GEF/UNDP CONCEPT PAPER for a Full Project
1. Project title: Conservation of Biodiversity in the Central Zagros Mountain Forests and Steppe
2. GEF Implementing Agency: United Nations Development Programme
3. Country or countries in which the project is being implemented: Islamic Republic of Iran
4. GEF Focal Area(s): Biodiversity.
5. Operational Program/Short-term measure: OP 4, Mountain Ecosystems.
6. Country Drivenness (Project linkage to national priorities, action plans and programs):
1. Article 50 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran states that all legal and real persons have a duty
to protect the environment. It prohibits all activity - economic or otherwise - that may result in irreparable
damage to the environment. This is based on the guidance of Islam, the formal religion of country. For example,
the Koran introduces nature as a blessing of god, to be exploited wisely and to be preserved and protected. The
right of all forms of animals to live is emphasised in many other Islamic religious writings.
2. In recent years, the leaders and government of the Islamic Republic of Iran have increasingly recognised the
challenges facing the natural resources of the country. This has been formalised in many policy documents. For
example, the Supreme Leader recently issued policy statements requiring the conservation of natural - including
genetic - resources, and requiring reductions of habitat destruction and species loss (taken from the Official
Newspaper of Iran, 18th April, 2001). Of the 26 Chapters of The Third Economic, Cultural and Social
Development Plan (approved by the President and the Parliament in April 2000), one is devoted to
environmental protection and one is devoted to the sustainable management of agricultural and water resources.
3. In 1974, the Government of Iran established the Environmental High Council (EHC) to coordinate the
preparation and approval of policy and programmes related to the environment. The EHC is chaired by the
President. Its members are the heads of all key ministries and national agencies. Within the Government, the
Department of Environment (DoE) is responsible for implementing environmental and biodiversity legislation
and policy objectives. This includes management of almost all the protected area in the country. The DoE is
headed by a Vice-President and reports directly to the President. DoE has provincial affiliates in each of the 29
provinces.
4. Other agencies with mandates related to mountain biodiversity conservation are: the Management and
Planning Organisation (MPO – responsible for planning and budget allocation); the Ministry of Agriculture and
Rural Development (more commonly known as the Ministry of Agriculture and Jihad – MOAJ, and responsible
for forests, rangelands, rural development and nomadic affairs); the Ministry of Power (MOP responsible for
water resources and dams), and the Ministry of the Interior.
5. Building on overall guidance from the country’s leadership, the environmental sector has developed several
documents guiding environmental protection in the country. Prominent amongst these is the National Strategy
for Environment and Sustainable Development (1995). The chapter on biodiversity identifies the Zagros
mountains as a key area for biodiversity conservation. This is further confirmed in the National Action Plan for
Environmental Protection (1999).
6. More recently, the First National Report for the Convention on Biological Diversity (December 2000)
develops a national strategy for conserving biodiversity. This strategy has four components:
 promoting participation of public, NGOs and private sector;
 strengthening information, reporting and monitoring systems;
 reorganisation of institutional structures for sustainable use; and,
1

systematic management of biodiversity resources (notably through in-situ management in protected
areas).
The National Report was prepared and approved by a broad cross-sectoral body. All concerned government
ministries have a defined role to play in the implementation of the strategy. The present proposed project is fully
in line with this strategy, most notably helping to implement the first and fourth of the above components.
7. The National Report was prepared with the assistance of the GEF/UNDP project National Biodiversity
Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP). Within the framework of the project, a national workshop was held to
discuss priority areas for international support. The workshop selected the biodiversity in the Zagros mountain
range as a priority for further GEF support.
7. Context
Biodiversity Context
8. The Islamic Republic of Iran comprises a land area of 1.64 million km2, lying between 25º and 40º N. It is
situated at the confluence of three climatic zones – Mediterranean, arid west Asian, and humid/semi-humid
Caspian zone. It is highly mountainous, with an average altitude of 1200m asl, and many peaks over 4000 m.
The complex and varied climates, topography and geological formations have led to a varied and unique
biological diversity.
9. The Iranian habitat supports over 8,000 recorded species of plants (of which almost 2,500 are endemic), over
500 species of birds, 160 mammals, and 164 reptiles (26 endemic species). A large number of the plants and
animal species indigenous to Iran are the wild relatives of commercial species, confirming Iran’s status as a
centre of genetic biodiversity. Also, a large number of Iran’s plant and tree species have traditional medicinal,
aromatic and pigment uses. Iran has a varied but generally harsh climate - arid with large temperature
fluctuations. Many species and varieties are adapted to surviving in these harsh conditions.
10. The Zagros region lies in western Iran, stretching from close to the north-western border (with Turkey,
Armenia and Azerbaijan), along the border with Iraq, and down to the Persian Gulf. It is approximately 1500km
long at its longest, and 400 km wide at its widest. The region covers approximately 40,000,000 ha and over 70%
is mountainous. The ecosystem falls into the Palaearctic realm with unique broadleaf deciduous and mixed
forests.
11. The focus for the present proposed project is the central mountainous parts of the Zagros region. This area
contains the biggest mountains and the broadest and most significant biodiversity. In the central Zagros, the high
mountains are interspersed with steppe, rangeland, low-lying hills, valleys, semi-desert areas and wetlands. Five
million hectares of forest covering 1/8 of the area of Zagros mountains and accounting for approximately 40%
of all Iran’s forests, are found here. The climate is strongly influenced by the Mediterranean and precipitation is
above average. Accordingly, a significant percentage of Iran’s rain falls onto these mountains, and the
mountains constitute an important source of water, via rivers and transfers, to most of the populated parts of
Iran. See Annex 1 for maps of Iran and the proposed project area.
12. The mountains in the central Zagros region are up to 4,500 m high. Rapid changes in elevation lead to a
diversity in ecosystems and species over short distances. Above 3500m, the precipitation is light and mainly
snow. At these heights the vegetation is mainly alpine, with junipers and then pastureland dominating. Between
approximately 1200 - 3500m, the mountains are dominated by oak forests, with the trees becoming increasingly
thicker at lower altitudes. The land between the oak trees is covered by a wide variety of plants, shrubs and
bushes. Below 1200m, the climate is warm and sub-tropical. The more northern and eastern lower lying lands
are dryer and almost desert-like, whereas the southern and western low-lands are semi-humid. Almond and
pistachio are two of the dominant species at lower altitudes.
13. The mountains contain an estimated 2000 plant species, ranging from high mountain species (Juniperus
excelsa, Colpodium violaceum, Dracocephalum surmandium, Nepeta chinophilla, Salvia kallarica, Cousinia
archibaldii, Scarzenera nivalis), rare steppe species (Ajuga saxicola, Hypericum dogonbedanicum), arid2
land/desert species (Saliva rechingeri, Scorzonera ispahanica) and humid sub-tropical species (Myrtus
communis, Aegilops speltoides). Endemism is high with at least 200 endemic species. The region contains many
wild relatives of important commercial species, for example grape (Vitis vinifera - the base for the world
famous Shiraz wine) and tulip (Tulipa spp). Annex 2 provides some other examples of wild relatives. One area
(Mount Dena) alone contains over 1000 plant species, of which at least over 250 are known to be utilised
traditionally. These are used for food, medicine, aromas and pigments. The unique oak forests include three
species of oak one of which has two varieties (Quercus brantii persica, Quercus brantii belangeri, Quercus
infectoria, Quercus libani), with a high genetic diversity - 180 different kinds of acorn having been recorded in
the area.
14. The mountains also provide a good habitat for important large mammals, such as Ibex (Capra aegagrus),
sheep (Ovis ammon), bear (Ursus arctos IUCN red-listed as vulnerable), leopard (Panthera pardus), Persian
Squirrel (Sciurus anomalus – endemic to Iran and Lebanon, and IUCN red-listed as endangered) and the Persian
Fallow Deer (Cervus dama mesopotamica, IUCN red-listed)1. The lower valleys were also the last habitat
(outside India) of the Asiatic Lion (Panthera leo persicus) – and there are plans to reintroduce the species2.
Other mammals found in central Zagros include wolf (Canis lupus), boar (Sus scrofa), fox (Vulpes vulpes),
jackel (Canis aureus) and hyena (Hyaena hyaena).
15. The diversity in ecosystem also provides for a wide diversity of birds with 240 species having been recorded
in the Zagros central mountains, including the following listed species: Osprey, Golden eagle, Peregrine falcon,
Barbary falcon, Lanner falcon, Seker Falcon, Lesser kestrel, Bearded vulture, Franklin, Marbled Teal, Whiteheaded duck, Ferruginous duck, See-see partridge, Lesser white fronted goose; White-throated robin, White
stork, Black stork, Persian Snow Cock, Tetraogulus Caspius ssp endemic to Zagros. The region is also very rich
in insects. For example, there are over 150 species of recorded butterfly, of which 17 are endemic. Annex 3
provides a list of important non-flora species found in the mountains of the central Zagros region.
Socio-Economic Context
16. The Zagros mountains have historically been isolated from most economic activities and principally habited
by nomadic tribes. This isolation has helped to conserve large areas of the ecosystems. In recent years, national
efforts to develop rural areas have led to an improved infrastructure in the Zagros mountains, to improvements
in the socio-economic situation, and to population increases. The great majority of the population in the region
is now settled, with nomads making up approximately 10% of the population. However, in some areas, social
and economic poverty remains. The population in the region still includes approximately 800,000 nomads,
almost three-quarters of the total Iranian nomad population.
17. Until the 1960s, the land, forests and water in the region were owned and managed according to traditional
(nomadic) tribal systems. In the 1960’s, the state took ownership and management responsibilities for the forests
and rangelands – although agricultural land could still be developed privately. At about the same time, other
efforts were taken to sedentarise the nomads and break up the tribal structures. Accordingly the traditional
land/water ownership and management systems no longer function and many have since been forgotten.
However, no alternative management systems were introduced, and so use of the resources continued on an adhoc, un-managed basis, by nomads, farmers and migrants from other areas and by refugees from neighbouring
countries. A classic ‘tragedy of the commons’ situation took effect, with all constituents mining the land and
water for short-term benefits.
1
The deer was common in the region until approximately 100 years ago. Approximately forty years ago, after having been
considered extinct, a small population was found and put into captivity for protection and breeding. Two small populations
have since been reintroduced into the lower slopes of the mountains into almost natural conditions, and the global
population is growing.
2
The Asiatic Lion is found only at the Gir National Park in India, where is it being protected with the assistance of World
Bank/GEF. The lion population is too large for the area, and additional sites are being sought.
3
18. Recently, the government has recognised the weak management system and has started to experiment with
new ownership systems. For example, a thirty-year land tenure is being tentatively introduced for rangelands in
some areas. This means that people will be taking care of the land for a longer period and are not allowed to
change the type of land use activities.
Protected Area System
19. The Iranian DoE has a good history of protecting forests and other eco-systems. Land was first set aside for
protection in the 1960s with the principal aim of protecting game for hunters. Since 1992 (through an
amendment of the 1975 Environmental Protection Act), protected land is managed under four categories:
National Parks (the most strictly protected); Wildlife Refuges; Protected Areas and Hunting Prohibited Zones.
Currently, approximately 5% of Iranian land is protected through this system. The system is supervised by DoE
and managed by the provincial DoEs. In addition, there are some small protected areas under the management of
the Forestry Division of MOAJ.
20. Recently, a joint proposal from DoE/MOAJ to increase the area of protected forests to 10% of the national
forests has been approved by the President and Parliament. Each province should now designate 10% of its
forests to be protected and so managed by the provincial DoE. The provinces and national government are
currently determining implementation plans, including budgets for this proposal. In many cases, the proposed
new protected areas lie close to or adjacent to existing PAs.
21. The Zagros region has 3 National Parks (total area approximately 210,000 has), 3 Wildlife Refuges (approx.
207,000 has), 12 Protected Areas (1,166,000 has) and 26 Hunting Prohibited Zones (960,000 has). This
protected area network (PAN) therefore accounts for over 6% of the Zagros range (these figures cover the entire
Zagros region, not only the central mountains, but most of the protected areas lie in the central mountain ranges
where the biodiversity is greatest). In general, the status of the biodiversity inside the PAN is good. However the
outlying parts of many of the protected areas are subject to an increasing pressure from villages near and in the
area, and are degrading accordingly. Land degradation and soil erosion processes are increasing and threaten the
sustainability of biodiversity within the PAN. Therefore an integrated approach for landscape management is
needed to address threats to biodiversity within and surrounding the protected areas.
23. At present, many of the protected areas have several small villages within or along the edge of their border.
Typically, there may be 20,000 people living around a PA of 100,000 has. Usually, only a very small number
(several hundred) of people live inside the area.
8. Project Rationale and Objectives:
24. The Zagros ecosystem, and its biodiversity, is being severely degraded, as indicated by the following
figures. Soil erosion from the mountains has increased from 2-3 tons per hectare to approximately 10 tons per
hectare over the past several decades. Also, biomass productivity in the Zagros deciduous broadleaf forests has
declined from 125 to 8 tons/hectare over the past five decades3. These impacts are the result of man’s activities,
as described below.
Threats
25. The biodiversity in the Zagros central mountains face a series of threats. Collectively these threats are
damaging the ecosystems at the edges of each protected area, and destroying the ecosystem between protected
areas. The two most serious threats are unsustainable livestock grazing and conversion of forests to agricultural
land (wheat). These threats are prevalent across large stretches of the mountain range, including in and around
protected areas. The next most important threat, in some areas, is the hunting of wild animals. Other threats are
wood collection (for fuel), mining and possibly over-collection of trees and plants for food, medicine and other
uses.
3
Taken from First National Report for the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2000
4
Converting forest to agricultural land
26. The land is very mountainous and flat land is rare. Every available spot of flat or low-slope land is converted
to agriculture, rain-fed wheat or in some cases irrigated rice and other crops. To convert the land, the shrubs and
grass between the trees are cleared, but usually most of the trees are left standing. Given that the soil is very
fragile and thin, the fields are only productive for 2-3 years. After this period, the field is left for fallow or
completely abandoned, and the farmer moves on to a new field. However, in many cases it does not regenerate.
These unsustainable practices are very common outside of the PAN, and are becoming increasingly common
inside protected areas. It is estimated that during the past 40-50 years about 50% of forested areas in the Zagros
mountains have been converted. Only about 10% of this converted land is under agricultural use at present.
Unsustainable grazing
27. The population of livestock in the region is very high, with perhaps 6 animal grazers (mainly goat, but some
sheep) for each person. The traditional form of grazing (non-penned) is followed. The grazing animals go to the
shrub and grassland between the trees in the forest and to the abandoned wheat fields. In many cases the grazing
is so intensive that all land is completely cleared, and regeneration inhibited. Low precipitation, steep slopes and
thin soils then combine to ensure rapid degradation of the land.
28. Taken together, the above two threats set off a vicious circle of land degradation, which can quite quickly
turn healthy forest into barren land – as can be seen in many areas outside the PAN.
Hunting and wood collection
29. Although localised to some parts of some protected areas (and surrounding regions) the hunting of wild
animals is a threat to the population of sheep, goat, wild pig (and therefore their predators) and leopards. In the
past wood collection was widespread and a major contributing factor to the degradation of forests. In recent
years, government sponsored schemes to provide cheap fuel have mitigated this factor. The wood is collected
primarily for use as fuel, although there are some cultural uses and some usage for construction.
Other threats
30. Small scale mines (eg. copper, bauxite, chalk, laterite, marble) are common in the area and have been for
many years. The mines are often located in areas rich in biodiversity, often within the PAN. Mining and related
activities (access roads, villages for workers, transport of material) can damage directly the ecosystem and the
biodiversity. It has to be noted that many mines have already been closed down. Over-collection of the plants is
not thought to be a major issue, yet more investigation of this phenomena is required, as the area is rich in plants
useful to man (for medicine, pigments, aromas) and these are traditionally collected by local people.
Underlying and Root Causes
31. Behind each of the threats lies a web of root causes (see preliminary Conceptual Models in Annex 5. It
should be noted that the models in Annex 5 are not complete, and further investigation of the linkages is
necessary).
32. Converting forest to farmland There are three underlying causes. First, it is in the short term economic
interests of the farmer. Poor and unemployed farmers can make good short-term benefits. They have few
alternative ways of making a living. Even farmers who are not poor can increase their wealth this way.
However, individual farmers perceive no gains from leaving the standing forest.
33. The second cause is the easy access farmers have to the forest land. In some cases this access may be legal,
for example where farmers historically had access to the protected area prior to the establishment of the area or
where communities may be living within the protected area.4 In other cases the access is illegal, yet the
provincial DoE is not able to fully protect the area from illegal entrants. This is exacerbated by the lack of
understanding and awareness of the PAN by the local people. The third cause is the fact that agricultural land
4
It should be noted that all Protected Areas include core zones or refuge areas which are not inhabited and are not
accessible to farmers for grazing, however buffer zones of PAs may be inhabited or may be accessible for grazing
according to the traditions of the area during certain seasons.
5
can be privately owned - whereas forest land belongs to the state. This provides a perverse incentive to farmers
to convert forest to wheat in order to claim ownership (this only applies outside the protected area).
34. Unsustainable grazing There are four causes. First is that the shepherds wish to have large numbers of
livestock. This is in order to escape poverty, or to become rich. In turn, this is partly driven by the high price of
meat in the country. Second, the shepherds have good access to the forest land, even inside the protected areas.
In some cases this access is legal; the shepherds have permits to graze a limited number of animals for a limited
duration. These may have been issued before the protected area was established. In other cases the access is
illegal, but as mentioned above, the provincial DoE is not able to fully protect the area from illegal entrants. In
some cases this may be because the protected area is too large, and the DoE should focus the limited resources
on a small area. The third cause is that the grazing techniques are inappropriate (too intensive, or the grazing
may take place too early in the season, or there may be too many goats rather than sheep). This, in turn, is due to
lack of knowledge of more appropriate techniques, and to the lack of an effective management mechanism. The
fourth cause is that the shepherds perceive no benefit in protecting the land, and wish to maximise short-term
benefits from the land.
35. Hunting there are two main causes of hunting. First, it is to protect animals, farmland and grazing land from
damage done by wild animals (bear, boar and goat). Second, for many local tribes, hunting is a traditional pasttime (it is noted that, for example, Chahar province has more guns than people) undertaken for sport. Wood
collection is driven by the need for cooking and heating fuel, and in some cases by the importance of burning
wood in traditional ceremonies (eg funerals).
36. Others: In general, population growth in the area is a contributing factor to all the underlying causes. Also,
there is a pervasive feeling amongst farmers and herders that protection of natural resources is the responsibility
of government – this is a vestige of the policies enacted in the 1960’s and 1970’s to take responsibility and
control of land out of the hands of nomads and farmers.
Baseline
37. The baseline includes a package of activities to promote rural development and control land degradation,
mostly implemented by the MOAJ. The national programme includes both technical and policy tools, and is
being implemented in most villages near to the biodiversity sites. For example, there are ongoing efforts to
cluster small villages together, thus making the provision of infrastructure easier. The villages are then provided
with affordable gas for fuel. The programme also includes small-scale experiments with land reform, as
mentioned above, whereby farmers are given long-term development rights (but not full ownership, nor full
responsibilities) of range and forest-lands. Other elements of the programme include: technical assistance
projects to farmers and shepherds; making loans available to sustainable development initiatives; the promotion
of ecotourism and the sustainable utilisation of non-wood forest products; the development of forest
cooperatives; and the stabilisation of livestock numbers. Under this national programme, the MOAJ allocates
approximately $7 million annually across the 8 Zagros provinces. Parts of the programme are implemented
jointly with DoE, and the Ministries of Defence, Education and Interior, as well as with NGOs.
38. These efforts should go a long way to developing the remote areas and to protecting watersheds and forests.
The activities, if well planned, can also have a positive impact on biodiversity. However, if badly planned, they
could have the opposite effect. For example, they could lead to increases in access to the protected areas and
numbers of livestock.
39. In addition to the above efforts to assure sustainable development, the government of Iran is committed to
protecting its biodiversity. It is also committed to increasing the awareness of public and decision-makers, and
increasing the participation of communities and NGO in biodiversity conservation. In individual protected areas,
6
new methods are being informally tested to work with local communities to protect the biodiversity 5. These
efforts will go a long way to protecting biodiversity. Also, the President and Parliament recently approved a
proposal to increase the percentage of forest protected area to 10% of the nation’s forest.
40. However, in the Zagros mountains, the pressure on the protected areas is increasing. Given the lack of
technical resources, and the lack of financial resources allocated to biodiversity conservation, the ongoing
efforts will be insufficient to meet the rising threats to the PAN. For example, the present funding levels for the
protected areas are in the range $50-150,000 per year per PA. The level of staffing is in the range 8—30 border
guards. The staff are often poorly trained and equipped. The capacity is insufficient to manage the existing
protected areas, hence efforts to increase the amount of areas protected are unlikely to succeed. Notably, the
local people have benefited from almost no international cooperation in recent decades, and are therefore
unfamiliar with all modern biodiversity conservation techniques, tools and measures.
41. Under the baseline scenario the management of PAs would continue to be undertaken as an isolated activity
without sufficient coordination with economic activities in surrounding areas that affect long-term viability of
the PAs. Effective coordination between key government institutions and an integrated approach towards
biodiversity conservation would be lacking. While continuing rural development programmes and land
degradation control measures are forseen, these may not be planned and implemented with biodiversity
consideration in view. A comprehensive effort towards involvement of key stakeholders and participation of
local communities will be missing in the planning and management of PAs and surrounding areas. Conflicts
with communties and among resource users may continue in the absence of specific measures to enhance access
and benefit sharing, provide sustainable livelihood options, and improve knowledge and techniques for
sustainable natural resource use.
Alternative
42. In the alternative, with GEF support, the conservation of globally significant biodiversity will be assured at
2-36 sites in the Zagros mountains. These sites will be representative of diverse biodiversity values across the
Zagros, and will be sufficiently large to include viable populations of wildlife in the mountain range. GEF will
have provided the technical support needed to develop sustainable conservation systems, in full cooperation
with the local communities and tribesmen. The planning and management system for biodiversity conservation,
at the site and provincial level, will have been sufficiently enhanced. Sustainable financing mechanisms for
protecting and sustainably using the biodiversity at the sites will have been developed.
43. Within the alternative scenario a comprehensive approach is proposed towards building capacity for PA
management as well as addressing the threats and reducing pressure on surrounding landscapes. Coordination
will be established between key government institutions in order to integrate biodiversity conservation needs
within sectoral activities. Awareness of public and local communities will be raised and incentives measures
developed. Alternative livelihood options and better agricultural and livestock rearing techniques will be
promoted to reduce pressure on ecosystems. Information on best practices will be provided, strategies for
removal of barriers will be explored, and access and benefit sharing mechanisms developed in order to facilitate
sustainable and equitable natural resource use by communities and reverse current unsustainable and short-term
practices. Where relevant lessons learnt and experience gained in other GEF projects will be explored and
adapted to local conditions.
44. The technical capacity in Iran will have been enhanced through international cooperation, in particularly in
the fields of community participation, planning and coordination mechanisms, and innovative financing. This
5
E.g. establishing small central zones in each area and focusing protection efforts on these zones; increasing efforts for
protection generally, in consultation with local farmers and shepherds; proposing increases in the status (eg. from Protected
Area to National Park) and in the size of protected areas.
6
Six candidate sites have been identified. Annex 4 provides information on how sites will be selected from these six.
Annex 4 also provides basic information on the candidate sites.
7
capacity will be applicable to other sites in Iran. Coordination among the government agencies responsible for
management of PAs and for landuse planning and management in productive landscapes outside PAs will be
strengthened in order to promote an integrated landscape approach to the conservation of biodiversity inside and
outside protected areas.
Rationale for GEF Intervention
45. The project sites have globally significant biodiversity. Although the government of Iran is committed to
conserving biodiversity, conserving this biodiversity is incremental to the development process, and will not be
assured without support from the international community. Also, international cooperation with Iran has been
limited in recent years, and expertise and capacity needed to address many issues is not present in Iran. GEF
support can make a critical different here.
46. The Government of Iran is also committed to increasing coordination amongst government agencies, and to
greatly increasing and broadening the participatory processes. Notably it is committed to increasing public and
NGO participation. International support can help ensure that these stated commitments are fully translated into
action.
Incrementality and co-financing
47. An incremental costs approach will be used and GEF funds will only support incremental actions directly
conserving globally significant biodiversity. These will be mainly to strengthen protected area management, and
to work with communities in and on the edge of the protected areas. There will be limited actions at provincial
and national level, to ensure coordination mechanisms, and where necessary develop awareness, policy and
legislative tools. All of these actions are fully eligible for GEF, however there will be a contribution by the
Government of Iran. This government contribution will be in-kind, and in the form of equipment/new facilities.
48. To fully achieve project objectives, some actions will be taken which benefit the local communities in terms
of sustainable development. Co-financing will be sought for these non-incremental activities. Some
governments are establishing cooperation and development programmes in Iran, and partnership with these will
be sought. The Models in Annex 5 indicate where GEF support would be focussed, and where co-financing
would be complementary.
9. Expected outcomes and activities of Full Project (to be verified during PDF stage):
49. Several candidate sites have been identified. Each one varies in altitude from under 1,000 to over 3,000
meters, and most sites go over 4,000m. The wealth of biodiversity at each site is commensurate with the range
of altitudes. Some sites are more important in terms of plant biodiversity, others in terms of oak forest, others
also have important potential for birds or large mammals, including areas suitable for any future plan to
reintroduce native species (in complement to the ongoing initiative to reintroduce Mesopotamian fallow deer).
The sites also vary in terms of the nature and the scale of threats. See Annex 4 for a description of how sites will
be selected. As sites have not yet been selected, the activities listed below are tentative or generic.
50. Outcomes/activities at the level of the protected area (at 2-3 sites):
a. Management Plans and Planning A full Management Plan (MP) will be prepared for each area. The local
community7 will be fully involved in both the preparation and implementation of the MP. The MP will be based
on scientifically assessed carrying capacity of the area in maintaining biodiversity and enabling sustainable use
of its products. The MP will identify the resources available and required to manage the protected area. In some
cases, conservation efforts will be focussed on the core area, with non-core areas having multiple uses. The MP
will also include requirements for data collection and biodiversity monitoring, some of which can be supported
by GEF. The MP will provide a framework for other activities/outcomes listed below.
7
One possible way to involve communities is through the elected village councils. Also, many communities have a highly
respected religious leader who can play a role in mobilizing public action and activities.
8
b. Capacity building. Capacity to implement the MP will be built through training and other mechanisms. This
will cover management capacity, planning capacity, monitoring and assessment capacity, park ranger skills, and
possibly technical skills related to multiple use zones (eg. educational, or eco-tourism8). Essential equipment
will be provided. A multi-stakeholder management mechanism will be established.
c. Conflict Resolution. Where conflicts between biodiversity and grazers/farmers continue to exist, agreements
will be negotiated and new management mechanisms tested. For example, where grazers have access permits, or
where villagers have private land and farmland inside the protected area. Some deterrents and incentive
measures are under consideration or are in the early stages of development.9
d. Innovative financing mechanisms will be explored and developed. In line with recent guidance an access and
benefit-sharing plan will be developed for each site as an integral part of the MP. An ABS plan would be
developed as part of the Protected Area Management Plan, which would identify areas where local people could
get financial benefits by allowing managed access to biodiversity resources. The project may help to implement
some of the activities identified in the ABS plans.10 Also, the possibility of establishing a biodiversity
investment facility11 will be explored. The project may help develop financing mechanisms, for example
facilitating negotiations with the departments responsible for downstream dam development in order to get
compensation for any activities leading to watershed protection.12
8
The tourism industry in I. R. Iran has demonstrated a 20% increase in income annually since 1996 and the total annual
income from tourism is one billion US $ at present. The number of foreign tourists visiting Iran in 96-97 was 573.449, this
increased to 764.092 in 97-98, and to 1.007.597 in 98-99 (Statistics Center of Iran). Cultural and nature tourism is a new
area which is gaining some popularity, especially in culturally well-preserved areas as in the Zagros mountains. An
assessment of ecotourism potential is foreseen during the PDF B phase in order realistically estimate its potential.
9
For example environmental penalties are collected according to section A Article 104 of the Third National Five-Year
Plan (approved by the parliament). During the PDF B, the feasibility of new mechanisms could be determined to provide
incentives for conflict resolution and community management. For instance the lessons learnt in the GEF Mountain Areas
Conservancy Project in Pakistan could be considered for replication with respect to trophy hunting. Close coordination will
be maintained with the MOAJ which is responsible for rural development and forest and rangeland management in order to
develop biodiversity friendly alternative livelihoods in areas surrounding protected areas.
10
This would lead to medium-long term financial benefits, which may not be fully realized in the lifetime of the GEF
project, but would increase the sustainability of the project by increasing local commitment to conservation of biodiversity.
Possibilities for access and benefit sharing may include marketing of medicinal plants through facilitation of agreements
between communities and drug or food companies, agreements between research and academic institutions and local
communities, or managed hunting or tourism activities.
11
A biodiversity investment facility (BIF) supported by the project would prepare feasibility studies for small scale
investments which create local employment as well as benefit biodiversity and generate profit. The BIF would cover all
project sites. The BIF would also help mobilize finance to the investment and help address small ‘barriers” preventing
investments by undertaking the feasibility study, identifying private capital, putting partners together and facilitating the
process. . Finance would most likely come from private sector, and implementation of the investment would be undertaken
by private sector. The BIF would ensure that projects supported would be biodiversity friendly but would not fund
investments.
12
The PDF B will examine the legal framework for allowing for ecosystem services. However, there are clear incentives
for improved watershed management given a water shortage, land degradation processes, and dam building plans
downstream of forests and other important biodiversity areas. Mechanisms could be explored within the project to transfer a
small portion of the budget for dam building for improved upstream watershed management activities through reforestation
and protection schemes which can help to reduce pressure on protected areas as well as improve functioning of dams. The
project could help facilitate coordination and awareness on these issues among the key agencies such as MOP, MOAJ and
DOE. This is clearly in line with the Third National Five Year Plan and the government’s recent decision to decision to
merge agriculture and rural development and construction within one ministry (MOAJ) , as well as the ratification of the
Biodiversity Strategy in the National Committee of Sustainable Development (Environmental High Council).
9
e. Integration of biodiversity conservation into rural development programmes will be promoted in areas
surrounding selected project sites in order to promote effective land-use management and enhance landscape
level conservation through close coordination with MOAJ’s forest and rangeland management activities and
capacity building of agricultural extension services to promote biodiversity friendly practices in productive
sectors.
f. Specific to certain sites:
- assist the ongoing scheme to reintroduce the Mesopotamian Fallow Deer;
- prepare a plan to document and utilise Indigenous Knowledge;
- undertake a feasibility study to reintroduce the Persian Lion.
Outcomes/activities around the protected area
51. The project will support awareness raising and education schemes, to build appreciation and understanding
of the biodiversity. The project may support ongoing proposals to expand the current protected areas. The
project would contribute to land-use planning in the area, by providing biodiversity overlays and guidelines for
incorporating biodiversity into land-use plans and other development activities. In a similar way, the feasibility
of new buffer zones will be undertaken. If appropriate, management mechanisms for buffer zones will be
developed in consultation with local communities, village councils, and other local representatives.
52. As part of a package of measures, it is hoped that cost-sharing can focus on developing economic
alternatives to unsustainable practices in villages around the Protected Areas. This will complement ongoing
activities by the MOAJ, for example in sectors such as enhancing agricultural practices, tourism, handicraft,
micro-credit. As a key partner institution in the proposed project the MOAJ will be able to facilitate rural
development activities in areas surrounding PAs which can help reduce pressure on biodiversity as well as
reduce land degradation which is one of the Ministry’s main objectives. Such activities would be partly covered
by the MOAJ budget and during the PDF B additional financing from government and bilateral agencies will be
identified in order to support alternative livelihood activities that can help conserve biodiversity as well as
reduce rural poverty.
Outcomes/Activities at the provincial level:
53. The project will establish and support an inter-sectoral committee (ISC) for biodiversity management. This
Committee will be under the leadership of Provincial Governor General’s Office and chaired by the DoE.
Members will also include the provincial MOAJ and MPO (responsible for allocation of the provincial budget).
The ISC will also include non-governmental members, such as local experts and representative NGOs. The ISC
can ensure that the important government budgetary decisions taken at provincial level can support project
objectives.
54. Capacity building on how to conserve biodiversity, and awareness raising on the importance of conserving
biodiversity, will also focus at the provincial level. The province wide PAN will be reviewed, and the need for
new areas and corridors explored. The integration of biodiversity conservation into the MOAJ rural
development programme may be considered.
Outcomes/Activities at the national level:
55. In general the project will focus at the site level. However there will be a need for some national level
activities, to provide coordination across provinces and to provide budgetary and policy support. Also the
project will provide experience/lessons on how conflicts affecting biodiversity can be managed in Iran, and on
how to successfully protect areas. National level activities will focus on the documenting and disseminating of
these experiences and lessons-learnt.
10
56. These activities may include:
- support to a project advisory group and project steering committee through, for example, workshops and
roundtable meetings;
- review of national legislation, policy and guidelines related to mountains biodiversity and protected area
management, and if necessary the preparation of new legislation;
- support to project monitoring and to the documenting of project activities and successes.
57. The project is expected to last for four-five years.
10. Sustainability (financial, social, environmental) and replicability of the full project
58. The Government of Iran, in particular the DoE, is committed to utilising GEF support to develop capacity to
protect biodiversity, and to develop models and tools that can be used in other biodiversity rich areas. Hence it is
fully behind this innovative project, and will work to ensure its success.
59. Two additional factors that will help ensure the sustainability of proposed outputs are:
- Innovative financial mechanisms. The mechanisms will help ensure that stakeholders, including local
communities, can benefit from the protection of the mountain forest biodiversity;
-
Raising awareness and increasing public participation. This will ensure that, particularly the local
people, will appreciate the value of the biodiversity, and recognise that they have a valid stake in its
long-term protection. Traditional participatory mechanisms (such as through the elected village
councils, and working with religious leaders) will be utilised in this process.
60. Traditionally, nomads in the region have cared for the natural resources, as this is fundamental to their longterm survival. Although many nomads are now settling (and this trend is likely to continue), special efforts will
be made to work with the nomad tribes and to involve them in planning and other activities, and to benefit from
their knowledge of the region and its biodiversity.
61. The project is replicable to other areas in Iran, and to other countries with similar ecosystems and similar
threats. This would include many countries in west and central Asia, with arid, mountainous ecosystems, high
levels of grazing, and a traditionally nomadic culture.
11. Country Eligibility:
CBD ratification: 6 August 1996
GEF participant since 25 May 1994
62. The project is fully in line with CBD objectives of conserving biodiversity, sustainable utilisation of
biodiversity, and equitable distribution of the benefits of biodiversity. Notably it responds to Article 8 (a) – (e),
(i), Article 10, Article 11, Article 13. It also responds to the guidance of CBD working groups on access and
benefit sharing.
63. The project is fully in line with all relevant guidance from GEF. Whereas the focus of the project is
mountain ecosystems, given the geographical basis of the project, it also contributes very closely to the
conservation of arid land and forest biodiversity. Also, based on the findings of the PDF B, the project may
contribute to the conservation of biodiversity important to agriculture. The project also is in line with GEF
guidance on public participation, preservation of indigenous knowledge, innovative financing mechanisms, and
monitoring/evaluation.
12. Stakeholders involved in project:
11
64. Site level stakeholders
- The most important stakeholder group includes the farmers, villagers, shepherds, and the nomadic
communities. Ultimately, it is the activities of these core stakeholders that need to be influenced if the
project is to succeed;
- Community leaders (such as the elected Village Council, or religious leaders, or traditional heads of
nomadic tribes13) are an important stakeholder group. This group can represent the core stakeholders, and
can also provide a bridge between the project and the core stakeholders;
- Protected area staff;
- National and Provincial NGOs active in the area;
65. Provincial Stakeholders
As mentioned above an Inter-sectoral Committee (ISC) with both government and non-government members
will be established in provinces where the project has sites. The ISC should continue to function after project
completion, but initially its activities will be oriented towards ensuring project success. The ISC will: ensure
coordination amongst partners in the project; ensure coordination of project activities with ongoing activities of
DoE, MOAJ, Ministry of Power (MOP), and local NGOs; will provide technical guidance to project activities
and outputs; will facilitate coordination with grass-roots level stakeholders.
66. National Stakeholders
At the governmental level, the major stakeholders are DoE and MOAJ. DoE will take the lead in project
implementation. A project Steering Committee, consisting of DoE/MOAJ/UNDP-GEF/Ministry of Foreign
Affairs (MFA) will be established. The Steering Committee will approve project workplans, and approve major
inputs and outputs of the project. Any co-financers to the project will also be on the Steering Committee.
67. A project advisory group (PAG) will be also established with the following membership: DoE (2 members),
MOAJ, 2 NGO representatives, 2 University Experts, and 1 representative from each relevant Province. The
PAG will be chaired by DoE. The PAG will provide technical guidance to the project, and will ensure that all
project outputs are widely disseminated. The PAG will also play a role in mobilising cost-sharing to the project,
and in ensuring that activities supported by this project are coordinated with other activities.
13. Information on project proposer:
68. The project proponent is the Department of the Environment (DoE) of the Islamic Republic of Iran. DoE is
the focal point for environment in the country and also acts as the Secretariat of the Environmental High
Council. The DoE is under the directed authority of the President of the Republic. DoE chairs the interdepartment steering committee for the preparation of the report to the Convention on Biodiversity, and has the
mandate for biodiversity conservation. DoE, through its provincial affiliates, as direct management
responsibilities for the majority of protected areas in Iran.
69. DoE has had a good experience in the development and implementation of the following GEF projects:
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (almost completed); Iran Wetlands Biodiversity Conservation
Project (PDF B almost complete); Conservation of Cheetah and Related Habitats (MSP Brief approved by GEF,
start-up imminent).
14. Financing Plan of Full project
70. The total cost of the project is expected to be in the range $6 million, with approximately $3 million of this
from GEF.
13
Traditionally nomadic tribes had a leader or Khan. In general this system has broken down due to policies established in
the 1960s.
12
71. The Government of Iran will contribute co-financing to the incremental component of the project activities.
Some of this co-financing will be in-kind, but some should be in the form of new, hard budgetary allocations
(either the national or provincial budgets). Total: at least $1 million.
72. Efforts to mobilise third party cost-sharing will be made during the PDF stage. Development and
cooperation agencies with offices in Iran will be contacted, as will possible private sector sources of
philanthropic support. This third-party cost sharing could be to the increment, or could be to strengthening the
baseline. For example, it is possible that third parties will be interested in supporting activities aiming at poverty
alleviation or natural resource management in the areas surrounding the protected areas.
15. IA coordination and Linkages to GEF and IA programs and activities
73. The UNDP Country Cooperation Framework for the Islamic Republic of Iran (CCF, June 2000) outlines
three strategic areas for UNDP to support (i) poverty alleviation and sustainable human development (ii)
economic and resource based management and, (iii) governance and increased participation in society. This
project is fully in line with the second (ii) of these, and will also contribute to poverty alleviation and increased
participation objectives from (i) and (iii).
74. As mentioned earlier, priority areas for international cooperation were identified within the framework of the
UNDP/GEF NBSAP project, Based on these recommendations, UNDP/GEF is now developing the following
projects: Conservation of the Asiatic Cheetah (OP1), Conservation of Iranian Wetlands (OP2), Conservation of
the Arasbaran Biosphere reserve (OP3), Conservation of Yakhkesh mountain on the Alborz range (OP4). The
present proposed project complements, without overlapping in geographical terms, these projects.
75. Recently GEF approved a package of support under the Small Grants Programme to Iran. The strategy for
this programme is being developed, and UNDP will ensure complementarity with the present proposed project.
76. Finally, there are very few internationally supported biodiversity projects in Iran, none of which are related
to the present proposed project and significant in scope.
16. Proposed project development strategy
77. PDF block B funds will be requested. The funds will be used to (i) rapidly appraise the candidate sites (ii)
select 2-3 sites based on pre-determined criteria (iii) undertake detailed and participatory appraisals of the socioeconomic situation at the selected sites, including gathering initial information on indigenous knowledge (iv)
gather additional biological and ecological data from the selected sites (v) develop coordination mechanisms at
the national level and provincial level (vi) identify possible participatory management mechanisms at the site
level (vii) outline an integrated biodiversity management plan for each selected site (viii) identify co-financing
and cost-sharing to assure the baseline and to contribute to incremental cost (ix) develop full GEF proposal and
UNDP project document, including detailed incremental cost analysis, public participation plan, logical
framework and monitoring plan.
17. Response to Reviews
78. The project has not yet been subjected to an independent review.
Annexes
1. Maps of Iran and of Zagros mountains showing candidate sites;
2. Indicative list of wild relatives of commercial flora species
3. List of key Mammal, Reptile and Bird species in the Central Zagros Mountains
4. Information on site selection process
5. Basic ecological, biodiversity and socio-economic data on the candidate sites;
6. Preliminary Conceptual Models
7. Information related to Indigenous Knowledge in the Zagros mountains.
13
Annex 1. Maps of Iran and of Zagros mountains showing candidate sites;
14
Annex 2 Indicative list of wild relatives of commercial flora species
Almond (Amygdalus sp)
Apple (Malus Orientalis)
Chick pea (Cicer spp)
Fig (Ficus sp.)
Grape (Vitis Vinifera)
Pea vine (Lathyrus sp)
Pistachio (Pistacia Atlantica, P. Ichinjuk)
Pomegranate (Punica granatum)
Tulip (Tulipa spp)
Vetch pea (Vicia spp)
Walnut (Juglans regia)
Wheat (Agylops sp)
Maple (Acer sp.)
Myrtle (Myrtus Communis)
15
Annex 3 List of key Mammal, Reptile and Bird species in the Central Zagros Mountains
1- Mammals
Allactaga euphratica
Apodemus sylvaticus
Arvicola terrestris
Calomyscus bailwardi
Canis aureus
Canis lupus
Capra aegagrus
Cervus/dama dama
mesopotamica*
Cricetulus migratorius
Crocidura russula
Dryomys nitedula
Ellobius fuscocapillus
Felis chaus
Hemiechinus auritus
Hyaena hyaena
Hystrix indica
Lepus capensis
Lutra lutra
Martes foina
Meles meles
Meriones persicus
Microtus nivalis
Microtus socialis
Myotis blythi
Nesokia indica
Ochotona rufescens
Ovis orientalis
Panthera pardus
Paraechinus hypomelas
Pipistrellus kuhil
Pipistrellus pipistrellus
Plecotus austriacus
Rhinolophus euryale
Rhinolophus euryale
Rhinolophus
ferrumequinum
Rhinolophus mehelyi
Sciurus anomalus *
Sus scrofa
Ursus arctos
Vulpes vulpes
2- Birds
Aegithalos caudatus
Alectoris chukar
Anas crecca
Anas platyrhnchos
Anas querquedula
Apus apus
Apus melba
Aquila chrysaetos
Ardea cinerea
Caprimulgus europaeus
Carpodacus erythrinus
Cettia cetti
Charadrius dubius
Ciconia ciconia
Cinclus cinclus
Columba livia
Columba palumbus
Coracias garrulus
Corvus corax
Corvus corone
Corvus frugilegus
Coturnix coturnix
Cuculus canorus
Delichon urbica
Dendrocopos medlius
Dendrocopos syriacus
Emberiza buchanani
Emberiza cia
Emberiza melanocphala
Eremophila alpestris
Falco pelegrinoides
Falco subbuteo
Falco tinnunculus
Ficedula albicollis
Fulica atra
Galerida cristata
Garrulus glandarius
Gypaetus barbatus
Gyps fulvus
Hippolais sicterina
Hippolais pallida
Hieraaetus fasciatus
Hirundo rupestris
Hirundo rustica
Irania gutturalis
Lanius excubitor
Lanius minor
Lanius senator
Melanocorypha
bimaculata
Merops apiaster
Milvus migrans
Monticola saxatilis
Monticola solitarius
Montifringilla nivalis
Motacilla alba
Motacilla cinerea
Muscicapa striata
Oenanthe finschii
Oenanthe hispanica
Oenanthe isabellina
Oenanthe lugens
Oenanthe xanthopyrmna
Otus scops
Parus caeruleus
Parus lugubris
Parus major
Passer domesticus
Petronia brachydactyla
Petronia petronia
Phoenicurus phoenicurus
Phylloscopus neglectus
3- Reptiles
Ablepharus bivittatus
Ablepharus pannonicus
Coluber jugularis
Coluber rovergieri
Cyrtodactylus
heterocercus
Cyrtodactylus scaber
Eivenis punctatolineata
Eremias guttulta
Eryx miliaris
Eumeces schneideri
Hemidactylus persicus
Hemidactylus turcicus
Laudakia nupta
Mabuya aurata
Malpolon
monspessulanus
Mauremys caspica
Natrix tessellata
Ophiomorus persicus
Ophisaurus apodus
Ophisops elegans
Psammopis lineolatus
Pseudocerastes persicus
Scincus conirostris
Spalerosophis diadema
Spalerosophis microlepis
Telescopus tessellatus
Testudo graeca
Trapelus agilis
Tropiocolotos persicus
Uromastix loricatus
Vipera lebetina
16
4- Amphibian
Bufo surdus
Bufo viridis
Hyla savignyi
Neurergus kaiseri
Rana ridibunda
5- Fish
Barbus barbulus
Barbus grypsus
Barbus lacerta
Capoeta damascinus
Capoeta macrolepis
Capoeta trutta
Cyprinion macrostomus
Garra rufa
Glyptothorax
kurdistanica
Nemacheilus tigris
Onchorynchus mykiss
Salmo trutta
Annex 4. Information on the site selection process
Six candidate sites have been selected based on available information and preparatory field visits. These
sites are Sabzkuh and Helen; Semirom; Dena and Yasuj; Miankotal; Oshtorankuh (Loristan) and Bagh-eshadi. Basic information on these sites is included in the Attachment below. Under the PDF, the steps
towards selecting project sites are:
Step 1 – Develop Detailed Site Selection Criteria
Basically, the criteria should consist of:
Global biodiversity value: measured in terms of endemism, degree endangered, species utilised by man (or
related to such species), key or flagship species, uniquely adapted species.
Degree of threats: the threats should not be so big that a GEF project would not be able to sustainably
remove them. But they should be large enough to justify a GEF intervention.
Provincial commitment to the project. Commitment should start at governor general’s office, and should
include all concerned departments (not just DoE).
Local commitment: At the site level, the protected area management and representatives of local
stakeholders should be ready to cooperate on an international project. These stakeholders should be
sufficiently flexible to attempt alternative development paths.
National priority: the sites should be a identified as national priority for international cooperation.
NGO support: Local and national NGOs should support the sites.
Possibility of financing: from provincial government to baseline/increment, or from other sources.
Suitability for successful reintroducing programmes, for example of Mesopotamian Fallow Deer and
Asiatic Lion.
Step 2 – Complete a Matrix, for each site, to Facilitate Comparison of Candidate sites
Using the above criteria (and any others developed) a matrix shall be developed, with appropriate
weighting to each criteria. Some criteria should be judged essential – and if the site does not so score high
marks on essential criteria it will be excluded, even if it scores high marks overall.
National consultants will be recruited to objectively complete the matrix. This will require a short visit to
each site.
Step 3 – Prepare Guidelines on the number of sites to be selected (estimated 2-3)
Guidelines will be prepared to assist on choosing the number of sites.
Possible arguments in favour of having more sites include:
 This would lead to conserving considerably more biodiversity;
 This would lead to dealing with a broader range of threats, and experience/expertise in dealing
with a variety of threats will be developed.
Possible arguments for limiting the number of sites include:
 This leads to an increased cost, both to GEF and to Government;
17


As both GEF and Government funds are limited, there is a danger that having more site would
lead to resources being distributed too thinly to be effective;
More sites leads to an increased demands for coordination.
Step 4 – An independent review will make recommendations to Steering Committee
Consultants recruited under the PDF will review the matrices completed under Step 2, and will
recommend which site(s) should be included in the project.
18
Annex 5: Basic Ecological, Biodiversity and Socio-economic data on the candidate sites
1.
Mount Dena Protected Area
Basic Information
70% of the PA lies in Kohkiluye e Boyer Ahmad province, 30% lies in neighbouring Isfahan province. All
the PA is managed by Kohkiluye. Total area of the PA is 120,000 ha, with a core zone of 25,000 ha. The
PA was set up 12 years ago. There are 6 control stations, with 32 border guards overall.
The altitude ranges from 1200 to 4500m asl. Around the edge of the PA, there are 51 villages on South
side of mountain, 12 on North side, with an aggregate estimated population of 25-30,000. Livestock
population is much higher. Each village has between 1000-5000 livestock.
.
Biodiversity Information
More than 1000 plants have been recorded so far (equal to 15% of all Iran), with over 200 endemic to
Iran, and over 60 endemic to Dena. Over 250 plants are known to be used for medicinal, aromatic
purposes or as pigments.
The Forest goes up to 2700m, above this level there is scattered trees, and higher only bushes and
shrubland.
Examples of large mammals include wolf, Persian squirrel, black bear, leopard, goat and sheep, many
boar, jackal. All have good populations - except the sheep. Also lynx and caracal cat (this latter needs
confirmation).
Threats and Root Causes
Mainly grazing and conversion to agriculture. Also, hunting is significant here, as the nomadic
communities are hunters. Farmers also hunt wolves, bears and boar because they cause problems. There is
a large population of nomads around the park, and many which use the park for grazing.
Other Issues
Problems as recognised by staff: need to buy-out private landowner in central area, 17 families on edge
with livestock have permits for core zone, and DoE should buy these permits; population growing, have
provided houses and gas; the PA is not yet formally registered, so cannot remove people from the PA; lack
of guards, facilities and equipment; drought.
There is an informal experiment to let shepherds come and collect food for grazers, rather than bringing in
the animals in ad-hoc. The PA receives many requests for additional permits to graze in the area, since it
has good pastures.
The PA owes its good status to its difficulty of access. This is changing, with the recently opened airport
at Yasulj, and the roads under construction.
2.
Sabzkuh Protected Area
Basic Information
The PA lies in Chahar Mahal and Bakhtayari Province, and covers 62,000 has. There are many villages on
edge of the park (approx. 25,000 people).
19
Biodiversity Information
The Sabzkuh protected area includes three distinct climatic regions: cold, temperate and sub-tropical. In
the cold regions many endemic plants are found alongside Oak trees which are few and dispersed and
present mainly on western slopes. In this region (2500 – 2550 meters) a kind of Astragalus Sp. is
dominant with dispersed Rhamnus kurdica. In lower altitudes Fritillaria sp., Ranunculus sp., Allium
hirtifolium, Arum sp., Fixiolirion tataricum and many kinds of graminae are found. In temperate region
(2300 - 2350 meters) the dominant species in medium and lower heights are Oak trees. Other species
occurring in these and lower altitudes include Amygdalus sp. (Almond), Acer sp., Fraxinus sp., Crataegus
sp., Pistacia sp., Daphne sp., with Graminae (Poa, Bromus, Hardeum), Centaura sp., Tulipa sp., Allium
sp. Geranium sp. in lower parts. In altitudes ranging between 2000 – 1500 meters semi-humid Oak forests
with the dominance of Iranian Oak (Querqus brantii) occur with herbaceus communities like Graminae,
Paparer sp., in the warm (subtropical) region.
The mammals found in the Sabzkuh area include the wild goat or Ibex, bear (Ursus arctos), panther
(Panthera pardus), wild forest cat (Felis chaus). Significant populations of Hystrix indica and wildboar
(Sus scropha) are found, as well as medium populations of rabbit (Lepus capensis), Persian squirrel
(Sciurus anomalus ), Fox (Vulpes vulpes), Wolf (Canis lupus), Stone marten (Martes foina), Badger
(Meles meles), Hyaena (Hyaena hyaena), Sirds (Meriones sp.). There are different species of bats living
in the region which need to be further studied, apparently Myotis Sp.is the dominant group and it is
believed that Rhinolophus Sp. and Pipistrellus Sp. Are found here as well.
Generally birds from Polacedae, Fringillidae, & Cooridae are present in the region. In higher altitudes
Falco naumanni , Falco tinnuncuculus , Sitta neumayer and Garrulus glandanius are also found.
Near villages there are Hirundo rustica , Ma tin, Merops apiaster. In Chal Ghochi region Oenanthe
aenanthe , Oenanthe lugens , Oenanthe finchi are found. In the warm (sub-tropical) region different
kind of warblers, bunting, Oennanthe lugens, Oenanthe oenanthe, Pyrrhocorax graculus are found. In
high mountains of Sabzkuh Golden Eagle (Aquila chysaetos) as well as Tetragallus caspins are
found.
Among reptiles, several lizards occur in the area, especially Ophisops elegans is found in the range of
2500 meters with a good population. The population of Amphibians seems high near Barjoie Post with
Rana and Bufo species. Several species of fish are found, including Cypoinius capio found in
Chughakhur wetland.
Threats
Overgrazing
Conversion - land is so hilly, that any tiny piece of flat land is farmed for wheat.
Minor wood collection for fuel.
There are mines in the buffer zone
Many faults lead to landslides and erosion
Other Issues
Outlying areas of the park are badly degraded. There is a proposal to expand the area by 43,000 has. This
is part of government’s new programme to have 10% of forest protected in the country. It is estimated that
5 years of full protection would regenerate green cover fully on all slopes in the PA. It would probably
take 15-20 years for the forests to fully grow.
Village councils, and religious leaders are very influential and respected here. One religious leader may
cover several villages. There is an ongoing government programme to collect small villages into one
larger village (of approx. 1500 people). They are provided with good basic services and free gas.
20
3.
Semirom Area
Basic Information
Semiron area lies in Esfahan province, at 30°43’ to 31°51’N and 51°17’ to 51°57’ E. The area of the
proposed candidate site is about 5224 km2 annd is not presently under a protection status. Altitude ranges
from 1300-2500m. Population of Semirom district is concentrated in 1 city (Semirom) and 139 villages.
The total population of the area is estimated at 85190 persons (23443 living in the city, 43988 living in
rural areas). Totally there are 14646 families living in Semirom, of which 4308 families live in the city
and 5722 families live in rural areas. Nomad communities comprise to 2816 families. The nomads belong
to the Qashqai tribe. They spend their summers in Semiron and their winter quarters are in Fars, Kuzestan
and Boyer Ahmed provinces.
The number of livestock in Semirom district in general comprises to 1.700.000 sheep and goats, 250 pure
local cows and calf, and 17390 mix-blooded cows and calf. Rainfall is less than 400 mm/year. There are
large temperature fluctuations, with maximums between –10º and +30º C.
Biodiversity Information
Cold steppe land and dry mountainous wood land.
Brown bear, leopard, wild cat, ibex, wild sheep, Persian squirrel are common.
Birds: Many passerine, many falcons (including 2 endangered species), Persian Snow Cock.
See ‘Other issues’ below for key plant and insect species.
Threats and Root Causes
Early grazing
Overgrazing
Bush cutting and coal mining by local communities.
Converting rangelands to low output farms
Lack of balance between livestock and capacity of rangelands
Clean water maintenance and contaminated surface water problems
Disease and pests
Predators of the insect Cyamophilia dicord raginova
Other Issues
The area is the principal ground for the unique plant Astragalus adscendeng. This produces a special gum
in summer (110 days after being bitten by the insect Cyamophilia dicord raginova) The gum is expensive
and is used and exported mainly for medicine. Plant and insect are both endangered now. In 1990, about
2,000 people earned a living collecting the gum. During collecting period, can collect 220kg (worth
$10,000) per hectare. By 2000, the yield was down to below 0.04% of original.
4.
Miankatol Protected Area
Basic Information
Lies in Fars Province. The PA covers 58,000 ha and includes all the small mountains and plains between
Arjan and Parishan lakes. The area is covered by dense oak forests and is protected by DOE since 1992.
There are only 2 stations, and 8 staff, working on the central controlled area of 7000 has. There are plans
to reintroduce the Persian fallow deer in this area (see below). The altitude range is from 800 – 2900 m
asl. Budget: $15,000/year.
21
The area is qualified to be, but is not yet an MAB site. Part of this area was once proposed as a possible
place to reintroduce Persian Lion – this proposal is still pending.
There are 25 villages in and on the edge of the PA, with populations estimated to be in the range 3040,000. Within the PA no agricultural activity is permitted since the whole area was purchased from local
people about 20 years ago. Thus natural conditions exist and the natural vegetation is retained.
Biodiversity Information
PA lies between 2 zones, its southern end is (sub-) tropical, its northern end is temperate. Sheep, fox, wolf,
leopard, bears and others have good population. Wild goat is also found though the population is under
stress. Inside, near the core zone, healthy oak forest is found (with 2 dominant species). Checkered lily
(Fritillaria) and other tulips, orchids, irises, and Sternbergia are found in the area. Fresh oak shoots nettle
trees (Celtis), wild almond (Amygdalus), hawthorn (Crataegus), and many Astragalus aging from 1-4
years are found. Many endangered plants of Zagros have established themselves in the 7,000 ha core area
and are increasing in number. Birds such as Jays, Partridge, various tits, woodpigeon, and finches live in
the area.
Threats and Root Causes
Population living around the edge of the park is quite large, and there are many nomadic communities
relying on natural resources. Hence the main threats are overgrazing and conversion to agriculture.
Other Issues
Reintroduction of the Mesopotamian Fallow Deer (MFD). This species was found here over 100 years
ago, and was widespread in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine. For many years, no specimens were found,
and the species was thought to be extinct. Approximately 40 years ago, some were spotted in the north [art
of Zagros mountains (Khouzestan province). They were all transferred to small, very protected area in
Caspian. Some were sent to German zoos. The population became almost domesticated. There are now
large numbers living in captivity in foreign zoos. From the population in the Caspian site (which is hoped
to be pure MFD), some were reintroduced into the natural habitat in Miankotal 9 years ago. Since then, the
Miankotal population has grown from 15 to 28. This is 1 of only 2 populations in natural conditions, and
‘wild’ conditions. Total population of MFD in Iran is 250. They are fenced in 170 ha at centre of PA
which is being enlarged to include the entire 7000 ha core area. The area is very closely monitored but
remains close to natural conditions.
5.
Baghe – Shadi area
Basic Information
Baghe-Shadi area is located in Yazd province, approximately 29.5º N. The highest point is 2,500m. The
proposed project candidate site is 20,000 hectares, consisting of mainly mountainous woodland, and plain
habitats. (60% of the area has a slope between 2% and 20%. The remaining 40% of the area is greater than
20% slope). The area is not protected at present.
3 villages are located in the area and each village has a population of approximately 10 families each
comprising about 7-10 members. The population has access to one elementary school. The main
livelihood activities include animal husbandry, limited agriculture (wheat and barley), and exploitation of
natural products (such as nuts) for trade. Livestock consists of goats mainly and very limited numbers of
sheep and calves.
Biodiversity Information
22
Leopard, ibex and wild sheep are the most important big mammals. The area is also important for lizards
and snakes. There is a good diversity of birds, falcons spp, partridge, land grouse, wood-peckers, bee
eaters and corridae are present in the area. Almond and pistachio are dominant trees and shrubs. Good
diversity of mountainous and plain flora.
Threats and Root Causes
Land degradation and desertification processes are ongoing. Deforestation and bush-cutting are common.
Poverty, low education, and lack of environmental awareness are key factors.
6.
Oshtorankuh in Loristan province
Basic Information:
The area of Oshtorankuh Protected Area is 74,250 ha. It is located at 48° 58’ to 49°25 E, 33°12 to 33° 28
N, in Lorestan province. The highest peaks are Mt. Sen Beran (4150 m), Mt. Sarsabz, Mt. Parizkuh, Mt.
Darre Neygah. In general, the area has much higher elevation than the surrounding lands. Oshtorankuh
area is the main source of Mohr-Zarrin, Marborreh, Gaharrud, Darre-Daie and Darre-Zardan Rivers.
The number of settlements in and around the area includes 6 rural districts comprising 68 villages.
Nomads are of Haftlang and Chaharlang belonging to the Bakhtiari tribe, which are present in the area in
settled, semi-mobile and mobile situations. Total number of population in these rural districts is 62,355.
91% of these rural districts have educational facilities, 48.5 % have pipeline water, 23.5 % have
electricity, and 54% have public bathrooms.
Economic activities in the area mainly include agriculture, animal husbandry (cattle and birds), and
honeybee keeping. Animal husbandry is the basic activity, and all of the 68 villages in the area have
animal husbandries.
Gahar Lake (49°16’40” to 49°17’48” E and 33°18’12” to 33°18’44” N) is located along a narrow valley
and between two Oshtorankuh Zagrosic chains. It is 2350 m high, maximum depth is 28 m and more than
half of the lake has a depth of over 20 m. The Gahar basin receives average rain of 931 mm per year, and
is frozen 161 days in 5.5 months every year.
Biodiversity information:
The vegetation of the area is dividable into three categories:
a) Forested area, basically including oak, willow, wild apple, wild pear and junipers.
b) Shrub lands, where the most important plants are Almond (Amygdalus), wild oat grass
(Asthenatherum), Daphne, hawthorn (Crataegus) and Cotoneaster.
c) Rangelands, mostly covered with various Astragalus, Sage (Artemisia), Acanthophyllum, various
Geraminae, Umbelliferae and Labiatae.
The numbers of plant species recorded for Oshtorankuh area are 150.
Wildlife species include 38 mammals (e.g. Ibex, brown bear, and panther), 93 birds (e.g. snowcock,
various falcons and eagles, and many Passeriforms), 32 reptiles (e.g. turtles, snakes and vipers, many
lizard), 5 amphibians (e.g. many toads and frogs), and 4 fishes. There are scattered records for a number of
crustaceans, molluscs and insects for the area.
Threats and root causes:
- Grazing. Settled villagers have 168420 heads of livestock and the nomads have approximately
310000 heads. This puts a strong pressure on the vegetation of the area, which also has to provide
the food for the wildlife.
23
7.
-
In very sharp slopes, soil stabilization does not occur and therefore the vegetation is poor. In the
sharp slopes surrounding Gahar Lake, surface water flow is very strong and this has a high erosion
power. The amount of eroded material entering into the lake is very high and in long terms there is
this threat that the lake will be filled due to elevation of the natural bed and its consistency.
-
There are vegetation growth restrictions due to climatic conditions – such as low rainfall and
continuous droughts.
Bisotun Protected Area
Basic Information:
The area covered by the Bisotun PA is 300 ha, and it is located at 34°29’15” N, 47°20’06” E, in
Kermanshah province. The highest peak of the area is Mt. Bisotun at 2800 m asl.
There are 10 villages are within the area. Each village has an average population of 200, with 6-7 persons
in each family. All have pipeline water and electricity, and most of them have schools (elementary) and
health centers.
Main activities of the rural people inside the area include agriculture and animal husbandry, except one
village which animal husbandry is the sole activity. Cultivation is common even in villages with very
steep slopes, and wheat fields continue along the slopes to almost near the peak of the mountains. Where
the gradient is low, some forested areas are converted into agricultural lands and the trees are cut. Fruit
gardens and animal husbandries can also be commonly seen. Local people use some specific wild plants to
feed their herd. Large numbers of poplar trees, planted to be sold to the Kermanshah province paper
factory, can be seen in large areas.
A sand grind factory and an army base are near the protected area. Inside the area there is a Cement
factory, which is a major pollution source to the area, and there are also some army constructions.
Biodiversity information:
Most of the area is covered with grasses and shrub lands. Oak forests begin above 1550m. Oak, maple,
mountain almond (Amygdalus scoparia) and roses are dominant in 1600m. In northern slopes, hawthorn
(Crataegus) and in the southern slopes Amygdalus arabica another almond species, are scattered. Other
common plants are Scabiosa spp, Bromus spp, Zoegea spp, Echinops spp, Centaurea spp, Carthamus spp,
etc.
Mammals in the area include wild sheep and ibex, panther, wolf, jackal, hyena, fox, and wildcat.
Important birds are partridge, swift, mourning wheatear, nuthatch, bee-eater, kestrel, griffon vulture, many
warblers, etc.
Threats and root causes:
Overgrazing
Conversion of forest areas to agriculture
Land degradation on steep slopes
24
Annex 6: Preliminary Conceptual Models
Threat: Agriculture Encroaching onto PAN Forest Land
(this is not comprehensive and serves to illustrate ongoing processes and primary issues)
Typical Interventions
(shading indicates GEF nonly covers increment)
Higher level
Site level
Underlying causes
Negotiated
agreement with
possible financial
compensation
Project area level
coordination mechanism
Too few guards per
hectare/PA too large
Protected area
management plan
prepared together
with community and
implemented
All PA is not fully
registered
Lack of
management data
Access to PAN
is good
Provincial DoE is
unable to control
illegal access
Poor equipment
Converting PAN
and surrounding
forest land to
farmland
Local people do not
respect PA
Provincial level
coordination mechanism
National level
coordination
Threat
Some villages
have legal acess,
often pre-dating
PA establishment
Poor management
capacity
Local, biodiversity
friendly, development
plan
Cause
Awareness raising,
through village
councils and religious
leaders
No benefits to
individual farmers
from standing
forest.
ABS, innovative
financing, land tenure
reform
Desire to maximise
profits and income
Agricultural enhancement, tourism, etc..
(not GEF)
No economic alternative
(related to
unemployment and
population growth)
Negotiated agreement
25
Perceived and real
Economic benefits
to farmers
Perverse incentive
to convert land to
obtain ownership
Threat: Over Grazing
(this is not comprehensive and serves to illustrate ongoing processes and primary issues)
Typical Interventions
Underlying causes
Cause
Threat
(shading indicates GEF nonly covers increment)
Higher level
Site level
Negotiated
agreement with
possible financial
compensation
Project area level
coordination mechanism
Local, biodiversity
friendly, development
plan
Some shepherds
have permits.
Too few guards per
hectare/PA too large
Protected area
management plan
prepared together
with community and
implemented
All PA is not fully
registered
Access to PAN
is good
Poor management
capacity
Lack of
management data
Provincial DoE is
unable to control
illegal access
Unsustainable
grazing in the PAN
Poor equipment
Provincial level
coordination mechanism
National level
coordination
Local people do not
respect PA
Shepherds see no
economic benefit
in protecting land
Awareness raising,
through village
councils and religious
leaders
ABS, innovative
financing, land tenure
reform
Agricultural enhancement, tourism, etc..
(not GEF)
Negotiation/training with
shepherds inside PA
Desire to maximize
profits and income
Shepherds want
large herds
No economic alternative
(related to
unemployment and
population growth)
Low knowledge
base
Ineffective management system
26
Inappropriate
grazing techniques
Annex 7: Preliminary Information related to Indigenous Knowledge in the Zagros
mountains.
The Zagros mountains were traditionally inhabited by nomadic tribes. As little as fifty years ago,
more than half of the population of the mountains was nomadic. Moreover, as most of the nonnomadic population lived in a few small towns, outside of these towns the percentage of nomads
was almost 100%. Nomads now make up about 10% of the total population of the Zagros
mountains. There are approximately 800,000 nomads in the Zagros mountains. This is almost
three-quarters of all Iran’s nomads.
In order to survive the relatively harsh conditions, the nomads developed a detailed knowledge of
the mountains and the ecosystems, particularly the many uses of the plant and tree species present
in the mountains. Also, they developed complex management systems to sustainably manage the
forest, land and water resources in the mountains. The knowledge of uses of species, and these
specific management systems, made up the most significant components of the Indigenous
Knowledge of the nomadic people in the region.
The nomadic tribes also had an intricate internal governance system– the Khan system. Tribes
had an hierarchical system of leaders, known as Khan. At the highest level the Khan would be
very powerful, and could represent hundreds of thousands of nomads in discussions with other
outside parties and governments.
In the 1960’s, active policy and incentive measures were taken to sedentarise the nomads, and to
break up the internal governance structures. These measures have been largely successful - hence
the much smaller number of nomads today. Also the Khan system has largely disappeared in
most areas. There were some negative consequences of these policies, for example:
-
an almost total break down in the natural resource management system. The traditional
systems of management were not replaced with any effective system. The land is now
treated as common land, used by nomads, former nomads, villagers and migrants. Shortterm ‘mining’ of resources now takes place. The result is an advanced degradation of
much of the land and water resources, as indicated by the quadrupling in erosion levels,
and the doubling of flood events, since the policies were introduced in the 1960’s (these
figures apply to Iran generally);
-
a loss of some knowledge related to the plants and trees and their possible uses;
-
the lack of leadership and governance inside the tribes. Most nomads now have no clear
representatives to represent them in dialogue with outside bodies. Nomads now act in
isolation, independently. It is difficult for them to organise; it is difficult for outside
organisations to interact with more than a small number of nomads.
Unfortunately the extent and details of the indigenous knowledge in the region were never well
documented and are not well known. From the little that is known, and based on experience in
other regions, it is highly likely that some of the IK would be useful in the fight to conserve the
27
region’s biodiversity, and in support of the local sustainable development process. It is therefore
worth documenting and then conserving the remaining IK. The first step towards conserving the
IK would be to study its scope.
Some information on the indigenous systems to manage land, forest and water resources in the
Zagros mountains
-
limits were set on the number of livestock allowed to graze pasture land, and on the
seasons when grazing was allowed;
payments were made for the use of water;
migration routes were controlled;
nomads avoided planting camps near springs, to avoid contaminating the water;
nomads kept camels as well as goats, to balance the grazing pressure on the land;
nomads raised poultry, which graze on weeds as well as providing a diversified food
source;
nomads used correct plants and methods in order to manage agriculture on slopes;
on the birth of a child, a tree would be planted to provide for the child in later life (a
walnut tree for a daughter, a poplar tree for a son);
in water scarce areas, nomads planted fig trees in deep square holes.
Information on Indigenous uses of local plants in Zagros mountains14
A- Wood: Mainly oak, nut and nettle tree
1- Quercus Brantii var. persica
2- Q. Brantii var. belangeri
3- Q. libani (In northern Zagros only)
4- Q.infectoria (In northern Zagros only)
5- Juglans regia
6- Celtis caucasica
Acorns are used traditionally for food and for making bread, and for medicinal purposes, and
some uses suggest it could be used at industrial levels (eg. to clean waste water).
B- Fuel: Shrubs and Bushes like Astragalus and others, as well as tree lops. The scope of this
use has relatively decreased in comparison with the past.
C- Gum:
The gum extracted from some plant species is used in production of cosmetics, medicines,
and industrial glues (for gluing diamonds and other jewelry). Those are mostly exported to
other countries.
1- Ferula spp.
2- Pistachia Khinjuk (used in chewing gums)
14
Prepared by Tahere Eftekhari, Botany Section, National Museum for Natural History
28
3- P.atlantica subsp. kurdica (used in chewing gums)
4- Astragalus spp; especially A.gossypinus (gum tragacanth)
The insects (Order Psylloidea) and the plant (Astragalus) are used in the production of a gum
used for making confectionaries.
D- Food:
1- Pistachia Khinjuk (Fruit)
2- P.atlantica subsp. kurdica (Fruit)
3- Quercus Brantii (Seeds)
4- Q. libani (Seeds)
5- Q.infectoria (Seeds)
6- Punica granatum (fruit is used through grafting)
7- Rubus sp. (Fruit)
8- Allium hirtifalium (endangered, but the bulbs still widely used)
9- Vitis vinifera (Fruit)
10- Mentha spp. (Leaves and young shoots)
11- Crataegus sp. (Fruit)
12- Allium porrum (Leaves)
13- A.sativum (Leaves and bulbs)
14- A.akaka (Leaves and bulbs)
Some medicinal plants are being used for depression and anti-pain, and one is currently being
investigated for possible uses for AIDS.
Many plants are used to make pigments.
Many aromatic plants are also utilised.
29