Estonia vs South Sudan: Environmental protection (general government expenditure) — Value
Environmental protection (general government expenditure) — Value over time
- Estonia
- South Sudan
How they compare
South Sudan currently reports 376.65 million SLC against 274.3 million SLC in Estonia, a difference of 102.35 million SLC.
That makes South Sudan's figure about 1.4 times Estonia's.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 5 shared years of data; in 2012 it was South Sudan ahead.
Estonia ranks 72nd and South Sudan ranks 69th of 93 countries.
South Sudan has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Estonia | South Sudan | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 132.65 million SLC | 203.01 million SLC | 70.36 million SLC | South Sudan |
| 2020s | 183.1 million SLC | 260.4 million SLC | 77.3 million SLC | South Sudan |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher environmental protection (general government expenditure) — value, Estonia or South Sudan?
- South Sudan, at 376.65 million SLC against 274.3 million SLC in Estonia as of 2022.
- What is the difference in environmental protection (general government expenditure) — value between Estonia and South Sudan?
- 102.35 million SLC, with South Sudan ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Estonia and South Sudan?
- 5 years are reported by both, from 2012 to 2022.
- How do Estonia and South Sudan rank globally for environmental protection (general government expenditure) — value?
- Estonia ranks 72nd and South Sudan ranks 69th of 93 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Environmental protection (general 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.