**5. Conclusions**

The present study has provided an overview of contemporary *iriai* forest management in Japan, focusing on FPCs and ANAs. It has also presented case studies of several FPCs and ANAs, highlighting the difficulties and struggles that they face as forest commons managers. A simple generalization of the history of Japanese *iriai* forests to the global context is difficult. At the very least, given that forest commons which can entail meaningful human–nature relations have undergone a re-evaluation in the contemporary developed world [6,31], a globally shared question might be how to provide an institutional framework, financial mechanisms, and social understandings that can maintain and revitalize commons.

The author provides three policy recommendations for the Japanese context. First, the legal settings of FPCs and ANAs should be made more compatible with contemporary realities. This has been partially realized through the 2017 revised Forest Act, which enabled easier status change to ANA. However, there is room for further policy modifications in the taxation arrangements of FPCs. In addition, administrative support and consultation opportunities are advisable for FPCs considering a status change to ANA in places where such support has been absent.

Second, greater financial support for management activities is beneficial, particularly for FPCs. Since 2019, the Forest Environment Transfer Tax has been in force in Japan, as a form of payment for ecosystem services [32]. Funds from this tax could be allocated to managers of *iriai* forests. As FPC members feel that they are contributing to the public through forest management, provision of funds from this tax can be seen as reasonable and thereby justified. In the context of global climate change, the ecosystem services provided by managers of *iriai* forests will gain importance.

Third, perusing multi-level governance to open the commons to broader sections of society is key. After becoming ANAs, *iriai* forests become assets of all residents in the community. Given this opportunity, enhanced engagement with people other than former FPC members—e.g., schoolchildren in and outside the community, and environmental volunteers from urban areas—could be considered. Mitsumata and Saito [31] reports cases where new values were created and forest uses were revitalized, as a result of the collaboration of multiple stakeholders. In such a process, the forest composition of *iriai* forests could also be reconsidered; existing planted forests of Japanese cedar and cypress could be gradually turned into mixed forests of conifer and broad-leaved trees. If former FPC members strongly believe that their *iriai* forests should only serve timber production from cedar and cypress trees, changing their thought processes to consider more flexible and diverse uses of forests would also be beneficial.

**Funding:** This study was financially supported by JSPS KAKENHI under grant number JP21H03709.

**Data Availability Statement:** The data are not publicly available due to confidentiality reasons.

### **Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
