Panama vs Zambia: Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value Standard

Panama
0.0274 million SLC per square kilometre
in 2023
Zambia
0.0227 million SLC per square kilometre
in 2023
Panama rank
158th
Zambia rank
161st

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

  • Panama
  • Zambia
00.010.020.03197019962023

How they compare

Panama currently reports 0.0274 million SLC per square kilometre against 0.0227 million SLC per square kilometre in Zambia, a difference of 0.0047 million SLC per square kilometre.

That makes Panama's figure about 1.2 times Zambia's.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 54 shared years of data; in 1970 it was Panama ahead.

Panama ranks 158th and Zambia ranks 161st of 180 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Panama Zambia Difference Ahead
1970s 0.0028 million SLC per square kilometre 0 million SLC per square kilometre 0.0028 million SLC per square kilometre Panama
1980s 0.0058 million SLC per square kilometre 0 million SLC per square kilometre 0.0058 million SLC per square kilometre Panama
1990s 0.0082 million SLC per square kilometre 0.0007 million SLC per square kilometre 0.0075 million SLC per square kilometre Panama
2000s 0.0128 million SLC per square kilometre 0.0067 million SLC per square kilometre 0.006 million SLC per square kilometre Panama
2010s 0.0196 million SLC per square kilometre 0.0154 million SLC per square kilometre 0.0042 million SLC per square kilometre Panama
2020s 0.0253 million SLC per square kilometre 0.0194 million SLC per square kilometre 0.0059 million SLC per square kilometre Panama

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher value added (agriculture, forestry and fishing) — value standard, Panama or Zambia?
Panama, at 0.0274 million SLC per square kilometre against 0.0227 million SLC per square kilometre in Zambia as of 2023.
What is the difference in value added (agriculture, forestry and fishing) — value standard between Panama and Zambia?
0.0047 million SLC per square kilometre, with Panama ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Panama and Zambia?
54 years are reported by both, from 1970 to 2023.
How do Panama and Zambia rank globally for value added (agriculture, forestry and fishing) — value standard?
Panama ranks 158th and Zambia ranks 161st 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

Panama vs Zambia: 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/panama/zambia/

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/panama/zambia/">Panama vs Zambia: 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.