Operational Risk:

Critical

Score:

8/100

Next Risk Category Right Arrow
Left Arrow Back to Latvia Overview

Disregard of Corruption in-Country

Collapse
Q51 0/100

Do the armed forces have military doctrine addressing corruption as a strategic issue on operations?

View Question
Military doctrine Score: 0 / 100
The Military in Latvia does not have a doctrine assessing corruption issues for either peace-time or conflict. Corruption is not considered a strategic risk…
Explore
Transparency Score: NA / 100
This indicator has been marked Not Applicable, since there is no military doctrine addressing corruption as a strategic issue on operations. It is, therefore,…
Explore
Q52 0/100

Is there training in corruption issues for commanders at all levels in order to ensure that these commanders are clear on the corruption issues they may face during deployment?

View Question
Score: 0 / 100
Currently, there is no specific training on anti-corruption issues for soldiers: knowledge obtained through participation in courses organised by the State Administration School (on…
Explore
Q53 38/100

Is corruption as a strategic issue considered in the forward planning of operations? If so, is there evidence that commanders at all levels apply this knowledge in the field?

View Question
Forward planning Score: 50 / 100
Corruption is only partly considered a strategic issue. More attention is paid to procurement of ammunition than to training of presonnel. Forward planning of…
Explore
Application Score: 25 / 100
Even if corruption is not treated as a strategic issue, commanders follow the anti-corruption plan of the MOD. Before operations and after finishing an…
Explore

Corruption within Mission

Expand
Q54 0/100

Are trained professionals regularly deployed to monitor corruption risk in the field (whether deployed on operations or peacekeeping missions)?

View Question
Corruption monitoring Score: 0 / 100
It is important to take into account Latvia’s specific situation – deployment usually is very small in numbers and part of international forces. Therefore,…
Explore
M&E policy Score: 0 / 100
Since trained professionals are not deployed to missions in order to monitor corruption risk due to the small size of Latvia’s contingent, the M&E…
Explore
Transparency Score: NA / 100
This indicator has been marked Not Applicable, as it is not Latvia that drafts the reports.
Explore

Contracting

Expand
Q55 0/100

Are there guidelines, and staff training, on addressing corruption risks in contracting whilst on deployed operations or peacekeeping missions?

View Question
Comprehensiveness Score: 0 / 100
Latvian soldiers are deployed under the command of other NATO memeber states and they have to follow the guidelines of the lead nation. [1]…
Explore
Training Score: 0 / 100
There are no specific guidelines, but soldiers who are leaving the mission inform the next group of soldiers on corruption risks and anti-corruption measures.…
Explore

Private Security Companies

Expand
Q56 NS/100

Are private military contractors employed and if so, are they subject to a similar level of scrutiny as for the armed forces?

View Question
Policies Score: NS / 100
This indicator is not assigned a score in the GDI. Latvia has no tradition of using military contractors. The staff of the Ministry and…
Explore
Scrutiny Score: NS / 100
This indicator is not assigned a score in the GDI. Latvia has no tradition of using military contractors.
Explore
Enforcement Score: NS / 100
This indicator is not assigned a score in the GDI. Latvia has no tradition of using military contractors.
Explore