Estonia vs Kazakhstan: Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape, Recurrent (central)
Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape, Recurrent (central) over time
- Estonia
- Kazakhstan
How they compare
Kazakhstan currently reports 10.19 million USD against 8.09 million USD in Estonia, a difference of 2.1 million USD.
That makes Kazakhstan's figure about 1.3 times Estonia's.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 7 shared years of data; in 2009 it was Kazakhstan ahead.
Estonia ranks 38th and Kazakhstan ranks 36th of 70 countries.
Kazakhstan has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Estonia | Kazakhstan | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 18.2 million USD | 54.9 million USD | 36.7 million USD | Kazakhstan |
| 2010s | 19.84 million USD | 38.51 million USD | 18.66 million USD | Kazakhstan |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protection of biodiversity and landscape, recurrent (central), Estonia or Kazakhstan?
- Kazakhstan, at 10.19 million USD against 8.09 million USD in Estonia as of 2015.
- What is the difference in protection of biodiversity and landscape, recurrent (central) between Estonia and Kazakhstan?
- 2.1 million USD, with Kazakhstan ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Estonia and Kazakhstan?
- 7 years are reported by both, from 2009 to 2015.
- How do Estonia and Kazakhstan rank globally for protection of biodiversity and landscape, recurrent (central)?
- Estonia ranks 38th and Kazakhstan ranks 36th of 70 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape, Recurrent (central government expenditure) — Value US$, 2015 prices. 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.