Guyana vs Malawi: Tree Cover Loss
Tree Cover Loss over time
- Guyana
- Malawi
How they compare
Guyana currently reports 19,296 hectares against 17,964 hectares in Malawi, a difference of 1,332 hectares.
That makes Guyana's figure about 1.1 times Malawi's.
The two have swapped places 10 times across 25 shared years of data; in 2001 it was Guyana ahead.
Guyana ranks 71st and Malawi ranks 73rd of 189 countries.
Guyana has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Guyana | Malawi | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 6,788 hectares | 6,197 hectares | 591 hectares | Guyana |
| 2010s | 14,396 hectares | 12,093 hectares | 2,303 hectares | Guyana |
| 2020s | 31,731 hectares | 17,596 hectares | 14,135 hectares | Guyana |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher tree cover loss, Guyana or Malawi?
- Guyana, at 19,296 hectares against 17,964 hectares in Malawi as of 2025.
- What is the difference in tree cover loss between Guyana and Malawi?
- 1,332 hectares, with Guyana ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Guyana and Malawi?
- 25 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2025.
- How do Guyana and Malawi rank globally for tree cover loss?
- Guyana ranks 71st and Malawi ranks 73rd 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
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.