Cook Islands vs Kiribati: Environmental protection (central government expenditure) — Value US$
Environmental protection (central government expenditure) — Value US$ over time
- Cook Islands
- Kiribati
How they compare
Cook Islands currently reports 5.25 million USD against 3.93 million USD in Kiribati, a difference of 1.32 million USD.
That makes Cook Islands's figure about 1.3 times Kiribati's.
Across all 8 years both countries report, Cook Islands has been ahead every year.
Cook Islands ranks 134th and Kiribati ranks 137th of 155 countries.
Cook Islands has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Cook Islands | Kiribati | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 5.36 million USD | 3.13 million USD | 2.23 million USD | Cook Islands |
| 2020s | 5.48 million USD | 3.6 million USD | 1.88 million USD | Cook Islands |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher environmental protection (central government expenditure) — value us$, Cook Islands or Kiribati?
- Cook Islands, at 5.25 million USD against 3.93 million USD in Kiribati as of 2022.
- What is the difference in environmental protection (central government expenditure) — value us$ between Cook Islands and Kiribati?
- 1.32 million USD, with Cook Islands ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Cook Islands and Kiribati?
- 8 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2022.
- How do Cook Islands and Kiribati rank globally for environmental protection (central government expenditure) — value us$?
- Cook Islands ranks 134th and Kiribati ranks 137th of 155 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Environmental protection (central government expenditure) — Value US$. 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.