Latvia vs Portugal: Tree Cover Loss
Tree Cover Loss over time
- Latvia
- Portugal
How they compare
Portugal currently reports 57,136 hectares against 55,492 hectares in Latvia, a difference of 1,644 hectares.
The two have swapped places 9 times across 25 shared years of data; in 2001 it was Latvia ahead.
Latvia ranks 52nd and Portugal ranks 50th of 190 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, Latvia averaged higher in 1 and Portugal in 2.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Latvia | Portugal | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 31,778 hectares | 36,973 hectares | 5,195 hectares | Portugal |
| 2010s | 41,469 hectares | 69,441 hectares | 27,973 hectares | Portugal |
| 2020s | 53,773 hectares | 47,175 hectares | 6,598 hectares | Latvia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher tree cover loss, Latvia or Portugal?
- Portugal, at 57,136 hectares against 55,492 hectares in Latvia as of 2025.
- What is the difference in tree cover loss between Latvia and Portugal?
- 1,644 hectares, with Portugal ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Latvia and Portugal?
- 25 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2025.
- How do Latvia and Portugal rank globally for tree cover loss?
- Latvia ranks 52nd and Portugal ranks 50th 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.