Croatia vs Hungary: Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape (central government)
Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape (central government) over time
- Croatia
- Hungary
How they compare
Hungary currently reports 87.52 million USD against 75.69 million USD in Croatia, a difference of 11.83 million USD.
That makes Hungary's figure about 1.2 times Croatia's.
The two have swapped places 6 times across 23 shared years of data; in 2001 it was Hungary ahead.
Croatia ranks 33rd and Hungary ranks 32nd of 118 countries.
Hungary has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Croatia | Hungary | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 22.23 million USD | 34.79 million USD | 12.56 million USD | Hungary |
| 2010s | 57.68 million USD | 80.84 million USD | 23.16 million USD | Hungary |
| 2020s | 73.83 million USD | 81.87 million USD | 8.03 million USD | Hungary |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protection of biodiversity and landscape (central government), Croatia or Hungary?
- Hungary, at 87.52 million USD against 75.69 million USD in Croatia as of 2023.
- What is the difference in protection of biodiversity and landscape (central government) between Croatia and Hungary?
- 11.83 million USD, with Hungary ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Croatia and Hungary?
- 23 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2023.
- How do Croatia and Hungary rank globally for protection of biodiversity and landscape (central government)?
- Croatia ranks 33rd and Hungary ranks 32nd 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 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.