WORKING GROUP "Land Cover/Use Statistics" June 7-8th 2010,Luxembourg, Point 4.1 of the agenda Update results of joint EUROSTAT/EEA questionnaire on Land Cover and Land Use WORKING GROUP "Land Cover/Use Statistics" June 7-8th 2010,Luxembourg, Laura Petrov - LUCAS TEAM

Content General remarks Goals of the work EUROSTAT/EEA Joint Questionnaire (JQ) overview's How looks JQ results in 2010? Conclusion & Future steps

General remarks Changes in land cover (LC) and land use (LU) affect key aspects of Earth System functioning (e.g. desertification, eutrophication, acidification, climate change, sea-level rise, greenhouse effect, biodiversity loss, etc) LC/LU data are not harmonized in terms of nomenclature/definitions, incomplete data information such as geographical coverage, inconsistency among different methodologies and results. 3

General remarks INITIATIVES National levels AGRIT MAPA TERUTI LPIS, etc. European level CORINE LUCAS survey, etc

Goals of the work At National and European levels To be aware of the existing data To avoid double work (e.g. data should be collected only once) Integrating National sources into European statistics Achieve a better synchronisation in the future 5

Goals of the work EUROSTAT aims To harmonise land cover/use statistics at European level To reinforce the cooperation with Member States (MS) and also among MS.

EUROSTAT/EEA Joint Questionnaire (JQ) 2010 overview's JQ 2009 results were not exhaustive; during the Working Group (WG) Oct., 2009 it was decided to be launched a new JQ in 2010. JQ 2010 was pre-filled with information from previous JQ 2009 and with information about datasets and scale from the INSPIRE project. JQ 2010 was simplified and focuses on: 1. contact clarifications and 2. background information about LC and LU Two deadlines: April 23rd and May 15th

How looks EUROSTAT/EEA JQ results in 2010? JQ 2010 consists of an annex of six questions and an excel table; it was sent to 36 countries and the response rate is 52.7% by May 15th and 58.3% after the deadlines. In total, 15 countries did not send any information or reason for no reply. To the annex, 16 of 21’s countries answered. The contact points are established for 15 countries (CZ, DE, EE, IR, LV, LT, LU,NL, PL, RO, SI, HR, MK, TR and NO) and to be confirmed or clarified for ES, IT, HU, MT, FI and SE. *Please see the distributed annex and may be some answers could be clarified during our 2 days of meeting. THANK YOU!!

2. Responsible government institution or organization for monitoring and verifying LC and LU National Statistical Office (only) DE, NL Environment Agency (only) IR Research Institute (only) RO All (NSO, Ministry, Env. Ag., Research Inst., Others) CZ, LV, SE NSO – Ministry – Env. Ag. SI NSO – Env. Ag. HU NSO – Others PL, NO Ministry – Env. Ag. LU Ministry – Others EE, LT Env. Ag. - Others MK NSO 56.25% Env. Ag. 50% Ministry 43.75% Other Research 25%

3. Few National LC/LU data source* Land Parcel Information System (LPIS): CZ, IR, IT, FI AGRIT: IT National Forest Inventory: CZ, IT, FI, SE, NO National Forests Maps: IR DeCOVER: National German development project National Official Register of Territorial Divission of the Country, TERYT: PL ‘Matrikkelen’, National cadastre, buildings, addresses, cadastre parcels: NO

3. European LC/LU data source* CORINE: CZ, DE, IR, IT, LT, HU, MT, PL, FI (national version), SE (national version), HR, TR, NO LUCAS: CZ, RO

3. Data sources* that include the 7 LC categories Country No of data sources* Name of the data source* (arable land, permanent crops, grassland, forestshrub land, bare land, artificial, water) CZ 7 LPIS; CORINE 2 DE CORINE (2006); DeCOVER 2 EE 3 Land Cadastre 1 IR 8 CORINE (1990, 2000, 2006); SPOT, Quickbird, IRS, aerial photography 2 ES 2 ESYRCE&ANNUARY 1 IT 4 AGRIT; LPIS; CORINE 3 LT - LI 5 Lithuanian CORINE 1 LU CORINE (2000, 2007); Occupation Biophysique du Sol (OBS) 2 HU CORINE (2000, 2006) 1 MT 1 CORINE (1990, 2000, 2006) 1 NL PL 12 Topographic Objects database (BDOT), Geographic Objects Database (BDO); Land and Building Register; Orthomap; CORINE 4 RO LUCAS; CORINE 2 SI Statistical land cover GIS (1993, 1997, 2001, 2005) 4 FI National version CORINE 1 SE 16 GSD – Land and Vegetation Cover; Aerial Photos, Orthophoto, Satellite 2 HR CORINE (1980, 1990, 2000, 2006) 1 MK TR NO AR18X18; AR2000; AR250; AR5; AR50; N50; Protected areas; V50; Orthophoto and satellite mosaics and separate ‘pictures’; CORINE (2000, 2006) 10

3. Methods used for data acquired Countries Administrative (register, cadastre, etc) 12: CZ, DE, LT, LU, PL, RO, SI, FI, SE, MK, NO In-situ 10: DE, EE, ES, IT, LV, LU, HU, RO, FI, SE Survey 9: CZ, DE, LV, HU,PL,SI, SE, MK, NO Remote sensing 16: CZ,DE,EE,IR,ES,IT,LT LU,MT, PL, RO, SI, FI, SE, MK, NO Orthophoto/Orthoimagery 10: CZ, DE, EE, IT, LT, LU,PL, RO, SE, NO Photogrammetry/Photo interpretation 5: DE, NL, LU, PL, SE, Mapping/Topographic maps 5: DE, IT, NL, PL, SE Act of law 1: PL

4. Future needs foreseen for the LC/LU Countries Ideas concerning future needs: EE Classification system and CORINE Land Cover need to be reviewed; a simplification of LC and LU classification IR Better quality for the datasets (e.g. higher resolution); high quality LU/LC technology to assist in monitoring for soil sealing, landslides, etc. LT LU and LC data should be maintained on annual basis LU Updated procedures (but, same frequencies) NL More detailed data (maps instead of statistic enquires) and higher frequencies SE LU/LC information needs will increase TR Higher resolution (satellite image)

5. How is facilitated the cooperation among data source*? Cooperation is assured by: Countries NSO CZ, DE NSO & Ministry-Research Institute-Other LV, RO Ministry EE, LV, TR Environment Agency IR Other LT, LU, NL, SE, NO Not facilitated PL, SI, MK No answer ES, IT, HU, MT, FI, HR

Monitoring & verifying Cooperation facilitation Comparison between responsible government institution for monitoring and verifying LC/LU and how the cooperation among data sources* is facilitated Monitoring & verifying Cooperation facilitation NSO 56.25% Env. Ag. 50% Ministry 43.75% Other Research 25% NSO (itself or together…) 12.5% Env. Ag. 6.25% Ministry (itself or together…) 12.5 – 18.75% Other 31.25% Research (&NSO)

6. How are foreseen the future collaboration? Concerns of countries about future collaboration, 52.4% Countries Concerns & Recommendations CZ - Closer cooperation between statistics and administrative DE - Collaboration between DE and EC will be coordinated at national level by the Federal Statistical Office according to Article 5, Reg. 223/2009/EC EE - Land Cadastre plans to use LC and LU information from Estonian National Topographic database IR - National coordination (high quality national datasets) LT - Collaboration between national and EU authorities to be streamlined and developed in the frame of National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) and European Spatial Data Infrastructure (INSPIRE) LU The same?

How are foreseen the future collaboration? Countries Concerns & Recommendations NL - To be facilitated the combination of maps and same base material (topographical) of different layers for users; - Existing sources can be slightly modified to serve one European goal of information about LC/U; - Maps are considered more accurate than statistical samples and it is strongly recommended to use them. RO To develop a tool that combines LUCAS and CORINE data; Observed points to be decreased from 1200 to 1000 meters; DMT tools to be optimized SE - Cooperation and exchange of data will increase MK - It will be established a National Spatial Data Infrastructure and a governmental geo-portal TR Turkish Environmental Information Exchange Network (TEIEN), CORINE Turkey portal

Conclusion & Future steps Within (some) countries there is no collaboration among the institutions; as a results institutions are not aware of existing data. Focal points (institute, organization) beside cooperating with EC could have the important role to know about existing data source* in the country. Even in some cases we still need to clarify focal point issues and still the list of existing data sources* is not complete, the results of JQ 2010 are encouraging (58.3%) for the next steps regarding improving integration and coherency.

Thank you very much!!