Australia and New Zealand vs Belarus: ILO - ILO Modelled Estimates — Employment in agriculture - ILO

Australia and New Zealand
149.75 1000 No
in 2025
Belarus
145.57 1000 No
in 2025
Australia and New Zealand rank
82nd
Belarus rank
84th

ILO - ILO Modelled Estimates — Employment in agriculture - ILO over time

  • Australia and New Zealand
  • Belarus
100200300400199120082025

How they compare

Australia and New Zealand currently reports 149.75 1000 No against 145.57 1000 No in Belarus, a difference of 4.18 1000 No.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 35 shared years of data; in 1991 it was Belarus ahead.

Australia and New Zealand ranks 82nd and Belarus ranks 84th of 175 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Australia and New Zealand Belarus Difference Ahead
1990s 191.21 1000 No 352.98 1000 No 161.77 1000 No Belarus
2000s 183.47 1000 No 261.57 1000 No 78.1 1000 No Belarus
2010s 151.59 1000 No 179.69 1000 No 28.1 1000 No Belarus
2020s 157.55 1000 No 163.01 1000 No 5.46 1000 No Belarus

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher ilo - ilo modelled estimates — employment in agriculture - ilo, Australia and New Zealand or Belarus?
Australia and New Zealand, at 149.75 1000 No against 145.57 1000 No in Belarus as of 2025.
What is the difference in ilo - ilo modelled estimates — employment in agriculture - ilo between Australia and New Zealand and Belarus?
4.18 1000 No, with Australia and New Zealand ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and New Zealand and Belarus?
35 years are reported by both, from 1991 to 2025.
How do Australia and New Zealand and Belarus rank globally for ilo - ilo modelled estimates — employment in agriculture - ilo?
Australia and New Zealand ranks 82nd and Belarus ranks 84th of 175 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as ILO - ILO Modelled Estimates — Employment in agriculture - ILO modelled estimates — Female — Value. 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

Australia and New Zealand vs Belarus: ILO - ILO Modelled Estimates — Employment in agriculture - ILO. Statizoid, drawing on Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved 16 September 2026, from https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/ilo-ilo-modelled-estimates-employment-in-agriculture-ilo-modelled-estimates-female-value/australia-and-new-zealand/belarus/

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-NC-SA 3.0 IGO (FAO); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/ilo-ilo-modelled-estimates-employment-in-agriculture-ilo-modelled-estimates-female-value/australia-and-new-zealand/belarus/">Australia and New Zealand vs Belarus: ILO - ILO Modelled Estimates — Employment in agriculture - ILO</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
ILO - ILO Modelled Estimates — Employment in agriculture - ILO modelled estimates — Female — Value
Unit
1000 No
Source
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Licence
CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO (FAO)
Coverage
226 places, 7,893 data points, 1991–2025
Last refreshed

The FAOSTAT Employment indicators domain focuses on indicators related to employment in agrifood systems and rural areas. The update is performed yearly, using data from the International Labour Organization (ILO) database that contains a rich set of indicators from a wide range of topics related to labour statistics. The indicators published in FAOSTAT are derived from the labour force statistics (LFS) and rural and urban labour markets (RURURB) databases of the ILOSTAT database. In addition, the ILO modelled estimates and projections (ILOEST) are used to provide information on employment in agriculture. FAOSTAT also publishes indicators on employment in agrifood systems (AFS) from 2000 at the national, regional, and global levels, using a methodology developed by the FAO to estimate the number of people employed within these systems.