Argentina vs Colombia: Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape, Recurrent (central)
Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape, Recurrent (central) over time
- Argentina
- Colombia
How they compare
Colombia currently reports 250,218 million SLC against 98,113 million SLC in Argentina, a difference of 152,105 million SLC.
That makes Colombia's figure about 2.6 times Argentina's.
Across all 6 years both countries report, Colombia has been ahead every year.
Argentina ranks 3rd and Colombia ranks 1st of 70 countries.
Colombia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Argentina | Colombia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 2,521 million SLC | 239,182 million SLC | 236,661 million SLC | Colombia |
| 2020s | 15,203 million SLC | 228,046 million SLC | 212,843 million SLC | Colombia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protection of biodiversity and landscape, recurrent (central), Argentina or Colombia?
- Colombia, at 250,218 million SLC against 98,113 million SLC in Argentina as of 2023.
- What is the difference in protection of biodiversity and landscape, recurrent (central) between Argentina and Colombia?
- 152,105 million SLC, with Colombia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Argentina and Colombia?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2018 to 2023.
- How do Argentina and Colombia rank globally for protection of biodiversity and landscape, recurrent (central)?
- Argentina ranks 3rd and Colombia ranks 1st 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 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.