What to Plant in Latvia: 117,000 Mature Private Stands by Real Yield per Hectare

TL;DR

• In our VMD sample, mature private cadastres are distributed across dominant species as follows: Scots pine — 188,561 ha, birch — 167,964 ha, aspen and alders combined — 122,447 ha, Norway spruce — 47,100 ha. That distribution reflects 30 years of management decisions made by the previous generation.
• Gross stumpage value: pine on a 100-year rotation yields roughly €19,400/ha, birch on a 70-year rotation roughly €15,100/ha, spruce on an 80-year rotation roughly €12,200/ha, black alder on a 50-year rotation roughly €10,200/ha, and aspen roughly €4,500/ha.
• Once you discount to NPV (4% real) the ranking flips: black alder (50 years) and birch on good soils frequently beat pine (100 years), because a long rotation discounts the payoff to almost nothing.
• The regional breakdown matters more than it looks: pine in central Latvia delivers 263 m³/ha versus 227 in Kurzeme and 233 in Latgale. Birch in Zemgale (185 m³/ha) outperforms birch in Latgale (173 m³/ha). Soils explain up to 25% of the variation in final volume.
• The main counterintuitive result: when you have a free choice on a fresh site, there is no universal answer. The decision depends on site index, the owner's current age, and how you price climate risk (bark beetle for spruce, drought across all conifers).

What 117,000 mature private cadastres tell us

Using the VMD release for 2026 Q2, we isolated mature private stands using the statutory rotation ages: pine 100+ years, spruce 80+, birch 70+, soft hardwoods (aspen, black alder, grey alder) 50+. That gives us 117,639 mature cadastres, a sample large enough to answer two questions at once: which species did the previous generation prefer, and how much timber did those stands actually produce.

A few observations stand out:

• Pine dominates by total area (188 thousand ha), but not by stand count. Pine stands run larger than average: 1.5 ha versus 1.0 ha for birch.

Pine: the champion of gross stumpage value

Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) is the most heavily represented commercial species in Latvia. Its economics:

Regional breakdown of mature pine:

Pine in central Latvia delivers 263 m³/ha against 227 in Kurzeme, a 16% gap or roughly €2,900/ha of extra gross stumpage revenue across the 100-year horizon. The driver is Pierīga's better site indexes: light sandy-loam soils with deep groundwater are an ideal pine substrate.

• Standing volume: 243 m³/ha on a 100-year rotation, on average across the sample.
• Assortment mix in mid-mature pine: roughly 70% premium pine sawlog (D ≥ 30 cm) at €90–105/m³, roughly 25% standard sawlog at €70–80/m³, roughly 5% pulpwood at €30–35/m³. Weighted average around €80/m³.

Spruce: high volume, but the risk premium eats the margin

Norway spruce (Picea abies) holds a meaningful share: 46 thousand stands across 47 thousand ha of mature area.

That is materially below pine on a comparable rotation. Spruce also carries two problems on top of the base calculation:

After applying a 15–25% climate-risk haircut, expected net return on spruce drops to €9,000–10,000/ha, below birch and roughly equal to black alder despite running on twice the rotation length.

• Standing volume: 204 m³/ha on an 80-year rotation.
• Assortment mix: roughly 55% spruce sawlog at €75–90/m³, roughly 10% premium sawlog at €95–105/m³, roughly 35% pulpwood at €25–30/m³. Weighted average around €60/m³.
• Gross stumpage revenue: 204 × €60 = €12,240/ha.
• Bark beetle (Ips typographus) is a structural risk. In our earlier piece on bark beetle we estimated that around 100,000 ha of mature private spruce in Latvia sits in the risk zone. During an outbreak the damage can run to 30–60% of the stand within 2–3 seasons.
• The shortest rotation by regulation. At 80 years spruce is already exposed to health problems, while pine at 80 years has not yet reached its commercial optimum.

Birch: a two-sided species with a veneer-grade premium

Birch (Betula pendula / B. pubescens) is the most numerous species by stand count (155,780 mature) and the second-largest by area.

- On high-site-index ground with careful management — up to 25% birch veneer-grade sawlog A-class (D ≥ 30 cm, straight bole, knot-free) at €145–170/m³.

- With average management — 5–15% veneer, 50–70% standard sawlog at €65–75/m³, the rest pulpwood at €30–35/m³.

- In neglected stands — 0–5% veneer, mostly pulpwood.

Under an average scenario of 25% veneer / 55% sawlog / 20% pulpwood the weighted price is roughly €83/m³. Gross stumpage revenue 182 × €83 = €15,106/ha.

Regional breakdown:

Aspen and alders: the underrated segment

Soft hardwoods are often dismissed because their assortment prices sit below conifer prices. But the per-hectare economics turn out to be better than they look.

• Black alder (Alnus glutinosa): 217 m³/ha on a 50-year rotation. Assortment mix: roughly 40% black alder sawlog at €65–80/m³, roughly 60% pulpwood/firewood at €25–35/m³. Weighted €47/m³. Gross stumpage revenue 217 × €47 = €10,199/ha over 50 years.
• Aspen (Populus tremula): 172 m³/ha on a 50-year rotation. Low sawlog share (10%, €55–70/m³), most volume going into pulpwood and dry kindling (€20–25/m³). Weighted €26/m³. Gross stumpage revenue 172 × €26 = €4,472/ha.
• Grey alder (Alnus incana): 142 m³/ha. Almost entirely pulpwood and firewood (€15–22/m³). Gross stumpage revenue around €2,800/ha. Often arrives via natural seeding and is not the result of deliberate planting.

NPV: where pine loses and alder wins

Gross stumpage value is only half the story. Discounting for the time to recovery changes the picture dramatically.

At a discount rate of 4% real (the standard for long-horizon forestry investment in the EU) and assuming intermediate thinnings add 30% on top of final gross stumpage revenue:

What this means for the planting decision

The counterintuitive bottom line: there is no universal answer, but the default of "plant pine" loses in roughly 60% of cases under reasonable assumptions about discount rate and soil.

Practical scenarios:

Spruce does not show a clear edge over its alternatives in any of the scenarios at a 4% discount rate and current risk levels. That does not mean "never plant spruce", but if you are choosing for a new stand, ask yourself in what way it beats birch (shorter rotation) or pine (more m³/ha on poor soils).

• Poor sandy soil, low moisture. No alternative to pine. NPV is modest, but nothing else will grow.
• Fresh sandy loam, well-drained, central Latvia or Kurzeme. Pine is still a sound choice; the high m³/ha compensates for the long rotation. NPV around €600–800/ha.
• Rich loam, medium moisture, Zemgale or Latgale. Birch is the optimum, especially with investment in active management (NPV €1,800+/ha at a high veneer share). Birch is also adaptive and resistant to windthrow.
• Wet fertile site (former bog, riparian, abandoned drained farmland). Black alder produces the best NPV among realistic species. It needs little maintenance, closes canopy quickly, and fixes nitrogen.
• Ecologically sensitive site, natural corridor, protected zone. Regeneration on the principle of "let what comes naturally come" — typically aspen and grey alder. NPV is lower, but other costs are minimal.

What the simple calculation leaves out

A bare NPV calculation ignores several material factors:

• Subsidies and grants. ALSP and LAD (Latvian agricultural support agencies) run programmes that support afforestation and regeneration, especially for hardwoods and mixed stands. That shifts the economics toward birch and oak.
• Carbon credits. A young stand sequesters around 3–4.5 tCO2/ha/year while growing. At current voluntary-market prices that is €30–55/ha/year of additional revenue. Across a 50-year horizon that totals €1,500–2,750/ha, which is material for NPV.
• Quality of management. All the figures above are averages. An actively managed stand delivers +20–40% on gross stumpage revenue through a better assortment mix.
• Climate change. Across a 50–100-year horizon climate shift is material. Warmer winters favour southern species (beech, oak) and disadvantage boreal species (spruce — the prime casualty).
• Future log prices. All calculations use 2026 prices. The real horizon effect (rising demand for timber as a substitute for plastic, EU policy) adds roughly +1–2% real per year to prices.

FAQ

I have inherited a thinned-out 50-year-old pine stand. What do I do?

A thinned mid-rotation pine stand is the best 30–40-year payoff you can have. Before final felling: (a) carry out sanitary thinnings, (b) prune lower branches on the remaining stems, (c) re-inventory in 5–7 years and reassess. The NPV of that stand 30 years from now 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. The cost of clear-felling, stump removal, soil preparation, planting, and the first five years of maintenance runs €3,000–5,000/ha. On rich, wet ground, plant black alder directly — it is more competitive on NPV and does not need to be replaced. On poor ground, grey alder has no good alternative.

Can a mixed stand reliably beat a monoculture?

With proper planning, yes. A mixed planting of pine and birch (60/40 by stem count) on fresh sandy loam delivers diversification: pine hedges against windthrow and birch insect risks, while birch suppresses competing vegetation around young pine. NPV for a mixed stand is often 10–15% above monoculture. 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 soils makes sense as a family asset or inheritance, not as a cash investment.

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 your goal is pulpwood or firewood on a 50-year horizon, let birch or aspen colonise the site naturally. If you want premium sawlog, you have to plant and manage.

Related reading

These articles round out the topic and place it in broader context.

• How to read a VMD record
• Bark beetle in Latvia and mature spruce
• Who owns Latvian forests

Sources

This text is not investment advice. The actual economics of any stand depend on dozens of local factors (site index, access, regulatory constraints, drainage, site history), and aggregated calculations across a VMD sample do not substitute for an individual on-the-ground assessment. Before any planting decision, consult a practising forester and/or a certified taksator.

• VMD (State Forest Service) Meža valsts reģistrs, 2026 Q2 release (our sample: 117,639 mature private cadastres with mean ages between 65 and 106 years depending on species).
• Latvian State Forest Research Institute Silava — site index tables and statutory rotation ages.
• LVM annual report 2024 — average assortment prices.
• Cabinet Regulation No. 935 (Mežaudzes ciršanas noteikumi) — statutory rotation ages by species.
• Latio Mežu Tirgus Pārskats, Q3 2025 — market prices for forest property and stand valuations.
• Eurostat — climate trends and forest growth observation series.