What is the difference in food production index between Iceland and Nauru?

0.05 2014-2016 = 100, with Iceland ahead.

How many years of comparable data are there for Iceland and Nauru?

64 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2024.

Where does this data come from?

FAO electronic files and web site, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), publisher: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), published as Food production index (2014-2016 = 100). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Iceland vs Nauru: Food production index (2014-2016 = 100)

Iceland

102.9 2014-2016 = 100

in 2024

Nauru

102.85 2014-2016 = 100

in 2024

Iceland rank

121st

Nauru rank

122nd

Food production index (2014-2016 = 100) over time

Iceland
Nauru

How they compare

Iceland currently reports 102.9 2014-2016 = 100 against 102.85 2014-2016 = 100 in Nauru, a difference of 0.05 2014-2016 = 100.

The two have swapped places 6 times across 64 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Iceland ahead.

Iceland ranks 121st and Nauru ranks 122nd of 195 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, Iceland averaged higher in 4 and Nauru in 3.

Head to head by decade

Decade	Iceland	Nauru	Difference	Ahead
1960s	77.26 2014-2016 = 100	50.19 2014-2016 = 100	27.08 2014-2016 = 100	Iceland
1970s	84.42 2014-2016 = 100	61.07 2014-2016 = 100	23.35 2014-2016 = 100	Iceland
1980s	84.39 2014-2016 = 100	77.23 2014-2016 = 100	7.16 2014-2016 = 100	Iceland
1990s	71.18 2014-2016 = 100	79.88 2014-2016 = 100	8.69 2014-2016 = 100	Nauru
2000s	82.68 2014-2016 = 100	91.99 2014-2016 = 100	9.31 2014-2016 = 100	Nauru
2010s	99.01 2014-2016 = 100	100.79 2014-2016 = 100	1.78 2014-2016 = 100	Nauru
2020s	103.49 2014-2016 = 100	102.64 2014-2016 = 100	0.842 2014-2016 = 100	Iceland

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher food production index, Iceland or Nauru?: Iceland, at 102.9 2014-2016 = 100 against 102.85 2014-2016 = 100 in Nauru as of 2024.
What is the difference in food production index between Iceland and Nauru?: 0.05 2014-2016 = 100, with Iceland ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Iceland and Nauru?: 64 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2024.
How do Iceland and Nauru rank globally for food production index?: Iceland ranks 121st and Nauru ranks 122nd of 195 countries.
Where does this data come from?: FAO electronic files and web site, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), publisher: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), published as Food production index (2014-2016 = 100). 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

Iceland vs Nauru: Food production index. Statizoid, drawing on FAO electronic files and web site, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), publisher: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Retrieved 12 November 2026, from https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/food-production-index-2014-2016-100/iceland/naoero/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/food-production-index-2014-2016-100/iceland/naoero/">Iceland vs Nauru: Food production index</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator: Food production index (2014-2016 = 100)
Unit: 2014-2016 = 100
Source: FAO electronic files and web site, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), publisher: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
Licence: CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage: 242 places, 14,280 data points, 1961–2024
Last refreshed: 12 November 2026

Food production index covers food crops that are considered edible and that contain nutrients. Coffee and tea are excluded because, although edible, they have no nutritive value.