Equatorial Guinea vs Togo: Tree Cover Loss
Tree Cover Loss over time
- Equatorial Guinea
- Togo
How they compare
Togo currently reports 5,677 hectares against 5,019 hectares in Equatorial Guinea, a difference of 658 hectares.
That makes Togo's figure about 1.1 times Equatorial Guinea's.
The two have swapped places 5 times across 25 shared years of data; in 2001 it was Equatorial Guinea ahead.
Equatorial Guinea ranks 99th and Togo ranks 98th of 190 countries.
Equatorial Guinea has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Equatorial Guinea | Togo | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 2,829 hectares | 2,583 hectares | 246.44 hectares | Equatorial Guinea |
| 2010s | 9,206 hectares | 3,236 hectares | 5,970 hectares | Equatorial Guinea |
| 2020s | 7,138 hectares | 5,358 hectares | 1,780 hectares | Equatorial Guinea |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher tree cover loss, Equatorial Guinea or Togo?
- Togo, at 5,677 hectares against 5,019 hectares in Equatorial Guinea as of 2025.
- What is the difference in tree cover loss between Equatorial Guinea and Togo?
- 658 hectares, with Togo ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Equatorial Guinea and Togo?
- 25 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2025.
- How do Equatorial Guinea and Togo rank globally for tree cover loss?
- Equatorial Guinea ranks 99th and Togo ranks 98th 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.