The aim of this paper is to evaluate all kinds of experiences with attractive EU funding for Latvia's private forest sector in the past and to generate new proposals for effective acquisition in near future. Latvian institution may learn from these experiences in order to improve their (acquisition) role in project proposals for the private forest sector. Consequently, the relatively underdeveloped Latvian private forest sector will get its highly needed support for better performance, and progress towards other, leading EU forest sectors. The possibilities for attractive financial EU support are reviewed through both historic experiences with the EU's 'Rural Development Program for 2007 – 2013' and the EU grants, designated for forestry projects. An extensive round of interviews is held with state forest owners and experts involved in forest management programmes and other dedicated EU forest funding initiatives. Following the expert interviews, two key indicators are developed to evaluate the support from the EU. Contacts with the EU countries (the Netherlands, Belgium, Finland and Poland) where similar forestry activities have been done as in Latvia were made. Research done in this work is unique as according to the author's information these countries do not have similar research related to the EU funds efficiency and Rural Development Program for 2007 – 2013. The successfulness of Latvian applications for the EU funding is one major indicator for further fund raising. The EU supported investments generally have higher economic results in comparison with their non EU funded counterparts.

The preservation of cultural heritage has become an important component of government policies of the EU and, of course, Latvia. Along with the preservation of cultural heritage, the use of it is also important. The aim of the research is to choose the best scenario for the use of cultural heritage in developing rural tourism in Latvia. The paper focuses on the problem of use of cultural heritage in the rural tourism development. The paper defined three scenarios for the use of cultural heritage in developing rural tourism: the initiative of entrepreneurs, public organisations and residents; the programme funded by national and regional institutions; the EU fund for the preservation of cultural heritage. A decision on the choice of the most appropriate scenario was made based on an expert decision-making method – the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Out of the three scenarios seven experts: rural craftsmen, a municipality vice leader, a civil servant from the Latvia Ministry of Finance, representatives from rural tourism organisations and the Association of Rural Female organisations, chose the third scenario – the EU fund for the preservation of cultural heritage.

Smart specialisation strategy (RIS3) is topical for each European Union member state – including the Baltic States. It is a smart tool for the European Union (EU) Structural Funds absorption from 2014 to 2020. Each EU member state has set their own priorities based on the country specialisation and economy strengths and weaknesses. For RIS3 development evaluation, there is RIS3 Assessment Wheel developed – a tool for assessing the RIS3 in a chosen region and positioning it between other regions. The aim of research is to find main differences between RIS3 development in the Baltic States. The tasks of research are 1) to compare existing RIS3 Assessment Wheel of Latvia and create authors version of RIS3 Assessment Wheel of Latvia; 2) to create RIS3 Assessment Wheel of Lithuania and Estonia; 3) to make comparisons between created RIS3 Assessment Wheels. The research performed is mainly based on the desk research by using content analysis and the monographic method. In all three Baltic States, there is a lack of information available about revision of priorities in connection with RIS3 development. In order to achieve the aims set in RIS3, it is essential to finish work on RIS3 legislation in Latvia, and introduce the systematic approach to RIS3 target evaluation in all Baltic States.

Purpose of the paper is to assess contribution of the European Fishery Fund (EFF) and European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) in the development of coastal areas. The article reviews particulars of implementation of the Fishery Funds in various planning periods, in more detail analysing the implementation impact in the period of 2014−2020, based on analysis of the needs, goals and projects of the current period. Even though the European Fishery Fund (EFF) in Latvia is being implemented since 2007, there is a lack of scientific publications on its impact on the coastal development. EMFF for the period 2013−2020 has a dual role in the development of coastal areas – as a development tool of the fishery sector and as a development tool of communities in the fishery areas. It is implemented by using communityled local development (CLLD/LEADER) approach. In case of Latvia, a multi-fund approach – EFF/EMFF and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) is already being used for two planning periods. We conclude that the impact of EFF/EMFF on the development of coastal areas is more directed at development of infrastructure of the coastal communities but is less engaged in the fishery development matters - accordingly increasing other activities and preserving historic and cultural heritage for development of tourism and place of residence in the coastal area in interaction and in addition to EAFRD rural development measures of the coastal areas.

Latvia, just like many other EU member states, receives multiannual financial support through the EU financial instruments for implementation of the common policies by the EU. The support is aimed at the priorities set at the level of the EU and is adapted to the peculiarities of each member state’s sphere. The aim of the study is to evaluate the importance of the support, provided by the EU financial instruments, for the development of Latvian fishery sector. The analysis was made on the basis of the available data and their quality. As a result of the study, the author found out that in the planning periods of 2004 – 2006, 2007 – 2013 and 2014 – 2020, for the development of fishery sector in Latvia the support of several EU financial instruments was available. Development of fishery sector is significantly impacted by the availability of the financial support through the EU financial instruments and use thereof. Considering the dependence of the fishery sector on the sustainability principles coordinated at the level of EU, corresponding fishery possibilities, and considering the increase of global competitiveness in the world’s markets, the strengthening of fishery’s competitiveness plays a significant role in the facilitation of the Latvian economy.

The article presents the findings of research aiming to discover the links between absorption of European funds and the development of rural areas in Latvia and Poland. Based on statistical data and Latvian territorial development index at local level, the value of index for Polish local communities was calculated showing a slightly bigger difference in local development in Poland. Absorption of EU funds was rather concentrated in both countries and its highest level was connected with major infrastructural projects as construction of roads, motorways, etc. The use of EU funds under Cohesion Policy is not correlated with the level of development, neither in Latvia nor in Poland. The only significant negative correlation can be observed between the development and the use of funds under Common Agricultural Policy and Fisheries Policy in Latvia.

Promotion of non-agricultural activities in Latvian rural areas is highly important for diversification of rural economy due to decrease in agricultural and forestry employment. So far too little attention has been paid to this aspect. Although EAFRD is the only EU fund directly supporting rural development, only 14% of its public financing for projects in 2007-2013 was invested in non-agricultural entrepreneurship, half of this in financially demanding energy production projects. By total eligible accepted project expenses, approximately 60% of rural entrepreneurship projects were financed by EAFRD. ERDF was also important in which a smaller number of higher value investment projects was implemented. Although EU funds have some importance in activating rural entrepreneurship, so far the direct impact on creation of jobs and value added has been small. The impact could be increased by setting forth specific job creation requirements for the beneficiaries. It is also suggested to avoid supporting expensive projects which do not create a substantial number of jobs. In view of rural entrepreneurs improvements in entrepreneurial environment, including taxing policy are more important than direct support. It especially concerns operation of small companies. Development of small companies in rural areas is of high importance because in many territories there is no capacity and rationale to develop large projects.