Eritrea vs Mozambique: Consumption-based deforestation per person
Eritrea
4.7 square meters
in 2023
Mozambique
4.79 square meters
in 2023
Eritrea rank
71st
Mozambique rank
70th
Consumption-based deforestation per person over time
- Eritrea
- Mozambique
How they compare
Mozambique currently reports 4.79 square meters against 4.7 square meters in Eritrea, a difference of 0.09 square meters.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 19 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Mozambique ahead.
Eritrea ranks 71st and Mozambique ranks 70th of 178 countries.
Mozambique has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Eritrea | Mozambique | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 0.1955 square meters | 15.15 square meters | 14.96 square meters | Mozambique |
| 2010s | 0.1861 square meters | 14.98 square meters | 14.79 square meters | Mozambique |
| 2020s | 2.49 square meters | 6.73 square meters | 4.24 square meters | Mozambique |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher consumption-based deforestation per person, Eritrea or Mozambique?
- Mozambique, at 4.79 square meters against 4.7 square meters in Eritrea as of 2023.
- What is the difference in consumption-based deforestation per person between Eritrea and Mozambique?
- 0.09 square meters, with Mozambique ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Eritrea and Mozambique?
- 19 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2023.
- How do Eritrea and Mozambique rank globally for consumption-based deforestation per person?
- Eritrea ranks 71st and Mozambique ranks 70th 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.