In 2002 our overall tree canopy was 25%. Two decades later we were told that it had declined to 12.5% – literally halved. The cause was largely put down to urban development on private land. With the introduction of the Urban Forest Strategy (UFS) in 2021, the target increase was eventually set at 22% by 2040. It bears remembering that council had to be dragged screaming to this figure since the draft UFS had officers recommending a target of 14% by 2040.
Since the introduction of the UFS, practically nothing has been published as to how well Glen Eira is doing in achieving this target. We don’t know:
- How many canopy trees have been removed on private land
- Given that we don’t know how many planted new trees are ‘replacements’ for those already lost, the overall planting figures in parks and streets provided by council are meaningless. Without knowing how many trees are removed each year in these areas, the planting figures fail to reveal the true nature of our increasing or declining tree canopy.
- Nor do we know what council’s success rate is in the planting of new trees, nor how much wastage and poor maintenance, costs ratepayers. Anecdotal evidence tells us that many new plantings simply do not survive the long haul to maturity.
- Do we actually have a pruning schedule? A watering schedule? An inspection schedule? If so, why aren’t these in the public domain?
To sum it all up, we have no idea if we are in fact anywhere near the target of 22% by 2040. For all we know, and suspect, we believe that we are continuing to go backwards, and fast, given recent history. If we are indeed going backwards, then it raises the important issue as to ultimate targets to address the decline. Namely, is 22% enough to halt further decline? Is the current funding allocated, sufficient?
Finally, we present the following stats as a comparison to what other councils set their targets at. Some of these UFS were introduced between 2021-24 and hence will soon be updated we assume. Some councils in the western suburbs have lower tree canopy coverage, but they have also been provided with massive funds from the State Government to increase their overall coverage. The telling point is that for the vast majority of these councils, a figure of 22% by 2040 was obviously seen as inadequate. Not so Glen Eira!!!!!
GLEN EIRA – 22% by 2040
BASS COAST – 40% by 2040
BAYSIDE – 30% by 2040
BANYULE – 30% by 2050
BRIMBANK – 30% by 2046
BOROONDARA – 30% by 2030
HOBSON’S BAY – 30% by 2040
MELBOURNE – 40% by 2040
MERRIBEK – 29% by 2050
MONASH – 30% by 2040
MOONEE VALLEY – 30% by 2040
NILLUMBIK – 40% by 2040
PORT PHILLIP – 30% by 2040 (to be included in 2026)
WHITEHORSE – 30% by 2050
September 22, 2026 at 1:01 PM
It’s all very well to set targets but unless this is backed up with the necessary funding to achieve the target, then it’s doomed to fail. Plus it’s not only about money. There has to be frequent monitoring, and reporting and as pointed out in a recent post the use of the best technology. Council hasn’t done any of these things which should be mandatory.
September 22, 2026 at 6:56 PM
The strongest counterargument is that Glen Eira’s lack of open space is a constraint on increasing tree canopy, but it is not a reason to treat 22% as the ceiling. This is a complete cop-out. The question is: what other parts of the urban landscape could contribute to increasing canopy?
Some practical avenues are:
There is also an important distinction between “how much open space Glen Eira has” and “how much land within Glen Eira could potentially support additional canopy.” They are not the same question.
In fact, I think this is the central argument you could make against the council’s apparent position:
If 22% is genuinely the maximum achievable because Glen Eira has limited open space, council should demonstrate that through an actual land-capacity assessment, not simply assert it.
The council could map all potential canopy opportunities across streets, nature strips, car parks, road reserves, sporting reserves, council land, development sites and private property and then calculate what additional canopy each category could realistically provide.
That would turn the debate from “we don’t have enough open space” into the much more useful question: “How much canopy can Glen Eira realistically create across the whole municipality, and what would it take to achieve it?”
And given that the municipality reportedly went from 25% canopy in 2002 to 12.5% two decades later, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether 22% should be regarded as the destination or merely the first step towards recovering what has already been lost through years of neglect.
September 29, 2026 at 1:51 PM
I think your reporting of the 22% number is a little disingenuous and maybe doesn’t reflect the limited control they have on private land, development sites, declared roads or anywhere along the rail corridors.
The UFS had specific goals for areas they could control – road/streets 15 to 18%, parkslands 14 to 25%, and car parks at least 25%.
The 22% targets notes that it the collective responsibility – community, council, state and other agencies. Looking at budgets, GE has certainly invested in both tree planting and biodiversity. Appreciate it might not be enough for some.
September 29, 2026 at 2:12 PM
The 22% is the current target for overall canopy coverage in Glen Eira. The main culprit in the loss of 50% of canopy over the past two decades occurs on private land via development. This has been acknowledged by council. It took decades (literally) for council to introduce the classified tree register and more recently the Tree Protection Local Law. It is therefore incumbent for council to ensure that it’s major priority is to protect canopy trees on private land – as spelt out in both the existing UFS and the Local Law. That requires consistent monitoring and reporting and accessing every possible means to safeguard canopy trees on private land. This has certainly not been happening as we’ve reported on. In terms of budget allocation that also needs to be upgraded to achieve the stated outcome.
September 30, 2026 at 5:16 PM
I don’t think the issue is whether Glen Eira has control over every piece of land. Clearly it doesn’t, and I don’t think anyone would suggest otherwise. The issue is whether Council has properly identified all the opportunities available to it on land and infrastructure it does control.
The 22% figure is a municipality-wide canopy target, described as a collective responsibility involving Council, the community, State Government and other agencies. The Urban Forest Strategy also sets more specific targets for areas where Council does have considerably greater influence, including 15–18% for roads and streets, 14–25% for parklands and at least 25% for car parks.
My question is therefore quite straightforward: has Council undertaken a comprehensive audit / assessment of its public land, roads, car parks, reserves and other assets to identify where additional trees could realistically be planted, and how much additional canopy that could produce?
That seems an important step before concluding that 22% is an appropriate or achievable destination.
This isn’t about dismissing the work Council has already done on tree planting or biodiversity. It is about understanding the remaining potential. In a municipality with very limited open space, every suitable planting opportunity matters. Trees provide shade, reduce urban heat, improve biodiversity, help manage stormwater and contribute to the quality and liveability of public spaces, not just in Glen Eira. Glen Eira is just a small part of a larger plan to make Melbourne a more resilient city. We need to pull our weight.
Knowing exactly where the opportunities are would allow Council and the community to have a much more informed discussion about what is actually possible.