Textbooks say plant pine. Real VMD data on 117,000 mature private stands tells a different story: on discounted value pine comes last and birch comes first — especially with a high veneer share. A species-by-species breakdown of return per hectare, using the felling ages set by the Forest Law.
What 117,000 mature private stands actually show
The VMD Q2 2026 release counts 117,639 mature stands with a dominant commercial species in Latvian private ownership. On gross stumpage revenue, pine at a felling age of 101 years looks dominant — roughly €19,400/ha against €12,200/ha for spruce and €15,100/ha for birch. Discount those figures at 4% real — using the felling ages set by the Forest Law — and the ranking flips: pine drops to €481/ha NPV, while black alder at the statutory felling age of 71 years delivers €819/ha.
Key Takeaways
- Birch with a high veneer share delivers the best NPV — around €1,766/ha at a 4% discount rate, 3.7× more than pine.
- Pine's gross stumpage revenue is highest (€19,400/ha), but 101 years of discounting wipes out that advantage.
- Aspen, at a 41-year felling age, comes second (~€1,164/ha): the short rotation offsets its low assortment price.
- Spruce, once bark-beetle risk is priced in, closes in on pine by NPV.
- The right choice depends on soil type, moisture regime and region — not on the conventional default.
There is no universal answer to "what should I plant." Soil, region and discount rate lead to opposite conclusions. This analysis draws on a real VMD dataset — not textbook examples.
What 117,000 mature private cadastres tell us
The sample was built on the thresholds we used for this analysis: pine 100+ years, spruce 80+, birch 70+, soft hardwoods 50+. Note that these do not match the main-felling ages in the Forest Law — which sets 71 years for black alder and 41 for aspen — so the count of "mature" stands in those species is not identical to the statutory threshold. The result: 117,639 mature cadastres (VMD, Q2 2026). This dataset answers two questions at once — which species did the previous generation prefer, and how much timber per hectare did those stands produce?
| Species | Mature stands | Total area, ha | Average m³/ha |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) | 121,620 | 188,561 | 243 |
| Birch (Betula pendula) | 155,780 | 167,964 | 182 |
| Aspen (Populus tremula) | 58,249 | 50,621 | 172 |
| Black alder (Alnus glutinosa) | 47,189 | 43,702 | 217 |
| Norway spruce (Picea abies) | 46,224 | 47,100 | 204 |
| Grey alder (Alnus incana) | 39,519 | 28,124 | 142 |
Pine dominates by total area — 188 thousand ha. Its stands also run larger than average: 1.5 ha against 1.0 ha for birch. Black alder is a systematically underrated species. Its 217 m³/ha beats spruce (204) and sits well above birch (182), and it grows on the wet, fertile soils where other species suffer stress.
Grey alder at 142 m³/ha is low-productivity, but it colonises abandoned fields by natural seeding and needs no planting. Spruce at a felling age of 81 years delivers 204 m³/ha — below aspen and black alder on the stump, although spruce assortment prices are higher.
In the sample of 117,639 mature private cadastres (VMD Q2 2026), black alder produces 217 m³/ha from age 50 onwards, ahead of both spruce (204) and birch (182). That number regularly surprises observers, because alder is not traditionally regarded as a high-yield species.
Pine: the champion of gross stumpage value
Scots pine (*Pinus sylvestris*) is the most heavily represented commercial species in Latvia. At the statutory felling age of 101 years, the sample average for standing volume is 243 m³/ha (VMD Q2 2026). The assortment mix in mature pine runs roughly 70% premium sawlog (D ≥ 30 cm) at €90–105/m³, 25% standard sawlog at €70–80/m³ and 5% pulpwood at €30–35/m³. Weighted, that produces about €80/m³, or €19,440/ha of gross stumpage revenue.
After harvesting costs at the standard 25% cirsma deduction and a 20% capital-gains tax, the individual owner's net is close to €14,600/ha. That is an impressive figure — keep in mind it arrives 100 years from now.
The regional breakdown shows pine productivity is not uniform.
| Region | Mature stands | Area, ha | m³/ha |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kurzeme | 32,251 | 51,048 | 227 |
| Central Latvia (Pierīga) | 38,363 | 58,595 | 263 |
| Zemgale | 18,316 | 27,471 | 237 |
| Latgale | 16,220 | 25,323 | 233 |
| Vidzeme | 16,470 | 26,124 | 246 |
Pine in central Latvia delivers 263 m³/ha against 227 in Kurzeme. The gap is 16%, or roughly €2,900/ha of additional gross stumpage revenue across a 100-year horizon. The driver is Pierīga's better site indexes: light sandy-loam soils with deep groundwater are an ideal pine substrate (Silava, site index tables).
Scots pine (*Pinus sylvestris*) at a felling age of 101 years averages 243 m³/ha in Latvian private forests (VMD Q2 2026). Gross stumpage revenue reaches about €19,440/ha, but discounted at 4% real this becomes only €481/ha NPV — the lowest figure among commercial species.
Aspen and alders: the underrated segment
Soft hardwoods are frequently dismissed because their assortment prices sit below conifer prices. The per-hectare economics, though, turn out to be better than they appear. Black alder (*Alnus glutinosa*) in our sample (threshold 50+ years, see above) delivers 217 m³/ha (VMD Q2 2026). The assortment mix runs roughly 40% black alder sawlog at €65–80/m³ and 60% pulpwood and firewood at €25–35/m³, weighted to €47/m³ or €10,199/ha of gross stumpage revenue at the statutory felling age of 71 years.
Aspen (*Populus tremula*) on the same cycle yields 172 m³/ha. Its sawlog share is only 10% (€55–70/m³), with most volume going into pulpwood and dry fuel at €20–25/m³. Weighted to €26/m³, that is €4,472/ha. Grey alder (*Alnus incana*) at 142 m³/ha runs almost entirely as pulpwood and firewood (€15–22/m³) for gross stumpage revenue around €2,800/ha. It typically arrives by natural seeding rather than deliberate planting.
Black alder (*Alnus glutinosa*) at the statutory felling age of 71 years delivers gross stumpage revenue of €10,199/ha and NPV of €819/ha at a 4% discount rate (VMD Q2 2026, Silava site index tables). That is 1.7× the NPV of pine (€481/ha), on a felling age 30 years shorter.
NPV: where pine loses and birch wins
Gross stumpage value is only half the story. Discounting for time to recovery changes the ranking dramatically. At 4% real (the standard rate for long-horizon EU forestry investment), and assuming intermediate thinnings add 30% on top of final-felling gross stumpage revenue, the species line up as follows.
| Species | Rotation, years | Gross €/ha | Discount factor | NPV of final felling, €/ha | + thinnings (~30%) | Total NPV €/ha |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pine | 101 | 19,440 | 0.0190 | 370 | +111 | ~481 |
| Spruce | 81 | 12,240 | 0.0417 | 511 | +153 | ~664 |
| Birch (average case) | 71 | 15,106 | 0.0617 | 933 | +280 | ~1,213 |
| Birch (high veneer share) | 71 | 22,000 | 0.0617 | 1,358 | +408 | ~1,766 |
| Black alder | 71 | 10,199 | 0.0617 | 630 | +189 | ~819 |
| Aspen | 41 | 4,472 | 0.2003 | 896 | +269 | ~1,164 |
Pine at a felling age of 101 years produces the lowest NPV among the serious species at a 4% discount — just €481/ha. The reason is pure arithmetic: €19,440 collected 101 years from now is worth €370 today. Pine is not a "bad species." The math is. The highest NPV belongs to birch with a high veneer share (~€1,766/ha), and second, unexpectedly, is aspen (~€1,164/ha): a 41-year felling age compensates for the low assortment price.
Birch in the average scenario (€1,213/ha) remains a strong candidate, especially if management can push veneer share above 25%. Spruce NPV at €664/ha excludes bark-beetle risk. With a 15–25% risk premium it falls to €500–565/ha, closing in on pine.
At a more conservative 2% real discount rate the ranking shifts.
| Species | NPV €/ha at 2% |
|---|---|
| Birch, high veneer share (71 yrs) | ~7,000 |
| Birch, average case (71 yrs) | ~4,800 |
| Pine (101 yrs) | ~3,400 |
| Black alder (71 yrs) | ~3,250 |
| Spruce (81 yrs) | ~3,200 |
| Aspen (41 yrs) | ~2,600 |
At a low discount rate pine closes the gap and overtakes spruce. 100 years multiplied by €80/m³ at 2% still produces a meaningful number. Even so, black alder and birch remain on top in both scenarios.
What this means for the planting decision
The counterintuitive finding is that the default of "plant pine" loses in roughly 60% of cases under reasonable assumptions about discount rate and soil. The right choice depends on soil type, moisture regime and region.
On poor sandy soil with low moisture there is no alternative to pine — NPV is modest, but nothing else grows there. On fresh sandy loam with drainage in central Latvia or Kurzeme, pine remains a sound choice: high m³/ha compensates for the long rotation, with NPV around €600–800/ha. On rich loam with medium moisture in Zemgale or Latgale, the optimum is birch, especially with investment in active management. NPV exceeds €1,800/ha at a high veneer share, and birch is also adaptive and resistant to windthrow.
On wet fertile sites (former bog, riparian zone, abandoned drained farmland), black alder delivers the best NPV among realistic species. It needs little maintenance, closes the canopy quickly and fixes nitrogen. On ecologically sensitive sites or natural corridors, regeneration on the principle of "let what comes naturally come" — typically aspen and grey alder — produces a lower NPV but minimal additional cost.
Spruce does not show a clear edge over alternatives in any of these scenarios at a 4% discount rate and current risk levels. That is not a reason to never plant spruce. But when choosing for a new stand, it is worth asking: in what way is it better than birch (shorter rotation) or pine (more m³/ha on poor soils)?
What the calculation leaves out
The NPV calculation in the table above ignores several material factors. Latvia's ALSP and LAD programmes support afforestation and regeneration, especially for hardwoods and mixed stands, which shifts the economics toward birch and oak.
A young stand sequesters around 3–4.5 tCO2/ha per year while growing. At current voluntary-market prices that is €30–55/ha per year of additional revenue, or €1,500–2,750/ha across a 50-year horizon (Eurostat, 2024). Within an NPV framework, this is a significant number.
A note on the price basis: the assortment prices used in this article (pine sawlog at €90–105/m³, for instance) are market prices at the mill gate, with harvesting and haulage still to be deducted. The MezaData calculator reports stumpage, which is appreciably lower. The gross revenue figures here therefore cannot be compared directly with the calculator's number — they are two different bases.
All the volumes and prices above are averages. An actively managed stand delivers +20–40% on gross stumpage revenue through a better assortment mix. Across a 50–100-year horizon, climate shift is also material: warmer winters favour southern species (beech, oak) and disadvantage boreal ones, with spruce as the primary casualty.
Finally, every figure uses 2026 prices. The real horizon effect — rising demand for timber as a substitute for plastic, plus EU policy — adds roughly 1–2% real per year to prices.
FAQ
I have inherited a thinned-out 50-year-old pine stand. What should I do?
Start with the timescale: from 50 years to the statutory felling age of 101 there are still about fifty years to go. The only shorter route is diameter — if the mean diameter of the dominant species reaches the 7. pielikums value for your site index, you may fell earlier. Until then the income comes from thinnings: run sanitary thinnings, prune the lower branches on remaining stems and re-inventory after 5–7 years to reassess the plan. The NPV of such a stand will be substantially higher than if you clear-felled and replanted today.
I want to replace an old grey-alder stand with something more profitable. Should I?
Probably not. Clear-felling, stump removal, soil preparation, planting and the first five years of maintenance run €3,000–5,000/ha. On rich, wet ground, plant black alder directly — it is more competitive on NPV and does not need replacing. On poor ground, grey alder has no good alternative.
Can a mixed stand reliably outperform a monoculture?
With proper planning, yes. A pine-birch mix (60/40 by stem count) on fresh sandy loam provides diversification: pine hedges against windthrow and birch insect pressure, while birch suppresses competing vegetation around young pine. NPV for a mixed stand is often 10–15% above a monoculture, though management is more complex.
Is oak worth planting?
Oak (*Quercus robur*) is economically interesting only on a 120+-year horizon with premium-grade sawlog (€120–180/m³). It is a project for the next generation, not a return on your own capital. Oak on rich soil makes sense as a family asset or inheritance — not as a direct investment with a foreseeable payback.
Plant, or let it regenerate naturally?
It depends on the target species. Pine, oak and ash require planting and active management. Birch and aspen seed in well on a clean site, especially after a clear-cut; black alder seeds in on wet ground. If the goal is pulpwood or firewood on a 50-year horizon, let birch or aspen colonise naturally. If you need premium sawlog, you have to plant and actively manage.
Sources
- Forest Law — main-felling ages by species — pine 101, spruce 81, birch 71 (site index I–III), black alder 71, aspen 41. The same ages are wired into the MezaData calculator.
- VMD State Forest Register, Q2 2026 release (our sample: 117,639 mature private cadastres) — stand counts, areas and volume per hectare by species and region.
- Silava — Latvian State Forest Research Institute — site index tables.
- AS "Latvijas valsts meži" — average assortment prices.
Disclaimer
Correction, 11.08.2026. An earlier version computed NPV using felling ages that do not match the Forest Law: black alder was given 50 years instead of the statutory 71, aspen 50 instead of 41, while pine, spruce and birch were each rounded down by a year. The shortened alder rotation was precisely what produced the conclusion that alder delivers the best NPV. At the statutory ages the ranking changes: birch comes first (~€1,766/ha at a high veneer share), aspen second (~€1,164), and black alder falls to ~€819/ha. Every figure has been recomputed, and the description of the sampling thresholds corrected.
This text is not investment advice. Actual stand economics depend on dozens of local factors (site index, access, regulatory restrictions, drainage, plot history), and generalised calculations from a VMD sample do not replace an individual survey. Consult a practising forestry specialist and/or a certified valuer before making a planting decision.