China (People's Republic of) vs Democratic Republic of Congo: Tree Cover Loss

China (People's Republic of)
650,785 hectares
in 2025
Democratic Republic of Congo
1.29 million hectares
in 2025
China (People's Republic of) rank
8th
Democratic Republic of Congo rank
5th

Tree Cover Loss over time

  • China (People's Republic of)
  • Democratic Republic of Congo
250.0k500.0k750.0k1.0M1.2M1.5M200120132025

How they compare

Democratic Republic of Congo currently reports 1.29 million hectares against 650,785 hectares in China (People's Republic of), a difference of 636,875 hectares.

That makes Democratic Republic of Congo's figure about 2.0 times China (People's Republic of)'s.

The two have swapped places 6 times across 25 shared years of data; in 2001 it was Democratic Republic of Congo ahead.

China (People's Republic of) ranks 8th and Democratic Republic of Congo ranks 5th of 190 countries.

Across the 3 decades both report, China (People's Republic of) averaged higher in 1 and Democratic Republic of Congo in 2.

Head to head by decade

Decade China (People's Republic of) Democratic Republic of Congo Difference Ahead
2000s 465,844 hectares 454,023 hectares 11,820 hectares China (People's Republic of)
2010s 572,504 hectares 1.05 million hectares 477,975 hectares Democratic Republic of Congo
2020s 583,314 hectares 1.29 million hectares 711,520 hectares Democratic Republic of Congo

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher tree cover loss, China (People's Republic of) or Democratic Republic of Congo?
Democratic Republic of Congo, at 1.29 million hectares against 650,785 hectares in China (People's Republic of) as of 2025.
What is the difference in tree cover loss between China (People's Republic of) and Democratic Republic of Congo?
636,875 hectares, with Democratic Republic of Congo ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for China (People's Republic of) and Democratic Republic of Congo?
25 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2025.
How do China (People's Republic of) and Democratic Republic of Congo rank globally for tree cover loss?
China (People's Republic of) ranks 8th and Democratic Republic of Congo ranks 5th 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

China (People's Republic of) vs Democratic Republic of Congo: Tree Cover Loss. Statizoid, drawing on Global Forest Watch. Tree Cover Loss (Hansen/UMD/Google/USGS/NASA). Retrieved 17 August 2026, from https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/tree-cover-loss-hectares/china/congo-dem-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/china/congo-dem-rep/">China (People's Republic of) vs Democratic Republic of 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

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.