Australia vs Brazil: Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape, Recurrent (general)
Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape, Recurrent (general) over time
- Australia
- Brazil
How they compare
Brazil currently reports 2,489 million USD against 1,673 million USD in Australia, a difference of 816 million USD.
That makes Brazil's figure about 1.5 times Australia's.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 11 shared years of data; in 2014 it was Australia ahead.
Australia ranks 3rd and Brazil ranks 1st of 43 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Australia averaged higher in 1 and Brazil in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Australia | Brazil | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 1,924 million USD | 1,723 million USD | 201.01 million USD | Australia |
| 2020s | 1,612 million USD | 1,959 million USD | 346.66 million USD | Brazil |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protection of biodiversity and landscape, recurrent (general), Australia or Brazil?
- Brazil, at 2,489 million USD against 1,673 million USD in Australia as of 2024.
- What is the difference in protection of biodiversity and landscape, recurrent (general) between Australia and Brazil?
- 816 million USD, with Brazil ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and Brazil?
- 11 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2024.
- How do Australia and Brazil rank globally for protection of biodiversity and landscape, recurrent (general)?
- Australia ranks 3rd and Brazil ranks 1st of 43 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape, Recurrent (general 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.