Costa Rica vs Rwanda: Seafood production: wild fish catch vs. aquaculture, per square

Costa Rica
0.3225 metric tons per square kilometre
in 2023
Rwanda
0.3041 metric tons per square kilometre
in 2023
Costa Rica rank
52nd
Rwanda rank
54th

Seafood production: wild fish catch vs. aquaculture, per square over time

  • Costa Rica
  • Rwanda
00.20.40.6196119922023

How they compare

Costa Rica currently reports 0.3225 metric tons per square kilometre against 0.3041 metric tons per square kilometre in Rwanda, a difference of 0.0184 metric tons per square kilometre.

That makes Costa Rica's figure about 1.1 times Rwanda's.

The two have swapped places 5 times across 63 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Rwanda ahead.

Costa Rica ranks 52nd and Rwanda ranks 54th of 215 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, Costa Rica averaged higher in 5 and Rwanda in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Costa Rica Rwanda Difference Ahead
1960s 0 metric tons per square kilometre 0 metric tons per square kilometre 0 metric tons per square kilometre
1970s 0.0001 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0002 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0001 metric tons per square kilometre Rwanda
1980s 0.0033 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0016 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0017 metric tons per square kilometre Costa Rica
1990s 0.098 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0045 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0935 metric tons per square kilometre Costa Rica
2000s 0.4014 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0121 metric tons per square kilometre 0.3893 metric tons per square kilometre Costa Rica
2010s 0.4893 metric tons per square kilometre 0.071 metric tons per square kilometre 0.4183 metric tons per square kilometre Costa Rica
2020s 0.3272 metric tons per square kilometre 0.2497 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0775 metric tons per square kilometre Costa Rica

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher seafood production: wild fish catch vs. aquaculture, per square, Costa Rica or Rwanda?
Costa Rica, at 0.3225 metric tons per square kilometre against 0.3041 metric tons per square kilometre in Rwanda as of 2023.
What is the difference in seafood production: wild fish catch vs. aquaculture, per square between Costa Rica and Rwanda?
0.0184 metric tons per square kilometre, with Costa Rica ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Costa Rica and Rwanda?
63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Costa Rica and Rwanda rank globally for seafood production: wild fish catch vs. aquaculture, per square?
Costa Rica ranks 52nd and Rwanda ranks 54th of 215 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Seafood production: wild fish catch vs. aquaculture, 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

Costa Rica vs Rwanda: Seafood production: wild fish catch vs. aquaculture, per square. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 21 September 2026, from https://reference.statizoid.com/compare/seafood-production-wild-fish-catch-vs-aquaculture-per-square-kilometre/costa-rica/rwanda/

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://reference.statizoid.com/compare/seafood-production-wild-fish-catch-vs-aquaculture-per-square-kilometre/costa-rica/rwanda/">Costa Rica vs Rwanda: Seafood production: wild fish catch vs. aquaculture, per square</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Seafood production: wild fish catch vs. aquaculture, per square kilometre
Unit
metric tons per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
215 places, 12,245 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

Seafood production: wild fish catch vs. aquaculture 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.