Chile vs North America: Capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre

Chile
3.5 metric tons per square kilometre
in 2023
North America
0.2997 metric tons per square kilometre
in 2023
Chile rank
44th
North America rank
44th

Capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre over time

  • Chile
  • North America
02.557.510196119922023

How they compare

Chile currently reports 3.5 metric tons per square kilometre against 0.2997 metric tons per square kilometre in North America, a difference of 3.2 metric tons per square kilometre.

That makes Chile's figure about 11.7 times North America's.

Across all 63 years both countries report, Chile has been ahead every year.

Chile ranks 44th and North America ranks 44th of 216 countries.

Chile has averaged higher in every one of the 7 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Chile North America Difference Ahead
1960s 1.31 metric tons per square kilometre 0.2243 metric tons per square kilometre 1.09 metric tons per square kilometre Chile
1970s 1.87 metric tons per square kilometre 0.2433 metric tons per square kilometre 1.63 metric tons per square kilometre Chile
1980s 6.26 metric tons per square kilometre 0.3471 metric tons per square kilometre 5.92 metric tons per square kilometre Chile
1990s 8.22 metric tons per square kilometre 0.3732 metric tons per square kilometre 7.85 metric tons per square kilometre Chile
2000s 5.84 metric tons per square kilometre 0.3554 metric tons per square kilometre 5.49 metric tons per square kilometre Chile
2010s 3.43 metric tons per square kilometre 0.3481 metric tons per square kilometre 3.08 metric tons per square kilometre Chile
2020s 3.32 metric tons per square kilometre 0.3031 metric tons per square kilometre 3.02 metric tons per square kilometre Chile

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre, Chile or North America?
Chile, at 3.5 metric tons per square kilometre against 0.2997 metric tons per square kilometre in North America as of 2023.
What is the difference in capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre between Chile and North America?
3.2 metric tons per square kilometre, with Chile ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Chile and North America?
63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Chile and North America rank globally for capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre?
Chile ranks 44th and North America ranks 44th of 216 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Chile vs North America: Capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 21 September 2026, from https://environment.statizoid.com/compare/capture-fisheries-production-metric-tons-per-square-kilometre/chile/north-america/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page; please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://environment.statizoid.com/compare/capture-fisheries-production-metric-tons-per-square-kilometre/chile/north-america/">Chile vs North America: Capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre
Unit
metric tons per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
264 places, 15,328 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

Capture fisheries production (metric tons) divided by Land area (sq. km), matched on country and year. Neither publisher issues this ratio as a series; it is computed here from both.