WORKING GROUP "Land Cover/Use Statistics" 20 October 2009, Luxembourg Point 4.3 of the agenda Way forward on harmonizing existing land cover/use data systems WORKING GROUP "Land Cover/Use Statistics" 20 October 2009, Luxembourg LUCAS TEAM 1

Problem statement Land cover/use data is very important from EU perspective (i.e. nature protection, water management, urban and transport planning, forest management, agricultural policy, land cadastres, natural hazards prevention and mitigation, soil protection and mapping, monitoring climate change) and linked to many official reporting obligations Land cover/use data are linked to many EU initiatives, such as INSPIRE (Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community), SEIS (Shared Environmental Information System) and GMES (Global Monitoring for Environment and Security).

Main quality requirements Comparability Data has to be comparable over time (allow time-series): methodology, nomenclature and definitions have to be coherent over the time and in the various countries Relevance in terms of geographical coverage and representativeness Land cover/use statistics have to cover all EU countries. In addition, the administrative level has to be small enough (e.g. NUTS 2 - 3 level depending on the country). Coherence within and between countries internal coherence within the Member States territory has to be guaranteed. Under/over-representation of any land cover/use classes should be avoided. Land cover/use statistics should also be coherent with data from other EU level statistical sources (e.g. utilized agricultural area, forestry areas, etc.)

Data sources of LC/LU in EU Annual crop statistics (Reg. 543/2009 of 18/6/2009) Limited to agricultural use and biased toward agriculture Other datasets on specific land cover/use classes (mainly agriculture and forestry) lack of standardisation among countries, lack of coherence within the total area of a single country and the incomplete coverage at the EU level. OECD/Eurostat Joint Questionnaire (until 2006) Response rate was only 11 % in 2006. 13 Member States sent no data at all; most of the others did not send all required details.

CORINE LAND COVER and LUCAS Strengths harmonized and well-tested methodology Standardized among countries Separate nomenclature for land cover and land use Reliability at NUTS2 level Platform for ad-hoc studies Strengths Overall image of major land cover classes in Europe Standardized among countries Good reliability (in total between 75%-87%) Weaknesses Relatively coarse scale Mixed nomenclature LC/LU Underestimation small scale features Weaknesses Small scale features estimated with poor precision Problems in reaching remote areas

Member States LUCAS Other EU DGs and Inst EUROSTAT strategy to improve availability and quality of LC/LU statistics Integrated system for land cover/use statistics Core land cover/use statistics LUCAS Member States Strong co-operation needed Other EU DGs and Inst Continuation of cooperation In situ Module In situ Module Multi purpose platform for in-situ data

potential cooperation on land cover/use statistics harmonization; Discussion Member States are asked to express their opinion about: potential cooperation on land cover/use statistics harmonization; participation to the new-LUCAS Advisory Board