The NSW government’s latest canopy data contains some welcome news, sort of. Greater Sydney’s urban tree canopy increased from 21.7 per cent in 2022–23 to 21.9 per cent in 2024–25.
That represents approximately 481 hectares of additional canopy, or around 674 standard football pitches, equivalent to roughly 60,000 medium-sized trees (assuming about 80 square metres per tree).
Any net increase should be acknowledged. Growing and retaining canopy across a rapidly developing city is difficult.
But the headline figure also hides a much more sobering story.
A small gain against a very large target
The NSW government has set an admirable target of 40 per cent tree canopy across Greater Sydney by 2036, according to the Greener Places Framework.
We currently sit at 21.9 per cent.
The latest data therefore leaves an 18.1 percentage-point gap between current canopy and the 2036 target.
Between 2022–23 and 2024–25, canopy increased by approximately 0.2 percentage points, equivalent to an average increase of about 0.1 percentage points per year.
Continue at that rate, and Sydney would reach only about 23 per cent canopy by 2036.
To reach 40 per cent, canopy would need to increase by approximately 1.6 percentage points every year from now until 2036. That is around 16 times the rate recorded in the latest data. At current rates of change, reaching 40 per cent would take roughly 270 years, placing it around the year 2295!
So, are we on track? On the available evidence, clearly not.
The average is not the whole story
A greater Sydney increase of 0.2 percentage points tells us very little about where canopy is being gained, where it is being lost and who is benefiting.
The LGA level data shows us more but has considerable variation.
Some councils recorded meaningful gains, while others experienced substantial declines. The NSW government notes that some of the greatest gains occurred in western Sydney, but the results across the west are mixed rather than uniformly positive.
| Increase in canopy: | Decrease in canopy: |
| Ku-ring-gai: +2.22 % | The Hills Shire: -3.15 % |
| Camden: +1.17 % | Canterbury-Bankstown: -0.93 % |
| Northern Beaches: +1.14 % | Blacktown: -0.51 % |
| Canada Bay: +0.80 % | City of Parramatta: -0.78 % |
Canopy is not experienced as a percentage. It is experienced on the walk to school, at the local shops, at the bus stop and in the street outside your home.
A gain on Sydney’s vegetated fringe does not necessarily compensate for the loss of established trees in a densely populated and heat-vulnerable neighbourhood.
The critical questions are therefore not simply, “Did Sydney increase canopy?” but: Where did the change occur? Was it on public or private land?
Did canopy increase in the hottest and most vulnerable communities?
Are we retaining established trees or relying on new planting to replace ongoing losses?
Not all canopy provides the same benefits.
Canopy equity must be at the centre
The communities facing the greatest heat exposure often have the least canopy and the fewest resources to plant and maintain trees themselves.
This is why canopy growth cannot be assessed only through total hectares or a single metropolitan percentage.
Sydney could increase its overall canopy while still leaving its hottest communities dangerously exposed.
The objective must be to increase canopy where it delivers the greatest public benefit, particularly in neighbourhoods with low existing cover, high heat vulnerability, limited access to green space and large numbers of people walking or using public transport.
Tree canopy is not decoration. It is essential urban infrastructure.
It cools streets and homes, supports walking, improves public-space amenity, provides habitat and contributes to physical and mental health.
We cannot plant our way out of continued losses
Planting programs are important, visible and comparatively easy to count.
But the number of trees planted is an input. Canopy established and retained is the outcome.
A newly planted tree cannot immediately replace the shade, cooling and environmental value of a mature tree. Depending on its species, location, soil conditions and maintenance, it may take decades to provide comparable canopy.
Some trees will never reach their intended size because they are planted into inadequate soil, receive insufficient establishment care or conflict with built infrastructure.
Sydney therefore needs to focus just as strongly on:
- protecting existing trees
- providing adequate soil and space for new trees
- funding establishment and long-term maintenance
- integrating trees into development and infrastructure planning
Planting is the beginning of the process, not the result.
Private land is the critical battleground
Much of Sydney’s urban land is privately owned; in many Sydney Councils, properties make up around 60 – 70 per cent of urban land, according to NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, Urban Greening / Council Snapshot data for 2024 – 25.
Councils can plant streets and parks, but public land programs cannot indefinitely compensate for canopy being removed from backyards, redevelopment sites and other private land.
Housing and canopy should not be treated as competing objectives. Sydney needs both.
But delivering both requires trees to be considered at the beginning of planning and design, not fitted into whatever space remains after buildings, roads, parking, services and stormwater infrastructure have been resolved.
Better data must lead to better delivery
The release of updated canopy data is valuable. It gives government and councils a stronger basis for identifying change, targeting investment and testing whether existing policies and programs are working.
The problem is not a lack of data; it is the way cities make decisions. Targets must be supported by:
- clear responsibility across all levels of government
- stronger planning and development controls
- sustained investment rather than short-term planting rounds
- capable and adequately resourced council teams
- protection of canopy on both public and private land
- consideration of how communities can participate
- transparent reporting of gains, losses, survival and distribution
The latest increase is commendable, but not enough.
The data should be treated as a warning: the current rate of change is nowhere near the scale required.
The challenge now is to move beyond celebrating small metropolitan gains and confront the harder question:
What must change in the way Sydney plans, develops, protects and manages its trees if the 40 per cent target is to remain credible?
Canopy also has to be supported with adequate drainage and tree maintenance. My street looks great with more trees, but the drains are clogged with leaf litter, and large falling branches are a danger to people and parked vehicles. Neither are a priority for council to address. Local parks and footpaths have low hanging or upward pointing branches as a safety hazard, especially at night.
More trees yes, but pair them with a maintenance schedule that adequately mitigates the additional risks.
There are also lots of “weed trees” like black locust on private properties, often deserted. They keep seeding the surrounding streets with the root plants never addressed. Other weeds on private properties are also causing problems with local waterways.