Australia vs Papua New Guinea: Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value Standard

Australia
0.002 million SLC per person
in 2024
Papua New Guinea
0.0021 million SLC per person
in 2024
Australia rank
108th
Papua New Guinea rank
105th

Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value Standard over time

  • Australia
  • Papua New Guinea
00.0010.0010.0020.0020.003197019972024

How they compare

Papua New Guinea currently reports 0.0021 million SLC per person against 0.002 million SLC per person in Australia, a difference of 0.0001 million SLC per person.

That makes Papua New Guinea's figure about 1.1 times Australia's.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 55 shared years of data; in 1970 it was Australia ahead.

Australia ranks 108th and Papua New Guinea ranks 105th of 180 countries.

Australia has averaged higher in every one of the 6 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Australia Papua New Guinea Difference Ahead
1970s 0.0003 million SLC per person 0.0001 million SLC per person 0.0002 million SLC per person Australia
1980s 0.0007 million SLC per person 0.0002 million SLC per person 0.0005 million SLC per person Australia
1990s 0.0009 million SLC per person 0.0004 million SLC per person 0.0005 million SLC per person Australia
2000s 0.0013 million SLC per person 0.0008 million SLC per person 0.0006 million SLC per person Australia
2010s 0.0016 million SLC per person 0.0012 million SLC per person 0.0004 million SLC per person Australia
2020s 0.0022 million SLC per person 0.0018 million SLC per person 0.0004 million SLC per person Australia

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher value added (agriculture, forestry and fishing) — value standard, Australia or Papua New Guinea?
Papua New Guinea, at 0.0021 million SLC per person against 0.002 million SLC per person in Australia as of 2024.
What is the difference in value added (agriculture, forestry and fishing) — value standard between Australia and Papua New Guinea?
0.0001 million SLC per person, with Papua New Guinea ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and Papua New Guinea?
55 years are reported by both, from 1970 to 2024.
How do Australia and Papua New Guinea rank globally for value added (agriculture, forestry and fishing) — value standard?
Australia ranks 108th and Papua New Guinea ranks 105th of 180 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value Standard Local Currency, per capita. 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

Australia vs Papua New Guinea: Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value Standard. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 15 September 2026, from https://environment.statizoid.com/compare/value-added-agriculture-forestry-and-fishing-value-standard-local-currency-per-capita/australia/papua-new-guinea/

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/value-added-agriculture-forestry-and-fishing-value-standard-local-currency-per-capita/australia/papua-new-guinea/">Australia vs Papua New Guinea: Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value Standard</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value Standard Local Currency, per capita
Unit
million SLC per person
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
180 places, 9,311 data points, 1970–2024
Last refreshed

Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value Standard Local Currency divided by Population, total, matched on country and year. Neither publisher issues this ratio as a series; it is computed here from both.