Eswatini vs Tunisia: Tree Cover Loss
Tree Cover Loss over time
- Eswatini
- Tunisia
How they compare
Eswatini currently reports 1,617 hectares against 1,573 hectares in Tunisia, a difference of 44 hectares.
The two have swapped places 4 times across 25 shared years of data; in 2001 it was Eswatini ahead.
Eswatini ranks 117th and Tunisia ranks 119th of 190 countries.
Eswatini has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Eswatini | Tunisia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 6,370 hectares | 655.44 hectares | 5,715 hectares | Eswatini |
| 2010s | 4,133 hectares | 2,106 hectares | 2,027 hectares | Eswatini |
| 2020s | 2,310 hectares | 2,128 hectares | 182 hectares | Eswatini |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher tree cover loss, Eswatini or Tunisia?
- Eswatini, at 1,617 hectares against 1,573 hectares in Tunisia as of 2025.
- What is the difference in tree cover loss between Eswatini and Tunisia?
- 44 hectares, with Eswatini ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Eswatini and Tunisia?
- 25 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2025.
- How do Eswatini and Tunisia rank globally for tree cover loss?
- Eswatini ranks 117th and Tunisia ranks 119th 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.