27/04/2019 The NUTS 2010 Revision Oliver HEIDEN

Structure of my talk The amendment process The changes of NUTS compared to the 2006 version Trying to improve comparability and compatibility

Why amending? The NUTS-Regulation requires to keep the classification stable for at least 3 years In turn it allows to make amendments “not more frequently” than every 3 years The purpose for amendments: Change of the administrative structure affecting NUTS A country prefers a different division (non-administrative) Improvement of comparability, compliancy or coherence Eurostat’s main goals are to ensure stability improve comparability

Where are we in the process? The revision round 2010 started on 9 October 2009 and the results will be effective on 1 January 2012 7 steps: Informal discussions Preparation of the Draft Commission Regulation Regulation (the new classification) Memorandum (half page summary) Additional document (list explicit changes) ISC (1 May - 15 days) Translations ESSC meeting 30 September 2010 Three months for EP and Council Adoption in second half of 2010

Where are we in the process? Commission Regulation on Historical Time Series Required starting year by statistical domain Economic accounts C-2 2000 Rural development E-1 Maritime policy Agriculture E-1, E-2 2007, 2010 Environment E-3 2004 (waste), 2012 Transport E-6 2012 Demography F-1 Migration Labour Market F-2, E-4 2010 Labour Cost F-2 Earnings Science and Technology F-4 2009, 2012 Education Health F-5 1993, 1994, 2000 Tourism F-6 Information Society 2007 Structural Business Statistics G-2

The changes (1) DE (NUTS-2, NUTS-3) GR (all levels) administrative reform in Saxony one merge of Aachen Stadt + Aachen Kreis merge of the two NUTS-2 regions in Brandenburg some name changes GR (all levels) country code changes from GR to EL (following ISO code) IT (NUTS-3, affects NUTS-2 and NUTS-1) three new provinces: Monza e della Brianza, Fermo and Barletta-Andira-Trani border shift between Rimini and Pesaro e Urbino

The changes (1)

The changes (1)

The changes (1)

The changes (2) LV (LAU2 in Annex III) LU (all levels) NL (NUTS-3) smaller administrative units will become: republikas pilsētas, novadi (admin. reform) LU (all levels) short name will be implemented NL (NUTS-3) in three cases municipalities merged over the borders of NUTS-3 regions (Groot-Rijnmond, Zuidoost-Zuid-Holland, Agglomeratie Leiden en Bollenstreek, Oost-Zuid-Holland) COROP 2010 will be implemented SK (NUTS-0, NUTS-1)

The changes (3) FI (NUTS-2, NUTS-3) UK (NUTS-2, NUTS-3) Two NUTS-3 regions merged around Helsinki Split of NUTS-2: The resulting NUTS-3 will be also a NUTS-2 Two sparsely populated NUTS-2 regions in North-East merged (better comparability) UK (NUTS-2, NUTS-3) Six NUTS-3 regions have been split to 12 new regions One NUTS-3 regions moved across NUTS-2 borders

The changes (3) - examples -

Summary of changes There will be very few changes No changes in 18 Member States Only code or name changes in 3 Member States Minor changes in the remaining 6 Member States Country NUTS-1 NUTS-2 NUTS-3 DE 1 17 IT 4 LV change in Annex III NL 3 FI 2 UK 7  5 32

What can be improved? Comparability (statistical requirement) – in 1000 inhabit. NUTS-1 Min: 27 Max: 18.067 Ø: 5.081 NUTS-2 Min: 27 Max: 11.360 Ø: 1.819 NUTS-3 Min: 10 Max: 5.218 Ø: 378 Compliance (legal requirement) administrative regions  AVERAGE non-administrative regions  ALL REGIONS Coherence (rational requirement) Style guide, short names, country identifier Level Min. population Max. population NUTS-1 3 million 7 million NUTS-2 800.000 NUTS-3 150.000

What can be improved? EUROSTAT discussed potential amendments for the sake of better Comparability/Compliancy with: CZ, DE, FR, IT, LV, NL, AT, PT, RO, SI, FI, UK Eurostat proposals Only addressed non-administrative regions Only NUTS level 1, 3 (not affecting level 2) Included almost only aggregations Took into account economic and social development levels for the sake of better Coherence with: GR, LU, SK short names for LU and SK GR  EL

What will improve? NUTS-1 Discussions with CZ (1 / 1) IT (4 / 5) FR (6 / 9) AT (2 / 3) FI (1 / 2) No improvement

What will improve? NUTS-2 Discussions with RO (2 / 8) FI (3 / 5) FI will reduce non-compliant NUTS-2 regions to 1

What will improve? NUTS-3 Discussions with SI (8 / 12) AT (14 / 35) PT (11 / 30) UK (37 / 133) UK will reduce non-compliant NUTS-3 regions to 36

What are the consequences? Discussions with MS turned out to be very difficult The leading role of Eurostat is not clear MS need more time to discuss the proposals internally MS concentrate on national interests Some MS included NUTS in national legislation Consequence for next amendment round More pro-active role of Eurostat Longer discussion time Proposals should be coordinated Interim report to the ESS Committee in 2 years

Thank you for your attention! Any questions?