Belarus vs Latvia: Environmental protection (central government expenditure) — Value
Environmental protection (central government expenditure) — Value over time
- Belarus
- Latvia
How they compare
Belarus currently reports 166.65 million SLC against 160.5 million SLC in Latvia, a difference of 6.15 million SLC.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 23 shared years of data; in 2001 it was Latvia ahead.
Belarus ranks 111th and Latvia ranks 112th of 155 countries.
Latvia has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Belarus | Latvia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 24.6 million SLC | 68.81 million SLC | 44.2 million SLC | Latvia |
| 2010s | 67.28 million SLC | 124.35 million SLC | 57.07 million SLC | Latvia |
| 2020s | 148.22 million SLC | 165.58 million SLC | 17.35 million SLC | Latvia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher environmental protection (central government expenditure) — value, Belarus or Latvia?
- Belarus, at 166.65 million SLC against 160.5 million SLC in Latvia as of 2023.
- What is the difference in environmental protection (central government expenditure) — value between Belarus and Latvia?
- 6.15 million SLC, with Belarus ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Belarus and Latvia?
- 23 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2023.
- How do Belarus and Latvia rank globally for environmental protection (central government expenditure) — value?
- Belarus ranks 111th and Latvia ranks 112th of 155 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Environmental protection (central government expenditure) — Value Standard Local Currency. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The Statistics Division of FAO collects annually data on Government Expenditure on Agriculture through a questionnaire, which was developed in partnership with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF is the responsible institution for the Government Finance Statistics (GFS) methodology and annually collects GFS data, including Expenditure by Functions of Government (COFOG). The Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG) is an international classification developed by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and published by the United Nations Statistical Division (UNSD), with the aim of categorise governments' functions according to their purposes. The FAO questionnaire aligns with Table 7 of the IMF GFS questionnaire, replicates the relevant aggregates and drills down to request additional detail related to Agriculture. The FAO dataset consists of a time series, from 2001 onwards, of Total Government Expenditure and expenditure in: Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting, along with its three disaggregated subsectors of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing; and Environmental Protection. In addition, expenditure in each detailed function are further disaggregated into Recurrent and Capital expenditure. Additional indicators include the Agriculture Share of Government Expenditure, and the Agriculture Orientation Index (ratio between the Agriculture Share of Government Expenditure and the Agriculture Value Added as Share of GDP). Data are reported for the highest level of government available (Consolidated general government, consolidated central government or budgetary central government) and are available for about 100 countries on a regular basis.