Finland vs Namibia: Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value Standard

Finland
0.0208 million SLC per square kilometre
in 2023
Namibia
0.0214 million SLC per square kilometre
in 2023
Finland rank
163rd
Namibia rank
162nd

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

  • Finland
  • Namibia
00.0050.010.0150.02197019962023

How they compare

Namibia currently reports 0.0214 million SLC per square kilometre against 0.0208 million SLC per square kilometre in Finland, a difference of 0.0006 million SLC per square kilometre.

The two have swapped places 3 times across 54 shared years of data; in 1970 it was Finland ahead.

Finland ranks 163rd and Namibia ranks 162nd of 180 countries.

Across the 6 decades both report, Finland averaged higher in 5 and Namibia in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Finland Namibia Difference Ahead
1970s 0.0051 million SLC per square kilometre 0.0001 million SLC per square kilometre 0.005 million SLC per square kilometre Finland
1980s 0.0121 million SLC per square kilometre 0.0004 million SLC per square kilometre 0.0117 million SLC per square kilometre Finland
1990s 0.0126 million SLC per square kilometre 0.0016 million SLC per square kilometre 0.0111 million SLC per square kilometre Finland
2000s 0.013 million SLC per square kilometre 0.0053 million SLC per square kilometre 0.0077 million SLC per square kilometre Finland
2010s 0.0151 million SLC per square kilometre 0.0126 million SLC per square kilometre 0.0025 million SLC per square kilometre Finland
2020s 0.0189 million SLC per square kilometre 0.021 million SLC per square kilometre 0.0021 million SLC per square kilometre Namibia

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher value added (agriculture, forestry and fishing) — value standard, Finland or Namibia?
Namibia, at 0.0214 million SLC per square kilometre against 0.0208 million SLC per square kilometre in Finland as of 2023.
What is the difference in value added (agriculture, forestry and fishing) — value standard between Finland and Namibia?
0.0006 million SLC per square kilometre, with Namibia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Finland and Namibia?
54 years are reported by both, from 1970 to 2023.
How do Finland and Namibia rank globally for value added (agriculture, forestry and fishing) — value standard?
Finland ranks 163rd and Namibia ranks 162nd of 180 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value Standard Local Currency, per square kilometre. 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

Finland vs Namibia: Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value Standard. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 12 September 2026, from https://environment.statizoid.com/compare/value-added-agriculture-forestry-and-fishing-value-standard-local-currency-per-square/finland/namibia/

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-square/finland/namibia/">Finland vs Namibia: 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 square kilometre
Unit
million SLC per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
180 places, 8,977 data points, 1970–2023
Last refreshed

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