Bhutan vs Ecuador: Annual afforestation
Bhutan
0 hectares per year
in 2020
Ecuador
0 hectares per year
in 2020
Bhutan rank
67th
Ecuador rank
67th
Annual afforestation over time
- Bhutan
- Ecuador
How they compare
Bhutan currently reports 0 hectares per year against 0 hectares per year in Ecuador, a difference of 0 hectares per year.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 5 shared years of data; in 1990 it was Ecuador ahead.
Bhutan ranks 67th and Ecuador ranks 67th of 106 countries.
Ecuador has averaged higher in every one of the 4 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Bhutan | Ecuador | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 20 hectares per year | 2,570 hectares per year | 2,550 hectares per year | Ecuador |
| 2000s | 160 hectares per year | 1,470 hectares per year | 1,310 hectares per year | Ecuador |
| 2010s | 200 hectares per year | 4,205 hectares per year | 4,005 hectares per year | Ecuador |
| 2020s | 0 hectares per year | 0 hectares per year | 0 hectares per year | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher annual afforestation, Bhutan or Ecuador?
- Bhutan, at 0 hectares per year against 0 hectares per year in Ecuador as of 2020.
- What is the difference in annual afforestation between Bhutan and Ecuador?
- 0 hectares per year, with Bhutan ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Bhutan and Ecuador?
- 5 years are reported by both, from 1990 to 2020.
- How do Bhutan and Ecuador rank globally for annual afforestation?
- Bhutan ranks 67th and Ecuador ranks 67th of 106 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2025) – with major processing by Our World in Data, published as Annual afforestation. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Afforestation is the establishment of forest through planting and/or deliberate seeding on land that, until then, was not classified as forest.