Belarus vs Sierra Leone: Tree Cover Loss
Tree Cover Loss over time
- Belarus
- Sierra Leone
How they compare
Sierra Leone currently reports 104,934 hectares against 78,911 hectares in Belarus, a difference of 26,023 hectares.
That makes Sierra Leone's figure about 1.3 times Belarus's.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 25 shared years of data; in 2001 it was Sierra Leone ahead.
Belarus ranks 37th and Sierra Leone ranks 34th of 190 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, Belarus averaged higher in 1 and Sierra Leone in 2.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Belarus | Sierra Leone | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 33,002 hectares | 17,308 hectares | 15,694 hectares | Belarus |
| 2010s | 54,807 hectares | 139,774 hectares | 84,967 hectares | Sierra Leone |
| 2020s | 67,785 hectares | 120,481 hectares | 52,697 hectares | Sierra Leone |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher tree cover loss, Belarus or Sierra Leone?
- Sierra Leone, at 104,934 hectares against 78,911 hectares in Belarus as of 2025.
- What is the difference in tree cover loss between Belarus and Sierra Leone?
- 26,023 hectares, with Sierra Leone ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Belarus and Sierra Leone?
- 25 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2025.
- How do Belarus and Sierra Leone rank globally for tree cover loss?
- Belarus ranks 37th and Sierra Leone ranks 34th of 190 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.