Mozambique vs Peru: Tree Cover Loss
Tree Cover Loss over time
- Mozambique
- Peru
How they compare
Peru currently reports 248,922 hectares against 248,493 hectares in Mozambique, a difference of 429 hectares.
The two have swapped places 10 times across 25 shared years of data; in 2001 it was Peru ahead.
Mozambique ranks 16th and Peru ranks 15th of 190 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, Mozambique averaged higher in 2 and Peru in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Mozambique | Peru | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 137,621 hectares | 112,646 hectares | 24,975 hectares | Mozambique |
| 2010s | 204,701 hectares | 210,114 hectares | 5,413 hectares | Peru |
| 2020s | 259,636 hectares | 247,462 hectares | 12,174 hectares | Mozambique |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher tree cover loss, Mozambique or Peru?
- Peru, at 248,922 hectares against 248,493 hectares in Mozambique as of 2025.
- What is the difference in tree cover loss between Mozambique and Peru?
- 429 hectares, with Peru ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Mozambique and Peru?
- 25 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2025.
- How do Mozambique and Peru rank globally for tree cover loss?
- Mozambique ranks 16th and Peru ranks 15th 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.