#1: Forest area alone or including "other wooded land"? I propose the former, to align with the SDGs. What "land area" means also needs to be specified: with or without the area of inland water? I propose the latter.
#3 could be simply the growing stock of timber on forest area. Biomass stock can be calculated fro this. In practice, the biomass of non-timber will not be known. In general, all variables needed for carbon reporting should be covered.
#5 this and other economic variables should be in agreement with national accounts.
#6: rather weak, better "Are SFM policies enforced?"
#8 is too general. I would replace this and #16 with 3 questions:
1) Size of the forest area inhabited by indigenous peoples?
2) How many indigenous persons depend entirely for their survival upon the forest land they inhabit, yet have no formal ownership?
3) Size of the forest area where persons who depend upon it for their survival can participate in forest-related decisions?
#9 & 10 could be merged.
#12: both removals and fellings are needed, as is net annual increment, the latter 2 for carbon reporting.
#13: both are difficult. Positive facts are easier to collect, e.g. "How much timber was felled with a certificate of legality?"
#14 & #15: delete and replace with
1) How many forest tree species exist in the wild?
2) How any of these are planted for commercial use?
3) Naturalness: size of forest area with natural regeneration? Conversely, size of plantation area?
#17: this should come from national accounts (subsidies).
#18: drop the "modern clean systems" and change to "estimate of fuelwood consumption in households in 1000 m3"; alternatively "gross inland energy consumption from solid biomass".
#19 is linked to #4, but is not yet viable at a global level.
Dr. Marilise Wolf-Crowther