Chile vs Ecuador: Tree Cover Loss
Tree Cover Loss over time
- Chile
- Ecuador
How they compare
Ecuador currently reports 51,763 hectares against 38,790 hectares in Chile, a difference of 12,973 hectares.
That makes Ecuador's figure about 1.3 times Chile's.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 25 shared years of data; in 2001 it was Chile ahead.
Chile ranks 58th and Ecuador ranks 55th of 189 countries.
Chile has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Chile | Ecuador | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 94,621 hectares | 41,374 hectares | 53,247 hectares | Chile |
| 2010s | 117,750 hectares | 45,108 hectares | 72,642 hectares | Chile |
| 2020s | 67,308 hectares | 48,131 hectares | 19,177 hectares | Chile |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher tree cover loss, Chile or Ecuador?
- Ecuador, at 51,763 hectares against 38,790 hectares in Chile as of 2025.
- What is the difference in tree cover loss between Chile and Ecuador?
- 12,973 hectares, with Ecuador ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Chile and Ecuador?
- 25 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2025.
- How do Chile and Ecuador rank globally for tree cover loss?
- Chile ranks 58th and Ecuador ranks 55th of 189 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.