1. 27/04/2019
The NUTS 2010 Revision
Oliver HEIDEN

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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. The changes (1)

8. The changes (1)

9. The changes (1)

10. 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)

11. 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

12. The changes (3)
- examples -

13. 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

14. What can be improved?
Comparability (statistical requirement) – in 1000 inhabit.
NUTS-1 Min: 27 Max: Ø: 5.081
NUTS-2 Min: 27 Max: Ø: 1.819
NUTS-3 Min: 10 Max: Ø:
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
NUTS-3

15. 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

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

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

18. 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

19. 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

20. Thank you for your attention!
Any questions?