China, Hong Kong SAR vs Uganda: Urea — Import quantity
Urea — Import quantity over time
- China, Hong Kong SAR
- Uganda
How they compare
Uganda currently reports 24,682 t against 22,610 t in China, Hong Kong SAR, a difference of 2,072 t.
That makes Uganda's figure about 1.1 times China, Hong Kong SAR's.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 23 shared years of data; in 2002 it was Uganda ahead.
China, Hong Kong SAR ranks 93rd and Uganda ranks 91st of 187 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, China, Hong Kong SAR averaged higher in 2 and Uganda in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | China, Hong Kong SAR | Uganda | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 683.48 t | 4,988 t | 4,304 t | Uganda |
| 2010s | 11,595 t | 9,984 t | 1,612 t | China, Hong Kong SAR |
| 2020s | 21,393 t | 13,216 t | 8,178 t | China, Hong Kong SAR |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher urea — import quantity, China, Hong Kong SAR or Uganda?
- Uganda, at 24,682 t against 22,610 t in China, Hong Kong SAR as of 2024.
- What is the difference in urea — import quantity between China, Hong Kong SAR and Uganda?
- 2,072 t, with Uganda ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for China, Hong Kong SAR and Uganda?
- 23 years are reported by both, from 2002 to 2024.
- How do China, Hong Kong SAR and Uganda rank globally for urea — import quantity?
- China, Hong Kong SAR ranks 93rd and Uganda ranks 91st of 187 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Urea — Import quantity. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The Fertilizers by Product dataset contains information on the Production, Trade and Agriculture Use of inorganic (chemical or mineral) fertilizers products. The fertilizer statistics data are for a set of 23 product categories. Both straight and compound fertilizers are included. Methodological details can be found at: https://files-faostat.fao.org/production/RFB/RFB_EN_README.pdf