How many years of comparable data are there for Latvia and Namibia?

32 years are reported by both, from 1992 to 2023.

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.

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

Latvia

0.0928 1000 USD per square kilometre

in 2023

Namibia

0.0546 1000 USD per square kilometre

in 2023

Latvia rank

129th

Namibia rank

132nd

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

Latvia
Namibia

How they compare

Latvia currently reports 0.0928 1000 USD per square kilometre against 0.0546 1000 USD per square kilometre in Namibia, a difference of 0.0382 1000 USD per square kilometre.

That makes Latvia's figure about 1.7 times Namibia's.

Across all 32 years both countries report, Latvia has been ahead every year.

Latvia ranks 129th and Namibia ranks 132nd of 138 countries.

Latvia has averaged higher in every one of the 4 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade	Latvia	Namibia	Difference	Ahead
1990s	0.7391 1000 USD per square kilometre	0.0074 1000 USD per square kilometre	0.7317 1000 USD per square kilometre	Latvia
2000s	0.4549 1000 USD per square kilometre	0.0232 1000 USD per square kilometre	0.4318 1000 USD per square kilometre	Latvia
2010s	0.1466 1000 USD per square kilometre	0.04 1000 USD per square kilometre	0.1066 1000 USD per square kilometre	Latvia
2020s	0.1295 1000 USD per square kilometre	0.0533 1000 USD per square kilometre	0.0762 1000 USD per square kilometre	Latvia

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher fruit primary — gross production value (constant 2014-2016 thousand), Latvia or Namibia?: Latvia, at 0.0928 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 Latvia and Namibia?: 0.0382 1000 USD per square kilometre, with Latvia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Latvia and Namibia?: 32 years are reported by both, from 1992 to 2023.
How do Latvia and Namibia rank globally for fruit primary — gross production value (constant 2014-2016 thousand)?: Latvia ranks 129th 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

Latvia 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/latvia/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/latvia/namibia/">Latvia 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: 24 September 2026

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.