Belgium vs Cook Islands: Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape (central government)
Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape (central government) over time
- Belgium
- Cook Islands
How they compare
Cook Islands currently reports 2.65 million SLC against 2.62 million SLC in Belgium, a difference of 0.03 million SLC.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 8 shared years of data; in 2015 it was Belgium ahead.
Belgium ranks 92nd and Cook Islands ranks 91st of 118 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Belgium averaged higher in 1 and Cook Islands in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Belgium | Cook Islands | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 14.43 million SLC | 0.09 million SLC | 14.34 million SLC | Belgium |
| 2020s | 0.85 million SLC | 1.05 million SLC | 0.2033 million SLC | Cook Islands |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protection of biodiversity and landscape (central government), Belgium or Cook Islands?
- Cook Islands, at 2.65 million SLC against 2.62 million SLC in Belgium as of 2022.
- What is the difference in protection of biodiversity and landscape (central government) between Belgium and Cook Islands?
- 0.03 million SLC, with Cook Islands ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Belgium and Cook Islands?
- 8 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2022.
- How do Belgium and Cook Islands rank globally for protection of biodiversity and landscape (central government)?
- Belgium ranks 92nd and Cook Islands ranks 91st of 118 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape (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.