EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 3.2.2017 SWD(2017) 50 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT The EU Environmental Implementation Review

Country Report - LATVIA



Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions The EU Environmental Implementation Review: Common Challenges and how to combine efforts to deliver better results

{COM(2017) 63 final}

{SWD(2017) 33 - 49 final}

{SWD(2017) 51 - 60 final}



This report has been written by the staff of the Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission. Any comments are welcome to the following e-mail address: ENV-EIR@ec.europa.eu More information on the European Union is available on the internet ( http://europa.eu ). Photographs: p.11 – ©gorsh13/iStock; p.16 – ©LIFE08 ENV/LV/000451; p.17 – © f9photos/iStock; p.22 – ©Giuseppe Di Paolo/iStock For reproduction or use of these photos, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holder. ©European Union, 2017 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Table of Content Executive summary Part I: Thematic Areas 1.Turning the EU into a circular, resource-efficient, green and competitive low-carbon economy Developing a circular economy and improving resource efficiency Waste management

2.Protecting, conserving and enhancing natural capital Nature and Biodiversity Green Infrastructure Soil protection Marine protection 3.Ensuring citizens' health and quality of life Air quality Noise Water quality and management Enhancing the sustainability of cities International agreements Part II: Enabling Framework: Implementation Tools19 4.Market based instruments and investment19 Green taxation and environmentally harmful subsidies19 Green Public Procurement20 Investments: the contribution of EU funds20 5.Effective governance and knowledge22 Effective governance within central, regional and local government22 Public participation and access to justice24 Access to information, knowledge and evidence24





Executive summary About the Environmental Implementation Review In May 2016, the Commission launched the Environmental Implementation Review (EIR), a two-year cycle of analysis, dialogue and collaboration to improve the implementation of existing EU environmental policy and legislation . As a first step, the Commission drafted 28 reports describing the main challenges and opportunities on environmental implementation for each Member State. These reports are meant to stimulate a positive debate both on shared environmental challenges for the EU, as well as on the most effective ways to address the key implementation gaps. The reports rely on the detailed sectoral implementation reports collected or issued by the Commission under specific environmental legislation as well as the 2015 State of the Environment Report and other reports by the European Environment Agency. These reports will not replace the specific instruments to ensure compliance with the EU legal obligations. The reports will broadly follow the outline of the 7th Environmental Action Programme and refer to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable development and related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to the extent to which they reflect the existing obligations and policy objectives of EU environmental law . The main challenges have been selected by taking into account factors such as the importance or the gravity of the environmental implementation issue in the light of the impact on the quality of life of the citizens, the distance to target, and financial implications. The reports accompany the Communication "The EU Environmental Implementation Review 2016: Common challenges and how to combine efforts to deliver better results", which identifies challenges that are common to several Member States, provides preliminary conclusions on possible root causes of implementation gaps and proposes joint actions to deliver better results. It also groups in its Annex the actions proposed in each country report to improve implementation at national level. General profile Latvia is a well organised country that benefits from a good level of environmental protection and, generally high air and water quality. It has a relatively high variety of different ecosystems and natural areas and is one of the countries in Europe with the richest biodiversity and established nature conservation traditions. Environmental implementation in Latvia is good with low numbers of complaints and infringements. However, waste management and particularly recycling, remains amongst the challenges for Latvia requiring strong efforts in order to reach the 2020 recycling target of 50%. There is also further room for improvement in addressing resource intensity issues. Latvia could benefit from a more structured approach and political support to the circular economy, as well as from targeted eco-innovation policy. Main Challenges The main challenges with regards to the implementation of EU environmental policy and law in Latvia are: Improving waste management, particularly increasing recycling, rolling-out separate collection and reducing landfilling; Reducing resource intensity which would lessen the exposure of Latvian businesses to rising resource costs. Main Opportunities Latvia could perform better on topics where there is already a good knowledge base and good practices. This applies in particular to: Use of the opportunities provided by EIB loans and EFSI support to further promote environmental projects; Use of market based instruments to encourage resource efficiency, particularly in waste management and in water resources management; High potential for Green Infrastructure development in order to address flood and erosion risks, while improving the connectivity of natural areas.

Points of Excellence As Latvia is a leader on environmental implementation, innovative approaches could be shared more widely with other countries. Good examples are: Good compliance record, having a low number of complaints and infringements. Part I: Thematic Areas 1.Turning the EU into a circular, resource-efficient, green and competitive low-carbon economy Developing a circular economy and improving resource efficiency The 2015 Circular Economy Package emphasizes the need to move towards a lifecycle-driven ‘circular’ economy, with a cascading use of resources and residual waste that is close to zero. This can be facilitated by the development of, and access to, innovative financial instruments and funding for eco-innovation. SDG 8 invites countries to promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all. SDG 9 highlights the need to build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation. SDG 12 encourages countries to achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources by 2030. Measures towards a circular economy Transforming our economies from linear to circular offers an opportunity to reinvent them and make them more sustainable and competitive. This will stimulate investments and bring both short and long-term benefits for the economy, environment and citizens alike. Latvia's resource productivity (how efficiently the economy uses material resources to produce wealth), in 2014 in terms of value produced per kg of resources used is 0.5 EUR/kg, above an EU average of 2 EUR/kg . Figure 1 shows that Latvia's resource productivity has remained relatively stable since 2011. Latvia is gradually moving towards more eco-innovation but the speed depends largely on availability of financial resources .There is much scope for work in the area of public awareness and financial planning in order to foster more favourable conditions for eco-innovation development in Latvia. In Latvia responsibility for the policies related to eco-innovation and circular economy is split among a range of institutions, primarily the Ministry of Economy, Ministry of Education and Science and Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development. Figure 1: Resource productivity 2003-15 In the Sustainable Development Strategy for Latvia until 2030 one of the priorities is “Nature as future capital”, which aims to position Latvia as a leader in protection, promotion and sustainable use of ecosystem services. In addition, the National Development Plan 2014-2020 integrates sustainability concerns into a number of priority areas, including economic growth, energy efficiency and energy production, growth-oriented territorial development and sustainable management of natural and cultural capital. Targeted policy documents for promoting and utilising the principles of circular economy are in the early stages of development. The Declaration of the new Government of Latvia adopted in February 2016 highlights waste management, alternative fuels and bioeconomy as priorities.

SMEs and resource efficiency In the Flash Eurobarometer 426 "SMEs, resource efficiency and green markets" it is shown that 47% of Latvia's Small and Medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have invested up to 5% of their annual turnover in their resource efficiency actions (EU28 average 50%), 17% of them are currently offering green products and services (EU28 average 26%), 61% took measures to save energy (EU28 average 59%), 38% to minimise waste (EU28 average 60%), 41% to save water (EU28 average 44%), and 58% to save materials (EU28 average 54%). From a circular economy perspective, 16% took measures to recycle by reusing material or waste within the company (EU28 average 40%), 19% to design products that are easier to maintain, repair or reuse (EU28 average 22%) and 17% were able to sell their scrap material to another company (EU28 average 25%). According to the Flash Eurobarometer426, resource efficiency actions allowed the reduction of production costs in 44% of Latvian SMEs (EU28 average 45%). The Flash Eurobarometer 426 "SMEs, resource efficiency and green markets" shows that 47% of the SMEs in Latvia have one or more full time employee working in a green job at least some of the time (EU28 average 35%). Latvia has an average number of 2.1 full time green employees per SME (EU28 average 1.7%). Eco-Innovation The key eco-innovation areas in Latvia have not changed markedly in recent years. Sectors that continue to develop include renewable energy and energy efficiency in residential buildings, forest-based industries and eco-cosmetics. In addition, service sectors that use Latvia’s ‘green image’ as a key selling point – e.g. tourism, leisure and recreation and organic agriculture – maintain their activities. Among the developing eco-innovation areas in Latvia one can highlight electromobility. In 2014 the Ministry of Transport elaborated the Electromobility Development Plan of Latvia 2014-2016. The plan has been prepared with a long-term view to fully integrate this area into transport policy as a way to decrease the use of fossil fuels, CO2 emissions and noise levels. This includes the support to new means of electromobility and the establishment of their charging infrastructure. Through the Climate Change Financial Instrument, the Ministry of the Environmental Protection and Regional Development has provided financial support for the implementation of 102 Projects where electrical vehicles were purchased and public charging infrastructure was installed. In terms of recent actions by established cleantech companies in Latvia, a stronger focus on water management and purification can be observed, as well as on technologies related to water infrastructure development and monitoring. The green technology start-up scene in Latvia sees new ideas and enterprises incubated in a wide range of sectors, including electromobility, wind energy, ecodesign, eco-innovative solutions in construction, LED lightning applications, composite materials and metalworking to develop material characteristics that are necessary to substitute rare natural resources . The overall position of Latvia in the Eco Innovation Scoreboard (Eco-IS) has improved from 24th place in 2013 (55 points) to 20th place in 2015 (74.9 points) as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: Eco-Innovation Index 2015 (EU=100) The main drivers for eco-innovation in Latvia are certainly the energy and resource efficiency targets of the EU’s Europe 2020 strategy, which have been integrated in national policy documents and corresponding funding lines, most notably the EU Structural Funds envelope. Together with national co-financing Latvia plans to invest around EUR 550 million in research, development and innovation (RDI), EUR 565 million in transition to low-carbon economy and EUR 733 million in environmental protection and resource efficiency by 2020 (Ministry of Finance, 2014). The Latvian Smart Specialisation Strategy emphasises the focus on developing bioeconomy, smart materials and sustainable energy solutions as three out of five key areas for RDI investment. This ensures a sustained political and financial commitment for the development of the green economy – an area that previously has not been high on the political agenda in Latvia. Equally important is the increasing support to eco-innovation from other international funding programmes, such as the Norwegian Financial Mechanism. In 2014, with the support of the Norwegian Financial Mechanism’s programme, “Green Industry Innovation”, the Green technology incubator was launched in Latvia, which was the first innovation support instrument specifically dedicated to the development of eco-innovative companies and eco-innovative entrepreneurship in the country. The richness of natural capital such as forests, soil and water can also be identified as drivers of eco-innovation. Almost half of Latvia’s territory is made up of natural ecosystems. Low population density and relatively low levels of industrial pollution highlight the “green image” of the country, making it a good destination for eco-tourism and travel. Consequently, it also promotes a wide range of eco-innovation businesses and related activities. The main barriers to eco-innovation development and diffusion in Latvia are related to the small number and size of companies active in environmental technology fields and the low innovative capacity of companies in general, especially in the medium and high-tech fields. In addition, the very limited number of large companies that have resources to divert to RDI and new technology adoption, and the low level of early-stage investments that are available for green technology development, are important hampering factors . NGOs have been active in initiating cultural change and positive influence from forerunner countries on societal and entrepreneurial awareness should not be underestimated. While the demand for eco-innovation products has been increasing in recent years, price is still a dominant factor in consumer and producer choice, which limits incentives for entrepreneurs to engage in eco-innovative activities. Latvia does not have a specific green growth policy. But Sustainable Development Strategy of Latvia until 2030 has a special chapter on Innovative and eco-efficient economy. Besides, elements of eco-innovations are in chapter on Nature as capital for future, where several instruments and initiatives are suggested to maintain natural capital, for example, green budget reform, market instruments, support to firms and technologies that are eco-innovative. The Smart Specialisation Strategy aims to promote innovation capacity and the creation of a system that fosters and technological progress. Its priorities, amongst others, include support to the knowledge-based bio-economy, smart materials and smart energy. Green growth and circular economy vocabulary is being adopted gradually from EU directives, but their implications in the context of the national economy have to be still assessed to find the best solutions. Though, overreliance on the EU and EEA financial mechanisms create a fragmented support landscape that is not favourable to long-term green industry development. Waste management Turning waste into a resource requires:

Full implementation of Union waste legislation, which includes the waste hierarchy; the need to ensure separate collection of waste; the landfill diversion targets etc. Reducing per capita waste generation and waste generation in absolute terms. Limiting energy recovery to non-recyclable materials and phasing out landfilling of recyclable or recoverable waste. SDG 12 invites countries to substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse, by 2030. The EU's approach to waste management is based on the "waste hierarchy" which sets out an order of priority when shaping waste policy and managing waste at the operational level: prevention, (preparing for) reuse, recycling, recovery and, as the least preferred option, disposal (which includes landfilling and incineration without energy recovery). The progress towards reaching recycling targets and the adoption of adequate WMP/WPP should be the key items to measure the performance of Member States. This section focuses on management of municipal waste for which EU law sets mandatory recycling targets. The amount of municipal waste generated in Latvia amounted to 325 kg/y/inhabitant in 2014 (well below the EU average of 475 kg/y/inhabitant). Figure 3 depicts the municipal waste by treatment in Latvia in terms of kg per capita, which shows a decrease in recycling and an increase in landfilling. The main treatment option of municipal waste remains disposal in landfills. In 2014, Latvia landfilled a big share of municipal waste (79% in 2014, a slight drop from 83% in 2013) against the EU average of 26%. Composting is broadly stable at only 4% in 2014 (EU average 28% in 2014). Figure 3: Municipal waste by treatment in Latvia 2007-14 As shown in Figure 4, recycling of municipal waste increased only slightly from 17% in 2013 to 21% in 2014 (EU average was 44% in 2014), while composting of municipal waste in Latvia dropped from 6% in 2013 to 4% in 2014 (EU average being 16% in 2014). This means that Latvia is under an increasing risk of not meeting 50% recycling target by 2020 , and the 2020 landfill diversion targets for biodegradable waste (75%). Figure 4: Recycling rate of municipal waste 2007-14 The national Waste Management Plan 2013-2020 will be subject to a midterm review in 2016. The plan also includes Latvia's Waste Prevention Programme. Although Latvia has achieved some progress in municipal waste management over the past couple years, significant investments are still required. These include: putting in place infrastructure to improve separate waste collection and increase waste recycling capacity (packaging and biodegradable waste), making improvements in market instruments (taxation of polluting products, extended producer responsibility), and adapting administrative and regulatory measures to facilitate recovery, including composting. In order to make recycling economically viable, an incineration and MBT tax (mechanical biological treatment), whilst keeping the landfill tax higher than taxes for incineration and MBT, would be effective. In order to help bridging the implementation gap in Latvia, the Commission has delivered a roadmap for compliance in which economic instruments play a crucial role. Revenues from a landfill tax in conjunction with further refinement of the allocation of the CF (allocations should be prioritised to the first steps of the waste hierarchy) could contribute to building and operating the infrastructure required to meet EU targets. Full implementation of the existing legislation could create more than 2.800 jobs in Latvia and increase the annual turnover of the waste sector by over EUR 304 million. Moving towards the targets of the Roadmap on resource efficiency could create over 3300 additional jobs and increase the annual turnover of the waste sector by over EUR 350 million. Suggested action Introduce and gradually increase landfill taxes to phase-out landfilling of recyclable and recoverable waste. Use the revenues to support the separate collection and alternative infrastructure in conjunction with a better allocation of the cohesion policy funds to the first steps of waste hierarchy. Avoid building excessive infrastructure for the treatment of residual waste.

Focus on implementation of the effective separate collection scheme to increase recycling rates. Once this is in place consider introducing PAYT (Pay As You Throw) schemes. 2.Protecting, conserving and enhancing natural capital Nature and Biodiversity The EU Biodiversity Strategy aims to halt the loss of biodiversity in the EU by 2020, restore ecosystems and their services in so far as feasible, and step up efforts to avert global biodiversity loss. The EU Birds and Habitats Directives aim at achieving favourable conservation status of protected species and habitats. SDG 14 requires countries to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources, while SDG 15 requires countries to protect, restore and promote the sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss. The 1992 EU Habitats Directive and the 1979 Birds Directive are the cornerstone of the European legislation aimed at the conservation of the EU's wildlife. Natura 2000, the largest coordinated network of protected areas in the world, is the key instrument to achieve and implement the Directives' objectives to ensure the long-term protection, conservation and survival of Europe's most valuable and threatened species and habitats and the ecosystems they underpin. The adequate designation of protected sites as Special Ares of Conservation (SAC) under the Habitats Directive and as Special Protection Areas (SPA) under the Birds Directive is a key milestone towards meeting the objectives of the Directives. The results of Habitats Directive Article 17 and Birds Directive Article 12 reports and the progress towards adequate Sites of Community Importance (SCI)-SPA and SAC designation both in land and at sea, should be the key items to measure the performance of Member States. 11.53% of the national land area of Latvia is covered by Natura 2000 (EU average 18.1%), with Birds Directive SPAs covering 10.23% (EU average 12.3%). Latvia has designated 332 Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) covering an area of 12241,37 km2, from which 7877.3 km2 correspond to the terrestrial part of the country's share of the Natura 2000 network, and 4364.07 km2 to marine sites. Regarding Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for birds designated under the Birds Directive, Latvia has designated 102 sites covering 6609.6 km2, from which 6183.9 correspond to terrestrial sites (97) and 425.7 km2 to marine sites. The latest assessment of the SCIs part of the Natura 2000 network shows that there are insufficiencies in designation (see Figure 5). Figure 5: Sufficiency assessment of SCI networks in Latvia based on the situation until December 2013 (%) Even though Latvia is progressing towards establishing comprehensive management plans for its sites (already completed for about 60 SACs), both the scientific basis over which the network was developed as well as the actual conservation status of some of the protected species and habitats is currently under review. The acknowledged presence of significant gaps in the knowledge base required for a sound science based implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives, starting from the designations carried out in 2004, is a recognized shortcoming that undermines any attempt of a more factual assessment of the actual state of the species and habitats requiring protection in the Latvian territory. The Latvian authorities are currently producing an updated survey of the spatial distribution of habitats and species that should help to clarify the situation and to overcome current shortages. From the available information it is evident that those assets located in areas shared with agriculture or commercial forestry activities are under most pressure. This unfavorable situation is particularly evident in the case of the habitats based on grasslands. The current provisions for the funding of nature conservation would need to be adapted so as to make the management of the land for nature conservation objectives economically viable for commercial farmers, or foresters. Figure 6: Conservation status of habitats and species in Latvia in 2007/2013 (%) According to the latest report on the conservation status of habitats and species covered by the Habitats Directive , 10.53% of the habitats biogeographic assessments were favourable in 2013 (EU 27: 16%). Furthermore, 35% are considered to be unfavourable–inadequate (EU27: 47%) and 51% are unfavourable – bad (EU27: 30%). As for the species, 28.83% of the assessments were favourable in 2013, 39% at unfavourable-inadequate (EU27: 42%) and 21% unfavourable-bad status (EU27: 18%). This is depicted in Figure 6 . Only 2% and 4.5% of the unfavourable assessments respectively for habitats and species were showing a positive trend in 2013.

As shown in Figure 7, as far as birds are concerned, 41% of the breeding species showed short-term increasing or stable population trends (for wintering species this figure was 67%). Figure 7: Short-term population trend of breeding and wintering bird species in Latvia in 2012 (%) So far, there is no involvement of Latvia in the EU initiative on Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES). However, several LIFE + projects for pilot assessment of the ecosystem services can be noted. Suggested action Complete the SAC designation process and put in place clearly defined conservation objectives and the necessary conservation measures for the sites and provide adequate resources for their implementation in order to maintain/restore species and habitats of community interest to a favourable conservation status across their natural range. Improve the incentives for foresters and farmers to better protect forest and grassland habitat. Initiate and provide government support for the work on mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services, valuation and development of natural capital accounting systems. Green Infrastructure The EU strategy on green infrastructure promotes the incorporation of green infrastructure into related plans and programmes to help overcome fragmentation of habitats and preserve or restore ecological connectivity, enhance ecosystem resilience and thereby ensure the continued provision of ecosystem services. Green Infrastructure provides ecological, economic and social benefits through natural solutions. It helps to understand the value of the benefits that nature provides to human society and to mobilise investments to sustain and enhance them. Latvia has a relatively high density of natural areas compared to many other EU Member States. Nevertheless, further efforts to increase connectivity between habitats would be useful . Challenges relate e.g. to the lack of general strategic policy framework for Green Infrastructure development; lack of know-how and awareness (especially at the municipal level) and lack of public participation. Nine border municipalities in Latvia and Lithuania are cooperating under the motto “Let’s make our cities greener” in order to restore urban parks and green infrastructure; improve the wellbeing, awareness and engagement of citizens to maintain green areas in their neighbourhood; and enable city planners to integrate green infrastructure in urban space. The operational programme "Growth and Employment" envisages the green infrastructure solutions as a priority where they are technically and economically possible and efficient, including eco-system based approaches' for the activities reducing flood and erosion risks in affected ecosystems - grasslands, wetlands, dunes and forests. Priorities for restoration will be set within the framework of a LIFE+ funded project . Soil protection The EU Soil Thematic Strategy highlights the need to ensure a sustainable use of soils. This requires the prevention of further soil degradation and the preservation of its functions, as well as the restoration of degraded soils. The 2011 Road Map for Resource-Efficient Europe, part of Europe 2020 Strategy provides that by 2020, EU policies take into account their direct and indirect impact on land use in the EU and globally, and the rate of land take is on track with an aim to achieve no net land take by 2050. SDG 15 requires countries to combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land-degradation-neutral world by 2030. Soil is an important resource for life and the economy. It provides key ecosystem services including the provision of food, fibre and biomass for renewable energy, carbon sequestration, water purification and flood regulation, the provision of raw and building material. Soil is a finite and extremely fragile resource and increasingly degrading in the EU. Land taken by urban development and infrastructure is highly unlikely to be reverted to its natural state; it consumes mostly agricultural land and increases fragmentation of habitats. Soil protection is indirectly addressed in existing EU policies in areas such as agriculture, water, waste, chemicals, and prevention of industrial pollution. Artificial land cover is used for settlements, production systems and infrastructure. It may itself be split between built-up areas (buildings) and non-built-up areas (such as linear transport networks and associated areas).

The annual land take rate (growth of artificial areas) as provided by CORINE Land Cover was 0.38% in Latvia over the period 2006-12, below the EU average (0.41%). It represented 475 hectares per year and was mainly driven by housing, services and recreation as well as industrial and commercial sites . The percentage of built up land in 2009 was 1.11%, well below the EU average (3.23%) . The soil water erosion rate in 2010 was 0.32 tonnes per ha per year, well below EU28 average (2.46 tonnes) . Figure 8 shows the different land cover types in Latvia in 2012. Figure 8: Land Cover types in Latvia in 2012 There are still no EU-wide datasets enabling the provision of benchmark indicators for soil organic matter decline, contaminated sites, pressures on soil biology and diffuse pollution. An updated inventory and assessment of soil protection policy instruments in Latvia and other EU Member States is being performed by the EU Expert Group on Soil Protection. Marine protection The EU Coastal and Marine Policy and legislation require that by 2020 the impact of pressures on marine waters is reduced to achieve or maintain good environmental status and coastal zones are managed sustainably. SDG 14 requires countries to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) aims to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) of the EU's marine waters by 2020 by providing an ecosystem approach to the management of human activities with impact on the marine environment. The Directive requires Member States to develop and implement a marine strategy for their marine waters, and cooperate with Member States sharing the same marine region or subregion. As part of their marine strategies, Member States had to make an initial assessment of their marine waters, determine GES and establish environmental targets by July 2012. They also had to establish monitoring programmes for the on-going assessment of their marine waters by July 2014. The next element of their marine strategy is to establish a Programme of Measures (2016). The Commission assesses whether these elements constitute an appropriate framework to meet the requirements of the MSFD. Latvian marine waters are part of the Baltic Sea and Latvia is a party to the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea (HELCOM). In the Baltic Sea, main risks for biodiversity relate to eutrophication, overfishing and bycatch, pollution by contaminants and oil and introduction of non-indigenous species . In its implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), Latvia did not determine good environmental status for all the 11 MSFD descriptors. Latvia also reported that the current level of impacts is 'good' when assessing the state of its marine waters. It however provided no justification for this assessment. It is therefore too early to say whether Latvian waters are in good status as there were weaknesses in identifying what a good environmental status is in the first place. Latvia established a monitoring programme of its marine waters in 2014. However, its monitoring programmes for all descriptors need further refinement and development to constitute an appropriate framework to monitor progress towards achieving Good Environmental Status, especially since gaps are still prevalent and the monitoring programmes will not be in place before 2018 for most descriptors, when the next assessment of marine waters is due . In 2012, Latvian marine protected areas covered 4382,8 square kilometers of its marine waters in the Baltic Sea . Suggested action Continue work to improve the definitions of GES in particular for biodiversity descriptors, including through regional cooperation by using the work of the relevant Regional Sea Convention. Identify and address knowledge gaps. Further develop approaches assessing (and quantifying) impacts from the main pressures in order to lead to improved and more conclusive assessment results for 2018 reporting. Continue integrating monitoring programmes already existing under relevant EU legislation and to implement, where they exist, joint monitoring programmes developed at (sub)regional level, for instance by HELCOM.

Enhance comparability and consistency of monitoring methods within the country's marine region. Ensure that its monitoring programme is implemented without delay, addresses all descriptors and is appropriate to monitor progress towards its GES.



3.Ensuring citizens' health and quality of life Air quality Figure 9: Attainment situation for PM10, NO2 and O3 in 2014 The EU Clean Air Policy and legislation require that air quality in the Union is significantly improved, moving closer to the WHO recommended levels. Air pollution and its impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity should be further reduced with the long-term aim of not exceeding critical loads and levels. This requires strengthening efforts to reach full compliance with Union air quality legislation and defining strategic targets and actions beyond 2020.

The EU has developed a comprehensive suite of air quality legislation , which establishes health-based standards and objectives for a number of air pollutants. As part of this, Member States are also required to ensure that up-to-date information on ambient concentrations of different air pollutants is routinely made available to the public. In addition, the National Emission Ceilings Directive provides for emission reductions at national level that should be achieved for main pollutants. The emission of several air pollutants has decreased significantly in Latvia . Reductions between 1990 and 2014 for sulphur oxides (96%), nitrogen oxides (-63%), ammonia (-61%) as well as volatile organic compounds (46%) ensure air emissions for these pollutants are within the currently applicable national emission ceilings . Air quality in Latvia is reported to be generally good, with exceptions. Nevertheless, for the year 2013, the European Environment Agency estimated that about 2 080 premature deaths were attributable to fine particulate matter concentrations, 60 to ozone concentration and over 110 to nitrogen dioxide concentrations . This is due also to exceedances above the EU air quality standards such as shown in Figure 9 . Until 2013, Latvia reported exceedances of particulate matter (PM10) in one air quality zone (Riga); however, for 2014 compliance has been reported. For 2014, exceedances above the EU air quality standards have been only been registered related to the long-term objectives regarding ozone concentration in two air quality zones . The persistent breaches of air quality requirements (for PM10), which have severe negative effects on health and environment, are being followed up by the European Commission through infringement procedures covering all the Member States concerned, including Latvia. The aim is that adequate measures are put in place to bring all zones into compliance. It is estimated that the health-related external costs from air pollution in Latvia are above EUR 748 million/year (income adjusted, 2010), which include not only the intrinsic value of living a full health life but also direct costs to the economy. These direct economic costs relate to 325 thousand workdays lost each year due to sickness related to air pollution, with associated costs for employers of EUR 22 million/year (income adjusted, 2010), for healthcare of above EUR 2 million/year (income adjusted, 2010), and for agriculture (crop losses) of EUR 11 million/year (2010) . Suggested action Reduce PM10 emission and concentration, inter alia, by reducing emissions related to energy and heat generation using solid fuels, to transport and to agriculture. Noise The Environmental Noise Directive provides for a common approach for the avoidance, prevention and reduction of harmful effects due to exposure to environmental noise. Excessive noise is one of the main causes of health issues . To alleviate this, the EU acquis sets out several requirements, including assessing the exposure to environmental noise through noise mapping, ensuring that information on environmental noise and its effects is made available to the public, and adopting action plans with a view to preventing and reducing environmental noise where necessary and to preserving the acoustic environment quality where it is good. Latvia's implementation of the Environmental Noise Directive is delayed. The noise mapping for the most recent reporting round, for the reference year 2011, is complete for agglomerations, major airports and major roads, but incomplete major railways. Action plans for noise management in the current period have been adopted for agglomerations, major roads and airports, but not for major railways. Suggested action Complete noise mapping and action plans for noise management. Water quality and management The EU water policy and legislation require that the impact of pressures on transitional, coastal and fresh waters (including surface and ground waters) is significantly reduced to achieve, maintain or enhance good status of water bodies, as defined by the Water Framework Directive; that citizens throughout the Union benefit from high standards for safe drinking and bathing water; and that the nutrient cycle (nitrogen and phosphorus) is managed in a more sustainable and resource-efficient way. SDG 6 encourages countries to ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. The main overall objective of EU water policy and legislation is to ensure access to good quality water in sufficient quantity for all Europeans. The EU water acquis seeks to ensure good status of all water bodies across Europe by addressing pollution sources (from e.g. agriculture, urban areas and industrial activities), physical and hydrological modifications to water bodies) and the management of risks of flooding. River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) are a requirement of the Water Framework Directive and a means of achieving the protection, improvement and sustainable use of the water environment across Europe. This includes surface freshwaters such as lakes and rivers, groundwater, estuaries and coastal waters up to one nautical mile. Latvia has provided information to the Commission from its second generation of RBMPs. However, as the Commission has not yet been able to validate this information for all Member States, it is not reported here.

In its first generation of RBMPs Latvia reported 53% of surface water bodies and almost all groundwater bodies classified as having good or high ecological status and all groundwater bodies classified as having good groundwater status. The main pressures are point sources from urban (and to a lesser extent industrial) wastewater, diffuse sources from agriculture and hydromorphological alterations. There are certain deficiencies in RBMPs. In particular the methods to assess the status of water bodies are not fully developed. A high number of exemptions were applied. The Programmes of Measures are expected to result in improvement of the ecological and chemical status of natural surface water bodies by 24% and 5% respectively. The planned measures are expected to result in improvement of ecological potential of artificial and heavily modified water bodies by 17% and chemical status of these bodies by 8%. As regards water pollution from agricultural sources, nitrate levels have been slightly decreasing in the period 2008-2011. However, eutrophication of the Baltic Sea remains an issue. In 2008-2011, a slight expansion of the agricultural area took place and mineral fertilizer use increased as compared to the period 2004-2007. At the same time, the pressure from livestock decreased, due to a reduction in the number of animals. Following an infringement procedure on the implementation of the nitrates directive, Latvia has improved its action programme measures. As regards drinking water, Latvia reaches very high compliance rates of 99-100% for microbiological and chemical parameters, and also shows a 98.7% compliance rate with indicator parameters laid down in the Drinking Water Directive . As shown in Figure 10, in 2015, in Latvia out of 55 bathing waters, 67.3% were of excellent quality, 18.2% of good quality while it was not possible to assess the remaining 8 bathing waters as they were just recently identified and did not have data about 4 last bathing seasons, necessary for the assessment . Figure 10: Bathing water quality 2012–15 With regard to the implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, Latvia reaches overall high compliance rates: 100% of its waste water load is collected, and 98.7% is submitted to secondary treatment . The final deadline to fully comply with the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD) in Latvia was the end of 2015. All the Latvian territory is considered as sensitive area, meaning that all agglomerations whose size is above 10,000 p.e. should be subject to more stringent treatment. Commission's latest report on the implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive indicates that, in 2012, 0% of the waste water load collected was subject to more stringent treatment in accordance with Article 5 of the WWTD. However, Latvia has since then explained that this was due to a reporting mistake and only 3 agglomerations remain, overall, non-compliant with the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. Despite these overall good results, it should be noted that 10.9% of the waste water load in Latvia is addressed via individual or other systems whose appropriateness to protect the environment might be questionable. Finally, it is necessary to improve the situation of the physical connections to the waste water collection systems. The estimated investment needs (reported by Latvia under Article 17 of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive) to reach full compliance with the Directive are of EUR 107 million . Suggested action The RBMP of Measures should address all relevant pressures and implementation gaps in particular measures addressing agricultural pollution. Review and improve its measures to reduce the hydromorphological pressure in its river basins. Measures to rationalise water and wastewater management structures and services could also be considered together with incentives for increasing the level of physical connections to the networks. Enhancing the sustainability of cities The EU Policy on the urban environment encourages cities to implement policies for sustainable urban planning and design, including innovative approaches for urban public transport and mobility, sustainable buildings, energy efficiency and urban biodiversity conservation. SDG11 aims at making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. Europe is a Union of cities and towns; around 75% of the EU population are living in urban areas. The urban environment poses particular challenges for the environment and human health, whilst also providing opportunities and efficiency gains in the use of resources. The Member States, European institutions, cities and stakeholders have prepared a new Urban Agenda for the EU (incorporating the Smart Cities initiative) to tackle these issues in a comprehensive way, including their connections with social and economic challenges. At the heart of this Urban Agenda will be the development of twelve partnerships on the identified urban challenges, including air quality and housing . The European Commission will launch a new EU benchmark system in 2017.

The EU stimulates green cities through awards and funding, such as the EU Green Capital Award aimed at cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants and the EU Green Leaf initiative aimed at cities and towns, with between 20,000 and 100,000 inhabitants. A number of initiatives are covered under the Union of the Baltic Cities Sustainable Cities Commission, which is a voluntary network of its member cities of the Baltic Sea Region addressing a number of issues, including environmentally sustainable development. This includes such initiatives as integrated management systems and spatial management, urban water management, maritime activities and sustainable urban mobility. For example, the project PRESTO, which is aimed at improving quality of local waters and the Baltic Sea by reducing nutrient load. Under the project PURE, aimed at promote advanced phosphorus removal and sustainable sludge management in the Baltic Sea region, phosphorus removal equipment was installed in Riga and Jūrmala waste water treatment plants. Furthermore, Riga City Council is amongst the partners of the Baltic Urban Lab project, which aims at identifying and promoting best practices on brown field regeneration. Under the Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy 20 Latvian cities have set GHG reduction targets for a period until 2020. Valka has also committed to develop municipality wide adaptation strategy and action plan. Riga City has implemented a flood management project "Hydro Climate Strategy Riga" that produced maps, models and guidance to help Riga City Council plan measures for safeguarding the Latvian capital against the increased risk of flooding predicted by climate change scenarios. 15 municipalities have published their climate related actions in the UNFCCC Non-state Actor Zone for Climate Action (NAZCA), emphasizing their commitment and climate friendly forward-looking development. The OP Growth and Employment will provide ESIF support the for revitalisation measures in the city of Riga and for environmentally friendly public transport measures in other major Latvian cities. International agreements The EU Treaties require that the Union policy on the environment promotes measures at the international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems. Most environmental problems have a transboundary nature and often a global scope and they can only be addressed effectively through international co-operation. International environmental agreements concluded by the Union are binding upon the institutions of the Union and on its Member States. This requires the EU and the Member States to sign, ratify and effectively implement all relevant multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in a timely manner. This will also be an important contribution towards the achievement of the SDGs, which Member States committed to in 2015 and include many commitments contained already in legally binding agreements. The fact that some Member States did not sign and/or ratify a number of MEAs compromises environmental implementation, including within the Union, as well as the Union’s credibility in related negotiations and international meetings where supporting the participation of third countries to such agreements is an established EU policy objective. In agreements where voting takes place it has a direct impact on the number of votes to be cast by the EU. Latvia has signed and ratified almost all MEAs. It has signed but not yet ratified the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and the Nagoya Protocol . Part II: Enabling Framework: Implementation Tools 4.Market based instruments and investment Green taxation and environmentally harmful subsidies The Circular Economy Action Plan encourages the use of financial incentives and economic instruments, such as taxation to ensure that product prices better reflect environmental costs. The phasing out of environmentally harmful subsidies is monitored in the context of the European Semester and in national reform programmes submitted by Member States. Taxing pollution and resource use can generate increased revenue and bring important social and environmental benefits. Environmental taxation has been strengthened but there is further scope for a growth-friendly tax shift.

In 2014, the ratio of tax revenues to GDP in Latvia slightly exceeded the EU average (2.67% vs 2.46% of GDP) . In the same year environmental tax revenues accounted for 9.26% of total revenues from taxes and social-security contributions (EU28 average: 6.35%) as shown in Figure 11. Most of the revenue of environmental taxes still comes from energy taxes (74% of environmental taxes in 2014), while the share of transport was 18% of total environmental taxes in 2014. Pollution/resource and transport taxes (excluding transport fuels) have produced smallest revenue streams – 4%. Additional revenue from environment related taxes could therefore alleviate budgetary pressures and provide the necessary source for funding contributing to the green economy. Further increasing taxes on the use of natural resources and decrease of environmentally harmful subsidies would contribute to achieving environmental goals; improve resource and energy efficiency that would lead to higher levels of output and employment at the same time providing room for a shift away from taxation of labour. A 2016 study shows there is considerable potential for shifting taxes from labour to environment . Under a good practice scenario , these taxes could generate an additional EUR 0.22 billion by 2018, rising to EUR 0.43 billion by 2030 (both in real 2015 terms). This is equivalent to an increase by 0.79% and 1.05% of GDP in 2018 and 2030, respectively. Figure 11: Environmental tax revenues as a share of total revenues from taxes and social contributions (excluding imputed social contributions) in 2014 In Latvia, the Natural resource tax since its introduction in 2006 has increased from 0.6 EUR per CO2 tonne to 3.50 EUR per CO2 tonne in 2015. Possibilities of the increase of the Natural resources tax (NRT) rate per tonne of CO2 are being evaluated and to promote implementation of greenhouse gas emission reduction measures further raise of the CO2 rates is feasible in the near future. However, it is to be done in the context of the processes taking place in the EU allowances market. NRT for waste landfill has increased from 1.07 EUR per tonne in 2002 to 12.00 EUR per tonne in 2014. Since the NRT rate has not been effective enough for diverting waste from landfill to recycling, Latvia has plans for further increase in NRT rate for waste landfill. Green Public Procurement The EU green public procurement policies encourage Member States to take further steps to reach the target of applying green procurement criteria to at least 50% of public tenders. Green Public Procurement (GPP) is a process whereby public authorities seek to procure goods, services and works with a reduced environmental impact throughout their life-cycle when compared to goods, services and works with the same primary function that would otherwise be procured. The purchasing power of public procurement in the EU equals to approximately 14% of GDP . A substantial part of this money is spent on sectors with high environmental impact such as construction or transport, so GPP can help to significantly lower the impact of public spending and foster sustainable innovative businesses. The Commission has proposed EU GPP criteria . In Latvia, a national strategy on Green Public Procurement (GPP) is included in the “Green Procurement support plan for 2015 – 2017”, which was elaborated by the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development in cooperation with stakeholders. The plan has been approved by the Cabinet of Ministers on 17th of February 2015. GPP criteria have been developed at the national level through this plan for 21 products. In addition to the product groups, the GPP Support Plan for 2015-2017 defines the GPP targets of 15% for 2015, 20% for 2016, and 30% for 2017 to be met each year for national and local authorities. Green procurement support plan 2015-2017 is intended to ensure that procurement planned from the state and local government budgets to which GP applies in financial terms reaches at least 15% of the total volume of procurement made by state and local government institutions starting from 2015, 20% in 2016, and 30% in 2017, and that GP and “Green Procurement support plan 2015-2017” requirements are applied and integrated in the implementation process of the EU Structural Funds and of the Cohesion Fund. There is no data available as regards the uptake of GPP. Investments: the contribution of EU funds European Structural and Investment Funds Regulations provide that Member States promote environment and climate objectives in their funding strategies and programmes for economic, social and territorial cohesion, rural development and maritime policy, and reinforce the capacity of implementing bodies to deliver cost-effective and sustainable investments in these areas. Making good use of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) is essential to achieve the environmental goals and integrate these into other policy areas. Other instruments such as the Horizon 2020, the LIFE programme and the EFSI may also support implementation and spread of best practice. Latvia, through 3 national programmes, benefits the ESIF funding of EUR 5.6 billion over the period 2014-2020 . The biggest share – EUR 2.4 billion (42.6%) of funding is coming from the European Fund for Regional Development (ERDF). EUR 1.3 billion (24%) - from the Cohesion Fund (CF). EUR 1.1 billion (19.1%) – from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).

EUR 639 million (11.3%) - from the European Social Fund (ESF). EUR 140 million (2.5%) from the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) in intensification of aquaculture (43% of pond fish farming activities located in Natura 2000 areas). In total, EUR 783 million are dedicated to the Thematic objective (TO)6 Environment Protection and Resource efficiency, EUR 368 though the ERDF, EUR 190 million through the CF, EUR 202 million through the EAFRD programme, EUR 190 million through the CF, EUR 24.4 million through the EMFF. In addition, EUR 520 million is foreseen for TO4 Low Carbon Economy (ERDF, CF and EAFRD) and EUR 268 million for TO5 Climate Change Adoption and Risk Prevention (EAFRD and ERDF) (see Figure 12). Figure 12: European Structural and Investment Funds 2014-2020: Budget Latvia by theme, EUR billion It is too early to draw conclusions as regards the use and results of ESIF funds for the period 2014-2020, as the relevant operational programmes are still in an early stage of their implementation. Current data suggest that the EU funds for the 2007-2013 period were almost fully spent. The National Rural Development Program (RDP) of Latvia, its EARDF part, amounts to around EUR 1.1 billion (after the 1st modification). Budget for agri-environmental-climate measure represents 7.05% of the total EAFRD budget. The measure on natural constraints takes up 18.9% of the total EAFRD (and does not need to present its link to biodiversity conservation). Around 1.5% is allocated to measure on compensation of the restrictions posed by Natura 2000. In the currently proposed modification the sub-measure on high-nature value grassland plans to incorporate some elements from the successful LIFE project, which is appreciated. With regard to the integration of environmental concerns into the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the two key areas for Latvia (as for all Member States) are, first, using Rural Development funds to pay for environmental land management and other environmental measures, while avoiding financing measures which could damage the environment; and secondly, ensuring an effective implementation of the first pillar of the CAP with regard to cross compliance and 1st pillar 'greening'. 30% of direct payment envelope (out of total EUR 1.45 billion for 2015-2020 ) is allocated to greening practices beneficial for the environment. An environmentally ambitious implementation of 1st pillar greening would clearly help to improve the environmental situation in areas not covered by rural development, including intensive areas, and if appropriate Latvia could review its implementation of the sectorial policy.



5.Effective governance and knowledge SDG 16 aims at providing access to justice and building effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels. SDG 17 aims at better implementation, improving policy coordination and policy coherence, stimulating science, technology and innovation, establishing partnerships and developing measurements of progress. Effective governance of EU environmental legislation and policies requires having an appropriate institutional framework, policy coherence and coordination, applying legal and non-legal instruments, engaging with non-governmental stakeholders, and having adequate levels of knowledge and skills . Successful implementation depends, to a large extent, on central, regional and local government fulfilling key legislative and administrative tasks, notably adoption of sound implementing legislation, co-ordinated action to meet environmental objectives and correct decision-making on matters such as industrial permits. Beyond fulfilment of these tasks, government must intervene to ensure day-to-day compliance by economic operators, utilities and individuals ("compliance assurance"). Civil society also has a role to play, including through legal action. To underpin the roles of all actors, it is crucial to collect and share knowledge and evidence on the state of the environment and on environmental pressures, drivers and impacts. Equally, effective governance of EU environmental legislation and policies benefits from a dialogue within Member States and between Member States and the Commission on whether the current EU environmental legislation is fit for purpose. Legislation can only be properly implemented when it takes into account experiences at Member State level with putting EU commitments into effect. The Make it Work initiative, a Member State driven project, established in 2014, organizes a discussion on how the clarity, coherence and structure of EU environmental legislation can be improved without lowering existing protection standards. Effective governance within central, regional and local government Those involved in implementing environment legislation at Union, national, regional and local levels need to be equipped with the knowledge, tools and capacity to improve the delivery of benefits from that legislation, and the governance of the enforcement process. Capacity to implement rules In the Programming Period 2014-2020 an investment of EUR 18 million is foreseen in promoting Latvian institutional capacity of public institutions and stakeholders and an efficient public administration, particularly, in professional development of public administration for development of better legal regulation in the fields of support to small and medium-sized enterprises, anti-corruption and mitigation of the shadow economy, as well as in improving the competence of the staff of courts and law enforcement authorities promote improvement of business environment. In 2011, as part of a reform programme put in place to recover from the financial crisis the Latvian Ministry of the Environment merged with the Ministry of Regional Development and Local Government. This merger also resulted in financial cuts (at around 19%). It is essential that sufficient capacity and funds for the successful implementation of environmental legislation as well as the achievement of environmental objectives are retained.

Latvia aims to transpose new directives into the national legislation respecting the established timelines and the number of non-communication cases opened for non-communication of national legislation transposing new directives are low. Latvia has a low number of complaints. Cases often focus on transposition of EU law into national law and these are resolved quickly. Coordination and integration In 2010 Latvia adopted its Sustainable Development Strategy until 2030. Implementation is carried out by subordinate administrations and agencies, among those State Environment Service (compliance enforcement, licensing), Nature Conservation Agency (competent nature conservation authority), Latvian Environmental, Geological and Meteorological Agency (management of databases, environmental monitoring), Environment State Bureau (impact assessment, EMAS, licensing) and the Latvian Institute of Aquatic Ecology (monitoring of aquatic ecology), State Regional Development Agency (structural funds). The 2009 public sector structural reforms had a considerable impact on the environmental authorities. In comparison to 2007, they operate with significant staff and financial cuts that inevitably have implications on their monitoring, implementation and enforcement capacities. The Commission encourages the streamlining of the environmental assessments to avoid overlaps in environmental assessments and accelerate decision-making, without compromising the quality of the environmental assessment procedure. The Commission has issued a guidance document in 2016 regarding the setting up of coordinated and/or joint procedures that are simultaneously subject to assessments under the EIA Directive, Habitats Directive, Water Framework Directive, and the Industrial Emissions Directive. Compliance assurance EU law generally and specific provisions on inspections, other checks, penalties and environmental liability help lay the basis for the systems Member States need to have in place to secure compliance with EU environmental rules. Public authorities help ensure accountability of duty-holders by monitoring and promoting compliance and by taking credible follow-up action (i.e. enforcement) when breaches occur or liabilities arise. Compliance monitoring can be done both on the initiative of authorities themselves and in response to citizen complaints. It can involve using various kinds of checks, including inspections for permitted activities, surveillance for possible illegal activities, investigations for crimes and audits for systemic weaknesses. Similarly, there is a range of means to promote compliance, including awareness-raising campaigns and use of guidance documents and online information tools. Follow-up to breaches and liabilities can include administrative action (e.g. withdrawal of a permit), use of criminal law and action under liability law (e.g. required remediation after damage from an accident using liability rules) and contractual law (e.g. measures to require compliance with nature conservation contracts). Taken together, all of these interventions represent "compliance assurance" as shown in Figure 13. Best practice has moved towards a risk-based approach at strategic and operational levels in which the best mix of compliance monitoring, promotion and enforcement is directed at the most serious problems. Best practice also recognises the need for coordination and cooperation between different authorities to ensure consistency, avoid duplication of work and reduce administrative burden. Active participation in established pan-European networks of inspectors, police, prosecutors and judges, such as IMPEL , EUFJE , ENPE and EnviCrimeNet , is a valuable tool for sharing experience and good practices. Figure 13: Environmental compliance assurance Currently, there exist a number of sectoral obligations on inspections and the EU directive on environmental liability (ELD) provides a means of ensuring that the "polluter-pays principle" is applied when there are accidents and incidents that harm the environment. There is also publically available information giving insights into existing strengths and weaknesses in each Member State. For each Member State, the following were therefore reviewed: use of risk-based compliance assurance; coordination and co-operation between authorities and participation in pan-European networks; and key aspects of implementation of the ELD based on the Commission's recently published implementation report and REFIT evaluation . Latvia has developed some risk assessment tools for inspections of industrial installations. Challenges have included budget constraints that have led to a decrease in the staff of inspection authorities by about 40% . Up-to-date information is lacking in relation to the following: data-collection arrangements to track the use and effectiveness of different compliance assurance interventions ; the extent to which risk-based methods are used to direct compliance assurance at the strategic level and in relation to critical activities outside of industrial installations , how the Latvian authorities ensure a targeted and proportionate response to different types of non-compliant behaviour . In 2011, Latvia hosted an IMPEL IRI but is otherwise not very active within IMPEL and the other EU level environmental enforcement networks.