Equatorial Guinea vs Zimbabwe: Capture fishery production, per square kilometre

Equatorial Guinea
0.2586 metric tons per square kilometre
in 2024
Zimbabwe
0.2712 metric tons per square kilometre
in 2024
Equatorial Guinea rank
141st
Zimbabwe rank
138th

Capture fishery production, per square kilometre over time

  • Equatorial Guinea
  • Zimbabwe
00.10.20.30.4196119922024

How they compare

Zimbabwe currently reports 0.2712 metric tons per square kilometre against 0.2586 metric tons per square kilometre in Equatorial Guinea, a difference of 0.0126 metric tons per square kilometre.

The two have swapped places 9 times across 64 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Equatorial Guinea ahead.

Equatorial Guinea ranks 141st and Zimbabwe ranks 138th of 215 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, Equatorial Guinea averaged higher in 4 and Zimbabwe in 3.

Head to head by decade

Decade Equatorial Guinea Zimbabwe Difference Ahead
1960s 0.0531 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0045 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0485 metric tons per square kilometre Equatorial Guinea
1970s 0.1426 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0114 metric tons per square kilometre 0.1312 metric tons per square kilometre Equatorial Guinea
1980s 0.1189 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0543 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0646 metric tons per square kilometre Equatorial Guinea
1990s 0.1633 metric tons per square kilometre 0.157 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0063 metric tons per square kilometre Equatorial Guinea
2000s 0.154 metric tons per square kilometre 0.2181 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0642 metric tons per square kilometre Zimbabwe
2010s 0.2403 metric tons per square kilometre 0.3224 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0821 metric tons per square kilometre Zimbabwe
2020s 0.2377 metric tons per square kilometre 0.265 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0273 metric tons per square kilometre Zimbabwe

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher capture fishery production, per square kilometre, Equatorial Guinea or Zimbabwe?
Zimbabwe, at 0.2712 metric tons per square kilometre against 0.2586 metric tons per square kilometre in Equatorial Guinea as of 2024.
What is the difference in capture fishery production, per square kilometre between Equatorial Guinea and Zimbabwe?
0.0126 metric tons per square kilometre, with Zimbabwe ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Equatorial Guinea and Zimbabwe?
64 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2024.
How do Equatorial Guinea and Zimbabwe rank globally for capture fishery production, per square kilometre?
Equatorial Guinea ranks 141st and Zimbabwe ranks 138th of 215 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Capture fishery production, per square kilometre. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Equatorial Guinea vs Zimbabwe: Capture fishery production, per square kilometre. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 13 November 2026, from https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/capture-fishery-production-per-square-kilometre/equatorial-guinea/zimbabwe/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page; please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/capture-fishery-production-per-square-kilometre/equatorial-guinea/zimbabwe/">Equatorial Guinea vs Zimbabwe: Capture fishery production, per square kilometre</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Capture fishery production, per square kilometre
Unit
metric tons per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
215 places, 12,459 data points, 1961–2024
Last refreshed

Capture fishery production divided by Land area (sq. km), matched on country and year. Neither publisher issues this ratio as a series; it is computed here from both.