Belgium vs Equatorial Guinea: Tree Cover Loss
Tree Cover Loss over time
- Belgium
- Equatorial Guinea
How they compare
Equatorial Guinea currently reports 5,019 hectares against 4,339 hectares in Belgium, a difference of 680 hectares.
That makes Equatorial Guinea's figure about 1.2 times Belgium's.
The two have swapped places 8 times across 25 shared years of data; in 2001 it was Equatorial Guinea ahead.
Belgium ranks 101st and Equatorial Guinea ranks 99th of 190 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, Belgium averaged higher in 1 and Equatorial Guinea in 2.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Belgium | Equatorial Guinea | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 4,258 hectares | 2,829 hectares | 1,428 hectares | Belgium |
| 2010s | 5,139 hectares | 9,206 hectares | 4,066 hectares | Equatorial Guinea |
| 2020s | 6,233 hectares | 7,138 hectares | 905 hectares | Equatorial Guinea |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher tree cover loss, Belgium or Equatorial Guinea?
- Equatorial Guinea, at 5,019 hectares against 4,339 hectares in Belgium as of 2025.
- What is the difference in tree cover loss between Belgium and Equatorial Guinea?
- 680 hectares, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Belgium and Equatorial Guinea?
- 25 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2025.
- How do Belgium and Equatorial Guinea rank globally for tree cover loss?
- Belgium ranks 101st and Equatorial Guinea ranks 99th 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.