Belarus vs Oman: Net Forest conversion — Area — FAO TIER 1
Belarus
0 1000 ha
in 2025
Oman
0 1000 ha
in 2025
Belarus rank
111th
Oman rank
111th
Net Forest conversion — Area — FAO TIER 1 over time
- Belarus
- Oman
How they compare
Belarus currently reports 0 1000 ha against 0 1000 ha in Oman, a difference of 0 1000 ha.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 34 shared years of data; in 1992 it was Belarus ahead.
Belarus ranks 111th and Oman ranks 111th of 239 countries.
Belarus has averaged higher in every one of the 4 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Belarus | Oman | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 16.32 1000 ha | 0 1000 ha | 16.32 1000 ha | Belarus |
| 2000s | 1.63 1000 ha | 0 1000 ha | 1.63 1000 ha | Belarus |
| 2010s | 6.21 1000 ha | 0 1000 ha | 6.21 1000 ha | Belarus |
| 2020s | 0 1000 ha | 0 1000 ha | 0 1000 ha | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher net forest conversion — area — fao tier 1, Belarus or Oman?
- Belarus, at 0 1000 ha against 0 1000 ha in Oman as of 2025.
- What is the difference in net forest conversion — area — fao tier 1 between Belarus and Oman?
- 0 1000 ha, with Belarus ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Belarus and Oman?
- 34 years are reported by both, from 1992 to 2025.
- How do Belarus and Oman rank globally for net forest conversion — area — fao tier 1?
- Belarus ranks 111th and Oman ranks 111th of 239 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Net Forest conversion — Area — FAO TIER 1. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The FAOSTAT domain on Emissions from Forests consists of CO2 emissions and removals corresponding to forest carbon stock changes (aboveground and belowground living biomass). Estimates are computed following the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC, 2006).