Cape Verde vs East Timor: Consumption-based deforestation per person

Cape Verde
0 square meters
in 2017
East Timor
0 square meters
in 2023
Cape Verde rank
156th
East Timor rank
156th

Consumption-based deforestation per person over time

  • Cape Verde
  • East Timor
00.20.40.60.81200520142023

How they compare

Cape Verde currently reports 0 square meters against 0 square meters in East Timor, a difference of 0 square meters.

Across all 13 years both countries report, East Timor has been ahead every year.

Cape Verde ranks 156th and East Timor ranks 156th of 178 countries.

Head to head by decade

Decade Cape Verde East Timor Difference Ahead
2000s 0 square meters 0 square meters 0 square meters
2010s 0 square meters 0 square meters 0 square meters

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher consumption-based deforestation per person, Cape Verde or East Timor?
Cape Verde, at 0 square meters against 0 square meters in East Timor as of 2017.
What is the difference in consumption-based deforestation per person between Cape Verde and East Timor?
0 square meters, with Cape Verde ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Cape Verde and East Timor?
13 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2017.
How do Cape Verde and East Timor rank globally for consumption-based deforestation per person?
Cape Verde ranks 156th and East Timor ranks 156th of 178 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Singh et al. (2026) – processed by Our World in Data, published as Consumption-based deforestation per person. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Consumption-based deforestation per person
Unit
square meters
Source
Singh et al. (2026) – processed by Our World in Data
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (Our World in Data)
Coverage
178 places, 3,320 data points, 2005–2023
Last refreshed

Estimated average deforestation for agricultural and forestry products, per person. This is adjusted for trade, so it reflects deforestation caused by consumption, not domestic production.