Costa Rica vs Hungary: Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape, Recurrent (general)
Protection of Biodiversity and Landscape, Recurrent (general) over time
- Costa Rica
- Hungary
How they compare
Costa Rica currently reports 26,690 million SLC against 23,143 million SLC in Hungary, a difference of 3,547 million SLC.
That makes Costa Rica's figure about 1.2 times Hungary's.
Across all 8 years both countries report, Costa Rica has been ahead every year.
Costa Rica ranks 4th and Hungary ranks 5th of 43 countries.
Costa Rica has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Costa Rica | Hungary | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 23,456 million SLC | 15,887 million SLC | 7,569 million SLC | Costa Rica |
| 2020s | 26,690 million SLC | 18,868 million SLC | 7,822 million SLC | Costa Rica |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protection of biodiversity and landscape, recurrent (general), Costa Rica or Hungary?
- Costa Rica, at 26,690 million SLC against 23,143 million SLC in Hungary as of 2020.
- What is the difference in protection of biodiversity and landscape, recurrent (general) between Costa Rica and Hungary?
- 3,547 million SLC, with Costa Rica ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Costa Rica and Hungary?
- 8 years are reported by both, from 2013 to 2020.
- How do Costa Rica and Hungary rank globally for protection of biodiversity and landscape, recurrent (general)?
- Costa Rica ranks 4th and Hungary ranks 5th 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 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.