Latvia vs Malta: Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape, Capital (general government)
Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape, Capital (general government) over time
- Latvia
- Malta
How they compare
Malta currently reports 4.62 million USD against 3.88 million USD in Latvia, a difference of 0.74 million USD.
That makes Malta's figure about 1.2 times Latvia's.
The two have swapped places 7 times across 17 shared years of data; in 2007 it was Latvia ahead.
Latvia ranks 29th and Malta ranks 28th of 43 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, Latvia averaged higher in 1 and Malta in 2.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Latvia | Malta | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 2.36 million USD | 0.0033 million USD | 2.35 million USD | Latvia |
| 2010s | 0.968 million USD | 1.21 million USD | 0.241 million USD | Malta |
| 2020s | 1.77 million USD | 3.73 million USD | 1.96 million USD | Malta |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protection of biodiversity and landscape, capital (general government), Latvia or Malta?
- Malta, at 4.62 million USD against 3.88 million USD in Latvia as of 2023.
- What is the difference in protection of biodiversity and landscape, capital (general government) between Latvia and Malta?
- 0.74 million USD, with Malta ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Latvia and Malta?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2007 to 2023.
- How do Latvia and Malta rank globally for protection of biodiversity and landscape, capital (general government)?
- Latvia ranks 29th and Malta ranks 28th of 43 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape, Capital (general government expenditure) — Value US$. 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.