Which has higher tree cover loss, Central African Republic or Congo?

Central African Republic, at 74,125 hectares against 70,834 hectares in Congo as of 2025.

What is the difference in tree cover loss between Central African Republic and Congo?

3,291 hectares, with Central African Republic ahead.

How many years of comparable data are there for Central African Republic and Congo?

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.

Central African Republic vs Congo: Tree Cover Loss

Central African Republic

74,125 hectares

in 2025

Congo

70,834 hectares

in 2025

Central African Republic rank

39th

Congo rank

42nd

Tree Cover Loss over time

Central African Republic
Congo

How they compare

Central African Republic currently reports 74,125 hectares against 70,834 hectares in Congo, a difference of 3,291 hectares.

The two have swapped places 8 times across 25 shared years of data; in 2001 it was Central African Republic ahead.

Central African Republic ranks 39th and Congo ranks 42nd of 190 countries.

Across the 3 decades both report, Central African Republic averaged higher in 1 and Congo in 2.

Head to head by decade

Decade	Central African Republic	Congo	Difference	Ahead
2000s	33,182 hectares	21,212 hectares	11,970 hectares	Central African Republic
2010s	48,936 hectares	59,517 hectares	10,581 hectares	Congo
2020s	60,460 hectares	72,512 hectares	12,053 hectares	Congo

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher tree cover loss, Central African Republic or Congo?: Central African Republic, at 74,125 hectares against 70,834 hectares in Congo as of 2025.
What is the difference in tree cover loss between Central African Republic and Congo?: 3,291 hectares, with Central African Republic ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Central African Republic and Congo?: 25 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2025.
How do Central African Republic and Congo rank globally for tree cover loss?: Central African Republic ranks 39th and Congo ranks 42nd 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

Central African Republic vs Congo: Tree Cover Loss. Statizoid, drawing on Global Forest Watch. Tree Cover Loss (Hansen/UMD/Google/USGS/NASA). Retrieved 21 August 2026, from https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/tree-cover-loss-hectares/central-african-republic/congo-rep/

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/central-african-republic/congo-rep/">Central African Republic vs Congo: 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.