Latvia vs Uganda: Tree Cover Loss
Tree Cover Loss over time
- Latvia
- Uganda
How they compare
Uganda currently reports 58,786 hectares against 55,492 hectares in Latvia, a difference of 3,294 hectares.
That makes Uganda's figure about 1.1 times Latvia's.
The two have swapped places 6 times across 25 shared years of data; in 2001 it was Uganda ahead.
Latvia ranks 52nd and Uganda ranks 49th of 190 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, Latvia averaged higher in 1 and Uganda in 2.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Latvia | Uganda | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 31,778 hectares | 25,003 hectares | 6,776 hectares | Latvia |
| 2010s | 41,469 hectares | 61,893 hectares | 20,424 hectares | Uganda |
| 2020s | 53,773 hectares | 63,257 hectares | 9,484 hectares | Uganda |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher tree cover loss, Latvia or Uganda?
- Uganda, at 58,786 hectares against 55,492 hectares in Latvia as of 2025.
- What is the difference in tree cover loss between Latvia and Uganda?
- 3,294 hectares, with Uganda ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Latvia and Uganda?
- 25 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2025.
- How do Latvia and Uganda rank globally for tree cover loss?
- Latvia ranks 52nd and Uganda ranks 49th 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.