Latvia vs Serbia: Environmental protection (general government expenditure) — Value US$
Environmental protection (general government expenditure) — Value US$ over time
- Latvia
- Serbia
How they compare
Latvia currently reports 211.87 million USD against 174.29 million USD in Serbia, a difference of 37.58 million USD.
That makes Latvia's figure about 1.2 times Serbia's.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2003 it was Latvia ahead.
Latvia ranks 54th and Serbia ranks 57th of 93 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Latvia averaged higher in 1 and Serbia in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Latvia | Serbia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 141.71 million USD | 83.73 million USD | 57.98 million USD | Latvia |
| 2010s | 156.71 million USD | 162.98 million USD | 6.28 million USD | Serbia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher environmental protection (general government expenditure) — value us$, Latvia or Serbia?
- Latvia, at 211.87 million USD against 174.29 million USD in Serbia as of 2023.
- What is the difference in environmental protection (general government expenditure) — value us$ between Latvia and Serbia?
- 37.58 million USD, with Latvia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Latvia and Serbia?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2012.
- How do Latvia and Serbia rank globally for environmental protection (general government expenditure) — value us$?
- Latvia ranks 54th and Serbia ranks 57th of 93 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Environmental protection (general government expenditure) — Value US$. 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.