A narrative review of alcohol control policies in Latvia between 1990 and 2020

Abstract

Issues:

Latvia has one of the highest alcohol per capita consumption in Europe. This study provides a narrative review of all evidence-based population-level alcohol control policies implemented in Latvia during the past 30 years.

Approach:

A review of country-level alcohol control policies implemented in Latvia between 1990 and 2020 was conducted. The World Health Organization’s “best buys” and other recommended interventions for alcohol control were used to guide the search.

Key Findings:

Alcohol control policies in Latvia have evolved significantly over the last three decades. The most changes to alcohol control policy occurred in the transitional period between regaining independence in 1991 and joining the European Union in 2004. A number of significant alcohol control policies have been implemented to reduce alcohol availability and affordability, to restrict alcohol marketing and to counter drunk-driving. However, since 2010, when an increasing trend of alcohol consumption was observed, there has been a reluctance to pursue national public health policy actions to reduce alcohol consumption, and few adjustments to legislation to increase alcohol control have been made.

Implications:

Despite the progress in alcohol control, Latvia still has considerable potential for strengthening alcohol control to reduce the high levels of alcohol consumption.

Conclusion:

Although several alcohol control policies have been established in Latvia, many of the planned activities to limit alcohol intake and related harm have not been executed. Public health goals rather than political and economic incentives should be prioritised to reduce high levels of alcohol consumption in Latvia.

1 |. INTRODUCTION

Alcohol consumption and alcohol-attributable burden of disease and mortality are high in Europe; however, in Latvia, both are among the highest in the region [1]. Alcohol control policy impacts alcohol use and alcohol-related harm on the population level, but historical, social and economic contexts influence policy choices and implementation.

For five decades, Latvia was under the totalitarian Soviet regime and Soviet ideology contributed to the cultural homogenisation of excessive alcohol consumption patterns, with spirits being the most popular [2]. Over the past three decades, Latvia has experienced significant political and economic change. On 21 August 1991, Latvia regained its independence from the Soviet Union, transitioning from a totalitarian regime controlling the economy to a democracy with a free-market economy. After an initial period of transition, the European Union (EU) integration process commenced and, on 1 May 2004, Latvia joined the EU. From 2000 to 2007, the gross domestic product (GDP) growth increased rapidly in Latvia [3]. However, during the economic expansion, the alcohol-related mortality also significantly increased [4]. Between 2008 and 2010, in conjunction with the global financial crisis, a severe economic recession characterised by a significant rise in unemployment rates and a decline in GDP per capita occurred. Latvia entered the Eurozone on 1 January 2014 and from 2014 and 2019, the average annual GDP growth rate was 3%, followed by a 2.2% decline in 2020 when COVID-19 emerged [3].

Today, despite Latvia being classified as a high-income country by the World Bank, its GDP per capita ($35,096 US in 2021) is below the EU average ($48,895 US in 2021) [5] and it is near the bottom of the overall ranking within the EU on public health indicators such as life expectancy, healthy life years and avoidable mortality [6].

The majority of avoidable deaths in Latvia can be attributed to lifestyle-related risk factors such as alcohol use, which accounts for approximately 6% of deaths [7]. Recorded adult alcohol per capita consumption (APC) in Latvia increased from 9.8 L in 2010 to 12.6 L in 2020 (Figure S1). Spirits (45.1%) and beer (36.2%) account for the majority of recorded alcohol consumption (Figure S2). Alcohol use disorders and other fully alcohol-attributable conditions accounted for 1.0% and 2.2% of all deaths, respectively, in Latvia in 2019 [8]. Furthermore, there were 804.3 disability-adjusted life years per 100,000 due to alcohol use disorders in Latvia during this time, 37% more than the World Health Organization (WHO) European region average [9].

The WHO has identified restrictions on alcohol availability and marketing, implementation of alcohol taxation and price laws, and enforcement of drink-driving counter-measures as major population-level initiatives for reducing alcohol-related harm [10]. The WHO alcohol control “best buys” include an increase in prices for alcoholic beverages due to taxation, a reduction in the availability of alcoholic beverages and a ban on alcohol advertisement [10,11].

Considering the substantial burden of alcohol use in Latvia, it is important that effective alcohol control policies be implemented to reduce such harms. However, it is necessary to evaluate the impact of previously adopted alcohol control policies on alcohol use and alcohol-attributable burden in Latvia. Thus, a rigorous retrospective examination of implemented alcohol control policies is required to identify and classify such policies. This study aimed to review Latvia’s alcohol control legislation from 1990 to 2020, focusing on evidence-based population-level control measures.

2 |. METHODS

A narrative review of country-level alcohol policies and legislation issued by the highest policy-making authorities between 1990 and 2020 were analysed. After regaining independence, the Supreme Council of the Republic of Latvia had legislative power, but the Council of Ministers had executive power. In 1993, the first transition phase ended with the convening of the fifth Saeima—the Parliament of the Republic of Latvia.

The National Database of Policy Planning Documents was used to review national alcohol policies (http://polsis.mk.gov.lv/documents) and the Database of Legal Acts of the Republic of Latvia (www.likumi.lv) was used to review the legislation.

The World Health Organization “best buys” and other recommended population-level interventions for alcohol control [10] were used to guide the search. For the review, the following alcohol control policies were eligible:

1. Availability—e.g., licensing systems and restrictions on points of retail sales, restrictions on minimum legal drinking age for purchase and consumption of alcohol, and on off-premises sale hours;

2. Drunk-driving—e.g., blood alcohol concentration limits (BAC) and penalties for driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol;

3. Alcohol marketing—e.g., restrictions on settings and content of alcohol advertising and sponsorship;

4. Alcohol pricing—e.g., taxation policies, excise duty stamps and beverage-specific tax.

First, the authors identified the existing policies and legislation regarding the selected areas of alcohol control by reviewing the mentioned databases of national policies and legal acts. Different search terms (e.g., “licensing,” “retail sale,” “sale hours,” “legal age,” “excise duty,” “blood concentration limit,” “driving,” “marketing” and “advertising”) that match the specified policy interventions in conjunction with the main keyword, that is, “alcohol,” were used for the search. Second, a comprehensive retrospective examination of all legislative modifications and revisions related to certain policies was conducted.

Two team members independently reviewed the laws and legal documentation and subsequently performed the data extraction; all disagreements were resolved by a third team member. Table A1 in the Appendix lists the laws on selected alcohol control policy areas identified throughout the review and their implementation period (date/month/year). Since the interval between adoption and implementation may vary, the review results only list legislation’s implementation dates.

3 |. RESULTS

3.1 |. General policies on alcohol control

Ten years after regaining its independence, Latvia adopted its first Public Health Strategy 2001–2007 [12]. One of the goals was to reduce APC (15+) to ≤6 L by 2010 [13]. The State Program for Reduction of Alcohol Consumption and Alcoholism was enacted in 2015 to reduce the availability of alcohol, the demand for alcoholic beverages, and risky and harmful alcohol consumption [14]. The Program goals included: (i) ensuring quality and safety for alcoholic beverage sales; (ii) exploring harmonisation of alcohol taxation systems in Baltic countries; (iii) restricting alcohol advertising; (iv) tackling smuggling and illicit alcohol trafficking; (v) educating on alcohol-related harm; (vi) providing leisure time opportunities for young people; (vii) increasing access to treatment for alcohol use disorders; (viii) reducing alcohol-related road accidents; (ix) reducing alcohol use in the workplace; and (x) establishing an alcohol monitoring system [15].

In 2011, the new Public Health Policy Guidelines were adopted, with the goal of reducing APC (15+) from 7 L in 2009 to 6.7 L in 2017 [16]. The multisectoral approach was emphasised as essential for success [17]. In 2012, the Action Plan for Control and Restriction of the Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages and Alcoholism 2012–2014 was adopted [18] that planned to increase illegal alcohol distribution penalties, limit retail sales to minors and alcohol sales hours, and introduce more prohibited sites for alcohol retail sale. Also, health warnings were proposed to alcoholic beverages advertisements. Alcohol advertisement restrictions on TV between 6:00 AM and 10:00 PM were proposed. To counter drunk driving, strengthening the drunk-driving laws and enforcement of sobriety checkpoints should be implemented. The optimal excise duty rate on alcoholic beverages while balancing the state’s fiscal and health protection needs should be determined [19].

In 2014, Public Health Policy Guidelines 2014–2017 were adopted [20], and those aimed to reduce APC from 10.3 L in 2012 to 9.5 L in 2020 [21]. Since 2001, the threshold for reducing alcohol consumption has been steadily lowered, although, revisions to the estimation methodology for APC must be accounted for (see more details in Supporting information).

The new Action Plan for Control and Restriction of the Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages and Alcoholism 2020–2022 was adopted on 30 July 2020 [22]. The goal was to reduce APC from 11.0 L in 2018 to 10.6 L in 2022. In the new Action Plan, labelling alcoholic products with nutrient information and pregnancy and driving warnings was planned [23]. It was proposed to reduce the BAC limit to ≤0.02% for all drivers, strengthen sobriety checkpoints and establish corrective behavioural programs for individuals guilty of DUI. The action plan included a prohibition on complimentary alcoholic beverages in gaming halls and casinos, and reviewing the timing of alcoholic beverages’ retail sale. Additionally, the plan also considered the ban on the sale of alcoholic beverages with alcohol by volume (ABV) >22%, less than 0.2 L and filled-in plastic packaging.

It was intended to ban discounts on alcoholic beverages and to prohibit advertising rates and discounts for beer and wine on TV and radio and any alcoholic beverages in printed materials, cinemas, and the Internet, except for websites and applications for online alcohol sales. Finally, the plan proposed to revise the excise duty on alcoholic beverages in line with the country’s fiscal and public health objectives and to establish a state health promotion fund in the amount of 0.5% of excise tax revenues on alcohol [23].

3.2 |. Availability

3.2.1 |. Retail licensing and sale of alcoholic beverages

Between 1990 and 1993, Executive Committees of the city and district councils determined retail sales of alcoholic beverages [24]. In 1993, the term “retail licence” was adopted and only municipally licenced retailers were permitted to sell alcoholic beverages [25]. However, beer and alcoholic beverages with up to 8% ABV were exempt from the regulations, although the latter were removed the same year later [26]. In 1993, the first bans on alcohol retail sales sites were adopted, followed by further restrictions through amendments to the law [25,28–32,35,36,38] (Table 1).

TABLE 1.

Prohibited sites of alcohol retail sales between 1990 and 2020 in Latvia.

Implementation date	Prohibited sites	Reference
28 April 1993	Kiosks, pavilions, sheds (stationary trade places without trade halls); cars, car trailers and other mobile street trade objects and equipment; points of sale where cash registers are not installed or not used; points of sale without a trading venue permission (except beer)	[25]
12 July 1995	Places with a trading area less than 20 m2 or without a trade hall; trading venues licenced to import alcoholic beverages or licenced for the wholesale distribution of alcoholic beverages; schools and other general education institutions, as well as in buildings where state and local government institutions are located (except beer)	[28]
13 November 1998	Premises and territory of medical institutions, police, military units and other militarised formations; temporary structures (except beer)	[29]
1 March 2002	First ban on beer sales locations – educational institutions (except higher education institutions); medical institutions; vending machines	[30]
14 June 2002	Apartment buildings with a common staircase or premises to enter the point of sale (except beer)	[31]
1 May 2004	Restrictions applies to all alcoholic beverages, incl. beer	[32]
19 July 2013	Social care institutions, student dormitories; by using a distance contract	[35]
1 September 2014	Premises of state and local government institutions, except for premises of cultural and sports institutions and their territory	[36]
28 December 2020	Websites or mobile apps without a licence for a retail sale of alcoholic beverages by distance contract	[38]

In 1994, a unified procedure for the production, export, import, wholesale and retail sale of alcoholic beverages in Latvia was established. Alcoholic beverages were defined as those with >1.5% ABV, except beer. The retail licence should be issued by the Alcohol Monopoly Board with the agreement of the State Revenue Service and with the consent of the local municipalities. The licence was issued for 1 year [27].

The first Handling of Alcohol Law, adopted on 13 November 1998, permitted permanent retail licences. However, a one-off retail licence was provided to sell alcoholic beverages at off-site sales points at public events [29]. However, this law did not prescribe the procedures for the retail licence and sale of beer. In 2002, parallel to the Handling of Alcohol Law, the Regulations on Beer Handling and Supervision Procedures for the first time prohibited the sale of beer in educational institutions, medical institutions and vending machines [30].

On 1 May 2004, the new Law on the Handling of Alcoholic Beverages came into effect that regulated the availability of all alcoholic beverages, including beer [32]. All existing prohibitions on alcohol retail sale remained in force (Table 1). In the same year, the sale of alcoholic beverages with <6% ABV in a pourable form was permitted in sheds and sales points with an area of less than 20 m² with the issuance of a special five-month short-term licence [33]. In 2010, retailers were required to make retail licences for alcoholic beverages visible at points of sale [34].

After 2004, additional restrictions on the availability of alcoholic beverages regarding sale points have not been implemented for a longer period of time. In 2013, the retail sale of alcoholic beverages was prohibited on distance contact [35]. In March 2020, as part of the COVID-19 control measures, it was temporarily permitted to sell alcoholic beverages using a distance contract, i.e., to purchase them remotely online, via phone or via a mobile application [37]. However, as of 28 December 2020, these amendments have been incorporated and stipulated permanently into the Law on the Handling of Alcoholic Beverages [38].

3.3 |. Minimum legal age for alcohol sale and purchase

In 1985, as part of Gorbachev’s anti-alcohol campaign, the legal drinking age increased from 18 to 21 years in all Soviet countries [39]. The minimum legal age (MLA) for alcoholic beverages remained at 21 years for the first years following regaining independence [24]. On 28 April 1993, the MLA for alcohol sales was reduced to 18 years, except for beer and alcoholic beverages up to 8% ABV [25]. In 2002, with the Regulations on Beer Handling and Supervision Procedures, the MLA for beer sales was established at 18 years [30].

In 1998, the policy requiring customers of alcoholic beverages to provide proof of age and identification at the seller’s request went into effect, but retailers were not obligated to request it [29]. In May 2004, retailers were required to obtain evidence of age from purchasers [32]. In 2010, the MLA requirement was introduced not only for alcohol sales but also for purchase [34]. In 2013, when purchasing alcoholic beverages, those aged 18–25 were required to present an identity document regardless of whether the retailer requested it [35]. On 28 December 2020, revisions were implemented to mandate alcohol distance selling by establishing the MLA at 18 years and requiring electronic identification to verify the purchaser’s identity and age [38].

3.4 |. Off-premises sale time restrictions

After Latvia regained independence, executive committees of the municipalities may determine the off-premises sale hours of alcoholic beverages [24]. In 1998, when the first Handling of Alcohol Law was enacted, municipal approval was required for the selling of alcohol between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM [29]. In 1999, this requirement was abolished [40]. At the country level, the off-premise sale of alcoholic beverages was prohibited from 10:00 PM to 8:00 AM in June 2002. The restrictions did not apply to on-premises sales locations, such as bars, restaurants, cafes and clubs, as well as duty-free shops located on ships, ports, flights or airports [31]. In December 2020, the same restrictions on sales times were applied to alcohol distance selling [38].

3.5 |. Drunk-driving

On 1 November 1994, the BAC limit of ≤0.05% was defined in the Regulations on Road Traffic [41]. In 1997, the Road Traffic Law established a legal framework for road traffic procedures and safety by continuing to set the BAC limit to ≤0.05% [42]. In 2004, the BAC was reduced to ≤0.02% for drivers with less than 2 years of driving experience [43]. The same amendments set the BAC for drivers of mopeds and bicycles to ≤0.1%, but in 2006, the BAC for those was decreased to ≤0.05% [44]. In 2012, a tighter BAC limit of ≤0.02% was mandated for bus, tram and trolley drivers (including categories D1, D, D1E and DE) [45].

After regaining independence in 1991, the Supreme Council of the Republic of Latvia decided to continue applying both the Latvian SSR Administrative Violations Code and Criminal Code until the Republic of Latvia adopted new legislation that also regulated penalties for DUI of alcohol [46]. In 1993, the criminal liability was imposed for drunk-driving on those who were DUI of alcohol more than once in a one-year period [47]. On 1 April 1999, the new Criminal Law was enacted that imposed criminal liability on those who were DUI of alcohol more than once in 1 year or who caused traffic accidents resulting in injuries or death when DUI of alcohol [48]. In 2005, criminal liability was applied for refusal to take a blood alcohol test and drinking alcohol without a valid driver’s licence [49]. In 2013, the article on the criminal liability of repeated DUI for alcohol in 1 year was removed [50]. In 2015, revisions were enacted imposing a criminal offence on those who refused an alcohol test in conjunction with driving without a licence or involvement in a traffic accident that resulted in injury or death [51].

Between 1991 and 2000, several amendments to the Latvian Administrative Violations Code imposed certain monetary fines or a suspension of the right to drive the vehicles on individuals found DUI of alcohol [52–55]. On 16 July 2001, the administrative penalties were adjusted according to the different BAC limits. The administrative penalties ranged from 100 LVL to 450 LVL for monetary fines and from none to 36 months for the timing of the suspension of a driving licence [56], with the subsequent changes of increasing administrative penalties for the DUI of alcohol in 2003 [57] and 2010 [58].

On 1 January 2014, the administrative fines were recalculated to the euros without an increase in penalties [59]. On 1 July 2020, specific administrative penalties for drunk driving were incorporated into the Road Traffic Law with a fine from 210€ to 2000€ and the driving licence suspension period from 6 months to 5 years [60]. Concurrently, the Law on Administrative Liability was enacted establishing the following general administrative procedures for DUI of alcohol: (i) a driver under the influence of alcohol should be suspended from driving and subjected to a breath test or medical examination; (ii) the driver’s vehicle may be confiscated if a driver has committed an administrative offence against traffic safety while DUI of alcohol; and (iii) officials were authorised to conduct an alcohol concentration determination test on the person’s breath and, if this was not possible or the person refused, officials were authorised to transport the person to a medical facility for a medical examination [61].

4 |. ADVERTISEMENT AND SPONSORSHIP

The first Law on Radio and Television came into force on 20 May 1992 and alcohol advertising was not regulated [62]. On 11 September 1995, the new Radio and Television Law banned alcohol advertising, except for beer and wine and telemarketing. If alcohol advertisements were inevitable and visible in the background during sports or comparable broadcasts, they may be allowed [63]. The content of alcohol advertising was also regulated. The law prohibited minors from appearing or being addressed in commercials for alcoholic beverages on television and radio. In 2000, the general Advertising Law prohibited employing and addressing children in advertising for alcoholic beverages in any form [64]. Alcohol advertisements on radio and TV should not refer to drinking while participating in sports or while driving or to promote beliefs about the health and social benefits of alcohol consumption. In addition, the content should not encourage alcohol intake or convey negative attitudes toward abstention and moderate usage [63]. In the 1998 revision, alcohol commercials could not imply alcohol use led to social or sexual success [65]. On 11 August 2010, the Radio and Television Law was suppressed and replaced by the Electronic Mass Media Law [66]. All previous provisions governing the advertisement of alcoholic beverages on radio and TV remained in place, and no new restrictions were implemented.

Additional restrictions on alcohol advertisement placement and sponsorship were regulated by the Handling of Alcohol Law [29,31] and Handling of Alcoholic Beverages Law [32,35] (Table 2).

TABLE 2.

Alcohol advertising placement bans and sponsorship restrictions in Latvia between 1995 and 2020.

Implementation date	Alcohol advertising placement bans and sponsorship restrictions	Reference
11 September 1995	TV and radio, except for beer and wine	[63]
13 November 1998	Educational institutions, Latvian postal mail items, cultural and sporting events (except for a general sponsor of the event)	[29]
14 June 2002	Sponsorship children’s and youth sporting events by advertising the alcoholic beverages	[31]
1 May 2004	Sponsorship children’s and youth sporting events by advertising the alcoholic beverages, except for the producer’s brand name	[32]
1 May 2004	Printed press (on the covers of books, magazines and newspapers) and public transportation	[32]
19 July 2013	Outdoor advertising of all alcoholic beverages	[35]

Since 1998, alcohol visual advertisements have been required to include a disclaimer about alcohol’s detrimental impact on health, which should take up at least 10% of the space. In addition, it was prohibited to include persons consuming alcohol, to use state symbols, to refer to alcohol as a medical treatment or to associate alcohol consumption with sports activities or driving [29].

Since 2004, the information about alcohol’s detrimental impact on health should be provided at the bottom of the advertisement in black letters on a white background. The size of the letters should be as large as technically possible in the space provided for the text [33]. In 2013, alcoholic beverage advertisements were required to include a statement not only about alcohol’s detrimental effects but also the ban on selling and distributing alcohol to minors, and outdoor advertising of any alcoholic beverages was prohibited [35].

During the studied period, no additional restrictions on alcohol advertising, sponsorship or marketing have been enacted since 2013.

5 |. TAXATION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

On 1 January 1991, the Latvian Supreme Council enacted the first Excise Duty Law, where the excise duty rate for alcoholic beverages was established as a percentage of the retail sale price. Inconsistencies in the definition of alcoholic beverages and several adjustments to the percentages of the retail price occurred between 1991 and 1993 [67–71] (Table A2).

The next year after Latvia adopted the lats (LVL) as its national currency in 1993, considerable amendments were made to the Law on Excise Duties. On 18 August 1994, the alcohol excise duty rates were changed to beverage-specific rates for spirits and wine rather than the sale price [72]. Table 3 shows absolute and relative changes in alcohol excise tax rates for alcoholic beverages from 1994 through 2020, along with references to 23 revisions [72–95].

TABLE 3.

Excise duty rates for alcoholic beverages in Latvia 1994–2020, LVL/EUR per 100 L; and proportionate change compared to the previous rate, %.

Implementation date	Spirits	Wine	Intermediate products		Fermented beverages		Beer
	LVL/EURq per 100 L; % change						LVL/EUR per 100 L/% change; from 1 May 2004 per %ABV					Reference
18 August 1994	300.00	25.00n	N/D	N/D	N/D		N/A					[72]
1 June 1996	350.00; ↑16.7%	25.00o	N/D	N/D	N/D		350.00d,e					[73]
12 April 1997	350.0	25.00o	N/D	N/D	N/D		4.00d; ↓98.9%			350.00e		[74]
1 July 1997	400.00; ↑14.3%	25.00o	N/D	N/D	N/D		4.00d			400.00e; ↑14.3%		[75]
1 January 1998	410.00; ↑2.5%	25.00o	N/D	N/D	N/D		4.00d			410.00e; ↑2.5%		[76]
1 January 1999	460.00; ↑12.2%	25.00p	30.00h	60.00i	25.00g		4.00d			410.00e		[77]
13 August 1999	500.00; ↑8.7%	25.00p	36.00j; ↑20.0%	60.00k	25.00g		4.00d			410.00e		[78]
11 December 1999	550.00; ↑10.0%	30.00p; ↑20.0%	42.00j; ↑16.7%	70.00k; ↑16.7%	30.00g; ↓20.0%		4.00d			410.00e		[79]
1 January 2000	550.00	30.00p	42.00j	70.00k	30.00g		2.00a	3.00b	3.00o	4.00d	42.00e ↓89.8%	[80]
1 January 2003	550.00	30.00p	42.00j	70.00k	30.00g		3.30a; ↑65.0%	4.70b ↑56.7%	6.40o ↑113.3%	8.10d ↑102.5%	42.00e	[81]
1 May 2004	550.00	30.00p	42.00j	70.00k	30.00g		1.22f					[82]
1 January 2006	630.00; ↑14.5%	30.00p	42.00j	70.00k	30.00g		1.30f; ↑6.6%					[83]
1 February 2009	825.00; ↑30.9%	40.00p; ↑33.3%	42.00j	70.00k	40.00g; ↑33.3%		1.45f; ↑11.5%					[84]
1 July 2009	890.00; ↑7.9%	40.00p	42.00j	70.00k	40.00g		2.18f; ↑50.3%					[85]
1 February 2010	890.00	45.00p; ↑12.5%	45.00j; ↑7.1%	70.00k	45.00g; ↑12.5%		2.18f					[86]
1 June 2011	940.00; ↑5.6%	45.00p	45.00j	70.00k	45.00g		2.18f					[87]
1 January 2014q	1337.50	64.03p	64.03j	99.60k	64.03g		3.10f					[88]
1 August 2015	1360.00; ↑1.7%	70.00p; ↑9.3%	70.00j ↑9.3%	110.00k; ↑10.4%	64.00l	70.00m; ↑9.3%	3.80f; ↑22.6%					[89]
1 March 2016	1400.00; ↑2.9%	74.00p; ↑5.7%	74.00j; ↑5.7%	120.00k; ↑9.1%	64.00l	74.00m; ↑5.7%	4.20f; ↑10.5%					[90]
1 March 2017	1450.00; ↑3.6%	78.00p; ↑5.4%	78.00j; ↑5.4%	130.00k; ↑8.3%	64.00l	78.00m; ↑5.4%	4.50f; ↑7.1%					[91]
1 March 2018	1670.00; ↑15.2%	92.00p; ↑17.9%	92.00j; ↑17.9%	150.00k; ↑15.4%	64.00l	92.00m; ↑17.9%	6.80f; ↑51.1%					[92]
1 March 2019	1840.00; ↑10.2%	101.00p; ↑9.8%	101.00j ↑9.8%	168.00k; ↑12.0%	64.00l	101.00m; ↑9.8%	7.40f; ↑8.8%					[93]
1 August 2019	1564.00; ↓15.0%	101.00p	101.00j	168.00k	64.00l	101.00m	7.40f					[94]
1 March 2020	1642.00; ↑5.0%	106.00p; ↑5.0%	106.00j ↑5.0%	176.00k; ↑4.8%	64.00l	106.00m; ↑5.0%	7.80f; ↑5.4%					[95]

Abbreviations: ABV, alcohol by volume; N/A, not applicable; N/D, not defined.

^a≥0.5% to ≤2.8% ABV.

^b>2.8% to ≤4.0% ABV.

^c>4.0% to ≤5.5% ABV.

^d>5.5% to ≤7.0% ABV.

^e>7.0% ABV.

^f>0.5% ABV.

^g>1.2% to ≤15.0% ABV.

^h≤14.0% ABV.

ⁱ>14% to ≤22% ABV.

^j≤15.0% ABV.

^k>15% to ≤22% ABV.

^l>1.2% to ≤6% ABV.

^m>6% to ≤15.0% ABV.

ⁿ<19% ABV.

^o<14% ABV.

^pWine <18.0% ABV, sparkling wine/champagne <15.0% ABV.

^qLatvia adopted the Euro on 1 January 2014; Latvia’s Banka historical currency rates are available from: https://www.bank.lv/en/statistics/stat-data/2015-03-15-11-51-38/historical-currency-converter

During the 1990s, the excise tax on spirits was increased six times, from 2.5% to 16.7% [73–80]. In contrast, during the rapid economic growth from 2000 to 2007, the first increase in spirits excise taxes occurred in 2006. However, the largest increase of 38.8% in excise tax in a single year occurred during the economic recession in 2009 [83,84]. The following significant increase was on 1 March by 15.2% in 2018 [91] and 10.2% on 1 March 2019 [92]. However, in response to cross-border trade with Estonia, the excise duty rate on spirits was reduced by 15% on 1 August [93], followed by a slight increase of 5% in 2020, to 1642.00 EUR per 100 L [94]. Since 1 March 2020, spirits produced by small spirits distilleries have been subject to an excise rate of 50% [95].

On 1 January 1999, wines were distinguished from intermediate alcoholic beverages with ≤14% ABV and from >14% to ≤22% ABV and fermented beverages with ≤15% ABV [77]. Later that year, the ABV cut-off limits for intermediate products were changed to ≤15% and from >15% to ≤22% [78]. In August 1999, the excise duty rate on intermediate products with 15% ABV increased by 20% [79]. In December of the same year, the excise duty rates on wine and fermented beverages increased by 20%, while rates on intermediate products increased by 16.7% [80]. Since 2015, fermented beverages with ≤6% ABV and from >6% to ≤15.0% ABV have been excised separately [88]. Between 2018 and 2019, excise taxes on wines, intermediate products, and fermented beverages experienced the most significant relative increase since 1999 by 27% (Table 3).

Initially, Latvia did not have a beer-specific excise duty, but the same excise duty rate as for spirits was established for beer with >5.5% ABV in 1996 [73]. After several months, in April 1997, the specific excise duty rate was established for beer with an ABV from 5.5% to 7.0%. The excise duty rate for beer with >7.0% ABV remained equivalent to that on spirits [74]. Between 1997 and 1999, the excise duty on beer with a lower alcohol content remained unchanged but was increased twice on beer with an ABV >7.0% [76,77].

Between 2000 and 2003, the excise duty rates for beer were alcohol content-specific [80,81]. In 2003, the excise duty on beer with an ABV of ≤4.0% and for beer from >4.0% ABV to ≤7.0% ABV significantly increased. Meanwhile, the excise duty rate for a beer with an alcohol content above 7.0% remained unchanged [81].

In May 2004, the new Law on Excise Duties defined beer’s excise tax rate as 1.22 LVL (1.86 EUR) per % of ABV [82]. A reduced tax for small breweries was established on 10 May 2005 [96,97,98]. Between 2006 and 2020, the excise duty rate for beer per % of ABV was amended nine times [83–85,89–93,95], with the most significant increase of 61.8% in 2009, during the economic recession, and 51.1% in 2018 (Table 3).

6 |. DISCUSSION

Several of the WHO “best buys” for alcohol control have been adopted in Latvia throughout the past three decades. For instance, reduced hours of sale for alcoholic beverages is an effective measure to reduce alcohol-related problems [97,98]. National-level restrictions on off-premises sales between 22:00 and 08:00 were implemented in 2002 and remain in effect today. However, on-premises sales hours of alcoholic beverages are not regulated in Latvia. Evidence suggests that increasing regulation of on-premises sales hours may reduce violent behaviour and crimes [99] and alcohol-related injuries [100]. Additionally, the WHO recommends reducing both off- and on-premises sales hours to improve results in reducing alcohol-related harm [101,102]. In Latvia, the number and density of alcohol outlets are not restricted, and alcoholic beverages are available in liquor stores, regular grocery stores, markets, as well as petrol stations. The evidence suggests that alcohol outlet density policies are effective at reducing social disorder, violence, harm to others and drunk driving fatalities [97,103].

As part of the country’s COVID-19 mitigation measures, alcohol sales via distance contracts were permitted in 2020 and remained permanent in Latvia. Online alcohol sales have experienced rapid growth during the COVID-19 pandemic [104,105], raising concerns about increased heavy drinking patterns [106]. Evidence on the impact of online alcohol on alcohol consumption is still scarce. While Latvia has established time restrictions on alcohol online sales and the MLA, existing reviews of policies governing online alcohol sales and delivery indicate that those regulations do not hold strong establishments to the same standard, which may be insufficient to prevent youth access [105].

Although the prevalence of injuries caused by drunk drivers has decreased by more than half, from 12.5% in 2004 to 5.9% in 2020, alcohol use while driving remains a significant risk factor for traffic accidents in Latvia [107]. Effective enforcement of drunk-driving laws is necessary for conducting and processing random breath-testing activities and sobriety checkpoints. Although penalties to reduce drunk-driving are in place, the judicial system needs the resources necessary to process cases [101]. There are areas of drunk-driving legislation that have not been implemented in Latvia. For instance, evidence suggests that the alcohol-related laws with the greatest potential to reduce alcohol-related traffic fatalities are zero-tolerance laws for underage drivers and laws requiring DUI offenders to instal an ignition interlock device in their motor vehicle [108].

In Latvia, outdoor alcohol advertising was banned in 2013. No other limitations on alcohol advertising, sponsorship or marketing have been introduced since then. In today’s world, regulatory responses must address the marketing of alcoholic beverages on digital platforms [109]. The WHO “best buys” include total prohibitions or comprehensive restrictions on alcohol advertising across all media platforms, with a strong focus to eliminate the marketing and advertising of alcoholic products to minors [101].

Alcohol pricing significantly affects alcohol consumption, and alcohol taxation is the primary mechanism for governments to influence alcohol prices [110]. During the period of rapid economic growth from 2000 to 2007, only excise duty for spirits increased in 2006. Meanwhile, a significant APC increase occurred in Latvia (Figure S1). Afterwards, in response to the economic recession, the greatest increase in excise duty on spirits, wine and beer occurred between 2009 and 2010 (Figure S3), following a significant decline in affordability [111].

Afterwards, alcoholic beverage excise taxes have not been revised for several years. In 2017, the state tax policy intended to implement measures aimed at shifting the tax burden away from labour and toward consumption and capital, which included a gradual increase and predictability in excise duty rates on alcoholic beverages. The Guidelines of the State Tax Policy expected an increase in excise duty for spirits from 1400 EUR in March 2016 to 2025 EUR in March 2020 per % ABV [112]; however, this was not achieved.

Between 2016 and 2017, the cross-border trade in alcohol between Latvia and Estonia increased by three times as the retail price for alcohol was far lower in Latvia. The Estonian government reduced excise tax rates for alcohol by 25% in July 2019 [113]. In August 2019, Latvia responded by reducing the excise duty for spirits by 15%. Nonetheless, as the excise tax for spirits was raised in March 2019, affordability decreased this year [111]. While the total APC from 2018 to 2020 decreased in Latvia, the alcohol consumption per resident may be rising as the estimated alcohol tourist sales have fallen at a greater rate and the domestic sales have risen (Figure S1).

The Latvia-Estonia cross-border alcohol trade case demonstrates the importance of coordinating alcohol policies with neighbouring countries to make progress in effectively reducing alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harm. In Latvia, cross-border trade data collection only began in 2015 and the accuracy of the estimates is debatable, as transparent methodology and systematic monitoring have yet to be established.

Overall, alcohol taxation is a relatively controversial subject in the Baltic States, where alcohol consumption is high and alcohol excise revenues are among the highest in the EU [114]. The most effective taxation method to reduce alcohol-related harm might be to tax the volume of alcohol directly and consistently across beverage types. In addition, alcohol taxes should be targeted and inflation-indexed to ensure that prices do not decrease in real terms over time [109].

Although several evidence-based alcohol control measures were implemented during the studied period, alcohol consumption in Latvia remained high. Furthermore, despite the increasing trend of APC in Latvia between 2010 and 2020, there have been few legislative changes for strengthening alcohol control policies over this decade. Conversely, excise duty for spirits was decreased in 2019 and online alcohol sales were permitted in 2020.

This study did not aim to evaluate the effectiveness of specific alcohol control measures, but rather aimed to identify all implemented policies. This task is the necessary first step in evaluating the impact such policies on alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harm.

6.1 |. Strengths and limitations

To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first review of Latvia’s alcohol control policies and covers over three decades. However, the current review is limited to specific areas of alcohol control policy and does not include other legislative changes in alcohol production, wholesale, labelling or others.

7 |. CONCLUSION

Latvia’s alcohol control evolution reflects the political and social changes occurring between 1990 and 2020. The alcohol control legislation changed the most during the transitional period after regaining independence, when the need to establish a national legislative framework became apparent, and accession to the EU, when alignment with EU policies became necessary. Overall, alcohol policies seem to have changed more for political and economic considerations rather than public health concerns. In fact, the goal of reducing alcohol consumption in the country’s strategic initiatives has not been achieved, as evident in the rising alcohol per capita consumption.

In conclusion, Latvia laid the groundwork for effective alcohol handling and control during the studied period. However, Latvia still has considerable potential for strengthening alcohol control.

Key points.

• Between 1990 and 2020, a number of alcohol control policies were implemented, including excise taxation, availability restrictions, advertising bans and drunk-driving legislation in Latvia.

• Since 2010, when an increasing trend of alcohol consumption was observed, there have been minimal legislative changes to strengthen alcohol control.

• There remains substantial potential for implementing policies to address the high levels of alcohol consumption in Latvia.

APPENDIX A: APPENDICES

See Tables A1 and A2.

TABLE A1.

Identified laws on reviewed alcohol control policies in Latvia between 1990 and 2020.

Availability	Drink-driving	Advertisement	Taxation
Handling of Alcohol Law (13 November 1998–1 May 2004): Retail licensing and restrictions on retail sales locations; minimum legal age of alcohol sale; off-premises sale time restrictions, except for beer Handling of Alcoholic Beverages Law (1 May 2004 – …): Retail licensing and restrictions on retail sales locations; minimum legal age of alcohol sale and purchase; off-premises sale time restrictions for all alcoholic beverages Law on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Threat to the State and Its Consequences Due to the Spread of COVID-19 (22 March 2020–9 June 2020): Introducing distance contracts for the sale of alcoholic beverages	Administrative Violations Code (1 July 1985–1 July 2020): Administrative liabilities to drunk driving Road Traffic Law (4 November 1997 –….): Blood alcohol content limits; administrative liabilities to drunk driving (since 2020) Criminal Code (1 June 1961–1 April 1999): Criminal liabilities for drunk driving Criminal Law (1 April 1999 – …): criminal liabilities for drunk driving Law of Administrative Liability (1 July 2020 –…): general rules and procedures for dealing with drunk driving	Law on Radio un Television (20 May 1992–10 September 1995): Advertisements for alcoholic beverages are not regulated Radio and Television Law (11 September 1995–11 August 2010): First regulations on advertisements for alcoholic beverages on television and radio Handling of Alcohol Law (13 November 1998–1 May 2004): Requirements for alcohol visual advertisements and restrictions on place advertisements for alcoholic beverages Advertising Law (24 January 2001 – …) Prohibition of using and addressing children in any advertisements for alcoholic beverages Handling of Alcoholic Beverages Law (1 May 2004 – …): Requirements for alcohol visual advertisements and restrictions on place advertisements for alcoholic beverages Electronic Mass Media Law (11 August 2010 – …): Restrictions on advertisements for alcoholic beverages to audio and audiovisual commercials	Law on Excise Duties (1 January 1991–2008 December 1999): Establishing excise duty rates for alcoholic beverages, regulations on excise duty stamps Law on Excise Duties on Alcoholic Beverages (1 January 1999–1 May 2004): Establishing excise duty rates for alcoholic beverages; except for beer from 2000 to 2004 Law on Excise Duty on Beer (1 January 2000–1 May 2004): Establishing excise duty rates for beer Law on Excise Duties (1 May 2004 – …): Establishing excise duty rates for all alcoholic beverages

TABLE A2.

Changes of excise duty rates for alcoholic beverages as a percentage of the retail purchase price.

Implementation date	Spirits and liquor	Cognac	Wine	Champagne	Fortified wine	Spirits >25% ABV	Alcoholic beverages ≥8% to 25% ABV	Other alcoholic beverages >25% ABV	Reference
1 January 1991	91%	60%	45%	75%	75%	N/D	N/D	N/D	[67]
1 January 1992	91%	60%	N/D	30%a	N/D	N/D	N/D	N/D	[68]
1 October 1992	N/D	200%b	30%	30%	N/D	200%	100%	400%	[69]
1 November 1992	N/D	150%c	30%	30%	N/D	200%	100%	200%	[70]
12 April 1993	N/D	150%c	30%	30%	50%	200%	100%	200%	[71]

Abbreviations: ABV, alcohol by volume; N/D, not defined.

^aChampagne and other alcoholic beverage with the >8% ABV.

^bIncluding liquors >25% ABV and whiskey and rum andgin.

^cIncluding liquors >25% ABV and whiskey and rum and gin and “Riga Black Balsam.”