Barbados vs Lesotho: Tree Cover Loss
Tree Cover Loss over time
- Barbados
- Lesotho
How they compare
Barbados currently reports 7 hectares against 6 hectares in Lesotho, a difference of 1 hectares.
That makes Barbados's figure about 1.2 times Lesotho's.
The two have swapped places 6 times across 25 shared years of data; in 2001 it was Barbados ahead.
Barbados ranks 157th and Lesotho ranks 159th of 189 countries.
Barbados has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Barbados | Lesotho | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 11.89 hectares | 3 hectares | 8.89 hectares | Barbados |
| 2010s | 26.8 hectares | 7.1 hectares | 19.7 hectares | Barbados |
| 2020s | 10.83 hectares | 7.67 hectares | 3.17 hectares | Barbados |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher tree cover loss, Barbados or Lesotho?
- Barbados, at 7 hectares against 6 hectares in Lesotho as of 2025.
- What is the difference in tree cover loss between Barbados and Lesotho?
- 1 hectares, with Barbados ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Barbados and Lesotho?
- 25 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2025.
- How do Barbados and Lesotho rank globally for tree cover loss?
- Barbados ranks 157th and Lesotho ranks 159th of 189 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Global Forest Watch. Tree Cover Loss (Hansen/UMD/Google/USGS/NASA), published as Tree Cover Loss (hectares). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Shows year-by-year tree cover loss, defined as stand level replacement of vegetation greater than 5 meters, within the selected area. The tree cover loss data set is a collaboration of the University of Maryland, Google, USGS, and NASA, and uses Landsat satellite images to map annual tree cover loss at a 30 × 30 meter resolution. Note that “tree cover loss” is not the same as “deforestation” – tree cover loss includes change in both natural and planted forest, and does not need to be human caused. The data from 2011 onward were produced with an updated methodology that may capture additional loss. Comparisons between the original 2001-2010 data and future years should be performed with caution.