Analysis of National Afforestation Policies Based on the Policy Relevance Criterion During 1989-2021

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Ph.d. Student of Forestry, Faculty of Natural Resources , University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran

2 Assistant Professor of Forestry, Faculty of Natural Resources , University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran

3 Associate Professor of Public Policy, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

4 Associate Professor of Agricultural Extension and Education, Faculty of Agricultural economics and Development, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran

5 Associate Professor of Forestry, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran

10.22059/jppolicy.2026.107836

Abstract

Reforestation and afforestation activities are among the main policy making tools for restoring degraded ecosystems, developing green spaces, public accessibility to ecosystem services, and consolidating national ownership. However, Iranian national reforestation/afforestation policies are not explicitly communicated and embodied in various regulations and policy documents. The purpose of this study was to collect reforestation/afforestation policies and evaluate their appropriateness according to relevance criterion. For these aims, the country's national policy documents, including supporting documents of the five-year development plans, development plans, national sectoral programs, decrees and regulations of the Natural Resources and Watershed Management Organization (NRWMO) regarding reforestation/afforestation during 1989 to 2021, were analyzed using the documentary analysis and open coding in the framework of relevance assessment. The findings reviled that the main national policies for reforestation/afforestation in arid and semi-arid ecosystems are forest restoration, plant enrichment, forest area development, participatory green spaces development, participatory and financially affordable reforestation with multipurpose species, and using new technologies and innovation. Analyzing relevance criterion shows policy integrity and policy gaps among various policy making levels. Among three reforestation/afforestation goals; the goal of restoration, reclamation, improvement, enrichment, and development of forest ecosystems, green spaces development, and multipurpose tree plantation has the most horizontal and vertical integrity and the most consensus of policy makers at different levels of decision making. The policies have not been synchronized at different vertical and horizontal levels of policy-making and the policy gaps are obvious in various scales. The reforestation/afforestation policies are fragmented, with no fundamental national development theory, lack of integrity among various levels of policy making. The consensus over policies among professional bureaucrats, elected representatives, and other policy making and policy evaluation sectors in the policy cycle are weak. This institutional arrangement increases the costs of reforestation/afforestation and ecosystem restoration activities and reduce the effectiveness of policy.

Keywords

References

  1. Adib Hajbagheri, M., Parvizi, S., and Salsali, M. (2011). Qualitative research methods. Tehran: Boshra Publications. [in Persian].
  2. Amiraslani, F., and Dragovich, D. (2011). Combating desertification in Iran over the last 50 years: An overview of changing approaches. Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 1–13.
  3. Ashtarian, K. (2007). Public policy-making in Iran (2nd ed.). Tehran: Mizan Publications. [in Persian].
  4. Ashtarian, K. (2024). Disruption of water governance in Iran: power and decision-making. Political Quarterly, 54(1), 1-21. [in Persian].
  5. Ashtarian, K., and Emami Meibodi, R. (2016). Regulatory Assessment of Public Policies in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Journal of Political Knowledge, 10(2), 5-36. [in Persian].
  6. Bardach, E., and Patashnik, E. M. (2016). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving (5th ed.). CQ Press.
  7. Beiranvand, A., Zargham, N., Shamkhi, T., Nouri Naeeni, S. M. S. and Avatefi Hemmat, M. (2020). Reviewing the Forests and Rangelands Policies of the First to Sixth Economic, Cultural and Social Development Plans of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iranian Journal of Public Policy, 6(1), 154-179. [in Persian].
  8. Chaffin, B. C., Gosnell, H., and Cosens, B. A. (2014). A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: synthesis and future directions. Ecology and Society 19(3): 56.
  9. Danaei Fard, H. (2009). Methodology of national entrepreneurship policy formulation: A conceptual framework. Journal of Entrepreneurship Development, 2(6). [in Persian].
  10. Dunn, W. N. (2018). Public policy analysis: An integrated approach (6th ed.). New York: Routledge.
  11. Esmaeili Sangari, H. and Parvin, R. (2025). A contextual framework for participatory policy-making and fluid social capital. Iranian Journal of Public Policy, 11(4), 9–25. [in Persian].
  12. (2025). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2025: Main report. Rome: FAO.
  13. Fischer, J., Riechers, M., Loos, J., Lopez, B. M., & Temperton, V. M. (2021). Making the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration a social-ecological endeavor. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 36(1), 20–28.
  14. Forests, Rangelands, and Watershed Management Organization. (2020). Vegetation cover map of Iran. Tehran, Office of Engineering and Studies, FRWMO. [in Persian].
  15. Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275–296.
  16. Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., and Perl, A. (2020). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
  17. Khairkhah, D., Mohammadi Kongrani, H., and Bazrafshan, O. (2016). Inter-organizational network relations of the 5th Development Document Plan with emphasize on natural resources. Iranian Journal of Forest, 8(2), 225-238. [in Persian].
  18. Koudoumakis, P., Botzoris, G., and Protopapas, A., (2022). Cohesion policy evaluation: Guidelines for selection of appropriate methods. Regional Science Policy and Practice, 14(5). 1062-1085.
  19. Lembck, A. C., and Menon, C. (2017). Making policy evaluation work: The case of regional development policy. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  20. Mavrot, C., Potluka, O., Balzer, L., Eicher, V., Haunberger, S., Heuer, C., and Viallon, F. X. (2025). What evaluation criteria are used in policy evaluation research: A cross-field literature review. Evaluation and Program Planning, 108, 102512.
  21. NSW Government. (2002). Draft natural resources information management strategy. Sydney: NSW Government.
  22. (2019). Evaluation criteria: Adapted definitions and principles for use. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  23. (2021). Applying evaluation criteria thoughtfully. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  24. (2023). Applying a human rights and gender equality lens to the OECD evaluation criteria. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  25. Peters, B. G. (2018). Policy problems and policy design. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  26. Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in time: History, institutions, and social analysis. Translated by M. Fazeli. Tehran: Nei Publication. [in Persian].
  27. Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy‐oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21(2–3), 129–168.
  28. Salem, A. A., Avatefi Hemmat, M., and Heshmatol Vaezin, S. M. (2015). Elasticity estimation of fuelwood demand in rural areas of the Caspian forest, northern Iran, based on Almost Ideal Demand System. Iranian Journal of Forest, 7(1), 67-85. [In Persian]
  29. Sotirov, M., and Storch, S. (2018). Resilience through policy integration in Europe? Domestic forest policy changes as response to absorb pressure to integrate biodiversity conservation, bioenergy use and climate protection in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, Land Use Policy, 79, 977-989.
  30. Soltani, A. M. (2020). National Evaluation System; a Missing Link in the Legislation and Planning System of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iranian Journal of Public Policy, 5(4), 137-154. [in Persian].
  31. Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (2011). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Translated by B. Mohammadi. Tehran: Research Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies. [in Persian].
  32. Weimer, D. L., and Vining, A. R. (2017). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice (6th ed.). Routledge.
  33. Yi, H., Huang, C., Chen, T., Xu, X., and Liu, W. (2019). Multilevel Environmental Governance: Vertical and Horizontal Influences in Local Policy Networks. Sustainability, 11(8), 2390.
  34. Zirakpour Navi, S., Avatefi Hemmat, M., and Heshmatol Vaezin, S. M. (2022). A qualitative evaluation of the results of implementing the Comprehensive Forest Safeguarding Policy in Guilan Province, Iran. Iranian Journal of Forest and Poplar Research, 30(3), 257-276. [in Persian].
Iranian Journal of Public Policy
Volume 12, Issue 2
June 2026
Pages 343-368

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics