Iceland vs Kenya: Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape (central government)
Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape (central government) over time
- Iceland
- Kenya
How they compare
Kenya currently reports 70.91 million USD against 62.25 million USD in Iceland, a difference of 8.66 million USD.
That makes Kenya's figure about 1.1 times Iceland's.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 19 shared years of data; in 2006 it was Iceland ahead.
Iceland ranks 37th and Kenya ranks 34th of 118 countries.
Kenya has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Iceland | Kenya | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 24.66 million USD | 30.82 million USD | 6.16 million USD | Kenya |
| 2010s | 33.58 million USD | 82.37 million USD | 48.79 million USD | Kenya |
| 2020s | 53.84 million USD | 78.92 million USD | 25.09 million USD | Kenya |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protection of biodiversity and landscape (central government), Iceland or Kenya?
- Kenya, at 70.91 million USD against 62.25 million USD in Iceland as of 2024.
- What is the difference in protection of biodiversity and landscape (central government) between Iceland and Kenya?
- 8.66 million USD, with Kenya ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Iceland and Kenya?
- 19 years are reported by both, from 2006 to 2024.
- How do Iceland and Kenya rank globally for protection of biodiversity and landscape (central government)?
- Iceland ranks 37th and Kenya ranks 34th 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.