We were promised a forestry transition. . .

Sept. 17th 2026

Today, the Government of Nova Scotia website called ecological forestry “a fundamental shift that protects ecosystems and biodiversity, supports economic growth, and keeps forests healthy and sustainable.”

But the government was also clear about what this transition meant for the forestry industry. In its 2020–2021 Department of Lands and Forestry Business Plan, released shortly after Northern Pulp closed, the department wrote that:

“The forestry sector is in a period of transition” and “Lands and Forestry will play a key role in supporting this transition through the delivery of our programs and by continuing to advance the implementation of ecological forestry for the province, as recommended by Professor William Lahey’s report.”

That promise has come with substantial public investment. 

Since the transition began, Nova Scotia has created a $50-million Forestry Innovation Transition Trust, committed $9.85 million to help forestry businesses purchase or retrofit harvesting equipment, put nearly $10 million into a network supporting private woodlot owners, and increased its annual payment to Port Hawkesbury Paper for Crown land management from $3.8 million to $5 million.

But there is another side to the ledger. 

The government has also continued funding roads into woodlots, silviculture, forestry contractors and programs designed to get low-grade wood into markets. In the 2026–2027 budget alone, the province committed $8 million to help forestry contractors and private woodlot owners move low-grade wood to market, along with another $1.8 million for access roads used for harvesting.

Put those investments together, and a more complicated picture emerges. 

Nova Scotia unquestionably funds ecological forestry. But is it transforming the forestry system – or making the existing industrial system more ecological?

What was the province supposed to change

Lahey estimated that the changes he recommended could reduce clearcutting on Crown land from about 65% of harvesting to 20–25%. He also called for stronger protection and restoration of old forests.

This is an important note. The goal was not simply to find a better way to cut trees. It was to change the relationship between forestry and the forest itself.

The province's own language reflects that ambition. It says ecological forestry is intended to “protect ecosystems and biodiversity,” keep forests healthy and sustainable, and balance environmental and economic values.

So the question for our investigation became fairly simple:

Does the money follow that vision?

Follow the money

Some of it clearly does. 

The $50-million Forestry Innovation Transition Trust was created specifically to help move the sector through this transition. Government says the fund is intended to enhance environmental, social and economic values and support the adoption of ecological forestry practices. It can support everything from new ecological services and carbon sequestration to higher-value forest products, new business models and economic growth.

Then there is the $9.85-million Ecologically Sustainable Forestry Equipment Program. It gives businesses grants toward new or used harvesting equipment and equipment retrofits. The province says the program is intended to help the sector

 “transition and adopt more ecological approaches to forest management.”

That investment can make harvesting less damaging. Better equipment can reduce soil disturbance, improve precision and help contractors work within ecological harvesting requirements.

But it also illustrates the tension at the centre of the transition. The government is using public money to make industrial harvesting more ecological, rather than using that money to move the economy away from harvesting as its central activity.

The same tension appears in the Crown land agreement with Port Hawkesbury Paper. The province says the renewed agreement will put greater emphasis on ecological forestry, while increasing the annual payment for services provided by the company from $3.8 million to $5 million.

Meanwhile, the Family Forest Network represents a different kind of investment. Its more than $9.8-million project works with private woodlot owners on ecological management, research and restoration, including a large-scale pilot of treatments designed to restore degraded stands to their natural diversity and productivity.

These programs suggest the transition is real. But they don't tell the whole story.

The other side of the ledger

Following the money beyond the programs explicitly labelled “ecological” reveals how strongly the existing forestry economy remains embedded in government policy.

After Northern Pulp closed in 2020, the province announced $7 million for silviculture and roadwork, including $2.5 million for Crown-land silviculture and roads and $1 million for private roads. The government said the investment would help keep skilled workers employed, support contractors and provide stability to the sector.

That logic continues today.

The 2026–27 budget says the forestry sector contributes almost $2 billion annually to Nova Scotia's economy and says the government is focusing on under-utilized wood resources such as sawdust, woodchips, bark and other low-grade fibre.

It then commits $8 million to move low-grade wood to market and $1.8 million to expand access-road funding for harvesting.

These programs have an ecological rationale. The government says removing low-grade material can reduce wildfire risk, while better roads can allow landowners to manage forests more selectively.

But they also serve a very familiar purpose: keeping wood moving from the forest into the forestry economy.

And that is where the distinction between adaptation and transformation becomes important.

In fact, the government would argue that they are the point of the transition: forestry doesn't disappear; it becomes more sustainable.

But that is different from the more fundamental transformation envisioned by Lahey.

If the measure of success is whether Nova Scotia has developed a more ecological form of industrial forestry, there is substantial evidence of progress.

If the measure is whether the province has fundamentally changed the economic relationship between forests and the forestry industry, the evidence is much less clear.

And that distinction matters because public money is not neutral. Where the government chooses to invest tells us what it believes is worth maintaining, what it wants to change and what it thinks the future of forestry should look like.

transformation or adaptation?

The evidence does not support saying Nova Scotia has simply ignored the Lahey Report. The province has made real changes to forest management, and some of its investments are clearly intended to support ecological forestry – from restoration projects and private woodlot management to more selective harvesting equipment and new Crown-land practices. The question is what sits at the centre of those investments.

Much of the funding is still designed to keep the industrial forestry economy moving: roads to access woodlots, equipment to harvest trees, support for contractors, programs to find markets for low-grade fibre, and agreements that support the management and supply of Crown forests to industry. Even when these investments are described as ecological, they generally make the existing forest-products economy more compatible with ecological forestry rather than building an economy that depends on keeping forests healthy and standing.

That is the distinction NSFF believes deserves more attention. A forest does not have to be cut down to have economic value.

A healthy, standing forest can support maple syrup producers, tourism operators, recreation businesses, hunting and fishing, research and other businesses that depend on standing forests.

These economic activities are harder to see in a provincial forestry budget because they don't fit neatly into the traditional supply chain, but that doesn’t make their economic value less real. 

In fact, it raises a fundamental question about how Nova Scotia accounts for its forests.

When the government spends millions to make it easier to harvest, transport and sell wood, where is the comparable investment in the businesses and jobs that depend on forests remaining healthy and standing?

That doesn't mean abandoning forestry workers or eliminating the forest-products industry. It means asking whether public investment should be judged only by how effectively it keeps wood moving through the industrial system, or whether it should also measure the value created when forests remain intact.

Lahey's review explicitly recognized that Crown forests have values beyond timber:

“Healthy forests are also important to other Nova Scotia industries, including tourism and, more generally, to the quality of life of all Nova Scotians. Healthy forests also provide recreational opportunities and opportunities for intellectual, emotional, and spiritual growth and development, all of which are economically and socially important. Moreover, healthy and thriving forests are good in and by themselves. They deserve reverence and protection. They contribute to the beauty of Nova Scotia and to the pride of place Nova Scotians can feel in their province.”

Yet those values remain largely invisible when the government announces forestry investments. That is the larger question behind Nova Scotia's forestry transition.

The province says ecological forestry is a “fundamental shift.” But if the public money continues to flow primarily toward the infrastructure, businesses and markets that depend on harvesting trees, then the economic foundation of the system has not fundamentally changed.

Nova Scotia may be making industrial forestry more ecological. It has not yet demonstrated that it is building a forest economy that can thrive because forests are healthy and standing.

And that is the transition worth measuring.