implemented correctly. on farms and agricultural crops. • Q5-Q10:These questions collect information on the main Section A — The role of trees on construction material used in the household. In case of farms in housing and energy material based on timber, a follow up question gathers information on the main source, putting special attention This section collects information at the household level on on the use, and type of on-farm trees related products. the use of timber and other products gathered from trees on farms as a source of fuel for lighting and cooking as well • Q11-Q12: These questions gather information on the as a material for construction. This module can be asked in- main source of fuel for lighting and cooking. dependently or be integrated within an existing household • Q13-Q17:These questions gather information on the col- characteristics section. lection of firewood as fuel. In particular, they collect more • Q1-Q4: These are designed to establish the presence of specific information on the distance (in time) and location any trees on farms, which in turn determines the use of of the collection. 16  TREES ON FARMS: MEASURING THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO HOUSEHOLD WELFARE For further background and guidance on woodfuel ques- module ends here. However, if the respondent answered tions, including options for collecting more detailed data on affirmatively to the trees on farms filter questions at the this topic, refer to the Guidelines for the Incorporation of a start of Section A, interviewers should expect at least one Woodfuel Supplementary Module (GSARS, 2018). parcel per household. • Q4: This question asks respondents to estimate the size Section B – Time allocation in relation of the entire parcel. Local/traditional area unit codes (ex: to tree products football field, pitch, etc.) should be customized to the country context. In some cases, this self-reported infor- This section collects information at the individual level on the mation could be checked against the GPS coordinates in time-use for firewood collection both on-farm and off-farm. Q5. Information on location and size will be of particular • Q1-Q2: These questions ask who is responding on behalf interest for efforts to combine household-reported infor- of each household member. The HH Roster ID Codes re- mation on trees on farms with satellite data. fer to codes assigned to each household member, usually • Q5: This question gathers the GPS coordinates of each as part of a standard household members roster section. parcel or, when possible, actual area measurement of the If such a section will not be administered as part of the parcel, usually collected by walking the parcel perimeter survey, such IDs can be assigned to each household mem- with GPS. This would require that the interviewer visit ber at this point. each parcel, so inclusion should take into account the in- • Q3-Q4: These questions collect information on the num- terests and practical needs of the survey project. ber of hours spent collecting firewood off- and on-farm. • Q6-Q7: These questions are about the relative location of the parcel with respect to the household, road, and Section C – General characteristics market. This information can be useful to understand the of parcels containing trees on farms location’s role in determining uses of a particular parcel for trees on farms or for other productive reasons. (Parcel Roster) This section gathers basic information on the parcel(s) that • Q8-Q11:These questions gather information on land ten- comprise the household’s “farm”, which for the purpose of ure – ownership of the parcel, type of property rights, these tree-related questions includes any land the household specific household members with ownership status, and either owns or uses, whether or not such land is being culti- types of ownership documentation. Further explanation vated. This section includes questions about land tenure and of land tenure questions, including options for collecting ownership, including gender dimensions, and basic location more detailed data on this topic, can be found in guide- information on each parcel. Parcels can be comprised of one book Measuring Individual’s Rights to Land (FAO, WB, & or multiple plots. A parcel is typically defined as one contig- UN-Habitat 2018). Answer codes for Q8 and Q11, as well uous piece of land, while a plot is usually a contiguous piece as named agencies and examples in Q10, should be cus- of land under one land/soil management regime. Therefore, tomized to the specific country context. respondents are also asked about the number of plots on • Q12: Following up on the tenure structure, this question each parcel, which in turn become the observation level of collects information about the specific household member the subsequent section. with usage rights for each parcel. This can enable under- • Q1: This question asks for a basic description or name of standing of gender dimensions, which have been shown to each parcel, which will be used in following questions to be important in relation to trees on farms (Rocheleau & help guide the flow of questions. Edmunds, 1997; Meijer, Sileshi, Kundhlande, Catacutan, & Nieuwenhuis, 2015; Schroeder, 1999). • Q2:This question gathers information on the person who is responding for each parcel. • Q13-14: These questions establish the number of plots within each parcel that contain trees on farms. The sub- • Q3: This key question asks about the presence of trees sequent sections will only be enabled for plots with trees. on farms in a given parcel. If no parcel has any trees on farms (productive or otherwise), then the trees on farms TREES ON FARMS MODULE THE STANDARD: VERSION IN DETAIL  17 Section D – Detail on inputs for trees in this section should be asked. on farms at the plot level (Plot Roster) • Q24-Q28: These questions collect information on house- hold and non-household labor allocated to each specific This section collects information on each plot (sub-parcel) plot. They are only asked when the plot has productive that contains trees on farms. It determines whether or not trees. a given plot is cultivated and asks follow-up questions for cultivated parcels regarding land management, inputs, and soil quality. More specific information on individual tree species Section E – Production and other uses and their presence is collected in Sections E. of trees by type • Q1a&b: These questions collect respondent info and This section is designed to gather general information on the self-reported information on the size of each plot. Note stock of trees on farms – both productive and unproductive that the sum of the plots on a given parcel should be no – on land owned or used by the household. Non-production greater than the area reported for the parcel. (It is not trees have been traditionally neglected in LSMS-ISA and sim- necessary that they equal the parcel area, in part because ilar style surveys, even though they can offer a variety of ser- only plots with trees are reported in this section). Lo- vices to households, such as medicine and decoration, among cal/traditional units should be customized to the country others. For productive trees, additional information is collect- context. ed regarding the area cultivated with trees, the type of trees • Q2: This question collects information about the current cultivated and managed, tree ownership and management, status of the plot. Based on the response to this question, and disposition of cultivated tree products. The reference Q3 – Q11b are only asked when the plot of land is cul- period for this section is the time of interview, represent- tivated. ing a snapshot of the current status of all trees reported on the farms. The reference period for products harvested from • Q3-Q5: These questions collect information about the trees on farms is the past 12 months; depending on the recall decisionmaker(s) at the plot level. This data can be used period of other sections, and the local context, this could be to understand gender dynamics. changed to the past growing season or a specific calendar • Q6-Q11: These questions gather information on the pat- period. Using the baseline trees classification, this section will tern of cropping used in this specific plot during the past classify the trees in a cultivated plot. Each line corresponds to 12 months plus details on any fallow periods during the a different tree/crop. Importantly, having a list of some com- past 10 years. Note that “the past 10 years” reference pe- mon trees in the survey area/country in local language(s) will riod in Q9 should not change with the overall reference be useful as an aid for enumerators to provide examples to period of the survey (12 months, past season, etc.). help respondents recall potential trees on their land. • Q12: Asks the respondent about the criteria they use to • Q1-Q2: These questions ask respondents to list the dif- rate the quality of their land. Interviewers should avoid ferent types of trees on each plot, identifying each by spe- reading the answer options on this question, as doing so cies or local name, as well as by use-type category (cash may bias the respondent’s answer. crop, fruit, fuel, fodder, etc.). It is imperative that the list of code for species/types of tree is carefully reviewed and • Q13-Q19: These questions gather detailed information edited by the survey team together with local forestry on soil quality, slope and the main productive character- experts to ensure it is tailored to the country context. It istics of the plot’s land. Interviewers should avoid reading should include common/familiar names of trees that re- the answer options for Q19, as doing so may bias the spondents may be most familiar with, in order to facilitate respondent’s answer. easier reporting during the interview. • Q20-Q22: These questions gather information about the • Q3-Q5: These questions collect information on the age use of fertilizer, in particular, the use of trees on farms-re- and number of trees on farms and the portion of area lated product as a main source of organic fertilizer. allocated to trees on farms on a given plot. • Q23: This question asks about the role of trees on a given • Q6: This question collects information on whether these plot, which determines whether the final set of questions trees were planted or were naturally occurring. 18  TREES ON FARMS: MEASURING THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO HOUSEHOLD WELFARE • Q7-Q9: These questions gather information on the seeds products. Only total value (and not quantity) is asked in for trees on farms and about any technical support re- this version because Q28, as written in this version, in- ceived for managing and planting trees on farms. cludes both primary and processed versions of the tree product which may have different weight profiles. Survey • Q10: Asks if the specific tree type on this plot is used for teams that are also interested in analyzing unit prices of production purposes. “Production purposes” is explained harvested products should split Q28 into two separate to the respondent as harvest, collection, or use of any questions for primary and processed [TREE product] and products from the trees. Productive and unproductive for each ask follow-up question on quantity sold and value trees have distinct follow-up questions from this point. of the quantity sold. • Q11-12: For trees that are not currently being used • Q33-Q35:These questions gather information on storage for production, these questions collect information on methods and the main uses for the main tree product. whether they have ever been used for production. If there is interest in understanding more about formerly-produc- tive trees, follow-up questions could be added, such as what products were last harvested (similar to Q16) and why they are not currently being used for production. • Q13: This question collects information on the house- hold’s main uses for the (unproductive) trees present in this plot. • Q14-Q15: This question collects information on activities the household does to manage the trees present on each plot. • Q16-Q19:These questions gather information on produc- tion periods for products harvested from each tree type, as well as production quantities for the primary product harvested and decision-making roles on the production obtained from trees on farms. This information is partic- ularly relevant for trees such as fruit trees or tree cash crops where non-timber products could be obtained. In the case of tree plantations, these questions will be re- lated to timber products. All subsequent questions ask specifically about the main product harvested from each tree type. Local/traditional non-standard unit codes are recommended to help respondents report quantities in whatever units they are most familiar with and should be customized to the country context. • Q20-Q21: These questions gather information on the losses that occurred before harvesting. The first question inquires about the presence of any loss and the second on the main cause(s). • Q22-Q27: These questions gather information on the share of the main tree production used within the house- hold for self-consumption. • Q28-Q33: These questions collect information related to the sale of the main tree product or derivatives of these 6. Conclusions Rural livelihoods in developing countries are diverse and dynamic. Realizing major policy goals and international com- mitments such as poverty reduction, food security, climate change mitigation, and biodiversity conservation, among others, requires reliable information about people living in rural areas and their livelihoods. Available evidence suggests the importance of trees on farms as a source of income, but more data is needed for public, private, and community ac- tors to develop effective strategies for enhancing on-farm tree management and investment. There is also a particular need for national-scale information on this contribution. Recognizing these needs, and the potential value of trees on farms, the LSMS agriculture surveys have been expanding coverage to include data collection of data on trees on farms. Multi-topic household surveys provide an important platform to address this lack of information, as they are implemented throughout the world and, as demonstrated by the experi- ence of the LSMS-ISA program, can be a cost-effective vehicle for collecting data on livelihoods. Though many such surveys already collect data on agriculture and on forests, trees on farms have often been overlooked as they are not clearly or entirely within the domain of either. This guidebook and the module on which it is centered will aid practitioners in expanding household survey coverage to include quality data collection of trees on farms. 19 REFERENCES Angelsen, A., Jagger, P., Babigumira, R., Belcher, B., Hogarth, N.J., Bauch, S., Rner, J.B., & Wunder, S. (2014). Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis. World Development 64: S12–28. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.006. Asner, G. P., Martin, R. E., Knapp, D. E., Tupayachi, R., Anderson, C. B., Sinca, F., Vaughn, N. R., & Llactayo, W. (2017). Airborne La- ser-Guided Imaging Spectroscopy to Map Forest Trait Diversity and Guide Conservation. Science 355 (6323). http://science. sciencemag.org/content/355/6323/385. Bakkegaard, R.K., Agrawal, A., Animon, I., Hogarth, N., Miller, D., Persha, L., Rametsteiner, E., Wunder, S., & Zezza, A. (2016). Na- tional Socioeconomic Surveys in Forestry: Guidance and Survey Modules for Measuring the Multiple Roles of Forests in Household Welfare and Livelihoods. Rome: FAO, CIFOR, IFRI and World Bank. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6206e.pdf. Bhagwat, S.A.,Willis, K.J., Birks, H.J.B., & Whittaker, R.J. (2008). Agroforestry: A Refuge for Tropical Biodiversity? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23 (5): 261–67. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.01.005. Burke, M., & Lobell, D.B. (2017). Satellite-Based Assessment of Yield Variation and Its Determinants in Smallholder African Sys- tems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114 (9). National Academy of Sciences: 2189–94. doi:10.1073/pnas.1616919114. Carletto, G., Gourlay, S., Murray, S., & Zezza, A. (2016). Land Area Measurement in Household Surveys. Washington: World Bank. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTLSMS/Resources/3358986-1423600559701/LandGuide_web_final_b.pdf. de Foresta, H., Somarriba, E.,Temu, A., Boulanger, D., Feuilly, H., & Gauthier, M. (2013).Towards the Assessment of Trees Outside Forests: A Thematic Report Prepared in the Framework of the Global Forest Resources Assessment. Rome. http://www.fao. org/docrep/017/aq071e/aq071e00.htm. DeFries, R.S., Rudel, T., Uriarte, M., & Hansen, M. (2010). Deforestation Driven by Urban Population Growth and Agricultural Trade in the Twenty-First Century. Nature Geoscience 3 (3). Nature Publishing Group: 178–81. doi:10.1038/ngeo756. FAO. (2012). FRA 2015 Terms and Definitions. 180. Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper. Rome. http://www.fao.org/ docrep/017/ap862e/ap862e00.pdf. ———. (2013). Climate-Smart Agriculture: Sourcebook. Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3325e/i3325e.pdf. FAO, IFAD, & WFP. (2015). The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015. Meeting the 2015 International Hunger Targets: Taking Stock of Uneven Progress. Rome: FAO. FAO, World Bank, & UN-Habitat. (2019). Measuring Individual’s Rights to Land: an Integrated Approach to Data Collection for SDG Indicators 1.4.2 and 5.a.1. Fischer, J., Zerger, A., Gibbons, P., Stott, J., & Law, B.S. (2010).Tree Decline and the Future of Australian Farmland Biodiversity. Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107 (45): 19597–602. doi:10.1073/pnas.1008476107. Garrity, D.P., Akinnifesi, F.K., Ajayi, O.C., Weldesemayat, S.G., Mowo, J.G., Kalinganire, A., Larwanou, M., & Bayala, J. (2010). Ev- ergreen Agriculture: A Robust Approach to Sustainable Food Security in Africa. Food Security 2 (3): 197–214. doi:10.1007/ s12571-010-0070-7. Godfray, H.C.J., Beddington, J.R., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J.F., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S.M., & Toulmin, C. (2010). Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People. Science 327 (812): 812–18. GSARS. August 2018. Guidelines for the Incorporation of a Woodfuel Supplementary Module into Existing Household Surveys in Devel- oping Countries. http://gsars.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/GS-WOODFUEL-GUIDELINES-EN-10.pdf Guan, K., Berry, J.A., Zhang,Y., Joiner, J., Guanter, L., Badgley, G., & Lobell, D.B. (2016). Improving the Monitoring of Crop Produc- tivity Using Spaceborne Solar-Induced Fluorescence. Global Change Biology 22 (2): 716–26. doi:10.1111/gcb.13136. Hansen, M.C., Potapov, P.V., Moore, R., Hancher, M.,Turubanova, S. A.,Tyukavina, A.,Thau, D., et al. (2013). High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change. Science 342 (6160). http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6160/850. IAASTD. (2009). Agriculture at a Crossroads. Washington DC: Island Press. Jean, N., Burke, M., Xie, M., Davis, W.M., Lobell, D.B., & Ermon, S. (2016). Combining Satellite Imagery and Machine Learning to Predict Poverty. Science 353 (6301). http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6301/790. Kilic,T., & Moylan, H. (2016). Methodological Experiment on Measuring Asset Ownership from a Gender Perspective (MEXA):Technical Report. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTLSMS/Resources/3358986-1423600559701/ MEXA_Technical_Report.pdf. Kiptot, E., Franzel, S., & Degrande, A. (2014). Gender, Agroforestry and Food Security in Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6 (1). Elsevier B.V.: 104–9. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.10.019. Lambin, E.L., & Meyfroidt, P. (2011). Global Land Use Change, Economic Globalization, and the Looming Land Scarcity. In Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, edited by National Academy of Sciences, 3465–72. Lausch, A., Erasmi, S., King, D.J., Magdon, P., & Heurich, M. (2017). Understanding Forest Health with Remote Sensing-Part II-A Review of Approaches and Data Models. Remote Sensing 9 (2): 1–33. doi:10.3390/rs9020129. Mbow, C., Van Noordwijk, M., Luedeling, E., Neufeldt, H., Minang, P.A., & Kowero, G. (2014). Agroforestry Solutions to Ad- dress Food Security and Climate Change Challenges in Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6 (1): 61–67. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.10.014. Meijer, S.S., Sileshi, G.W., Kundhlande, G., Catacutan, D., & Nieuwenhuis, M. (2015). The Role of Gender and Kinship Structure in Household DecisionMaking for Agriculture and Tree Planting in Malawi. Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security 1 (1): 54–76. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/246044/2/MAR 2015 Vol 1 issue 1 Paper 4.pdf. Miller, D.C., Muñoz-Mora J.C., & Christiaensen, L. (2016). Prevalence, Economic Contribution, and Determinants of Trees on Farms across Sub-Saharan Africa. Policy Research Working Paper, Policy Research Working Paper, , no. 7802.Washington: 1–37. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/819461471962574880/pdf/WPS7802.pdf. ———. (2017). Prevalence, Economic Contribution, and Determinants of Trees on Farms across Sub-Saharan Africa. Forest Policy and Economics, January, 39 pages. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2016.12.005. Minang, P.A., Duguma, L.A., Bernard, F., Mertz, O., & van Noordwijk, M. (2014). Prospects for Agroforestry in REDD+ Landscapes in Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6 (1). Elsevier B.V.: 78–82. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.10.015. Parr, C. S., Wilson, N., Leary, P., Schulz, K.S., Lans, K., Walley, L., Hammock, J.A., Goddard, A., Rice, J., Studer, M., Holmes, J.T.G., & Corrigan, Jr., R.J. (2014). The Encyclopedia of Life v2: Providing Global Access to Knowledge About Life on Earth. Biodiversity Data Journal 2: e1079, doi:10.3897/BDJ.2.e1079 Place, F., Garrity, D., Mohan, S., & Agostini, P. (2016). Tree-Based Production Systems for Africa’s Drylands. Washington: World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-0828-9. Pretty, J.N., Morison, J.I.L., & Hine, R.E. (2003). Reducing Food Poverty by Increasing Agricultural Sustainability in Developing Countries. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 95 (1): 217–34. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(02)00087-7. Pretty, J., & Bharucha, Z.P. (2014). Sustainable Intensification in Agricultural Systems. Annals of Botany 114 (8): 1571–96. doi:10.1093/aob/mcu205. Reed, J., van Vianen, J., Foli, S., Clendenning, J.,Yang, K., MacDonald, M., Petrokofsky, G., Padoch, C., & Sunderland, T. (2017). Trees for Life: The Ecosystem Service Contribution of Trees to Food Production and Livelihoods in the Tropics. Forest Policy and Economics In press. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.012. Rocheleau, D., & Edmunds,. (1997). Women, Men and Trees: Gender, Power and Property in Forest and Agrarian Landscapes. World Development 25 (8): 1351–71. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(97)00036-3. Schroeder, R.A. (1999). Shady Practices: Agroforestry and Gender Politics in The Gambia. Berkeley · Los Angeles · Oxford: UNIVER- SITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS. Schroth, G., & da Mota, Mdo.S. (2013). Technical and Institutional Innovation in Agroforestry for Protected Areas Management in the Brazilian Amazon: Opportunities and Limitations. Environmental Management 52 (2). Springer US: 427–40. doi:10.1007/ s00267-013-0049-1. Sharma, N., Bohra, B., Pragya, N., Ciannella, R., Dobie, P., & Lehmann, S. (2016). Bioenergy from Agroforestry Can Lead to Improved Food Security, Climate Change, Soil Quality, and Rural Development. Food and Energy Security 5 (3): 165–83. doi:10.1002/fes3.87. Shibu, J. (2009). Agroforestry for Ecosystem Services and Environmental Benefits : An Overview. Agroforestry Systems 76: 1–10. doi:10.1007/s10457-009-9229-7. Siebert, SF. (2002). From Shade- to Sun-Grown Perennial Crops in Sulawesi, Indonesia:implications for Biodiversity Conserva- tion and Soil Fertility. Biodiversity and Conservation2 11: 1889–1902. The Government Office for Science. (2011). Foresight.The Future of Food and Farming. Final Project Report. London. The Royal Society. (2009). Reaping the Benefits. Science and the Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture. London. United Nations. (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York. https://sustain- abledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030 Agenda for Sustainable Development web.pdf. Waldron, A., Garrity, D., Malhi,Y., Girardin, C., Miller, D.C., & Seddon, N. (2017). Agroforestry Can Enhance Food Security While Meeting Other Sustainable Development Goals. Tropical Conservation Science., no. Forthcoming. Waldron, A., Justicia, R., & Smith, L.E. (2015). Making Biodiversity-Friendly Cocoa Pay: Combining Yield, Certification, and REDD for Shade Management. Ecological Applications 25 (2): 361–72. World Agroforestry Centre, ICRAF. (2017). Strategy and Results Framework 2016-2030. Nairobi, Kenya. World Bank. (2017). Climate-Smart Agriculture Guide 2017. https://csa.guide/. Wunder, S., Angelsen, A., & Belcher, B. (2014). Editoral Forests, Livelihoods, and Conservation: Broadening the Empirical Base. World Development 64: S1–11. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.007. Zomer, R.J., Neufeldt, H., Xu, J., Ahrends, A., Bossio, D., Trabucco, A., van Noordwijk, M., & Wang, M. (2016). Global Tree Cover and Biomass Carbon on Agricultural Land: The Contribution of Agroforestry to Global and National Carbon Budgets. Sci- entific Reports 6 (1). Nature Publishing Group: 29987. doi:10.1038/srep29987. ANNEXES Annex A: Sample Classification of Trees on Farms by Type CROP Type of Tree CROP Type of Tree Agbono (Oro Seed) Fruit Tree Black Pepper Tree Cash Crops Apple Fruit Tree Cashew Tree Cash Crops Avocado Fruit Tree Cashew Fruit Tree Cash Crops Bilimbi Fruit Tree Cashew Nut Tree Cash Crops Bitter Kola Fruit Tree Castor Beans Tree Cash Crops Bread Fruit Fruit Tree Chat Tree Cash Crops Buya Fruit Tree Clove Tree Cash Crops Cherry (Agbalumo) Fruit Tree Cocoa Tree Cash Crops Cinnamon Fruit Tree Cocoa Beans Tree Cash Crops Coconut Fruit Tree Cocoa Pod Tree Cash Crops Custard Apple Fruit Tree Coffee All Tree Cash Crops Date Palm Fruit Tree Dry Leaves (Kuka) Tree Cash Crops Durian Fruit Tree Gomme Arabique Tree Cash Crops Fig Fruit Tree Gum Arabic Tree Cash Crops Gishita Fruit Tree Iyere Tree Cash Crops God Fruit Fruit Tree Locust Bean Tree Cash Crops Grape Fruit Fruit Tree Macadamia Tree Cash Crops Guava Fruit Tree Monkeybread Tree Cash Crops Jackfruit Fruit Tree Moringa Tree Cash Crops Kola nut Fruit Tree Oil Palm Tree Cash Crops Kola nut Shelled Fruit Tree Palm Kernel Tree Cash Crops Kola nut Unshelled Fruit Tree Ronier Tree Cash Crops Lemon Fruit Tree Rubber Tree Cash Crops Lime Fruit Tree Rubber Lump Tree Cash Crops Malay Apple Fruit Tree Rubber Sheet Tree Cash Crops Mandarin/Tangerine Fruit Tree Shea Nuts Tree Cash Crops Mango Fruit Tree Tea Tree Cash Crops Masau Fruit Tree Three Leave Yam Tree Cash Crops Oranges Fruit Tree Bamboo Trees for timber and woodfuel Paw Paw Fruit Tree Black Wattle Trees for timber and woodfuel Peaches Fruit Tree Fence Tree Trees for timber and woodfuel Pear Fruit Tree Firewood/Fodder Trees for timber and woodfuel Plum Fruit Tree Kapok Trees for timber and woodfuel Pomegranate Fruit Tree Mahogany Trees for timber and woodfuel Pomelo Fruit Tree Natural Forest Trees Trees for timber and woodfuel Pomme Du Sahel Fruit Tree Other Forest Trees Trees for timber and woodfuel 23 24  Rambutan Fruit Tree Plantation Trees Trees for timber and woodfuel Star Fruit Fruit Tree Timber Trees for timber and woodfuel Tamarind Fruit Tree Walnut Fruit Tree Data source: Miller, Muñoz-Mora, Christiaensen 2017.   25 Annex B: Trees on Farms Module Template Trees On Farm Module For detailed explanaiton and instructions regarding the content of this module, see Section 5 of the guidebook Trees on Farms: Measuring Their Contribution to Household Welfare STANDARD VERSION - CONTENTS SHORT VERSION - NOTES SECTION A Household - Housing and Energy Q1-Q4 move to Parcel Roster SECTION B Household - Time use (firewood collection) Incorporate Energy Section or Individula-level Time Use Section Incorporate into Agriculture Land/Parcel Roster section if using; SECTION C Trees - Parcel Roster otherwise, stand alone section Incorporate into Agriculture Plot Roster section if using; otherwise, SECTION D Trees - Plot Roster stand alone section SECTION E Trees - Production & Uses Stand alone section Throughout the module, questions forming a short version are highlighted in green. For the short version, some sections can be incorprated into other existing hosuehold survey sections. SECTION A: HOUSING & ENERGY 26  In the past 12 months, did anyone in this household cultivate, own or hold use rights for Yes….1 1 any land, either alone or with someone else? No….2 In the past 12 months, did anyone in this household have access to/use land for activities Yes….1 2 other than cultivation, such as a yard, decorative carden, etc? No….2 >> if Q1=2 also, then >>END TREES ON FARMS MODULE Are there any trees on any of this land? This can include naturally-occuring or planted trees, Yes….1 >> Q5 3 used for any purpose - fruits, cash crops, fodder, fuel, fertizlier, etc. - including those that are ornamental or not used at all. No….2 Yes….1 4 Were there any trees on this land in the past 12 months? No….2 >> END TREES ON FARMS MODULE Is your dwelling Is tree-related What is the main Is tree-related material What is the main [ ASK/ENABLE ONLY What is your main source of lighting fuel? constructed from any material used in the tree-related material used used in the roof of the tree-related IF Q7=1 OR Q9=1] materials derived from trees? outer walls of the in the outer walls of the primary dwelling? material used in the Where did you get the wood? Collected firewood........................................ 1 primary dwelling? primary dwelling? roof of the Purchased firewood....................................... 2 Yes ........ 1 Yes ........ 1 primary dwelling? Own farm, yard, woodlot....................1 Grass................................................................. 3 No ........ 2 (11) Yes ........ 1 Wood................ 1 No ........ 2 (10) Other farm/agriclture areas...............2 Paraffin............................................................. .4 No ........ 2 (8) Bamboo............ 2 Wood................ 1 Natural forests......................................3 Electricity......................................................... 5 Both................... 3 Bamboo............ 2 Forest plantations.................................4 Gas.................................................................... 6 Other.................4 Leaves................ 3 Bush, riverbanks, other natural/ Battery/dry Cell (torch)............................... 7 Other.................4 wild areas ..............................................5 Candles............................................................. 8 Urban areas, roadside, Battery/dry Cell (car)..................................10 construction site, dumps.....................6 Other, Specify................................................11 Other (Specify).....................................7 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SECTION A: HOUSING & ENERGY (CON’T) What is your main source of INTERVIEWER / Does your household Does anyone in your Where is firewood usually How long does it take to cooking fuel? PROGRAMER NOTE: ever use firewood for household ever collect collected? walk from your dwelling to fuel? firewood? where firewood is usually Collected firewood........................1 IF Q11 =1 OR Own farm, yard, woodlot...............1 collected? Purchased Firewood......................2 Q12=1 >> Q15 Other farm/agriclture areas..........2 YES.......1 YES.......1 Natural forests....................................3 [ESTIMATE TIME TO WALK Paraffin..............................................3 Electricity.........................................4 IF Q11 =2 OR Q12=2 NO........2 ( NEXT NO........2 ( NEXT Forest plantations..............................4 ONE DIRECTION.] Gas....................................................5 (AND NEITHER = 1) SECTION) SECTION) Bush, riverbanks, other natural/ Charcoal...........................................6 >> Q14 wild areas .............................................5 Crop residue.................................. .7 Urban areas, roadside, Saw dust...........................................8 construction site, dumps.................6 Animal waste...................................9 Other (Specify)...................................7 Other(specify)............................... 10 AMOUNT MINUTE...1 HOUR..…2 UNIT 12 13 14 15 16 17   27 28  SECTION B: TIME USE & LABOR INTERVIEWER /PROGRAMER NOTE: THIS SECTION FOR AGES 5+ ID Is the respondent reporting for Who is responding on behalf of In the past 7 days, how many hours In the past 7 days, how many hours CODE him/herself? [name]? did you spend collecting firewood did you spend collecting firewood (or other woodfuel) from all (or other woodfuel) on land Yes … 1 (3) locations? owned or used by you or your No … 2 household? HH ROSTER hours hours ID CODE 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 SECTION C: PARCEL ROSTER Now we will ask about land used or owned by the household. PARCEL NAME RECORD THE ID OF Are there any trees on this Parcel? What is the area of [PARCEL]? How long does it take to walk What is the distance from [PARCEL] to: THE RESPONDENT These can be naturally-occuring or from the homestead to this Please tell me about FOR THIS PARCEL planted trees, used for any purpose parcel? each parcel for which (fruits, cash crops, fodder, fuel, UNIT CODES FOR RESP. ESTIMATE you currently use, fertizlier, etc.) and those that are Hectares ............. 1 Less than 15 min..1 own, or hold use ornamental or not used at all. Acres ..........…......2 15 -30 mins............2 rights for, either alone Square meters......3 30 -60 mins............3 or with someone else. Local unit 1...........4 1 -2 hours..............4 Please describe or give Yes….1 Local unit 2...........5 over 2 hours..........5 me the name of each No.......2 (NEXT PARCEL) parcel, starting with the parcel you reside on, if applicable. PARCEL ID RESPONDENT GPS MEASURE ESTIMATE MAR- HH ROSTER ID HOME ROAD QUANTITY UNIT AREA IN ACRES KET CODE KM KM KM 1 2 3 4a 4b 5 6 7a 7b 7c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   29 SECTION C: PARCEL ROSTER (CON’T) 30  LAND TENURE How was this parcel aquired? Who owns this [PARCEL]? Is there a document What type of Who in the household has the How many How many for this [PARCEL] document does this use rights to this parcel? plots are on of these LIST UP TO 2 OWNERS FROM HOUSEHOLD ROSTER. IF NON- issued by or registered [PARCEL] have? LIST UP TO 2 MEMBERS this [PARCEL]? plots have at Granted by customary/community . HH MEMBERS SHARE OWNERSHIP OF THIS PARCEL, RECORD at the Land Registry/ FROM THE HOUSEHOLD least ONE authorities...........................................................1 THE NUMBER OF ADULT MALE AND ADULT FEMALE NON- Cadastral Agency, such Codes for document ROSTER. tree on Allocated by government...........................2 HH MEMBERS THAT SHARE OWNERSHIP. as a title deed, certifi- type: them? Allocated by family member....................3 cate of ownership, cer- Inherited by the death of a family tificate of hereditary Title deed..............................1 member.............................................................4 acquisition, lease or Certificate of Purchased.............................................................5 rental contract? customary ownership.....2 Bride price...........................................................9 Certificate of occupancy....3 Gift from non-hh member.....................11 Yes...1 Will/certificate of Rented in, short-term No....2 (13) hereditary acquisition (< 3Years)........................................6 10 listed in registry ..............4 Rented in, Survey plan............................5 long-term..........................................7  10 Rental contract, Sharecropped in ..............................8  10 registered........................6 Borrowed for free........................10  10 Lease, registered..................7 Moved in without Other (specify).....................8 permission.................................... 12 13 Don’t know ................ 913 Other (specify).............................................13 HH MEMBERS NON HH MEMBERS HH ROS- ROSTER ID ROSTER ID NUMBER NUMBER OF HH ROSTER TER ID CODE#1 CODE#2 OF MALES FEMALES ID CODE#1 CODE#2 8 9a 9b 9c 9d 10 11 12a 12b 13 14 SECTION D: PLOT ROSTER INTERVIEWER & PROGRAMMER NOTE: COMPLETE THE TABLE FOR THE NUMBER OF PLOTS REPORTED WITH TREES (SEE SC, Q14) Now we will ask you more questions about the plots that have trees. PLOT CHARACTERISTICS RECORD What is the area of [PLOT]? During the past growing season, what Who in the household Are there other household Who are the other Was cultivation THE ID was the status of this [PLOT]? makes primary members that the primary household members intercropped OF THE UNIT CODES decisions concerning decision maker consults consulted by the primary during the past RESPON- Cultivated.......................1 crops to be planted, in- regarding crop choice, input decision maker on the season? Hectares ............. 1 DENT Sharecropped out (rented to put use, and the timing use, and timing of cropping [PLOT]? Acres ..........…......2 tenant in exchange for share of cropping activities activities on this [PLOT]? Square meters......3 Local unit 1...........4 of crop).........................2  NEXT PLOT on this [PLOT]? Local unit 2...........5 Rented out......................3  NEXT PLOT Yes....1 Yes...1 PILOT ID PARCEL ID Other, specify........6 Pasture.............................4 12a No....2 (6) No....2 (8) Fallow ..............................5 12a Woodlot..........................6 12a Forest................................7 12a ROSTER ROSTER ROSTER Decorative garden............8 12a AMOUNT UNIT ROSTER ID ID ID ID Other (specify).......9 12a #1 #2 1a 1b 2 3 4 5a 5b 6   31 SECTION D: PLOT ROSTER (con’t) 32  What was the Is crop rotation Was the How long What was the What criteria do you use to rate the quality of [PLOT]? In general, what On what type of terrain reason for practiced on PLOT left ago was duration of the most is the slope of is the plot? intercropping? [PLOT]? fallow any- [PLOT] left recent fallow period? DO NOT READ ANSWER OPTIONS. CODE AND [PLOT]? time during fallow? RECORD RESPONDENT ANSWERS IN ORDER OF More fertile UNIT CODES Yes.....1 the past 10 IMPORTANCE for the soil.............. 1 No.....2 years? Substitute if either Days........ 1 Soil.............................................1 Flat......................1 On a hillside...........1 crop fails.................. 2 Months....2 Crop yield................................2 Slight slope........2 In a valley.................2 Other, specify............ 3 Years........3 Topographic Location Moderate slope..3 Swamp/Wetland.....3 (hillside,Valley, etc.)...........3 Steep Slope.......4 Plains/flat land.........4 Moisture Availablity................4 Surrounding Vegetation.........5 Other (specify).......................6 (years) AMOUNT UNIT first second third 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12a 12b 12c 13 14 SECTION D: PLOT ROSTER (CON’T) FERTILIZER What is the pre- What is the color of What is How would you What are the causes of these ONLY ASK IF Do you use What share of Are any trees on dominant soil type the soil? the soil rate the extent erosion problems? Q2=1 products from fertilizer comes from this [PLOT] used of this [PLOT]? quality of erosion on this trees on your products from on for production of this [PLOT]? DO NOT READ ANSWER ALL farm as a your farm? purposes, [PLOT]? OPTIONS. RECORD UP TO 2 OTHERS fertilizer? including harvesting, RESPONSES. Q23 collecting or using READ ANSWERS READ READ any prodcuts from ANSWERS ANSWERS No erosion control..............................1 Did you use any Yes….............1 All .......................... 1 them? Sandy...........1 Black...........1 No trees on farm.................................2 organic fertilizer No.....2 (23) More than half .... 2 Terraces..................................................3 Clay..............2 Red..............2 Good....1 No erosion........1 on this [PLOT] About half ............ 3 Yes............................1 Erosion control bunds.........................4 Loam...........3 White/light Fair........2 (20) during the last Less than half ...... 4 No.....2 NEXT PLOT Gabions / Sandbags..............................5 Other Grey.........3 Poor......3 Low......................2 Vetiver grass...........................................6 season? (specify).......4 Yellow..........4 Moderate............3 Tree belts................................................7 Brown.........5 High......................4 Water harvest bunds...........................8 Yes….............1 Other, Drainage ditches...................................9 No.....2 (23) Specify.....6 Other (Specify).................................. 10 1 ST 2 ND CODE 15 16 17 18 19a 19b 20 21 22 23   33 SECTION D: PLOT ROSTER (CON’T) HOUSEHOLD & HIRED LABOR 34  During the last year, how many household During the last year, During the last year, how many days did you hire men / women / children (<15 years of age) to work on trees on this plot? members worked to manage trees on did you hire any non- this [PLOT] (e.g, initial planting, pruning, HH members, men / IF NONE, RECORD ZERO IN ALL COLUMNS DESIGNATED FOR DAYS” AND CONTINUE TO NEXT PLOT. coppicing, fertilizer application, etc.)? women / children to work on the trees on What was the average daily wage paid to each category? On average, how many hours per day did this plot? This includes each household member work? initial planting, pruning, coppicing, fertilizer On average, how many days did each HH application, etc. member work? Yes..................................1 No.....2 NEXT PLOT MEN MEN WOMEN WOMEN CHILDREN CHILDREN TOTAL DAYS AVG DAILY WAGE TOTAL DAYS AVG DAILY WAGE TOTAL DAYS AVG DAILY WAGE Average Average Number of IF 0 >>NEXT hours per days per CODE IF 0 >>27a IF 0 >>28a members PLOT day month 24a 24b 24c 25 26a 26b 27a 27b 28a 28b SECTION E: PRODUCTION & USES [TREES] CULTIVATION AND MANAGEMENT For each plot, list all of the types of trees Roughly What is the age of the What is the share of Are the majority of Who provided the Have you received any cultivated. For each type, list the broad cateogry how many majority of the [TREES] the plot with [TREES] [TREES] planted or seeds or seedlings support from govern- of tree function such as fruit tree, cash crop [TREES] on this plot? ? previously (naturally) for the planted ment, NGOs, business, tree, or tree for fuelwood or timber. Where are on this occuring? [TREES]? or other or groups to possible also provide common/local name and/ plot? Less than 1… all plan and manage these or species. 1 year old............1 2… almost all 1..Planted 1.. Goverment [TREES]? 1-5 years old .........2 3… more than half 2..Naturally 2… Relative CATEGORY CODES 5-10 years old........3 4… half occuring (8) 3... Collected by Yes...1 Fruit Tree.............................................. 1 Greater than 5… less than half 3..Don’t yourself No....2 (10) Cash Crop Tree.....................................2 Timber/Fuelwood Tree........................3 10 years old ....... 4 6… almost none know (8) 4… Other Fodder Tree............................................4 Don’t know ….… 5 7… none 5… Don’t know TREE ID PILOT ID Fertilizer Tree........................................5 PARCEL ID Decorative Tree....................................6 Other, specify.........................................7 SEE CODES TAB FOR EXAMPLE LIST OF SPECIES CODES. [THIS LIST WILL NEED TO BE ADJUSTED TO THE LOCAL CONTEXT AND IT MAY BE HELPFUL TO ALSO INCLUDE COMMON TREE NAMES IN LOCAL LANGUAGE.] SPECIES/TYPE OF CATEGORY OF TREE TREE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   35 SECTION E: PRODUCTION & USES [TREES] con’t 36  PRODUCTION HARVEST Who provided In the past 12 Has your house- When was What are the main Has your house- Which activity has In the past 12 months, which products did your household external support? months, did hold ever harvest- the last uses of these trees? hold your household harvested or intend to harvest from the [TREES]? [list all that apply] your household ed, collected, or time prod- (LIST UP TO TWO) undertaken any done? ASK EACH ONE, CODE ANSWER 1=YES 2=NO. IN harvest, collect, used any products ucts were activities to man- CAPI THIS CAN BE A LIST OF YES/NO QUESTIONS 1.. Government or use any from the [TREES]? harvested age these trees, Initial planting ....1 agency products from This can include from Shade ...................1 such as Pruning.................2 A. Wood 2.. NGO the [TREES]? wood, branches, [TREE]? Decoration .........2 planting, Coppicing.............3 B. Branches/sticks 3.. Community This can include leaves, resin/sap, Medicine...............3 pruning, Fertilizer C. Leaves organization wood, branches, fruit, etc.? Fencing..................4 fertilizing, etc? application............4 D. Sap/resin 4..Private company leaves, resin/sap, Firewood...............5 Other.....................5 E. Flowers 5.. Other (specify) fruit, etc.? Other, specify........6 Yes.......1 F .Fruit No......2 NEXT RECORD G. Other, specify Yes...1 16 Yes...1 TREE RESPONSE THEN No....2 No....2 13a NEXT TREE IF ONLY ONE IS SELECTED  18a YEAR USE 1 USE 2 A B C D E F G 9 10 11 12 13a 13b 14 15 16 SECTION E: PRODUCTION & USES [TREES] con’t LOSS SELF-CONSUMPTION What was the main What was the total amount Who in the household Were there any What was the main Does your house- What portion of the Did your household product harvested? of [TREE product] harvested made the decisions con- losses of [TREE cause of these hold use any of the harvest did your household use any of harvested in the past 12 months? cerning the use of [TREE product] before losses? harvested [TREE use for food? [TREE product] for product] harvested in the the harvest? product] for food? fuelwood? Wood.................1 Kg.......................1 past 12 months? Branches/ Grams................2 Yes. ..1 1 ... Birds Yes …1 1... All NEXT TREE Yes …1 sticks...............2 Liters..................3 No....2 (22) 2 ... Animals No…2 (24) 2... More than half No…2 (26) Leaves ...............3 NSU1..................4 3 ... Insects 3... About half Sap/resin........... 4 NSU2..................5 4 ... Diseases 4... Less than half Flowers............. 5 NSU3.................6 5 ... Theft 5... None Fruit ….....….... 6 Other, specify... 7 6 ... Others Other, specify... 7 (Specify) [[DESIGN/PROGRAMER [[PROGRAMER NOTE: CODES WILL NEED NOTE: ONLY TO BE MODIFIED BY PRODUCTS PROJECT DESIGN/MAN- REPORTED IN 16 AGEMENT TO REFLECT ARE VALID ANSWER LOCAL CONTEXT, OPTIONS HERE]] INCLUDE ANY LOCAL/ NON-STANDAR UNITS.]] CODE Quantity Unit 1 ST 2 ND 17 18a 18b 19a 19b 20 21 22 23 24   37 SECTION E: PRODUCTION & USES [TREES] con’t SALES STORAGE 38  What portion Did your house- What portion Did your What was Who in your Who Where Do you have any How much of this How do you plan of the harvested hold use any of of the harvested household sell the total household was in your did you of the harvest do you still to use the [TREE [TREE product] the harvested [TREE product] any of the value of responsible for household sell most harvested have in storage? product] currently was used for [TREE product] was used for other [TREE product] [TREE negotiatinig decided of the [TREE product] in storage? fuelwood within the for other uses uses within the harvested, product] the sale of the what to do [TREE from the last household? within the household? including prod- sold? [TREE product]? with these product]? season Food for household? ucts processed earnings? in storage now? 1 ... All household...............1 1 ... All NEXT prior to sale 2 ... More than half Hold to sell at 1 ... All NEXT Yes …1 TREE (e.g. nuts to oil YES...1 3 ... About half higher price ...........2 TREE No…2 (28) 2 ... More than half or other)? NO....2 (NEXT 4 ... Less than half Seed for planting...3 2 ... More than half 3 ... About half TREE) Fertilizer ............... 4 3 ... About half 4 ... Less than half Yes …1 Other, specify.........5 4 ... Less than half No…2 (33) ID of HH ID of HH member member 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35   39 EXAMPLE CODES FOR SECTIONS E, Q1 & Q2 CROPS of TREES ON FARM Type of Tree Category Code Type of Tree Category Code TAMARIND Fruit Tree 1 CHAT Tree Cash Crops 41 CINNAMON Fruit Tree 2 CASTOR BEANS Tree Cash Crops 42 WALNUT Fruit Tree 3 MORINGA Tree Cash Crops 43 RAMBUTAN Fruit Tree 4 THREE LEAVE YAM Tree Cash Crops 44 POMME DU SAHEL Fruit Tree 5 SHEA NUTS Tree Cash Crops 45 POMELO Fruit Tree 6 RUBBER SHEET Tree Cash Crops 46 PLUM Fruit Tree 7 RUBBER LUMP Tree Cash Crops 47 PAW PAW Fruit Tree 8 RUBBER Tree Cash Crops 48 ORANGES Fruit Tree 9 RONIER Tree Cash Crops 49 MASAU Fruit Tree 10 PALM KERNEL Tree Cash Crops 50 MANGO Fruit Tree 11 OIL PALM Tree Cash Crops 51 MANDARIN/TANGERINE Fruit Tree 12 MONKEYBREAD Tree Cash Crops 52 MALAY APPLE Fruit Tree 13 LOCUST BEAN Tree Cash Crops 53 KOLANUT UNSHELLED Fruit Tree 14 DRY LEAVES(KUKA) Tree Cash Crops 54 KOLANUT SHELLED Fruit Tree 15 COCOA POD Tree Cash Crops 55 KOLANUT Fruit Tree 16 COCOA BEANS Tree Cash Crops 56 JACKFRUIT Fruit Tree 17 COCOA Tree Cash Crops 57 GUAVA Fruit Tree 18 CLOVE Tree Cash Crops 58 GRAPE FRUIT Fruit Tree 19 CASHEW NUT Tree Cash Crops 59 GOD FRUIT Fruit Tree 20 CASHEW FRUIT Tree Cash Crops 60 GISHITA Fruit Tree 21 CASHEW Tree Cash Crops 61 DURIAN Fruit Tree 22 TEA Tree Cash Crops 62 CUSTARD APPLE Fruit Tree 23 MACADAMIA Tree Cash Crops 63 COCONUT Fruit Tree 24 IYERE Tree Cash Crops 64 CHERRY(AGBALUMO) Fruit Tree 25 GUM ARABIC Tree Cash Crops 65 BUYA Fruit Tree 26 GOMME ARABIQUE Tree Cash Crops 66 BREAD FRUIT Fruit Tree 27 COFFEE ALL Tree Cash Crops 67 BILIMBI Fruit Tree 28 BLACK PEPPER Tree Cash Crops 68 AVOCADO Fruit Tree 29 MAHOGANY Trees for timber and fuelwood 69 APPLE Fruit Tree 30 KAPOK Trees for timber and fuelwood 70 AGBONO(ORO SEED) Fruit Tree 31 BLACK WATTLE Trees for timber and fuelwood 71 STAR FRUIT Fruit Tree 32 BAMBOO Trees for timber and fuelwood 72 POMEGRANATE Fruit Tree 33 OTHER FOREST TREES Trees for timber and fuelwood 73 PEAR Fruit Tree 34 NATURAL FOREST TREES Trees for timber and fuelwood 74 PEACHES Fruit Tree 35 FIREWOOD/FODDER Trees for timber and fuelwood 75 LIME Fruit Tree 36 FENCE TREE Trees for timber and fuelwood 76 LEMON Fruit Tree 37 TIMBER Trees for timber and fuelwood 77 FIG Fruit Tree 38 PLANTATION TREES Trees for timber and fuelwood 78 DATE PALM Fruit Tree 39 BITTER KOLA Fruit Tree 40 SELECT LSMS GUIDEBOOKS Food Data Collection in Household Consumption and Expenditure Surveys Prepared by The Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Food Security, Agricultural and Rural Statistics and endorsed by the forty-ninth session of the United Nations Statistical Commission, New York, 6–9 March 2018 April 2019 Measuring Household Expenditure on Education Gbemisola Oseni, Friedrich Huebler, Kevin McGee, Akuffo Amankwah, Elise Legault, Andonirina Rakotonarivo December 2018 Spectral Soil Analysis & Household Surveys Sydney Gourlay, Ermias Aynekulu, Calogero Carletto, and Keith Shepherd October 2017 The Use of Non-Standard Units for the Collection of Food Quantity Gbemisola Oseni, Josefine Durazo, and Kevin McGee July 2017 Measuring the Role of Livestock in the Household Economy Alberto Zezza, Ugo Pica-Ciamarra, Harriet K. Mugera, Titus Mwisomba, and Patrick Okell November 2016 Land Area Measurement in Household Surveys Gero Carletto, Sydney Gourlay, Siobhan Murray, and Alberto Zezza August 2016 Measuring Asset Ownership from a Gender Perspective Talip Kilic and Heather Moylan April 2016 Measuring Conflict Exposure in Micro-Level Surveys Tilman Brück, Patricia Justino, Philip Verwimp, and Andrew Tedesco August 2013 Improving the Measurement and Policy Relevance of Migration Information in Multi-topic Household Surveys Alan de Brauw and Calogero Carletto May 2012 Design and Implementation of Fishery Modules in Integrated Household Surveys in Developing Countries Christophe Béné, Asafu D.G. Chijere, Edward H. Allison, Katherine Snyder, and Charles Crissman May 2012 Agricultural Household Adaptation to Climate Change: Land Management & Investment Nancy McCarthy December 2011 Agricultural Household Adaptation to Climate Change: Water Stress & Variability Sushenjit Bandyopadhyay, Limin Wang, and Marcus Wijnen August 2011 Living Standards Measurement Study www.worldbank.org/lsms data.worldbank.org