Textbooks say plant pine. Real VMD data on 117,000 mature private stands tells a different story: black alder on a 50-year rotation delivers the best NPV thanks to its short cycle, and pine only pays off in central Latvia and Kurzeme. A species-by-species breakdown of return per hectare.
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 on a 100-year rotation looks dominant — roughly €19,400/ha against €12,200/ha for spruce and €15,100/ha for birch. Discount those figures at 4% real, though, and the ranking flips: pine drops to €505/ha NPV, while black alder on a 50-year rotation delivers €1,865/ha.
Key Takeaways
- Black alder at 50-year rotation delivers NPV €1,865/ha — 3.7× more than pine at a 4% discount rate.
- Pine's gross stumpage revenue is highest (€19,400/ha), but 100 years of discounting wipes out that advantage.
- Birch with a high veneer-grade share delivers NPV €1,830/ha — nearly equal to alder, on a 20-year longer rotation.
- 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 using statutory rotation ages: pine 100+ years, spruce 80+, birch 70+, soft hardwoods (aspen, black alder, grey alder) 50+. 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 on an 80-year rotation 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 on a 50-year rotation, 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 a 100-year rotation, 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*) on a 100-year rotation 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 €505/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*) on a 50-year rotation 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 across 50 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*) on a 50-year rotation delivers gross stumpage revenue of €10,199/ha and NPV of €1,865/ha at a 4% discount rate (VMD Q2 2026, Silava site index tables). That is 3.7× the NPV of pine (€505/ha) at half the rotation length.
NPV: where pine loses and alder 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 | 100 | 19,440 | 0.0198 | 385 | +120 | ~505 |
| Spruce | 80 | 12,240 | 0.0434 | 531 | +160 | ~690 |
| Birch (average case) | 70 | 15,106 | 0.0642 | 970 | +290 | ~1,260 |
| Birch (high veneer share) | 70 | 22,000 | 0.0642 | 1,412 | +420 | ~1,830 |
| Black alder | 50 | 10,199 | 0.1407 | 1,435 | +430 | ~1,865 |
| Aspen | 50 | 4,472 | 0.1407 | 629 | +190 | ~820 |
Pine on a 100-year rotation produces the lowest NPV among the serious species at a 4% discount — just €505/ha. The reason is pure arithmetic: €19,440 collected 100 years from now is worth €385 today. Pine is not a "bad species." The math is. Black alder NPV (€1,865/ha) is nearly equal to high-veneer birch (€1,830/ha). Half the rotation length compensates for a lower assortment price.
Birch in the average scenario (€1,260/ha) remains a strong candidate, especially if management can push veneer share above 25%. Spruce NPV at €690/ha excludes bark-beetle risk. With a 15–25% risk premium it falls to €520–590/ha, closing in on pine.
At a more conservative 2% real discount rate the ranking shifts.
| Species | NPV €/ha at 2% |
|---|---|
| Black alder (50 years) | ~3,800 |
| High-quality birch (70 years) | ~5,700 |
| Average birch (70 years) | ~3,900 |
| Spruce (80 years) | ~2,500 |
| Pine (100 years) | ~2,700 |
| Aspen (50 years) | ~1,700 |
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.
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?
A thinned mid-rotation pine stand is the best 30–40-year payoff you can position for. Before final felling, run sanitary thinnings, prune the lower branches on remaining stems and re-inventory after 5–7 years to reassess the plan. NPV 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. 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
- VMD (State Forest Service) Meža valsts reģistrs, Q2 2026 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.
Disclaimer
This article 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.