What is the difference in tree cover loss between Cameroon and Tanzania, United Republic of?

2,516 hectares, with Cameroon ahead.

How many years of comparable data are there for Cameroon and Tanzania, United Republic of?

25 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2025.

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.

Cameroon vs Tanzania, United Republic of: Tree Cover Loss

Cameroon

206,263 hectares

in 2025

Tanzania, United Republic of

203,747 hectares

in 2025

Cameroon rank

22nd

Tanzania, United Republic of rank

23rd

Tree Cover Loss over time

Cameroon
Tanzania, United Republic of

How they compare

Cameroon currently reports 206,263 hectares against 203,747 hectares in Tanzania, United Republic of, a difference of 2,516 hectares.

The two have swapped places 3 times across 25 shared years of data; in 2001 it was Tanzania, United Republic of ahead.

Cameroon ranks 22nd and Tanzania, United Republic of ranks 23rd of 190 countries.

Tanzania, United Republic of has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade	Cameroon	Tanzania, United Republic of	Difference	Ahead
2000s	32,733 hectares	102,713 hectares	69,980 hectares	Tanzania, United Republic of
2010s	102,886 hectares	158,459 hectares	55,573 hectares	Tanzania, United Republic of
2020s	184,836 hectares	195,078 hectares	10,242 hectares	Tanzania, United Republic of

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher tree cover loss, Cameroon or Tanzania, United Republic of?: Cameroon, at 206,263 hectares against 203,747 hectares in Tanzania, United Republic of as of 2025.
What is the difference in tree cover loss between Cameroon and Tanzania, United Republic of?: 2,516 hectares, with Cameroon ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Cameroon and Tanzania, United Republic of?: 25 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2025.
How do Cameroon and Tanzania, United Republic of rank globally for tree cover loss?: Cameroon ranks 22nd and Tanzania, United Republic of ranks 23rd 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

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Cameroon vs Tanzania, United Republic of: Tree Cover Loss. Statizoid, drawing on Global Forest Watch. Tree Cover Loss (Hansen/UMD/Google/USGS/NASA). Retrieved 19 August 2026, from https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/tree-cover-loss-hectares/cameroon/tanzania/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/tree-cover-loss-hectares/cameroon/tanzania/">Cameroon vs Tanzania, United Republic of: Tree Cover Loss</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator: Tree Cover Loss (hectares)
Unit: hectares
Source: Global Forest Watch. Tree Cover Loss (Hansen/UMD/Google/USGS/NASA)
Licence: CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage: 190 places, 4,725 data points, 2001–2025
Last refreshed: 10 August 2026

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.