Portugal vs Sri Lanka: Food GHG emissions by system stage (Share of total) - LULUC

Portugal
11.02 Production
in 2015
Sri Lanka
12.81 Production
in 2015
Portugal rank
86th
Sri Lanka rank
83rd

Food GHG emissions by system stage (Share of total) - LULUC over time

  • Portugal
  • Sri Lanka
5101520199020022015

How they compare

Sri Lanka currently reports 12.81 Production against 11.02 Production in Portugal, a difference of 1.79 Production.

That makes Sri Lanka's figure about 1.2 times Portugal's.

Across all 26 years both countries report, Sri Lanka has been ahead every year.

Portugal ranks 86th and Sri Lanka ranks 83rd of 179 countries.

Sri Lanka has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Portugal Sri Lanka Difference Ahead
1990s 7.3 Production 15.77 Production 8.47 Production Sri Lanka
2000s 9.86 Production 16.87 Production 7.02 Production Sri Lanka
2010s 11.21 Production 12.89 Production 1.67 Production Sri Lanka

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher food ghg emissions by system stage (share of total) - luluc, Portugal or Sri Lanka?
Sri Lanka, at 12.81 Production against 11.02 Production in Portugal as of 2015.
What is the difference in food ghg emissions by system stage (share of total) - luluc between Portugal and Sri Lanka?
1.79 Production, with Sri Lanka ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Portugal and Sri Lanka?
26 years are reported by both, from 1990 to 2015.
How do Portugal and Sri Lanka rank globally for food ghg emissions by system stage (share of total) - luluc?
Portugal ranks 86th and Sri Lanka ranks 83rd of 179 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Tubiello, F.N. and Leip, A. EDGAR-FOOD data. Figshare, doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13476666 (2021), published as Food GHG emissions by system stage (Share of total) - LULUC (Production). 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

Portugal vs Sri Lanka: Food GHG emissions by system stage (Share of total) - LULUC. Statizoid, drawing on Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Tubiello, F.N. and Leip, A. EDGAR-FOOD data. Figshare, doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13476666 (2021). Retrieved 08 September 2026, from https://reference.statizoid.com/compare/food-ghg-emissions-by-system-stage-share-of-total-luluc-production/portugal/sri-lanka/

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://reference.statizoid.com/compare/food-ghg-emissions-by-system-stage-share-of-total-luluc-production/portugal/sri-lanka/">Portugal vs Sri Lanka: Food GHG emissions by system stage (Share of total) - LULUC</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Food GHG emissions by system stage (Share of total) - LULUC (Production)
Unit
Production
Source
Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Tubiello, F.N. and Leip, A. EDGAR-FOOD data. Figshare, doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13476666 (2021)
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
179 places, 4,654 data points, 1990–2015
Last refreshed

Food GHG emissions disaggregated by system stage are generated from EDGAR-FOOD, a global emission inventory of GHGs from the food systems. EDGAR-FOOD has been developed to aid the understanding of the activities underlying the energy demand and use, agriculture and land use change emissions associated with the production, distribution, consumption and disposal of food through the various stages and sectors of the composite global food system. These data were complemented with data from the FAOSTAT database on GHG emissions from land use related to agriculture (FAO, 2020). EDGAR-FOOD represents the first database consistently covering each stage of the food chain for all countries with yearly frequency for the period 1990-2015. Details regarding the methodology applied are available in Crippa et al. (2021).