Nepal vs Suriname: Environmental protection (central government expenditure) — Value
Environmental protection (central government expenditure) — Value over time
- Nepal
- Suriname
How they compare
Suriname currently reports 5,183 million SLC against 4,043 million SLC in Nepal, a difference of 1,140 million SLC.
That makes Suriname's figure about 1.3 times Nepal's.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 12 shared years of data; in 2013 it was Nepal ahead.
Nepal ranks 54th and Suriname ranks 51st of 155 countries.
Nepal has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Nepal | Suriname | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 7,903 million SLC | 362.13 million SLC | 7,541 million SLC | Nepal |
| 2020s | 5,549 million SLC | 2,424 million SLC | 3,125 million SLC | Nepal |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher environmental protection (central government expenditure) — value, Nepal or Suriname?
- Suriname, at 5,183 million SLC against 4,043 million SLC in Nepal as of 2024.
- What is the difference in environmental protection (central government expenditure) — value between Nepal and Suriname?
- 1,140 million SLC, with Suriname ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Nepal and Suriname?
- 12 years are reported by both, from 2013 to 2024.
- How do Nepal and Suriname rank globally for environmental protection (central government expenditure) — value?
- Nepal ranks 54th and Suriname ranks 51st 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.