Forestry, Faculty of
Non UBC
Forest Resources Management, Department of
DSpace
Goushehgir, Zahra
Feghhi, Jahangir
Innes, John L.
We address two main challenges facing the implementation of sustainable forest management (SFM) in the Hyrcanian forest of Iran: inconsistent forest policy and the use of outdated science and techniques. We propose the Sustainable Hyrcanian Forest Management Model (SHFMM) as the best currently available solution to achieve improved management of the northern forests of Iran. The management of the Hyrcanian forests suffers from a lack of scientific knowledge and state-of-the-art technologies. There is a pronounced difference in the mindsets of older and new-school forestry scholars regarding how to approach these deficiencies: the old-school mentality prefers conventional forestry despite its limitations, whereas more recently trained scholars believe that the adoption of 21st-century technological advances would lead to improved management. The lack of trust between policymakers and local communities is another significant challenge and has resulted in conflicts over management practices in the Hyrcanian forests. We suggest that the Hyrcanian Sustainable Forest management model (SHFMM) would provide a hierarchical framework for making decisions. Using this model, each sector—whether state or private—is empowered to make decisions. Further, it encourages all sectors to work together in its holistic implementation. The SHFMM is based on the outcomes of several independent studies of forest management in the Hyrcanian forest. Despite its site specificity, many lessons learned during its development could be applied elsewhere.
Citation: Goushehgir, Z.; Feghhi, J.;Innes, J.L. Challenges Facing theImprovement of Forest Managementin the Hyrcanian Forests of Iran.Forests 2022, 13, 2180. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13122180Academic Editor: RawshanAra BegumReceived: 7 September 2022Accepted: 13 December 2022Published: 19 December 2022Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutralwith regard to jurisdictional claims inpublished maps and institutional affil-iations.Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.This article is an open access articledistributed under the terms andconditions of the Creative CommonsAttribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).ReviewChallenges Facing the Improvement of Forest Management inthe Hyrcanian Forests of IranZahra Goushehgir 1,*, Jahangir Feghhi 2 and John L. Innes 11 Department of Forest Resources Management, University of British Columbia,Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada2 Department of Forestry and Forest Economics, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Tehran,Karaj 146899-5513, Iran* Correspondence: seyedeh.goushehgir@ubc.caAbstract: We address two main challenges facing the implementation of sustainable forest manage-ment (SFM) in the Hyrcanian forest of Iran: inconsistent forest policy and the use of outdated scienceand techniques. We propose the Sustainable Hyrcanian Forest Management Model (SHFMM) as thebest currently available solution to achieve improved management of the northern forests of Iran. Themanagement of the Hyrcanian forests suffers from a lack of scientific knowledge and state-of-the-arttechnologies. There is a pronounced difference in the mindsets of older and new-school forestryscholars regarding how to approach these deficiencies: the old-school mentality prefers conventionalforestry despite its limitations, whereas more recently trained scholars believe that the adoption of21st-century technological advances would lead to improved management. The lack of trust betweenpolicymakers and local communities is another significant challenge and has resulted in conflictsover management practices in the Hyrcanian forests. We suggest that the Hyrcanian SustainableForest management model (SHFMM) would provide a hierarchical framework for making decisions.Using this model, each sector—whether state or private—is empowered to make decisions. Further,it encourages all sectors to work together in its holistic implementation. The SHFMM is based on theoutcomes of several independent studies of forest management in the Hyrcanian forest. Despite itssite specificity, many lessons learned during its development could be applied elsewhere.Keywords: sustainable forest management; the Hyrcanian sustainable forest management model;forest science; forest technology; Analytic Hierarchy Process; Iran1. IntroductionThe goal of any forest manager should be to manage their forests well. However,what constitutes good management has varied over time, and varies regionally. Over thelast 30 years, the principles of good management have been agreed internationally, andcodified under the concept of sustainable forest management (SFM). A number of criteriaand indicators of SFM have been developed, and while these are very similar globally, thereare regional variations that take into account regional variations in the nature of forests.All are underpinned by the need to balance social, economic, and environmental objectives.Obtaining a balance that satisfies all stakeholders is generally seen as a wicked problem [1]and therefore as an aspirational goal. Despite this, several certification bodies, such as theForest Stewardship Council and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, have evolved that willcertify a forest as being managed sustainably provided that it meets a number of clearlystated requirements.The implementation of SFM has faced challenges in developing countries, includingthe availability of appropriate scientific and technical knowledge, effective policy, lawsand regulations, and planning frameworks [2]. These challenges are sometimes referredto as wicked problems. As has been suggested [1], wicked problems have no definitiveForests 2022, 13, 2180. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13122180 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/forestsForests 2022, 13, 2180 2 of 23formulation, no stopping rule, and no test for a solution; it is unlikely that they will ever beresolved with certainty. Researchers have proposed various solutions to this problem, andattempts have been made to collate ideas about the management of natural resources [3].These ideas have ranged from ‘consensus-based methods’ [4] aiming to gain the collectiveagreement of participants to adaptive management [5], which involves a constant cycleof learning and exploring. Adequate information is required to address the underlyingcauses of forest issues [2]. Information should be accessible through global, regional, andnational networks and through traditional approaches. Innovative mechanisms are re-quired to connect individual forestry research units so that a worldwide forest communitytackling real-world forest management issues could be built. Furthermore, SFM involvesimplementing various practices and solutions, including testing different silvicultural meth-ods, using multiple plans in community-based forestry, and applying various techniquesfor reforestation.Sustainable forest management is a complex problem and an alternative approach,termed ‘metaforestry’, could be a gateway to a modern era of forest management [6].However, issue-based information systems should provide a suitable basis for developingargumentation models [1,6]. Problem-solving methods, such as the waterfall model, werecharacterised by the usual steps of problem formulation, data collection, analysis, and pre-sentation of the findings. A range of possibilities exist for programming methodologies [7],and a web-based system could facilitate discussion among various participants and publicorganisations and might provide a collaborative decision-making procedure to solve socialproblems [8]. Amongst all the available alternatives, negotiation and mutual understandingamongst stakeholders may be the most suitable to address wicked problems [6].‘Metaforestry’ has been defined as a broader and higher concept than conventionalforestry [6], and it has been argued that it involves a host of dimensions and relationships.These included (i) ends vs. means; (ii) substance vs. process (i.e., conceptual vs. procedu-ral); (iii) spatial (i.e., local vs. distant or global); (iv) temporal (i.e., short- vs. long-term);(v) input vs. output, or outcome and results; and (vi) performance vs. progress measure-ment. In this approach, SFM is viewed as an all-embracing objective of “metaforestry”because it emphasises a holistic approach toward environmental, socioeconomic, political,and cultural considerations [6]. Such a comprehensive approach is intended to ensurethe quality of human life and the sustainability of resources for current and future gen-erations [6]. Most of these solutions are complex, whether in concept or practice. As aresult, they require more resources than are generally available, and a better knowledgeand understanding of forestry. These are rarely available in developed countries, and evenmore difficult for developing countries.Since the 1980s, the acceleration of industrialization has transformed every aspect ofsociety. Major changes can be characterised by “economic globalisation”, “the pluralityof legitimate perspectives”, and “social atomization” [9]. These changes have blendedthe concept of sustainability with modernity which was already intertwined in the globalmindset [6]. In this sense, SFM has been a modern concept for developing countriesalready wrestling with moving from tradition to modernity. During this transition, manydeveloping countries have become separated from the main trends in global forest policy.These global trends include multi-objective forestry, the socialisation of forestry, and theinternationalisation of forestry, all of which are recognized as a precondition for movingtoward SFM [6]. When the world awoke to the alarming rate and extent of deforestation,some developing countries were experiencing socio-political turbulence, such as war ornatural catastrophes, which were leading to the degradation of their forests. While suchcountries were focused on internal problems, the rest of the world was moving forward,creating, and subsequently widening the gap between countries. This historical separationnarrowed the common vocabulary or style of thinking within the dominant culture of theleading countries [3].Developing countries began to narrow the gap after 1992, when Agenda 21 wasproposed in the 500-page United Nations program of action for sustainable developmentForests 2022, 13, 2180 3 of 23at the 1992 Earth Summit [10]. This agreement alone could not accelerate the progressof nations and solve wicked problems. As global forest policy fora could not bring alldeveloped and developing countries to a common perception of SFM simultaneously, alegitimate question has always been how a developing country make sense of the state ofSFM within the global forest policy context.In this paper, we consider the state of SFM in one of the less-known developingcountries, Iran. In the northern part of Iran, there is a narrow arc of dense montane mixedtemperate deciduous forest, the Hyrcanian forest. Approximately one-tenth of Iran isforested, most extensively in the Caspian region where the Hyrcanian forest is located [11].These forests face many political, economic, and cultural issues that have hindered theimplementation of SFM.2. Trends in Iranian ForestryOver the past five decades, many nations have increasingly recognized the multi-purpose role of forests. The world’s forests are no longer considered simply as a convenientsource of raw materials, especially timber. Instead, their value as ecosystems providinggoods and services has been progressively recognized. However, the financial implicationsof this change are still disputed, as few countries have developed an appropriate means tovalue all the goods and services derived from forests, whether public or private. In Iran, thischange in thinking internationally coincided with the establishment of the National ForestLaw (NFL), which recognized forests as a source of wood supply rather than establishingtheir role in providing habitat for plants, animals, and micro-organisms as well as fulfillingmany other ecosystem services. The Islamic revolution in the late 1970s, the Iran–Iraq Warof the 1980s, and the efforts to achieve socio-economic restorations in post-war societythat lasted until the late 1990s, all diverted the public’s attention from ongoing forestdegradation in the country. People struggled to meet their basic requirements and couldnot afford environmental protection, which was seen as a luxury.A second trend is a movement toward the socialisation of forestry. The idea that forestscould be used for developing the ‘Third World’ [12] captured worldwide attention duringthe period of socio-economic development in the 1970s and 1980s. However, within Iran,this global trend was dismissed during the socio-political turbulence associated with theIran–Iraq War, and any potential benefits to the Hyrcanian forests were lost. Although anincreasing number of people, institutions, and social groups have recently turned their at-tention to these forests, the socialisation of forestry is still in its infancy in Iran. The generalsocial responsibility to protect valuable forests has never been recognized, mainly becausethere is no mechanism or system to introduce people to their responsibilities. Moreover, in-troducing modern concepts of social responsibility remains difficult when forest-dependentcommunities continue to struggle with fundamental issues such as poverty and a lackof education.A third trend is the internationalisation of the forest industry, which acceleratedglobally under the far-reaching impact of economic globalisation in the 1990s. Duringthis period, some forestry companies moved from their traditional production bases indeveloped countries to emerging Asian and Latin American countries [13]. These movesgenerated multifaceted concerns from economic, strategic, and environmental perspectivesat both the country and corporate levels. It has also influenced how wood products areviewed within global markets. Despite the importance of the internationalisation of forestryamong developed- and emerging countries, Iran failed to benefit from this because ofcontinuing international sanctions. Far from such global movements, the Hyrcanian forestshave primarily been used to reconstruct and rehabilitate post-war society.In 2000, the Tehran Process for Low Forest Cover Countries (LFCCs) was a significantstep towards improving the management of the Hyrcanian forest. The Tehran Processprioritised the issue of developing SFM criteria and indicators for monitoring sustainabilityand developed the first set of criteria and indicators in 2011. The multiple managementobjectives needed for the Hyrcanian forest were recognized by both the state and the public,Forests 2022, 13, 2180 4 of 23and forest laws and regulations were initiated to support this new approach to forestmanagement. Although the sustainability of these forests was an appealing concept thatwas debated at very high levels in the forestry administration, the implementation of thenecessary changes in management remained contentious. The dispute occurred over theambiguities surrounding many of the suggested solutions from other countries, which wereconsidered infeasible for the Hyrcanian forests. These solutions required the use of softwaresuch as Adaptive Software Development, ASD [14]; Crystal Methods [15]; Dynamic SystemsDevelopment Method, DSDM [16]; Feature-Driven Development, FDD [17]; Scrum [18]; andExtreme Programming, XP [19] to solve the wicked problems that have been identified [20].However, the implementation of such methods would have required a major change inthe Hyrcanian forest management paradigm. It would also have required supportivelegislation, updated science, and modern technology, all of which were intertwined withthe socio-economic condition of the country.In many cases where multiple stakeholders are involved, disputes over the prioriti-sation of management objectives need to be addressed by an independent body. In manycountries, this is the judiciary. If a judicial system is to address wicked problems success-fully, it must be supported by a well-functioning democratic government and a mobilisedcivil society, and the system itself must be effective. There are many countries where theserequirements are not met, limiting the ability of the legal system and requisite institutionsto communicate current problems effectively and to find appropriate solutions [21].Science and technology can work in more than one way. It is dangerous to assumethat technology will solve wicked problems, especially when the science behind the useof the technology is insufficient to ensure that there are net benefits. Recently, the Centrefor Alternative Technology has launched a pivotal program that is increasing action tohelp society develop the solutions to climate change as a ‘super wicked problem’, asdefined by Lazarus [22,23]. The project found that a net zero-carbon Britain was possiblewithout relying on future technology. Currently, in some developing countries, includingIran, access to the internet is problematic, making full use of science and technologyexceptionally difficult.Iran remains very much a developing country and that, together with its tumultuouspolitical history, makes it difficult to achieve the prerequisites for SFM without payingenormous economic and social expenses. This is not always recognized in global fora, andthe promotion of wicked solutions in countries without robust and advocative mechanisms,such as connections to global marketing and involvement in international political relations,is often too great a step forward.Given these circumstances, the critical question remains: how can the management ofthe Hyrcanian forests be best achieved, and how can they achieve some semblance of SFM?One possibility that has been widely adopted in other countries, to the extent of beingconsidered standard practice, is the use of sustainable forest management plans. An SFMplan is a tool to accomplish sustainability through discussion, consensus, iterations, andacceptance that change is a normal part of the process [3]. Iran is only at the beginning ofthis road. The current Hyrcanian forest management plans (FMPs) are inconsistent with theconcept of SFM, and many of the FMPs simply dismiss the value of ecosystem services [24].Forest functions need to be better defined in the plans, and the ecological capability ofthe region needs to be considered when developing the plans. However, at the nationallevel, a common-consensus statement on the development of SFM standards and on theirapplication in FMPs is still lacking.In the FMPs, the hierarchical process used to move from the overall goals to theoperational objectives is very opaque. Achieving the operational objectives neither en-sures that the overall goals are met nor selects the most suitable management scenariosat the forest management unit (FMU) level [25]. Most (but not all) forest stakeholdersagree with the broad, overall goals, but there is less agreement on setting more detailedand specific operational objectives. There is also no general understanding of the use ofsystematic methods to classify objectives. Measuring the success of the control concept asForests 2022, 13, 2180 5 of 23applied to current FMPs has been limited to completing yes/no forms to check whetherspecific activities have been implemented. No indicators are in place to assess whetherthe management goals are being achieved or whether the activities specified in the planare being implemented [25]. Consequently, the planning, implementation, and monitoringapproaches of the FMPs require major revision [26].The remainder of this paper covers the various definitions of forestry that have beenadopted in the Hyrcanian forest and a timeline of forest policy and management practicesthere. It then addresses the two main challenges facing the implementation of SFM in theHyrcanian forest: inconsistent forest policy and outdated science and techniques. Finally,it suggests the Sustainable Hyrcanian Forest Management Model (SHFMM) as the bestcurrent solution, the adoption of which could pave the way to sustainability.3. The Concept of Forestry in the Hyrcanian ForestsFormal definitions of forestry in Iran date back to 1957, when the first book on forestryin Iran [27] was published. This became an essential reference for many years for forestmanagement scholars and practitioners. It addressed the various definitions of forestryand the comprehensive concept behind this term. It described how early definitions in Iranwere similar to those developed in Germany and France in the 18th and 19th centuries, anddefined forestry as a series of rules and operations to set timber harvesting at a level thatmeets human demands and a permanent annual forest revenue [28]. It was believed that bypractising these operations, forest protection would be ensured over time. However, otherdefinitions were described in the book, such as the application of the term to the creationand maintenance of forest plantations. The initial definitions were accompanied by goalssuch as ‘becoming valuable or useful’ [27] (p. 19).Later, the term ‘forestry’ in Iran became linked to the science of organisation—the termemphasised the organisation (i.e., management) of forests rather than placing an emphasison the rules and operations. In its most recent applications, forestry has been designedbased on silvicultural practices. As a result, forestry has increasingly been considered asa method to assist natural regeneration and promote forest structure and composition,very different to the original concepts focused on harvesting wood [27]. By the mid-20thcentury, forestry was seen as a series of operations to harvest a determined volume oftrees per hectare in proportion to the growing stock, based on a forest harvesting plan,without disturbing the later growing stock over time [27]. Although many definitionsof forestry have emphasised the management of forests to obtain a permanent supply ofwood, the consequences of timber harvesting for more than a century have shown that sucha definition neither ensures the sustainability of the wood production function nor otherforest functions and services. This is because the definitions have excluded the generalconcept of ‘ecosystem services’, which recognizes that forests have multiple functions,including conservation, recreation, protection, education, and meeting socio-economicneeds [29,30].Conventional definitions of forestry in Iran need to be updated, based on 21st-centuryforestry experiences in SFM. Over the past half-century, attempts to introduce a new con-cept of forestry in Iran have met with strong resistance, and efforts to develop a newdefinition have been trivialised. A modern definition of forestry for the northern forestsof Iran [31] exists that deserves wider recognition. Forestry is defined as an approach thatdetermines and prioritises forest functions, strategic goals, and indicators for monitoringthe sustainability of forest functions at the watershed level, and defines the operationalobjectives, activities, control indicators, and risk evaluation at the level of the FMU (i.e., dis-trict level). Although the legal administrations of the Hyrcanian forests still follow olderforestry definitions, the updated definition of forestry provided the principles underlyingthe development of the SFM model for the Hyrcanian forests proposed by [31] (p. 510).Forests 2022, 13, 2180 6 of 234. Iranian Forest Policy and the Hyrcanian ForestThe Hyrcanian forests are one of the last areas in the world where extensive tractsof temperate-zone hardwoods are found in ancient condition. For many centuries, onlyvillagers claimed the forest lands, and rights to the forest were restricted to grazing. Thevillagers accepted forests as a part of the natural scene and used them to meet their basicrequirements. The forests received their first official recognition by the central governmentwhen the Ministry of Commonwealth was founded in 1823 during the Qajar dynasty(1785–1925). The forests remained relatively untouched until the outbreak of World WarII. During the war, economic activities increased, and the forests came under pressure.Landowners and villagers began to expand their livestock grazing in the forest and startedto convert forest areas into farmlands or buildings. Demands for lumber and charcoalled to tree harvesting [32]. With the industrialization of harvesting, the forests attractedgrowing institutional attention.The first Forest Office of Iran was established in 1920 (later dissolved in 1934), anda preliminary forest inventory and survey of the Hyrcanian forests was initiated in 1923.In 1924, the central forest organisation provided forest management plans, and forestrygraduates received training from German and Austrian forest experts. In 1937, the firstIranian forestry engineer, Karim Saie, established a new Forestry Unit within the Ministry ofAgriculture and he was responsible for estimating the area of the northern forest of Iran. TheForest Law of 1943 gave the Ministry of Agriculture the responsibility and legal authorityto manage all forest lands in Iran. In the same year, the Forest Office changed its name,becoming the Forest Agency, and with responsibilities that included the establishment offorest nurseries, forest protection, prevention of charcoal production, and the preparationof new forest management plans, initially for coppice stands and later for high forests.The Forest Law of 1943 had some significant shortcomings and problems. It wasrepressive and chiefly concerned with fines, permits, and detailed rules. There was nobroad regulation to define the forest area or to identify the comprehensive role of forests forstakeholders and no attempt was made to set management standards to ensure forest pro-tection and development. The position and function of the Forest Agency remained unclearin forest law, and there was an unclear distinction between state forests under the directmanagement of the Forest Agency and private forests regulated by it. The issue of forestgrazing was largely ignored, and no payments for the right to make charcoal were required.The most serious defect was the lack of any enabling legislation that would allow theForest Agency to formulate and enforce regulations without recourse to court action [32,33].Despite these deficiencies, the Forest Law (1943) was followed by the Comprehensive Lawon Forests and Rangelands, adopted in 1959 [34]. Formalising forest management in Iranthrough the establishment of forest laws and regulations helped organize the use of forestsand was a step towards conserving the remaining forests. However, legislators needed toapply up-to-date executive changes in laws and regulations [35].The Forestry Organization was founded in 1960, and in January 1963, it enacted aresolution to nationalise forests through the Forest National Law (FNL)—all types of forestsand woodlands were transferred to the government, becoming public property, and allresponsibilities for forest management, including preservation, rehabilitation, utilisation,and extension, were transferred to the State [36]. In 1968, the Ministry of Natural Resourcesemerged. However, in 1971, this Ministry was dissolved and merged with the Ministryof Agriculture, becoming the Forest and Rangelands Organization. Following the IslamicRevolution in 1979, forest lands and resources remained under the Forest National Lawas national property held by the government. In 2002, State responsibilities for watershedmanagement were separated from the Ministry of Jihad Agriculture and assigned to theForests and Rangelands Organization, which was given the new title of Forests, Rangelands,and Watershed Management Organization (FRWO) [37].The livelihoods of forest dwellers were specifically addressed in Article 8 of the ForestNational Law. It covered the issuance of permits to local communities to harvest materialsfor their consumption without payment to the State. However, Article 8 led to an increase inForests 2022, 13, 2180 7 of 23illegal logging, as local communities exploited forest sites to supply their timber needs. TheFRWO implemented welfare plans in an attempt to reduce forest exploitation, includingproviding fuel for forest livelihoods [36]. Kerosene was gradually substituted for wood andcharcoal, and consumption of these forest products fell steeply after 1960 [34]. Nevertheless,there was a sharp decline in forest cover between 1970 and 1990, mainly because theconstruction of the required infrastructure for the provision of domestic gas occurred veryslowly. During the eight-year war between Iran and Iraq (1980 to 1988), forest resourcepolicies remained virtually unchanged [36].Iran introduced the first Five-Year Development Plan (FYDP) in 1991 and this paidattention to conserving natural resources and the environment. The first FYDP (1991–1995)emphasised the protection of natural resources and allocated a significant budget to supportthe environment. The plan implemented substantial reductions in livestock grazing inforests and encouraged reforestation, partly offsetting the continuing forest removal.The second FYDP (1995–1999) declared that all socio-economic actions must be performedwithin the constraints of the environment and biodiversity conservation and management.The third FYDP (2000–2004) addressed the sustainable exploitation of natural re-sources, environmental liability and redress, support of Green Industries, and Environ-mental Impact Assessment. Article 104 of this plan introduced some aspects of sustain-able natural resource management, including the implementation of management plans(e.g., livestock–rangeland balance) and relocating livestock outside forests. It provided localand tribal communities with their needs for fuel and hay and involved the public in forestplanning and implementation processes. The State Cabinet laid down the basic policiesfor preserving the Hyrcanian forests in July 2001 and, in September 2003, it established theComprehensive Plan for Preserving Northern Forests (CPPNF). A significant point made inthe CPPNF was that the FRWO and the Supreme Council of Environmental Protection werecommitted to adopting national land/resource use policies that would prevent land-useconversion or a decline in the forest area. The FRWO, Department of Environment (DOE)and the private sector are responsible for preparing natural resource plans, protectingresources, organising forest dwellers, relocating livestock outside forest boundaries, sur-veying, and acquiring traditional/informal deeds for forest areas. Implementation of FMPbecame a joint responsibility of the State, cooperatives, and the private sector [36].The fourth FYDP (2005–2009) emphasised issues such as the participation of forestdwellers and stakeholders in SFM. It committed the government to extend environmentaltraining and to support private sector investments in forestry, mainly through plantations.It also outlined a policy to provide non-wood fuel to tribes and villagers, reducing theirdependence on fuelwood.The fifth FYDP (2010–2015) adopted a requirement for the environmental assessmentof strategic policies and plans, as well as a countrywide ecosystem-based approach tomanaging wetlands and biodiversity. The plan was intended to delegate power to thepeople. This was an element of Vision 2025, a strategy for long-term sustainable growth.Although the FYDPs paid particular attention to SFM, there was a mismatch betweenthe legislation (e.g., the development plans) and the FMPs, which remained focused onmaximising the income from resources, mainly through timber harvesting. This focuson income was inconsistent with ensuring the sustainability of the forest’s ecological andbiodiversity functions.The reduction in the area of the Hyrcanian forests and their increasing exploitationthrough processes such as the conversion of forest lands, construction of infrastructure,grazing, pests and diseases outbreaks, and climate change has obliged policymakers to finda solution. In 2016, the Parliament approved a 10-year ban on wood harvesting under theForest’s Breathing Plan (FBP), which was scheduled to start in 2020 [31]. This plan wasapproved in the sixth FYDP (2016–2021) and implemented as a legal article. The articlebanned all timber harvesting except for the collection of broken branches and fallen ordamaged trees, and the FRWO was the only legal office that could permit these exceptions.Logging was only permitted in reforested areas, and all operations in natural forests wereForests 2022, 13, 2180 8 of 23banned. This plan, however, faced problems from the beginning of its implementationin 2017.Divergent views existed about halting wood harvesting. Proponents of harvestingbelieved that sustainable harvesting ensured the sustainability of the wood function andsustained employment in forest industries at the national level. This approach towardsforests remained focused on maximising income through timber harvesting. Opponentsargued that FMPs had revolved around wood production for more than 60 years. Industrialwood harvesting had damaged natural regeneration and compacted soils and had affectedthe intactness of forests. Consequently, what forests really needed was nature-based restora-tion, accelerating the recovery of forest structure, ecological functioning, and biodiversitylevels to those typical of a natural forest [38,39]. This conflict over the implementation ofthe Forest’s Breathing Plan led the FRWO to design a novel FMP named the AlternativePlan after completing the previous FMPs; the Alternative Plan was intended to start in2021, but it is still under review. As a result, the Forest’s Breathing Plan was implementedin 2017 to fill the gap between past FMPs and the Alternative Plan.While the development of the Alternative Plan is currently in progress, the FRWO hasonly permitted actions dealing with the protection of the forest, such as fencing, repairingroads, and managing damaged trees. No timber extraction has been allowed from theHyrcanian forests. Table 1 shows the timeline of policies implemented in these forests overthe past century.Table 1. The timeline for Hyrcanian forest policies over the last 200 years.Years Description1823 The forests received their first official recognition from the central governmentbut remained relatively untouched until the outbreak of World War II.1920 The first Forest Office was established.1923 A preliminary forest inventory of the Hyrcanian forests was initiated.1924 The central forest organization provided forest management plans1937 Forestry Unit established within the Ministry of Agriculture1943 The Forest Law was enacted1959 The Comprehensive Law on Forests and Rangelands was established1960 The Forestry Organization was founded1963 The Forest National Law (FNL) was approved.1968 The Ministry of Natural Resources emerged1971 The Ministry of Natural Resources was dissolved and merged with the Ministryof Agriculture, becoming the Forest and Rangelands Organization.1979 The Islamic Revolution occurred2002Watershed management moved from the Ministry of Jihad Agriculture to theForests and Rangelands Organization under the new title of Forests, Rangelands,and Watershed Management Organization (FRWO)1980–1988 Iran-Iraq war1991–1995 The First five-year Development Plan (FYDP)1995–1999 The Second five-year Development Plan (FYDP)2000–2004 The Third five-year Development Plan (FYDP)2003 The Comprehensive Plan for Preserving Northern Forests (CPPNF)was developed2005–2009 The Forth five-year Development Plan (FYDP)2010–2015 The Fifth five-year Development Plan (FYDP)Forests 2022, 13, 2180 9 of 23Table 1. Cont.Years Description2016–2021 The Sixth five-year Development Plan (FYDP)2016 The Parliament approved a 10-year ban on wood harvesting under the Forest’sBreathing Plan (FBP).2017 The Forest’s Breathing Plan (FBP) was implemented.The Alternative Plan was designed.2022 The implementation of the Alternative Plan is under review5. History of Management Practices in the Hyrcanian ForestsThe exploitation of the Hyrcanian forests over the past 200 years can be divided intothree periods. The first included using wood to meet the basic needs of local people, such asconstruction and fuel, and continued from the beginning to the middle of the Qajar dynasty(1785–1925). The second period involved exploiting timber and other wood products, oftenexported to European countries. The most important tree species were Persian boxwood(Buxus sempervirens subsp. hyrcana (Pojark.) Takht.), Persian walnut (Juglans regia L.), andchestnut-leaved oak (Quercus castaneifolia C.A. Mey.), all of which were exported until thereign of Reza Shah (1925). During this second period, the dominant vision of these forestswas economic, focusing on increasing the volume of wood harvested, with little attentiongiven to forest regeneration. The clear-cutting of large areas of forest areas, especially in thelowland forests of Mazandaran and Gilan, was accompanied by the granting of significantconcessions to foreign wood industry companies. This led to the extensive degradation offorests and the loss of valuable species, such as Persian boxwood, which is now rare.The third period started with the introduction of systematic forest management around1940. In 1959, a new law stipulated that harvesting must follow an approved Forest Man-agement Plan developed by the Forests, Rangelands, and Watershed Management Orga-nization’s technical office or private consultants under FRWO’s administration. Forestryinitiatives aimed at wood harvesting started around 1960. The shelterwood system wasthe first silvicultural method adopted and was almost the only system applied for about30 years. It aimed to produce even-aged high forests by establishing homogeneous planta-tions with fast-growing native tree species. However, these methods were unsuccessful forvarious reasons, including the presence of uneven-aged forest stands on steep slopes, whichwere not well-suited to even-aged uniform methods. In addition, the presence of livestockthroughout the forests, and the failure to prevent livestock from entering regeneration areas,added to the pressure [37]. In 1990, an alternative silvicultural method was adopted inuneven-aged forest stands. It was a form of close-to-nature silviculture, where the selectionsystem for cutting and regeneration was not confined to a particular area, but implementedthroughout a forest stand. The selection system removes single or small groups of trees,leading to uneven-aged forest stands with a more varied species composition [31]. Thismethod favours biodiversity, protects genetic resources, maintains natural complex forestecosystems, ensures timber production, protects the soil, and provides clean air, clean water,and a healthy habitat for wildlife [37]. However, despite the use of this system for morethan 20 years, some forest functions were compromised, mainly due to other activities,including livestock grazing, fuel extraction, conversion of forest lands, illegal logging, andillegal hunting. Many developed countries have countered these issues through regulationand appropriate forest protection. For instance, a grazing ban was enacted in the first halfof the 19th century in Switzerland [40]. However, In Iran, the 25-legal battle to ban grazingso that natural generation can be protected remains ongoing. Figure 1 represents the historyof silvicultural methods practiced over the last 60 years in the Hyrcanian forests.Forests 2022, 13, 2180 10 of 23Forests 2022, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 23 In Iran, the 25-legal battle to ban grazing so that natural generation can be protected re-mains ongoing. Figure 1 represents the history of silvicultural methods practiced over the last 60 years in the Hyrcanian forests. Figure 1. The timeline for various silvicultural methods in the Hyrcanian forests, based on [41]. 6. Challenges for Forest Policy in the Hyrcanian Forests The main challenges facing forest policymakers and communities are firstly the mis-trust and conflicts over the perceptions of forest management and secondly the discrep-ancies between laws, policies, and forest management practices. In the past, forest policymakers in Iran have shown little willingness to recognize—and thus utilise—the traditional knowledge of local communities. Legislation has tended to focus on the relocation of cattle and forest-based communities. One of the negative as-pects of such an approach has resulted in an inappropriate approach to local participation. Policymakers and forest managers have tended to use local people as low-skilled forest workers rather than involving them in forest management planning and implementation. In contrast, an approach that involved participatory forest management would respect traditional tenure rights and promote public awareness of forest resource protection [36]. There needs to be more cooperation between local communities, major wood indus-tries, and Natural Resources Offices (NROs) in profitable activities such as plantations, so that stakeholders can benefit from the long-term success of their investments. Unfortu-nately, the current approach has only led to increased poverty in local communities. Con-sequently, those communities are responsible for a significant proportion of the illegal logging that occurs in the forests [36]. Livelihood needs, increased demand for wood, and low-level penalties inconsistent with the nature of the crime have all encouraged illegal logging. In contrast, illegal hunting is mainly done for entertainment or retaliation rather than to meet the basic requirements of communities. This has severely reduced the popu-lation of many mammals, especially ungulates, such as red deer (Cervus elaphus L.) and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus L.) [42] and large mammals, such as tiger (Panthera tigris L.), with the latter last being reported in the eastern Hyrcanian forest, in Golestan, in the 1950s. There is also other evidence of mutual mistrust [43]. Mental models held by FWRO experts and local herders in relation to the degradation of the Lire Sar forests have been compared [43]. Each group blamed the other for the degradation, and neither intended to adjust their actions to reduce degradation. In 2013, the FWRO attempted to build mutual trust with local communities by ap-proving the Caspian Hyrcanian Forest Project (CHFP). The CHFP has been successful: the government, in collaboration with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), has involved local communities in management activities, including conflict resolution, support for waste management schemes in villages, local festivals, and training sessions for forest rangers. However, the CHFP has also revealed residual distrust amongst FWRO staff and the local communities, evident through their experience in implementing the community forestry forest management plan (CF-FMP). Some community members have stated that if anyone else assumes responsibility for the CF-FMP, they will physically block implementation, suggesting a significant breakdown in the relationship. At the same time, some FRWO staff have stated that they do not support the allocation of CF-FMPs to communities because they feel that the communities will not implement the for-est management plans successfully or that they will fail to protect the forests. Hence, achieving a high standard of management is considered unlikely so long as there is a lack of socio-political support [44]. Figure 1. The timeline for various silvicultural methods in the Hyrcanian forests, based on [41].6. Challenges for Forest Policy in the Hyrcanian ForestsThe main challenges facing forest policymakers and communities are firstly the mis-trust and conflicts over the perceptions of forest anagem nt nd secondly the discrepan-cies between laws, policies, and forest management practices.In the past, forest policymakers in Iran have shown little willingness to recognize—and thus utilise—the traditional knowledge of local communities. Legislation has tendedto focus on the relocation of cattle and forest-based communities. One of the negativeaspects of such an approach has resulted in an inappropriate approach to local participation.Policymakers and forest manager have tended to u e local people as low-skilled forestworkers rather than involving them in forest management planning and implementation.In contrast, an approach that involved participatory forest management would respecttraditional tenure rights and promote public awareness of forest resource protection [36].There needs to be more cooperation between local communities, major wood indus-tries, and Natural Resources Offices (NROs) in profitable activities such as plantations,so t at stakeholders can benefit from the long-te m success of their investments. Unfor-tunately, the current approach has only led to increased poverty in l cal communities.Consequently, those communities are responsible for a significant proportion of the illegallogging that occurs in the forests [36]. Livelihood needs, increased demand for wood, andlow-level penalties inconsistent with the nature of the crime have all encouraged illegal log-ging. In contrast, illegal hunting is mainly done for entertainment or retaliation rather thanto meet the basic requirements of c mmunities. This has severely reduced the populationof many mammals, especial y ungulates, such as red deer (Cervus elaphus L.) and roe deer(Capreolus capreolus L.) [42] and large mammals, such as tiger (Panthera tigris L.), with thelatter last being reported in the eastern Hyrcanian forest, in Golestan, in the 1950s. Thereis also other evidence of mutual mistrust [43]. Mental models held by FWRO experts andlocal herders in relation to the degradation of the Lire Sar forests have been compared [43].Each group blamed the other for the degradation, and neither intended to adjust theiractions to reduce degradation.In 2013, the FWRO attempted to build mutual trust with local communities by ap-proving the Caspian Hyrcanian Forest Project (CHFP). The CHFP has been successful: thegovernment, in collaboration with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP),has involved local communities in management activities, including conflict resolution,support for waste management schemes in villages, local festivals, and training sessionsfor forest ra gers. However, the CHFP has also revealed residual distrust amongst FWROstaff and the local comm nities, evident through their experience in mplementing thecommunity forestry forest management plan (CF-FMP). Some community members havestated that if anyone else assumes responsibility for the CF-FMP, they will physically blockimplementation, suggesting a significant breakdown in the relationship. At the same time,some FRWO staff have stated that they do not support the allocation of CF-FMPs to com-unities because they feel that the communities will not implement the forest managementplans successfully or that they will fail to protect the forest . Hence, achieving a highstandard of management is considered unlikely so long as there is a lack of socio-politicalsupport [44].There is a fundamental difference in the perceptions of forest managers and local com-munities about the purpose of local participation in forest management. Forest managersconsider objectives such as forest protection and resource sustainability, while the residentsof local communiti s end to view these f rests mainly as a potential source of income. InForests 2022, 13, 2180 11 of 23several cases, the management methods introduced by the legislation have threatened locallivelihoods, increasing the numbers of residents leaving the communities [36]. The statedobjective of the forest legislation is to increase local participation in forest management.However, this aim needs to be supported by changes in the laws and regulations. Revisinglegislation to be consistent with international development indices and using public con-sultants to align forest policy with legislation are both playing a significant role in buildingmutual understanding among stakeholders.Coordination of laws, policies, and forest management practices is crucial if the bestpossible management of the forests is to be achieved. Forest-dependent communities areless likely to comply with forest laws if they think doing so will endanger their liveli-hoods [45]. There is an immediate need to analyse forest and wildlife law in the context ofpoverty alleviation. Various scales of land grabbing within the forest are partly related topoverty in these forests and stem from shortcomings in legal enforcement and regulatoryassessment [46–48].The legal framework of SFM needs to consider social aspects such as forest tenurerights, livelihoods, income-generating potential, migration, public participation, and localknowledge, and how these affect the restoration, development, and protection of theforests. Forest tenure is inadequately reflected and defined in much of the forest legislation(e.g., FNL and the Forest and Rangelands Protection and Utilisation Law (FRPUL)), and insome cases, other land acts have distorted the meaning of the legislation, mainly because ofa weak understanding of the concept of sustainable forest management. There is also a needto criminalise offences against the legislation. In the FRPUL, there are no penalties for thedestruction, pollution, sale, or transfer of soil in these forest and rangeland areas. A soundand coherent policy framework is necessary for the development of clear, transparent, andconsistent legislation. Promoting clarity and understanding and establishing mechanismsfor participatory law-making provide a meaningful opportunity for genuine participationin management and decision-making by different stakeholders [49]. The FRPUL is only atool to implement an overall strategy, so an all-encompassing review of the forest policiesis required before any drafting or redrafting forest laws or related resolutions occurs.7. Scientific and Technical Challenges for Forest Management in the Hyrcanian ForestThe adoption of current science in forest management is closely linked to havingaccess to new technologies. Technology can greatly facilitate the collection and analysis offorest-related data. It is also essential when simulating different management scenariosand predicting plausible futures. Efficient management depends on the use of informationthat is relevant, accurate, and concise. An analysis of the main issues related to data flow inthe forestry sector in Iran has indicated several problems [50]. There is an under-developedprocess of collection, analysis, and dissemination of forestry data at the national level.There is no standard format for exchanging data between institutions, and informationis scattered amongst various institutions. There is no robust mechanism to check thequality and credibility of information. Information is not discrete, and considerable overlapoften occurs in subject areas for which information is being collected or disseminated.Finally, there is no comprehensive forest information system to assist the flow of data andinformation for decision making and no planning or evaluation of FMPs.Forest managers in the Hyrcanian region have often relied on outdated forest invento-ries and problematic technical estimations rather than continuous, high-quality data andeffective monitoring systems to assess the impacts of forest management on the forests.However, remote sensing is now enabling the early detection of many disturbances (e.g., fire,disease, and logging) in these forests. Forward-looking or adaptive management requirespredictive systems (primarily modelling) to provide adequate information for efficientdecision-making. Modelling the growth of the forests has been contentious. In contrast tomany developed countries, the importance of measuring growth rates in the Hyrcanianforest has always been viewed sceptically, mainly because of the lack of relevant knowledgeand the high price of using advanced technology. Several attempts have been made toForests 2022, 13, 2180 12 of 23measure forest growth, but they have not been entirely successful due to the high cost ofthe equipment needed for permanent sample plots (PSPs). The forest is in mountainousterrain, and few forestry roads reach high elevations (i.e., 2000 m a.s.l). The dense treecover and steep terrain create difficulties for the use of GPS-enabled equipment.Currently, FMPs are applied without the help of data from permanent sample plotsor simulations of tree growth, establishment, and mortality using dynamic vegetationmodels (DVM). However, some university researchers are addressing these deficienciesin their research. A 2019 study modelled individual tree growth using 313 permanentsample plots (0.1 ha) between 2003 and 2013 [51]. The highest diameter growth occurred inchestnut-leaved oak (Quercus castaneifolia) and velvet maple (Acer velutinum Boiss.), andthe most significant mortality occurred in European hornbeam (Carpinus betulus L.) andCaucasian alder (Alnus subcordata C.A. Mey.). The information was used to develop modelsfor estimating tree diameter growth, regeneration, and survival rates, all of which is highlyinformative for uneven-aged forest management. However, the models have not yet beenapplied in management, mainly because of a long-term shortage of human and financialresources and an effective mechanism for monitoring.There is a gap between the science developed at universities and the practices followedin government institutes and organisations. A formal approach such as adaptive manage-ment could be a solution to connect the power of science and the practice of managingthese forests [52].One of the areas in which universities and state organisations frequently collaborateis the use of technology to address challenges associated with the long-term health ofthe forest, including the role of natural disturbances, such as pests and diseases, floods,drought, and wildfires. Technology could help tackle these challenges by helping managersunderstand how to mitigate their impacts and by offering alternative solutions [53].Remote sensing has been utilised effectively for various aspects of Hyrcanian forestmanagement. The use of remote sensing to monitor natural disturbances in these forestscould compensate for some of the constraints caused by the lack of human and finan-cial resources and the high cost of data collection. Satellite images have provided datato construct a map of the distribution of Persian boxwood blight caused by Calonectriapseudonaviculata (Ascomycota), the leading mortality agent for Hyrcanian boxwood. Theinformation enabled experts to identify blight hotspots and to develop control measuresto address them. The first signs of damage caused by boxwood blight were reportedin 2012, and two years later, the disease spread to forest areas in Eastern Golestan [54].By 2014, approximately 40,000 hectares of boxwood trees had been infected in northernIran [55], and the figure could now be closer to 52,000 hectares, from a total extent of nearly70,000 hectares [54,55].The increasing use of remote sensing has also led to more precise monitoring of carbonemissions. For instance, Zarandian et al. [56] detected changes in land use/land cover(LULC) in part of the Hyrcanian ecoregion (the Do-hezar and Se-hezar Forests) by analysingand comparing remotely sensed landscape data between 1984 and 2016. They predicted theimpacts of future LULC changes on carbon storage and sequestration and evaluated themusing the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Trade-offs (InVEST) model undertwo plausible future scenarios of “business as usual” and “balanced development”. Thestudy indicated that the quality and quantity of natural forest cover had been degradedover the past three decades due to the rapid development of human settlements and theiradjacent orchards. The current trends in land cover will lead to a significant reduction incarbon sequestration and high social cost due to the loss of carbon stored in the landscapeand its release into the atmosphere. However, balancing the development of settlementswith the maintenance of forest cover could reverse the decline trend in carbon sequestrationand avoid future socioeconomic costs.Science and technology also play a significant role in the production of artificial wood.Although halting logging in the Hyrcanian forests created serious concerns for the woodindustry, it led wood-processing facilities to seek alternative raw materials [57]. TheseForests 2022, 13, 2180 13 of 23included combinations of wood chips, paper, and waste plastics, used to manufacturevarious products used in houses, billboards, park tables, benches, and fence railings.Recently, these products have become increasingly popular, replacing natural wood, andpartially replacing iron and steel.Despite recent studies emphasising the importance of advanced technologies andreliable information in managing forests, the mindset behind Hyrcanian forest manage-ment has mostly remained conservative, especially amongst some forest policymakers. Incontrast, some more forward-thinking forest managers believe that technological advancessuch as new measurement tools are game-changing for good management practices. How-ever, while these advances may help make a difference, they will not in themselves ensurethat the forests are well-managed.Sayer [54] argued that “the game-changing technologies for sustainable forestry arethose that foster better communication between stakeholders and allow informed decisionsembracing scales from the gene to the ecosystem”. An example is the advantage conferredby information and communication technologies in the community-based monitoring offorests. There are several such tools, including Cyber Tracker [58], the Open Data Kit,and the Sapelli Platform [59], all of which were developed specifically for CBM and usesmartphones or tablets as platforms for standardised data collection. These tools providenew opportunities and challenges for communities and professionals wishing to engagein CBM [60]; however, none of these technologies, even CBM, have been utilised in theFMPs developed by FWRO in the Hyrcanian forests. Figure 2 provides a summary of thechallenges facing the implementation of SFM in the Hyrcanian forests.Forests 2022, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 23 stored in the landscape and its release into the atmosphere. However, balancing the de-velopment of settlements with the maintenance of forest cover could reverse the decline trend in carbon sequestration and avoid future socioeconomic costs. Science and technology also play a significant role in the production of artificial wood. Although halting logging in the Hyrcanian forests created serious concerns for the wood industry, it led wood-processing facilities to seek alternative raw materials [57]. These included combinations of wood chips, paper, and waste plastics, used to manufac-ture various products used in houses, billboards, park tables, benches, and fence railings. Recently, these products have become increasingly popular, replacing natural wood, and partially replacing iron and steel. Despite recent studies emphasising the importance of advanced technologies and re-liable information in managing forests, the mindset behind Hyrcanian forest management has mostly remained conservative, especially amongst some forest policymakers. In con-trast, some more forward-thinking forest managers believe that technological advances such as new measurement tools are game-changing for good management practices. However, while these advances may help make a difference, they will not in themselves ensure that the forests are well-manage . Sayer [54] argued that “the game-changing technologi s for sustainable forestry are those that foster better communication between stakeholders and allow informed deci-sions embracing scales from the gene to th ecosystem”. An example is the advantage conferred by information and communication technologies in the community-based mon-itoring of forests. There are several such tools, including Cyber Tracker [58], the Open Data Kit, and the Sapelli Platf rm [59], all of whic were developed specifically fo CBM and use smartphones or tablets as platforms for standardised data collection. These tools provide new opportunities and challenges for communities and professionals wishing to engage in CBM [60]; however, none of these techn logies, even CBM, have been utilis d in the FMPs developed by FWRO in the Hyrcanian forests. Figure 2 provides a summary of the challenges facing the implementation of SFM in the Hyrcanian forests. Figure 2. Challenges facing the implementation of SFM in the Hyrcanian forests. 8. A Conceptual Model for Sustainable Hyrcanian Forest Management (SHFMM) Moving beyond the current situation in the Hyrcanian Forest requires the adoption of a new approach. One such approach is provided by the Sustainable Hyrcanian Forest Management Model (SHFMM). The proposed model consists of four modules: spatial for-est planning, a hierarchical target system, planning activities, and control and assessment (Figure 3). Figure 2. Challenges facing the implementation of SFM in the Hyrcanian forests.8. A Conceptual Model for Sustainable Hyrcanian Forest Management (SHFMM)Moving beyond the current situation in the Hyrcanian Forest requires the adoptionof a new approach. One such approach is provided by the Sustainable Hyrcanian ForestManagement Model (SHFMM). The proposed model consists of four modules: spatial forestplanning, a hierarchical target system, planning activities, and control and assessment(Figure 3).Forests 2022, 13, 2180 14 of 23Forests 2022, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 23 Figure 3. A conceptual model for Hyrcanian sustainable forest management (SHFMM) [31]. The conceptual model starts with the spatial planning of forest functions using the Iranian Ecological Capacity Evaluation model (IECEM), which defines a set of overall goals aligned with the ecological capacity of the area and develops a set of criteria and indicators for monitoring the long-term maintenance of forest functions. Then, the opera-tional objectives are derived from the overall goals, which can then be applied to the FMU. The FMP activities that contribute to operational objectives are planned, and indicators are developed to control and measure the implementation and success of the FMP. This model also paves the way to the assessment of the environmental and social impact of the activities undertaken through the FMP. 8.1. Spatial Planning of Forest Functions The Iranian Ecological Capacity Evaluation Model (IECEM), the so-called Ma-khdoum model, or Makhdoom’s Functional Systems Analysis Model, was developed in 2002 to evaluate the land’s potential capability and determine its natural land use [26,61]. The IECEM identifies physical and environmental resources on the land and inte-grates the data into homogenous units termed ‘environmental units’ (EU) or ‘arbitrary ecosystems’ [62]. The environmental units are selected and depicted on a map using sta-tionary ecological factors (i.e., landforms, geology, soils, and plant communities). The var-iation in the dynamic ecological characteristics (i.e., climate, water, wildlife) and the soci-oeconomic resources of the land are needed to narrow down the selection of a suitable system. Therefore, each unit’s ecological and socioeconomic properties determine the land’s capability. Using this model, decision-makers apply a land-use planning process that has ecology as its core rather than economics [62]. The IECEM presents the ecological capacity of forest land (i.e., forest functions) in three classes: forest production, forest con-servation and protection, and forest recreation. The forest production class includes seven sub-classes (F1–7) that cover suitable areas for wood production. The conservation and protection class comprises ten sub-classes (Ce1–10)—five sub-classes cover conserving bi-odiversity, wildlife habitat or sites with rare flora and valuable trees, and five sub-classes cover soil and water protection. The recreation forest class consists of two sub-classes, indoor and outdoor recreation, Eti1-2, and Ete1-2—indoor recreation covers campaigns in Figure 3. A conceptual model for Hyrcanian sustainable forest management (SHFMM) [31].The conceptual model starts with the spatial planning of forest functions using theIranian Ecological Capacity Evaluation model (IECEM), which defines a set of overall goalsaligned with the ecological capacity of the area and develops a set of criteria and indicatorsfor monitoring the long-term maintenance of forest functions. Then, the operationalobjectives are derived from the overall goals, which can then be applied to the FMU. TheFMP activities that contribute to operational objectives are planned, and indicators aredeveloped to control and measure the implementation and success of the FMP. This modelalso paves the way to the assessment of the environmental and social impact of the activitiesundertaken through the FMP.8.1. Spatial Planning of Forest FunctionsThe Iranian Ecological Capacity Evaluation Model (IECEM), the so-called Makhdoummodel, or Makhdoom’s Functional Systems Analysis Model, was developed in 2002 toevaluate the land’s potential capability and determine its natural land use [26,61].The IECEM identifies physical nd environmental resourc s on the l nd and integratesthe data into homogenous units termed ‘e i units’ (EU) or ‘arbitrary ecosys-tems’ [62]. The environ ental units are select and depict d on a map using st tionaryecological factors (i.e., landf rms, geology, soils, and plant communities). The variation inthe dynamic ecological characteristics (i.e., climate, water, wild ife) and the socioeconomicresources of the land are needed to narrow down the selection of a suitab e system. There-f re, each unit’s ecological and socio conomic properties determine the land’s c pability.Using this model, decision-makers apply a land-u e planni g process that has ecology as itscore rather than economics [62]. The IECEM presents the ecological capacity of forest land(i.e., forest functions) in three classes: forest production, forest conservatio and protection,and forest recreation. The forest production class includes seven sub-classes (F1–7) thatcover suitable areas for wood production. The conservation and protection class comprisesten sub-classes (Ce1–10)—five sub-classes cover conserving biodiversity, wildlife habitat orsites with rare flora and valuable trees, and five sub-classes cover soil and water protection.The recreation forest class consists of two sub-classes, indoor and outdoor recreation, Eti1-2,Forests 2022, 13, 2180 15 of 23and Ete1-2—indoor recreation covers campaigns in designated areas in forests, wherevisitors spend days in nature. Outdoor recreation covers forest excursions.The syntheses are based on finding formulas or relationships between climatology, ge-omorphology, topography, vegetation cover, soil, hydrology, and the wildlife characteristicsof the land [63]. The productivity of a region is computed based on a series of parameters,including slope (So), elevation (E), valuable tree species (Bvc), soil fertility (Pf), erosionsusceptibility (Es), and so on. Each parameter is measured on the ground and representedas a spatial layer for a particular area. Each spatial layer has a specific threshold to makethe forest eligible for a particular function.Forest production classes use IF-AND-THEN rules to classify a forest area’s productionfunction. A particular area’s dominant function is based on the landforms, geology, soils,and plant communities at the time. Similar units are classified as one group or zone,determining the dominant forest function. For instance, if the following are met in a givenarea of the Hyrcanian forests: slope (So) ≤ 25 (%) and elevation (E) ≤ 700 (m), and valuabletree species (Bvc) ≤ 3 (medium), and soil fertility (Pf) ≤ (good), and (erosion susceptibility)Es ≥ (weak), THEN the area is classified as (F1). This would mean that the forest area isclassified as having a dominant function of protection.The highest and lowest suitability is each model’s first and last sub-classes. Forexample, sub-class F1 has a higher ecological capability for forest production than sub-classF2. A similar logic is applied to the conservation-protection and recreation models.After that, the ecological capability of the area is augmented with socio-economicspatial layers (e.g., location of villages, grazing paths, etc.) in which, for a given forestarea, ecological capacity and social capacity are considered together to provide a uniqueprescription for managing the site. This prescribed management offers goals, objectives,activities, and indicators to monitor the sustainability of the dominant function in thegiven area. The ultimate goal is to achieve a specific management scenario reflecting theland’s ecological and social capacity. For instance, if the dominant function of the area isconservation, no industrial harvesting is prescribed, and the livestock population is alsocontrolled to lessen the pressure of grazing.Considerable research has been undertaken on the application of the IECEM modelto the zoning of Hyrcanian forest functions [64–66]. However, there have been few at-tempts to use the model to determine the overall goals for a specific dominant function.Maleknia et al. [67] conducted research that was close to using spatial forest planning forthe Hyrcanian forest functions as described in the SHFMM. They used the IECEM modelfor forest function zoning and developed a set of criteria and indicators for monitoringthe sustainability of these forest functions; however, this research did not cover the settingof overall goals to achieve prescribed management. Only one study has covered all threestages of SHFMM, the Hyrcanian forests decision support system (Hyfo-DSS) [68]. TheHyfoDSS is intended to help select appropriate management scenarios based on forestfunctions. Managers can then present FMPs that are compliant with the determined for-est functions in each study area. However, this study did not cover the socioeconomiccondition of the land.8.2. Developing a Set of Criteria and Indicators for Monitoring Forest FunctionsThe suite of criteria and indicators used in the Hyrcanian forest is derived frominternationally accepted standards for monitoring forest functions. Knowing what isavailable and appropriate for different scales is the first and foremost step in identifyingwhich ones might be best for use at a particular location [69,70]. Most previous studies inthe Hyrcanian forest attempted to achieve this by developing an appropriate set of criteriaand indicators. Various multi-criteria analyses (MCA) (e.g., ranking, rating, and pairwisecomparisons) have been used to generate criteria and indicators at the FMU level. Field-testing of indicators is still in progress [25,71–73] (See Section 9: The Hyrcanian SustainableForest Management (HSFMM): the best current solution given the available resources).Forests 2022, 13, 2180 16 of 238.3. The Hierarchical Target System: Strategic Aims and Operational ObjectivesThe hierarchical target system defines the strategic and operational objectives forachieving the best management practices. The overall aims mimic the natural forest and itsdisturbance regime and are based on the Strategic Plan on Sustainable Forest Managementin the Hyrcanian forest (SPAFM), research, knowledge, and the experience of experts andpractitioners in these forests. Operational objectives put these theoretical objectives intoconcrete terms for forest management practices. An operational objective might be tomaintain the distribution of natural stand types and representation of the entire range ofnatural development phases (e.g., old-growth phase) and structural classes. However, inpractice, the design of FMPs still relies on a collection of small projects, mainly markingtrees, wood harvesting, building roads and skidding trails, silvicultural operations, andthe establishment of plantations. The SHFMM determines the dominant function andthen uses the Logical Framework Approach (LFA) to set overall goals and objectives at theFMU level.Only one study has proposed guidelines to design the Hyrcanian FMPs using LFA [25,74].This approach defined objectives and activities based on a focal problem, besides improvingimplementation, monitoring, and assessment of the FMP. The study was conducted in theKheyroud forest, where forest conservation and production were determined using theIECEM. The outcome presented three overall goals for areas suitable for the productionfunction, and six goals suitable for areas designated for conservation [25]. The study usedLFA for the first time in participatory decision-making amongst Hyrcanian forest experts.Despite the promising results, the results were not adopted due to resistance in the FRWO toany modification to the conventional framework of an FMP.8.4. Planning Forestry ActivitiesConventional Forest Management Plans in Iran deal with silvicultural operations(i.e., thinning, marking trees, etc.) or technical operations (i.e., fencing, repairing roads,etc.), but do not set any overall goals for the forest. These activities are occasionallymisunderstood as goals. It has been suggested [25] that the Hyrcanian FMP guideline isthe only framework that has been proposed to develop activities at a compartment leveland which is built into a hieratical system of targets. The FMPs to date have not followedsuch a hierarchical target system to define the actions required to meet specified goals.8.5. Control and AssessmentAs activities are limited to silvicultural operations, mainly harvesting tree stands andsome infrastructure maintenance (i.e., roads), the control that an activity has been completedsuccessfully has been to complete a checklist indicating that the activity was implemented.However, the idea behind control is to ensure that good management is being practised.This should be done by choosing appropriate indicators, setting norms, monitoring thevalues of these indicators, and taking management actions whenever their recorded valuesare not suitably close to the target. Goushegir et al. [25] determined control indicators forconservation and production functions using LFA. The study proposed control indicatorsthat could be used to monitor if activities were supporting the objectives. The guidelinealso eased the process of revising activities when some modification was required.Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) in forestry provides decision-makers with in-formation about the environmental impact of forestry activities [75]. Most research onenvironmental impact analysis in the Hyrcanian forests has focused on determining thepositive or negative consequences of forest activities via effects analysis using a degradationmodel [76,77], or artificial neural networks [78]. A study conducted in a forest district ofthe Kheyrud forest used the degradation model, indicating that this area had a high degra-dation coefficient and needed 100% rehabilitation. It also revealed that forest activities,including roads and logging operations, needed to be modified and adjusted to the currentforest condition [79].Forests 2022, 13, 2180 17 of 239. The Hyrcanian Sustainable Forest Management (SHFMM): The Best CurrentSolution with the Available ResourcesSustainable Forest management is unachievable unless human use is commensuratewith the ecological capacity of the forest ecosystem. For decades, FMPs in Iran focusedon wood production by computing an Allowable Annual Cut based on forest inventorydata and omitted other forest values, especially biodiversity. This paradigm resulted in afailure to consider the ecological capacity of these forests. The SHFMM is a novel forestmanagement framework for the Hyrcanian forests that uses an innovative method forthe spatial planning of forest functions based on IECEM, where the ecological and socialcapacity of the forest area is determined and creates a foundation to develop systematicgoals to achieve specific management prescriptions at the FMU level.The SHFMM represents a systematic process of forest management. The overall goalsand operational objectives are defined within a hierarchical system of targets, activities arein harmony with the intended purpose, and criteria and indicators are applied within aneffective monitoring mechanism. Each part of the model is supported by research that hasbeen conducted in the Hyrcanian forest. Although the research studies were independentand no holistic research has been undertaken covering all stages of the SHFMM, they haveprovided promising outcomes that support the feasibility of the model. Socio-economicdata is the only part that has not been covered by past research, mainly because of thedifficulty in collecting and quantifying data. As some previous policies have adverselyaffected the livelihoods of local communities, this research gap needs to be filled.The model should assist forest policymakers with two aspects of achieving bestmanagement practices: providing a conceptual decision-making framework for SFM andsuggesting the practical tools that are needed to implement it at the watershed and FMUlevels in the Hyrcanian forests.As mentioned above, existing FMPs suffer from the lack of an effective mechanism formonitoring, mainly because there are insufficient experts to monitor management processes,technologies are outdated, and there is a lack of policies that encourage the involvement ofsectors (i.e., private, and cooperative) other than the government. In developed countries,this role is often taken on by the private sector as part of the forest certification process.In the past, FMPs focused on technical forestry issues—inventory, cutting rates, andutilisation methods—that happened at the compartment level (ca. 50 ha). The controlconsisted of a checklist of all activities undertaken by executives or contractors and wasprovided in the booklets associated with the FMP. There were no checks undertakenof potential long-term impacts of management on these forests. Monitoring for forestsustainability is a new concept that, for the first time, was brought up by the Low-Forest-Cover-Countries Process, otherwise known as the Tehran Process for LFCCs. This processhas put the issue of developing criteria and indicators of SFM for monitoring sustainabilityat the top of its agenda. The Tehran Process developed the first set of criteria and indicatorsbetween 2000 and 2011 [80–82], with seven criteria and 69 indicators, of which six criteriaand 24 indicators were relevant to the Hyrcanian forests. Six sub-projects were responsiblefor field testing the criteria and indicators, which led to the final set’s approval of six criteriaand 18 indicators [81]. However, the Alternative Plan makes no reference to these TehranProcess indicators. The FWRO has instead accepted the seven criteria of The Near EastProcess, Cairo, 1996, as the initial set of criteria for the Hyrcanian Forest. The approvedindicators differ from the Near East process, and their target values are incompatible withthe Hyrcanian forests. Using different sets of criteria and indicators partly stems from thecomplexity associated with monitoring and is mainly due to the absence of a conceptualframework to understand and implement SFM in the country.Viewed in this light, policymakers, before exploring various sets of criteria and indica-tors, require a decision-making framework (such as the SHFMM) to provide a conceptualbasis. This would enable the role and application of criteria and indicators to be consideredwith a management context. What is known as sustainable forestry in the Hyrcanian foresthas varied over time as stakeholders’ demands and perceptions have evolved. Such diver-Forests 2022, 13, 2180 18 of 23sity has led the SHFMM to focus not on applying a definitive list of criteria and indicatorsbut instead on using a general set of criteria and indicators as a toolbox that stakeholdergroups can use to develop appropriate indicators once they have established their ownmanagement objectives and performance criteria. This is the approach adopted by theCentre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) in three tropical and temperate forestzones [83]. The SHFMM has followed this approach, suggesting the set of criteria and indi-cators developed by Holvoet and Muys [84] and the CIFOR toolbox for temperate forestsas sources for developing an appropriate set of criteria and indicators for monitoring SFM.The FMPs also need more effective practical tools (i.e., methods and techniques) toimplement the plan. The SHFMM applies forest zoning at the watershed level using theIECEM and uses the logical framework approach to determine a hierarchical system oftargets (i.e., strategic aims and operational objectives). The hierarchical system of targetsis defined using participatory methods—a combination of top-down and bottom-up ap-proaches in which the overall goals are derived by identifying focal problems, and the FMPadministrator tries to solve them for the benefit of all stakeholders. The logical frameworkapproach encapsulated in the SHFMM offers a basis to interact with various stakeholdersby visualising the focal problems, causes, and impacts, as well as the goals, objectives, andactivities. In this sense, multiple alternative management scenarios contribute to findingthe best management solution. The links amongst different parts of the model can createinteractions among stakeholders by encouraging them to gather around a table, listen tovarious opinions, and share their ideas.This situation rarely happens between local communities and other parties in theHyrcanian forests, mainly because of the lack of a transparent and practical method toencourage stakeholders to share their opinions. Transparent and efficient tools enable localcommunities to understand the challenges (e.g., climate change) from a broader perspectivethan their village. One study has suggested that in recent decades, over 90% of forestowners, management practitioners, and officials from forest-related departments in Iranhave acknowledged that severe climatic changes have occurred in these forests in recentdecades. None considered the FMPs as an efficient solution to the problem [85]. Althoughno research has examined the perceptions of climate change held by the local communitiesin these forests, similar studies suggest that climate change is a matter of concern forenvironment-dependent communities [86]. However, age, income, and literacy may allaffect the perception of communities of the consequences of climate change [87]. This lackof awareness of global challenges can result in conflicts between policymakers and localcommunities when practising SFM. As an example, old growth is typically valued by manystakeholders. However, climate change will disrupt old-growth patterns by increasingdisturbances, resulting in the loss of some species. How do forest-dependent communitiesreact to this once they know it will happen?As mentioned earlier, the disconnection between the field, provincial offices, andthe FRWO has resulted in redundant and ambiguous data that, in turn, has affected dataaccuracy and resolution. The SHFMM smooths the flow of data and information bydetermining what data should be collected, recorded, or revised and where monitoringshould take place. This information enables decision-makers to follow a transparent andeasy-to-do framework without being concerned about the quality and credibility of data.The SHFMM provides the hieratical framework within which each sector—whether state orprivate—can make decisions, but all sectors must work together in its implementation. Thisis intended to encourage the parties to improve their communication skills and to motivatethe FRWO to develop supportive legislation to catalyse the process. In turn, this should leadto a reduction in bureaucratic procedures and the outdated and cumbersome regulations.At the same time, appropriate rules enabling SFM would be developed. However, theproductivity and efficacy of this model are dependent on the extent to which it is formalisedthrough the legal institutions.Iran has experienced a prolonged period of economic and political sanctions, whichhave limited access to resources available to other parts of the world (i.e., negotiation, par-Forests 2022, 13, 2180 19 of 23ticipatory mechanisms, and free access to global marketing). The sanctions have adverselyaffected research by preventing scientists from accessing much scientific research andtechnology. This situation has prevented Iran from participating in “the worldwide forestcommunity” [2] that recognizes forest issues, provides solutions, and benefits from theimplementation of the global solutions. The SHFMM works within the available resourcesin the country and is based on the results of past research on individual aspects of theproblem. In this sense, the implementation of SFM in the Hyrcanian forests is analogousto the parable of the Elephant in the Dark—legal organisations, research institutes, localcommunities, and the public each possess a perception of SFM, and research has offeredsolutions to particular problems. The proposed model (SHFMM) could reveal the inter-connections among research outcomes and could be used as a road map towards SFM.Running each phase of the model will require the involvement of either state or privateorganisations, creating a basis for interaction, communication cooperation between partiesthat have become used to working independently. Stakeholders may also be motivatedto improve their communication skills by listening to disagreements, conflicts, and falla-cies and respecting diverse perspectives on the same subject. This in turn may stimulateadministrators (i.e., FRWO) to develop supportive legislation to catalyse the process.Understanding the flow of data and information, finding reliable sources, and access-ing raw data via available databases in a country in transition that continues to experiencesignificant levels of turbulence have all hindered the development of this review. Mostinformation about forest management in Iran can only be obtained through permissionfrom officials unless it has been published in academic research or under a joint projectbetween officials and universities. Some information, such as forest law and regulations,is frequently revised, and locating the official versions of the revisions can be difficultas, in some cases, they are not published online. The rules and legislation continue toevolve and today there is speculation over a possible extension to the halting of indus-trial harvesting in the Forest’s Breathing Plan (FBP). Despite these limitations, the currentmanuscript covers the most recent information, data, and research results published incredible academic databases.10. ConclusionsThere are two main challenges facing the implementation of SFM in the Hyrcanianforest: inconsistent forest policy and outdated science and techniques. This study suggeststhe Sustainable Hyrcanian Forest Management Model (SHFMM) as the best current solutionto achieve SFM in the northern forest of Iran. The SHFMM could assist forest policymakersto attain SFM by providing a conceptual decision-making framework and suggestingpractical tools to implement SFM at the watershed and FMU levels in the Hyrcanian forests.The SHFMM provides a hieratical framework within which decisions can be taken andbrings together all sectors for their implementation. Over time, stakeholder demands andperceptions have evolved and are reflected in what is described as sustainable managementin the Hyrcanian forests. Hence, the SHFMM focuses not on applying a definitive listof criteria and indicators but on using a general set of criteria and indicator tools thatstakeholder groups can use to develop appropriate indicators once they have establishedtheir management objectives and performance criteria.The FMPs also need more effective practical tools (i.e., methods and techniques) if theyare to be improved. The SHFMM suggests such tools at two scales: watershed and the FMU.The SHFMM applies forest zoning using IECEM at the watershed level and uses the logicalframework approach to determine a hierarchical system of targets (i.e., strategic aims andoperational objectives). This system of targets is defined through participatory methods—acombination of top-down and bottom-up approaches where the overall goals are derivedthrough the identification of focal problems, and the FMP administrator attempts to solvethem for the benefit of all stakeholders. The logical framework approach encapsulatedin the SHFMM offers a basis for interaction with various stakeholders by visualisingthe focal problems, causes, and impacts, as well as the goals, objectives, and activities.Forests 2022, 13, 2180 20 of 23As a result, multiple alternative management scenarios contribute to finding the bestmanagement solution.The SHFMM improves the flow of data and information—what data should be col-lected, recorded, or revised and where monitoring should place. This improved informationenables decision-makers to follow a transparent and easy-to-do framework without havingto be concerned about the quality and credibility of the data. In turn, this should lead toimproved legislation that enables SFM.The predominant scientific/technical mindset of developed countries towards SFMcannot be easily transferred to the Hyrcanian forests of Iran without the mechanismsneeded for its implementation. As a result, the locally developed SHFMM is the best currentsolution available for forest policymakers and forest managers. It should be considereda dynamic solution that could evolve into the optimal solution for the future over time.The interconnected nature of this model should create interactions among stakeholders byencouraging them to gather around a table, listen to opposing opinions, and share theirideas. That in turn may encourage stakeholders to improve their communication skills bylistening to disagreements, conflicts, and fallacies and respecting diverse perspectives onthe same subject. Ultimately, such developments may motivate administrators (i.e., FRWO)to develop the necessary enabling legislation to catalyse the process.Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Z.G., J.F.; writing—original draft and preparation, Z.G.;writing—review and editing, Z.G., J.L.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version ofthe manuscript.Funding: This research received no external funding.Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.References1. Rittel, H.W.J.; Webber, M.M. Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sci. 1973, 4, 155–159. [CrossRef]2. Szaro, R.C.; Langor, D.; Yapi, A.M. Sustainable Forest Management in the Developing World: Science Challenges and Contribu-tions. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2000, 47, 135–142. [CrossRef]3. Ludwig, D. The Era of Management Is Over. Ecosystems 2001, 4, 758–764. [CrossRef]4. Ozawa, C.P. Recasting Science: Consensual Procedures in Public Policy Making; Routledge & CRC Press: Abingdon-on-Thames,UK, 2019.5. Holling, C.S.; Berkes, F.; Folke, C. Science, Sustainability and Resource Management. In Linking Social and Ecological Systems:Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1998; pp. 342–362.6. Wang, S. Wicked Problems and Metaforestry: Is the Era of Management Over? For. Chron. 2002, 78, 505–510. [CrossRef]7. DeGrace, P.; Stahl, L.H. Wicked Problems, Righteous Solutions: A Catolog of Modern Engineering Paradigms, 1st ed.; Prentice Hall:Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1990.8. Karacapilidis, N.; Papadias, D. Computer Supported Argumentation and Collaborative Decision Making: The HERMES System.Inf. Syst. 2001, 26, 259–277. [CrossRef]9. Funtowicz, S.; Martinez-Alier, J.; Munda, G. Information Tools for Environmental Policy under Conditions of Complexity; EuropeanCommunities: Brussels, Belgium, 1999.10. Söderlund, M.; Pottinger, A. The World’s Forests Rio+8: Policy, Practice and Progress towards Sustainable Management; CommonwealthForestry Association: Oxford, UK, 2001; 310p.11. Britanica. Available online: https://www.britannica.com/place/Iran (accessed on 12 December 2022).12. Westoby, J. The Purpose of Forests: Follies of Development; Basil Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 1989.13. Zhang, Y. Internationalization of the Forest Industry: A Corporate-Level Analysis; Dissertationes Forestales: Helsinki, Finland, 2014.[CrossRef]14. Highsmith, J.A. Adaptive Software Development: An Evolutionary Approach to Controlling Chaotic Systems; Dorset House: Vancouver,BC, Canada, 2000.15. Cockburn, A. Agile Software Development: The Cooperative Game, 2nd ed.; Addison-Wesley Professional: Upper Saddle River, NJ,USA, 2006.16. Stapleton, J. DSDM, Dynamic Systems Development Method: The Method in Practice; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,UK, 1997.17. Palmer, S.R.; Felsing, J.M. A Practical Guide to Feature-Driven Development, 1st ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2002.18. Schwaber, K.; Beedle, M. Agile Software Development with Scrum; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2002.Forests 2022, 13, 2180 21 of 2319. Beck, K. Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change; Addison-Wesley Professional: Edinburgh, UK, 2000.20. Abrahamsson, P.; Oza, N.; Siponen, M.T. Agile Software Development Methods: A Comparative Review. In Agile SoftwareDevelopment; Dingsøyr, T., Dybå, T., Moe, N.B., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 31–59. [CrossRef]21. Walls, H.L. Wicked Problems and a ‘Wicked’ Solution. Glob. Health 2018, 14, 34. [CrossRef]22. Lazarus, R. Super Wicked Problems and Climate Change: Restraining the Present to Liberate the Future. Cornell Law Rev. 2009,94, 1153–1234.23. Allen, P.; James, P. Zero Carbon Britain: Rising to the Climate Emergency; The Center for Alternative Technology: Machynlleth, UK,2019; p. 204. Available online: https://cat.org.uk/info-resources/zero-carbon-britain/research-reports/zero-carbon-britain-rising-to-the-climate-emergency/ (accessed on 31 August 2022).24. Monavvari, M. The Manual for Environmental Impact Assessment of Forestry Projects; The Environmental Protection Agency: Tehran,Iran, 2001.25. Goushegir, S.Z. A Method of Developing the Sustainable Forest Management Plan: Forest Conservation and Wood ProductionPerspective. Master’s Thesis, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran, 2009.26. Naghdi, F.; Nikkhah, A. East Azarbaijan’s Eco-Environmental Potential for Industrialization: Functional Systems Analysis Models.Turk. J. Sci. Technol. 2014, 9, 135–139.27. Banan, G. Forestry; The Institute of Forestry of Iran: Tehran, Iran, 1956.28. Poskin, A. Traité de Sylviculture; J. Duculot: Gembloux, Belgium, 1926.29. Zukki, N.; Manaf, L.; Abu Samah, M.A. The Development of an Expert System for Decision Making in Forest ResourcesManagemant. Environ. Asia 2010, 3, 98–102. [CrossRef]30. Kindler, E. A Comparison of the Concepts: Ecosystem Services and Forest Functions to Improve Interdisciplinary Exchange. For.Policy Econ. 2016, 67, 52–59. [CrossRef]31. Mohadjer, M.; Feghhi, J. Sustainable Management of Hyrcanian Forests. In How to Balance Forestry and Biodiversity Conservation—AView Across Europe; Uropean Forest Institute (EFI): Birmensdorf, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 508–512.32. Kernan, H.S. Forest Management in Iran. Middle East J. 1957, 11, 198–202.33. Kernan, H.S. A Policy of Conservation for the Caspian Forests of Iran. Middle East J. 1953, 7, 228–234.34. Amiraslani, F.; Dragovich, D. Forest Management Policies and Oil Wealth in Iran over the Last Century: A Review. Nat. Resour.Forum 2013, 37, 167–176. [CrossRef]35. Sotoudeh Foumani, B.; Rostami Shahraji, T.; Mohammadi Limaei, S. Role of Political Power in Forest Administration Policy ofIran. Casp. J. Environ. Sci. 2017, 15, 181–199. [CrossRef]36. Yachkaschi, A.; Adeli, K.; Latifi, H.; Mohammadi Samani, K.; Seifollahian, M. Trends in Forest Ownership, Forest Resources Tenureand Institutional Arrangements: Are They Contributing to Better Forest Management and Poverty Reduction? A Case Study from theIslamic Republic of Iran; Country Report for FAO; FAO: Roma, Italy, 2008. [CrossRef]37. Sagheb-Talebi, K.S.; Sajedi, T.; Pourhashemi, M. Forests of Iran: A Treasure from the Past, a Hope for the Future; Softcover Reprint ofthe Original 1st ed. 2014 Edition; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016.38. Heidari, M.; Karamdoost Maryn, B. The Study and Policy Cessation of Forest Utilization or Forest Logging in Hyrcanian Forests(Case Study: Shafarood Forests). Iran. J. For. Poplar Res. 2016, 24, 724–736. [CrossRef]39. Khademi, F.; Roohi, E. Investigating Conflicts between Public Rights and Private Interests in Forest’s Breathing Act. J. Soc. Sci.Stud. 2018, 4, 75–86.40. Angst, M. Integration of Nature Protection in Swiss Forest Policy; INTEGRATE Country Report for Switzerland; Swiss FederalResearch Institute for Forest, Snow, and Landscape, WSL: Birmensdorf, Switzerland, 2012; 77p.41. Introduction to Alternative Plan; Forest Range and Watershed Management Organization: Tajrish, Iran, 2019; p. 51. Availableonline: https://rifr-ac.ir/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/%D8%B7%D8%B1%D8%AD-%D8%AC%D8%A7%DB%8C%DA%AF%D8%B2%DB%8C%D9%86.pdf (accessed on 12 December 2022).42. Kiabi, B.H.; Ali Ghaemi, R.; Jahanshahi, M.; Sassani, A. Population Status, Biology and Ecology of the Maral, Cervus ElaphusMaral, in Golestan National Park, Iran. Zool. Middle East 2004, 33, 125–138. [CrossRef]43. Avatefi, H.; Shamekhi, T.; Zobeiry, M.; Arab, D.R.; Ghazi Tabatabaei, M. Forest Degradation: An Investigation of ForestryOrganization Experts and Local Herders’ Mental Models. For. Wood Prod. 2013, 66, 39–54. [CrossRef]44. Terminal Evaluation of the Caspian Hyrcanian Forest Project (CHFP): Building a Multiple-Use Forest Management Framework to ConserveBiodiversity in the Caspian Hyrcanian Forest Landscape; UNDP GEF PIMS Number: 4078; United Nations Development Programme:Tehran, Iran, 2019.45. Molnar, A.; Scherr, S.; Khare, A. Who Conserves the World’s Forests? Community-Driven Strategies to Protect Forests and Respect Rights;Forest Trends: Washington, DC, USA, 2004; 83p.46. Ansariri, N.; Seyed Akhlaghi Shal, J.; Ghasemi, M.H. Determination of Socio-Economic Factors on Natural Resources Degradationof Iran. Iran. J. Range Desert Res. 2009, 15, 508–524.47. Roudgarmi, P. Determining Effective Socio-Economic Factors in Rangeland Degradation: A Case Study of Tehran Province, Iran.Range Manag. Agrofor. 2013, 34, 12–18.48. Roudgarmi, P.; Mahdiraji, M.T.A. Current Challenges of Laws for Preservation of Forest and Rangeland, Iran. Land Use Policy2020, 99, 105002. [CrossRef]Forests 2022, 13, 2180 22 of 2349. FAO. Iran (Islamic Republic of)—Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015—Country Report; Global Forest Resources Assessment;FAO: Rome, Italy, 2005.50. Mahdavi, A.; Naghdi, R. Information and Data Flow Analysis for Forestry Sector in Iran as a Basic Requirement for Designing aForest Information System (FIS). Casp. J. Environ. Sci. 2007, 5, 147–153.51. Hamidi, S.K.; Weiskittel, A.; Bayat, M.; Fallah, A. Development of Individual Tree Growth and Yield Model across MultipleContrasting Species Using Nonparametric and Parametric Methods in the Hyrcanian Forests of Northern Iran. Eur. J. For. Res.2021, 140, 421–434. [CrossRef]52. Bunnell, F. Adaptive Management: A Case Study of How Some of the Principles of SFM Can Be Applied in Practice. In SustainableForest Management: From Concept to Practice; Innes, J.L., Tikina, A.V., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 338–362.53. Sayer, J.; Vanclay, J.; Byron, N. Technologies for Sustainable Forest Management: Challenges for the 21st Century. Commonw. For.Rev. 1997, 76, 162–170.54. Khazaeli, P.; Rezaee, S.; Mirabolfathy, M.; Zamanizadeh, H.; Kiadaliri, H. Genetic and Phenotypic Variation of CalonectriaPseudonaviculata Isolates Causing Boxwood Blight Disease in the Hyrcanian Forest of Iran. Agric. Res. Technol. Open Access J.2018, 19, 556081. [CrossRef]55. Molina, J.M.G.; Hamid, H.; Sathyapala, S.; Altrell, D.O.; Farahanirad, H.; Mirabolfathy, M.; Abaii, M. Assistance to Strengtheningthe Resilience of Zagros Forests to Oak Decline and Caspian Forests to Boxwood Blight and Development of National Forests MonitoringSystem in the Islamic Republic of Iran; TCP/IRA/3502; FAO Office in the Islamic Republic of Iran: Tehran, Iran, 2017; p. 2.56. Zarandian, A.; Badamfirouz, J.; Musazadeh, R.; Rahmati, A.; Azimi, S.B. Scenario Modeling for Spatial-Temporal ChangeDetection of Carbon Storage and Sequestration in a Forested Landscape in Northern Iran. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2018, 190, 474.[CrossRef]57. Doustmohammadi, N.; Babazadeh, R. Design of Closed Loop Supply Chain of Wood Plastic Composite (WPC) Industry.J. Environ. Inform. 2019, 35, 94–102. [CrossRef]58. Ens, E. Monitoring Outcomes of Environmental Service Provision in Low Socio-Economic Indigenous Australia Using InnovativeCyberTracker Technology. Conserv. Soc. 2012, 10, 42. [CrossRef]59. Stevens, M.; Vitos, M.; Altenbuchner, J.; Conquest, G.; Lewis, J.; Haklay, M. Taking Participatory Citizen Science to Extremes.IEEE Pervasive Comput. 2014, 13, 20–29. [CrossRef]60. Brofeldt, S.; Argyriou, D.; Turreira-García, N.; Meilby, H.; Danielsen, F.; Theilade, I. Community-Based Monitoring of TropicalForest Crimes and Forest Resources Using Information and Communication Technology—Experiences from Prey Lang, Cambodia.Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. 2018, 3, 4. [CrossRef]61. Hashemi, S.A. Ecological Capability Evaluation for Afforestation and Forest Expansion Using Geographic Information System(GIS) in Management Area of Caspian Sea. An. Acad. Bras. Ciênc. 2018, 90, 3761–3768. [CrossRef] [PubMed]62. Makhdoum, M.F. Environmental unit: An arbitrary ecosystem for land evaluation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1992, 41, 209–214.[CrossRef]63. Makhdoum, M.F. Introducing a method for data analysis and handling in the process of land use planning. Iran J. Nat. Resour.1987, 41, 67–76.64. Jahantigh, H.R.; Masoudi, M.; Jokar, P. A Quantitative Approach to Land Use Planning Using GIS—A Case Study of ChabaharCounty, Iran. Eur. J. Environ. Sci. 2019, 9, 12–20. [CrossRef]65. Sheikh Hossein Fard, M.; Feghhi, J.; Makhdoum, M.; Alambeigi, A. The Ecotourism Environmental Model (Ecological, Socio-Economic) for Hyrcanian Forests. For. Wood Prod. 2021, 74, 137–146. [CrossRef]66. Abiat, M.; Attar Roshan, S.; Orak, N. Ecological Capability Evaluation of Sharui Watershed for Forestery Land Us by MakhdoomModel and Ahp Method. J. Wetl. Bioecol. 2020, 11, 5–18.67. Maleknia, R.; Feghhi, J.; Makhdoum, M.; Mohadjer, M.; Zobeiri, M. Developing Criteria and Indicators Framework for Monitoringthe Sustainability of Ecological Functions of Northern Forests in Forest Management Unit Level (Case Study: Kheyrud Forest ofNowshahr). Environ. Res. 2014, 5, 137–146.68. Goushegir, S.Z. Development a Decision Support System for Sustainable Forest Management at the Watershed Level in NorthernForests of Iran (Case Study: Kheyrud Forest). Ph.D. Thesis, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran, 2014.69. Gough, A.D.; Innes, J.L.; Allen, S.D. Development of Common Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management. Ecol. Indic. 2008,8, 425–430. [CrossRef]70. Maes, W.H.; Fontaine, M.; Rongé, K.; Hermy, M.; Muys, B. A Quantitative Indicator Framework for Stand Level Evaluation andMonitoring of Environmentally Sustainable Forest Management. Ecol. Indic. 2011, 11, 468–479. [CrossRef]71. Goushehgir, S.Z.; Feghhi, J.; Innes, J.L. Developing a Set of Key Performance Indicators for Monitoring Sustainability of ForestFunctions in the Hyrcanian Forests. Int. For. Rev. 2021, 23, 151–167. [CrossRef]72. Mohammadi, Z.; Mohammadi Limaei, S. Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Approaches for Forest Sustainability (Case Study:Iranian Caspian Forests). For. Res. Open Access 2018, 7, 1000215. [CrossRef]73. Goleij, A.; Hasanzad Navroodi, I.; Mohammadi Limaei, S. Determining the Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable ForestManagement (Case Study: Nav-e Asalem, Guilan Province). Iran. J. For. Poplar Res. 2016, 24, 176–187.74. Goushegir, S.Z.; Jahangir, F.; Mohadjer, M.; Makhdoum, M.F. Investigation on the Concept of Control in Forest ManagementPlans of Caspian Forests (Case Study: Kheyrud Forest). Iran. J. For. Poplar Res. 2011, 19, 181–193. [CrossRef]75. Bonnell, S. Environmental Assessment of Forestry in Canada. For. Chron. 2003, 79, 1067–1070. [CrossRef]Forests 2022, 13, 2180 23 of 2376. Safaian, N.; Shokri, M.; Jabbarian Amiri, B. Environmental Impact Assessment of Development in the Southern Coast of theCaspian Sea (Northern Iran). Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2004, 13, 319–323.77. Aghnoum, M.; Feghhi, J.; Makhdoum, M.; Jabbarian Amiri, B. Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Forest Management PlanBased on Matrix and Landscape Degradation Model. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2014, 16, 841–850.78. Jahani, A.; Feghhi, J.; Makhdoum, M.F.; Omid, M. Optimized Forest Degradation Model (OFDM): An Environmental DecisionSupport System for Environmental Impact Assessment Using an Artificial Neural Network. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2016,59, 222–244. [CrossRef]79. Oghnoum, M.; Asgari, M.; Beiranvand, A.; Avatefi Hemmat, M.; Etemad, V. Strengths and Weaknesses of Forest Management Plans inthe Hyrcanian Forests of Northern Iran; Iran’s Shamim Jangel Non-Governmental Organization: Tehran, Iran, 2020; pp. 14–29.80. Jafari, M. Tehran Process and C&I for SFM in LFCCs and Near East Dry Land Zones; Tehran Process Secretariat Tehran ProcessSecretariat for Low Forest Cover Countries: Tehran, Iran, 2011.81. Jafari, M. Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management, a Requirement for Recognition, Application and Evaluation.Iran. Nat. 2017, 2, 12–15. [CrossRef]82. Linser, S.; Wolfslehner, B.; Bridge, S.; Gritten, D.; Johnson, S.; Payn, T.; Prins, K.; Raši, R.; Robertson, G. 25 Years of Criteria andIndicators for Sustainable Forest Management: How Intergovernmental C&I Processes Have Made a Difference. Forests 2018,9, 578. [CrossRef]83. Prabhu, R.; Colfer, C.J.P.; Venkateswarlu, P.; Tan, L.C.; Soekmadi, R.; Wollenberg, E. Testing Criteria and Indicators for the SustainableManagement of Forests: Phase 1. Final Report; Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR): Bogor, Indonesia, 1996. [CrossRef]84. Holvoet, B.; Muys, B. Sustainable Forest Management Worldwide: A Comparative Assessment of Standards. Int. For. Rev. 2004,6, 99–122. [CrossRef]85. Karim, M.H.; Sardar Shahraki, A.; Kiani Ghalesard, S.; Fahimi, F. Management Challenges and Adaptations with Climate Changein Iran Forests. Casp. J. Environ. Sci. 2020, 18, 81–91. [CrossRef]86. Abdolahzadeh, G.; Azhdarpour, A.; Sharifzadeh, M. Investigating Rural People Perceptions of Climate Changes and AdaptationStrategies in Zabol County. Geogr. Environ. Plan. 2018, 28, 85–106.87. Shahraki, M.; Abedi Sarvestani, A.; Lotfi, A. Awareness of Villagers about the Occurrence of Signs of Climate Change and ItsRelationship with Sustainable Livelihoods of Local Communities (Case Study: Oghan Watershed in Golestan Province). Iran. J.Rangel. Desert Res. 2021, 28, 138–150. [CrossRef]
Article
eng
Reviewed
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
CC BY 4.0
Faculty
Researcher
sustainable forest management
the Hyrcanian sustainable forest management model
forest science
forest technology
Analytic Hierarchy Process
Iran
Challenges Facing the Improvement of Forest Management in the Hyrcanian Forests of Iran
Text