Namibia vs Zambia: Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015

Namibia
0.001 million USD per square kilometre
in 2023
Zambia
0.0013 million USD per square kilometre
in 2023
Namibia rank
177th
Zambia rank
174th

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

  • Namibia
  • Zambia
0.0010.0010.0020.002197019962023

How they compare

Zambia currently reports 0.0013 million USD per square kilometre against 0.001 million USD per square kilometre in Namibia, a difference of 0.0003 million USD per square kilometre.

That makes Zambia's figure about 1.3 times Namibia's.

Across all 54 years both countries report, Zambia has been ahead every year.

Namibia ranks 177th and Zambia ranks 174th of 180 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Namibia Zambia Difference Ahead
1970s 0.0005 million USD per square kilometre 0.001 million USD per square kilometre 0.0005 million USD per square kilometre Zambia
1980s 0.0007 million USD per square kilometre 0.0011 million USD per square kilometre 0.0004 million USD per square kilometre Zambia
1990s 0.0008 million USD per square kilometre 0.0015 million USD per square kilometre 0.0007 million USD per square kilometre Zambia
2000s 0.0011 million USD per square kilometre 0.0016 million USD per square kilometre 0.0005 million USD per square kilometre Zambia
2010s 0.001 million USD per square kilometre 0.0015 million USD per square kilometre 0.0005 million USD per square kilometre Zambia
2020s 0.001 million USD per square kilometre 0.0015 million USD per square kilometre 0.0005 million USD per square kilometre Zambia

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher value added (agriculture, forestry and fishing) — value us$, 2015, Namibia or Zambia?
Zambia, at 0.0013 million USD per square kilometre against 0.001 million USD per square kilometre in Namibia as of 2023.
What is the difference in value added (agriculture, forestry and fishing) — value us$, 2015 between Namibia and Zambia?
0.0003 million USD per square kilometre, with Zambia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Namibia and Zambia?
54 years are reported by both, from 1970 to 2023.
How do Namibia and Zambia rank globally for value added (agriculture, forestry and fishing) — value us$, 2015?
Namibia ranks 177th and Zambia ranks 174th of 180 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015 prices, 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

Namibia vs Zambia: Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 22 September 2026, from https://environment.statizoid.com/compare/value-added-agriculture-forestry-and-fishing-value-us-2015-prices-per-square-kilometre/namibia/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-us-2015-prices-per-square-kilometre/namibia/zambia/">Namibia vs Zambia: 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, per square kilometre
Unit
million USD per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
181 places, 9,031 data points, 1970–2023
Last refreshed

Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015 prices 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.