Australia vs Namibia: Forestry, Recurrent (central government expenditure) — Value Standard
Forestry, Recurrent (central government expenditure) — Value Standard over time
- Australia
- Namibia
How they compare
Australia currently reports 478 million SLC against 200 million SLC in Namibia, a difference of 278 million SLC.
That makes Australia's figure about 2.4 times Namibia's.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 11 shared years of data; in 2014 it was Namibia ahead.
Australia ranks 21st and Namibia ranks 22nd of 49 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Australia averaged higher in 1 and Namibia in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Australia | Namibia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 12.83 million SLC | 277.92 million SLC | 265.09 million SLC | Namibia |
| 2020s | 403.6 million SLC | 262.5 million SLC | 141.1 million SLC | Australia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher forestry, recurrent (central government expenditure) — value standard, Australia or Namibia?
- Australia, at 478 million SLC against 200 million SLC in Namibia as of 2024.
- What is the difference in forestry, recurrent (central government expenditure) — value standard between Australia and Namibia?
- 278 million SLC, with Australia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and Namibia?
- 11 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2024.
- How do Australia and Namibia rank globally for forestry, recurrent (central government expenditure) — value standard?
- Australia ranks 21st and Namibia ranks 22nd of 49 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Forestry, Recurrent (central government expenditure) — Value Standard Local Currency. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The Statistics Division of FAO collects annually data on Government Expenditure on Agriculture through a questionnaire, which was developed in partnership with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF is the responsible institution for the Government Finance Statistics (GFS) methodology and annually collects GFS data, including Expenditure by Functions of Government (COFOG). The Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG) is an international classification developed by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and published by the United Nations Statistical Division (UNSD), with the aim of categorise governments' functions according to their purposes. The FAO questionnaire aligns with Table 7 of the IMF GFS questionnaire, replicates the relevant aggregates and drills down to request additional detail related to Agriculture. The FAO dataset consists of a time series, from 2001 onwards, of Total Government Expenditure and expenditure in: Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting, along with its three disaggregated subsectors of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing; and Environmental Protection. In addition, expenditure in each detailed function are further disaggregated into Recurrent and Capital expenditure. Additional indicators include the Agriculture Share of Government Expenditure, and the Agriculture Orientation Index (ratio between the Agriculture Share of Government Expenditure and the Agriculture Value Added as Share of GDP). Data are reported for the highest level of government available (Consolidated general government, consolidated central government or budgetary central government) and are available for about 100 countries on a regular basis.