Equatorial Guinea vs Kazakhstan: Tree Cover Loss
Tree Cover Loss over time
- Equatorial Guinea
- Kazakhstan
How they compare
Equatorial Guinea currently reports 5,019 hectares against 3,963 hectares in Kazakhstan, a difference of 1,056 hectares.
That makes Equatorial Guinea's figure about 1.3 times Kazakhstan's.
The two have swapped places 7 times across 25 shared years of data; in 2001 it was Kazakhstan ahead.
Equatorial Guinea ranks 99th and Kazakhstan ranks 102nd of 190 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, Equatorial Guinea averaged higher in 2 and Kazakhstan in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Equatorial Guinea | Kazakhstan | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 2,829 hectares | 4,250 hectares | 1,420 hectares | Kazakhstan |
| 2010s | 9,206 hectares | 2,003 hectares | 7,203 hectares | Equatorial Guinea |
| 2020s | 7,138 hectares | 5,533 hectares | 1,604 hectares | Equatorial Guinea |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher tree cover loss, Equatorial Guinea or Kazakhstan?
- Equatorial Guinea, at 5,019 hectares against 3,963 hectares in Kazakhstan as of 2025.
- What is the difference in tree cover loss between Equatorial Guinea and Kazakhstan?
- 1,056 hectares, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Equatorial Guinea and Kazakhstan?
- 25 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2025.
- How do Equatorial Guinea and Kazakhstan rank globally for tree cover loss?
- Equatorial Guinea ranks 99th and Kazakhstan ranks 102nd 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.