IBRD only vs Iceland: Capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre

IBRD only
0.8158 metric tons per square kilometre
in 2023
Iceland
14.36 metric tons per square kilometre
in 2023
IBRD only rank
15th
Iceland rank
14th

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

  • IBRD only
  • Iceland
05101520196119922023

How they compare

Iceland currently reports 14.36 metric tons per square kilometre against 0.8158 metric tons per square kilometre in IBRD only, a difference of 13.54 metric tons per square kilometre.

That makes Iceland's figure about 17.6 times IBRD only's.

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

IBRD only ranks 15th and Iceland ranks 14th of 47 groups.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade IBRD only Iceland Difference Ahead
1960s 0.3979 metric tons per square kilometre 8.97 metric tons per square kilometre 8.57 metric tons per square kilometre Iceland
1970s 0.4456 metric tons per square kilometre 10.7 metric tons per square kilometre 10.25 metric tons per square kilometre Iceland
1980s 0.608 metric tons per square kilometre 14.45 metric tons per square kilometre 13.84 metric tons per square kilometre Iceland
1990s 0.7849 metric tons per square kilometre 16.79 metric tons per square kilometre 16.01 metric tons per square kilometre Iceland
2000s 0.8156 metric tons per square kilometre 16.8 metric tons per square kilometre 15.99 metric tons per square kilometre Iceland
2010s 0.8168 metric tons per square kilometre 12.14 metric tons per square kilometre 11.32 metric tons per square kilometre Iceland
2020s 0.8163 metric tons per square kilometre 13.19 metric tons per square kilometre 12.38 metric tons per square kilometre Iceland

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre, IBRD only or Iceland?
Iceland, at 14.36 metric tons per square kilometre against 0.8158 metric tons per square kilometre in IBRD only as of 2023.
What is the difference in capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre between IBRD only and Iceland?
13.54 metric tons per square kilometre, with Iceland ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for IBRD only and Iceland?
63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do IBRD only and Iceland rank globally for capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre?
IBRD only ranks 15th and Iceland ranks 14th of 47 groups.
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

IBRD only vs Iceland: Capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 22 September 2026, from https://environment.statizoid.com/compare/capture-fisheries-production-metric-tons-per-square-kilometre/ibrd-only/iceland/

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/ibrd-only/iceland/">IBRD only vs Iceland: 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.