COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission recommendations for Latvia's CAP strategic plan 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 Recommendations to the Member States as regards their strategic plan for the Common Agricultural Policy
Date: 2020-12-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: EU strategy, Latvia, agricultural policy, climate change policy, common agricultural policy, cooperation on agriculture, digitisation, food security, innovation, rural development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 18.12.2020  SWD(2020) 386 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Commission recommendations for Latvia's CAP strategic plan 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 Recommendations to the Member States as regards their strategic plan for the Common Agricultural Policy {COM(2020) 846 final} - {SWD(2020) 367 final} - {SWD(2020) 368 final} - {SWD(2020) 369 final} - {SWD(2020) 370 final} - {SWD(2020) 371 final} - {SWD(2020) 372 final} - {SWD(2020) 373 final} - {SWD(2020) 374 final} - {SWD(2020) 375 final} - {SWD(2020) 376 final} - {SWD(2020) 377 final} - {SWD(2020) 379 final} - {SWD(2020) 384 final} - {SWD(2020) 385 final} - {SWD(2020) 387 final} - {SWD(2020) 388 final} - {SWD(2020) 389 final} - {SWD(2020) 390 final} - {SWD(2020) 391 final} - {SWD(2020) 392 final} - {SWD(2020) 393 final} - {SWD(2020) 394 final} - {SWD(2020) 395 final} - {SWD(2020) 396 final} - {SWD(2020) 397 final} - {SWD(2020) 398 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1.  COMMISSION  RECOMMENDATIONS  FOR  LATVIA’S  CAP 

STRATEGIC PLAN..........................................................................................2 

1.1 

1.2 

1.3 

1.4 

1.5 

Foster  a  smart,  resilient  and  diversified  agricultural  sector 
ensuring food security ........................................................................2 
Bolster environmental care and climate action and contribute 
to  the  environmental-  and  climate-related  objectives  of  the 
Union ...................................................................................................3 
Strengthen  the  socio-economic  fabric  of  rural  areas  and 
address societal concerns ...................................................................4 
fostering  and  sharing  of 
Modernising 
knowledge,  innovation  and  digitalisation  in  agriculture  and 
rural areas, and encouraging their uptake ......................................4 
Recommendations ..............................................................................5 

the  sector  by 

2.  ANALYSIS  OF  AGRICULTURE  AND  RURAL  DEVELOPMENT  IN 

2.1 

2.2 

2.3 
2.4 

2.5 

2.6 

2.7 

2.8 

2.9 

2.10 

LATVIA ..............................................................................................8 
Support  viable  farm  income  and  resilience  across  the  EU 
territory to enhance food security ....................................................8 
Enhance  market  orientation  and  increase  competitiveness 
including  greater 
technology  and 
focus  on  research, 
digitalisation .......................................................................................9 
Improve farmers' position in the value chain ................................11 
Contribute  to  climate  change  mitigation  and  adaptation,  as 
well as sustainable energy ...............................................................13 
Foster  sustainable  development  and  efficient  management  of 
natural resources such as water, soil and air ................................15 
Contribute 
ecosystem services and preserve habitats and landscapes ...........17 
Attract young farmers and facilitate business development in 
rural areas .........................................................................................19 
Promote  employment,  growth,  social  inclusion  and  local 
development  in  rural  areas,  including  bio-economy  and 
sustainable forestry ..........................................................................21 
Improve  the  response  of  EU  agriculture  to  societal  demands 
on food and health, including safe, nutritious and sustainable 
food, as well as animal welfare. .......................................................22 
Cross-cutting  objective  on  knowledge, 
digitalisation .....................................................................................24 

the  protection  of  biodiversity,  enhance 

innovation  and 

to 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  COMMISSION  RECOMMENDATIONS  FOR  LATVIA’S  CAP  STRATEGIC 

PLAN 

In the framework of the structured dialogue for  the preparation of the common agricultural 
policy  (CAP)  strategic  plan,  this  document  contains  the  recommendations  for  the  CAP 
strategic plan of Latvia. The recommendations are based on analysis of the state of play, the 
needs  and  the  priorities  for  agriculture  and  rural  areas  in  Latvia.  The  recommendations 
address  the  specific  economic,  environmental  and  social  objectives  of  the  future  Common 
Agricultural  Policy  and  in  particular  the  ambition  and  specific  targets  of  the  Farm  to  Fork 
Strategy and the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. As stated in the Farm to Fork Strategy, the 
Commission invites  Latvia, in its CAP Strategic Plan, to  set explicit national values for the 
Green Deal targets1, taking into account its specific situation and these recommendations. 

1.1  Foster  a  smart,  resilient  and  diversified  agricultural  sector  ensuring  food 

security 

While Latvian agriculture faces specific constraints linked to its climate conditions as well as 
historical developments, further moves towards more sustainable food systems present both a 
challenge  and  an  opportunity.  In  spite  of  positive  improvements  in  past  decades  in  Latvian 
agriculture,  there  are  still  notable  differences  in  income  between  farms  of  different  sizes, 
sectors and territories. Although the land consolidation process has been ongoing, the share 
of  farms  with  standard  output  below  EUR  4000  dominates  the  farm  structure  (64%  of  the 
total number of farms). The CAP and national support schemes play a crucial role in Latvia. 
Even  with  CAP  support,  agricultural  income  per  work  unit  is  on  average  only  50%  of  the 
average  wages  in  Latvia.  This  clearly  demonstrates  that  the  agricultural  sector  needs 
significant support. While CAP support has a crucial role in the overall income per worker, it 
seems  to  be  disproportionately  allocated  to  certain  categories  of  farmers.  The  big  farms 
concentrate land in their hands, which is reflected in  the greater increase in direct payment 
concentration. This clearly demonstrates that the agricultural sector continues to need strong 
and  targeted  support,  in  particular  to  smaller  farms.  While  concentrations  of  land  and 
payments  are  taking  place,  Latvia  perceived  the  need  for  increased  competitiveness,  where 
investments  with  a  view  to  adding  value  to  food  products  are  vital.  Access  to  finance  and 
land  for  farmers,  in  particular  for  small  farms  and  young  farmers  facing  difficulties  in  this 
regard is an important issue in Latvia, one that needs further consideration. 

Climate  change  is  putting  an  increased  pressure  on  Latvian  agriculture.  This  particularly 
affects crop yields due to an increase in extreme climatic conditions, such as heavy rainfall or 
long-lasting heat waves. In view of this, there is a need to continue working on plant, animal 
health,  environmental  and  climate  change  related  risk  prevention  issues,  including  risks  of 
disturbance of agricultural markets. It was observed that the level of participation of farmers 
in risk management schemes has increased over the recent years indicating existing positive 
trends and further opportunities. 

The food supply chain in Latvia is characterised by advanced cooperation within the primary 
production  sectors,  such  as  cereals  and  milk.  Cooperation  among  various  players  in  the 
forestry sector is also well-established. The concentration of supply, however, is low in other 
primary  production  sectors  (meat,  eggs  and  organic  farming).  There  are  five  recognised 

1  

It concerns the targets related to use and risk of pesticides, sale of antimicrobials, nutrient loss, area under 
organic farming, high diversity landscape features and access to fast broadband internet. 

2 

 
 
                                                           
producer  organisations  in  the  fruit  and  vegetable  sector.  The  well-organised  milk 
cooperatives are currently undergoing a further consolidation through mergers or creation of 
second  level  structures,  therefore  strengthening  the  position  of  farmers  in  the  food  supply 
chain and, in particular their bargaining power. Overall, fostering producer organisations, in 
particular for the meat and eggs sectors could be explored as a way to further strengthen the 
competitive  position  of  farmers.  In  addition,  processing  of  organic  products  and  use  of  the 
EU quality schemes in Latvia needs to be encouraged.  

1.2  Bolster  environmental  care  and  climate  action  and  contribute  to  the 

environmental- and climate-related objectives of the Union 

While  Latvia  overall  has  achieved  a  relatively  good  performance  on  the  environmental 
objectives, there are still certain elements where it needs to step up its efforts, especially on 
biodiversity, and soil and air quality. According to the Prioritized Action Framework (PAF), 
biodiversity  loss  and  relatively  poor  conditions  of  natural  habitats  are  seen  as  issues  of 
concern.  Improving the  status  of habitats  and bird species is  therefore seen as an important 
element.  

Certain elements of soil management will need careful consideration, given that Latvian soil 
is  highly  acidic  with  a  poor  phosphorus  supply,  which  creates  a  dependency  on  external 
inputs  for  plant  nutrition.  In  addition  to  addressing  these  concerns  through  different  CAP 
instruments, Latvia could explore and develop synergies with the Horizon Europe soil health 
mission. Latvia’s agricultural area under organic farming is relatively high (14.5%) and is on 
an  upward  trend.    This  is  a  strong  starting  point  for  Latvia  on  its  path  to  reaching  the  EU 
Green  Deal  targets.  Efforts  to  support  and  increase  the  areas  under  organic  farming  and  to 
develop markets for organic products should be encouraged.  

As  regards  air  quality,  ammonia  emissions  show  an  unfavourable  trend.  Latvia  needs  to 
implement  additional  emission  reduction  measures  on  manure  management  systems.  Such 
improved nutrient management should also support reduced pollution to water and emissions 
of greenhouse gases (nitrous oxide). In terms of water quality, the status of all groundwater is 
of  high  quality,  whereas,  the  status  of  surface  water  in  some  water  bodies  needs  to  be 
improved.  Marine  and  coastal  waters  in  the  Gulf  of  Riga  and  Baltic  Sea  suffer  from 
eutrophication  and  climate  change.  While  water  quantity  risks  are  low  in  Latvia,  it  could 
consider , support for nature-based solutions such as crop rotation and support for a regulated 
drainage  system  that  could  store  water  for  dry  periods,  in  order  to  address  climate  change 
adaptation.  

Concerning  climate  change  mitigation  and  adaptation,  Latvia  reduced  greenhouse  gas 
emissions from agriculture between 1990 and 2018, but recent years and projections show an 
upward trend. Although Latvia’s agricultural sector emits less greenhouse gas emissions than 
the EU average, the share of Latvia’s total emissions stemming from agriculture is relatively 
high,  particularly  for  agricultural  soils.  At  the  same  time,  there  has  been  a  significant 
decrease  in  total  net  greenhouse  gas  emissions  removals  in  LULUCF  (land  use,  land  use 
change and forestry) sectors, mainly due to the increase in logging. Latvia should make more 
efforts to reverse these trends. Latvia is also one of the main peatland emitters in the EU, and 
peatland restoration holds potential for climate change mitigation. 

There is also potential to increase the use of renewable energy in the agricultural sector. The 
share  of  Latvia’s  agriculture  and  forestry  in  the  production  of  total  renewable  energy  is 
already among the highest in the EU. 

3 

 
 
1.3  Strengthen  the  socio-economic  fabric  of  rural  areas  and  address  societal 

concerns 

About  40%  of  the  territory  of  Latvia  is  considered  as  rural  area.  There  are  significant 
differences among different regions in terms of economic activity, availability of services and 
basic infrastructures. This leads to a different  living standards and development opportunities 
in rural areas. With the negative demography changes Latvia faces, the population involved 
in agriculture is also declining. The share of young farmers in overall farming population is 
low.  Additional  support  to  young  farmers  and  new  entrants  could  be  considered  as  for  a 
means of  developing  Latvia’s agricultural sector in the future. The share of farm managers 
below 35 years of age with at least a basic level of agricultural training is lower than the share 
of total farm managers in Latvia. This suggests that further efforts are needed to increase the 
level of education and knowledge among  young farm managers to stimulate innovation and 
the entry of modern technologies into the sector.  

Availability of basic services, infrastructure, and connectivity are the key limiting factors in 
assuring  viability  and  vibrancy  of  rural  areas.  Given  this  situation,  investments  in  rural 
infrastructure, basic services and targeted economic development outside farming are likely 
to  be  important  for  the  viability  of  Latvian  rural  areas.  Furthermore,  there  is  a  need  to 
continue placing strong emphasis on job creation and the development of SMEs, both in the 
agricultural  sector  and  outside  it.  The  fight  against  poverty  and  social  exclusion  remains  a 
challenge.  Latvia  must  give  careful  consideration  to  closing  the  gender  and  pay  gap  and  to 
protecting agricultural workers.  

The Farm to Fork strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system aims 
to reduce the environmental and climate footprint of the food system. Regarding the use of 
antimicrobial  agents,  there  are  very  low  sales  of  such  substances  in  Latvia,  making  the 
situation there much more positive than in other Member States.  

On  plant  protection  products,  the  Latvian  authorities  should  give  attention  to  the  need  to 
reverse the persistent upward trend of their use. In addition, further actions have to be taken 
to control the implementation of integrated pest management.  

On animal welfare, the tail-docking of pigs remains an issue of concern. 

Latvia should also try to bring about a shift towards healthier sustainable diets as the country 
has a high prevalence of non-communicable diseases due to dietary risk factors. 

1.4  Modernising the sector by fostering and sharing of knowledge, innovation and 
digitalisation in agriculture and rural areas, and encouraging their uptake   

Tackling  the  economic,  environmental  and  social  challenges  outlined  in  the  previous 
paragraphs  is  an  essential  step  in  the  transition  towards  sustainable  food  production.  This 
requires an effort to collect and bring to the field the latest scientific findings and innovations. 
Currently,  there  is  untapped  potential  in  the  Latvian  agricultural  knowledge  and  innovation 
system  (AKIS)  for  the  creation  and  dissemination  of  knowledge.  The  main  actors  in  the 
agricultural  knowledge  and  innovation  system  are  divided  among  four  groups:  the  public 
sector, the private sector, the research and education sector and the non-governmental sector. 
This demands coordinated intervention by all. Latvia is encouraged to put more emphasis on 
the development and financing of AKIS, by training advisors, developing innovation support 

4 

 
 
services  and  making  sure  that  knowledge  flows  cover  also  downstream  farming  and  rural 
activities.  

A  stronger  agricultural  knowledge  and  innovation  system  could  also  support  greater 
digitalisation  of  farms  and  rural  areas  in  Latvia.  Comprehensive  initiatives  should  be 
undertaken to better connect science and practice as well as to boost knowledge exchange and 
innovation.  Farmers  and  cooperatives  rely  heavily  on  advice  and  technology  from  private 
advice  providers.  It  is  essential  to  ensure  that  farms  and  cooperatives  can  all  benefit  from 
coordinated  advice,  knowledge  exchange  and  targeted  information.  This  can  help  in 
particular in making sure that in addition to pure technical advice, they are also kept updated 
on solutions for societal challenges. 

A viable future  for rural areas depends, among other issues, on the availability of  adequate 
coverage  of  high-speed  broadband  infrastructure  in  rural  areas.  This  is  not  only  a  pre-
requisite  for  developing  businesses  and  activities,  but  also  for  implementing  future 
technologies that may support achievements of the Green Deal targets. Although Latvia has 
rather  good  overall  broadband  coverage  and  performs  well  in  digital  public  services, 
additional efforts could be encouraged as private investment in last-mile connections remains 
a challenge. 

1.5  Recommendations 

To address the above interconnected economic, environmental/climate and social challenges- 
the Commission considers that the Latvian CAP strategic plan needs to focus its priorities and 
concentrate its interventions on the following points, while adequately taking into account the 
high territorial diversity of the Latvian agriculture and rural areas: 

Foster a smart, resilient and diversified agricultural sector ensuring food security by 

  Improving  the  viability  of farms  with  lower  incomes,  especially  smaller  farms  with 
higher  development  potential,  through  a  more  targeted  and  effective  distribution  of 
direct  payments,  by  applying,  for  example,  the  complementary  redistributive  income 
support  for  sustainability  and  the  reduction  of  payments.  The  improved  distribution 
should take into account the contribution of income support to the development of rural 
areas.   

  Boosting  the  competitiveness  and  productivity  of  the  agricultural  sector.  Related 
support  should  be  better  targeted  at  investments,  which  are  most  likely  to  achieve 
genuine productivity growth. Support for investments focused on new technologies as 
well as green and digital transition - including through access to financial instruments - 
are essential. 

  Improving  the  position  of  farmers  in  the  food  supply  chain.  Recommended 
approaches  include:  supporting  the  processing  and  marketing  of  agricultural  products 
with  high  added  value  (for  example  under  EU  and  national  quality  schemes); 
encouraging existing cooperative structures to seek recognition;  facilitating the setting-
up of new cooperative structures; and enhancing cooperation between organic farmers.  

  Making  farmers  more  resilient  to  risks  –  especially  those  related  to  market 
disruption,  climate  change,  and  plant  and  animal  health  –  by  supporting  development 
and uptake of risk management scheme. 

5 

 
 
 
Bolster  environmental  care  and  climate  action  and  contribute  to  the  environmental-  and 
climate-related objectives of the Union by 

  Reducing  greenhouse  gas  and  ammonia  emissions  by  supporting  sustainable 
agricultural management as well as animal rearing techniques. To mitigate and adapt 
to  climate  change,  Latvia  should  address  primarily  nutrient  management,  sustainable 
crop rotations, the protection and, if appropriate, restoration of peatlands and wetlands 
as well as improved drainage systems. 

  Ensuring  improvement  in  nutrient  management  through  the  application  of  tailored 
emission  reduction  measures  such  as  the  manure  management  systems  and  precision 
farming,  thereby  helping  to  achieve  the  Green  Deal  target  on  reducing  nutrient 
losses and also improving water quality. 

  Further improving the farm landscape features of benefit to biodiversity – thus helping 
to  achieve  the  Green  Deal  target  on  high  diversity  landscape  features.  Encourage 
effective management of biologically valuable grasslands. 

  Fostering sustainable forest management and promoting the efficient use of biomass, 
enhancing  multi-functionality  of  forest,  promoting  forest  protection  and  restoration  of 
forests  ecosystems  to  reach  a  good  condition  of  forest  linked  habitats  and  species  in 
order to enhance biodiversity, and to build resilience to threats such as climate change 
impacts on forests. 

  Contributing  to  the  Green  Deal  target  on  organic  farming  by  further  supporting 
conversion to and maintenance of organic farming, as well as processing and marketing 
of  organic  products.  All  support  should  take  account  of  developments  in  supply  and 
demand.  

Strengthen the socio-economic fabric of rural areas and address societal demands by 

 

Improving  the  socio-economic  development  of  rural  areas,  tackle  poverty 
reduction and reversing depopulation and generational renewal  by investing – in 
synergy with the other EU Funds - in basic infrastructures and services that will boost 
economic  development,  including  the  bio  economy  and  quality  job  creations  in  rural 
areas.  

  Contributing to the EU Green Deal targets on pesticides by strengthening the efforts 
to  decrease  the  quantities  and  risks  of  most  hazardous  used  pesticides  and  promoting 
the sustainable use of pesticides, in particular by ensuring the uptake of integrated pest 
management practices.  

  Improving  animal  welfare  by  putting  in  place  ambitious  measures  to  promote  best 
practices  on  the  welfare  of  livestock,  especially  for  pigs,  laying  hens  and  male  dairy 
calves as well as by enhancing farm biosecurity.  

6 

 
 
 
 
Fostering  and  sharing  of  knowledge,  innovation  and  digitalisation in  agriculture  and  rural 
areas, and encouraging their uptake by 

  Tackling  the  AKIS  fragmentation  –  especially  by  strengthening  the  link  between 
farmers, public and private advisors and researchers, further promote their involvement 
in EIP operational groups and the development of innovation support services, training 
farmers in the use of smart digital technologies and using data to increase productivity.  

  Contributing  to  the  EU  Green  Deal  target  on  broadband,  by  supporting 
connectivity in rural communities. In doing so it will be important to ensure synergies 
and complementarities among the EU and national funds. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2.  ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN LATVIA 

The Latvian agricultural sector represents around 3.9% of the GDP and employs about 162 
630 people, corresponding to 6.9% of the total employment in the country (2017). The share 
of gross value added (GVA) in agriculture, forestry and the fisheries sector in the total GVA 
of Latvia is significantly above the EU average and stands at 4.3% in 2019. The biggest part 
of the population lives in rural or intermediate areas (84% of the total area). In 2016, there 
were around 70 000 farms in Latvia with 1.93 million hectares of utilized agricultural land. 
The majority are very small or small farms with standard output up to EUR 4000 (64% of the 
total  amount  of  farms),  of  which  very  small  farms  with  Standard  Output  up  to  EUR  2  000 
constitute 49% of the total number of farms. Furthermore, 92.9 % of the utilised agricultural 
area are classified as areas facing natural (88.8%) or areas facing specific constraints (4.1%). 

Agriculture and forestry sectors hold a significant place in the country’s economy and play a 
vital  role  in  keeping  rural  areas  as  a  liveable  and  vibrant  environment.  However,  the 
sustainability of Latvian agricultural and forestry sectors is threatened by high fragmentation 
of  the  farm  structure  and  lower  agricultural  income  compared  to  other  EU  Member  States. 
Rural  areas  suffer  from  serious  problems  created  by  depopulation,  the  lack  of  economic 
activities and delays in the provision of basic services and infrastructure. This has a negative 
effect on economic and social aspects of these territories, especially concerning generational 
renewal and business development. 

2.1  Support viable farm income and resilience across the EU territory to enhance 

food security 

Average farm income amounts to around 50% of the average wage in the whole economy in 
2005-2018, which is about the EU average in this period. However, it exhibits a downward 
trend  from  2012  due  to  the  earnings  in  the  whole  economy,  which  outpace  the  agricultural 
incomes.1 In the farm factor income the share of direct payments amounts on average to 35%, 
while  total  CAP  expenditure  –  represent  on  average  64%  in  2014-2018  (these  figures  are 
above the EU average).2 

Latvian farmers earn on average relatively low factor income3,4 which is about a third of the 
EU average. However, notable differences exist among farms of different  sizes, sectors and 
territories.  

The  agricultural  factor  income  increases  with  farm  size:  it  is  very  low  for  smaller,  which 
encompasses  small  and  medium-sized  farms  (10  to  50  hectares5),  but  it  is  relatively  high 
(around  the  EU  average)  for  the  bigger  farms  (above  200  hectares).  Income  distribution 
according to the economic farm size follows the same pattern6; whereas the direct payment 
per hectare (together with transitional national aids) remain relatively stable both by physical 
or  economic  size.  Higher  than  the  national  average  unit  amounts  per  hectare  are  paid  to 
livestock  farms,  such  as  cattle  and  dairy  farms,  which  have  average  or  higher  than  the 
national average income. Lower unit amounts are paid to cereals, oilseeds and protein crops 
farms, which have higher than average income and to  mixed farms, which have lower than 
average income.7 Farm income in areas with natural constraints (ANC) is at a similar level to 
non-ANC  areas8,  but  significant  differences  are  still  observed  among  regions  (e.g.  it  is 
significantly higher in Zemgale than in Latgale) and are linked to the geographical location, 
types of farming and access to markets (Latgale).9 The unit amount per hectare in livestock 
sectors may increase with farm size due to higher coupled support (presumably due to higher 
livestock density). This could explain why smaller farms receive less and less support, (farms 

8 

 
 
 
below  the  national  average  size  receive  98%  of  the  national  average  direct  payment  per 
hectare in 2017).10 At the same time 20% of the biggest farms seem to concentrate more and 
more land since 2015, reflecting the parallel increase in direct payment concentration (83% of 
direct payments and 82% of land in 2018).11 

Also, it should be noted that a significant share of direct payment beneficiaries have a lower 
economic size than EUR 200012 and that a majority of them are semi-subsistence farms.13 

Among  other  reasons,  due  to  dependency  on  export  markets,  being  prone  particularly  to 
climatic,  plant  and  animal  health  related  risks,  farm  incomes  strongly  fluctuate  (this  is 
especially  the  case  for  cereal  and  granivore  farms).  This  leads  to  the  need  of  risk 
management, which at the moment is underused. For example, only about 15% of areas under 
direct payments were insured in 2019.14 Possible obstacles include lack of insurance culture, 
product mismatch and low competition among insurance providers.15 However, measures in 
the  Rural  Development  programme  2014-2020  could  demonstrate  positive  trends.  The 
farmers’ interest to insure against risks increases. Farmers could apply for support under rural 
development  to  cover  partially  insurance  premiums.  The  interest  of  farmers  was  also 
increased by the fact that from 2019 insurers started offering crops insurance against drought. 
In  2019,  the  amount  of  insured  areas  increased  significantly.  In  2018,  areas  with  crop 
insurance  amounted  to  151  200  hectares,  while  in  2019  -  already  263  100  hectares  were 
covered  by  crop  insurance.  Thus,  the  insured  sown  and  planting  areas  have  increased  by 
about 74% during the last two years. The number of insured livestock is also growing every 
year - in 2019, the number of insured livestock (expressed in cattle units) was 43 678 higher 
than in 2018.16 

Beneficiaries, area and direct payments by physical farm size 

Share of beneficiaries 

Share of area 

Share of direct payments 

Source: European Commission. Income support breakdown. 
Distribution of direct aid to farmers – indicative figures 2018 financial year. 

2.2  Enhance  market  orientation  and  increase  competitiveness  including  greater 

focus on research, technology and digitalisation 

The  Latvian agricultural sector is  undergoing structural  changes that have an impact  on the 
sector’s competitiveness. The utilised agricultural area increased between 2005 and 2016 by 
11%  from  1.73  million  to  1.93  million  hectares.  The  total  number  of  farms  decreased 

9 

 
 
 
between 2005 and 2016 in Latvia from about 128 700 to 70 000 farms, which represents less 
than 1% of EU-27 holdings. A vast majority of them (64%) has an economic size below EUR 
4000.17 The ownership of the holdings is rather  balanced gender-wise, with 45% of women 
holders compared to  55% of men holders. Fixed capital  consumption keeps increasing  year 
in, year out. 

The  average  farm  size  doubled  between  2005  and  2016  from  13  hectares  to  28  hectares. 
Arable land increased by 18% within this timeframe, whereas the area with permanent crops 
decreased by 41%. 

Agriculture  represented  4.3%  of  the  gross  value  added  of  Latvia  in  2019,  whilst  its 
contribution to total employment was 7.3% out of which forestry counts for 2%.18 The total 
labour input in agriculture was 70 510 annual work units (AWU) in 2017, out of which nearly 
75% was family (non-salaried) labour force.19 Labour productivity in agriculture in Latvia is 
the  fifth  lowest  among  EU-27  (in  2017  it  stood  at  46%  of  the  EU  average).20  Increasing 
productivity  is  important  to  boost  the  competitiveness  of  the  sector.  The  second  highest 
annual  average  growth  of  the  total  factor  productivity  (2007-2017)  was  observed  in  Latvia 
(+3.5%).  Latvia  is  also  the  Member  State  which  has  seen  the  highest  increase  of  the  gross 
fixed  capital  formation  in  agriculture  in  2018,  representing  129%  of  gross  value  added  in 
agriculture. 

Looking  at  the  revenue  structure,  revenues  from  crop  outputs  have  slightly  increased  from 
2017 - 2019 compared to 2005 - 2007, but both animal outputs and secondary activities have 
shrunk.  

Manufacturers of food products experienced a decrease in the producer prices of output until 
2016, followed by a notable increase since 2017. 

As regards the role of  finance in the agricultural sector, Latvian farmers mostly applied for 
medium  and  long-term  loans  in  2018  to  finance  investments  especially  in  field  crops  and 
dairy farming. Under the current rural development programme, investments in sustainability 
and modernisation of the agricultural sector through grants for investments in physical assets, 
as  well  as  through  grants  for  investments  specifically  for  young  farmers,  are  specifically 
supported. 

Investments  are  essential  to  boost  productivity  in  the  sector.  In  the  long  run,  the  priority 
should not  be to  increase volumes or renew the  technical  fleet,  but  to  increase added value 
per unit of land by creating well-paid jobs.21 A significant problem, in particular, for the agri-
food sector is the very constrained supply of finance to large strategic projects.22 

The financing gap in the agricultural sector is estimated between EUR 17.4 million and EUR 
31.8 million. It mainly concerns long-term financing of small-sized farms.23 

The agri-food trade balance in Latvia is at an equilibrium. Latvia has a positive trade balance 
with  countries  outside  the  EU  and  it  has  increased  between  2008  and  2017.  However,  the 
intra-EU trade balance is negative. Commodities (28%) and other primary products (27%) are 
the main categories  exported within EU countries whereas the main  export product  to  non-
EU  countries  are  spirits  and  liqueur  (41.6%  in  value  in  2018),  wine,  vermouth,  cider  and 
vinegar (18.8%) and wheat (13.6%). In this sense, there is a need for further diversifying the 
structure of the agri-food trade towards value-added products. 

10 

 
 
Due  to  the  lack  of  finance  and  information,  the  take-up  of  digital  technologies  (e-business, 
cloud  computing  services,  big  data,  online  sales  etc.)  by  farmers  and  rural  businesses  is 
lagging behind. Digitalisation of the primary sector is mainly focused on precision farming. 

Cost and revenue structure of agricultural income (real prices in million EUR) in Latvia 

Crop output 

Agricultural services output 

Fertilisers 

Rents 

Entrepreneurial income 

Animal output 

Non-agricultural secondary 

Plant/animal protection 

Interest 

Product subsidies 

Seeds 

Feeding stuffs 

Taxes 

Other subsidies 

Energy 

Labour 

Other costs 

Source: EUROSTAT [Economic Accounts for Agriculture] 

2.3  Improve farmers' position in the value chain 

The  share  of  agricultural  production  in  the  food  supply  chain  (FSC)  going  to  primary 
producers has recently stabilised at 37%, which is well above the EU average of 27%.24 This 
can  be  linked  partially  to  the  need  for  improving  the  functioning  of  the  food  supply  chain 
(food  processing,  distribution  channels,  vertical  integration  etc.)  in  order  to  make  it  more 
efficient, effective and to meet societal demands.  

Despite different historical and cultural barriers existing in Latvia in relation to the setting up 
of cooperative structures, presently there are various types of cooperation. Current structures 
–  cooperatives,  producer  organisations  -  are  mainly  specialised  in  the  production  and 
collection  of  fresh  products/unprocessed  products  (cereals,  milk,  fruit,  and  vegetables). 
Farmers could  be  given  more encouragement for involvement in  downstream  activities, i.e. 
integrate  vertically,  develop  new  products  with  a  higher  added  value,  innovate  or  find 
markets for new agricultural products.  

In 2017, there were five recognised producer organisations25 in Latvia operating only in the 
fruit  and  vegetables  sector  with  a  market  share  of  37%  of  production  marketed  through 
producer  organisations.  This  demonstrates  that  there  are  unexplored  possibilities  for 
cooperative structures to join forces and pool existing potential (milk and cereals sectors) or 
to set up new (meat sector, eggs sector) cooperative structures by creating the critical mass of 
supply,  producers  and  financial  capital.  In  this  way,  the  position  of  farmers  on  the  market 
could  be  strengthened  in  view  of  having  a  stronger  bargaining  position  towards  the  retail 
sector. Production planning, innovation, crisis prevention, and management measures would 
also  be  beneficial.  Farmers  and  producers  may  benefit  from  support  of  Rural  Development 

11 

 
 
programme  2014-2020  for  setting  up  a  producer  group.  In  2019,  3  producer  groups  in  the 
forestry sector were supported under rural development. Latvia is currently the only country 
amongst the three Baltic countries to have national legislation in place with regard to inter-
branch  organisations.  Latvia’s  current  legislative  framework  in  this  area  provides  for  the 
establishment  of  inter-branch  organisations  in  the  milk  sector.  However,  there  is  no  inter-
branch organisation recognised so far in Latvia.26  

There is  a low level  of  knowledge and understanding among farmers of the importance for 
cooperation and collaboration. This points to the unexploited potential for farmers to engage 
in these initiatives through knowledge, leadership and mentoring activities.27 

In Latvia, organic farming accounts for 14.5% of agricultural land, which was above the EU 
average of 8% in 201828 with moderate to high share of production for dairy, beef and sheep 
meat,  fruit,  potatoes  and  oats.  There  are  13  organic  farming  cooperatives  with  a  focus  on 
primary  collection.  This  shows  that  there  is  an  obvious  possibility  and  potential  for  further 
processing of organic produce as well as for the development and creation of new markets. 

Latvia makes little use of quality schemes. In 2020, there were 6 product names that had been 
granted a geographical indication (GI), of which 3 Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSG), 
2  Protected  Geographical  Indication  (PGI)  and  1  Protected  Designation  of  Origin  (PDO).29 
This shows that there is potential to expand on niche markets and products, using more GIs 
and to develop quality designations in those sectors lagging behind i.e. wheat, barley, oilseed 
and vegetables.  

Contrary  to  the  primary  sector  characterised  by  a  highly  fragmented  farm  structure  and  a 
relatively  low  level  of  organisation,  the  food  processing  industry  and  retail  sector  are 
characterised  by  high  levels  of  concentration.  In  the  Latvian  food  trade  sector,  the  main 
players  are  the  local  representations  of  multinational  companies.  In  2018,  two  retail 
companies accounted for more than half (62%) of the total food market turnover, SIA Rimi 
Latvia and SIA Maxima Latvija.30 In order to maintain their competitiveness, local retailers 
have merged into commercial cooperatives.31 

Although  the  Latvian  agri-food  market  is  still  dominated  by  long  supply  chains,  the 
development of the local food system and short food supply chains through various forms of 
direct sales has accelerated in 2018.  

Latvia  already  protects  the  position  of  farmers  in  the  food  supply  chain  through  its  unfair 
trading  practices  (UTP)  legislation32  and  innovative  policy-driven  initiatives  such  as  green 
public procurement (GMO free, quality products, organic or integrated farming, eco supply 
etc.). 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Value added for primary producers in the food chain in Latvia (in million EUR) 

Primary production 

Food and beverage manufacturing 

Food and beverage distribution 

Food and beverage consumer services 

% for primary producers (right axis) 
Source: Value added for primary producers in the food chain in million EUR33 

% for primary producers – EU-27 

2.4  Contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation, as well as sustainable 

energy 

In  2018,  agricultural  emissions  of  Greenhouse  gases  (GHG)  in  Latvia  amounted  to  2.6 
million  tonnes of  CO2  equivalent,  representing  22.3% of total  greenhouse  gas  emissions  in 
Latvia34,  higher  than  the  EU-27  average  (10.48%).  However,  Latvia  has  the  fifth  lowest 
figure among the Member States of the EU in  terms of  greenhouse  gas  emissions  from  the 
agricultural sector per utilised agricultural area with 1.3 tons of CO2 equivalent, which is half 
of  the  EU  average  of  2.6  tons,  CO2  equivalent  (2018).35  In  total,  agricultural  emissions  in 
Latvia  are  0.66%  of  the  EU  agricultural  emissions.36  Emissions  from  agricultural  soils 
account with 59.26% for the largest share of emissions, followed by emissions from enteric 
fermentation  (mainly  dairy  and  beef  cattle)  with  33%  and  emissions  from  manure 
management for 6%, while liming and urea use together account for 1.7% of total agricultural 
emissions.37 Total greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture dropped by -53% between 1990 
and 2018  due to  a decrease in  agricultural  production.38 However, the trend of recent  years 
shows  a  gradual  and  steady  increase  in  greenhouse  gas  emissions  since  the  year  2000  (+ 
12.22%  between  2005  and  2018  and  during  the  period  2013-2018  emission  increased  by 
2.12%)39, following the development of the sector. This can be linked partly to the increase in 
the use of soil liming materials and nitrogen fertilisers (urea) in the country used to counter 
the high acidity (pH) of Latvia’s soils. Other factors are increased numbers of meat cattle and 
poultry  and  increased  productivity  of  dairy  cattle.40  On  the  other  hand,  emissions  from 
agriculture decreased slightly in 2018 compared to the previous year (-3%).41 In light of the 
Farm  to  Fork  strategy,  Latvia  could  be  placed  among  the  EU  countries  with  the  least 
fertilizer-intensive agricultural practices in the EU as only 7% of utilized agriculture area is 
managed in high-intensity farms.42  

According  to  Latvia’s  National  Energy  and  Climate  Plan  (NECP)43,  total  greenhouse  gas 
emissions  in  the  agricultural  sectors  are  expected  to  further  increase  from  2020  to  2030, 
especially in the enteric fermentation processes and agricultural soil sectors. To address this 
problem, the NECP foresees: measures to promote the efficient use of fertilizers - precise use 
of  mineral  fertilizers,  fertilizer  planning,  direct  injection  of  slurry  in  soil;  measures  to 
improve soil fertility - maintenance of drainage systems, nitrogen sequestering crops as a part 
of crop rotation, undersowing grass, green fallow; measures that improve animal nutrition  - 
improvement of feed quality, feed ration planning; measures to improve manure management 

13 

 
 
systems - promotion of biogas production, organic dairy farming, as well as enhancing CO2 
removals  in  forests  as  chief  means  of  reducing  the  greenhouse  gas  emissions  in  the 
agriculture and forestry sector. 

Concerning  land  use,  land  change  and  forestry  (LULUCF)  sectors,  net  greenhouse  gas 
emissions  in  2018  amounted  to  1.4  million  tonnes  of  CO2  equivalent  compared  to  a 
sequestration of -10.2 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 1990.44 This is mainly due to the 
increase  in  logging,  the  ageing  of  forests,  the  transformation  of  forest  land  into  settlements 
and the transformation of naturally afforested land into arable land.45 The largest conversion 
of permanent grassland is observed in small and medium-sized farms, which is explained by 
the  fact  that,  in  particular,  farms  in  the  livestock  sector  cease  their  activities  or  are 
restructured to operate in more profitable agricultural sectors.46  

Latvia’s National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP) foresees investments in improvement of 
forest ecosystems; afforestation and improvement of forest stand quality in naturally forested 
areas;  restoration  of  forest  stands  destroyed  by  natural  disasters  and  renovation  of  drainage 
systems  as  the  main  means  to  improve  the  forests  productivity  and  therefore  increase  their 
emissions absorptive capacity. 
According  to  the  NECP  the  afforestation  is  one  of  the  most  effective  measures  to  increase 
CO2  sequestration.  Replacing  non-productive,  low-carbon  stands  with  high-quality  forest 
planting  material  and  providing  appropriate  care  for  young  stands  makes  it  possible  to 
increase stand productivity and carbon sequestration by 20%.47  
In  Latvia,  greenhouse  gas  emissions  from  peat  extraction  constitute  around  14.5%  of  total 
greenhouse  gas  emissions.48  Bog  areas  cover  645  100  ha  or  10%  of  Latvia's  territory.  Peat 
extraction takes place in 4% of the total bog area. Latvia is the first among Baltic countries 
where the national greenhouse gas emission factors for managing peatlands are elaborated.49 
Latvia  by  ensuring  sustainable  production  of  peat  and  restoring  peatlands  can  contribute  to 
the  reduction  of  the  greenhouse  gas  emissions.50  The  LIFE  Restore  project  aims  to  reduce 
CO2  emissions  by  restoring  degraded  peatlands  and  regenerating  their  function  as  carbon 
sinks;  as  well  as  to  provide  best  practice  guidelines  on  peatland  restoration  for  decision 
makers and land users. For example, the LIFE Restore project provides after-use scenarios of 
degraded peatlands in order get the greatest benefits in reducing GHG emissions.51 

Under  the  Rural  Development  programme  2014-2020  EUR  75.5  million  (or  4.75%  of 
expenditure) are programmed to promote resource efficiency and supporting the shift towards 
a  low  carbon  and  resilient  economy,  slightly  below  the  EU  average  (6.6%).  By  2019  this 
translated into 1.11% (target value 0.7%) of agricultural and  forest land under management 
contracts contributing to carbon sequestration or conservation and 2.8% or 12 115.7 livestock 
units (LU) (target value 5.27% or 25 000 LU units) concerned by investments in live-stock 
management  in  view  of  reducing  greenhouse  gas  emissions  and  ammonia  emissions.  The 
relatively low performance of the Rural Development programme 2014-2020 implementation 
can be explained by the significant decrease in the number of pigs and dairy cattle on farms 
during  the  programming  period.  During  this  period,  many  farms  were  forced  to  switch  to 
other  agricultural  production  due  to  both  the  African  swine  fever  (ASF)  outbreak  and  the 
Russian  Federation  Decision  No  560  on  the  prohibition  of  imports  of  certain  agricultural 
products from Latvia (as a result of the import embargo). Under such circumstances farmers 
planned to  invest as much as possible in  profitable investments  to  cover the costs incurred, 
rather  than  in  non-profitable  investments,  such  as  the  construction  of  manure  storage 
facilities.52 

14 

 
 
 
In  2018,  Latvia’s  final  energy  consumption  by  agriculture/forestry  was  93.24  Kg/OE  per 
hectare of utilised agricultural area, which translates into an increase of 18.54% since 2013, 
while the EU average increased by 7.99%.53 The 85.8% share of agriculture and forestry in 
the production of total renewable energy (RE) in Latvia among the highest in the EU (EU-27 
average  around  41.4%)54  and  shows  a  growing  trend.  On  the  other  hand,  the  use  of  RE  in 
agriculture  and  forestry  in  Latvia  fluctuates  around  10%  between  1995  and  2016.55  Fuel 
wood  is  the  main  source  for  RE,  accounting  for  80.6%  of  RE  consumption,  the  largest 
consumers being households (36% of total fuel wood consumption).56  

As  also  described  in  Chapter  1.1,  the  main  threat  of  climate  change  on  agriculture  lies  in 
increasing extreme climatic conditions, affecting crop yields and increasing non-harvest risks. 
The main risks come from freezing of crops and plantations in the kill, the risk of spreading 
of crops and animal diseases and pests, the risk of low yields or loss of yields due to rainfall 
during  harvest,  the  risk  of  felling,  the  risk  of  faster  soil  drying  and  the  risk  of  long-lasting 
heat  waves.57  Especially  long-lasting  heat  waves  are  expected  to  put  pressure  on  Latvian 
agriculture as  no irrigation is  used in  permanent  crops.58 For forestry, the  risk of spreading 
tree diseases and pests, the risk of storm and the lack of winter frost are most significant. 

Total Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture (including and excluding LULUCF) in Latvia                                     

(in million tonnes of CO2 equivalents) 

Grassland 
Cropland 
Agriculture 
% of agriculture in total GHG emissions (exc. LULUCF) 
% of agriculture (incl. emissions from cropland and grassland) in total GHG emissions (incl. LULUCF) 
EU-27 % of agriculture (incl. Emissions from cropland and grassland) in total GHG emissions (incl. LULUCF) 

Source: European Environmental Agency. As in EUROSTAT [env_air_gge] 

2.5  Foster sustainable development and efficient management of natural resources 

such as water, soil and air 

Concerning  air  quality,  Latvia’s  levels  of  ammonia  (NH3)  emissions  from  agriculture 
amounted  to  12.86  Gg  (1000  tonnes)  in  2018,  that  is  83.22%  of  total  NH3  emissions,  with 
69.94% coming from livestock and 29.83% from crops.59 It is the first  year since 2008 that 
Latvia shows a decreasing trend in its NH3 emissions. However, Latvia is behind in achieving 
the NH3 emission targets for 2020/2030 as established by the NEC Directive. Hence, Latvia 
needs  to  reduce  its  emissions  by  7.2%  in  order  to  achieve  reduction  commitments  for 
2020/2030.60  Under  its  National  Air  Pollution  Control  Programme  (NAPCP)61,  Latvia 
commits  reductions to achieve this goal by 2029, however, the Commission's risk assessment 
places  Latvia  at  a  high  risk  of  non-compliance.  Additional  implementation  of  ammonia 
emission  reduction  measures  on  manure  management  systems,  mentioned  by  the  NAPCP 

15 

 
 
 
such as covering slurry storages with artificial covers with higher ammonia reduction effect , 
making  greater  use  of  manure  for  biogas  production,  limited  work-in  times    low  emission 
slurry spreading techniques, as well as organic farming contribute to the improvement of air 
quality. Latvian soil is acidic, with poor phosphorus supply and a low degree of cultivation, 
respectively  liming  is  used  for  25-42%  of  agricultural  land  on  average,  35-44%  of 
agricultural  land  are  low  and  very  low  on  phosphorus  supply  and  34-43%  of  land  used  for 
agriculture have a low degree of cultivation.62 There is a tendency towards a deterioration of 
certain soil quality indicators.63 For example, 30% of arable land is left bare during winter64 
and  the  share  of  conventional  tilling  is  very  high  (91%  of  tillable  area).65  Consequently, 
environmental  and  climate  actions  aimed  at  improving  soil  quality  are  very  important  in 
Latvia.  

In 2015, the level of soil organic carbon stocks in arable lands were 208 mega tonnes and the 
mean soil organic carbon content was 36g/kg which is below the EU-28 average (502 mega 
tonnes and 43.1 g/kg respectively.66  

At national level, there is no severe risk of soil erosion by water in Latvia (mean soil erosion 
rate at 0.3 t ha-1 yr-1) as only less than 2% of arable land is located on steep flat and steep 
slopes (slope> 6⁰ ), where intensive flat erosion can occur.67  

Concerning water quality, the nitrogen and phosphorus surplus in Latvia are increasing over 
time. However, the nitrogen surplus is about half of the EU average and one of the lowest in 
the EU between 2012 and 2015.68 In this regard, between 2014 and 2017, the gross nutrient 
balance on agricultural land in Latvia was 26 kg/ha for nitrogen and 1.5 kg/ha for phosphorus 
on average, compared to EU values of 46.5 kg/ha and 0.5 kg/ha respectively.  

In relation to water status, Latvia is not yet meeting the objectives of good status in all waters 
and currently 78% of surface waters are in less than good ecological status. For groundwater, 
the  situation  is  good  with  100%  of  groundwater  in  good  quantitative  and  good  chemical 
status.69 A shared problem with other Baltic See countries with regard to water quality is the 
eutrophication  of  the  Baltic  Sea.  At  least  97%  of  the  region  is  found  to  be  below  good 
eutrophication status,  including all of the open sea area and 86% of the  coastal waters.  For 
Latvia,  100%  of  the  whole  Baltic  Sea  area  is  considered  below  good  status  in  regards  to 
eutrophication.70 

Water  quantity  risks  are  low  in  Latvia.  Latvia’s  Second  River  Basin  Management  Plan 
reports  that  water  abstraction  pressure  is  not  relevant  for  Latvia.71  Only  0.03%  of  the  total 
agricultural area was irrigated in 2016 (data are missing for water use from streams, wells and 
ponds,  which  are  very  common)72  and  the  Water  Exploitation  Index  plus  (WEI+)  for  river 
basin districts in Latvia is with around 0.8 very low (1990-2015 data).  

According  to  2019  Annual  Implementation  Report  of  the  Latvian  Rural  Development 
Programme 2014-2020, the target values for both targets T10 "Percentage of agricultural land 
subject  to  management  agreements  aimed  at  improving  water  management"  and  T12 
"Percentage of agricultural land covered by management agreements aimed at improving soil 
management  and  /  or  preventing  soil  erosion"  were  20.2%  (planned  value  16.59%).  It  was 
achieved  with  supported  363  410  ha  of  agricultural  land  in  each  of  the  target  directions, 
exceeding the planned target indicator.73 

16 

 
 
 
Kg N/ha/year 

Potential surplus of N and P on agricultural land in Latvia 

Kg P/ha/year 

Potential surplus of nitrogen on agricultural land (in kg N/ha/year) 
EU-27 GNB for Nitrogen 

Potential surplus of phosphorus on agricultural land (in kg P/ha/year) 

Source: EUROSTAT [aei_pr_gnb] 

2.6  Contribute  to  the  protection  of  biodiversity,  enhance  ecosystem  services  and 

preserve habitats and landscapes 

The overall situation in Latvia demonstrates the risks of biodiversity loss.  
The farmland bird population has increased slightly from 123.31 in 2010 to 125.58 in 2015 
(which is above the EU average – 84.4 in 2013), although there were some fluctuations over 
the  period.74  However,  the  trend  in  following  years  (93.15  in  2016  and  90.92  in  2017)  is 
rather negative. Monitoring data shows that there is a long-term population decline.75 

It  also  indicates  that  existing  farming  practices  affect  different  bird  species  associated  with 
the  open  landscape.  For  instance,  over  the  last  thirteen  years  (2006  -2018)  corncrake 
population  has  declined  moderately,  especially  over  the  last  six  years.  The  decrease  in  the 
number of corncrakes can be partly explained by intensification of agriculture, conversion of 
permanent grassland into arable land.76 

General forest bird index in long term is stable, but short-term trend is indistinct. Populations 
of  old  forest  indicator  species  (for  example,  Ciconia  nigra),  and  ground  nesting  birds 
(Bonasa  bonasia)  shows  negative  trends.  In  forests,  the  priority  bird  species  for  which 
conservation-aimed  actions  are  urgently  required  are  Clanga  pomarina,  Ciconia  nigra,  and 
Tetrao urogallus.77 

According  to  the  report  recently  submitted  by  Latvia  on  the  conservation  status  of  habitats 
and  species  covered  by  the  Habitats  Directive  for  the  period  2013-201878,  the  share  of 
habitats in good conservation status in 2018 was only of 10% and it has decreased compared 
to  the  previous  reporting  period  (2007-2012).  According  to  this  report,  5  out  of  12  forest 
habitats  of  EU  importance  have  Unfavourable  –  bad  status  and  the  rest  Unfavourable  - 
Insufficient conservation status. All 12 grassland habitats are reported as being currently in an 
unfavourable conservation status: 10 habitat types has been assessed as being Unfavourable – 
bad, for one – Unfavourable – insufficient, for one – unknown.79 

According to the prioritised action framework (PAF), all permanent semi-natural grasslands 
are in an unfavourable conservation status. For croplands, the number of green infrastructure 
elements is insufficient in the more intense agricultural areas with large arable land coverage.  

17 

 
 
Heathlands  and  shrubs  have  lost  5%  of  their  area  over  the  last  years.  For  all  habitat  types, 
except  Juniperus  communis  formations  on  heaths  or  calcareous  grasslands  which  the 
conservation status assessed as Unfavorable / Bad, the conservation status is Unfavourable – 
Inadequate.80  On  the  contrary,  Latvia  has  the  highest  percentage  of  the  fallow  land  of  all 
agricultural area. However, the share of landscape elements in agriculture land is insufficient 
which also contributes to the biodiversity decline. 

Latvia  does  not  calculate  pollinator  species  index  therefore,  there  is  no  information  about 
agriculture impact on pollinators.81 However, a detailed report on support to wild pollinator 
populations has been completed.82 

The  Natura  2000  cover  12%  or  787  729  ha  of  the  total  land  area  of  Latvia.  6.7%  of 
agricultural  land  (compared  with  11%  in  the  EU)  and  12.7%  of  forest  land  is  covered  by 
Natura 2000 (30% in the EU).83  

Rural  Development  programme  2014-2020  provides  compensations  to  the  forest  owners  in 
Natura 2000 areas. The target determined by the Rural Development programme 2014-2020 
by  the  end  of  the  period  is  46  000  ha.  The  area  applied  for  support  has  been  gradually 
increasing every year, and in 2019, 3 017 applicants were supported covering forest area of 
45  859  ha,  which  is  3.3%  more  than  in  2018  (44  402  ha).  Therefore,  1.28%  (target  value 
1.33%)  of  forests/other  wooded  area  are  covered  by  biodiversity-friendly  management 
agreements.84 

The  Rural  Development  programme  2014-2020  envisages  to  provide  support  to  the 
management  of  47  000  ha  of  biologically  valuable  grasslands  or  grasslands  of  EU 
importance,  both  inside  and  outside  Natura  2000  sites.  In  the  2019  season,  5  316  support 
applications were submitted for 39 624 ha. In 2019, the area declared for support was 8.9% 
more than the area paid in 2018 (36 391 ha). The implementation of the relevant sub-measure 
is progressing and the targets defined in Rural Development programme 2014-2020 plan to 
be achieved.85 

Forests cover 54.9%86 of the country's territory and this is the fourth highest indicator in the 
EU. Almost two thirds of the forest area is coniferous. The most common are pine forests. As 
a  result  of  economic  activity,  the  structure  of  tree  species  in  the  forest  has  changed:  birch 
dominates  in  significant  areas,  the  proportion  of  white  alder  and  aspen  has  increased  in 
private  forests,  old  oak  and  ash  stands  have  remained  in  a  small  area.  There  are  very  few 
places  where  the  forest  is  not  affected  by  human  activities.  93%  of  forest  territories  or  3.2 
million ha of forest are available for timber extraction, including 1.4 million ha of state forest 
and 1.7 million ha forest of other owners.87   

Latvia’s area under organic farming is  relatively  high and shows  a  growing trend.  In 2018, 
the share of organic farming in total utilised agricultural area was 14.5%, while total EU-27 
share is 8%.88 In 2019, Rural Development programme 2014-2020 supported under measure 
‘Organic  farming’  261  766  ha  (target  value  205  000  ha)  of  agricultural  land.  The  trend  is 
positive  in  2019  in  comparison  to  2018  –  number  of  ha  certified  as  organic  farming  area 
increased by 2.3%.89 

18 

 
 
 
 
Area under organic farming in Latvia  

Hectares under organic farming in Latvia 

% of agricultural area under organic farming in Latvia 

% of area under organic farming in 
the EU-27 

Source: EUROSTAT [org_cropar_h1 and org_cropar] 

Share of agricultural area covered by  
high-diversity landscape features  

20

15

10

5

0

7
2
U
E

E
B

G
B

Z
C

K
D

E
D

E
E

E
I

L
E

S
E

R
F

R
H

T
I

Y
C

V
L

T
L

U
L

U
H

T
M

L
N

T
A

L
P

T
P

I

O S
R

I

K F
S

E
S

fallow land as % of agricultural area

landscape elements as % of agricultural area*

Source: DG AGRI based on Eurostat and JRC based on LUCAS survey 
* Linear elements considered here: Grass margins, shrub margins, single trees bushes, lines of trees, hedges and 
ditches. This estimation is to be taken with caution because of methodological caveats 

2.7  Attract young farmers and facilitate business development in rural areas 

Latvia has a low share of young farmers below 35 years of age in the total number of farm 
managers  (4.8%  in  2016)  compared  to  the  EU  average  (5.1%).  Among  them,  38.3%  of 
farmers are between 35 and 54 and 56.9% are more than 55 years old.90 Whereas the number 
of  young  farmers  decreased  by  almost  60%  between  2007  and  2016,  from  7  630  to  3  360 
farms, the total number of farms during the same period decreased at a lower rate: from 107 
750 to around 70 000 farms (which is about 35%).91 In spite of this, between 2013 and 2016 
the trend stabilised and the share of young farmers in the total farm population remained at 
around 5%. 33% of these young farm managers is female, which is the second largest share in 
the EU and far above the EU average of 30.4% of female farm managers.92  

The share of farm managers below 35 years of age with at least a basic level of agricultural 
training (38%) is lower than the share of total farm managers in Latvia (46%). It suggests a 
need for a higher level of education and knowledge among farm managers, in particular for 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
young  farmers  as  it  may  hinder  innovation  and  the  entry  of  modern  technologies  into  the 
sector. The national instruments aimed at improving the education and skills of the farming 
community are currently underused.93  

Young  farmers  manage  farms  of  an  average  size,  but  generate  higher  standard  output  per 
farm  (which  is  growing  at  a  higher  rate  than  in  other  age  groups  of  farmers)  and  have  on 
average higher factor income.94 However, their income may be influenced by the increased 
competition for land and by the increased rental prices for arable land, which between 2011 
and 2016 rose two-fold.95 

There is a financing gap in the Latvian agricultural sector. This is in particular true for young 
farmers  and  new  entrants,  who  face  difficulties  in  obtaining  financing  due  to  the  lack  of  a 
credit  history.  A  financial  instrument  providing  risk  coverage  in  relation  to  financial 
institutions, for instance in the form of a guarantee or a loan risk-sharing fund, appears useful 
to help bridge the financing gap.96 

Access  to  land  is  another important  barrier for generational  renewal  and  is  one of the main 
challenges  for  young  farmers  and  new  entrants.  Young  farmers  and  new  entrants  are  more 
likely to opt for diversified activities, including mixed farming and on farm food processing. 
In  order  to  address  this  concern,  there  is  a  possibility  to  obtain  a  loan  from  ALTUM,  the 
state-owned development finance institution.  

The  share  of  farmers  benefiting  from  the  Young  farmer  payment  (YFP),  which  aims  to 
support  income  of  young  farmers  commencing  their  agricultural  activities,  gradually 
increased in 2015-2018 and is now close to the EU average (7.5%). Latvia spent about 1.8% 
of  the  maximum  allowed  2%  of  direct  payments  envelope  on  YFP  in  2018,  which  is 
significantly above the EU average (1.32%).97 The total Rural Development programme 2014 
-  2020  funding  for  the  setting  up  of  young  farmers  was  EUR  15.8  million.  By  the  end  of 
2019, 363 applications were approved for support (target value 395 young farmers or 0.47%). 
Support for young farmers is also available under various rural development measures, such 
as  ‘Investments  in  physical  assets’  and  ‘Knowledge  transfer’.  The  latter  is  seen  as  a  very 
important element contributing to an increase in their level of education.  

As  regards  business  development  in  Latvia,  the  level  of  economic  activity  in  rural  areas  is 
very low: 11 693 PPS/inhabitants (EU average: 27 20 067 PPS/inhabitants).98  

The  concentration  of  businesses  in  large  cities  or  county  centres  is  clearly  visible.  Overall, 
more than half of the economically active companies in the market sector are located in the 
regions  of  Riga  and  Pieriga.99  The  population  involved  in  agriculture  is  declining  and  the 
development  of  non-agricultural  entrepreneurship  in  rural  areas  is  crucial  to  maintaining 
population  and  economic  activity.  This  can  be  overcome  by  attracting  new  people  and 
providing  appropriate  incentives.  In  this  regard,  it  is  essential  to  develop  not  only  small 
business,  but  also  medium  size  enterprises  with  the  potential  to  grow  and  provide  jobs  in 
addition  to  those  jobseekers  who  are  not  willing  to  develop  their  own  businesses.  Business 
development  could  also  be  facilitated  by  the  development  of  infrastructure,  including 
transport and communication logistics and availability of basic services.  

20 

 
 
 
 
 
Share of farm managers < 35 years by gender in Latvia 

Share of male farm managers below 35 years 

Share of female farm managers < 35 years 

Share of farm managers below 35 years – EU-27 

Ratio < 35 y.o />= 55 y.o. (right axis) 

Source: EUROSTAT [ef_m_farmang] 

2.8  Promote  employment,  growth,  social  inclusion  and  local development  in  rural 

areas, including bio-economy and sustainable forestry 

About 40% of the Latvian territory is classified as rural.100 This is just below the EU average 
of  45%.  In  terms  of  population,  22%  of  the  inhabitants  live  in  rural  areas  while  26%  are 
settled in intermediate regions. With 17 inhabitants per km² in its rural areas, Latvia has one 
of the lowest population densities for those areas. 

Important economic and social differences persist in the country in terms of GDP per capita, 
mainly between the capital region and the rest of the country (the highest in the EU). Access 
to health and social services, which is a prerequisite to keep the population in these areas, is 
generally lower in rural areas. These issues could be addressed through various EU funds.  

While  the  capital  region  of  Riga  has  a  GDP  per  capita  higher  than  the  EU  average,  rising 
from  60%  in  2000  to  106%  in  2016,  the  growth  in  the  other  regions  has  been  much  more 
modest. The regions have also experienced more rapid depopulation — while the population 
in Riga and its suburbs has increased, the population in Latgale, one of the poorest regions in 
Latvia,  has  declined  by  29%  since  2001.  Overall,  the  population  in  rural  areas  declined  by 
5.6% from 2015 to 2019.101 The continuing trend of depopulation has major consequences for 
the  long-term  sustainability  and  quality  of  public  services  to  the  population  in  rural  and 
sparsely populated areas. This has also resulted in a large pay gap around 1.6 times between 
the capital region and the rest of country.102  

Latvian rural areas have an employment rate (66%), which is both lower than in urban areas 
(72%)  and  the  national  average  (70%).103  In  contrast,  the  unemployment  rate  is  higher  in 
Latvian rural areas (10%) than in urban ones (8%) and is above the national average (9%).104 
The employment rate of women is high although there are still persisting labour imbalances. 
Latvia has one of the lowest genders employment gap of 4.2% compared with an EU average 
of 11.6% in 2018. The gender pay gap is close to the EU average (15.7% compared to with 
16% in  the EU in  2017). There must be careful consideration on close the pay  gap and the 
protection of agricultural workers. 

21 

 
 
In 2017, tourism accounted for 5.1% of the employment (EU average: 4.8%), and the trend 
has been negative, falling from 6.8% of Latvian employment in 2011.105 The number of bed 
places  increased  from  2012-2014,  but  with  a  slightly  lower  share  of  bed  places  in  rural 
areas.106 

The  percentage  of  people  at  risk  of  poverty  or  social  exclusion  stood  at  27.3%  in  Latvian 
rural  areas  in  2019.107  The  income  at  the  disposal  of  inhabitants  in  rural  territories  per 
member  of  the  household  in  2015  was  22%  lower  than  in  cities.  The  rural  poverty  rate  in 
Latvia  went  down  between  2005  and  2017,  approaching  the  EU  average.  With  60.8  out  of 
100 points, Latvia ranks 17th in the EU on the Gender Equality Index, which is below the EU 
average.108 

Local  action  groups  (LAGs)  play  an  important  role  in  local  development.  The  Rural 
Development Programme 2014-2020 allocated EUR 79 million or 5% of the total budget to 
the  LEADER  projects.  Currently  there  are  35  LAGs  whose  area  of  operation  covers  the 
whole  territory  and  rural  population.  Their  EAFRD  co-financed  projects  mainly  aim  at 
improved  possibilities  for  rural  tourism,  cultural  heritage,  recreational  activities,  and 
developing  infrastructure  and  services  for  local  people.109  While  doing  so,  they  have  also 
created a number of new jobs (109.8 jobs in 2019).110  In addition, by year 2019, 73 new jobs 
have  been  created  using  the  financing  of  the  rural  development  measure  ‘Support  to  non-
agricultural activities’. 

The  forestry  sector  is  one  of  the  cornerstones  of  the  Latvian  economy.  54.9%  of  Latvia  is 
covered  by  forest111.  Forestry,  wood  processing  and  furniture  manufacturing  represented 
5.2% of GDP in 2015, while exports amounted to EUR 2 000 million – 20% of all export.112 
However,  a  slight  decline  in  the  number  of  people  employed  in  the  forestry  sector  was 
observed  between  2005  and  2017.113  Forestry  is  also  particularly  important  as  the  main 
source of renewable energy for the country (over 80%).  

Sectors  of  bioeconomy  constitute  approximately  55–60%  of  the  total  national  export  of 
goods,  and  the  sector  is  of  critical  importance  in  ensuring  a  balanced  development  of  the 
country. In absolute figures, export in the bioeconomy sector amounted to EUR 4 260 million 
in  2016,  and  the  total  positive  export-import  balance  of  the  sector  was  +  EUR  1  280 
million.114  In 2015, the turnover in  the bio-economy  was EUR 6 470 million, and the most 
important sectors were wood products (33%), food, beverage and tobacco (26%), agriculture 
(20%)  and  forestry  (14%)115.  Around  130  000  persons  were  employed  in  the  bio-economy 
sector (2015), with an average turnover per person employed of EUR 49 746 (EU-27: EUR 
119  000).  This  represents  an  increase  in  the  turnover  per  person  employed  of  36%  since 
2008.116 

2.9  Improve the response of EU agriculture to societal demands on food and health, 

including safe, nutritious and sustainable food, as well as animal welfare. 

In 2018, the annual sales of antimicrobial agents for food producing animals expressed as mg 
per population correction unit (PCU) was 36.1 and it has been quite stable at this level since 
2011. The sales of antimicrobial agents are relatively low and well below the EU average.117 

As  regards  Plant  Protection  Products  (PPPs),  in  2018,  the  sale  of  PPPs  in  Latvia  totalled 
1.587 ton, an increase in relation to 2017.118 The growing sales trend is associated with the 
constant  increase  of  agricultural  areas  in  the  country,  more  than  6.7%  between  2011  and 
2018. In comparison with France, Spain, Italy and Germany, the sales of pesticides in Latvia 

22 

 
 
remain  are  at  a  very  low  level  (0,82  g/ha  for  the  year  2018).119.According  to  information 
collected  by  the  European  Food  Safety  Authority  (EFSA),  in  2017  155120  samples  of  food 
products  originating in  Latvia were  analysed in  laboratories in  the EU  Member States.  The 
results  of  the  samples  showed  that  one  of  the  lowest  PPP  residue  levels  in  the  Baltic  Sea 
region and also at EU level.121 Furthermore, more varieties that are more productive are being 
used which also lead to an increase in the use of PPPs122. Herbicides are the most important 
category of PPPs sales in Latvia (around 60% of total sales). The second main group is plant 
growth regulators. 

Since 2006, integrated pest management (IPM) has been one of the cornerstones in moving 
towards sustainable plant protection (25 crop-specific IPM guidelines).123 General principles 
and  requirements  of  IPM  are  currently  binding  for  all  professional  users  of  PPPs.  The 
knowledge of IPM is disseminated to farmers by several channels124 – annual workshops (25 
in  2019)  and  demonstration  farms  (56  in  2019)125  focusing  on  issues  like  crop  rotation, 
monitoring  of  harmful  organisms,  field  fertilization,  usage  of  basic  substances  and  other 
alternative plant protection methods in orchards and various methods of soil cultivation.  The 
assessment  demonstrates  that  despite  the  progress  made  by  Latvia,  there  are  still  gaps  in 
many areas of their national action plans, as well as serious weaknesses in the control system 
to  ensure  the  implementation  of  Integrated  Pest  Management  (IPM).  The  issues  identified 
involve  the  inspection  of  pesticide  application  equipment  in  use  and  the  limited  scope  of 
controls for IPM. 

Harmonised  risk  indicator  1  (HRI  1),  is  calculated  using  the  quantities  of  pesticide  active 
substances  that  are  placed  on  the  market,  with  a  weighting  applied  that  is  based  on  the 
classification of the active substance.126 Results for HRI 1 show an increase of 40% in risks 
linked to pesticides compared to baseline, whereas at EU level there was a decrease of 17% 
in the same period.127 

Biosecurity is  equally a  challenge in  Latvia, considering that  Latvia is  among the countries 
affected by African Swine Fever (ASF) where farms with low biosecurity and poor controls 
pose higher risk for animal disease infections and spread. The number of ASF outbreaks in 
domestic  pigs  holdings  dropped  significantly  since  2014  and  97  projects  (72  farms)  have 
received  support  for  preventive  measures  under  the  Rural  Development  Programme  2014-
2020 for a total amount of EUR 4.6 million.128  

In  relation  to  animal  welfare,  the  main  issue  in  Latvia  is  tail  docking  of  pigs,  which  is 
prohibited by EU rules. In the last years, Member States were asked to develop action plans 
in order to prevent tail biting, and to avoid routine tail docking of pigs. Latvia sent an action 
plan to the Commission in January 2018, and updated it in September 2018.  Implementation 
of the proposed best practices and the risk assessment by pig farmers would lead to a lower 
risk  of  tail  biting,  and  the  possibility  to  ban  routine  tail  docking  on  a  longer  term.  The 
progress in the part of undocked pigs could be monitored. 

According  to  egg  market  production  data  in  Latvia  82%  of  the  eggs  are  produced  in  cages 
while  the  EU  average  is  around  50%.  Latvia  could  encourage  farmers  to  move  to  more 
friendly  systems  getting  rid  of  the  worst  types  of  cages.  Farmers  should  be  incentivise  to 
switch  from  cage  to  free  range  or  barn  systems,  which  allows  hens  a  greater  possibility  to 
express normal behaviour. 

23 

 
 
Taking into account that the animals and in particular male dairy cows and unweaned calves 
are  exposed  to  multiple  animal  welfare  risks  during  long  distance  transport  Latvia  should 
encourage local fattening and ensure animal welfare standards are respected during transport. 

Latvia has implemented the National Food Quality Scheme to promote the production, pre-
treatment,  treatment  and  processing  of  high-quality  local  food  products  by  ensuring  that 
certified  and  specifically  colour  labelled  products  are  placed  on  the  market.  Latvian  food 
producers  are  increasingly  taking  part  in  this  scheme  and  in  2018,  155  companies  already 
participating  in  the  scheme,  out  of  which  31  in  the  primary  production.129  An  example  of 
development of such high quality food is the production of local rye varieties, which are the 
basis for the growing demand for traditional rye bread.130 

Sales of veterinary antimicrobial agents marketed 
mainly for food-producing animals in Latvia 

Harmonised Risk Indicator 1 for pesticides in Latvia 
(2011-2013 = 100) 

Sales in mg/PCU in Latvia 

EU-27 

HRI 1 in Latvia 

HRI 1 for EU-27 

Source: DG AGRI after ESVAC, Tenth ESVAC Report (2020) 

                            Source: EUROSTAT [aei_hri] 

Latvia  has  a  very  high  burden  from  non-communicable  diseases  due  to  dietary  risk  factors 
expressed as Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) per 100 000 population attributable to 
diet.131, which include very high overweight and obesity rates. The estimated consumption of 
red  meat132  is  very  high,  in  contrast  to  the  very  low  estimated  consumption  of  fruit  and 
vegetables. A move towards healthy sustainable diets, in line with national recommendations, 
would  be  beneficial  for  health  while  simultaneously  improving  the  overall  environmental 
impact of the food systems.133 This would include a more plant based diet with less red meat 
and more fruits and vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts and seeds. 

Concerning food loss and waste in primary production and processing of food no data is yet 
available.  Moreover,  the  National  Waste  Prevention  Programme  (2013-2020)134  gives  no 
attention to food loss and waste occurring at the primary production level and the early stages 
of the supply chain.  

2.10  Cross-cutting objective on knowledge, innovation and digitalisation  

There  is  untapped  potential  of  the  Latvian  agricultural  knowledge  and  innovation  system 
structure in Latvia for the creation and dissemination of knowledge.135 The main actors in the 
Latvian  agricultural  knowledge  and  innovation  system  are  divided  into  four  groups:  the 
public sector, the private sector, the research and education sector and the non-governmental 
sector.  Latvia  programmed  2.8%  of  the  rural  development  funding  for  knowledge  transfer 
and  information  actions,  advisory  services,  farm  management,  farm  relief  services  and 
cooperation-EIP, which below the EU average of 3.63%.  

24 

 
 
 
As  regards  the  agricultural  European  Innovation  Partnership  (EIP),  currently  there  are  30 
projects  worth  EUR  12.7  million  being  implemented  under  the  Rural  Development 
programme 2014-2020.  

In Latvia, the organisations providing advisory services are financed from public, private and 
mixed  sources  and  the  number  of  advisors  is  stable.  Farmers’  and  entrepreneurs’  fees  also 
constitute  a  considerable  part  of  financing  for  advisory  organisations.136  In  the  field  of 
knowledge,  the  Latvian  University  of  Agriculture  (LLU)  is  the  largest  player  as  well  as 
vocational training institution. In the private sector, there are consultancy providers, private 
consultancy companies, recycling companies. This demands coordinated intervention of all of 
them,  in  particular  to  update  them  on  solutions  for  societal  challenges  beyond  technical 
advice. Comprehensive initiatives should be undertaken to better connect science and practice 
as well as to boost knowledge exchange and innovation. 

The  Latvian  National  Rural  Network  has  an  action  plan  built  around  nine  strategic 
objectives137,  ranging  from  supporting  young  rural  entrepreneurs,  capacity  building  of  rural 
population,  connecting  research  actors  such  as  universities  and  partners  of  Horizon  2020 
projects with farmers, advisors and rural businesses. This experience can be the basis for the 
future  national  CAP  network  to  intensify  such  actions  and  play  a  key  role  in  improve  the 
quality  of  the  implementation  of  the  CAP  Strategic  Plan  by  better  involving  rural 
stakeholders and promoting synergies between the CAP and European Research Area (ERA) 
by collecting information, for instance through knowledge platforms, the CAP network will 
facilitate the implementation of relevant research and innovation results. 

In 2016, the total farm managers that attained at least a basic agricultural training was 43.3% 
(11.5%  is  the  share  for  managers  under  35),  which  is  below  the  EU  average  (66.8%).138 
However, the share of farmers that attained  full agricultural  training equivalent to  two  year 
training is high in Latvia.  

Looking  at  the  Digital  Economy  and  Society  Index  (DESI)  2020  ranking,  which  considers 
rural  and urban  areas,  Latvia ranks 18th  out  of the 28 EU Member States. The country has 
made a noteworthy progress in the area of digital public services in agriculture, for instance, 
Electronic  Application  System  (EAS)  that  eases  communication  between  actors  in  the 
agricultural sector. In the regard, Latvia ranks in the 7th place in the EU.  

Latvia  has  a  very  high  capacity  network  (VHCN)  coverage,  with  88%  coverage  of 
households in 2019, against the EU average of 44%. The availability of VHCNs is combined 
with an extremely advanced coverage of fast broadband connections (Next Generation access 
/ NGA) (93% in 2019). The fixed broadband coverage in rural areas remains at level of 80% 
despite extensive EU-funded investments. Private investment in last mile connections is not 
taking place due to  lack of commercial  viability and remains a  challenge and could  benefit 
from public support. In that regard it is important to ensure consistency, complementarity and 
synergies  with  other  EU  funds  to  avoid  double  funding  and  improve  overall  efficiency  of 
investments. 

Latvian  rural  business  sector  has  not  taken  full  advantage  of  the  opportunities  offered  by 
digital technologies. The level of digital skills in Latvia is below the EU average: 43% of the 
population has basic or above basic digital skills (the EU average is 56%); in rural area the 
percentage is lower (35%) and well below the corresponding EU average (48%).   

25 

 
 
Broadband coverage in Latvia 

NGA broadband (% of rural households) 

Broadband access (% of rural households) 

NGA broadband (% of total households) 

Source: European Commission.  DESI report 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
1   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development.  Common Agriculture Policy context indicator 
C.26  Agricultural  entrepreneurial  income.  Income  based  on  EUROSTAT  [aact_eaa04],  [aact_ali01]  and 
[aact_eaa06], adding back the compensation of employees to the entrepreneurial income and divided by the 
total number of annual working units. Note: 2019 data estimated. The Average wage in the economy based 
on  EUROSTAT  [nama_10_a10_e]  thousand  hours  worked  using  employees  domestic  concept  and 
[nama_10_a10], item wages and salaries. 

Retrieved 

2   European Commission. Share of direct payments and total subsidies in agricultural factor income (2014-18 
average). 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-
fisheries/farming/documents/cap-expenditure-graph5_en.pdf.  In  case  of  LV  ESTAT  population  better 
represents  DP  beneficiaries  than  the  FADN.  Therefore,  when  data  is  available  –  ESTAT  is  to  be  used. 
However,  ESTAT  takes  into  account  all  CAP  expenditure,  including  investment  support  and  excludes 
transitional national aids. This makes the data more limited than the one of FADN, which allows to calculate 
only operating subsidies (including national aids). 

from: 

3   Farm factor income is calculated as a value of agricultural production minus variable input costs (fertilisers, 
pesticides, feed, etc.)  minus depreciation  minus total taxes (on products and production) plus total subsidies 
(on products and production) 

4   Farm  factor  income  per  worker  in  FADN  is  Farm  Net  Value  Added  per  Annual  Working  Units 

(FNVA/AWU) 

5   Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and Rural Development own calculations based on  FADN data (up to 
2018). Figures may not be fully accurate due FADN encompassing farms above certain econ. size only (in 
case of Latvia FADN encompasses about 40% of all farms, which have the economic size of EURO 4000 or 
higher) 

6   Farm Accountancy Data Network. FADN Standard reports. YEAR.COUNTRY.SIZ6 and own calculations 

(up to 2018) 

7   Farm Accountancy Data Network. FADN Standard reports. YEAR.COUNTRY.TF14 and own calculations 

(up to 2018) 

8   Farm  Accountancy  Data  Network.  FADN  Standard  reports.  YEAR.COUNTRY.ANC3  and    own 

calculations (up to 2018) 

9   Latvia  draft  SWOT  analysis.  Retrieved  from  https://www.zm.gov.lv/zemkopibas-ministrija/statiskas-

lapas/situacijas-analize-klp-strategiska-plana-sagatavosanai?id=20571#jump 

10   Background analysis by MS on income and targeting of DP: Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural 
Development own calculations based on FADN (Farm Accountancy Data Network) data (2015) and CATS 
(Clearance of Accounts Trailing System) data (up to 2017) 

11   Update on 80/20 based on claim year 2018 : note on the distribution of direct payments: Directorate General 
for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  own  calculations  based  on  FADN  (Farm  Accountancy  Data 
Network) data (up to 2018) and CATS (Clearance of Accounts Trailing System)  data (up to 2018) 

12   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development own calculations based on ESTAT data (2016). 
Farms  below  EUR  2000  represent  nearly  half  of  all  farms  in  Latvia,  but  they  cover  only  about  11%  of 
utilized agricultural area. 

13   Farms whose household consumes more than 50% of the final production. 
14   Latvian  Ministry  of  Agriculture.  Situācijas  analīze  KLP  Stratēģiskā  plāna  sagatavošanai  2020.  Retrieved 
from  https://www.zm.gov.lv/zemkopibas-ministrija/statiskas-lapas/situacijas-analize-klp-strategiska-plana-
sagatavosanai?id=20571#jump 

15   Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  (European  Commission)  ,  ECORYS  , 
Wageningen Economic Research. Study on risk management in EU agriculture. 2017. 302 pages. Retrieved 
from: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/5a935010-af78-11e8-99ee-01aa75ed71a1 

16   2019 Annual Implementation Report of the Latvian Rural Development Programme 
17   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development own calculations based on ESTAT data (2016) 
18   Statistical 
factsheet  LATVIA.  Retrieved  from:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-

fisheries/farming/documents/agri-statistical-factsheet-lv_en.pdf 

19   Figures may not be fully accurate due FADN encompassing farms above certain econ. size only (in case of 
Latvia FADN  encompasses about 40% of all farms, which have the economic size of EUR 4000 or higher) 
20   Directorate  General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  own  calculations  based  on  FADN  (Farm 

Accountancy Data Network) data  

21   Agroresursu  un  ekonomikas  instituts.:  Lielo  saimniecību  izpēte.  Study  2018.  83  pages.  Retrieved  from: 

https://zemniekusaeima.lv/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Lielo_saimniecību_izpete_2018.pdf 

27 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
Retrieved 

22   European  Commission.  Financial  needs  in  the  agriculture  and  agri-food  sectors  in  Latvia.  Study  2020.  6 
pages. 
https://www.fi-compass.eu/sites/default/files/2020-
07/financial_needs_agriculture_agrifood_sectors_Latvia_executive_summary.pdf?utm_source=sendinblue&
utm_campaign=Registration_open_for_the_fi-
compass_webinar_on_Financial_needs_in_the_agriculture_and_agri-
food_sectors_in_the_Baltic_countries_16_September_2020&utm_medium=email 

from: 

Retrieved 

23   European  Commission.  Financial  needs  in  the  agriculture  and  agri-food  sectors  in  Latvia.  Study  2020.  6 
https://www.fi-compass.eu/sites/default/files/2020-
pages. 
07/financial_needs_agriculture_agrifood_sectors_Latvia_executive_summary.pdf?utm_source=sendinblue&
utm_campaign=Registration_open_for_the_fi-
compass_webinar_on_Financial_needs_in_the_agriculture_and_agri-
food_sectors_in_the_Baltic_countries_16_September_2020&utm_medium=email 

from: 

in 

24   European  Commission.  CAP  indicators  –  Data  explorer.  CAP  Result  indicator  RPI_03  Value  for  primary 
producers 
from:  
food 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/AddingValue.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1 
25   Arcadia  International  E.E.I.G  ,  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  (European 
Commission) , EY. Study of the best ways for producer organisations to be formed, carry out their activities 
and  be  supported.  Study  2019.  171  pages.  Retrieved  from:  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/2c31a562-eef5-11e9-a32c-01aa75ed71a1  

Retrieved 

chain. 

the 

26   Arcadia International, LEI - Wageningen UR, Dr. Luc Bodiguel, and national experts. Study on interbranch 
organisation (IBO) in the EU. Study 2016. 156 pages. Retrieved from:  http://www.rederural.gov.pt/centro-
de-recursos/send/14-organizacao-producao/30-study-on-agricultural-interbranch-organisations-in-the-eu 
27   Latvian  Ministry  of  Agriculture.  Situācijas  analīze  KLP  Stratēģiskā  plāna  sagatavošanai  2020.  Retrieved 
from  https://www.zm.gov.lv/zemkopibas-ministrija/statiskas-lapas/situacijas-analize-klp-strategiska-plana-
sagatavosanai?id=20571#jump 

28   EUROSTAT.  Organic  crop  area  by  agricultural  production  methods  and  crops  (from  2012  onwards). 

[ORG_CROPAR] 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/org_cropar/default/table?lang=en 

29   European 

Commission. 

EU 

geographical 

indications 

register. 

Retrieved 

from: 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/food-safety-and-quality/certification/quality-
labels/geographical-indications-register/ 

30   Latvian  Ministry  of  Agriculture.  Situācijas  analīze  KLP  Stratēģiskā  plāna  sagatavošanai  2020.  Retrieved 
from  https://www.zm.gov.lv/zemkopibas-ministrija/statiskas-lapas/situacijas-analize-klp-strategiska-plana-
sagatavosanai?id=20571#jump 

31  Latvian  Ministry  of  Agriculture.  Situācijas  analīze  KLP  Stratēģiskā  plāna  sagatavošanai  2020.  Retrieved 
from  https://www.zm.gov.lv/zemkopibas-ministrija/statiskas-lapas/situacijas-analize-klp-strategiska-plana-
sagatavosanai?id=20571#jump 

32   European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document. Impact assessment. Initiative to improve the 
food supply chain (unfair trading practices, Table No 1. SWD(2018) 92 final. 172 pages. Retrieved from: 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52018SC0092&from=EN 

33   European  Commission.  CAP  indicators  –  Data  explorer.  CAP  Result  indicator  RPI_03  Value  for  primary 
producers 
from:  
food 
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/AddingValue.html?select=EU27_FLAG,1 
34   EEA  greenhouse  gas  -  data  viewer.  Retrieved  from:  https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/data-

Retrieved 

chain. 

the 

in 

viewers/greenhouse-gases-viewer 

35   Latvian  Ministry  of  Agriculture.  Situācijas  analīze  KLP  Stratēģiskā  plāna  sagatavošanai  2020.  Retrieved 
from  https://www.zm.gov.lv/zemkopibas-ministrija/statiskas-lapas/situacijas-analize-klp-strategiska-plana-
sagatavosanai?id=20571#jump 
from: 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/data-viewers/greenhouse-gases-viewer 

and  EEA  greenhouse  gas 

-  data  viewer.  Retrieved 

36   EEA  greenhouse  gas  -  data  viewer.  Retrieved  from:  https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/data-

viewers/greenhouse-gases-viewer 

37   EEA  greenhouse  gas  -  data  viewer.  Retrieved  from:  https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/data-

viewers/greenhouse-gases-viewer  

38   EEA  greenhouse  gas  -  data  viewer.  Retrieved  from:  https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/data-

viewers/greenhouse-gases-viewer 

39   EEA  greenhouse  gas  -  data  viewer.  Retrieved  from:  https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/data-

viewers/greenhouse-gases-viewer 

28 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
 
 
40   Latvia’s 

and 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/lv_final_necp_main_en.pdf 

National 

Climate 

Energy 

plan, 

140/141 

p. 

Retrieved 

from: 

41   EEA  greenhouse  gas  -  data  viewer.  Retrieved  from:  https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/data-

viewers/greenhouse-gases-viewer 

42   Country  Report  Latvia  2020.  Retrieved  from: 

  https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2020-european-

semester-country-reports_en 

43   Latvia’s 

and 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/lv_final_necp_main_en.pdf 

National 

Climate 

Energy 

plan, 

140/141 

p. 

Retrieved 

from: 

44   EEA  greenhouse  gas  -  data  viewer.  Retrieved  from:  https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/data-

viewers/greenhouse-gases-viewer 

45 Country Report Latvia 2020. Retrieved from:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2020-european-semester-

country-reports_en 

46   Latvian  Ministry  of  Agriculture.  Situācijas  analīze  KLP  Stratēģiskā  plāna  sagatavošanai  2020.  Retrieved 
from  https://www.zm.gov.lv/zemkopibas-ministrija/statiskas-lapas/situacijas-analize-klp-strategiska-plana-
sagatavosanai?id=20571#jump  

47   National  Energy  and  Climate  plan  2021-2030.  Retrieved  from:  https://www.em.gov.lv/lv/nacionalais-

energetikas-un-klimata-plans  

48   GHG  emissions  inventory,  Latvian  Center  for  Environment,  Geology  &  Meteorology.  Retrieved  from: 
https://www.meteo.lv/fs/CKFinderJava/userfiles/files/Vide/Klimats/Majas_lapai_LVGMC_2019_seginvkop
savilkums.pdf 

49   LIFE Restore: Sustainable and responsible management and re-use of degraded peatlands in Latvia  
50   Country  report    Latvia  2020  p.68  Retrieved  from:    https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2020-european-

semester-country-reports_en 

51   LIFE  Restore:  Sustainable  and  responsible  management  and  re-use  of  degraded  peatlands  in  Latvia. 
Retrieved 
from: 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=568
6  

52   2019 Annual Implementation Report of the Latvian Rural Development Programme 
53   Final 

agriculture. 
consumption 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tai04/default/table?lang=en 

energy 

by 

Retrieved 

from: 

54   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.43  Production  of  renewable  energy  from  agriculture  and 

forestry. Based on EUROSTAT [nrg_bal_c] and [nrg_cb_rw], and Strategie Grains 

55   Analytical  factsheet  for  Latvia.  Retrieved  from:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-

fisheries/by_country/documents/analytical_factsheet_lv.pdf 

56   Latvian  Ministry  of  Agriculture.  Situācijas  analīze  KLP  Stratēģiskā  plāna  sagatavošanai  2020.  Retrieved 
from  https://www.zm.gov.lv/zemkopibas-ministrija/statiskas-lapas/situacijas-analize-klp-strategiska-plana-
sagatavosanai?id=20571#jump  

57   Latvian  Ministry  of  Agriculture.  Situācijas  analīze  KLP  Stratēģiskā  plāna  sagatavošanai  2020.  Retrieved 
from  https://www.zm.gov.lv/zemkopibas-ministrija/statiskas-lapas/situacijas-analize-klp-strategiska-plana-
sagatavosanai?id=20571#jump 

58   Latvian  Ministry  of  Agriculture.  Situācijas  analīze  KLP  Stratēģiskā  plāna  sagatavošanai  2020.  Retrieved 
from  https://www.zm.gov.lv/zemkopibas-ministrija/statiskas-lapas/situacijas-analize-klp-strategiska-plana-
sagatavosanai?id=20571#jump 

59   EEA  greenhouse  gas  -  data  viewer.  Retrieved  from:  https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/data-

viewers/greenhouse-gases-viewer 

60   EEA  National  Emission  Ceilings  Directive  emissions  data  viewer  1990-2018.  Retrieved  from: 

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/dashboards/necd-directive-data-viewer-3  

61   NAPCP 

from: 
https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/lv/eu/nec_revised/programmes/envxphfaa/Latvijas_gaisa_plans_140420_apstipri
nats.pdf 
https://likumi.lv/ta/id/314078-par-gaisa-piesarnojuma-samazinasanas-ricibas-planu-2020-2030-gadam  

Retrieved 

p.32-33. 

62   2018 Annual Implementation Report of the Latvian Rural Development Programme 
63   2018 Annual Implementation Report of the Latvian Rural Development Programme 
64   European  Commission.  EUROSTAT.  Agri-environmental 

indicator  -  soil  cover.  Retrieved  from: 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-_soil_cover 
65   European Commission. EUROSTAT. Agri-environmental indicator - tillage practices. Retrieved from:  

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-_tillage_practices 

29 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
 
66   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.41 Soil organic matter in arable land. Joint Research Center 

(JRC) based on LUCAS Land Use Survey 2015 

67   2018 Annual Implementation Report of the Latvian Rural Development Programme, p. 150 
68   Analytical  factsheet  for  Latvia.  Retrieved  from:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-

fisheries/by_country/documents/analytical_factsheet_lv.pdf 

69   SWD(2019)  49  final    Commission  Staff  Working  Document  Second  River  Basin  Management  Plans  - 
Member State: Latvia  Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the Parliament and the 
Council  on  the  implementation  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (2000/60/EC)  and  the  Floods  Directive 
(2007/60/EC)  Second  River  Basin  Management  Plans  First  Flood  Risk  Management  Plan  Retrieved  from: 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=SWD:2019:49:FIN&qid=1551205988853&from=EN  

70   HELCOM: Thematic assessment of eutrophication 2011–2016 
71   SWD(2019)  49  final    Commission  Staff  Working  Document  Second  River  Basin  Management  Plans  - 
Member State: Latvia  Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the Parliament and the 
Council  on  the  implementation  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (2000/60/EC)  and  the  Floods  Directive 
(2007/60/EC)  Second  River  Basin  Management  Plans  First  Flood  Risk  Management  Plan  Retrieved  from: 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=SWD:2019:49:FIN&qid=1551205988853&from=EN 

72   Analytical  factsheet  for  Latvia.  Retrieved  from:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-

fisheries/by_country/documents/analytical_factsheet_lv.pdf 

73   2019 Annual Implementation Report of the Latvian Rural Development Programme 
74   European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.35  Farmland  birds  index  (FBI).  As  in  EUROSTAT 

[env_bio2], original source: EBCC, BirdLife, RSPB and CSO  

75   https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html, 
https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_bio2&lang=en 

76   Prioritised Action Framework (PAF)  for Natura 2000 in  Latvia pursuant to  Article 8 of Council Directive 
92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the Habitats Directive) for the 
Multiannual Financial Framework period 2021 – 2027 

77   Idem 
78   EEA, 2020 
79   Idem 
80   Prioritised  Action Framework (PAF)  for Natura 2000 in  Latvia pursuant to  Article 8 of Council Directive 
92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the Habitats Directive) for the 
Multiannual Financial Framework period 2021 – 2027 

81   Prioritised Action Framework (PAF)  for Natura 2000 in  Latvia pursuant to  Article 8 of Council Directive 
92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the Habitats Directive) for the 
Multiannual Financial Framework period 2021 – 2027, section E.2.5 

82   IEEP, 2019 
83   Rural Development Programme for Latvia 2014-2020, version 9.0 
84   2019 Annual Implementation Report of the Latvian Rural Development Programme 
85   2019 Annual Implementation Report of the Latvian Rural Development Programme 
86   FAO. Global Forest Resources Assessment (2020). Retrieved from:  

https://fra-platform.herokuapp.com/AUT/assessment/fra2020/extentOfForest/ 

87   Rural Development Programme for Latvia 2014-2020, version 9.0, p.50 
88   AGRI 

platform: 

Organic 

Open 

Data 

farming 

Retrieved 

from: 

https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/OrganicProduction.html?select=EU27_FLAG,
1 

89   2019 Annual Implementation Report of the Latvian Rural Development Programme 
90   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.23 Age structure of farm managers. Based on EUROSTAT 

[ef_m_farmang] 

91   Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development own calculations based on ESTAT data. 
92   European Commission. CAP context indicator C.23 Age structure of farm managers. Based on EUROSTAT 

[ef_m_farmang] 

93   Latvian  Ministry  of  Agriculture.  Situācijas  analīze  KLP  Stratēģiskā  plāna  sagatavošanai  2020.  Retrieved 
from  https://www.zm.gov.lv/zemkopibas-ministrija/statiskas-lapas/situacijas-analize-klp-strategiska-plana-
sagatavosanai?id=20571#jump 

94   Directorate  General  for  Agriculture and Rural Development own calculations based on  FADN data (up to 

2018) 

30 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
 
 
95   EUROSTAT. 

Agricultural 

land 

prices 

and 

rents. 

2018. 

Retrieved 

from: 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/8756523/5-21032018-AP-EN.pdf/b1d0ffd3-f75b-40cc-
b53f-f22f68d541df 

Retrieved 

96   European  Commission.  Financial  needs  in  the  agriculture  and  agri-food  sectors  in  Latvia.  Study  2020.  6 
pages. 
https://www.fi-compass.eu/sites/default/files/2020-
07/financial_needs_agriculture_agrifood_sectors_Latvia_executive_summary.pdf?utm_source=sendinblue&
utm_campaign=Registration_open_for_the_fi-
compass_webinar_on_Financial_needs_in_the_agriculture_and_agri-
food_sectors_in_the_Baltic_countries_16_September_2020&utm_medium=email 

from: 

97   European Commission. Summary report on the implementation of direct payments [except greening]. Claim 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-

year 
fisheries/key_policies/documents/summary-report-implementation-direct-payements-claim-2018.pdf  

2020.  Retrieved 

2018. 

from: 

June 

98   European  Commission.  CAP  context 

indicator  C.08  GDP  per  capita.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[nama_10r_3gdp] and [nama_10r_3popgdp] 

99   Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia 
100  CAP Context Indicators:  Context Indicator C.03. Please note that there are different  ways  to define  “rural 

areas”. Context indicator C.03 is based on the so-called “urban-rural typology”. 

101  Eurostat [urt_gind3] 
102  Idem, p.44 
103  European Commission. CAP context indicator C.05 Employment rate. Based on EUROSTAT [lfst_r_ergau] 
104  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.07  Unemployment  rate.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[lfst_r_lfu3rt] 

105  European  Commission.  CAP  context 

indicator  C.08  GDP  per  capita.  Based  on  EUROSTAT 

[nama_10r_3gdp] and [nama_10r_3popgdp] 

106  European Commission. CAP context indicator C.31 Land cover. Based on European Environmental Agency, 

Corine Land Cover 2018 
People 

107  EUROSTAT: 

at 

risk 

of 

poverty 

or 

social 

exclusion. 

Retrieved 

from: 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/People_at_risk_of_poverty_or_social_exclusion 
108  Gender  Equality  Index  2020:  Latvia.  Retrieved  from:  Print  https://eige.europa.eu/publications/gender-

equality-index-2020-latvia  

109  2019 Annual Implementation Report of the Latvian Rural Development Programme 
110  2019 Annual Implementation Report of the Latvian Rural Development Programme 
111  FAO. 
Retrieved 

Assessment 

Resources 

(2020). 

Global 

Forest 

from: 

https://fra-

from: 

from: 

platform.herokuapp.com/AUT/assessment/fra2020/extentOfForest/ 

Latvian 

forest 

sector 

2017. 

Retrieved 

https://www.zm.gov.lv/public/ck/files/skaitli&fakti_EN_2017.pdf 

http://agriwiki/Pages/AWFile.aspx?LISTNAME=AgriWikiDocuments&ITEMID=3240 

rural 

area 

LATVIA. 

Retrieved 

112  Report: 

113  Factsheet 

114  Report: 

Latvian 

Bioeconomy 

Strategy 

2030. 

Retrieved 

from: 

https://www.zm.gov.lv/public/files/CMS_Static_Page_Doc/00/00/01/46/58/E2758-
LatvianBioeconomyStrategy2030.pdf 

115  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.41  Soil  organic  matter  in  arable  land.  Joint  Research 

Center (JRC) based on LUCAS Land Use Survey 2015 

116  DATAM bio economy, JRC: https://datam.jrc.ec.europa.eu/datam/mashup/BIOECONOMICS/index.html 
117  European  Medicines  Agency,  European  Surveillance  of  Veterinary  Antimicrobial  consumption  (ESVAC). 
Sales of veterinary antimicrobial agents in 31 countries in 2018  – trends from 2010 to 2018 Tenth ESVAC 
Report. EMA/24309/2020. 

118  Pesticide sales. Retrieved from: European Commission. As in EUROSTAT [AEI_FM_SALPEST09] 
119  European 

Commission. 

pesticides 

Retrieved 

Sales 

EU. 

the 

of 

in 

from: 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20200603-1  

120  EFSA  (European  Food  Safety  Authority),  2019.  Report  on  the  2017  European  Union  report  on  pesticide 
from: 

2019;17(6):5743, 

Retrieved 

Journal 

152 

pp. 

residues 
food. 
https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5743     

EFSA 

in 

121  Latvian  Ministry  of  Agriculture.  Situācijas  analīze  KLP  Stratēģiskā  plāna  sagatavošanai  2020.  Retrieved 
from  https://www.zm.gov.lv/zemkopibas-ministrija/statiskas-lapas/situacijas-analize-klp-strategiska-plana-
sagatavosanai?id=20571#jump 

31 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
 
122  Latvian  Ministry  of  Agriculture.  Situācijas  analīze  KLP  Stratēģiskā  plāna  sagatavošanai  2020.  Retrieved 
from  https://www.zm.gov.lv/zemkopibas-ministrija/statiskas-lapas/situacijas-analize-klp-strategiska-plana-
sagatavosanai?id=20571#jump 
augu 

aizsardzības  kultūrspecifiskās  vadlīnijas 

(IPM  guidelines)  Retrieved 

123  Integrētās 

from: 

http://noverojumi.vaad.gov.lv/integreta-audzesana/integretas-augu-aizsardzibas-kulturspecifiskas-vadlinijas 
124  State  Plant  Protection  Service.  Kultūraugu  novērojumi  kaitīgo  organismu  konstatēšanai  (real-time 

monitoring data). Retrieved from: http://noverojumi.vaad.gov.lv/  

125  State 

Plant 

Protection 

Service 

(establishment 

of 

demonstration 

farms) 

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://likumi.lv/ta/id/312146-par-latvijas-ricibas-planu-augu-aizsardzibas-
lidzeklu-ilgtspejigai-
izmantosanai__;!!DOxrgLBm!U_c75SGtIq8gDAtoRPUoPK_bRqm3zWAWpE8BZGyFZa4Q9_JB2Yp982p
do6CYlwhQp994eh0$  

126  Regulation  (EC)  No 1107/2009  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  21  October  2009 

concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market 

127  European Commission. Harmonised Risk Indicator for pesticides (HRI 1), by group of active substance. As 

in EUROSTAT [SDG_02_51] 

128  Food and Veterinary Service. ASF eradication plan for Latvia 
129  Latvian  Ministry  of  Agriculture.  Situācijas  analīze  KLP  Stratēģiskā  plāna  sagatavošanai  2020.  Retrieved 
from  https://www.zm.gov.lv/zemkopibas-ministrija/statiskas-lapas/situacijas-analize-klp-strategiska-plana-
sagatavosanai?id=20571#jump 

130  Latvian  Ministry  of  Agriculture.  Situācijas  analīze  KLP  Stratēģiskā  plāna  sagatavošanai  2020.  Retrieved 
from  https://www.zm.gov.lv/zemkopibas-ministrija/statiskas-lapas/situacijas-analize-klp-strategiska-plana-
sagatavosanai?id=20571#jump 

131  Study:  EU  burden 

risk 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/health-knowledge-gateway/societal-impacts/burden 

from  non-communicable  diseases  and  key 

factors.  Retrieved 

from: 

132  Defined as beef, lamb and pork, 235,57 g/per capita/d,  net of waste in the EU 2010,  GBD study 2017 and 

M. Springmann, personal communication 

133  Defined as: consumption of ≥ 5 portions is below EU27 average and one of the 2 additional criteria is met: a) 
average, 

1-4 
https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=hlth_ehis_fv3c&lang=en  
valsts 

2013.-2020.gadam. 

apsaimniekošanas 

Retrieved 

from: 

134  Atkritumu 

average, 

portions 

portions 

below 

above 

EU27 

EU27 

plāns 

b) 

0 

http://polsis.mk.gov.lv/documents/4276  

135  Report: Preparing for future AKIS in Europe. Retrieved from  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-

farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/report-preparing-for-future-akis-in-europe_en.pdf 

136  Report: 

AKIS 

in 

the 

EU. 

Retrieved 

from 

https://www.uni-

hohenheim.de/fileadmin/einrichtungen/430a/PRO_AKIS/Synthesis_Report/SYNTHESIS.REPORT.VOL.2.
FINAL_REPORT_08_07_2014_VOL_II.pdf 

137  Latvian  Rural  Advisory  and  Training  Centre.  Retrieved  from:  http://llkc.lv/lv/latvian-rural-advisory-and-

training-centre   

138  European  Commission.  CAP  context  indicator  C.24  Agricultural  training  of  farm  managers.  Based  on 

EUROSTAT [ef_mp_training] 

32