Lithuania vs United Republic of Tanzania: Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015

Lithuania
4.12 % change on previous year
in 2024
United Republic of Tanzania
4.07 % change on previous year
in 2024
Lithuania rank
54th
United Republic of Tanzania rank
57th

Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015 over time

  • Lithuania
  • United Republic of Tanzania
-40-20020197119972024

How they compare

Lithuania currently reports 4.12 % change on previous year against 4.07 % change on previous year in United Republic of Tanzania, a difference of 0.05 % change on previous year.

The two have swapped places 11 times across 33 shared years of data; in 1992 it was United Republic of Tanzania ahead.

Lithuania ranks 54th and United Republic of Tanzania ranks 57th of 218 countries.

United Republic of Tanzania has averaged higher in every one of the 4 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Lithuania United Republic of Tanzania Difference Ahead
1990s -15.53 % change on previous year 3.62 % change on previous year 19.14 % change on previous year United Republic of Tanzania
2000s 1.29 % change on previous year 4.53 % change on previous year 3.24 % change on previous year United Republic of Tanzania
2010s 1.51 % change on previous year 4.46 % change on previous year 2.95 % change on previous year United Republic of Tanzania
2020s 1.86 % change on previous year 4.08 % change on previous year 2.22 % change on previous year United Republic of Tanzania

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher value added (agriculture, forestry and fishing) — value us$, 2015, Lithuania or United Republic of Tanzania?
Lithuania, at 4.12 % change on previous year against 4.07 % change on previous year in United Republic of Tanzania as of 2024.
What is the difference in value added (agriculture, forestry and fishing) — value us$, 2015 between Lithuania and United Republic of Tanzania?
0.05 % change on previous year, with Lithuania ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Lithuania and United Republic of Tanzania?
33 years are reported by both, from 1992 to 2024.
How do Lithuania and United Republic of Tanzania rank globally for value added (agriculture, forestry and fishing) — value us$, 2015?
Lithuania ranks 54th and United Republic of Tanzania ranks 57th of 218 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015 prices, 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

Lithuania vs United Republic of Tanzania: Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 17 September 2026, from https://environment.statizoid.com/compare/value-added-agriculture-forestry-and-fishing-value-us-2015-prices-annual-growth-rate/lithuania/united-republic-of-tanzania/

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-us-2015-prices-annual-growth-rate/lithuania/united-republic-of-tanzania/">Lithuania vs United Republic of Tanzania: Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015 prices, annual growth rate
Unit
% change on previous year
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
249 places, 12,520 data points, 1971–2024
Last refreshed

The year-on-year percentage change in Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015 prices. Computed from consecutive annual observations; years either side of a gap are skipped rather than bridged.