Aruba vs Zimbabwe: Proportion of traded wildlife that was poached or illicitly trafficked
Aruba
0.9%
in 2021
Zimbabwe
1.1%
in 2021
Aruba rank
19th
Zimbabwe rank
17th
Proportion of traded wildlife that was poached or illicitly trafficked over time
- Aruba
- Zimbabwe
How they compare
Zimbabwe currently reports 1.1% against 0.9% in Aruba, a difference of 0.2%.
That makes Zimbabwe's figure about 1.2 times Aruba's.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 6 shared years of data; in 2016 it was Aruba ahead.
Aruba ranks 19th and Zimbabwe ranks 17th of 57 countries.
Aruba has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Aruba | Zimbabwe | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 1.1% | 0.8% | 0.3% | Aruba |
| 2020s | 1.8% | 1.2% | 0.6% | Aruba |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher proportion of traded wildlife that was poached or illicitly trafficked, Aruba or Zimbabwe?
- Zimbabwe, at 1.1% against 0.9% in Aruba as of 2021.
- What is the difference in proportion of traded wildlife that was poached or illicitly trafficked between Aruba and Zimbabwe?
- 0.2%, with Zimbabwe ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Aruba and Zimbabwe?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2016 to 2021.
- How do Aruba and Zimbabwe rank globally for proportion of traded wildlife that was poached or illicitly trafficked?
- Aruba ranks 19th and Zimbabwe ranks 17th of 57 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- United Nations Statistics Division, SDG Global Database, published as Proportion of traded wildlife that was poached or illicitly trafficked. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.