The civil protection and catastrophe management system largely remains neglected, and generally the civil protection system does not offer prerequisites for effective catastrophe and crisis management, as concluded in the report composed by the State Audit on the function of the aforementioned system.
State Audit notes that the entire system requires improvements in order for Latvia to be able to prepare for possible crises appropriately, prevent and overcome them efficiently and reduce the negative impact from catastrophes on people’s health, their lives and the country’s economy.
State Audit council member Kristīne Jaunzeme notes that the audit regarding the planning of the state civil protection system was done in a time when the world’s focus was on the Covid-19 pandemic. The final stage of the audit was done around the time when Russia invaded Ukraine. This is also when most of the attention was on managing the Covid-19 pandemic.
«The audit allowed us to confirm if the country’s established catastrophe management system is appropriate to catastrophes, if it provides measures to prevent, prepare, respond and deal with consequences of catastrophes, as well as the issues state institutions should focus on before crises and which aspects of crises were impossible to plan for,» said Jaunzeme.
One of the primary things the State Audit believes needs to be done is the improvement of the institutional model of the approach for catastrophe management, so that responsibilities of each institution involved in catastrophe management, their available resources and capacity become clear, and so that it is possible to plan out solutions for comprehensive management of nation-wide and isolated catastrophes in both regions and different economic sectors. The existing catastrophe management model does include a comprehensive legal or practical plan of action.
The existing system does not list responsibilities for participating parties.
Latvia’s civil protection system remains decentralised and deconcentrated since 2016 – specific ministries or municipalities are responsible for managing different kinds of catastrophes. To make this deconcentrated and decentralised system efficient, it is necessary to adopt single methodology, a clear distribution of competences and coordinated action from all involved parties, the audit mentions.
The management of the Covid-19 pandemic helped clearly outline the weak points of Latvia’s catastrophe management system and the need for improvements. Although the Ministry of Health is listed in the Civil Protection and Disaster Management Law as a catastrophe management subject that is in charge of coordination of pandemic management, the ministry has no authority to involve other ministries and ensure coordinated actions in battling pandemics.
The State Audit invites evaluation of not only the responsibilities of different institutions and their possible overlap and their implementation by adding amendments to the legislative acts but also go one step further and assess the options in creating coordination among high-ranking institutions’ involvement in decentralised and deconcentrated catastrophe management system, planning and monitoring to ensure the country’s catastrophe management system is able to function properly.
The audit concluded that it is necessary to change the approach used in preparation of state and municipal civil protection plans – they have to include a package of measures necessary for the management of all kinds of catastrophes. It is important for the measures included in preventive plans contribute to catastrophe prevention and reduction of threats, help prepare and be useful in the event of catastrophes.
The audit mentions that the measures listed in plans are often too general and unclear as to what needs to be done, within which period of time and who will pay for them.
Instead of initiatives and actions, civil protection plans should list actual and specific measures specific institutions need to implement within specific terms.
Considering the rapidly changing geopolitical situation and standing security challenges, the State Audit also provided information regarding the implementation of preventive and preparation measures in the event of a war, military invasion or their threats, as well as measures to ensure evacuation of residents. It is mentioned in the report that the State Civil Protection Plan that of the 15 preventive and preparation measures related to the provision of food, necessity goods and energy resources, protection of cultural heritage, the ability to manage uncontrolled movement of large numbers of people, only four measures have been implemented so far. Implementation of four other measures has started and continues. Seven remaining measures remain unimplemented.
Regulations do not mention which institution is to monitor implementation of these measures and which institution is responsible for assessing whether or not measures are sufficient to cover possible threats.
Jaunzeme also mentioned that there are no effective monitoring mechanisms in place. The Ministry of the Interior only compiles information provided by other ministries regarding implementation of the plan and does not analyse the progress made, delays, institutional capacity, or the necessary improvements.
The State Audit notes that civil protection training is necessary in order to regularly test the effectiveness of chosen measures, resource sufficiency and cooperation mechanisms. Training will prepare personnel for different crises situations. It was found during the audit that the last time there was nation-wide civil protection training in Latvia was 2016. Organisation of said training is left to each individual institution to prepare. Institutions in charge of the civil protection system – Ministry of the Interior and State Fire and Rescue Service – have no information as to the planned and already implemented training. No appropriate monitoring of prevention of problems uncovered in training is provided either.
When adding improvements to the civil protection system, it would be useful to learn from positive examples in the medical and defence sectors. Sweden’s experience may be useful as well.
At the same time, the audit found that ministries in Latvia responsible for risk assessment do it within the limits of their respective sectors. Other parties are involved in rare cases only.
None of the ministries have involved municipalities in the assessment of risks of catastrophes even though catastrophes mentioned in the civil protection plan may affect municipalities.
No public discussions are organised and the public remains uninformed of risk prevention processes and results – this puts society’s ability to prepare and participate in catastrophe management measures at risk, as well as reduces society’s resistance to different crises.
Institutions involved in the audit, including Ministry of the Interior and State Fire and Rescue Service, were provided with 17 recommendations, the implementation term for which is 31 December 2025.