Which has higher tree cover loss, Kazakhstan, Republic of or Rwanda?

Kazakhstan, Republic of, at 3,963 hectares against 3,758 hectares in Rwanda as of 2025.

What is the difference in tree cover loss between Kazakhstan, Republic of and Rwanda?

205 hectares, with Kazakhstan, Republic of ahead.

How many years of comparable data are there for Kazakhstan, Republic of and Rwanda?

25 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2025.

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.

Kazakhstan, Republic of vs Rwanda: Tree Cover Loss

Kazakhstan, Republic of

3,963 hectares

in 2025

Rwanda

3,758 hectares

in 2025

Kazakhstan, Republic of rank

102nd

Rwanda rank

105th

Tree Cover Loss over time

Kazakhstan, Republic of
Rwanda

How they compare

Kazakhstan, Republic of currently reports 3,963 hectares against 3,758 hectares in Rwanda, a difference of 205 hectares.

That makes Kazakhstan, Republic of's figure about 1.1 times Rwanda's.

The two have swapped places 4 times across 25 shared years of data; in 2001 it was Kazakhstan, Republic of ahead.

Kazakhstan, Republic of ranks 102nd and Rwanda ranks 105th of 190 countries.

Across the 3 decades both report, Kazakhstan, Republic of averaged higher in 2 and Rwanda in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade	Kazakhstan, Republic of	Rwanda	Difference	Ahead
2000s	4,250 hectares	1,125 hectares	3,125 hectares	Kazakhstan, Republic of
2010s	2,003 hectares	2,436 hectares	433.4 hectares	Rwanda
2020s	5,533 hectares	3,174 hectares	2,359 hectares	Kazakhstan, Republic of

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher tree cover loss, Kazakhstan, Republic of or Rwanda?: Kazakhstan, Republic of, at 3,963 hectares against 3,758 hectares in Rwanda as of 2025.
What is the difference in tree cover loss between Kazakhstan, Republic of and Rwanda?: 205 hectares, with Kazakhstan, Republic of ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Kazakhstan, Republic of and Rwanda?: 25 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2025.
How do Kazakhstan, Republic of and Rwanda rank globally for tree cover loss?: Kazakhstan, Republic of ranks 102nd and Rwanda ranks 105th 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

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Kazakhstan, Republic of vs Rwanda: Tree Cover Loss. Statizoid, drawing on Global Forest Watch. Tree Cover Loss (Hansen/UMD/Google/USGS/NASA). Retrieved 18 August 2026, from https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/tree-cover-loss-hectares/kazakhstan/rwanda/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/tree-cover-loss-hectares/kazakhstan/rwanda/">Kazakhstan, Republic of vs Rwanda: Tree Cover Loss</a> — Statizoid

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: 10 August 2026

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.