February 2026 trade data from Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia point to a broader regional shift rather than a one-month fluctuation. Goods trade remained in deficit across all three economies, while pressure was concentrated in mineral products, wood, agricultural goods and other resource- or energy-intensive segments. The three countries are adjusting in different ways: Lithuania is showing a broad cooling in goods trade, Latvia is facing stronger energy-import pressure, and Estonia is sending the clearest warning through a fall in exports of domestic-origin goods.
Baltic overview
Together, the three Baltic states exported €5.871bn of goods and imported €7.123bn in February, leaving a combined goods trade deficit of €1.252bn. On the sum of national data, total trade turnover reached €12.994bn, though that figure includes intra-Baltic flows and should not be treated as the net size of the region’s external market.
Baltic data card
Exports: €5.871bn
Imports: €7.123bn
Trade deficit: €1.252bn
Turnover: €12.994bn*
* Sum of national exports and imports, including intra-Baltic trade.
Lithuania: goods trade cooled, but the deeper pressure is on domestic-origin exports
Lithuania’s February data show a broad cooling in goods trade rather than an import shock. Goods exports fell by 1.6% year on year to €2.870bn, while imports declined by 3.4% to €3.361bn. The trade deficit remained large at €491.3m, though smaller than a year earlier.
The more important signal is that exports of Lithuanian-origin goods fell by 6.6% in February and by 7.7% in January-February. This confirms that the weakness is not limited to re-exports. The main annual drags in February were cereals, iron and steel, and mineral fuels. Over the first two months of the year, the most visible pressure in Lithuanian-origin exports came from mineral products, chemicals, furniture and related articles, fertilizers and plastics.
Lithuania is therefore not simply weakening across the board. Machinery, electrical equipment and some food-related categories continue to show resilience. The picture is one of uneven restructuring rather than outright collapse.
Lithuania data card
Exports: €2.870bn
Imports: €3.361bn
Trade deficit: €491.3m
Exports, YoY: -1.6%
Imports, YoY: -3.4%
Lithuanian-origin exports, YoY: -6.6%
Lithuanian-origin exports, Jan-Feb YoY: -7.7%
Latvia: rising energy imports widened the trade gap
Latvia’s February trade picture was shaped more clearly by import pressure. Goods exports fell by 5.0% year on year to €1.551bn, while imports rose by 7.5% to €1.885bn, widening the goods trade deficit to €334.2m. Compared with January, exports also fell by 1.5%, suggesting that external demand remained weak.
The main export declines came from plant products, wood and wood products, and mineral products. At the same time, food products as well as machinery, mechanical appliances and electrical equipment still recorded growth, partly offsetting the fall in more traditional categories.
On the import side, the dominant factor was mineral products, where import value rose by 40.4%, mainly because of diesel and natural gas. The February pattern also suggests that the increase was driven not only by prices, but by physical volumes. That matters because it shows the trade balance was hit by real energy demand, not just by a temporary price effect.
Latvia data card
Exports: €1.551bn
Imports: €1.885bn
Trade deficit: €334.2m
Exports, YoY: -5.0%
Imports, YoY: +7.5%
Exports, MoM: -1.5%
Main export drags: plant products, wood, mineral products
Main import driver: mineral products
Estonia: the sharpest warning comes from domestic-origin exports
Estonia’s headline trade numbers were less dramatic than Latvia’s, but the structural signal was arguably stronger. Goods exports fell by 1% year on year to €1.451bn, while imports rose by 6% to €1.877bn. The trade deficit widened to €426m, up by €132m from the same month last year.
The key issue is that exports of Estonian-origin goods fell by 8%, while their share in total exports dropped to 61%, down four percentage points year on year. That is a stronger sign of pressure on the domestic production base than a simple fall in total exports.
The biggest decline came in mineral products, including shale oil and processed fuel oils. Exports of transport equipment, wood and wood products, including pellets, also weakened. Some categories still grew, especially precious metals and electrical equipment, but they did not alter the broader picture. Estonia is not just exporting less overall; it is exporting less of what it actually produces.
Estonia data card
Exports: €1.451bn
Imports: €1.877bn
Trade deficit: €426m
Exports, YoY: -1%
Imports, YoY: +6%
Estonian-origin exports, YoY: -8%
Share of domestic-origin goods in exports: 61%
Main export drag: mineral products, especially shale-related fuels
Conclusion
Taken together, the February data suggest that the Baltic states are facing a more structural problem than weak foreign demand alone. The region’s traditional goods-export base is becoming narrower, more expensive and less scalable. Wood is no longer the easy growth engine it once was. Agricultural exports are exposed to weaker harvests and tighter raw material conditions. Energy-intensive processing is under pressure from electricity, fuel and logistics costs. Downstream sectors such as furniture are likely to feel the squeeze as competition for raw materials intensifies and fixed costs rise.
That does not mean Baltic exports are collapsing. It means the old model is under strain. Lithuania shows this through a broad cooling in goods trade alongside longer-term pressure on domestic-origin exports. Latvia shows it through energy-driven import pressure and a wider deficit. Estonia shows it most clearly through a contraction in exports of domestic-origin goods.
The common regional message is straightforward: the question is no longer only how much the Baltics can sell abroad, but how much they can still produce and process competitively under a tougher cost structure.