Cuba vs Lithuania: Tree Cover Loss
Tree Cover Loss over time
- Cuba
- Lithuania
How they compare
Lithuania currently reports 29,532 hectares against 27,997 hectares in Cuba, a difference of 1,535 hectares.
That makes Lithuania's figure about 1.1 times Cuba's.
The two have swapped places 7 times across 25 shared years of data; in 2001 it was Cuba ahead.
Cuba ranks 63rd and Lithuania ranks 61st of 189 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, Cuba averaged higher in 2 and Lithuania in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Cuba | Lithuania | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 14,319 hectares | 13,756 hectares | 562.22 hectares | Cuba |
| 2010s | 22,721 hectares | 20,234 hectares | 2,487 hectares | Cuba |
| 2020s | 14,018 hectares | 24,323 hectares | 10,306 hectares | Lithuania |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher tree cover loss, Cuba or Lithuania?
- Lithuania, at 29,532 hectares against 27,997 hectares in Cuba as of 2025.
- What is the difference in tree cover loss between Cuba and Lithuania?
- 1,535 hectares, with Lithuania ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Cuba and Lithuania?
- 25 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2025.
- How do Cuba and Lithuania rank globally for tree cover loss?
- Cuba ranks 63rd and Lithuania ranks 61st 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.