Tunisia vs Zambia: Seafood production: wild fish catch vs. aquaculture, per square

Tunisia
0.137 metric tons per square kilometre
in 2023
Zambia
0.1097 metric tons per square kilometre
in 2023
Tunisia rank
70th
Zambia rank
73rd

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

  • Tunisia
  • Zambia
00.050.10.15196119922023

How they compare

Tunisia currently reports 0.137 metric tons per square kilometre against 0.1097 metric tons per square kilometre in Zambia, a difference of 0.0273 metric tons per square kilometre.

That makes Tunisia's figure about 1.2 times Zambia's.

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

Tunisia ranks 70th and Zambia ranks 73rd of 215 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Tunisia Zambia 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 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0001 metric tons per square kilometre Tunisia
1980s 0.0019 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0007 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0012 metric tons per square kilometre Tunisia
1990s 0.0075 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0052 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0023 metric tons per square kilometre Tunisia
2000s 0.0177 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0072 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0105 metric tons per square kilometre Tunisia
2010s 0.0928 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0279 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0649 metric tons per square kilometre Tunisia
2020s 0.1479 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0895 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0584 metric tons per square kilometre Tunisia

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher seafood production: wild fish catch vs. aquaculture, per square, Tunisia or Zambia?
Tunisia, at 0.137 metric tons per square kilometre against 0.1097 metric tons per square kilometre in Zambia as of 2023.
What is the difference in seafood production: wild fish catch vs. aquaculture, per square between Tunisia and Zambia?
0.0273 metric tons per square kilometre, with Tunisia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Tunisia and Zambia?
63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Tunisia and Zambia rank globally for seafood production: wild fish catch vs. aquaculture, per square?
Tunisia ranks 70th and Zambia ranks 73rd 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

Tunisia vs Zambia: 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/tunisia/zambia/

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/tunisia/zambia/">Tunisia vs Zambia: 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.