Lithuania vs Malta: Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape (general government)
Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape (general government) over time
- Lithuania
- Malta
How they compare
Malta currently reports 50.33 million USD against 46 million USD in Lithuania, a difference of 4.33 million USD.
That makes Malta's figure about 1.1 times Lithuania's.
The two have swapped places 6 times across 23 shared years of data; in 2001 it was Malta ahead.
Lithuania ranks 42nd and Malta ranks 40th of 79 countries.
Malta has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Lithuania | Malta | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 10.56 million USD | 14.12 million USD | 3.56 million USD | Malta |
| 2010s | 21.8 million USD | 26.54 million USD | 4.75 million USD | Malta |
| 2020s | 32.9 million USD | 47.1 million USD | 14.21 million USD | Malta |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protection of biodiversity and landscape (general government), Lithuania or Malta?
- Malta, at 50.33 million USD against 46 million USD in Lithuania as of 2023.
- What is the difference in protection of biodiversity and landscape (general government) between Lithuania and Malta?
- 4.33 million USD, with Malta ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Lithuania and Malta?
- 23 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2023.
- How do Lithuania and Malta rank globally for protection of biodiversity and landscape (general government)?
- Lithuania ranks 42nd and Malta ranks 40th of 79 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape (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.