Market fluctuations and price changes are reducing timber volumes in Latvia - Zeme un valsts
11th LMSP International Conference in 19 days, 29 October. Learn more ›

Market fluctuations and price changes are reducing timber volumes in Latvia

Private forest owners sharply reduced their timber harvesting volumes last year, which they attribute to stagnation in the largest sales markets for timber products.

Data from the State Forest Service show that 13.8 million m³ of timber was harvested in Latvia in 2025 – 2.2 million m³, or 13.7%, less than in 2024. This significant drop in harvesting volumes is driven mainly by the private forest ownership sector, where 6.66 million m³ of timber was harvested last year, 1.94 million m³, or 32.6%, less than in 2024. In state forests, by contrast, the drop in harvesting was only 0.26 million m³. It should be noted that the volume of timber harvested in a given year may not fully reflect the real picture, since some felling permits are settled only once every several years, with the final year's return including the entire timber volume declared by the forest owner, which raises doubts about the accuracy of the harvested-volume figures.

The price factor

“The activity of private forest owners in forestry is driven by the price of timber resources, which is tied to demand,” says Edgars Dupužs, one of the largest private forest owners, asked about the overall change in felling volumes, briefly explaining that as soon as timber purchase prices fall, small private forest owners in particular halt their timber harvesting activity, and vice versa – activity rises when timber purchase prices are at their highest. It should be noted that very high timber purchase prices occurred only some time ago in recent years, which is why some private forest owners are hoping the situation will repeat and are holding off.

A mirror of the past

“What was, is no longer, and won't be again!” is how Armands Apfelbaums, co-owner of the timber trading company SIA “ACA Timber”, comments on the overall picture. In his view, the volume of timber harvested, particularly in the private forest ownership segment, is not driven solely by market demand and the level of potential payment, but also by several other factors, which together produce what is currently visible in the statistics.

“Yes, last year more than one million m³ less roundwood was exported, and about 0.2 million m³ less sawn timber, which certainly influenced some private forest owners' decisions regarding their mature forests, but it should be understood that there were roundwood assortments that fetched a good price last year, and others whose price hardly pleased their sellers. A forest doesn't only contain sawlogs or veneer logs – there is also pulpwood, pallet blocks and firewood,” explains A. Apfelbaums. He notes that hoping for constant growth in market demand is unrealistic, as the experience of the past 20 years shows.

“In recent years we have already seen several peaks and troughs in demand and prices, and hoping that a calm, predictable future will return again is naive in the current situation, as the knots of the geopolitical situation have tied even tighter,” concludes A. Apfelbaums. The conflict in the Middle East has “closed” the Strait of Hormuz, and it is not known when this situation will actually change, not merely at the level of statements, while fuel prices have risen.

“In the middle of summer, a shortage of wood pellets was observed, which gave producers of this product an unexpected opportunity to clear out stocks from previous years in their warehouses, if any remained after a relatively cold winter, and at the same time to increase purchases of the raw material needed to produce it, provided production capacity was not already fully utilised,” says A. Apfelbaums, adding that besides wood pellets there are also wood briquettes, firewood and wood chips for industrial heating companies.

“Latvia is a member state of the European Union, so rising prices for energy wood will encourage the sourcing of these resources and will motivate some private forest owners to harvest timber, particularly those who have no other use for it,” forecasts A. Apfelbaums.

A correction to the forecasts

In the view of several people surveyed, the drop of more than 2 million m³ in Latvia's timber harvesting has shattered the myth that, once the European Union closed its market to timber and timber products from Russia and Belarus, demand for timber across Europe would rise, and that Latvia, alongside Finland and Sweden, would be one of the countries able to increase its supply of this resource and the products made from it.

“Millions of cubic metres of timber resources that used to come from Russia have disappeared from the European market, but the shortage is currently not being felt, because some of it is being imported from other, non-EU countries, while demand for another share has fallen; there are, of course, also exceptions,” is how A. Apfelbaums assesses the overall picture following the closure of the European market to Russian and Belarusian timber and timber products.

An unknown factor

Interestingly, in the view of several people surveyed, some influence on timber harvesting volumes could also come from the decision taken by the Latvian parliament at the end of 2025 to apply a natural resource tax to unprocessed timber. Specifically, from 2027, unprocessed timber sold outside the EU will be subject to a tax of €75/m³, rising to €115/m³ a year later, from 2028 – which in effect amounts to a full export ban. “The volumes exported from Latvia to China are not significant; this volume will shrink, because empty containers are no longer being shipped from Europe to China through Latvian ports,” is how E. Dupužs assesses the situation.

Volume of timber harvested (million m³)

Year In state forests In owners' forests Country total
1996 4,48 2,28 6,76
1997 4,87 4,05 8,92
1998 4,51 5,52 10,03
1999 5,30 8,14 13,44
2000 3,72 7,28 11,00
2001 3,80 6,71 10,51
2002 3,89 7,40 11,29
2003 4,14 7,53 11,67
2004 3,94 6,81 10,75
2005 4,80 6,49 11,29
2006 4,41 5,40 9,81
2007 4,69 5,43 10,12
2008 5,54 3,42 8,96
2009 7,73 3,00 10,73
2010 7,64 5,34 12,98
2011 6,69 6,03 12,72
2012 5,75 5,98 11,73
2013 5,57 6,09 11,66
2014 5,43 6,25 11,68
2015 5,22 5,40 10,62
2016 5,11 5,45 10,56
2017 5,75 5,69 11,44
2018 5,94 6,92 12,86
2019 6,63 6,72 13,34
2020 7,36 5,89 13,32
2021 6,77 6,30 13,07
2022 6,37 6,71 13,08
2023 7,20 7,84 15,05
2024 7,40 8,60 16,00
2025 7,14 6,66 13,80

Source: State Forest Service

Add a comment