General country description
A. First pillar: implementation of CAP reforms (2003)
B. Second pillar: implementation of RDP measures during 2007-2013
C. Vision for the CAP beyond 2013: a short overview of the debate (at Member State level) on future CAP reform
D. Literature, sources, references
The comparative analysis provides a compact overview of CAP implementation across all 27 Member States and their visions of the future of the CAP

General country discription

Comparison with EU-25

Population, 2005 (*1,000,000): 2.3

0.5% of population in EU-25

Population density, 2003 (inh./km2): 36

118 in EU-25

GDP/capita, 2005 (PPS): 10,900

47% of GDP/capita in EU-25

Share agriculture in total employment, 2002 (%): 15

5% in EU-25

Share Utilized Agricultural Area in total land area, 2003 (%): 25

46% in EU-25 in 1998

Average farm size, 2005 (ha): 22.9

19 in EU-15

Number of farms, 2005 (*1000): 133 (source: 2005 survey on the structure of agricultural holdings in Latvia)

0.7% of farms in EU-25

Source: own calculations based on Eurostat, source Central Statistical Bureau (CSB)

Distribution of farming types, 2005 (% of total)

Source: own calculations based on Eurostat

EU funding for the Single Payment Scheme (SPS)
and the second pillar, 2007-2013

Funding according to CAP budget including Bulgaria and Romania.
Sources: Agra Europe (2007); CEU (2006); EC (2007a)


A. First pillar: implementation CAP reform (2003)

A.1 Single Payment Scheme

SAPS, as regarding Article 143b(9) of Council Regulation 1782/2003 (amended by R2012/2006) set that for any new Member State the single area payments scheme (SAPS) shall be available for period of application until the end of 2010.


SAPS, Article 71e of Council Regulation 1782/2003 set the new Member States shall apply the single payments scheme at regional level.

Coupling measures

Seperate sugar payments

Reason for selection

No information

A.2 EU budget for Single Payment Scheme (SPS) per year (National ceiling) 2005-2013

Source: 2005: EC (2006); 2006-2013: CEU (2006) and Agra Europe (2007)

Tradability of SPS

No information

A.3 Cross-compliance: Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC)

Source: IEEP, 2005

Selected standards of the GAEC

Summary of farmers’obligations

Soil erosion

minimum land management reflecting site-specific conditions

no obligations specifically addressing soil erosion

soil organic matter

arable stubble management

incorporate crop residues and stubble into the soil

soil structure

appropriate machinery use

for sowing, maintaining fertilization, restricting weeds and other plant protection activities


EXTRA: irrigation standards / water management

land amelioration systems are maintained, ensuring regulation of soil moisture regime except on grassland for biodiversity purposes

protection of permanent pastures


no decrease or adaptation according to the level of decrease (5 or 10%)

minimum level of maintenance

minimum livestock stocking rates or/and appropriate regimes

grassland and meadows are grazed or meadows are mowed or cut at least once before 1 August..


avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land

free from invasive plant species and bushes

Source: Cross-Compliance in Central and Eastern European Countries/ Republic of Latvia Cabinet Regulation "Procedures by which State Aid and European Union Support shall be Granted for Agriculture and Rural Development"

Latvia pays mainly attention to the minimum level of maintenance to avoid land abandonment. Except for nature grasslands, all lands have to cultivated.

Reason for selection of cross compliance standards

No information

A.4 Further reform of market regulations

No information


B. Second pillar: implementation of RDP measures 2007-2013

B.1 Programme level and approval

There is one national RDP. The Rural Development Committee (consisting of representatives of the 27 Member States) has approved the RDP for Latvia on 20 December 2007.

B.2 Distribution of public budget over the axes (%)1)

axis 1: competitiveness

axis 2: environment and land management

axis 3: rural economy

Axis 4: Leader





1) Figures excluding Technical Assistance
Source: Own calculations based on Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Latvia (2007)

B.3 Integration of Leader in axes 1, 2 and 3

When implementing local development strategies, local action groups initially build on the following Axis 3 measures: support for business creation and development (code 312); encouragement of tourism activities (code 313); basic services for the economy and population (code 321); conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage (code 323). Further on the number of measures to be used by local action groups may be supplemented (Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Latvia, 2007).

B.4 Local Action Groups (LAGs)

At least 20 LAGs will be supported in the programming period 2007-2013. It is planned that at least 85% of the territory of Latvia (meeting the LAG formation requirements) will be covered (Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Latvia, 2007).

B.5 RDP budget 2007-2013 (million euros)

total public budget

% co-financing EAFRD1)

EAFRD budget

Contribution private sector

Total costs

National top-ups







1) % of co-financing may vary per axis
Source: Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Latvia (2007)

B.6 Less Favoured Areas

In compliance with provisions of Article 93 of Council Regulation No. 1698/2005, Latvia continues providing support to the territories of less favoured areas (LFA), which have been specified under Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No. 1257/1999. Having regard of the criteria defined in Article 19 of the regulation above, the status of less favoured area has been granted to 74% of the total state territory or 73% of UAA (1.81 million ha). LFA payments differ by region (category) (Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Latvia, 2007). In 2005, 73% of the Utilized Agricultural Area (UAA) (1,160,000 ha) was classified as Less Favoured Area (LFA) (CEU, 2005).

B.7 Drivers of RDP strategy

No information


C. Vision on the CAP beyond 2013*

C.1 Stages in the development of the CAP debate

Is there a debate about the CAP beyond 2013?

No, there is hardly any debate about the CAP beyond 2013. The focus is rather on the preparations for the Health Check. In that debate, the Ministry of Agriculture, farmers organizations and Latvian State institute of Agrarian Economics are involved.

C. 2 Key issues in the debate**

Components and role of the CAP

Organization of the CAP (1st and 2nd pillar)

Financing of the CAP (Agra Europe, 2007)

* Information provided by Lubova Tralmaka, and Wouter Verhey, Counselor Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality Netherlands Embassy in Warsaw.
** Based on information from Latvian Ministry of Agriculture (2007).

D. Literature, sources, references

Please send us your reaction