Here is my comment on the Global Core set of Forest-related Indicators:
1) I think the indicators 4, 5, 8, and 17 can be deleted and replaced by the “Percentage of forest under sustainable management” (say the usefulness of the forest for the environment and people)
2) The indicators 14 and 15 are approximately the same. We can just maintain the indicator 15;
3) The indicator 16 is not pertinent and should be difficult to establish;
4) Instead of defining the indicator 19 like that, I propose to use the “Percentage change in Total Economic Value (TEV)”
5) I think you can add these two indicators:
- Forest biodiversity level (the Shannon diversity index can be used for that) to show the richness of the forest;
- Percentage change in species under overexploitation (overuse) in order to indicate the challenge for the forest restoration.