Luxembourg vs New Caledonia: Phosphate rock — Import value
Phosphate rock — Import value over time
- Luxembourg
- New Caledonia
How they compare
New Caledonia currently reports 16.84 1000 USD against 15.85 1000 USD in Luxembourg, a difference of 0.99 1000 USD.
That makes New Caledonia's figure about 1.1 times Luxembourg's.
The two have swapped places 4 times across 12 shared years of data; in 2002 it was Luxembourg ahead.
Luxembourg ranks 99th and New Caledonia ranks 98th of 182 countries.
New Caledonia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Luxembourg | New Caledonia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 9.02 1000 USD | 48.97 1000 USD | 39.96 1000 USD | New Caledonia |
| 2010s | 24.88 1000 USD | 28.33 1000 USD | 3.45 1000 USD | New Caledonia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher phosphate rock — import value, Luxembourg or New Caledonia?
- New Caledonia, at 16.84 1000 USD against 15.85 1000 USD in Luxembourg as of 2013.
- What is the difference in phosphate rock — import value between Luxembourg and New Caledonia?
- 0.99 1000 USD, with New Caledonia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Luxembourg and New Caledonia?
- 12 years are reported by both, from 2002 to 2013.
- How do Luxembourg and New Caledonia rank globally for phosphate rock — import value?
- Luxembourg ranks 99th and New Caledonia ranks 98th of 182 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Phosphate rock — Import value. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The Fertilizers by Product dataset contains information on the Production, Trade and Agriculture Use of inorganic (chemical or mineral) fertilizers products. The fertilizer statistics data are for a set of 23 product categories. Both straight and compound fertilizers are included. Methodological details can be found at: https://files-faostat.fao.org/production/RFB/RFB_EN_README.pdf