Cyprus vs Latvia: Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape, Capital (central government)
Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape, Capital (central government) over time
- Cyprus
- Latvia
How they compare
Cyprus currently reports 1.1 million SLC against 0.4 million SLC in Latvia, a difference of 0.7 million SLC.
That makes Cyprus's figure about 2.8 times Latvia's.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 11 shared years of data; in 2013 it was Latvia ahead.
Cyprus ranks 51st and Latvia ranks 52nd of 63 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Cyprus averaged higher in 1 and Latvia in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Cyprus | Latvia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 0.0286 million SLC | 0.4729 million SLC | 0.4443 million SLC | Latvia |
| 2020s | 2.75 million SLC | 0.445 million SLC | 2.31 million SLC | Cyprus |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protection of biodiversity and landscape, capital (central government), Cyprus or Latvia?
- Cyprus, at 1.1 million SLC against 0.4 million SLC in Latvia as of 2023.
- What is the difference in protection of biodiversity and landscape, capital (central government) between Cyprus and Latvia?
- 0.7 million SLC, with Cyprus ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Cyprus and Latvia?
- 11 years are reported by both, from 2013 to 2023.
- How do Cyprus and Latvia rank globally for protection of biodiversity and landscape, capital (central government)?
- Cyprus ranks 51st and Latvia ranks 52nd of 63 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape, Capital (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.