How many years of comparable data are there for Iceland and Zambia?

55 years are reported by both, from 1970 to 2024.

Where does this data come from?

Statizoid (derived), published as Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015 prices, per unit of GDP. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

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

Iceland

0 million USD per US$ of GDP

in 2024

Zambia

0 million USD per US$ of GDP

in 2024

Iceland rank

107th

Zambia rank

104th

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

Iceland
Zambia

How they compare

Zambia currently reports 0 million USD per US$ of GDP against 0 million USD per US$ of GDP in Iceland, a difference of 0 million USD per US$ of GDP.

The two have swapped places 9 times across 55 shared years of data; in 1970 it was Iceland ahead.

Iceland ranks 107th and Zambia ranks 104th of 179 countries.

Across the 6 decades both report, Iceland averaged higher in 2 and Zambia in 4.

Head to head by decade

Decade	Iceland	Zambia	Difference	Ahead
1970s	0 million USD per US$ of GDP	0 million USD per US$ of GDP	0 million USD per US$ of GDP	Iceland
1980s	0 million USD per US$ of GDP	0 million USD per US$ of GDP	0 million USD per US$ of GDP	Zambia
1990s	0 million USD per US$ of GDP	0 million USD per US$ of GDP	0 million USD per US$ of GDP	Zambia
2000s	0 million USD per US$ of GDP	0 million USD per US$ of GDP	0 million USD per US$ of GDP	Zambia
2010s	0 million USD per US$ of GDP	0 million USD per US$ of GDP	0 million USD per US$ of GDP	Iceland
2020s	0 million USD per US$ of GDP	0 million USD per US$ of GDP	0 million USD per US$ of GDP	Zambia

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher value added (agriculture, forestry and fishing) — value us$, 2015, Iceland or Zambia?: Zambia, at 0 million USD per US$ of GDP against 0 million USD per US$ of GDP in Iceland as of 2024.
What is the difference in value added (agriculture, forestry and fishing) — value us$, 2015 between Iceland and Zambia?: 0 million USD per US$ of GDP, with Zambia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Iceland and Zambia?: 55 years are reported by both, from 1970 to 2024.
How do Iceland and Zambia rank globally for value added (agriculture, forestry and fishing) — value us$, 2015?: Iceland ranks 107th and Zambia ranks 104th of 179 countries.
Where does this data come from?: Statizoid (derived), published as Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015 prices, per unit of GDP. 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

Iceland vs Zambia: Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 14 September 2026, from https://environment.statizoid.com/compare/value-added-agriculture-forestry-and-fishing-value-us-2015-prices-per-unit-of-gdp/iceland/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-unit-of-gdp/iceland/zambia/">Iceland 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$, 2015 prices, per unit of GDP
Unit: million USD per US$ of GDP
Source: Statizoid (derived)
Licence: Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage: 180 places, 8,888 data points, 1970–2024
Last refreshed: 11 September 2026

Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015 prices divided by GDP (current US$), matched on country and year. Neither publisher issues this ratio as a series; it is computed here from both.