Cuba vs United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Tree Cover Loss

Cuba
27,997 hectares
in 2025
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
26,566 hectares
in 2025
Cuba rank
63rd
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rank
66th

Tree Cover Loss over time

  • Cuba
  • United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
020.0k40.0k60.0k80.0k200120132025

How they compare

Cuba currently reports 27,997 hectares against 26,566 hectares in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a difference of 1,431 hectares.

That makes Cuba's figure about 1.1 times United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland's.

The two have swapped places 9 times across 25 shared years of data; in 2001 it was United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ahead.

Cuba ranks 63rd and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ranks 66th of 190 countries.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Cuba United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Difference Ahead
2000s 14,319 hectares 20,158 hectares 5,840 hectares United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
2010s 22,721 hectares 27,625 hectares 4,904 hectares United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
2020s 14,018 hectares 25,706 hectares 11,689 hectares United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher tree cover loss, Cuba or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Cuba, at 27,997 hectares against 26,566 hectares in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as of 2025.
What is the difference in tree cover loss between Cuba and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
1,431 hectares, with Cuba ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Cuba and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
25 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2025.
How do Cuba and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rank globally for tree cover loss?
Cuba ranks 63rd and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ranks 66th 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

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Cuba vs United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Tree Cover Loss. Statizoid, drawing on Global Forest Watch. Tree Cover Loss (Hansen/UMD/Google/USGS/NASA). Retrieved 24 August 2026, from https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/tree-cover-loss-hectares/cuba/united-kingdom/

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 4.0 (World Bank Open Data); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/tree-cover-loss-hectares/cuba/united-kingdom/">Cuba vs United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Tree Cover Loss</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Tree Cover Loss (hectares)
Unit
hectares
Source
Global Forest Watch. Tree Cover Loss (Hansen/UMD/Google/USGS/NASA)
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 4,725 data points, 2001–2025
Last refreshed

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.