Latvia’s non-food market surveillance system should be reviewed and optimized by eliminating overlapping functions, introducing a unified risk-assessment approach, and digitalizing the exchange of information between institutions. These steps would improve both the efficiency and the effectiveness of the system.
This conclusion was reached by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) following its assessment of Latvia’s market surveillance system, carried out within the framework of the European Commission-supported structural reform project “Developing a More Effective and Efficient Market Surveillance System for Latvia.”
In Latvia, non-food market surveillance is highly fragmented — it is performed by 15 institutions with differing mandates and supervisory approaches. These include the Consumer Rights Protection Centre (PTAC, CRPC), the Health Inspectorate, the Food and Veterinary Service, the State Environmental Service, the State Police, the Road Traffic Safety Directorate, and others. The OECD found that Latvia’s surveillance system requires comprehensive reform to reduce fragmentation, improve coordination, and increase efficiency.
“Such a thorough evaluation by the OECD provides an important springboard for further optimization measures. The Ministry of Economics has already begun consolidating state-owned enterprises’ functions – earlier this summer, a report on the reorganization of smaller enterprises was submitted for inter-institutional coordination – and the OECD’s findings confirm that we are on the right track,” emphasized Minister of Economics Viktors Valainis.
Key improvements should focus on institutional structure, risk management, and inter-agency cooperation – reducing the number of institutions, introducing a single risk management system, and digitalizing and automating information exchange. The OECD noted that currently too many resources are devoted to low-risk products, and too much emphasis is placed on reactive, complaint-driven inspections rather than on proactive risk reduction.
The current system relies heavily on retail-site inspections. To ensure cost-effectiveness, Latvia needs to move toward data-driven, analytical risk assessment, which would allow for the identification of products posing the highest potential harm. A risk model should be developed to assess product hazards based on both the probability and severity of harm.
By designating the Ministry of Economics as the lead institution for market surveillance reform and strengthening CRPC as the central market surveillance authority with an expanded mandate, Latvia can establish a modern, evidence-based system that effectively protects consumers and fosters fair competition, while making optimal use of state resources. To achieve this, greater interoperability of institutional information systems is required, with the CRPC’s “UZRAUGS” digital platform (“Supervisor”) serving as the central hub. Institutions should either automatically synchronize their data with “UZRAUGS” via interfaces, or – in the case of less digitalized bodies – periodically export data into it.
The strategic objectives of the market surveillance system should focus on measurable outcomes, such as improving consumer and business satisfaction, reducing costs, and lowering accident rates. Digitalization of complaint management should also be advanced, the risk-assessment system further developed, stakeholder engagement encouraged, and system performance evaluated not by the number of inspections carried out, but by actual results achieved. Equally important is the continuous strengthening of specialist capacity within the institutions involved.
According to the OECD, the first steps in implementing reform should include a political decision on the chosen model and amendments to the legal framework to enable the transfer of functions.
The project “Developing a More Effective and Efficient Market Surveillance System for Latvia” ran for two years, beginning in autumn 2023. During this time, OECD experts carried out an evaluation of Latvia’s market surveillance system, provided training to surveillance institution experts, and prepared recommendations and strategic directions for the system’s future development.