Cuba vs Philippines: Consumption-based deforestation per person
Cuba
3.07 square meters
in 2023
Philippines
2.93 square meters
in 2023
Cuba rank
101st
Philippines rank
104th
Consumption-based deforestation per person over time
- Cuba
- Philippines
How they compare
Cuba currently reports 3.07 square meters against 2.93 square meters in Philippines, a difference of 0.14 square meters.
The two have swapped places 8 times across 19 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Cuba ahead.
Cuba ranks 101st and Philippines ranks 104th of 178 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, Cuba averaged higher in 1 and Philippines in 2.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Cuba | Philippines | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 3.61 square meters | 3.27 square meters | 0.3417 square meters | Cuba |
| 2010s | 3.33 square meters | 3.94 square meters | 0.6074 square meters | Philippines |
| 2020s | 3.09 square meters | 3.27 square meters | 0.1769 square meters | Philippines |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher consumption-based deforestation per person, Cuba or Philippines?
- Cuba, at 3.07 square meters against 2.93 square meters in Philippines as of 2023.
- What is the difference in consumption-based deforestation per person between Cuba and Philippines?
- 0.14 square meters, with Cuba ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Cuba and Philippines?
- 19 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2023.
- How do Cuba and Philippines rank globally for consumption-based deforestation per person?
- Cuba ranks 101st and Philippines ranks 104th 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
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.