COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Third River Basin Management Plans Second Flood Hazard and Risk Maps and Second Flood Risk Management Plans Member State: Latvia Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Third River Basin Management Plans Second Flood Risk Management Plans
Date: 2025-02-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: Latvia, adaptation to climate change, application of EU law, environmental risk prevention, flood, risk management, water, water management, water pollution, watercourse

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 4.2.2025  SWD(2025) 27 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Third River Basin Management Plans    Second Flood Hazard and Risk Maps and Second Flood Risk Management Plans Member State: Latvia Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)    Third River Basin Management Plans   Second Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2025) 2 final} - {SWD(2025) 13 final} - {SWD(2025) 14 final} - {SWD(2025) 15 final} - {SWD(2025) 16 final} - {SWD(2025) 17 final} - {SWD(2025) 18 final} - {SWD(2025) 19 final} - {SWD(2025) 20 final} - {SWD(2025) 21 final} - {SWD(2025) 22 final} - {SWD(2025) 23 final} - {SWD(2025) 24 final} - {SWD(2025) 25 final} - {SWD(2025) 26 final} - {SWD(2025) 28 final} - {SWD(2025) 29 final} - {SWD(2025) 30 final} - {SWD(2025) 31 final} - {SWD(2025) 32 final} - {SWD(2025) 33 final} - {SWD(2025) 34 final} - {SWD(2025) 35 final}  
 
 
y
n
a
r
V
n
a
p
e
t
S

|

m
o
c
s
l

.

e
x
e
P
©

Country specific staff working document 

Latvia 

ENVIRONMENT 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Content 

Content ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 

SECTION A: WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE .......................................................................................................................... 3 

1. General info, member state characterisation ............................................................................................................. 4 

2. Horizontal aspects ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9 

2.1 Governance ............................................................................................................................................................................ 9 

2.2 Characterization of River Basin District ................................................................................................................. 9 

3. Policy elements contributing to biodiversity and climate change adaptation ...................................... 13 

3.1 Surface Water: what is their ecological status or potential .................................................................... 13 

3.2 Hydromorphological changes and artificialization (HMWBs and AWBs) .......................................... 15 

3.3 Groundwater bodies - have they sufficient water – quantitative status ......................................... 16 

3.4 Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) ........................................... 18 

3.5 What is being done to prevent/reduce hydromorphological pressures ............................................ 20 

3.6 What Latvia is doing for abstractions and water scarcity ....................................................................... 21 

3.7 Adaptation to climate change .................................................................................................................................. 23 

4. Policy elements contributing to zero pollution ........................................................................................................ 24 

4.1 Surface Water: what is their chemical status ................................................................................................. 24 

4.2 Groundwater Bodies: what is their chemical status .................................................................................... 25 

4.3 What Latvia is doing to combat pollution from agriculture .................................................................... 27 

4.4 What Latvia is doing to combat pollution from other sectors .............................................................. 29 

4.5  What  Latvia  is  doing  to  combat  significant  pressures  –  overall  assessment  of  the 
Programmes of Measures .................................................................................................................................................. 29 

5. Exemptions and economics ............................................................................................................................................... 30 

5.1 To what extent are exemptions applied in Latvia ......................................................................................... 30 

5.2 Use of economic analysis and water pricing – cost recovery ................................................................ 31 

6. WFD recommendations ........................................................................................................................................................ 32 

SECTION B: FLOODS DIRECTIVE .................................................................................................................................................. 36 

7. Flood risk management under floods directive (FD) ............................................................................................ 37 

7.1 Flood hazard and risk maps ...................................................................................................................................... 37 

7.2 Flood risk management plans .................................................................................................................................. 38 

8. FD recommendations ............................................................................................................................................................ 40 

2 

 
 
 
SECTION A: 
WATER FRAMEWORK 
DIRECTIVE 

3 

 
 
 
1. General info, member state characterisation

Latvia, a country of northeastern Europe, covers an area of 64,586 km2 with a total coastline of 498 
km.  Latvia  borders  Estonia  to  the  north,  Russia  to  the  northeast,  Belarus  to  the  southeast  and 
Lithuania to the south. Latvia has a relatively flat terrain (lowland plains) with moderate hills and a 
temperate continental climate. Latvia has 1,883,211 inhabitants1 (2023), with over one third of the 
population living in the capital (Riga).  

More than half of the Latvian territory is covered by forests. Latvia also has an abundant network of 
rivers. The Gauja River, in the northeast, discharges into the Gulf of Riga. The Daugava River forms a 
basin  covering  more  than  one  third  of  the  territory  of  Latvia.  The  western  part  of  the  country  is 
drained mainly by the Venta River, which flows into the Baltic Sea. Ventas Rumba in the Kuldīga region 
is the widest waterfall in Europe with a width of around 100 meters. The Lielupe River drains the 
central Latvia, and a great amount of its discharge stems from melted snow. 

Reporting  

The deadline for reporting the 3rd RBMPs was in March 2022. The Commission and the EEA together 
with Member States developed an electronic reporting system in WISE (Water Information System 
for  Europe).  Its  use  was  voluntary.  Some  Member  States  used  it  to  fulfil  their  obligations,  others 

1 https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/key-facts-and-figures/life-eu_en (accessed on 11/0202) 

4 

 
 
reported the plans in pdf format. The cut-off date for the WISE e-reporting was September 2023 and 
the MS were assessed based on the datasets available by this date.  

By September 2023 Latvia submitted full electronic reporting and therefore the assessment is based 
on this dataset. 

Despite the cut off dates for the production of this report, reporting continued and, for the State of 
Water report, the EEA aggregated al the results available by July spring 2024 in their products and 
dashboards available at WISE Freshwater web portal. 

5 

 
 
 
Changes in Status, Pressures, Exemptions & Measures 

Surface 
Water 
Bodies 
(780) 

Trend (% good 
status/potential) 

Main Pressures & Changes & Exemptions 

100%

50%

The ecological status has improved from the 2nd to 3rd RBMPs from 21.0% to 32.5% in good/high ecological status/potential. Latvia has 
significantly re-delineated its surface water bodies, increasing the number of river bodies from 203 (2nd RBMPs) to 492 (3rd RBMPs), which is a 
142 % increase. This may (also) have affected the percentage of SWB in good status.  

Progress is recognisable with regard to the achievement of good ecological status, although there have also been setbacks for individual 
quality elements. Confidence in the assessment has increased.  

ECOLOGICAL 
STATUS 

32,5%

21,1%

There are still gaps and shortcomings in the development of assessment methods and monitoring for all biological quality elements. Changes 
have been made and significant progress achieved, but this process cannot yet be considered complete. The implementation of the monitoring 
of coastal and transitional waters was still pending at the moment of development of 3rd RBMPs. 

0%

2015 2021

Latvia expects that 73.5 % of its surface waters will achieve good/high ecological status/potential by 2027. Nevertheless, for the reaminder of 
the water bodies, Latvia is not able to predict if they will achieve good ecological status/potential by 2027.  

Like in the 2nd RBMPs, all the exemptions according to Article 4(4) for ecological status/potential in surface waters which involve 524 SWBs 
(67 %) are applied on grounds of natural conditions. Article 4(5) exemptions have been applied in the 3rd RBMPs for ecological status to 4 
SWBs on ground of technical feasibility. 

6 

 
 
 
100%

50%

CHEMICAL 
STATUS 

10,6
%

0,0
%

0%

2015 2021

Surface waters in a good chemical status (or better) decreased from 10.6% to 0.0%, compared to the 2nd RBMPs. 

Latvia monitors only a small percentage of its surface water bodies for assessing their chemical status (low spatial monitoring coverage). The 
scale of Latvia’s monitoring network has even contracted from 15% of all water bodies in the 2nd RBMP to 12% of all water bodies in the 3rd 
RBMPs. It is uncertain the extent to which this development is linked to the re-delineation of Latvia’s surface water bodies. 

The RBMPs provide contradictory evidence on the number of substances included in the monitoring programme. More than 80% of the water 
bodies in 2022 were classified with a low level of confidence.  

The main substances causing failure to achieve good chemical status are a small number of primarily uPBT substances, namely PAHs, 
mercury, and heptachlor. 99% of the SWBs would be in good status excluding uPBTs.  

LV expects that 100% of its SWB will fail good chemical status in 2027. 

Like in the 2nd RBMPs, Latvia invoked the exemption of Article 4(4) on grounds of natural conditions, this time for 779 SWBs (99.9%).  

Ground 
Water 
Bodies (25) 

Trend (% good 
status/potential) 

Main Pressures & Changes & Exemptions 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
QUANTITATIVE 
STATUS 

CHEMICAL 
STATUS 

All 25 groundwater bodies are in good quantitative status in the 3rd RBMPs, similarly to the 2nd and 1st RBMPs. A key change is related to the 
re-delineation of groundwater bodies in the 3rd RBMPs, resulting in an increase in both their number (from 16 to 25) and their total extent 
(46%). The confidence in the assessment of the quantitative status of groundwater bodies has decreased.  

There are significant gaps in the assessment methodology and implementation, as saline or other intrusions are not considered in the 
assessment of groundwater quantitative status in any RBD. Furthermore, GWAAEs and GWDTEs are not reported, and they are not 
considered in the assessment of groundwater quantitative status in any RBD. 

It is of concern that 8 GWBs (32% of total groundwater bodies) are reported at risk of failing to achieve good quantitative status in 2027. 

In Latvia 22 out of 25 groundwater bodies are assessed in good chemical status in the 3rd RBMPs (88.0% of total groundwater bodies), with 
3 groundwater bodies being assessed in poor chemical status. All groundwater bodies were in good chemical status in the 2nd RBMPs. 
According to Latvia, the deterioration results from a redelineation of the GWBs at risk. The 3 groundwater bodies failing to achieve good 
chemical status are very small in extent (<0.1% of total groundwater body area). During the re-delineation of groundwater bodies, these 3 
groundwater bodies were distinguished from the total groundwater body area for more targeted monitoring and improved management.  

32% of classifications are conducted with high confidence, increasing from 0% in the 2nd RBMPs, but overall confidence in the assessment 
has decreased. The majority of the groundwater bodies fail to achieve good chemical status due to the exceedence of thresholds for 
substances, as well as saline or other intrusions. It is of concern that 11 groundwater bodies (44% of total groundwater bodies) are reported 
to be at risk of failing the good chemical status by 2027. 

Article 4(5) exemptions have been applied in the 3rd RBMPs to two groundwater bodies for chemical status, on grounds of technical 
feasibility. GWD Article 6(3) exemption has been applied to one GWB in Daugava RBD on grounds of artificial recharge / augmentation. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2. Horizontal aspects 

2.1 Governance 

Latvia reported that three competent authorities, all of them at a national level, are in charge of the 
different  aspects  of  the  WFD.  Water  governance  in  Latvia  is  therefore  centralised,  except  for  the 
provision of water-related services which is operated at the local level by municipalities. 

Latvia’s  RBMPs  integrate  the  Flood  Risk  Management  Plans  prepared  under  the  Floods  Directive; 
moreover, a joint consultation of the two types of plans was performed. Latvia reported electronically 
and all four RBMPs were published in the beginning of February 2023. Latvia did not carry out a joint 
consultation for the RBMPs and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). However, each plan 
includes a reference to the Marine Strategy  Framework Directive and explains that measures are 
compatible with its objectives.  

As regards to transboundary coordination2, Latvia has thematic international agreements in place 
with the other two Baltic countries, but there is no permanent cooperation body, nor international 
RBMPs  in  place. To  be  noted  that  a  joint monitoring  programme  for  Estonia  and  Latvia  has  been 
established in the framework of the Interreg EST-LAT project «Water bodies without borders» (WBWB). 
Furthermore, trilateral meetings (between Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) have been held under the 
EU-funded  LIFE  GOODWATER  IP  project.  During  these  meetings  the  risk  of  not  achieving 
environmental  objectives  in  water  bodies  with  significant  transboundary  pressures  and  the 
appropriate coordination of objectives and exemptions have been discussed. As regards cooperation 
with  non-EU  countries,  there  are  no  international  agreements  signed  with  Belarus  or  Russia  for 
cooperation on the Daugava RBD. However, Latvia reported an operational cooperation programme 
with Belarus. 

2.2 Characterization of River Basin District 

Classification 

All water bodies have been classified. In general, the number of types of surface water bodies has 
remained partially constant between the 2nd and 3rd RBMPs, with only an increase of one type for 
rivers and one type for lakes. Compared to 2nd RBMPs, progress has been made in the intercalibration 
of  biological  methods  and  confidence  of  the  classification  of  ecological  status  and  potential  for 
surface  water  bodies  has  improved,  too.  While  the  intercalibration  of  reference  conditions  is  yet 
missing for fish fauna in transitional waters, the development of a methodology is already in progress 
to  close  this  gap.  However,  still  not  all  water  bodies  classified  in  national  types  correspond  to 
intercalibration3 types, as it is the case for some lake types and for transitional waters in the Gulf of 
Riga.  To  be  noted  though  that  Latvia’s  3rd  RBMPs  include  a  background  document  providing 
information,  amongst  others,  on  typology  and  intercalibration,  and  according  to  the  reported 
information,  the  typology  has  been  coordinated  with  Estonia  and  Lithuania  since  the  2nd  RBMPs. 
Regarding  using  classification  methods  for  assessment  of  ecological  status/potential  of  surface 

2 To be noted that Latvia reported 72 transboundary surface water bodies and 11 transboundary groundwater bodies. 
3 Intercalibration is essentially about making sure that every EU Member State uses the same yard stick to evaluate the 
status of a surface water body. The intercalibration exercise commonly agreed classes and types so that water bodies can 
be compared.  

9 

 
 
water bodies, it should be noted that a slight decrease in the use of expert judgement and a slight 
increase of grouping for the various quality elements was observed compared to the 2nd RBMPs. 

In  the  previous  cycle,  the  Commission  had  encouraged  Latvia  to  ensure  the  development  of 
assessment methods for all biological quality elements, with an emphasis for hydromorphological 
quality elements regarding transitional and coastal waters. In this management cycle, there are no 
improvements  for  transitional  and  coastal  waters.  However,  the  3rd  RBMPs  report  that  reference 
conditions have been established for rivers. Still, some gaps remain for lakes.  

Latvia has four RBDs and all of them are parts of international RBDs. In total, Latvia has 780 surface 
water bodies and 25 groundwater bodies (Table 1). It is worth to be mentioned that there have been 
significant increases in the  number  of  rivers  and lakes  in  all  RBDs.  The  biggest  increase is in  the 
number of rivers from 203 (2nd RBMPs) to 492 (3rd RBMPs), which represents a 142% increase. 

Table 1. Number of surface water bodies and groundwater bodies per RBD in Latvia.  

Rivers 

Lakes 

Transitional 
Waters 

Coastal 
Waters 

Territorial 
Waters 

Groundwater 
Bodies 

RBD 
(Index) 

Daugavas 
(LVDUBA) 

Gauja 
(LVGUBA) 

Lielupes 
(LVLUBA) 

Ventas 
(LVVUBA) 

166 

193 

117 

38 

74 

14 

135 

31 

TOTAL 

492 

276 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Pressures 

1 

1 

1 

0 

3 

0 

1 

1 

3 

5 

0 

1 

1 

2 

4 

8 

5 

4 

8 

25 

It  is  encouraging  to  note  that  the  knowledge  about  identification  of  pressures  in  coastal  and 
transitional water bodies has improved and Latvia has reported more pressures in the 3rd RBMPs. 

Surface waters 

‘Diffuse  –  atmospheric  deposition’  is  the  most  significant  pressure  that  affects  almost  all  of  the 
country’s  surface  waters  (i.e.  776  water  bodies,  corresponding  to  99.5%).  This  is  followed  by 
hydromorphological  pressures  affecting  around  60%  of  water  bodies  (in  particular  ‘hydrological 
alteration  –  other’,  and  ‘physical  alteration  of  channel  /  bed  /  riparian  area  /  shore  –  other’  each 

10 

 
accounting for almost 30% of surface water bodies,) as well as ‘diffuse-agricultural’ affecting also 
around 30% of surface water bodies. As regards to agricultural pressures, the Nitrates Vulnerable 
Zones  in  Latvia  are  located  in  the  central  part  of  the  territory.  Figure  1  depicts  the  nutrient 
concentrations and trophic status of monitoring points in the Nitrates Directive monitoring network. 

Figure 1. Trophic status in Latvia 

Source: 
https://water.jrc.ec.europa.eu/arcgis/rest/services/nid/msNidReporting7/MapServer/2/994/attachments/178 

(2016-2019) 

DIRECTIVE 

NITRATES 

Reporting 

Period 

JRC 

7 

- 

Trophic 

Status 

It  should  be  noted  that  in  the  2nd  RBMPs  ‘‘diffuse  –  atmospheric  deposition’  and  ‘hydrological 
alteration – other’ were not reported to affect surface water bodies, while the other pressure types 
above were reported, but with lower percentages (15%, 10% respectively). 

Currently, 99% of the sewage is treated in line with EU legislation in Latvia4.  

Groundwater 

It is worth noting that Latvia has not reported any significant pressure for almost half of groundwater 
bodies (48%). The biggest pressures on groundwater bodies comes from ‘abstraction -public water 
supply’ affecting one third of groundwater bodies. The second highest pressure identified in the 3rd 
RBMP  are  pollution  from  contaminated  sites/abandoned  industrial  sites,  pollution  from  waste 
disposal sites and abstraction from industry, affecting each almost 20% of groundwater bodies. It is 
worth noting here that in the 2nd RBMPs, Latvia did not report abstraction as significant pressure type 
and  the  percentage  of  bodies  affected  by  point  pollution  caused  by  waste  disposal  sites  was 
significantly lower (5%). 

4 https://water.europa.eu/freshwater/countries/uwwt/latvia  

11 

 
 
 
  
 
Comparing the three Baltic countries, Latvia seems to face more eutrophication problems and many 
water bodies are failing due to nutrient conditions5. 

It must be highlighted that some of the areas that face nutrients problem are the Gulf of Riga and 
the Baltic Sea. The latter has been one of the areas with most intensive international cooperation in 
the context of the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, or 
HELCOM. There are many pressures affecting the Baltic Sea, from resource extraction to pollution, 
eutrophication, largely  driven  by  excessive  inputs  of the  nutrients (nitrogen  and  phosphorus),  and 
climate  change.  These  accelerate  biodiversity  loss,  which  leads  to  severe  socio-economic 
consequences, for instance for tourism and fishing. In the context of HELCOM the necessary nutrient 
reduction loads have been estimated and Latvia needs to contribute with a significant amount6.  

According  to  the  2023  HELCOM  report7,  there  is  a  significant  increase  in  normalized  annual  net 
waterborne  total  nitrogen  inputs  to  Baltic  Sea  from  Latvia.  The  report  illustrates  nitrogen  and 
phosphorus input ceilings fulfilment for four transboundary rivers of Latvia. It states that only for the 
Daugava RBD reduction to the level of required by the total nitrogen input ceiling is almost8 fulfilled, 
while for the Lielupes and Ventas RBDs, a 50% or more reduction is needed (while unfortunately the 
trend is increasing instead of decreasing). For total phosphorus, the trend is decreasing in the three 
RBDs, however, none of the three RBDs meet the nitrogen input ceiling. The Gauja RBD is not assessed 
in this report. 

Latvia has not reported measures ‘to prevent or control the adverse impacts of invasive alien species 
and introduced diseases’, although it has been mapped among significant surface water pressures in 
the country. 

Impacts 

The most significant impact on surface water bodies is chemical pollution which affects almost all 
surface water bodies (99.5%). In the 2nd RBMPs, chemical pollution only impacted 4% of the SWBs, 
but it should be noted that the chemical status was then unknown for 85% of the water bodies. The 
second highest percentage, affecting almost 50% of SWBs, in the list of most significant impacts 
refers to both ‘altered habitats due to hydrological changes’ (3% in 2nd RBMPs) and ‘altered habitats 
due to morphological changes’ (26% in 2nd RBMPs). In the 2nd RBMPs, nutrient pollution was most 
significant impact (47%), now affecting only 35% of SWBs. Also, in the 2nd RBMPs for 26% of the 
SWBs Latvia was unable to identify the impact type. In the 3rd RBMPs, no SWB was identified with 
unknown impact, however 34% of the SWBs is impacted by ‘other’ impacts. 

For groundwater, in the 3rd RBMPs, 48 % of water bodies are reported to have no significant impact. 
The most significant impacts on groundwater bodies are water balance / lowering table affecting 32 
% of groundwater bodies, followed by chemical pollution (almost 25%) and nutrient pollution (around 
15%). Regrettably, this is a pronounced increase since the 2nd RBMPs (2015) where the only significant 
impact reported for groundwater bodies was unknown impact type that affected only less than one 
quarter of water bodies or 23%.  

5 EU Eutrophication Map. See: 
https://water.jrc.ec.europa.eu/portal/apps/dashboards/cb6034c2a75e4df282f8a62f90c16caa  
6 See: https://maps.helcom.fi/website/mapservice/index.html  
7 https://helcom.fi/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Nutrient-Input-Ceilings-assessment-1995-2020-technical-report.pdf  
8 According to Nutrient-input-ceilings-2021.pdf (helcom.fi) , the reduction target is approximately 250 tonnes TN for 
Daugava as the ceiling is in total 38 800 tonnes and the input (1997-2003) is 38 574 tonnes. 

12 

 
 
Environmental objectives 

Latvia sets environmental objectives in 3rd RBMPs, noting that chemical pollution affects all surface 
water  bodies  and  almost  one  quarter  of  groundwater  bodies.  Gaps  to  be  filled  to  achieve 
environmental objectives are reported for ten priority substances in some RBDs, including PFOS and 
its derivatives9. 

3. Policy elements contributing to biodiversity and 

climate change adaptation 

3.1 Surface Water: what is their ecological status or potential 

Monitoring 

Latvia performs three types of monitoring: surveillance, operational and investigative monitoring10. 
The latter is a new development in this cycle, as it has not been used in the previous implementation 
programmes. It is noted with concern that no surveillance monitoring was reported for coastal and 
transitional waters, as was already the case in the first and second plans. The surveillance monitoring 
covers only rivers and lakes, and it is worrying that gaps remain in the quality elements monitored 
for these two water categories (for example: despite the increase in monitoring of all quality elements 
some quality elements are completely missing; only part of river water bodies are monitored for all 
Biological  Quality  Elements;  for  general  physico-chemical  quality  elements  only  nitrogen  and 
phosphorus conditions are monitored for all water categories). No information was provided on the 
change in the number of surveillance monitoring sites, while for operational monitoring sites Latvian 
authorities indicated that 26% of inland surface water quality monitoring stations are assigned to 
operational monitoring, which have decreased by 83 % for lakes and 87 % for rivers as compared to 
the 2nd RBMPs.  

An overview of the coverage of surveillance and operational monitoring per surface water body type 
is shown in table 211. 

9 2027 is the compliance date. 
10 i) operational monitoring is to determine the status and which covers all water bodies at risk and ii) surveillance 
monitoring is aimed rather at identifying impacts and long-term changes. 
11 LV declared that operational monitoring is performed in 100% of coastal and transitional waters because CWBs and 
TWBs are not in good status. 

13 

 
 
Table 2. Coverage of surveillance and operational monitoring per surface water body (in area and length). 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

It is positive that more quality elements are being monitored and used for classification than in the 
2nd RBMPs. However, hydromorphological quality elements are monitored in lakes and rivers12, but 
not for coastal waters. Thus, it appears that the implementation of monitoring and classification is 
still not complete. 

However, it is important to highlight that Latvia is monitoring River Basin Specific Pollutants (RBSPs) 
for  all  water  body  types.  The  number  of  river  and  lake  water  bodies  monitored  for  RBSPs  has 
significantly increased in comparison to the 2nd RBMPs (even considering the doubling of rivers after 
re-delineation), as shown in Table 2. Another development is that territorial waters are now monitored 
for  RBSPs  which  was  not  done  in  the  1st  and  2nd  RBMPs  because  territorial  waters  were  not  yet 
delineated and reported in the 1st and 2nd cycle.  

Table 3. RBSPs monitored in water bodies in the 2nd and 3rd RBMPs. 

RBSPs monitored in water bodies 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Coastal  Transitional  Territorial 

Number of water bodies monitored in 3rd RBMPs  
(number of sites in brackets) 

492 (50)  276 (267) 

5 (20) 

3 (8) 

4 (2) 

Number of water bodies monitored in 2nd RBMPs 

64 

36 

4 

3 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Status 

Based  on  the  reported  data,  the  comparison  between  2nd  RBMPs  and  3rd  RBMPs  suggests  a 
considerable  improvement  regarding  the  ecological status/ecological  potential  of  the  Latvian  780 

12 To be noted that LV authorities indicated that methodological documents have been published in 2023 re assessment of 
hydromorphological status of lakes and rivers. 

14 

 
 
 
 
surface water bodies: from 19.8% good status (2015) to 30.8% good status (2021). The percentage 
of surface water bodies in moderate, poor, and bad status for the current cycle decreased. Figure 2 
below shows the evolution along the three different planning cycles. It is also noted positively that 
confidence of the classification of ecological status and potential has improved since the 2nd RBMPs. 
This means that the evaluation is now much more accurate than in the past when more water bodies 
had  been  assessed  with  low  confidence.  At  the  same  time,  it  should  be  highlighted  that  site 
rearrangements in monitoring stations and the notable changes in the delineation of the water bodies 
(such as doubling of the total number of river water bodies) hampers a lot the comparability of the 
data between the cycles. 

Gap to target 

Against this background, it seems that the achievement of objectives is postponed from 2021 to 
2027 for most water bodies, as Latvia expects 74% of the water bodies will be in good by 2027. 
Nevertheless,  there  are  still  water  bodies  which  are  envisaged  not  to  achieve  good  ecological 
status/potential by 2027 (26%).  

Figure 2. Ecological status/potential of SWBs in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd RBMPs  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

3.2 Hydromorphological changes and artificialization (HMWBs and AWBs) 

Heavily modified water bodies (HMWBs) are bodies of water which, because of physical alterations 
by  human  activity,  are  substantially  changed  in  character  and  cannot,  therefore,  meet  "good 
ecological status" (GES). Artificial water bodies (AWB) are water bodies created by human activity. 
Instead  of  "good  ecological  status",  the  environmental  objective  for  HMWB  and  for  AWB  is  good 
ecological potential (GEP). GEP considers the physical modification of water bodies and its impact on 
biological quality elements in the status assessment and can be translated as setting lower objectives 
than for natural water bodies which need to achieve good ecological status. 

Characterisation 

15 

 
 
 
 
In Latvia, the level of human intervention remains fairly low, and the large majority of water bodies 
are natural (figure 3). In fact, after re-delineation, only 37 rivers are designated as heavily modified, 
corresponding to 7.5% of total  river water bodies (compared to 13.3% in the 2nd RBMPs). On the 
contrary, the number of heavily modified lake water bodies has increased from 4 (1.5%) in the 2nd 
RBMPs to 12 (4.3%).  As regards artificial waters, there are 9 artificial river water bodies (1.8% of all 
river water bodies) and two lakes (0.7%) in 3rd RBMPs, while in the previous cycle no artificial water 
bodies had been reported. This change is explained by the fact that in this cycle, reservoirs have been 
included in the lake category instead of river category, but for HMWB it is difficult to analyse trends 
due  to  re-delineation  of  water  bodies.  None  of  the  coastal  and  territorial  waters  are  reported  as 
heavily modified or artificial. No information is provided on territorial waters. 

Figure 3. Percentage of heavily modified and artificial water bodies per category and total  

10%

0%

Rivers

Lakes

Transitional

Coastal

Territorial

Total

Heavily modified

Artificial

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

The reasons for designating water bodies as HMWBs are agriculture (impacting 57% of HMWBs), 
energy-hydropower (impacting around 37 % of HMWBs) and transport (impacting 20% of HMWBs). 
There is no information included on activities for which surface water bodies have been designated 
as artificial. Only ‘other’ reasons were reported in WISE. 

Mitigation measures  

The  assessment  of  the  3rd  RBMPs  reveals  that  a  new  methodology  for  the  assessment  of  good 
ecological potential (GEP) was considered compared to the previous cycle by using some BQEs and 
general physico-chemical quality elements, but the definition of good ecological potential has not 
significantly changed since previous planning periods. The assessment also notes that it was not clear 
whether  there  is  a  library  of  mitigation  measures  specifically  compiled  to  define  good  ecological 
potential. Also, there are limitations on how data on fish will be available in the future. However, the 
Latvian authorities indicated that more detailed information on measures for heavily modified and 
artificial water bodies can be found in the RBMPs background documents. In general, the methodology 
is an improvement over the 1st and 2nd RBMPs. Of all heavily modified and artificial water bodies, only 
7% is in good ecological potential, while the remainder has the following status: 75% in moderate, 
13% in poor, and 5% in bad ecological potential. 

16 

 
 
3.3 Groundwater bodies - have they sufficient water – quantitative status 

Latvia  made  extensive  changes  to  the  delineation  of  its  groundwater  bodies  in  3rd  RBMPs  with 
significant impacts on number (from 16 to 25 GWBs, an increase of 56%), area (increase of total are 
of 46%) and boundaries. This makes it is difficult to compare findings with previous cycles. 

Monitoring   

It is noted positively that most groundwater bodies (GWBs) are subject to quantitative monitoring 
covering 95.2 % of the total groundwater body area and that in this 3rd RBMP cycle there has been 
an  increased  in  the  number  of  monitoring  sites  for  quantitative  monitoring  (from  292  in  the  2nd 
RBMPs to 305 now, a 4% increase). The confidence in the assessment of the quantitative status of 
groundwater bodies is at is prevalently at medium level and it has slightly decreased from 100% in 
the 2nd RBMPs to 96%. The rest 4% is characterised as low confidence. 

Groundwater  associated  aquatic  ecosystems  (GWAAEs)  and  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial 
ecosystems  (GWDTEs)  have  not  been  reported  and  were  not  considered  in  the  assessment  of 
groundwater quantitative status in any RBD since a list such ecosystems was only finalised after the 
adoption of the 3rd RBMPs13. Latvia declared that saline intrusion has been considered in the status 
assessment  in  those  GWBs  where  water  abstraction  is  recognized  as  a  significant  pressure  (and 
consequently  the  presence  of  salt  intrusions).  This  is  however  not  included  in  the  quantitative 
assessment, whereas under chemical status chlorides are assessed as the main substance causing 
failure to achieve a good chemical status (see 4.2). 

Quantitative Status  

In the 3rd RBMP, all GWBs were assessed in good quantitative status, as it was the case also in the 
2nd RBMPs (Figure 4). This may be optimistic as the needs of associated and dependent ecosystems 
are not yet included. 

Gap to target 

Based on the data reported, all groundwater bodies are expected to remain in good status by 2027. 
However, it is of concern that almost one third of groundwater bodies which are currently at good 
status are at risk of losing good quantitative status. In the 2nd RBMPs, no groundwater body was at 
risk of failing to achieve good quantitative status. 

13 Latvia declared that a full list of GWAAEs and GWTDEs in Latvia has been finalized shortly after the development and 
approval of the initial version of 3rd cycle RBMPs, in 2022. 

17 

 
 
Figure 4. Quantitative status of groundwater bodies in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd RBMP  

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

3.4 Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) 

There  are  different types and  reasons  why  certain water  bodies  are  protected  under  the  law.  For 
surface water bodies, protected areas have been designated under the Drinking Water, Bathing Water, 
Habitats  and  Birds  Directives  as  well  as  for  areas  designated  for  the  protection  of  economically 
significant aquatic species (e.g. aquaculture). Protected areas cover 18.2% of Latvia’s territory while 
the  EU  average  is  26.4%14.  In  3rd  RBMPs,  it  seems  that  Latvia  has  not  reported  Protected  Areas 
designated under all relevant Directives. Information on the number of protected areas reported in 
WISE has been identified only for Water Framework Directive, EU Birds and Habitats Directives, and 
Drinking Water Directive and not under the Bathing Waters Directive, Nitrates Directive and Urban 
Wastewater Treatment Directive. 

Monitoring 

Table 3 shows the number of protected areas in Latvia (2021) per type of protected area and type 
of associated water body.  

14 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/edn-20220521-1 and 
https://biodiversity.europa.eu/countries/latvia  

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4. Number of water bodies associated with protected areas in Latvia per type. 

Protected Area type 

Number of Water Bodies Associated with Protected Areas in 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Coastal15 

Transitional 

Groundwater 

Drinking water protection area 

1 

2416 

Freshwater fish designated water 

117 

45 

Natura 2000 protected site 

102 

40 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

The information on the number of monitoring sites used per type of protected area is presented in 
Table 4. 

Table 5. Number of monitoring sites associated with protected areas per type. 

Protected Area type 

Number of monitoring sites associated with protected areas  

Rivers 

Lakes 

Groundwater 

Drinking water protection area 

Freshwater fish designated water 

105 

Natura 2000 protected site 

69 

Total 

174 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

2 

48 

41 

91 

326 

326 

15 LV comment: The RBMPs include the description of nature protected areas in CWBs and TWBs (section 2.5.2, 3.8.2 of 
the RBMPs). Information regarding these protected areas was not included in the electronic report by mistake. 
16 LV comment: There are drinking water protection areas identified in all 25 GWBs. In the electronic report, information on 
the GWB F4 was not included by mistake. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Status 

The status assessment of all protected areas reported has been carried out (Figure 5). Since the 2nd 
RBMP, the ecological status of surface water bodies associated with protected areas has improved 
since a large share of water bodies associated with protected areas changed from a moderate to 
good  status.  The  share  of  water  bodies  in  high  status  remained  approximately  the  same.  The 
chemical status has worsened because all surface water bodies associated with protected areas are 
in poor chemical status, while there was still around 17% of water bodies associated with protected 
areas in good status in 2016 (and approx. 78% in unknown status). The chemical status for GWBs in 
this  cycle  has  followed  a  downward  trend  from  100%  to  80%  in  good  status  compared  to  the 
previous cycle, while the quantitative status remained the same.  

Figure 5. Status of water bodies associated with protected areas for the 3rd RBMPs. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

The  3rd  RBMPs  include  general  information  related  to  additional  objectives  for  protected  areas  in 
Latvia, but not for specific measures such as for drinking water protected areas and measures under 
the Birds Directive. 

3.5 What is being done to prevent/reduce hydromorphological pressures 

In  Latvia’s  3rd  RBMPs,  significant  hydromorphological  pressures  are  clearly  assigned  to  specific 
sectors, especially to agriculture, hydropower and navigation. There has been a marked progress with 
respect to definition and implementation of hydrological measures in all RBDs. In fact, measures to 
address significant hydromorphological pressures are reported for all RBDs. More precisely, the 3rd 
RBMPs  include  restoration  and  mitigation  measures  such  as  removal  of  barriers/demolishing  old 
dams, construction of fish ladders, establishment of ecological flows, addressing hydromorphological 
alterations  by  restoring  riverbanks  and  bed  structures,  reviewing  of  permit  conditions  to  control 
hydromorphological modifications in all RBDs, preparation of new regulations and act amendments. 

20 

 
 
There is also a register of anthropogenic barriers on water bodies. There are currently 1137 different 
types of man-made dams on Latvian rivers17.  

It should be noted that abolishment of beaver dams was also proposed as a measure for restoring 
river continuity in Latvia, however this cannot be interpreted as a mitigation measure to achieve or 
maintain good ecological status under the WFD. 

is  encouraging  that  all  technical  feasible  supplementary  measures  aiming  to  tackle 
It 
hydromorphological pressures (barriers and land melioration) are subjected to the analysis of costs 
and effectiveness by using a multi-criteria analysis (MCA). 

Latvia deserves credit for (partly) considering previous Commission recommendations on addressing 
hydromorphological pressures in the context of implementing ecological flows. It is indeed positive 
that Latvia has developed – jointly with Estonia – a methodology for ecological flows, even though 
this will only be implemented in the 4th RBMPs. Ecological flows are considered within the context of 
the WFD as “a hydrological regime consistent with the achievement of the environmental objectives 
of  the  WFD  in  natural  surface  water  bodies  as  mentioned  in  Article  4(1)”.  Assessment  of  the 
hydrological regime is not only compulsory under the WFD for assigning high ecological status to 
SWB, but also plays an important role for water permits.  

It is also positive that Latvia has made good use of the European Union’s LIFE programme to reduce 
hydromorphological pressures. For instance, under the LIFE project “Implementation of management 
plans for Latvian river basins to achieve good surface water status”, works to reduce the impact of 
hydromorphological  transformation  at  Slocene  and  Vašleja  watercourses  have  been  recently 
completed (2024)18. 

3.6 What Latvia is doing for abstractions and water scarcity 

As  mentioned  earlier,  in  its  3rd  RBMPs  Latvia  reported  that  there  are  eight  groundwater  bodies 
currently in good quantitative status that are at risk of failing good status by 2027 due to water 
abstractions for public water supply and industrial purposes. In the previous cycle, no groundwater 
body had been reported to be affected by significant abstractions.  

Since  2000,  the  share  of  water  abstraction  from  groundwater  compared  to  total  abstraction 
increased from 38% (2000) to 50% (2019) (Figure 6). However, absolute groundwater stayed fairly 
the same, while the absolute abstracted amount of surface water decreased quite significantly, as 
illustrated in the following Figure 6. Since 2014, the total water abstraction increased again. 

17 https://irp.cdn-website.com/53007095/files/uploaded/CCB_Report_Latvia_barriers_for_removal_March2021.pdf  
18 https://goodwater.lv/en/slocene-and-vasleja-have-been-restored/#more-2289  

21 

 
 
Figure 6. Annual water abstraction (groundwater and surface water) in Latvia, 2000-201919. 

In the 2nd RBMPs 5 surface water bodies in Latvia (2% of SWBs) were still reported to be subject to 
significant abstraction pressures (public water supply and other causes), whereas the 3rd RBMPs water 
abstraction  no  longer  identifies  surface  water  bodies  as  being  under  significant  pressure  from 
abstractions. 

Figure 7 shows the water abstraction (million m3 water) by economic sector from 2000-2019 based 
on data from the EEA, Eurostat and the OECD. The same trend of total water abstraction is visible. In 
general, water abstraction for manufacturing and public water supply have decreased, while water 
for agriculture has increased. 

Figure 7. Water abstraction (million m3 water) by economic sector from 2000-201920 

19 Source: https://water.europa.eu/freshwater/countries/water-resources/latvia  
20 Water abstraction by economic sector, 2000-2019 — European Environment Agency (europa.eu) However, note that 
conventional statistic abstraction data of Eurostat, EEA and OECD exclude water disappearing after abstraction via 
leakages or evaporation from the surfaces of reservoirs and canals. Leakage and evapotranspiration losses can however 
be significant in MSs with many reservoirs and/or older distribution systems, as is illustrated by French data. Page 14, 
French analytical note on total water consumption (incl. evapotranspiration and losses) adding up to 54.000 million m3 
abstracted, instead of 30.000 million m3 used: https://www.strategie.gouv.fr/sites/strategie.gouv.fr/files/atoms/files/fs-
2024-na_136_enjeux_et_usages_de_leau_avril.pdf  

22 

 
 
 
 
It is unclear how to interpret these data. One explanation of the trend could be that Latvia’s public 
water utilities have shifted abstractions from surface water bodies (generally polluted)  to ground 
waterbodies (purer water quality).  

The  3rd  RBMPs  include  measures  under  Art  11  (3)  addressing  water  abstraction  monitoring  and 
control  in  drinking  water  protected  areas  and  research  and  knowledge  building,  but  there  are  no 
specific measures reported in the PoMs to control groundwater abstractions. But the effectiveness of 
measures cannot be estimated since no information has been provided on the gap to achieve the 
objectives in 2027. On the contrary, six exemptions have been applied under Art 4(5) on grounds of 
technical  infeasibility  in  which  abstraction  was  reported  as  significant  pressure  on  groundwater 
bodies. 

Latvia’s legal regime foresees a permitting system to regulate water abstractions. Latvian authorities 
keep  a record of issued,  as well as temporarily suspended and amended permits and refusals to 
grant a permit. Conformity of permit’s conditions is checked by the competent authority21. However, 
water  permits  are  generally  issued  for  unlimited  time  given  that  water  abstraction  is  generally 
perceived as not significant pressures. Furthermore, it is not clear whether permit requirements are 
reviewed systematically.  

There  is  a  register  of  abstractions  from  surface  water  and  groundwater  and  a  register  of 
impoundments. Small abstractions are defined with certain thresholds and those under the threshold 
are exempted from controls. 

3.7 Adaptation to climate change 

Climate change is increasingly affecting the Baltic Sea region, too. The impacts of climate change are 
nevertheless  covered  only  partly  in  the  Latvian  3rd  RBMPs.  The  main  focus  being  on  modelling 
potential  climate  change  impacts  on  water  quality  (i.e.  changes  in  the  concentration  of  biogenic 
substances), flood risk, and changes in the species composition of the aquatic environment. The 3rd 
RBMP include limited assessment on the impacts of climate change on water resources (drought/ 
scarcity conditions). A national Climate Change Adaptation Development Plan is in place to which the 
Latvian RBMPs refer in a separate section which outlines tasks related to water management up to 
2030. Some climate change adaptation measures are mentioned in 3rd RBMPs, particularly focusing 
on limiting the spread of invasive alien species, pests and pathogens and on further research.  

Latvia  has  been  affected by  droughts in  2018,  2019  and  2021,  with  impacts  largely  recorded  in 
relation to agricultural production (livestock, crops), public water supply and forest fires22. However, 
the country has not developed a Drought Management Plan and no drought management measures 
have been identified in the Latvian 3rd RBMPs. 

One  of  the  biggest  risks  associated  with  the  climate  change  in  Latvia  is  riverine  flooding,  and 
increasingly pluvial and coastal flooding triggered by increased precipitation and more frequent and 
severe  extreme  weather  events.  The  Floods  Directive  requires  to  consider  the  impacts  of  climate 
change on the occurrence of floods, and therefore in the preparation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps 

21 The State Environmental Service (Valsts Vides Dienests – VVD in Latvian). 
22 One of the effects of the 2018 spring drought (which was declared as a national disaster) was many forest fires 
resulting in the burning of a forested area more than ten times larger than the decade's average. As a result, an 
emergency situation was declared for one fourth of Latvian municipalities (https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2023-
12/10Nov_8TFAI_am_item%203%28a%29%20_No.1_Lativa_R.%20PRINDULIS.pdf) 

23 

 
 
(FHRMs)  and  Flood  Risk  Management  Plans  (FRMPs).  More  information  on  these  can  be  found  in 
Section B. However, considering the close relationship between overall water management and floods 
management and the importance of climate change effects on both, climate change effects are jointly 
addressed in this section.   

As noted above, Latvia has fully integrated its Flood Risk Management plans in the 3rd RBMPs as a 
single planning document with joint Programme of Measures. The impacts of climate change on flood 
risk have been considered in Latvia at the time of the second preliminary flood risk assessment. A 
comprehensive assessment of the impacts and causes of climate change and the identification of 
climate  change  risks  has  been  carried  out  from  2016  to  2017.  It  covered  the  following  sectors: 
agriculture and forestry, biodiversity and ecosystem services, tourism and spatial planning, health 
and well-being, construction and infrastructure, civil protection, and emergency planning. A detailed 
analysis of the most significant risks was performed for each sector. It is estimated that by the end 
of  the  century  the  probability  of  heavy  rainfall  and  floods  caused  by  heavy  rainfall  will  increase 
significantly. The scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were used as a 
basis for the future climate projections. 

While the impact of climate change was not considered in the preparation of the first Flood Hazard 
and Risk Maps (FHRMs), the second FHRMs consider flooding scenarios for the year 2100 taking into 
account climate modelling. The GIS-based geoportal maps include a separate map presenting fluvial 
floods and coastal foods scenarios for the year 2100 for the climate change scenario RCP 4.5, which 
is the moderate emissions scenario. 

The FRMPs state that while incidents of heavy rainstorms and sea storms are of growing concern, 
fluvial  floods  are  projected  to  decrease  by  10  to  15%  by  2040.  By  2100,  fluvial  flood  flows  are 
expected to decrease by 20 to 40%, and in some parts of the Daugava (LVDUBA) and Gauja (LVGUBA) 
Units of Managements (UoMs) by 43 to 56% under a severe climate change scenario. The changes 
in fluvial floods are linked to a trend that, by 2100, total annual precipitation for Latvia as a whole is 
projected to increase by 13 to 16%, or about 80 to 100 mm, under RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 scenarios, 
respectively (though as noted, heavy rainstorms are a growing concern). The FRMPs do not include 
specific  measures  that  directly  address  climate  change;  however,  all  flood  measures  have  been 
assessed for their coherence with national climate change policy and this assessment is used in the 
prioritisation of measures. The impact of climate change on the occurrence of floods has been taken 
into  consideration  in  the  second  FRMPs  of  all  UoMs.  The  FRMPs  also  refer  to  projected  climate 
impacts,  and  they  provide  references  to  research  studies  and  other  climate  work,  including  IPCC 
scenarios.  The  second  FRMPs  moreover  describe  coordination  with  the  National  Climate  Change 
Adaptation Strategy – the FRMPs includes a number of flood risk related measures integrated into 
second cycle FRMPs. In the FRMPs, measures were assessed for their relevance and consistency with 
the Strategy. 

4. Policy elements contributing to zero pollution 

4.1 Surface Water: what is their chemical status 

Monitoring  

Latvia monitors  only  a  small  percentage  of  its  surface  water bodies for  assessing  their  chemical 
status (low spatial monitoring coverage). Even more, there has been a decrease in the number of 

24 

 
monitored water bodies (from 15% of all water bodies in the 2nd cycle to 12%23 of all water bodies 
in the 3rd cycle). However, it should be noted that any direct comparison might be misleading, given 
to the delineation of water bodies and the high increase in the total number of water bodies in the 
3rd water cycle. On the other hand, more positively Latvia has expanded its monitoring to cover the 
additional  2  new  substances  included  under  the  EQS  Directive  in  2013.  However,  it  is  not  clear 
whether 40 or all the 45 substances of EU concern are being monitored.  

Status  

There has been no positive development in water status according to electronic reporting, since in 
2021 none of surface water bodies are in good status. This status characterisation was based on 
grouping because of the low spatial coverage of monitoring. To be noted that the 3rd RBMPs state 
that the status assessment has been based on the results of the monitoring campaigns carried out 
between  2015  and  2019.  This  result  seems  to  be  a  deterioration  considering  the  corresponding 
percentage  in  2015  (10.6%).  As  mentioned  above,  re-delineation  of  such  extend  hinders  direct 
comparison. Moreover, extended grouping depicts that the issue of “unknown” status has simply been 
managed by converting the water bodies with a low confidence to poor status. 

The  primary  substances  that  cause  failure  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  in  Latvia  are: 
polybrominated  diphenyl  ethers  (PBDEs),  polyaromatic  hydrocarbons  (PAHs)  (in  particular 
Benzo[a]pyrene), mercury, and heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide, which had exceedances in all four 
RBDs.  All  substances mentioned  are  ubiquitous,  Persistent,  Bioaccumulative  and  Toxic  substances 
(uPBTs) which have high resistance to degradation. Other substances that lead to bad chemical status 
are fluoranthene and anthracene (both part of the PAH family), which have exceedances in six water 
bodies. Without including uPBT substances in the assessment of chemical status, 99% of the surface 
water bodies would be in good status. That was also the case in the previous cycle. The Latvia PoMs 
include measures for the phasing-out of emissions and substances such as screening of priority and 
hazardous substances in wastewater discharges. Based on the results of the screening, there will be 
an additional national action called “Pollutants review of operating permits, including more extensive 
monitoring of both priority and hazardous substances in wastewater discharges and upstream and 
downstream of the discharges” to reduce discharges of the identified substances. 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  assessment  of  the  3rd  RBMPs  identified  that  confidence  ratings  for 
classification of chemical status have been low.  

23 As LV declared. 

25 

 
 
 
 
Figure 8. Chemical status for surface water bodies in 1st, 2nd,  and 3rd RBMP 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Gap to target  

Latvia expects all surface water bodies to fail good chemical status in 2027. 

4.2 Groundwater Bodies: what is their chemical status 

Monitoring 

Monitoring for assessing chemical status of groundwater bodies has an extended spatial coverage 
of 95.2% of the total groundwater body area, contrary to what it has been reported for surface water 
bodies. However, from this high percentage of 95.2% only 16% refers to operational monitoring. The 
number of surveillance and operational monitoring points decreased from 307 to 223 and from 26 
to 16, respectively. No explanation is provided in the RBMPs for this change and, therefore, it is unclear 
to assess if the surveillance monitoring network still provides a representable picture.   

Status 

Compared to 2015, when all groundwater bodies had been reported to be in good chemical status, 
the 3rd RBMPs report three groundwater bodies being assessed in poor chemical status (i.e., 12.0% 
of  the  total  number  of  groundwater  bodies),  which  is  a  deterioration  (Figure  9).  That  said,  the 
three groundwater bodies failing a good chemical status are very small in surface. All together do 
not exceed 63 km2 (i.e. <0.1% of total groundwater body area).  

More reason of concern is the expected downward trend. Latvia reported eleven groundwater bodies 
to be at risk of failing to achieve good chemical status by 2027 which would represent 44% of total 
groundwater bodies, including the three groundwater bodies already in poor chemical status as well 

26 

 
 
as eight more groundwater bodies, which are currently in good chemical status. Latvia reported that 
the reasons for failing to achieve good chemical status of groundwater bodies were ‘general water 
quality assessment’ and ‘saline or other intrusions’.  The latter could be caused by abstractions of 
groundwater, causing more saline sea water to intrude into the ground water bodies. Also, it can be 
expected that in the future climate change will cause sea level rise, thus further increasing saline 
intrusions. In the 2nd RBMP cycle, no groundwater body was at risk of failing to achieve good chemical 
status. Also worrying is the fact that Latvia’s overall confidence in the assessment of the chemical 
status of groundwater bodies has decreased compared to the previous period. 

Figure 9. Chemical status for groundwater bodies in 1st, 2nd and 3rd RBMP 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

As regards to pollutants causing failure to achieve good chemical status the top five are chloride, 
sulphate, anionic surfactants, sodium and total sum of trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene, see 
Figure 10.  

27 

 
 
 
Figure 10. Top-5 pollutants causing failure to achieve good chemical status for groundwater bodies. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Gap to target 

Latvia does not expect that the gap will decrease by 2027, to the contrary. The 3rd RBMP reported 
three GWB to fail good chemical status and Latvia expects that by 2027 this number could increase 
to eleven GWBs. This would amount to 44% of all GWBs.  

Latvia  reported  that  26  %  of  groundwater  bodies  are  affected  by  contaminated  sites/abandoned 
industrial sites and waste disposal sites. The percentages for those drivers were much lower (5%) in 
the 2nd RBMPs.  

The  Latvia  PoMs  include  measures,  amongst  others,  to  reduce  point  source  pollution  and  diffuse 
source  pollution  from  contaminated  sites  and  remediation  of  the  latter.  The  measures  are  site 
specific, linked to groundwater body bodies (and surface water bodies), and for few sites the financial 
sources have been committed. 

Latvia will need to tackle saline and other intrusions to prevent a deterioration of its groundwater 
bodies along the coast.  

4.3 What Latvia is doing to combat pollution from agriculture 

In  the  third  WFD  cycle  diffuse  pollution  from  agriculture  sources  was  assessed  as  a  significant 
pressure on groundwater, as it was already the case in the 2nd RBMPs. In the 3rd RBMPs around 30% 
of surface water bodies have diffuse nutrient pollution from agriculture as a significant pressure. In 
the previous cycle this percentage was higher (47%). Groundwater nitrate concentrations reflect the 
intensity of agricultural activity and its potential impact on freshwater water quality and pollution.  
EEA’s data reported under the Nitrates Directive shows that the majority (around 90%)  of nitrate 
concentrations in Latvian groundwater for the period 2016-2019 are below 25 mg/l (high quality 
under Nitrates Directive).  

To tackle pollution from agriculture (notably nutrient loads), the Latvian PoMs include quantitative 
management objectives in terms of nitrogen and phosphorous load reductions.  The Latvia PoMs also 
include measures foster sustainable use of pesticides aiming a reduction of their use and ensuring 

28 

 
protection of water bodies. However, for all measures related to pollution from agriculture, the source 
of funding is not provided, apart from the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)24.  

Currently, the share of organic farming in Latvia is 15.9% of agricultural land (2022)25. This is higher 
than the EU-average of  10.5% in 202226. Latvia’s CAP Strategic plan  for 2023-2027 is reserving 
budget to convert farmland to organic farming with the objective of 18.8% agricultural land subject 
to organic farming by 202727. 

A gap  assessment has been performed for load of nitrogen/phosphorus to be reduced to achieve 
objectives for 2027. Furthermore, there is data on the area (km2) of agricultural land where measures 
regarding the reduction of nutrient loads must be implemented. It is positive that the 3rd RBMPs refer 
to specific assessment of what the agricultural measures have achieved in the previous water cycle 
and all Latvian RBMPs present the reduction targets in tonnes/year for each water body.  

The  required  reductions  in  nitrogen  and  phosphorus  are  calculated  at  the  water  body  scale  per 
monitoring  station28.  However,  these  calculations  are  not  considering  upstream  reductions  (i.e.,  if 
upstream  action  is  taken,  downstream  action  may  be  less),  and  on  the  other  hand  they  are 
considering  the  retention of  substances in  water  bodies29.  The  share  of  reductions  for  agriculture 
varies between 55% and 78% of the total management target for nitrogen. For phosphorous the 
estimated reductions required by agriculture are on average 70% of the total estimated need for 
load  reduction.  It  is  clear  from  the  PoMs  that  Latvia  gives  attention  to  acquire  a  more  complete 
information on the sources of loads affecting the WBs, their load levels and load reduction options.  

The calculations indicate that the implementation of all the agricultural measures in the water bodies 
would  not  close  the  gap. The  data indicate  that  planned  measures  will  cover around  60%  of  the 
estimated need for reduction of nitrogen from agricultural sources. For phosphorous, the assessment 
indicates that the planned measures will deliver around 70% of needed reduction in the load. The 
RBMPs state that to achieve the needed reductions, a reduction of more than 45% of the existing 
load nitrogen and 55% for phosphorus would be required.30 

Basic measures are planned to be paid by the national budget, CAP or farmers. Information on how 
the supplementary measures will be financed is not explicitly given neither in the RBMPs nor in the 
PoMs, although potential financial sources are discussed in the background document of economic 
analysis of measures for water bodies at risk. 

As regards transboundary cooperation against pollution from agriculture, there is cooperation with 
Estonia. Since Latvia is part of HELCOM, it is worth noting that agriculture is one of the core areas of 
HELCOM operations. The major reductions of nutrient inputs from farming, as well as the introduction 
of measures to curtail phosphorus and nitrogen losses, are both stipulated in the Baltic Sea Action 

24 “Mapping and analysis of CAP strategic plans” (2023-2027)  the link Mapping and Analysis of CAP Strategic Plans - 
European Commission (europa.eu) 
25 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/sdg_02_40/default/table?lang=en  
26 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Developments_in_organic_farming&oldid=629504  
27 At a glance: Latvia’s CAP Strategic Plan (europa.eu) 
28 Note, this information is only based on the methodology used in the Daugava RBD, since the rest of the RBDs have not 
been described. 
29 LV comment: Calculation of the reduction of pressures includes also the retention of nitrogen and phosphorus in 
surface waters. In the calculations, empirical coefficients are used (from Behrendt and Opitz, 1999). 
30 Mapping and Analysis of CAP Strategic Plans - European Commission (europa.eu) 

29 

 
 
Plan  (2007,  revised  in  2021)  and  the  Baltic  Sea  Regional  Nutrient  Strategy  (2021)31.  Also,  it  is 
welcomed that transboundary loads are considered in the estimation of the nutrient loads. 

4.4 What Latvia is doing to combat pollution from other sectors 

As regards tackling pollution from non-agricultural sources such as urban and industrial discharges, 
all 3rd RBMPs include a set of measures to control of point source discharges. It is welcomed that in 
the 3rd RBMPs there is a considerable number of measures related to the control of urban wastewater 
pollution  and  industrial  wastewater  pollution  and  restoration  of  contaminated  sides.  Moreover, 
additional measures have been put in place to reduce pollution of priority and hazardous substances, 
both  for  individual  water  bodies  and  at  national  level,  such  as  identifying  sources  of  heptachlor, 
heptachlor epoxide, and mercury and means to reduce their concentrations. However, for some cases, 
included information on measures do not refer to specific assessment of what respective measures 
have  achieved  in  the  previous  water  cycle  plans.  Thus,  is  does  not  include  an  estimation  of  the 
efficiency of the measures already taken, allowing the quantification of the gap (contrary to measures 
combatting pollution from agriculture).  

As regards to transboundary cooperation, there is no common PoM on the iRBDs. Also, the national 
RBMPs do not provide sufficient information on the scope of the different cooperation agreements. 

4.5 What Latvia is doing to combat significant pressures – overall 

assessment of the Programmes of Measures 

Most of Latvia’s significant pressures are covered by KTMs in the programme of measures.  

Latvia reported measures for all 4 RBDs against all KTMs except for the following: 
•  KTM9 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water 

services from households; 

•  KTM10 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water 

services from industry; 

•  KTM11 – Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water 

services from agriculture; 

•  KTM12 – Advisory services for agriculture; 
•  KTM18  -  Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  adverse  impacts  of  invasive  alien  species  and 

introduced diseases; 

•  KTM25 – Measures to counteract acidification. 

There are 488 basic measures and 647 supplementary  measures. Almost a quarter of measures 
(23%)  have  been  assigned  to  KTM14  -  Research,  improvement  of  knowledge  base  reducing 
uncertainty,  a  further  16%  of  measures  have  been  assigned  to  a  KTM99  category  (Measures  to 
prevent various pressures that cannot be classified under any specific KTM on list).  The remainder of 
the measures are split between the other used KTM categories with shares varying between 1-10%. 
All KTMs that have been mapped against significant surface water pressures (Table A.2 of Annex A) 
have been mapped to basic and/or supplementary measures (Table 9.1). All groundwater pressures 
are mapped against KTMs which have either basic or supplementary measures mapped against them. 

31 https://helcom.fi/action-areas/agriculture/  

30 

 
 
 
 
Latvia conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis for some measures at the basin/sub-basin/water body 
scale. An economic analysis was conducted for hydromorphological pressures, diffuse pollution loads 
and point source pollution loads in all RBDs.  

5. Exemptions and economics 

5.1 To what extent are exemptions applied in Latvia 

Latvia applies a significant number of exemptions and for several types of exemptions the number 
has considerably increased compared to the previous cycle. However, it should be noted again that 
the  number  of  water bodies  in Latvia  has increased  significantly between  the  2nd  and  3rd  RBMPs, 
preventing a direct comparison with the previous cycle. 

Regarding Art 4(4):  Latvia invokes the exemption of Article 4(4) WFD to justify non-achievement 
of good chemical status for 524 SWBs (67% of all SWBs). Latvia more specifically invoked “natural 
conditions” for the majority of them and “technical infeasibility” for a few water bodies. The main 
driver behind the Article 4(4) exemption is diffuse -atmospheric deposition. In the previous cycle, for 
the application of Article 4(4) in SWBs, the number of exemptions was much lower (10%). For GWBs, 
Latvia did not report exemptions as done in the previous cycle. Regrettably, the 3rd RBMPs do not 
include any detailed justification on the reasons to invoke the  Art 4(4) exemptions at the surface 
water body level, but only a list informing generally about the reasons. 

Regarding Art 4(5): Latvia invokes the exemption of Article 4(5) WFD to justify non achievement 
of good ecological status for four SWBs, and of good chemical status for two GWBs. Latvia more 
specifically  invoked  “technical  infeasibility”  for  a  few  water  bodies.  The  main  drivers  behind  the 
application of Article 4(5) exemptions are historical pollution for surface waters and ‘abstraction and 
water supply for citizens and industry’ for groundwaters. In the previous cycle, for the application of 
Article 4(5) in SWBs, the number of exemptions was low, too (two SWBs).  

It is positively noted that no exemptions seem to have been applied on grounds of force majeure or 
unforeseeable events (Art 4(6)). The plans also do not report any use of exemptions under Article 
4(7) to justify deterioration or non-achievement of good status as a result of new modifications or 
new sustainable human development projects. 

Regarding  Article  6(3)  of  the  Groundwater  Directive:  It  has  been  reported  as  part  of  the 
electronic reporting, for  one groundwater body in Daugava RBD for chemical  status for reason of 
artificial recharge. 

Figure 11 depicts the type of exemptions applied to surface water and groundwater bodies for the 
3rd RBMPs in Latvia. 

31 

 
 
 
Figure 11. Exemptions applied to Latvia’s water bodies in the 3rd RBMPs. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting   

5.2 Use of economic analysis and water pricing – cost recovery 

All four RBMPs report on the results of the economic analysis which has been carried out at the hand 
of a common methodology, and the improvements in this analysis vis-à-vis those in the 2nd RBMP. 

The economic analysis covers a part of the elements requested by WFD Annex III. There are long term 
forecasts for water use as proxy for water demand, but no matching long term forecasts for water 
supply. The latter may indicate that the Latvian authorities have not considered water quantity as a 
significant issue, despite the RBMPs reporting water abstraction pressures on a considerable share 
of  groundwater  bodies.  There  are  costs  estimates  for  the  most  significant  water  user  sectors, 
including  agriculture,  collective  (drinking)  water  supply  (hence  household  and  manufacturing 
industry), hydropower and aquaculture, but no price estimates and water volume estimates only for 
industry and households.  

The  Annexes  to  the  RBMPs  contain  the  2021–2027  investment  plans  for  wastewater  treatment 
plants and drinking water supply facilities, reflecting a total of about EUR 1 100 million investments.  
However, the RBMPs  seem to provide only some qualitative indications of investment needs after 
2027. The investment figures have been part of the comprehensive costing of the measures included 
in the Programme of Measures. 

Cost-effectiveness  analysis  (CEA)  has  informed  the selection  of  some domains  on  supplementary 
measures, including on the abatement of nutrient pollution form point sources (urban wastewater) 
and from diffuse sources (agriculture). For some other domains, other cost assessment methods have 
been used to select the appropriate measures. For instance, for hydromorphological pressures (dams 
and land amelioration) a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) has been used to find the adequate measures 
with minimal costs. 

32 

 
 
The RBMPs do not state whether the water pricing in place provides adequate incentives for efficient 
water  use,  but  based  on  the  provided  information  on  water  prices,  it  seems  that  existing  pricing 
policies  provide  limited to  modest  incentives.  The  reports do  not  inform  about  the  rates  of  water 
tariffs and how they are determined but provide some qualitative information on the tariff structure.  
It appears that on the basis of a national price regulation framework, municipalities set the fee for 
the collective water services (drinking water supply and sanitary services) applying a uniform unit 
rate across all user groups in their remit, thus with possible variation across different regions. The 
water meters are cited as an incentive device for efficient water use, but where they are absent, the 
water  bill  is  determined  at  the  hand  of  household  areas  (price  per  square  meter),  and  thus 
independent of actual consumption volume. A natural resource tax or permit fee is paid for abstracted 
volume  for  users  who  have  a  permit,  but  some  sectors  are  exempted  from  this  fee  (such  as 
aquaculture in pond systems) and other may be exempt from the permit system altogether.  

The RBMPs do not report on financial cost recovery rates, providing instead a qualitative description 
of the various cost components, revenues and subsidies. Thus, it is not clear which revenues have 
been taken on board in the calculations, and how the financial support and depreciation / capital costs 
have been accounted for.  

In addition, the RBMPs appear to lack a general account as to whether the various water uses and 
water user sectors provide an adequate contribution to water services’ costs. The RBMPs argue that 
uniform tariffs across all user groups ensure a proper contribution of water users to the costs of the 
collective  supply  of  drinking  water  and  sanitation  services.  Some  problems  as  regards  adequate 
contributions  are  flagged  such  as  blanket  price  exemption  for  some  user  groups,  but  the  overall 
picture remains unclear, also because the RBMPs do not report on the application of the mitigation 
factor to cost recovery as mentioned in article 9 of the WFD. 

The  RBMPs  do  not  provide  overall  estimates  of  the  environmental  costs.  Instead,  they  state  that 
natural resource tax revenues are assumed to cover these costs, but this is not backed up by strong 
evidence that the tax rates in question adequately reflect the costs of the actual pollution. In addition, 
the RBMPs acknowledge that some water uses and water users do not contribute to the recovery of 
the environmental costs. 

As regards the application of the polluter-pays-principle, the RBMPs lacks a satisfactory elaboration, 
as they merely refer to the pricing and costing arrangements as corroboration, but without any link 
to  the  pressures  and  impacts  assessment.  However,  the  gaps  and  exemption  mentioned  above 
strongly  suggest  that  further  improvements  are  possible  in  the  application  of  the  polluter-pays-
principle. 

6. WFD recommendations 

Recommendations - Latvia should: 

1.  Accelerate action and enhance the overall level of ambition for restoring to good ecological status/potential 
and chemical status of ground and surface waters to reduce the compliance gap as much as possible by 
2027. This presupposes that Latvia: 

33 

 
a)  Adopts more specific and more targeted measures to reduce the pollution of its ground and surface 
water bodies and regularly reviews the effectiveness of existing and future measures to establish a 
feedback loop between measures taken and impacts achieved to allow for continuous improvements; 

b)  Continues its efforts in promoting compliance with implementation of measures to reduce risks related 

to, in particular, diffuse agricultural and atmospheric pollution; 

c)  Gears up measures to achieve a good ecological potential for all 37 river water bodies which Latvia 
designated  as  heavily  modified,  through  restoration  and  mitigation  measures  such  as  removal  of 
barriers/demolishing old dams, construction of fish ladders, restoring riverbanks and bed structures, 
and the review of permit conditions. adopts measures to significantly reduce abstraction from ground 
water bodies that are affected by saline intrusion from the Baltic Sea; 

2.  Regarding the use of economic tools, funding and cost-recovery for water services: 

a)  Report  on  water  tariff  rates,  cost  recovery  level,  financial  costs  of  water  services,  revenues,  and 
subsidies.  The  costs  of  the  water  services  and  relevant  investments  and  forecasts  should  also  be 
reported in quantitative terms; 

b)  Provide evidence that the Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) has been incorporated by providing an overview 
if water user sectors provide an adequate contribution to the costs of water services by linking the 
cost-recovery principle to the pressures and impacts assessment; 

c)  Provide additional information on the source of funding (public and private) for the implementation of 
the PoM to ensure adequate financing. Latvia should indicate if they plan on using  EU funding, as 
recommended in the 2nd RBMPs; 

d)  Based on such an enhanced economic analysis, identify measures to incentivise more efficient water 
use, including as a first step metering coverage and permit regimes, as well as a wider application of 
the PPP; 

3.  Regarding additional measures to reduce the existing challenges and pressures: 

a)  Ensure  that  all  basic  measures  are  mapped  against  KTMs;  and  be  more  specific  in  defining  the 
necessary  measures  in  the  PoM  to  be  able  to  assess  how the  gap  is  addressed  in more detail;  In 
particular  address  the  gap  in  relation  to  no  measures  identified  for  basic  measure  -  ‘Recharge  or 
augmentation groundwaters’, Article 11(3)(f) WFD; 

b)  Conduct a comprehensive gap assessment for pollutant loads from other sources than agriculture. This 
will allow Latvia to better prioritise its measure and address all point pollutions with concrete key types 
of measures; 

c)  Map specific measures to better control groundwater abstractions and reduce pressures from public 
water supply and (as a consequence of increased abstractions) saline (and other) intrusions from the 
Baltic Sea; 

d) 

Improve the groundwater chemical status assessment methodology, including: inclusion of per- and 
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), pharmaceuticals carbamazepine, sulfamethoxazole, and primidone, 
and non-relevant metabolites of pesticides in operational monitoring; consider GWAAEs, GWDTEs and 
saline or other intrusions in the establishment of threshold values and the assessment of groundwater 
chemical status in all RBDs; coordination of threshold values with neighboring countries; consideration 
of background levels for naturally occurring substances in the development of the respective threshold 
values in all RBDs; details on how the baseline levels for substances, which occur both naturally and 
from  anthropogenic  sources, are  considered  as  part  of  trends  assessment;  details  on  how  upward 
trends are distinguished from natural variation with an adequate level of confidence and precision; 

34 

 
development  and  implementation  of  trend  reversal  methodology;  information  on  the  principles  of 
monitoring programs used for trend assessment. 

4.  As regards adaptation to climate change and water scarcity: 

a)  Ensure that water authorities avoid issuing permits of unlimited duration and/or conduct periodical 
reviews of water permits to assess whether such permits must be adapted to ensure compliance with 
Article 4 WFD; 

b)  Consider developing Drought Management Plans since Latvia has been affected by droughts in 2018, 

2019 and 2021 and/or drought management measures; 

c)  Analyse profoundly the risk of sea level rise and the increase of saline pressures on ground water 
bodies along the coast, and the need to reduce abstractions from ground water to counter the increase 
of pressures; exchange good practices with other EU Member States affected by saline intrusion; 

5.  Regarding transboundary cooperation: 

a)  Provide sufficient information about the scope of the different cooperation agreements in the national 

RBMPs; 

b)  Work on establishing a joint PoM for all International RBDs; 

6.  Regarding the use of exemptions: 

a)  Ensure a better and more transparent justifications of time related exemptions under Article 4(4) and 

of lowered objectives under Article 4(5) WFD; 

b)  Ensure that all measures necessary for achieving good status or potential by end of 2027 are identified 
and initiated (implemented) during this cycle, to avoid unjustified time exemptions beyond 2027 (i.e. 
other  than  exemptions  based  on  natural  conditions)  or  an  unjustified  conversion  to  Article  4(5) 
exemptions 
than  based  on  objectively  established  disproportionate 
costs/unfeasibility after identification of all measures necessary to achieve good status); 

(i.e.  other 

in  2027 

7.  Regarding the classification, monitoring and assessment problems: 

a)  Continue  its  efforts  to  establish  reference  conditions  for  hydromorphological  quality  elements  in 
particular for transitional and coastal waters and to monitor all quality elements in general for all 
water categories; 

b)  Continue to improve the definition of Good Ecological Potential, for instance, by addressing the expected 

availability of data on fish in the future; 

c)  Continue to reduce the nitrogen and phosphorus load reduction gap as more reduction is needed to 

achieve the objectives for ecological status of surface water bodies; 

d)  Continue  working  towards  improving  the  level  of  confidence  in  the  classification  of  groundwater 
quantitative status from medium to high. GWAAEs and GWDTEs should be included in the assessment 
of quantitative status of groundwater bodies. Also, saline intrusion should be considered for every GWB;  

e) 

Increase the level of confidence in the classification of water bodies related to protected areas and 
include reporting Protected Areas under all relevant Directives. Thus, also including the Bathing Waters 
Directive, Nitrates Directive and Urban waste water Treatment Directive. 

f)  Complete the implementation of e-flows; 

g)  Perform monitoring in a way that ensures sufficient spatial coverage and temporal resolution to reach 

good confidence in the assessment of chemical status for surface water bodies; 

35 

 
h)  Provide information if the current groundwater chemical monitoring network still provides a sufficiently 
representable picture to assess the status. This should go hand in hand with increasing the confidence 
of the monitoring network since this has dropped in the 3rd RBMPs. 

36 

 
 
SECTION B: 
FLOODS DIRECTIVE 

37 

 
 
 
7. Flood risk management under floods directive (FD) 

The Directive requires each Member State to scan its territory for flood risks, assess the potential 
adverse  consequences  of  future  floods  for  human  health,  the  environment,  cultural  heritage  and 
economic  activity,  identify  the  significant  risks,  map  the  flood  extent  and  the  potential  adverse 
consequences, and take measures to reduce the flood risk. These activities are reflected in (a) the 
preliminary  flood  risk  assessments,  or  PFRAs  (including  the  identification  of  areas  of  potential 
significant flood risk, or APSFRs), (b) the preparation of flood hazard and risk maps, or FHRMs, and (c) 
the establishment of flood risk management plans, or FRMPs. The preliminary assessments, mapping 
and planning for flood risk are repeated in six-yearly cycles. 

There are four Units of Management (UoMs) in Latvia, which are the same as the Water Framework 
Directive’s River Basin Districts (RBD). Fluvial, sea water, and artificial water bearing infrastructure 
floods are considered as potentially significant sources of flooding in  Latvia. Latvia designated 32 
Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk (APSFRs). 

The second FRMPs (2022-2027) have been combined with the third RBMPs into a single document. 
The same authority implements both parts of the plans. The FRMPs describe how the government 
authorities and independent stakeholders were involved in the consultation process, in particular via 
the Consultative Councils for each UoM. 

7.1 Flood hazard and risk maps 

Latvia is using a GIS-based Geoportal32 for its FHRMs. FHRMs were prepared at the national level and 
show the whole country. Maps for floods with low probability (1/200 or more years), with medium 
probability (1/100 years) and with various high probability return periods are provided. Flood extent 
and water depth, as well as the number of inhabitants potentially affected and the type of economic 
activity  are  shown  on  all  maps.  Installations  covered  under  the  scope  of  the  Industrial  Emission 
Directive (IED) are also shown. Potentially affected protected areas identified in Annex IV(1)(i), (iii) 
and (v) to Directive 2000/60/EC are shown in the FHRMs, except for recreational/bathing waters which 
were  mistakenly  omitted.  The  main  weakness  identified  in  the  previous  FHRMs33,  i.e.  the  difficult 
access to the map has been addressed and an online map is now available for all APSFRs.  

In terms of changes of contextual information (i.e. the way in which information about the maps is 
conveyed to the public) since the first FHRMs, a noteworthy change is that Latvia is now using one 
geoportal with all information digitally available. An information note about the maps is available via 
the menu bar. In addition to textual information there is also a short (5 minute) video presentation34. 

In terms of changes in methodologies used to prepare flood hazard maps and methodologies used 
to prepare flood risk maps since the first FHRMs, no methodological changes have been detected. 

32 https://videscentrs.lvgmc.lv/iebuvets/pludu-riska-un-pludu-draudu-kartes  

33 In 2014 only the online map for LVDUBA was developed. Latvia subsequently clarified that maps under the first cycle 
for LVGUBA, LVLUBA and LVVUBA were developed with delay (2016). 
34 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGS9e2PWZFs 

38 

 
 
 
 
Climate change in the second FHRMs 

As regards the consideration of climate change effects in the preparation of flood hazard and risk 
maps, reference is made to section 3.7 on ‘adaptation to climate change’.    

7.2 Flood risk management plans 

Objectives and measures 

The  FRMPs  can  be  downloaded  from  the  web  page  of  the  Latvian  Environment,  Geology  and 
Meteorology Centre35. Latvia’s FRMPs all have a common overall objective for flood risk management 
and four common sub-objectives (plus a fifth one for the Daugava FRMP). The overall objective calls 
for the reduction of the risk of flooding on public safety, economic activity, environment and cultural 
heritage. The sub-objectives call for a) reducing flood risk areas as well as areas affected by coastal 
flooding; b) ensuring the possibility to assess flood risks and for improving the flood warning system; 
c) reducing risks from different types of floods, such as coastal storms, spring floods and fluvial floods; 
d) reducing the number of inhabitants affected by low probability floods by at least 40%.  

Latvia reported 151 measures to EIONET, including individual and aggregated measures. The four 
FRMPs each list their flood risk measures. The FRMPs prioritise their measures, explain the criteria 
used and presents its measures in four categories, from very high to low priority. The FRMPs contain 
also a table summarising the implementation status of flood prevention measures defined in the first 
plans. 

The FRMPs provide an overall budget for flood measures, and indicative costs for each measure. The 
funding sources identified are: EU structural funds, the state budget and municipal budgets. For most 
measures, two or three funding sources are specified. The plans describe a method for estimating 
the expected benefits, in terms of flood losses avoided, which is then used for a cost-effectiveness 
assessment of each measure. The FRMPs provide summaries of the FHRMs and provide links to the 
online  portal  with  the  maps,  which  provide  information  on  flood  extent.  While  Latvia  reported  to 
EIONET that conveyance routes had been considered in all of its FRMPs, the plans themselves do not 
provide information how conveyance routes were taken into account. Measures have been prioritised 
based on their coherence with WFD objectives. Latvia has reported measures that provide nature-
based solutions for water retention in each of its four UoMs, and such measures are found in the four 
FRMPs. Green infrastructure is highlighted as an approach to address flood risks in both urban and 
rural  areas.  The  prioritisation  of  flood  risk  measures  described  in  the  four  FRMPs  identifies  the 
correspondence  with  the  WFD’s  objectives  among  the  criteria.  Latvia  has  reported  31  prevention 
measures to EIONET (21 % of all flood measures); prevention measures are reported in each of the 
four  UoMs.  Latvia  has  reported  68  protection  measures  to  EIONET  (54  %  of  all  measures),  and 
protection measures are found in all four UoMs. Latvia has reported 48 preparedness measures (32 
%  of  all  measures).  Preparedness  measures  are  found  in  all  four  UoMs.  Latvia  reported  their 
measures with the following four categories: very high priority: two measures (1 % of the total), gigh 

35 The web page of MoEPRD on river basin management – https://www.varam.gov.lv/lv/upju-baseinu-apgabalu-
apsaimniekosanas-plani - provides a link to the Centre’s website as well as documents related to the strategic environmental 
assessment of the plans, but it does not provide the plans themselves.  
Online information on the Ministry’s webpage for the FRMPs was last updated dated on 22.03.2020 (website accessed on 
30.10.2023). 

39 

 
 
priority: 102 measures (68 %), moderate priority: 37 measures (25 %), and low priority: 10 measures, 
(7 %). 

A sub-objective calls for improving the flood early warning system, and measures are identified for 
this objective. Latvia’s FRMPs highlight the role of national legislation in regulating spatial planning 
and land use for flood risk management. Latvia’s plans indicate that an assessment of impacts on 
natural habitats will be made in the implementation of measures. For some measures, specific issues 
to address in implementation are identified in the FRMP. Latvia has reported two measures, both in 
the Venta UoM (LVVUBA), that consider ports. Latvia’s FRMPs refer to coordination with the national 
climate change adaptation plan. They describe expected impacts of climate change on the occurrence 
of  floods.  Moreover,  coherence  with  the  adaptation  plan  is  considered  in  the  prioritisation  of 
measures. 

In the second FRMPs quantitative targets have been set for two of the four sub-objectives. There is 
no assessment of progress towards achieving the objectives in the first FRMPs. The FRMPs briefly 
refer to the exchange of information on flood risks and plans with Estonia and Lithuania, as well as 
information shared with Belarus.  

Links to the flood hazard and flood risk maps in Latvia’s online GIS-based geoportal are available for 
all APSFRs and are provided in the FRMPs. 

The following progress has been made on the areas for further development and recommendations 
since the first FRMPs: while in the first FRMPs, Latvia’s objectives were not measurable, for its second 
FRMPs, Latvia has set quantitative targets for two sub-objectives. Nonetheless, baselines were not 
specified.  

Latvia reported to EIONET: Two of its 151 measures (1% of all measures) were completed – both of 
these are protection measures; Four measures (3%) were in ongoing construction (of which, three 
protection  and  one  preparedness  measure);  Six  measures  (4%)  were  in  ongoing  (recurrent  e.g., 
maintenance works) – two prevention measures and four preparedness measures; 11 measures (7%) 
were  in  preparation  –  five  prevention  and  six  protection  measures;  and  128  measures,  the  great 
majority of all measures (85% of the total), were not started. The category includes all four measure 
aspects reported and all the recovery and review measures. The share of measures not started for 
the first FRMPs was similar, 82%. It should be noted that most of the measures for the second FRMPs 
are new measures, not measures found in the first FRMPs.  

Latvia did not report any abandoned/interrupted measures. The two completed protection measures 
were reported for the Venta UoM: one is for the restoration of the Barta River and the other for the 
strengthening of the coastline against erosion. Of the measures in ongoing construction, two were 
reported for the Daugava UoM and two for the Lielupe UoM. For the other categories of progress, 
measures  were  distributed  across  all  four  UoMs.  The  FRMPs  contain  a  table  summarising  the 
implementation status of flood management measures defined in the first plans (annex 14.3.a of 
each second plan). For example, the second Lielupe FRMP lists 18 measures in the first plan36, of 
which  eight  were  indicated  as  completed  or  implemented,  three  were  underway  or  partially 
completed, three were postponed, and four were not implemented. For three of the four measures 
not implemented, the low priority of the measure or a change in priority is indicated as a reason. The 

36 In its reporting for the first FRMPs, Latvia listed 17 measures for this UoM. 

40 

 
 
 
annex to the Lielupe FRMP also lists 51 ‘additional flood measures’ for 2016 to 2021, all of which 
had been completed or implemented.  

Governance 

The four FRMPs explain that Latvia exchanges information on flood risks and flood measures with 
Estonian  and  Lithuanian  authorities.  Latvia’s  four  FRMPs  do  not  mention  joint  measures  with 
neighbouring countries, though they note that the Lithuanian Environment Agency and the Estonian 
Ministry of the Environment plan to discuss the development of flood measures in cross-border areas.  

The  four plans  state  that the  public  and interested parties  were informed  of the  draft  FRMPs  via 
internet, social networking sites. Documents for consultation were publicly available for download on 
the LEGMC website37. Comments and suggestions could be sent to an LEGMC e-mail address. The 
public consultation period lasted six months and included consultation on the SEAs. In addition to the 
mechanisms  listed  in  the  table  above,  consultation  meetings  took  place  online.  Both  plans  –  the 
RBMPs and FRMPs – were discussed in these meetings. 

Consideration of climate change 

As regards the consideration of climate change effects in the preparation of flood risk management 
plans, reference is made to section 3.7 on ‘Adaptation to climate change’ above. 

Progress identified in the second FRMPs 

While in the first FRMPs, Latvia’s objectives were not measurable, for its second FRMPs, Latvia has 
set quantitative targets for two sub-objectives. Contrary to the first FRMPS, the second FRMPs provide 
total budgets per UoM as well as indicative for all measures; sources of funding are specified for all 
measures; objectives are measurable, and in particular provide indicators and targets. The second 
FRMPs  include  measures  for  spatial  planning  and  land  use.  The  FRMPs  also  briefly  mention 
coordination on civil protection. In the first FRMPs, no information was provided on results for CBA. In 
the second FRMPs, cost-effectiveness results are presented for all structural measures. In addition, 
cost-effectiveness analysis was used for prioritisation of structural measures. The impact of climate 
change  on  the  occurrence  of  floods  has  been  taken  into  consideration  in  the  second  FRMPs.  The 
FRMPs also refer to projected climate impacts and provide references to research studies. The second 
FRMPs moreover describe coordination with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy – and 
measures were assessed for their relevance and consistency with the Strategy. 

8. FD recommendations 

Based on the reported information and the FHRMs and FRMPs assessed, the following recommendations are 
made to enhance flood risk management. Latvia should ensure that: 

•  Pluvial flooding is considered in the FHRMs; 

37 https://videscentrs.lvgmc.lv/lapas/udens-apsaimniekosana-un-pluduparvaldiba 

41 

 
 
• 

• 

• 

The FHRMs geoportal reflects relevant data from other sources of information, or be linked to other 
relevant sources of information, such as the Latvian Geospatial Information Agency’s website; 

The FRMPs provide detail on how the FHRMs was used in the choice of objectives and measures; 

The PFRAs and the FRMPs are clear as to which flood risk areas are considered as APSFRs – and the 
FHRMs should reflect this; 

•  An assessment of the progress made towards the achievement of the objectives  is included in the 

FRMPs; 

• 

Insurance is considered as a measure for adaptation to climate change; 

•  Where relevant, the FRMPs incorporates CBA for the prioritisation of measures that lend themselves 

to it and provide a clear description of the methodology used; 

•  Where  appropriate,  the  FHRMs  considers  flow  velocity  or  relevant  water  flow  and  the  FRMPs  flood 

conveyance routes, as these are relevant to emergency response. 

42