Cape Verde vs Tajikistan: Tree Cover Loss
Tree Cover Loss over time
- Cape Verde
- Tajikistan
How they compare
Tajikistan currently reports 1 hectares against 0 hectares in Cape Verde, a difference of 1 hectares.
The two have swapped places 6 times across 20 shared years of data; in 2002 it was Tajikistan ahead.
Cape Verde ranks 167th and Tajikistan ranks 165th of 190 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, Cape Verde averaged higher in 1 and Tajikistan in 2.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Cape Verde | Tajikistan | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 6.62 hectares | 27.12 hectares | 20.5 hectares | Tajikistan |
| 2010s | 5.1 hectares | 5.9 hectares | 0.8 hectares | Tajikistan |
| 2020s | 1.5 hectares | 0 hectares | 1.5 hectares | Cape Verde |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher tree cover loss, Cape Verde or Tajikistan?
- Tajikistan, at 1 hectares against 0 hectares in Cape Verde as of 2025.
- What is the difference in tree cover loss between Cape Verde and Tajikistan?
- 1 hectares, with Tajikistan ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Cape Verde and Tajikistan?
- 20 years are reported by both, from 2002 to 2021.
- How do Cape Verde and Tajikistan rank globally for tree cover loss?
- Cape Verde ranks 167th and Tajikistan ranks 165th 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.