Anti-Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2024 – Country Notes: Latvia

Contextual factors

 

State structure	Executive power	Legislative system	Legal system
Unitary	Parliamentary	Unicameral	Civil law

Strategy and institutions on anti-corruption and public integrity

The Guidelines for the Prevention and Combating of Corruption (2015-2020) were adopted at the central government level. The strategy identified four objectives: 1) Reorient anti-corruption and anti-fraud policy from the external control exercised by control institutions to the internal control of departments and institutions; 2) Ensure openness of public administration human resources across the whole public administration; 3) Reduce public tolerance towards corruption and promote public involvement in the policy-making process; 4) Launch measures to combat corruption and fraud in the private sector. As of the Final Assessment of the impact of the implementation of the Guidelines for the Prevention and Combating of Corruption for 2015-2020, published in 2022, Latvia had implemented 75% of the corruption prevention activities planned. The Corruption Prevention and Combating Action Plan 2023-2025 has since followed this strategy.

Latvia has a central government body focused on anti-corruption and prevention of conflict-of-interest (Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau, hereinafter KNAB), which also supervises political finance. The Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development is responsible for open data policy. The Ministry of Finance is tasked with the central harmonisation of internal audit.

Overview

 

Greatest strengths	Areas to improve
Anti-corruption strategy	Legislative procedural scrutiny
Conflict of interest	Lobbying - implementation
Political finance - regulation	Political finance - implementation

Anti-corruption strategy

The current strategy in force is the Corruption Prevention and Combating Action Plan 2023-2025, but Latvia has not provided data on it.

With regards to the Guidelines for the Prevention and Combating of Corruption for 2015-2020, Latvia was a top performer in terms of quality of strategic framework. Latvia's strategy on anti-corruption and integrity in the public sector included all of the following: a situation analysis, including identification of existing public integrity risks; outcome-level indicators for the public integrity objectives; target values for all outcome-level indicators; and at least one international legal instrument relating to public integrity.

Latvia's strategy also included sources ranging from administrative data and staff surveys to academic databases to inform target indicators of performance. KNAB involved non-governmental organisations and national integrity bodies in the development of the strategy.

Corruption risk management and audit

As measured against OECD standards on risk management, which include internal control and internal audit, Latvia fulfils 80% of criteria for regulations and 49% for practice, while the OECD average is 67% and 33%, respectively.

In Latvia, regulations establish managerial responsibility for implementing internal control and internal audit and comprehensive safeguards stipulating the independence of internal auditors, a prohibition on auditors auditing operations for which they were previously responsible, and requirements for internal audit units to undergo external quality assurance. Regulations also explicitly address corruption and integrity risks. In practice, the Ministry of Finance is the central harmonisation function for internal audit, which collects all reports from internal audit units in public organisations. However, there is no central function promoting best practices in internal control across the public sector. While corruption risk management is practiced in most public bodies, there is room to improve implementation of internal audit and risk management best practices. At 84%, implementation of internal audit recommendations is relatively high.

Lobbying

As measured against OECD standards on lobbying, Latvia fulfils 50% of criteria for regulations and 22% of criteria for practice, compared to the OECD average of 38% and 35%, respectively.

Despite performing better than the OECD average on regulatory safeguards, Latvia lags behind most OECD countries on the transparency of lobbying activities and prevention of undue influence. On 1 January 2023 Law on Transparency of Interest Representation entered into force. Members of Parliament and lobbyists must abide by it, and the framework is supported by a code of conduct with practical examples of at-risk situations. However, Latvia does not have an institution supervising lobbying activities, and lobbying registration tools and a publicly available lobbying register will not be operational until 1 September 2025. A supervisory body and a public lobbying register can promote accountable policymaking by allowing the public to monitor interactions between public officials and lobbyists.

Conflict of interest

As measured against OECD standards on conflict of interest, Latvia fulfils 100% of criteria for regulations fulfils 89% of criteria for practice, compared to the OECD average of 76% and 40%, respectively.

Latvia's is one of the best performing OECD countries for both its regulations on conflict of interest and its performance in practice. Latvia requires ministers, members of Parliament, judges and senior civil servants to submit interest and asset declarations, and this procedure is reinforced by risk-based verification managed by the KNAB. Latvia is the only OECD country where the submission rate for interest declarations in the last five years is 100% for all senior public officials.

Political finance

As measured against OECD standards on political finance, Latvia fulfils 100% of criteria for regulations, but it fulfils only 43% of criteria for practice, compared to the OECD average of 73% and 58%, respectively.

The regulatory framework on political finance in Latvia is one of the most comprehensive among OECD countries. Its regulations include bans on anonymous donations and contributions from foreign states and state-owned enterprises. They also limit candidates’ expenses to a ceiling pegged to the monthly average gross salary of Latvian workers.

However, in practice, the body overseeing political finance, KNAB, does not have financial accountability directly to parliament, which could potentially undermine its independence. The body also does not employ certified auditors to monitor parties’ financial statements, and not all parties represented in parliament presented annual or electoral financial reports within 30 days of the deadlines established by Latvian legislation. More effectively monitoring political finance is pivotal to mitigate the risk of undue and foreign influence on political public office holders in order to ensure the integrity of democratic processes and that the public interest is upheld.

Transparency of public information

As measured against OECD standards on public information, which includes access to information and open data, Latvia fulfils 56% of criteria for regulations and 69% for practice, compared to the OECD average of 67% and 62%, respectively.

In Latvia, consolidated versions of primary laws, minutes and agendas of Government sessions, ministers’ personal agendas, the national budget, data on public tenders, the business and land registries, and asset and interest declarations are all publicly available. The Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development is responsible for open data policy.

Latvia’s access to information law is generally strong, although it does not contain a requirement to provide information in the requested format. However, Latvia does not have a centralised supervisory body responsible for reviewing access to information requests and ensuring compliance.