Malawi vs Sao Tome and Principe: Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape, Recurrent (central)
Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape, Recurrent (central) over time
- Malawi
- Sao Tome and Principe
How they compare
Malawi currently reports 0 million SLC against 0 million SLC in Sao Tome and Principe, a difference of 0 million SLC.
Across all 6 years both countries report, Sao Tome and Principe has been ahead every year.
Malawi ranks 68th and Sao Tome and Principe ranks 68th of 70 countries.
Sao Tome and Principe has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Malawi | Sao Tome and Principe | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 0 million SLC | 0.8867 million SLC | 0.8867 million SLC | Sao Tome and Principe |
| 2010s | 0 million SLC | 9.13 million SLC | 9.13 million SLC | Sao Tome and Principe |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protection of biodiversity and landscape, recurrent (central), Malawi or Sao Tome and Principe?
- Malawi, at 0 million SLC against 0 million SLC in Sao Tome and Principe as of 2015.
- What is the difference in protection of biodiversity and landscape, recurrent (central) between Malawi and Sao Tome and Principe?
- 0 million SLC, with Malawi ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Malawi and Sao Tome and Principe?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2007 to 2015.
- How do Malawi and Sao Tome and Principe rank globally for protection of biodiversity and landscape, recurrent (central)?
- Malawi ranks 68th and Sao Tome and Principe ranks 68th 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.