Chad vs South Africa: Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape, Recurrent (central)
Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape, Recurrent (central) over time
- Chad
- South Africa
How they compare
South Africa currently reports 8,656 million SLC against 2,382 million SLC in Chad, a difference of 6,274 million SLC.
That makes South Africa's figure about 3.6 times Chad's.
Across all 11 years both countries report, South Africa has been ahead every year.
Chad ranks 11th and South Africa ranks 9th of 70 countries.
South Africa has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Chad | South Africa | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 1,755 million SLC | 5,767 million SLC | 4,012 million SLC | South Africa |
| 2020s | 2,382 million SLC | 8,747 million SLC | 6,365 million SLC | South Africa |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protection of biodiversity and landscape, recurrent (central), Chad or South Africa?
- South Africa, at 8,656 million SLC against 2,382 million SLC in Chad as of 2023.
- What is the difference in protection of biodiversity and landscape, recurrent (central) between Chad and South Africa?
- 6,274 million SLC, with South Africa ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Chad and South Africa?
- 11 years are reported by both, from 2010 to 2020.
- How do Chad and South Africa rank globally for protection of biodiversity and landscape, recurrent (central)?
- Chad ranks 11th and South Africa ranks 9th 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.