Congo vs Norway: Tree Cover Loss

Congo
70,834 hectares
in 2025
Norway
69,112 hectares
in 2025
Congo rank
42nd
Norway rank
45th

Tree Cover Loss over time

  • Congo
  • Norway
25.0k50.0k75.0k100.0k125.0k200120132025

How they compare

Congo currently reports 70,834 hectares against 69,112 hectares in Norway, a difference of 1,722 hectares.

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

Congo ranks 42nd and Norway ranks 45th of 189 countries.

Across the 3 decades both report, Congo averaged higher in 2 and Norway in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Congo Norway Difference Ahead
2000s 21,212 hectares 28,020 hectares 6,808 hectares Norway
2010s 59,517 hectares 45,370 hectares 14,147 hectares Congo
2020s 72,512 hectares 65,502 hectares 7,010 hectares Congo

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher tree cover loss, Congo or Norway?
Congo, at 70,834 hectares against 69,112 hectares in Norway as of 2025.
What is the difference in tree cover loss between Congo and Norway?
1,722 hectares, with Congo ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Congo and Norway?
25 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2025.
How do Congo and Norway rank globally for tree cover loss?
Congo ranks 42nd and Norway ranks 45th of 189 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

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.