Chad vs Namibia: Fruit Primary — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand)

Chad
0.0701 1000 USD per square kilometre
in 2023
Namibia
0.0546 1000 USD per square kilometre
in 2023
Chad rank
131st
Namibia rank
132nd

Fruit Primary — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand) over time

  • Chad
  • Namibia
00.020.040.060.08196119922023

How they compare

Chad currently reports 0.0701 1000 USD per square kilometre against 0.0546 1000 USD per square kilometre in Namibia, a difference of 0.0155 1000 USD per square kilometre.

That makes Chad's figure about 1.3 times Namibia's.

Across all 55 years both countries report, Chad has been ahead every year.

Chad ranks 131st and Namibia ranks 132nd of 138 countries.

Chad has averaged higher in every one of the 7 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Chad Namibia Difference Ahead
1960s 0.0431 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.0029 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.0402 1000 USD per square kilometre Chad
1970s 0.054 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.0037 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.0503 1000 USD per square kilometre Chad
1980s 0.0615 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.0047 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.0568 1000 USD per square kilometre Chad
1990s 0.0615 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.0082 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.0533 1000 USD per square kilometre Chad
2000s 0.0609 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.0232 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.0378 1000 USD per square kilometre Chad
2010s 0.0664 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.04 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.0264 1000 USD per square kilometre Chad
2020s 0.0698 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.0533 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.0164 1000 USD per square kilometre Chad

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher fruit primary — gross production value (constant 2014-2016 thousand), Chad or Namibia?
Chad, at 0.0701 1000 USD per square kilometre against 0.0546 1000 USD per square kilometre in Namibia as of 2023.
What is the difference in fruit primary — gross production value (constant 2014-2016 thousand) between Chad and Namibia?
0.0155 1000 USD per square kilometre, with Chad ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Chad and Namibia?
55 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Chad and Namibia rank globally for fruit primary — gross production value (constant 2014-2016 thousand)?
Chad ranks 131st and Namibia ranks 132nd of 138 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Fruit Primary — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand US$), 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

Chad vs Namibia: Fruit Primary — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand). Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 24 September 2026, from https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/fruit-primary-gross-production-value-constant-2014-2016-thousand-us-per-square-kilometre/chad/namibia/

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/fruit-primary-gross-production-value-constant-2014-2016-thousand-us-per-square-kilometre/chad/namibia/">Chad vs Namibia: Fruit Primary — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand)</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Fruit Primary — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand US$), per square kilometre
Unit
1000 USD per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
139 places, 7,689 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

Fruit Primary — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand US$) 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.