The Complete Fauna of Iran: Norway and the Struggle for Power in the New North 9780755612215, 9781850439462

Citation preview

This work is dedicated to the memory of my father, General M.H. Firouz

Published in 2005 by I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd 6 Salem Road, London W2 4BU 175 Fifth Avenue, New York NY 10010 www.ibtauris.com In the U nited States of America and Canada distributed by Palgrave Macmillan, a division of St. M artin’s Press 175 Fifth Avenue, New York NY 10010 Copyright © 2005 by Eskandar Firouz Publication was m ade possible w ith the generous support of the Soudavar M em orial Foundation and the Iran Heritage Foundation. The right o f E skandar Firouz to be identified as the author o f this w ork has been asserted by the author in accordance w ith the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or any part thereof, may n ot be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transm itted, in any form or by any m eans, electronic, m echanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, w ithout the prior w ritten perm ission of the publisher. ISBN 1 85043 946 X EAN 978 1 85043 946 2 A full CIP record for this book is available from the British Library A full CIP record is available from the Library of Congress Library of Congress Catalog Card N um ber: available Typeset in lOpt M inion Edited by Mike Briggs in association w ith Cambridge Publishing M anagem ent Ltd, Cambridge, UK Design, Typesetting and Project co-ordination by Cam bridge Publishing M anagem ent Ltd, Cambridge, UK M aps by PCGraphics (UK) Ltd, Surrey, UK P rinted in Italy by G raphic Studio, SRL

I

ran is a land of vast deserts and semi-deserts, the forest-clad Alborz m ountains in the north and the Zagros m ountains in the west and southwest, located between the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf. Its varied habitats support a wide range of animal and plant life linked principally to the palaearctic realm, but possessing many endemic species as well as a num ber of Indian and African origin. Wetlands scattered across the country play host to great num bers of birds migrating to and from Siberia, India and Africa. As a founder, in 1967, of Iran’s Game and Fish D epartm ent, and later, in 1971, of the D epartm ent of the Environment, Eskandar Firouz played a key role in developing a national conservation program me, which won international acclaim. He contributed his knowledge and skills to the international scene as a m ember of the Board of Directors and Vice-president of the World Conservation Union (IUCN), and he served on the Board of Trustees of the WWF. As chairman of an international conference in the Caspian resort of Ramsar in 1971, he played a leading role in establishing the Convention on Wetlands of International Im portance, especially as Waterfowl H abitat (the Ramsar Convention), which now has 144 international parties. Eskandar Firouz was about to be elected President of the World Conservation Union in 1977 when political events in Iran led to his withdrawal from that prestigious post and from the post of Director of the D epartm ent of the Environment. Nevertheless, his passion for his country’s wildlife and for the conservation of nature remained and he has retained the respect of Iranian and international specialists. Published first in Persian, this book was described by the Iran University Press as the “m ost comprehensive book to date to feature the whole of Iran’s vertebrate fauna, comprising the fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals of Iran - 164 families and 1,073 species”. Many of those species are splendidly displayed in photographs and drawings. After m ore than a generation of isolation, Iran is resuming its im portant role in conservation of the w orld’s natural heritage. Eskandar Firouz’s book, with its authoritative descriptions of the country’s wildlife, is an im portant contribution to international knowledge and understanding.

Prince of The Netherlands, Soestdijk Palace E d ito rs Note: Prince B ernhard died on 30 Novem ber 2004, aged 93. Deeply concerned w ith the threat to the w orld’s wildlife, he helped to found the W orld Wildlife Fund (W W F) in 1961, and becam e its first President. He rem ained dedicated to wildlife conservation and was active to the end of his life.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

T

he preparation of this book, dealing as it does with all the vertebrate fauna of such a large and diverse country as Iran, has been a lengthy and difficult task made possible only by the generous help and advice from colleagues and friends. The people I have to thank are too num erous to m ention all by name, but I would like to thank Derek Scott for his unstinting guidance and preliminary editing of this work as well as his review of the book s section on birds. I am m uch indebted to Steven Anderson for his advice and final checking of the sections dealing with the reptiles and amphibians, and this applies equally to Brian Coad in regard to fish. It was through Derek Scott’s kindness and intervention that I was put in touch with Birdlife International, who generously provided me with some 70 of the bird illustrations shown in this work at no charge. All of these illustrations, as well as a further 19 painted by Robin Reckitt that I commissioned, deserve praise for both beauty and accuracy. I owe thanks to David Ferguson for checking the mammals and for reading the final manuscript. David Ferguson put me in touch with Charles Woods, to whom I am indebted for providing 11 of the m am m al and two of the reptile illustrations. I am very grateful to Hushang Ziai for his assistance in regard to the mammals of Iran. Steven A nderson and David Challinor were kind enough to read the final m anuscript and made many valuable comments. I owe particular thanks to my brother-in-law, Fereydoun Ala, w ithout whose persistence in trying to find a publisher this publication would not have appeared so soon. I am m ost grateful to my daughter, Azar, who, patiently and most ably, corrected some of the illustrations in this book by computer graphics. I also thank Anne Finch, far away in Ireland, for having typed with great competence the original manuscript. The proofs were read and checked by D uncan Poore and I am much indebted to him for his comments. I would also like to thank Deborah Susman for her overall editorial coordination, Mine Ali for seeing the book through the day-to-day editing and Jackie Dobbyne for her kind collaboration. In addition, I would like to thank Mike Briggs for his attentive copy-editing, Julie Crane and Steve Hawes for their design input, and Mike M oran and Stuart Weir for supervising the picture reproduction and printing. I am particularly grateful to the Soudavar Memorial Foundation for their very generous funding in support of this publication. I would also like to thank the Iran Heritage Foundation for their contribution towards the publication of this book. My heartfelt thanks also go to Sedigheh Rastegar, Khodadad Farmanfarnaian and Ardavan Farmanfarmaian for their personal support. Eskandar Firouz

THE CONVENTIONS USED IN THIS BOOK

I

n the lists of species in this book, all forms that are currently considered to be globally threatened are marked with the relevant IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, now known as the World Conservation Union) abbreviation after the scientific name: CR - critically endangered EN - endangered VU - vulnerable The species are num bered consecutively (sub-species are not numbered). Details of the species are shown like this: Species number English species name ♦ < - indicates that the species is illustrated Alternative English name(s) (Persian species name) Scientific name VU (or other degrees of endangerm ent)* Length**;Tail length Weight Distribution (nam es of areas or see map on p.x for num bers referring to different O stans (provinces) of Iran )+ *

For birds, the status of each species is also given in accordance w ith the symbols shown by the key on p. 112.

**

All lengths are given as total length: for m am m als this is from end of tail to tip of nose, for birds this is from tip of bill to tip of tail. For som e m am m als the shoulder height (SH) is given.

+

For fish, the num bers apply to the drainage basins in which they occur (see p.263 for key).

THE TRANSLITERATION SYSTEM USED IN THIS BOOK s there is no universally accepted standard Persian transliteration system, this book uses a phonetic system to render Persian words into the Roman alphabet. The symbol a is used to represent the long ca sound of the letter alef (the sound of the V in father). Letters w ithout a direct correspondence to a Roman letter are represented by multiple letters reflecting their sound, i.e. the letter ghein is rendered as gh. Many of the pronounced vowels in Persian are not written. They have been included in the transliteration to reflect the pronunciation of the words, i.e. hendi rather than hndi. The ezafe, which links nouns and adjectives to the descriptive adjectives that follow them , is written as -e after consonants and -ye after vowels Where the Persian species name contains a transliteration of the Western name, it would be overly literal to transliterate back again into the Roman alphabet; instead, we have preserved the original Roman alphabet rendering. For example, rath er th an w riting the Persian nam e of Bryde’s whale as Nehang-e Baraid, we have retained the Western proper name and rendered it as Nehang-e Bryde. Because the Persian script contains no capital letters, we have capitalised only the first letter of the first word of the Persian species name and the Western proper nouns contained in the species name.

A

THE OSTANS (PROVINCES) OF IRAN East Azarbaijan ( T ) West Azarbaijan ( T ) Ardabil ( T )

(f5) Pars (|6) Qazvin

@

Q °m

Esfahan

(4^)

(|8) Kordestan

Ham

(^)

©

Bakhtaran (Kermanshah) ^ 6 ) Bushehr ^ 7) Tehran Chahar Mahal & Bakhtiary

(^)

Khorasan (fo) Khuzestan (|7) Zanjan (|2) Semnan (f^) Seistan & Baluchestan

Kerman

(20) Kohgeluye & Boyer Ahmad

©

Golestan (Gorgan)

@

Gilan

(23) Lorestan (24) Mazandaran (25) Markazi (Central Prov.) (26) Hormozegan (^7) Hamadan @

Yazd

1: 16,000,000

Caspian Sea

0

100

200

300 Km

1____ i_____ i_____i v~ T e d ie n d

C a sp ia ii' V

°° O

Tehran m _

O

Kavir

\(

CO

f- h A

> ‘"73

Seist&m Lut

)i

►n

r

^M aharlu-

K o r ' l S irian

\ ]

0 t

.

Ay ' fs

oJ V"\

%

r y /°

o

v

Makran

Gulf of Oman

O

TOPOGRAPHIC

A SUMMARY OF ZOOLOGICAL WORK IN IRAN here were no recognised Iranian naturalists before the 20th century. In the past Iranians wrote about the animals in their country only in connection with hunting and falconry. A good example is Nassavis Baznameh (book of falconry), w ritten in the 12th century a d , in which he describes the birds of prey, how to find, capture, train and keep them, and how to use them for the hunt. The last part of the book deals with the various mammals useful for the hunt, such as cheetah and caracal. The best-known Persian book on falconry, Baznameh Nasseri,* was written by Teymoor Mirza, a Qajar prince, in the m id-19th century and gained a wider audience when it was translated into English by Lieutenant-Colonel D.C. Phillott and published in 1908. The first early attem pt at classifying Persian animals was made by Hamdollah Mostofi** of Qazvin 660 years ago in his Nuzhat al-Qolub (Heart’s Delight). His classifications were as follows:+ 1

O f the land: a) Domestic; b) Wild Animals; c)Beasts of Prey; d)Poisonous Animals and Creeping Things; e)Animals “certain of whose members resemble m an”.

2

O f the sea.

3

O f the air.

He listed animals alphabetically and devoted a paragraph to each one. He specifies whether the animal can be eaten, provides a short description, and finally explains the medical uses of various parts and organs. The latter section is often the longest. Occasionally the magical qualities of certain animal organs are also indicated. He describes 228 animals including the fishes, which, despite promising to “enumerate thirty-seven kinds (or species) which are well known”, he treats as one animal. All serpents, which he says are of num erous kinds, are also listed as a single animal.

* Nasseri = Of Nasser-ed-Din Shah’s era. ** Mostofi is also spelt Mustaufi and Mustawfi in some translations. +Much of the terminology used here is derived from Lt. Colonel J. Stephenson’s translation of this work (London, 1928).

Mostofi includes a num ber of mythical animals (along with those we know), which are usually extracted from the works of Qazvini or Aufi, the authorities of the era. The Siranis, for exam ple:cc... has twelve orifices in its snout; when it draws breath it makes the sound of a flute. Birds gather continually on its head, and animals in front of it, and listen to the sound; and it kills and eats some of them. It lives m ostly in the Kabul country”. On several occasions he m entions the “five scoundrels” or “reprobates”, which are the rat, m ad dog, serpent, kite and crow. (By m ad dog he evidently means a rabid one.) That the kite and the crow are am ong them is of ecological interest. These, he says, should be killed w ithout fail, and in the case of the serpent, “even in the m idst of prayer”. Some of his observations are curious, such as there being “a friendship between the snake and the ibex”, or, regarding the badger, that “the more they beat it the fatter it grows”.

M o d e r n N a t u r a l is t s in Ir a n

T

he first naturalist to visit Iran was Samuel G. Gmelin, a German scientist who, like many others to follow, was employed by the Russian government. The Russians were interested (politically as well as scientifically) in the northern provinces of Iran (Gilan, M azandaran and Astarabad), and Gmelin s explorations in the course of two journeys between 1770 and 1774 covered portions of all three provinces. O n his way back he was taken prisoner by the Khan of the Kaitaks in the Caucasus. He died in prison before he could be liberated, not yet 30 years old. Peter S. Pallas did not visit Iran, but produced publications on the basis of Gmelin s discoveries and specimens. Hablitzl, Gmelin’s assistant, reported observations of the wild ass in both the provinces of M azandaran and Gorgan, as well as many in the foothills around Qazvin (confirmed by M orier 40 years later). Edouard M enetries made useful studies in the Talesh m ountains of Gilan in 1829-30 and was followed by another Russian, Carl E.I. von Eichwald who, initially prevented from landing in Anzali by the governor of Gilan, explored the Caspian area well enough to publish in 1841 the best work to date on the Caspian fauna. Aucher-Eloy, a French botanist, visited south, central and northwestern Iran and also made some zoological collections. W.K. Loftus collected on the Irano-Turkish frontier (1849-52), and Count Eugen von Keyserling in Khorasan (1859). Filippo De Filippi was an outstanding scientist from Turin who came to Iran with an Italian diplomatic delegation in 1862 and made the most im portant collection thus far of the fauna of northwestern Iran. The Marquis Doria, one of his companions, added to this collection with specimens obtained in southern Iran. De Filippi was the first zoologist to attem pt to cover all the vertebrates of Iran. His work, published in 1865, included 30 mammals, 167 birds, 39 reptiles, three amphibians and 22 fishes. It is W illiam Thom as Blanford to w hom m ost is owed in regard to the docum entation of Iran’s fauna. General Goldsmid, in charge of the Persian Boundary Commission, requested the dispatch of Blanford, a naturalist and geologist, from the government of India to undertake a zoological and geological exploration of Iran in the

company of Major Oliver B. St. John. These two travelled from Gwadar via Bampur through hitherto unknow n country in Baluchestan to Kerman, and then on to Neyriz, Shiraz, Esfahan and Tehran. Blanford’s work appeared in 1876 as Zoology and Geology o f Persia, being Vol. II of Eastern Persia, an Account of the Journeys of the Persian Boundary Commission 1870-71-72. The book lists 89 mammals, 383 birds, 92 reptiles and nine amphibians, and remained the best reference work on the fauna of Iran until well into the 20th century. Up to the end of the 19th century, several more naturalists conducted useful zoological investigations, the m ost prom inent being Nikolai Alekseyevich Zarudny who travelled to many parts of Iran between 1884 and 1904. His journeys took him

primarily into eastern Iran, from Khorasan to Seistan and Baluchestan, but he also made investigations in M azandaran, the Zagros range, Khuzestan, west-central Iran and Gilan. His publications consisted, inter alia, of the results of his herpetological work as well as the first comprehensive ornithological work, The Birds o f Eastern Persia, published in 1903. Many investigators and travellers made faunal studies or collections in the 20th century, but increasingly these became restricted to specific groups - frogs, lizards, wildfowl, etc. Where appropriate, these will be cited in the introductions to the relevant classes of animals. However, there were several expeditions of particular note. The Danish Scientific Investigations in Iran from 1935 to 1938 were useful for the country and included the first thorough study of the fishes of the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. This work was undertaken by H. Blegvad and B. Loppenthin and led to the publication in 1944 of Fishes o f the Iranian Gulf At the same time Helge Volse was the first to report on the sea snakes of these waters, nine species of which were collected, and provided inform ation on their distribution and biology.1Herpetological specimens were collected, principally by E. Kaiser, and were described by K.P. Schmidt in 1955. These 29 species included three new taxa. An Austrian expedition in 1949 and 1950 covered m uch ground in the central plateau of Iran, the Zagros m ountains and the Caspian region. The resulting collection of amphibians and reptiles (three species of frogs, 27 lizards, four turtles and 10 snakes) was described by Otto Wettstein in 1951.

IRAN’S WILDLIFE, PAST AND PRESENT n reviewing briefly the country’s fauna as it was before the recent damage to the natural environm ent and depletion or extermination of wildlife populations the intention is not to romanticise a distant and pristine past, but to demonstrate the environmental potential and highlight the im portance of conserving and protecting Iran’s fauna. The naturalists with whom we are concerned, and who visited Iran from the latter part of the 18th century onwards, made few qualitative or personal observations about the abundance or diversity of the fauna or the prevailing ecological conditions. Many

I

1See Volse (1939), The sea snakes of the Iranian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. Danish Scientific Investigations in Iran.

primarily into eastern Iran, from Khorasan to Seistan and Baluchestan, but he also made investigations in M azandaran, the Zagros range, Khuzestan, west-central Iran and Gilan. His publications consisted, inter alia, of the results of his herpetological work as well as the first comprehensive ornithological work, The Birds o f Eastern Persia, published in 1903. Many investigators and travellers made faunal studies or collections in the 20th century, but increasingly these became restricted to specific groups - frogs, lizards, wildfowl, etc. Where appropriate, these will be cited in the introductions to the relevant classes of animals. However, there were several expeditions of particular note. The Danish Scientific Investigations in Iran from 1935 to 1938 were useful for the country and included the first thorough study of the fishes of the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. This work was undertaken by H. Blegvad and B. Loppenthin and led to the publication in 1944 of Fishes o f the Iranian Gulf At the same time Helge Volse was the first to report on the sea snakes of these waters, nine species of which were collected, and provided inform ation on their distribution and biology.1Herpetological specimens were collected, principally by E. Kaiser, and were described by K.P. Schmidt in 1955. These 29 species included three new taxa. An Austrian expedition in 1949 and 1950 covered m uch ground in the central plateau of Iran, the Zagros m ountains and the Caspian region. The resulting collection of amphibians and reptiles (three species of frogs, 27 lizards, four turtles and 10 snakes) was described by Otto Wettstein in 1951.

IRAN’S WILDLIFE, PAST AND PRESENT n reviewing briefly the country’s fauna as it was before the recent damage to the natural environm ent and depletion or extermination of wildlife populations the intention is not to romanticise a distant and pristine past, but to demonstrate the environmental potential and highlight the im portance of conserving and protecting Iran’s fauna. The naturalists with whom we are concerned, and who visited Iran from the latter part of the 18th century onwards, made few qualitative or personal observations about the abundance or diversity of the fauna or the prevailing ecological conditions. Many

I

1See Volse (1939), The sea snakes of the Iranian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. Danish Scientific Investigations in Iran.

of the other travellers and hunters of the era have provided more concise yet broad­ brush impressions of the ecological state of various regions and their wildlife. Ferrier (a French colonel who had served as adviser in the Persian army), travelling in the northeastern province of Khorasan in 1845, wrote: “It is almost impossible to imagine the immense quantities of game we saw between Hedireh and Kariz... Every variety of partridge is m et with on these plains, and also the heath-cock.* The royal tiger is sometimes seen, but the panther, hyena, wolf, jackal and fox are common.”2 So impressed was he that, on his return from Afghanistan, he wrote: “I never before saw such an immense num ber of deer** as on leaving M ahmoodabad; the plain was covered with them, each herd consisting of several thousand head.”3 Zell-e Soltan, a Qajar prince renowned in his day, was m uch like m ost of the biggame hunters of the past, and wrote an autobiography spanning the last 40 years of the 19th century. As Nasser-ed-Din Shah’s eldest son (though not the crown prince), he had the run of the central and southwestern provinces of the country from his seat in Esfahan. His writings provide the best anecdotal overview of the state of the natural environm ent and wildlife in the m any regions that constituted his hunting grounds. Camped in the m ountains near Ardakan in Fars, he wrote: “Lions are also to be found here. Wild sheep, ibex, partridge, snowpartridge, wild boar and bear are so abundant that shooting them is of no im p o rtan ce.... In our camp of 2,500 people and over a period of 30 to 40 days, I can claim w ithout fear of contradiction that night or day there was not a person who did not partake of the meat of game or partridge.” Describing an area by the Qara Aghatch River in the south of the same province, he said: “This river has millions, more than ants and locusts, of doves...and when they fly it is like a great cloud in m otion, barring even the sun from one’s view.”+ He added that the two battalions and other units in his train finally became disgusted by dove meat. He also remarked that the surrounding m ountains, which are now all but treeless, were entirely covered in forest. * He means the Houbara Bustard. 2 See Ferrier (1856), Caravan Journeys and Wanderings, p.138. ** He means gazelle. 3 See Ferrier (1856), p.487. + It is difficult not to be reminded of the millions of passenger pigeons wiped out in the USA some two decades after the date of the above.

Zell-e Soltan recounts a h unt in Haftad Gholleh, about 270 kilometres (168 miles) south-southwest of Tehran, in which all the local hunters took part, when “perhaps 100,000 shots were fired each day at the poor animals. About one thousand head [that he is aware of] of ibex, m ountain sheep, gazelle, wolves and four leopards were shot. He remarks that he was very upset that he had shot less than many others, his total bag being 11 wild sheep. Standing out among the tales of his many hunting expeditions is one concerning a trip to the M ian Kaleh peninsula on the southeast coast of the Caspian Sea. He was 14 years old, and the Shah had sent him to this province of Mazandaran nominally as governor for his training in state-craft. His enorm ous contingent was camped on the peninsula for 40 days. “Never in my entire life and nowhere in the world have I seen such a profusion of game, both bird and beast,” he wrote. His secretary’s record of the bag taken by the many guns of the prince and his entourage, included 150 red deer stags, 18 leopards and 35 tigers, as well as num erous roe deer, wild boar, pheasants and other small game. This is despite the fact that, in a relatively small area such as the Mian Kaleh peninsula - about 60,000 hectares (232 square miles) - the continuous shooting would have alarmed almost all the game. Zell-e Soltan emphasised that “thousands upon thousands” of beasts were seen to escape. Zell-e Soltan possessed a m ountainous area about 80 kilometres (50 miles) northwest of Esfahan, called Qamishlu, which he adm itted in his memoirs to prizing more highly than any am ount of money. He therefore refused all advances to rent its extremely valuable grazing rights. His grandson donated the adjoining family property to the D epartm ent of the Environm ent in 1975 on the understanding that Qamishlu would become a reserve perpetuating Zell-e Soltan’s sentiments. Qamishlu is shown on the map of the reserves as a wildlife refuge. Dustali Khan’s brief hunting memoirs for the years 1911-13 provide a vivid contrast to Zell-e Soltan’s accounts. To reach his hunting grounds, which were all within the perimeter of present day Tehran, he left his hom e by droshki or on horseback. He was the grandson of Nassereddin Shah (the son of one of his daughters), but his life and his writings show him to be unassuming and with m odest expectations. He had hunted a great deal with his father and with the Shah as a youth, but now, aged 35, was content to shoot small game (quail, partridge, doves, ducks, hare and the occasional gazelle), in the company of friends. His writing is also marked by his acumen and wit particularly when, between his outings, he touches on Iran’s political situation at the time. He also wrote a short work entitled Notes on Nassereddin Shah's Personal Life, from which some of the accounts below have been extracted. Since ancient times the traditional way of hunting in Iran had been to shoot game from horseback. Bahram IV, the Sassanian king in the 5th century, was famous for

his prowess in hunting wild ass and for the accuracy of his arrows. In m odern times the gun replaced the bow and arrow, but otherwise the hunt remained the same as in Bahrain s days. Dustali Khan recounts one such h unt of Nassereddin Shah’s in the vicinity of the Hoz-Soltan salt lake some 100 kilometres (60 miles) south of Tehran. M ounted soldiers had been given the task of cahu gardani’ (gazelle turning), which consisted of heading several herds of gazelles, spotted at a great distance, towards the Shah’s group. (The animals m ust never be 'driven’, but headed gently in the right direction with minimal self-exposure by the ‘turners’.) The gazelles appeared at a suitable distance from the hillock where the Shah was waiting in cover and he galloped off behind two, which he bagged with two shots. He then chased two others, shot twice and downed one. Now came the turn of the members of his entourage, while the Shah sat down to watch. M ansur al-Saltaneh proved outstanding: in one chase, galloping at top speed after six gazelles, he reloaded his double-barrelled gun twice to shoot all six. Altogether 28 gazelles were bagged during the m orning’s hunt. The same system of heading gazelles was used when greyhounds rather than guns were employed. The third age-old m ethod, which the Shah particularly liked, was hawking, which was also generally conducted on horseback. Nassereddin was keen on most of the hawks then used, the peregrine, the saker and the goshawk. He became m ost enthusiastic about a gyrfalcon presented to him in the early years of his reign by the Czar of Russia, Alexander II. He gave it to Teymour Mirza to train and the result was so satisfactory that he recounted the gyrfalcon’s performances to Dustali Khan’s father many years later. O’Donovan, an English journalist bound for the country of the Takke Turkomans to report on the Russian offensive against them, provided the following description of the fish he saw on the banks of one of the small streams issuing from the Atrak River on the Iranian frontier in 1880: “Waters were alive with fish, so crowded as to be incapable of moving save by floundering and jum ping over one another. They were chiefly, as is always the case in these waters, the ‘sefid m ahee’ or large white carp. As we occasionally crossed the stream, our horses trod them to death by scores. In less crowded nooks huge pikes were to be seen lurking underneath the bushes...” He added that the Cossacks in their escort caught many of the pike “by striking them with the point of the sabre, or simply whisking them out of the water by the tail”.4 Major Kennion, the British Consul in Zahedan (in Seistan province) shortly after the turn of the 19th century, wrote of his hunting trips in Iran, particularly in an area in western Khorasan bordering on the Turkoman Steppe; a m ountainous area of dense forest and steppe. He was struck by the abundance and diversity of the game as well as the beauty of the area, and got considerable satisfaction from the trophies he obtained - urial rams, red deer stags and a tiger. He was so taken by these hunting grounds that he spent three weeks of his leave visiting them a second time with a friend. In 1957 this area became a reserve and later Iran’s best known national park.

4 See O’Donovan (1882), The Merv Oasis, Volume 1: p. 119.

Kennion was intrigued by the wild sheep of this region, especially as their horns and bodies were larger than those of the urial he knew from the east. He appears to have been the first person to describe this subspecies, which Lydekker subsequently nam ed Ovis vignei arkal. Kennion wrote: “But that heads even greater than our forty-inch ideal exist, is proved by the fact that D. came on the skull of a ram that was recently dead the flesh had not entirely disappeared - the horns of which measured no less than 451/2in, a long way the biggest curiaP that has ever been heard of.”5 Sir Peter Scott, the painter and conservationist, visited the Caspian shores in 1937 in a fruitless search for red-breasted geese. “The big lagoon of Pahlevi was a great gathering place for wildfowl,” he wrote, “including in aggregate literally millions of ducks which fed at night in the rice fields. I had never dreamed that my favourite group of birds could exist in such concentrations. They rose almost like smoke from the edges of the reed beds. At the time I thought there m ight be 20,000,000 ducks on this one lag o o n ...”.6 The author went shooting several times in this area in the early 1950s, and saw a gaggle of 13 or 14 of the red-breasted geese that Scott had sought but never found. There were not the huge num bers of ducks that Scott had found, but the author nevertheless estimated their num bers at three million.

La r g e B a g s a n d R e c o r d s

Z

ell-e Soltan was n o t alone in m aking excessive kills on his hunts. His contemporaries among the Qajar princes, aristocrats and tribal Khans, often equalled his achievements. There were many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of such hunters throughout the country and they may well have contributed to the eventual decline in Iranian wildlife had their bags been in excess of natural reproduction of the species concerned. However, this was certainly not the case in Iran up to the middle of the 20th century, as the extraordinary abundance of wildlife amply demonstrated. There was at the time a profusion of hunters in other parts of the world, and in particular in Europe. In 1908 on the Schwarzenberg estate in Germany, 78,900 animals (from red deer to rabbits, pheasants, ducks and foxes) were killed. Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, a crack shot with a rifle, was reputed to have killed 300,000 head of game in his lifetime; while between 1867 and 1923, the Marquis of Ripon, considered England’s best shot in his day, killed 556,813 game animals, mostly birds. Slaughter on the largest scale was carried out by the Mongols of some eight centuries ago when the Great Khan “ ...ordered that a fence should be erected.... Its length was to be two days’ jo u rn ey .... At hunting time all army units stationed in the vicinity were ordered to form a circle, after which [the hunters] moved into the enclosure and held a battue.” The num bers of animals killed each year in this m anner does not appear to have been recorded.7 Gladstone, the writer on birds and shooting, observed: “It has been stated in print that the am ount of game shot in Great Britain in 1912 was fifteen times what it was in 5 See Kennion (1907), By Mountain Lake and Plain, p.206. 6 See Scott (1961), The Eye of the Wind, p.239. 7 See Spuler (1972), History of the Mongols, p.59.

I860; personally I regard this estimate as considerably below the m a rk ” Although an increasing num ber of reared birds were being used in the big shoots, the figures are indeed impressive.8

T h e D e c l in e o f W il d l if e

B

efore World War II, large numbers of gazelle, often in herds of a hundred or more, were found in many of Iran’s plains and deserts; the wild ass was plentiful and inhabited many areas in the eastern half of the country, and the cheetah was widespread. H unting from m otor vehicles, introduced by the Allied troops who occupied Iran in World War II, reduced the populations of these species significantly in many areas. This m ethod of hunting was copied by Iranian hunters newly equipped with Jeeps, and reached its height in the mid-1950s, resulting in the extermination of these animals from all but the least accessible areas. At this time, the Gorgan and Gonbad area was famous for its pheasants. This new breed of hunter, armed with semi-automatic shotguns and travelling in Jeeps, was under no legal restraint and the days of these indigenous birds were numbered. Some hunting groups shot 500 pheasants in a day, and some used American army weaponscarriers and tractors to traverse areas of bush and scrub forest that offered a last refuge for the birds. The drive to acquire land was also intense in this region and had a detrim ental effect on the entire coastal ecosystem. W ithin a decade, most of the forest and scrub forest in the Gorgan plain had been cleared and replaced by agricultural crops, particularly cotton. The millions of wildfowl in the Caspian represented im portant economic capital for the region. In the late 1950s, when a distinct decline was already evident, it was estimated that the annual harvest for the two northern provinces was about 1.2 million birds out of a total Iranian wildfowl population of some 12 million. Steep declines set in during the following decade, not only because of growing hunting pressure, but also, as in the case of the Anzali (Pahlavi) lagoon, because of land reclamation and the increasing disturbance from fishing, aerial nets and waterborne traffic (problems which also applied to other wetlands). The wildlife of the m ountains and forests was less vulnerable because of the remoteness of the hunting grounds and the constraints on the use of m otor vehicles. This situation did not last, however. In the decade after the war, the Haftad Gholleh (Seventy Peaks), described above by Zell-e Soltan as having been subjected to 100,000 shots a day, was still famous for its large population of ibex and wild sheep. In the m ountains west of the city of Shahrud in the late 1950s, the author, accompanied by an experienced local guide, stalked a herd of wild sheep rams browsing, at the edge of a small forest of junipers, to within an improbable 10-11 metres (32-36 feet). The sheep were calm and unruffled and within a few minutes, wandered off to join another group. O ther wild sheep emerged from among the junipers to form a loose troop of perhaps 250 animals, grazing calmly within

8 See Gladstone (1930), Record Bags and Shooting Records.

100-200 metres (328-656 feet) of the watchers. These and the many other wild sheep nearby had obviously not been exposed to humans. Their habitat also appeared untouched and pristine. The ground cover was dense and the woods in prim e condition and the call of the Caspian snowcock could be heard from rocky areas covered with creeping junipers. W ithin a day’s walk on the northern side of the m ountain, a Hyrcanian forest of beech (often with dense undergrowths of holly) and oak provided a perfect habitat for red deer, roe deer, wild boar, brown bear and leopard. Some 30-40 kilometres (18-25 miles) to the west of this area a leopard said to have weighed 90 kilograms (198 pounds) was trapped for a European zoo. At a lower elevation further north, a tiger had been killed in the early 1950s by a hunter seeking wild boar. Three or four years later the author visited the area again. All appeared transform ed and nothing pristine remained. The few wild sheep that were seen trailed dust clouds as they galloped off at distances of 400 metres (a quarter of a mile) or more. The ecological harm ony of yesteryear had vanished.

CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION

W

ith the encouragem ent of the Shah and his younger brother Prince Abdorreza, a group began the first conservation work, which led to the creation of the Game Council of Iran in 1956. Though this organization was weak and had little political influence, it was successful in campaigning for the issue of hunting and fishing licences and for the recognition of appropriate open seasons. Importantly, the council also introduced the concept of protected areas into the socio-political arena. Because of Iran’s large size and the limited funds available, it was soon realised that the success of any conservation measures would be greatly enhanced if resources were allocated to areas of special ecological importance. These conservation areas were created to provide conditions conducive to the regeneration and improvement of representative habitats and/or of endangered species. These areas were also to be used as centres for breeding stocks for the re-population of species that were on the wane in adjacent areas. The Game and Fish D epartm ent was established by act of Parliament in 1967. In 1971 this was incorporated into the Environmental Conservation Departm ent, which itself became the D epartm ent of the Environment in 1974 after the passing of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act. This law is still in force.

100-200 metres (328-656 feet) of the watchers. These and the many other wild sheep nearby had obviously not been exposed to humans. Their habitat also appeared untouched and pristine. The ground cover was dense and the woods in prim e condition and the call of the Caspian snowcock could be heard from rocky areas covered with creeping junipers. W ithin a day’s walk on the northern side of the m ountain, a Hyrcanian forest of beech (often with dense undergrowths of holly) and oak provided a perfect habitat for red deer, roe deer, wild boar, brown bear and leopard. Some 30-40 kilometres (18-25 miles) to the west of this area a leopard said to have weighed 90 kilograms (198 pounds) was trapped for a European zoo. At a lower elevation further north, a tiger had been killed in the early 1950s by a hunter seeking wild boar. Three or four years later the author visited the area again. All appeared transform ed and nothing pristine remained. The few wild sheep that were seen trailed dust clouds as they galloped off at distances of 400 metres (a quarter of a mile) or more. The ecological harm ony of yesteryear had vanished.

CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION

W

ith the encouragem ent of the Shah and his younger brother Prince Abdorreza, a group began the first conservation work, which led to the creation of the Game Council of Iran in 1956. Though this organization was weak and had little political influence, it was successful in campaigning for the issue of hunting and fishing licences and for the recognition of appropriate open seasons. Importantly, the council also introduced the concept of protected areas into the socio-political arena. Because of Iran’s large size and the limited funds available, it was soon realised that the success of any conservation measures would be greatly enhanced if resources were allocated to areas of special ecological importance. These conservation areas were created to provide conditions conducive to the regeneration and improvement of representative habitats and/or of endangered species. These areas were also to be used as centres for breeding stocks for the re-population of species that were on the wane in adjacent areas. The Game and Fish D epartm ent was established by act of Parliament in 1967. In 1971 this was incorporated into the Environmental Conservation Departm ent, which itself became the D epartm ent of the Environment in 1974 after the passing of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act. This law is still in force.

It was clear, even before the creation of the Game and Fish D epartm ent, that habitat protection was m ore im portant than control of hunting. Realisation that the country’s renewable natural resources were interdependent and that the greatest concern was the transform ation and destruction of the country’s ecosystems, became the basis of the decision-making processes in the early 1970s. It therefore became a cardinal objective to protect and preserve Iran’s natural ecosystems within a comprehensive network of nature reserves. To achieve the D epartm ent of the Environment’s various objectives, including the above, the nature reserve requirements of the nation were divided into four categories. The Persian names needed to convey the proper ecological connotation and the resulting categories (in English) were: National Park, National Nature Monument, Wildlife Refuge and Protected Area. This classification, included in the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act of 1974, departed from conventional terminology, including that of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), but was deemed appropriate to Iran and proved successful in the years to come. By the mid-1970s, the network of Iran’s reserves comprised 13 National Parks, two National Nature M onuments, 27 Wildlife Refuges and 23 Protected Areas, with a total area of about 7.6 million hectares (29,000 square miles). These included a diverse set of biota: from the Kavir National Park, a vast and arid desert bordering on the Dasht-e Kavir (Salt Desert), to the hum id and dense Hyrcanian forests of the Lisar or Parvar Protected Areas; from the large Bakhtegan Wildlife Refuge, half m ountainous and half saline lake teeming with wildfowl and flamingos, to the Hara National Park, one of five m arine reserves, containing the largest stand of mangroves in the Persian Gulf. Although it was planned to establish many additional reserves, this was already a

Transition s e w m ibfc Qofcrtagt National Park

comprehensive system of biotic com m unity reservations. The D epartm ent of the Environm ent acknowledged and prom oted the economic and recreational values of wildlife and nature, but it proceeded with the reserve system on a purely ecological basis. It was made quite clear that the main objective of the reserve system was the preservation of a rich national nature heritage. Sport hunting licences were issued by the D epartm ent of the Environment for many of the Protected Areas and Wildlife Refuges according to the dictates of good wildlife management. This was popular, and demand, both local and foreign, was great. The recreational aspect of these reserves was not neglected, nor was their value in prom oting concepts of conservation and in instilling a conservation ethic. Master plans had been or were being prepared by specialists of the D epartm ent of the Environment for visitor centres and facilities in six of the National Parks, and in two of these, Lake Rezaiyeh and Golestan, construction work had begun in 1976. Many other reserves were also earmarked for visitor use by the Department. At this time the D epartm ent of the Environment also designated nine of Iran’s reserves as Biosphere Reserves under the UNESCO/Man and the Biosphere programme.

C o n f e r e n c e s a n d t h e R a m s a r C o n v e n t io n

S

even international and regional conferences were convened in Iran between 1971 and 1975, sponsored variously by IUCN, UNESCO, UNEP and FAO. These included the General Assembly of the International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (in 1974), and conferences on Training of Environm ental Guards (1974), Dedesertisation and Arid Lands Ecology (1975), Marine Parks and Reserves (1975) and Ecological Guidelines for the Use of Natural Resources (1975). All of these were useful and successful, but the conference of m ost note was the first one in the field of conservation in Iran: the International Conference on Wetlands of International Importance, convened in Ramsar in 1971. It was at this conference that the final text of the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat (known now simply as the Ramsar Convention), was approved and opened for signature. The approval of this convention, after a decade of unsuccessful efforts, came about largely as a result of the initiative of the Iranian delegation. Iran was chosen as the conference venue because of the D epartm ent’s relevant activities: its investigations into the country’s im portant wetlands and program m e for their management, and the fact that in the three years preceding the conference some of the m ost im portant wetlands, providing over one million hectares (3,860 square miles) of waterfowl habitat, m uch of it of great scenic beauty, had been set aside as Protected Areas. At the time of the ratification of the convention, 19 of Iran’s wetlands, with an area of about 1.4 million hectares (5,405 square miles), were designated by the D epartm ent of the Environm ent as wetlands of international importance for inclusion in the list established under the terms of the Convention. In his message to the Ramsar Conference, the Shah proposed that Iran was prepared to place one of the country’s wetland areas of outstanding im portance in joint trust

with an appropriate international agency for the purposes of research and to be conserved for the global community. During a post-conference field trip, delegates witnessed the diversity and scenic grandeur of the Parishan Lake - Dasht-e Arjan complex in the province of Fars. Their Iranian colleagues joined them in proposing this area as best qualified for selection in accordance with the mandate. This was authorised by the government and the Arjan International Reserve came into being.

The Arjan reserve, located 65 kilometres (40 miles) west of Shiraz, had an area of 191,000 hectares (737 square miles) and a physiography, fauna, flora and hydrography of particular interest. Its uniqueness was reflected in the decision by the D epartm ent of the Environm ent in the 1970s to rehabilitate several areas within the reserve with a view to reintroducing the Persian lion, Iran’s national emblem, in co-operation with the Indian government. The last wild population of the Persian Lion, Panthera leo persica, survives only in the Gir Reserve in western India.

D iv e r s it y a n d R a t io n a l U t il iz a t io n he preservation of the diversity of animal and plant life and the rational utilisation or V ise use’ of renewable natural resources were two of the im portant precepts that guided the policies of the D epartm ent of the Environment. (The terms ‘bio­ diversity’ and ‘sustainable use’ became fashionable after the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.) At the inception of Iran’s conservation work, and owing to strong lingering public prejudices and beliefs, species such as jackals, hares, badgers, magpies and so forth were

T

classed as being harm ful animals or vermin. Less than a decade later, and despite opposition from the same quarters, these words were successfully deleted from the D epartm ent’s regulatory vocabulary. All species, animals or plants, were to be regarded as being of equal value; all to be kept in perpetuity as integral components of the country’s natural heritage. W ithin less than a decade many species previously on the wane, if not indeed endangered, were proliferating. This was not merely the case in the reserves; num bers of virtually all species outside the reserves increased at the same time. Gazelles could be seen from the highways in many parts of the plateau area, and wild sheep and ibex from m ountain roads. There was also an abundance of wild boars, foxes, leopards, wolves and many birds including raptors, the Caucasian black grouse and the H oubara bustard. The Game Council designated the cheetah endangered and made it a protected species in 1959. Ten years later, its strong resurgence was evident from sightings in many scattered locations, from Seistan province to the vicinity of the Persian Gulf to Esfahan, as well as in six of the D epartm ent of the Environm ent’s reserves. In the mid1970s, the D epartm ent’s biologists estimated there were 30 cheetahs in the Khosh Yeilagh Wildlife Refuge alone. W ithin the reserves, the regeneration and resurgence of life, both plant and animal, was remarkable. In 1974, the author wrote that “with respect to a few of the [reserves], one is tem pted to say that the population density of a num ber of species is higher than had ever been observed”.9 Counts showed 15,000 urial in Golestan National Park, 8,000 ibex in Khosh Yeilagh Wildlife Refuge and 1,000 wild ass in the Turan Reserve, in addition to an enorm ous num ber of gazelles in many parts of the country, abundant trout in the Lar River and hundreds of thousands of wildfowl in the many wetlands. The situation was reflected in a passage from a D epartm ent of the Environment publication in 1976: “In fact, no existing species is now considered truly endangered. But for the reserve system, however, and considering trends in the Middle East today, it is likely that dozens, if not hundreds, of species of plants [and animals] would now be extinct.”10 This increase in animal life was reflected by the regeneration of plant life in the many areas under the D epartm ent’s aegis. For example, there were approximately 22,000 hectares (85 square miles) of moving sand dunes in the Kavir Protected Area at the time of its establishment. After eight years of protection from grazing, species such as saxaul (.Haloxylon ammodendron) and the grass Stipagrostis plumosa had pioneered the area. N ot only had 80 per cent of the sand been stabilised, but in parts the once barren area was beginning to resemble steppe. The cost had been 7 cents (U.S.) per hectare as against up to $500 (U.S.) per hectare for conventional methods employed elsewhere in Iran by the M inistry of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Also declared National Nature M onum ents were the last significant rem nants of the once extensive Caspian lowland forest (a 227-hectare (561-acre) stand of the Caspian Alder (Alnus subcordata), a stand of a unique species of lily (Lilium ledebourii), a tar spring, and a cave providing refuge to some 5,000 trident bats (Asellia tridens). 9 See Firouz (1974), Environment Iran. 10 See Firouz & Wambold (1976), Environmental Protection in Iran.

The D epartm ent of the Environm ent allowed grazing by domestic sheep in many of the Protected Areas, with the provision that the num ber of grazing animals did not exceed range capacity and that such perm its would not be issued to trans-hum ant flocks. In accordance with law, this policy was implemented in collaboration with the M inistry of Agriculture, but it presented the D epartm ent of the Environment with constant problems. The M inistry of Agriculture often did not m onitor or control either local or trans-hum ant herds in large parts of the country. Special and local interests, socio-political pressures and the complications of keeping control were sometimes overwhelming, making the task of the environmental guards extremely difficult. It took courage and determ ination to do anything positive, and it was only the strong sense of m otivation of the D epartm ent of the Environm ent wardens and guards that made it possible to cope with the problem with any degree of success. These were the same qualities that had made the wardening of the nation s reserves such a success. Via a range of media, the D epartm ent of the Environment informed the public, as well as colleagues and other government agencies, of the importance of using the renewable natural resources of the country wisely. It passed on the message that these resources were vulnerable and finite, and that only their annual growth, like interest on capital, should be harvested, if the nation was not to lose its precious rangelands and forests. It was an uphill struggle, but given a few more years a reasonable ‘modus vivendi might have been achieved, particularly as the Government had placed great emphasis, in its sixth five-year plan, on the raising of domestic stock within agro-industrial enterprises. For a description of a grander, more audacious plan, please see ‘Pardisan in the appendix.

I r a n o -S o v i e t A g r e e m e n t

I

t was recognised that wide-spread pollution (emanating from petroleum, industrial and residential effluents, agricultural runoff, etc.) would pose a real threat to the health of the m arine life and waters of the Caspian Sea, the largest inland body of water in the world. In 1972, Iran and the Soviet Union signed a protocol for a joint program m e of scientific and technical cooperation, including a project for prevention of pollution in the Caspian Sea. Both recognised that fish stocks, particularly of the sturgeon family, were imperilled. In accordance with this agreement, three steps were taken: 1

A joint Perm anent Working Group was formed, to meet annually for coordination of both research and action.

2

The D epartm ent established research stations at Anzali and Chalus, which were also equipped with mobile laboratory units.

3

The first joint Iran-USSR exploratory oceanographic survey of the Sea itself was begun in 1975.

A r i d La n d s E c o l o g y ecause of the great extent of arid and semi-arid lands throughout Iran, and the fragility of these ecosystems, special importance was attached to the study of their exploitation. This was im portant for Iran’s future as the rate of population growth and economic expansion dem anded that maxim um sustainable productivity was achieved throughout her total territory. The D epartm ent of the Environment formulated a comprehensive program m e of ecological research, experimentation and management aimed at the im provement of land use in the central deserts. To prepare for the future, this program m e sought to protect and conserve the natural resources of Iran’s arid lands and to combat processes that would lead to desertification. A desert ecology prototype research and m anagem ent program m e, seeking innovative means to reverse retrogressive trends, was initiated within the Turan Wildlife Refuge and Protected Area. Its three phases had separate specific objectives:

B

1

for the Wildlife Refuge, to optimise wildlife-environment interrelationships in the interests of research and, possibly, cropping;

2

for the Protected Area, to modify or develop hum an use systems, prim arily to rehabilitate the natural ecosystems for which the area was protected, and also to maximise food production correspondingly;

3

for the environs, to achieve m axim um sustainable levels of food production by means that would not interfere with the projects in the reserves.

This incipient first experiment anticipated Iran’s participation in the UNESCO/MABUNEP program m e for the Integrated Ecological Study of H um an Settlements (INTECOL) and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) program m e for Ecological M anagement of Arid and Semi-Arid Rangelands (EMASAR). The Turan project was expected to provide a dem onstration area and training ground for the extension of de-desertisation campaigns into other regions, and to serve as a case study and an Iranian contribution to the 1977 World Conference on De-Desertisation.

En v ir o n m e n t a l C h a n g e s a n d t h e ir Im p a c t n the last 27 years, the decline and disappearance of wildlife, the destruction of forests and rangeland, and the pollution and alteration of wetlands and streams, have assumed catastrophic proportions. D epartm ent of the Environment specialists estimate a decline in wildlife populations of 80-90 per cent.* Yet that which remains still places Iran far ahead of any of its neighbours, making obvious the previous wealth of Iran’s flora and fauna. The ecological damage that Iran has sustained in the course of a quarter of a century is such that even non-specialists have expressed dismay, especially in the last few years, as the implications became more manifest.

I

* The press in Tehran has become increasingly concerned with the decline of wildlife, invariably citing a figure of 90%. (See Hamshahri. Tehran. 13 Esfand. 1383.)

Since the end of the Pleistocene period (or Ice Age), the Iranian region has been an area of significant hum an activity. It has been the centre of a m ajor civilization since the first m illennium b c and a region of rich cultural development. The long history of hum an use makes it difficult to distinguish between the natural and the cultural in the transform ation of the environment. At the end of the Neolithic period (c. 5000 b c ) , Iran’s forest cover was extensive: a hum id forest in the entire Caspian region (extending east and west considerably beyond the limits of the sea); a sem i-hum id forest (mostly of oak) stretching throughout the western slopes of the Zagros range from Azarbaijan to Fars; a dry forest of pistachio and alm ond in the Kerman area; a tree steppe of acacia, mesquite (Prosopis spicigera) and Christ’s thorn (Zizyphus Spina Christi) in the southern cG arm sir’; a juniper forest along the southern ram parts of the Elburz range and in m uch of Khorasan; and open pistachio-almond stands almost throughout the central plateau area except for the driest deserts. Perhaps 7-8 per cent remains now of the six million hectares estimated for the area of the Caspian forest at the turn of the 20th century, m uch of which is degraded. Almost nothing survives in the plateau area and, in the absence of any present-day statistics, an estimate of 2 per cent remaining for the other forest stands is probably generous. (See Vegetation, p.36.) In 1974, the author drew attention to the disappearance of Iran’s forests - the beautiful and precious legacy handed down to us from the Tertiary epoch, unique among the tem perate forests of the world, and stated that almost half of the forests had

been lost in the previous 50 years or so. However, according to recent inform ation from forestry experts, less than half a million hectares (1,931 square miles) of forest remain today, i.e. one-sixth of the area remaining in the mid-1970s. This will, and has, radically transform ed the environments of the provinces of Gilan, M azandaran and Golestan and the lives of their inhabitants. The coastal forests have been almost completely eliminated; so the stands that are now being destroyed are on the m ountain slopes and thus subject to severe runoff, erosion and resultant floods. In the past, floods were almost unknow n in these provinces despite high rainfall (exceeding 2,000 millimetres (78.7 inches) in Gilan), but in the recent past they have become more common. Recent inundations such as those in Neka in 1999 have destroyed homes and brought down thousands of tons of m ud formed from the soil that once supported dense forests. This presages a dire future. Such deforestation applies to forested areas throughout the country; even the driest or most degraded are not im m une from recurring depredations. The country’s rangelands have suffered equally. Comparisons between data published in 1971 and estimates made in the late 1980s show rangeland production reduced to less than half during this period. According to range specialists, this rate of decline has continued up to the present. This is primarily due to overgrazing and the uncontrolled conversion of range to cultivation, as well as the indiscriminate cutting of ligneous vegetation for fuel. The rangelands thus converted, already low in yield because of edaphic factors and often on sloping surfaces or in hilly terrain, are frequently abandoned owing to increased infertility and erosion and eventually become sterile portions of desert. The right of tenure (by an Act in the 1980s) is obtained by regular cultivation of land, irrespective of its suitability. As a result, by 1990, over 30 per cent of common rangeland had been converted to cultivation in m any regions. The degree of overgrazing has been estimated by range specialists at between six and seven times higher than range capacity. Large num bers of cattle graze freely in many of the remaining forests in the northern provinces, denuding the forest floor and preventing re-growth. A similar problem is caused by the sheep and goats that graze in forests everywhere in Iran. Studies in the U.S.A. have shown that the vegetative control of runoff is dependent on the mass or bulk of the plant cover. A dense forest, even on a steep slope, loses only about a quarter as m uch as a fine perennial pasture (3.2 per cent against 13.8 per cent). No soil is lost from such a forest or pasture. However, the degree of soil erosion on rangeland with a cover of only 20 per cent (or an analogous degraded forest) will, depending on the type of soil, be about 100 tons per hectare (40.5 tons per acre) and sometimes up to 1,000 tons per hectare (405 tons per acre).11 It should be noted here that trees with understorey, and similarly pastures, serve a pivotal function in dispersing the kinetic energy of raindrops, thus diminishing and scattering their impact on the soil. Their root systems allow water to soak in and lend structural stability to the soil. Recent landslides on formerly forested slopes attest to the im portance of this issue.

11 See Reynolds (1990), Badlands Rehabilitation.

The destruction of plant cover triggers a significant disruption of the hydrologic regime with drought as likely as floods. In many parts of Iran, dry water courses are suddenly transform ed into torrential streams. Siltation and turbidity become the rule in m ost rivers. Even in the Caspian region with its high rainfall, many streams and rivers no longer reach the sea during the summer, the reduced flow being abstracted for irrigation and municipal use. There are no longer the many cool, clear streams, bordered by lush greenery and imposing trees, teeming with trout or thousands of sturgeon on their spawning migration. Severe runoff has caused the degradation and destruction of m any aquatic habitats, depriving fishes of both refuge and food. The high turbidity inhibits their respiration, while the floods sweep away their eggs, sm other them or subject them to desiccation when water levels recede. Only fish species resistant to such ecological adversity survive. Comparable problems face all other faunal groups as all habitats, desert, steppe or forest, are affected by de-vegetation. A steppic area where the shrubby plants such as saxaul, artemisia and bean caper are progressively removed will soon lose its gazelles, wild ass and larger predators; next the gerbils and jerboas will go. Finally, when man and his grazing animals have transform ed it into a desert dom inatd by only anti­ pastoral plants such as the wild rue, m ost of the reptiles will disappear as well. Faunal distribution often indicates the history of the vegetation disturbance of an area. Good examples can be found in the studies conducted by the D epartm ent of the Environment on desertification in the Turan Protected Area in the m id 1970s. For example, the large numbers of Afghan mole-vole (Ellobius fuscocapillus) in this area were unexpected. This species needs a soft and moist substrate in which to burrow. It is typical of the steppic regions of northern Iran and is absent from the m ore arid areas of the central plateau. Two im portant conclusions were draw n from this: that the precipitation in this part of K horasan was m ore reliable than elsewhere in the Plateau, and that m uch of the Turan Protected Area was degraded steppe rather than climax sub-desert flora. Data on the

distribution of other species supported these conclusions. The com m on fox (Vulpes vulpes), unknow n in the sub-desert parts of the central plateau, is found throughout Turan. The sand fox (V. rueppellii), “which typifies the sub-desert, is known from only one observation in Turan. Similarly, where one would expect to find only the coronated sandgrouse for similar reasons, only the black-bellied sandgrouse is abundant.”12 As the authorities struggle to cope with increasing quantities of hum an waste and sewage (often untreated), so pollution of ground water, streams, the Caspian Sea and its shores and the soil is becoming a larger and more serious problem. This is a threat to both m an and wildlife. Pesticides present an additional environmental hazard as alternative methods of pest control, whether biological, bio-rational or cultural, have little support in Iran. The disappearance of so many birds, bats, lizards, frogs and fishes - all useful insect-eating animals - is almost certainly linked to pesticide contam ination and pollution.

T h e U n d o in g of W e t l a n d s

T

wo lakes that have always figured prom inently in the Iranian landscape will soon become past memories. Lake Urumiyeh, the largest body of water in Iran, has been despoiled to the point of destruction and the H am oun wetland, once the greatest expanse of fresh water in Iran, is now totally dry. Lake Urumiyeh has been a National Park since 1971 as well as a Ramsar class wetland. It has been described as a unique ecosystem of international importance and, scenically, an area of unusual beauty. There has been large-scale drainage of num erous and im portant fresh and brackish water lakes and marshes along the rivers that enter the lake. Far more water has been abstracted for urban use and irrigation from the rivers flowing into the lake than previously and a causeway built across the lake. These have all combined with several years of low rainfall to completely alter, and in essence to destroy, the entire ecosystem. The water level has dropped by about 4.9 metres (16 feet) and the salinity has risen to such an extent that salt precipitates and accumulates on the bottom of the lake. Once a haven for spectacular breeding colonies of flamingos and pelicans, the lake has now become a lethal danger. Birds landing on the surface are soon covered by grains of salt which stick to their feathers and beaks, making feeding and flying impossible with prolonged exposure. Hamdollah Mostofi described the lake in the geographical section of his Nuzhat alQolub13 and calls it Chichast, which is its name in the Zand-Avesta, some 19 centuries before the w riting of his work in the 14th century. (He then describes the lake of Kharazm, which is the Aral Sea in Central Asia. The plight of lake Urumiyeh threatens a repeat of the disastrous situation created by the shrinking of the Aral Sea.)

12 See Anonymous (1977), Case Study on Desertification. Iran: Turan. 13 Mustawfi, H. 1919 (1340). The geographical section of the Nuzhat al-Qolub. Leiden: E.J. Brill. London: Luzac & Co.

Mostofi calls the H am oun lake Zarah* and says it is 30 leagues long and six wide, which implies an area far larger than the 293,000 hectares (724,000 acres) of this wetland given protected status in 1967. It has been completely dry since 2002-3. This is a vast complex of lakes and reed beds comprising three principal lakes: the H am oun-e Puzak, the H am oun-e Saberi and the H am oun-e H irm and. In years of drought in the past the H irm and river would supply sufficient water to flood only the upperm ost lake, the H am oun-e Puzak. This is no longer the case. The river now flows initially into three open, lake-like reservoirs, which supply water for the cities of Zabol, which is close by, and Zahedan, at a distance of over 100 kilometres (62 miles). Water for irrigation is also provided from these reservoirs. The probability of excess water ever again reaching the entire protected area appears increasingly unlikely.

T h e H u r a l -A z i m W e t l a n d he marshes and lakes formed by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in lower Iraq, known as the M esopotamian marshes, were “among the most im portant wintering areas for m igratory water birds in western Eurasia, supporting several million corm orants, pelicans, herons, flamingos, ducks, geese, coots and shorebirds throughout the winter m onths”.14

T

* The name is derived from the Avestic word for lake. 14 Scott, D.A. 1991. Asia and the Middle East. Finlayson, M. and M. Moser, (Editors). Wetlands IWRB. Facts on File. Oxford. New York, p. 156.

Most of the area of these marshes - hom e to the Marsh Arabs and covering about 15,000 square kilometres (5,800 square miles) - was filled in and destroyed by the Saddam regime in the 1990s in order to eliminate the Marsh Arabs. All that is left of these globally im portant and spectacular wetlands is a contiguous area across the border in Iran, which here is formed by the flow of the Karkheh river. This wetland, called H ur al-Azim, has assumed great international im portance as being the largest remaining tract of the M esopotamian marshes. It is hoped that the Iranian authorities will give positive and sympathetic attention to the preservation of the H ur al-Azim in the use of the waters of the Karkheh dam. The protection of this wetland might also motivate the Iraqi government to revive the adjacent part of the former marshes in Iraq.

IRAN’S PRESENT NETWORK OF RESERVES ot until almost ten years after the revolution of 1979 did the authorities recognise the values and advantages accruing from the country’s network of reserves, the m ajority of which had been left until then to the mercy of poachers and the grazing of domestic stock. Additional areas began to be established, particularly after 1990 (see map and tabulations), while many of the extant reserves were split into two or even three of the different categories (National Park, Wildlife Refuge, etc.). This has resulted in a considerable increase in the num ber of reserves but the partitioning of the reserves, although perhaps appropriate in a num ber of cases, appears to demonstrate in others an ignorance of the existing definitions of the relevant categories. No attention has been paid to the fact that this network, if carefully managed, constitutes a vast resource for recreation, tourism and the education of the public in the benefits and values of conservation. (In fact, most of the reserves are closed to the public.) Finally, the efficacy of protective measures, including regular wardening or policing of the reserves and the application of the relevant regulations - especially regarding livestock grazing - is generally deemed quite inadequate. The reserves that are described below illustrate the wide variety of habitats and wealth of wildlife in Iran. It is hoped that the quality of protection and management o f these valuable areas will be enhanced and thus elevate Iran’s status in the field of nature conservation. The Golestan National Park was the first area to be designated a national reserve and was donated to the Game Council of Iran for this purpose by the Shah.

N

Most of the area of these marshes - hom e to the Marsh Arabs and covering about 15,000 square kilometres (5,800 square miles) - was filled in and destroyed by the Saddam regime in the 1990s in order to eliminate the Marsh Arabs. All that is left of these globally im portant and spectacular wetlands is a contiguous area across the border in Iran, which here is formed by the flow of the Karkheh river. This wetland, called H ur al-Azim, has assumed great international im portance as being the largest remaining tract of the M esopotamian marshes. It is hoped that the Iranian authorities will give positive and sympathetic attention to the preservation of the H ur al-Azim in the use of the waters of the Karkheh dam. The protection of this wetland might also motivate the Iraqi government to revive the adjacent part of the former marshes in Iraq.

IRAN’S PRESENT NETWORK OF RESERVES ot until almost ten years after the revolution of 1979 did the authorities recognise the values and advantages accruing from the country’s network of reserves, the m ajority of which had been left until then to the mercy of poachers and the grazing of domestic stock. Additional areas began to be established, particularly after 1990 (see map and tabulations), while many of the extant reserves were split into two or even three of the different categories (National Park, Wildlife Refuge, etc.). This has resulted in a considerable increase in the num ber of reserves but the partitioning of the reserves, although perhaps appropriate in a num ber of cases, appears to demonstrate in others an ignorance of the existing definitions of the relevant categories. No attention has been paid to the fact that this network, if carefully managed, constitutes a vast resource for recreation, tourism and the education of the public in the benefits and values of conservation. (In fact, most of the reserves are closed to the public.) Finally, the efficacy of protective measures, including regular wardening or policing of the reserves and the application of the relevant regulations - especially regarding livestock grazing - is generally deemed quite inadequate. The reserves that are described below illustrate the wide variety of habitats and wealth of wildlife in Iran. It is hoped that the quality of protection and management o f these valuable areas will be enhanced and thus elevate Iran’s status in the field of nature conservation. The Golestan National Park was the first area to be designated a national reserve and was donated to the Game Council of Iran for this purpose by the Shah.

N

Situated in m ountainous terrain in northeastern Iran, this park spans bunchgrassartemisia steppe, the eastern edge of the contiguous Caspian forest, and the transition zone between them. Golestan contains pristine deciduous forests (with trees more than 450 years old), and an abundance and unrivalled variety of wildlife. This includes wild boar, m aral (red) deer, roe deer, Persian ibex, urial sheep, goitred gazelle, leopard, jungle cat, jackal, com m on fox, brown bear and stone marten. Among birds there are the chukar and see-see partridges, pheasant, quail, woodcock, wood pigeon, four of the five species of vultures found in Iran, and nine species of eagles. There are few reserves of comparable magnificence in the northern hemisphere. Kavir National Park, near the northwestern corner of the Dasht-e Kavir (Salt Desert), is a part of Iran’s vast and arid central basins and some 100 kilometres (60 miles) southeast of Tehran. A chain of low rocky m ountains with a northwestsoutheast strike and adjacent alluvial plains form the backbone of this park. Altitudes range from 800-1,100 metres (2,625-3,608 feet) on the plains to 2,015 metres (6,610 feet) at the top of Siah-Kuh, the m ain m ountain range. Vegetation is very sparse and large areas appear barren during periods of prolonged drought, the more resistant shrubs and perennial herbs being confined to wadis or o ther drainage features. However, sufficient w inter rains and snow will trigger a profuse growth, transform ing desert into carpets of herbaceous plants and flowering shrubs. The Kavir Park shelters virtually all of the flora and fauna typical of the Iranian deserts, and at the time of its creation such relatively rare wildlife species as the wild ass, the Jebeer gazelle, the cheetah and the H oubara bustard were the main targets for conservation. A very attractive and historically interesting caravanserai, built of the local stone in the days of Shah Abbas the Great (1587-1629), is the post for the park’s environmental guards and has limited accom modation for visitors. Miankaleh Wildlife Refuge is located at the southeast corner of the Caspian Sea, the Miankaleh Peninsula separating the Bay of Gorgan from the Caspian. The entire bay and its adjacent marshes along with the peninsula, an area of about 68,000 hectares (263 square miles), was declared a Protected Region in 1970 and a Wildlife Refuge in 1974. The creation of such a large refuge provided shelter and security for a quarter of a million waterfowl, including especially the greater flamingo, greylag goose, lesser white-fronted goose, red-breasted merganser and the rare white-headed duck. W ithin the Miankaleh Peninsula, however, excessive grazing of domestic stock, constant hunting and the cutting down of most of the forested areas had all but

26

MAP OF THE RE

The National Parks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Bakhtegan Bamou Bujaq Golestan Kavir Khabr K hojir Kolahqazi Lar Salouk Sarigol Sorkh-e Hessar Tandoureh Tang-e Sayad Touran Urumiyeh

B

National Nature Mon 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

11

A

Caspian Sea

TURKEY

57 \8 2 32

Alamkuh Peaks Damavand (Peak) Dehloran Gelfeshan-e Pirgel Khoshkehdaran Laleh-yeVajgun Q uri Q al’eh Cave Sabalan (Peak) Sahulan Cave Sarv-e Harzeville Susan-e Sefid Taftan Peaks Yakhkan Cave

v ^ 27

6 ★ 26 -

75

10

84

l0*

*

"

1 L Gorgan

5

13 *

._■■■ '

!★ 3

2?

91 17 2 5