Croatia vs Nepal: Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape (central government)
Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape (central government) over time
- Croatia
- Nepal
How they compare
Nepal currently reports 85.1 million SLC against 70 million SLC in Croatia, a difference of 15.1 million SLC.
That makes Nepal's figure about 1.2 times Croatia's.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 18 shared years of data; in 2001 it was Croatia ahead.
Croatia ranks 68th and Nepal ranks 66th of 118 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, Croatia averaged higher in 2 and Nepal in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Croatia | Nepal | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 17.48 million SLC | 0 million SLC | 17.48 million SLC | Croatia |
| 2010s | 45.74 million SLC | 320.62 million SLC | 274.88 million SLC | Nepal |
| 2020s | 64.57 million SLC | 33.24 million SLC | 31.33 million SLC | Croatia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protection of biodiversity and landscape (central government), Croatia or Nepal?
- Nepal, at 85.1 million SLC against 70 million SLC in Croatia as of 2023.
- What is the difference in protection of biodiversity and landscape (central government) between Croatia and Nepal?
- 15.1 million SLC, with Nepal ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Croatia and Nepal?
- 18 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2023.
- How do Croatia and Nepal rank globally for protection of biodiversity and landscape (central government)?
- Croatia ranks 68th and Nepal ranks 66th 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.