Belarus vs Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs): Total fibre furnish — Production, annual growth rate

Belarus
4.13 % change on previous year
in 2024
Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs)
-0.3419 % change on previous year
in 2024
Belarus rank
21st
Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs) rank
18th

Total fibre furnish — Production, annual growth rate over time

  • Belarus
  • Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs)
0200400600800196219932024

How they compare

Belarus currently reports 4.13 % change on previous year against -0.3419 % change on previous year in Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs), a difference of 4.47 % change on previous year.

That makes Belarus's figure about 12.1 times Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs)'s.

The two have swapped places 17 times across 32 shared years of data; in 1993 it was Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs) ahead.

Belarus ranks 21st and Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs) ranks 18th of 140 countries.

Across the 4 decades both report, Belarus averaged higher in 3 and Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs) in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Belarus Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs) Difference Ahead
1990s 6.94 % change on previous year 4.48 % change on previous year 2.46 % change on previous year Belarus
2000s -0.6588 % change on previous year -0.4751 % change on previous year 0.1837 % change on previous year Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs)
2010s 87.96 % change on previous year 10.74 % change on previous year 77.21 % change on previous year Belarus
2020s 1.34 % change on previous year -4.93 % change on previous year 6.28 % change on previous year Belarus

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher total fibre furnish — production, annual growth rate, Belarus or Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs)?
Belarus, at 4.13 % change on previous year against -0.3419 % change on previous year in Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs) as of 2024.
What is the difference in total fibre furnish — production, annual growth rate between Belarus and Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs)?
4.47 % change on previous year, with Belarus ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Belarus and Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs)?
32 years are reported by both, from 1993 to 2024.
How do Belarus and Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs) rank globally for total fibre furnish — production, annual growth rate?
Belarus ranks 21st and Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs) ranks 18th of 140 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Total fibre furnish — Production, annual growth rate. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Belarus vs Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs): Total fibre furnish — Production, annual growth rate. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 31 August 2026, from https://environment.statizoid.com/compare/total-fibre-furnish-production-annual-growth-rate/belarus/land-locked-developing-countries-lldcs/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page; please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://environment.statizoid.com/compare/total-fibre-furnish-production-annual-growth-rate/belarus/land-locked-developing-countries-lldcs/">Belarus vs Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDCs): Total fibre furnish — Production, annual growth rate</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Total fibre furnish — Production, annual growth rate
Unit
% change on previous year
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
183 places, 8,199 data points, 1962–2024
Last refreshed

The year-on-year percentage change in Total fibre furnish — Production. Computed from consecutive annual observations; years either side of a gap are skipped rather than bridged.