Maldives vs Tuvalu: Capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre

Maldives
539.21 metric tons per square kilometre
in 2023
Tuvalu
1,633 metric tons per square kilometre
in 2023
Maldives rank
4th
Tuvalu rank
2nd

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

  • Maldives
  • Tuvalu
05001.0k1.5k196119922023

How they compare

Tuvalu currently reports 1,633 metric tons per square kilometre against 539.21 metric tons per square kilometre in Maldives, a difference of 1,094 metric tons per square kilometre.

That makes Tuvalu's figure about 3.0 times Maldives's.

The two have swapped places 3 times across 63 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Maldives ahead.

Maldives ranks 4th and Tuvalu ranks 2nd of 216 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, Maldives averaged higher in 6 and Tuvalu in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Maldives Tuvalu Difference Ahead
1960s 63.37 metric tons per square kilometre 0 metric tons per square kilometre 63.37 metric tons per square kilometre Maldives
1970s 111.07 metric tons per square kilometre 0.6 metric tons per square kilometre 110.47 metric tons per square kilometre Maldives
1980s 180.92 metric tons per square kilometre 20.72 metric tons per square kilometre 160.2 metric tons per square kilometre Maldives
1990s 333.32 metric tons per square kilometre 19.54 metric tons per square kilometre 313.77 metric tons per square kilometre Maldives
2000s 497.64 metric tons per square kilometre 82.16 metric tons per square kilometre 415.48 metric tons per square kilometre Maldives
2010s 435.89 metric tons per square kilometre 345.73 metric tons per square kilometre 90.16 metric tons per square kilometre Maldives
2020s 508.77 metric tons per square kilometre 1,142 metric tons per square kilometre 632.99 metric tons per square kilometre Tuvalu

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre, Maldives or Tuvalu?
Tuvalu, at 1,633 metric tons per square kilometre against 539.21 metric tons per square kilometre in Maldives as of 2023.
What is the difference in capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre between Maldives and Tuvalu?
1,094 metric tons per square kilometre, with Tuvalu ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Maldives and Tuvalu?
63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Maldives and Tuvalu rank globally for capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre?
Maldives ranks 4th and Tuvalu ranks 2nd 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

Maldives vs Tuvalu: 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/maldives/tuvalu/

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/maldives/tuvalu/">Maldives vs Tuvalu: 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.