Wood Supply

Government and non-governmental docs

GDF Suez- Electrabel Forest sustainability in Nova Scotia
SGS BELGIUM S.A.Project No.: 130373 Oct 201, 4o pages. 4 A useful compilation of statistics related wood supply in NS for year 2014 and earlier, e.g. Table 8 : Land use change to and from forest land in the Atlantic Maritime reporting zone
between 2002 and 2012


National Forestry Database: Wood Supply

Wood Supply Stats go back to 1990; they vary by a factor 57% (highest/lowest x 100)
1990 to 1997: 5.27 million m3
1998 to 2003: 6.72 million m3
2004 to 2005: 7.75 million m3
2006 to 2014: 8.30 million m3
2015: 5.60 million m3
2016: 8.30 million m3
2017 to 2022: 5.75 million m3

Comments under Footnotes for the NS Data “In 2002, Allowable Annual Cut was renamed to Potential Harvest and in 2004, it has been renamed to Wood Supply.”

Comments under Wood SupplyBackground for Canada:
Wood supply of industrial roundwood as an indicator for potential sustainable harvest
The National Forestry Database (NFD) has been reporting on wood supply and harvest of industrial roundwood since the first edition of the Compendium of Canadian Forestry Statistics in 1991. Wood supply, as a proxy for potential sustainable harvest, refers to an allowable volume of timber that can be harvested over a specified period of time (or in some jurisdictions, an allocated area of forest where timber can be harvested).  It is calculated as the sum of 1) estimated Annual Allowable Cuts (AACs, or other similar term1 ) for provincial Crown lands, and 2) estimates of wood supply on federal, territorial and private lands.

Guided by their own forestry policies, each province estimates their potential harvest levels or AACs on lands under their jurisdiction. These volumes of industrial roundwood (or areas) that may be potentially harvested each year from provincial Crown lands are established by professional foresters with the objective of maintaining sustainable wood supplies over long periods. In most jurisdictions, the AACs are established to reflect the unique social, environmental and economic characteristic of each forest management unit.

Canadian forests being largely publicly owned and managed (94%), the remaining wood supply from private lands is relatively small. Wood supply estimates from private lands are either based on sustainable management plans (when available) or on past harvest levels. Because these estimates are not standardized and not necessarily similar to the methods used to calculate the provincial AACs, variations in these estimates do not necessarily reflect changes in harvest sustainability but rather the various methods of calculating harvest levels.


Forest management (Nova Scotia) Statistical data
Natural resources Canada.
Figures 1990-2020 for
Harvesting – Area harvested (hectares) & Volume harvested (cubic metres)
Regeneration – Area planted & Area seeded
Third-party certification – Area certified

Area harvested (hectares)

2020: 25,331
2019: 33,768
2018: 31,134
2017: 27,985
2016: 34,075
2015: 34,777
2014: 32,187
2013: 29,112
2012: 30,860
2011: 34,369
2010: 40,990
2009: 38,685
2008: 45,328
2007: 44,041
2006: 44,010
2005: 54,395
2004: 59,550
2003: 52,939
2002: 49,704
2001: 53,226
2000: 54,433
1999: 49,680
1998: 54,203
1997: 69,761
1996: 59,053
1995: 49,968
1994: 49,084
1993: 43,568
1992: 34,820
1991: 38,169
1990: 39,898

Volume harvested (cubic meters)

2020: 2,502,463
2019: 3,314,626
2018: 3,359,178
2017: 3,292,525
2016: 3,736,468
2015: 3,748,685
2014: 3,643,052
2013: 3,453,087
2012: 3,446,993
2011: 3,903,139
2010: 4,481,540
2009: 4,127,091
2008: 4,899,407
2007: 5,259,596
2006: 5,208,833
2005: 6,249,369
2004: 6,888,524
2003: 6,085,306
2002: 6,066,274
2001: 6,182,192
2000: 6,470,221
1999: 6,163,710
1998: 5,903,205
1997: 6,988,601
1996: 6,011,690
1995: 5,483,463
1994: 5,105,945
1993: 4,584,735
1992: 4,248,237
1991: 4,347,981
1990: 4,638,919

Independent Evaluation of Implementation of the Forest Practices Report for Nova Scotia (2018)
William Lahey. From pages 65-66:

Outcomes Evaluation
The third level of evaluation, and associated indicators, is about outcomes. The focus shifts from the activity underway to implement the FPR and the outcomes produced by that activity, to questions such as the condition of forests and the forest products available to industry plausibly resulting from implementation. But there are also other kinds of relevant outcomes. For example, what is the level of public awareness of and approval of changes happening in how Crown lands are managed, and do the public believe that the condition of Nova Scotia’s forests is healthy or unhealthy, improving or declining? It is also important to know the level of public trust and confidence in the Department relative to forestry in general and on Crown lands in particular, and with respect to the management of Crown lands more generally.

The indicators needed for this level of evaluation in relation to the condition of forests are more challenging to identify because of the relative diffuseness of the outcomes ­ e.g., healthier ecosystems and biodiversity ­ and the complexity of attributing changes in observed conditions to implementation of the FPR. There must be clarity on the required attributes of indicators to ensure their quality and utility. Indicators must be developed in advance of their application in evaluation to ensure not only the objectivity of evaluation ­ and therefore its reliability ­ but also its feasibility and efficiency.

It is anticipated that a significant number of indicators currently not in use may have to be tracked. This may mean collecting data that we do not currently collect. This raises issues about establishing the benchmark from which measurement can begin.

Measuring the condition of the forests and of the wood supply should be among the purposes of the Department’s State of the Forest report. The FPR included specific recommendations (5 and 6) for improving the report ­ and state of the forest reporting more broadly ­ to ensure that it better achieves its intended purpose, as follows:

5. Whether the forests are in good, poor, improving, or declining condition ­ regionally and provincially, both from an ecological perspective and as an economic resource ­ should be the guiding question  in discussions and decision making for forestry in Nova Scotia. To that end:

  • A. The State of the Forest report should include the kind of comprehensive information that is required to allow people to come to holistic conclusions on the state of the forests and forestry and to put their personal observations and opinions and those of others on the condition of the forests into a broad context of objective data.
  • B. Specifically, the State of the Forest report should aim for comprehensiveness on information that is useful in understanding and explaining the ecological condition of the forests, the forests as an economic resource, and the condition, functioning, and prospects of all forest-related industries.
  • C. Tracking and reporting of the state of the forests and the forestry industry should happen at multiple scales, including provincial, regional, and landscape levels.
  • D. Nova Scotia should fully utilize Canada’s Sustainable Management Criteria and Indicators (2003) and collaboratively adapt them to a Nova Scotia context.
  • E. Action must be taken to improve confidence levels in datasets about ecosystems.
  • F. The metrics tracked and reported in the State of the Forest report should include all those recommended by the Mersey Tobeatic Research Institute’s report, “State of Nova Scotia Forest and Biodiversity Review,” prepared for this Review.****
  • G. Measures should be taken to make information on the forests and forestry- related industries easier to access and to understand, including profiling information on the most important metrics in a smaller document that focuses attention on those metrics.

6. DNR should work transparently and collaboratively with interested parties, including representatives from the academic community, in making improvements to reporting on forests and forestry, including in the State of the Forest report.

With the implementation of these recommendations, which is in early stages, State of the Forest reports should become the major data source for future outcomes evaluations.

****State of Nova Scotia Forest and Biodiversity Review
Mersey Tobeatic research Institute, 2018, 29 pp, available as PDF pages 225-253 in An Independent Review of Forest Practices in Nova Scotia: Addendum


Clear as mud: How the government’s reports on Nova Scotia forests obfuscate and confuse the data
Linda Pannozzo in the Halifax Examiner, Sep 14, 2020.