Albania vs Papua New Guinea: Environmental protection (central government expenditure) — Value
Environmental protection (central government expenditure) — Value over time
- Albania
- Papua New Guinea
How they compare
Papua New Guinea currently reports 9.3 million USD against 9.06 million USD in Albania, a difference of 0.24 million USD.
The two have swapped places 4 times across 9 shared years of data; in 2015 it was Papua New Guinea ahead.
Albania ranks 126th and Papua New Guinea ranks 125th of 155 countries.
Papua New Guinea has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Albania | Papua New Guinea | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 14.52 million USD | 56.09 million USD | 41.57 million USD | Papua New Guinea |
| 2020s | 8.96 million USD | 9.55 million USD | 0.59 million USD | Papua New Guinea |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher environmental protection (central government expenditure) — value, Albania or Papua New Guinea?
- Papua New Guinea, at 9.3 million USD against 9.06 million USD in Albania as of 2023.
- What is the difference in environmental protection (central government expenditure) — value between Albania and Papua New Guinea?
- 0.24 million USD, with Papua New Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Albania and Papua New Guinea?
- 9 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2023.
- How do Albania and Papua New Guinea rank globally for environmental protection (central government expenditure) — value?
- Albania ranks 126th and Papua New Guinea ranks 125th 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 US$, 2015 prices. 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.