The stated goal of landscape protection in GNP is being replaced by a more international standard of environmental protection, one that focuses on the protection of biodiversity. GNP Director J nis Strautnieks refers to the Nature Reserve and Nature Conservancy Zones as the core zones of the Park, viewing the others (the Cultural Historic, Landscape Protection, and Neutral Zones) more as buffer zones (Strautnieks, personal communication 2002). This terminology mirrors the international framework of a Biosphere
Reserve, and has been introduced in regards to GNP after Latvia’s independence (Salafsky 2000). The core area of the Park (the land in the core zones, considered separately from the buffer zones) qualifies as a category II park under the World Conservation Union (IUCN) standards. GNP Director Strautnieks stated in an interview (2002) that the GNP
Administration is considering the implementation of a plan in which the spatial extent of GNP would be reduced to this core areas (the Nature Reserve and Nature Conservancy Zones), divesting itself of the three buffer zones. In addition to making the Park more manageable given the Administration’s financial constraints, this would result in GNP becoming an IUCN category II park, held in high esteem in the international community. For instance, IUCN category II is stated as a valued status for the EuroParc Federation, an
umbrella organization of Europe’s protected areas, of which GNP is a member.
But Melluma (personal communication 2004) believes that this reduction of GNP to its core area “would not be Gauja National Park”; it would totally disregard the cultural aspect of the Park. Melluma (personal communication 2004) explains that this would be trying to emulate the concept of a biotope, a nature protection concept that came from the preservation of Scandinavian nature, and it would be a mistake to mimic the Scandinavian model in Latvia. She explains that other goals are more important in Latvia: GNP’s river valleys are unique, as is the cultural history, and the landscape matrix, the preservation of which is also essential for certain species to survive. Melluma (personal communication 2004) also makes the point that Zapovedniki throughout the former Soviet Union are large areas reserved for strict nature protection and scientific study, and that the distinction
between Zapovedniki and national parks should not be overlooked. National parks have other functions, including development, landscape protection, recreation, education, and protecting
culture and history in the landscape. She asserts that Latvia must adapt concepts from abroad in a way that is sensitive to the local environment (Melluma, personal communication 2004).
GNP Director Strautnieks said in an interview (2002) that he is discussing plans for the nearby municipalities to expand to parts of the Park where they currently have no jurisdiction. Although this is a separate project from the potential plan to reduce the size of the Park to its core area, it may be seen as moving in the same direction. Strautnieks stated that in the near future the Landscape Protection Zone may be fully managed by the
municipalities instead of the Park Administration (Strautnieks, personal communication 2002). Melluma (2004) said in an interview that she believes that the town councils of the municipalities in the Park already have too much control over the land. She believes that GNP should have jurisdiction over land use laws within its borders so that the land can be managed with the broader values of the Park instead of the interests of each municipality (Melluma, personal communication 2004). In particular, the traditional Latvian landscape may not be well protected within the Landscape Protection Zone if the Park had no jurisdiction over land use in this zone. Furthermore, Rolands Bebris, the Director of the Environmental Protection Department in Latvia’s Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development, also stated simply that the landscape is an important feature of GNP and that it should be preserved (Bebris, personal communication 2002).
As mentioned, the GNP Administration has taken concrete actions that reflect its growing commitment to protecting biodiversity rather than the traditional Latvian landscape. The GNP Administration has focused efforts to protect the core zones much more than the buffer zones of the Park. Strict limitations in development and tourist activities were passed into law in 2001 for the core zones of the Park (GNP 2001). The Park is currently funding a
project to inventory the core zones of its wetlands, peat, steep slopes, and river valleys in order to be better prepared to protect these resources (Strautnieks, personal communication 2002). Strautnieks’ vision for GNP will annex some forest areas currently in buffer zones into the core zones of the Park, in order to increase the size of these zones and step up protection of these forest areas.
The GNP Administration undertook a land exchange project along with the Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries (Division for Land Consolidation), funded by the Danish Ministry. This project, completed in 2002, was successful in offering individuals State forest lands in exchange for private forest lands – State forest lands in the Landscape Protection and Neutral Zones were given to individuals in exchange for their lands in the Nature Reserve and Nature Conservancy Zones (which they had received through land restitution or subsequent purchase of restituted land) (Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Fisheries 2002). The reasoning for this exchange was that the Park Administration preferred that the State own the forest lands in the core zones of the Park, so it could better manage these lands, and so that private individuals would be less likely to disturb the land in these core zones (Østergaard, Apen tis, personal communication 2002). However, laws regarding use of private forest lands in the core zones are quite strict, including a prohibition on clear-cuts, so there is little landuse change that these landowners were allowed to impose on their lands in the core zones. Many of the private landowners that exchanged their lands through this project cut portions of the forests they received (including some clear-cuts) in the Landscape Protection and Neutral Zones of the Park soon after receiving their new lands (S stulis, personal communication 2002). Thus, the land exchange project resulted in some forest cuts in GNP that would not have taken place had the project not been instituted. The
Park Administration’s compromise of forest land in buffer zones in order to secure protection of comparable forest land in core zones reflects the Administration’s priority of protecting the Park’s core zones more than the Landscape Protection and Neutral Zones.