South Sudan vs Zimbabwe: Tree Cover Loss
Tree Cover Loss over time
- South Sudan
- Zimbabwe
How they compare
Zimbabwe currently reports 8,529 hectares against 8,372 hectares in South Sudan, a difference of 157 hectares.
The two have swapped places 8 times across 25 shared years of data; in 2001 it was Zimbabwe ahead.
South Sudan ranks 91st and Zimbabwe ranks 90th of 190 countries.
Zimbabwe has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | South Sudan | Zimbabwe | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 7,964 hectares | 10,297 hectares | 2,333 hectares | Zimbabwe |
| 2010s | 5,106 hectares | 11,581 hectares | 6,475 hectares | Zimbabwe |
| 2020s | 4,789 hectares | 7,245 hectares | 2,457 hectares | Zimbabwe |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher tree cover loss, South Sudan or Zimbabwe?
- Zimbabwe, at 8,529 hectares against 8,372 hectares in South Sudan as of 2025.
- What is the difference in tree cover loss between South Sudan and Zimbabwe?
- 157 hectares, with Zimbabwe ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for South Sudan and Zimbabwe?
- 25 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2025.
- How do South Sudan and Zimbabwe rank globally for tree cover loss?
- South Sudan ranks 91st and Zimbabwe ranks 90th 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.