Australia vs Democratic Republic of the Congo: Naturally regenerating forest — Area

Australia
131,504 1000 ha
in 2025
Democratic Republic of the Congo
139,058 1000 ha
in 2025
Australia rank
8th
Democratic Republic of the Congo rank
4th

Naturally regenerating forest — Area over time

  • Australia
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo
050.0k100.0k150.0k199020072025

How they compare

Democratic Republic of the Congo currently reports 139,058 1000 ha against 131,504 1000 ha in Australia, a difference of 7,554 1000 ha.

That makes Democratic Republic of the Congo's figure about 1.1 times Australia's.

Across all 36 years both countries report, Democratic Republic of the Congo has been ahead every year.

Australia ranks 8th and Democratic Republic of the Congo ranks 4th of 206 countries.

Democratic Republic of the Congo has averaged higher in every one of the 4 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Australia Democratic Republic of the Congo Difference Ahead
1990s 132,594 1000 ha 157,401 1000 ha 24,807 1000 ha Democratic Republic of the Congo
2000s 130,267 1000 ha 150,658 1000 ha 20,391 1000 ha Democratic Republic of the Congo
2010s 130,010 1000 ha 143,139 1000 ha 13,129 1000 ha Democratic Republic of the Congo
2020s 131,354 1000 ha 139,771 1000 ha 8,417 1000 ha Democratic Republic of the Congo

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher naturally regenerating forest — area, Australia or Democratic Republic of the Congo?
Democratic Republic of the Congo, at 139,058 1000 ha against 131,504 1000 ha in Australia as of 2025.
What is the difference in naturally regenerating forest — area between Australia and Democratic Republic of the Congo?
7,554 1000 ha, with Democratic Republic of the Congo ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and Democratic Republic of the Congo?
36 years are reported by both, from 1990 to 2025.
How do Australia and Democratic Republic of the Congo rank globally for naturally regenerating forest — area?
Australia ranks 8th and Democratic Republic of the Congo ranks 4th of 206 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Naturally regenerating forest — Area. 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

Australia vs Democratic Republic of the Congo: Naturally regenerating forest — Area. Statizoid, drawing on Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved 28 August 2026, from https://environment.statizoid.com/compare/naturally-regenerating-forest-area/australia/democratic-republic-of-the-congo/

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-NC-SA 3.0 IGO (FAO); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://environment.statizoid.com/compare/naturally-regenerating-forest-area/australia/democratic-republic-of-the-congo/">Australia vs Democratic Republic of the Congo: Naturally regenerating forest — Area</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Naturally regenerating forest — Area
Unit
1000 ha
Source
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Licence
CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO (FAO)
Coverage
258 places, 8,989 data points, 1990–2025
Last refreshed

The FAOSTAT Land Use domain contains data on twenty-one land use categories and twenty-three categories of irrigation and agricultural practices. Data are available yearly and by country, regional and global levels. The domain includes Land Use Indicators providing information on the percentage share of agricultural and forest land, and their sub-components, including irrigated areas and areas under organic agriculture, within a country land use matrix. Data are available at country, regional and global level, for the following elements: (in percentage) i) Share in Land area; ii) Share in Agricultural land, iii) Share in Cropland; and iv) Share in Forest land; (in ha/pc) v) Area per capita.