EEA 2006 Accounts Update

Figures and tables

PART 1

Figure 1.1 CORINE 2006 update (newer version?)European Countries for which CORINE 2006 data are available

Austria Lithuania Belgium Luxembourg Bulgaria Malta Croatia Montenegro Czech Republic Netherlands Denmark Poland Estonia Portugal France Romania Germany Serbia Hungary Slovakia Ireland Slovenia Italy Spain Latvia

Natural capital

Land use

Land cove

r Ecosystem servicesEcosystem services

Human well-being

Human well-being

Land and ecosystem functions

Where:

Land cover is the physical characteristics of the land surface determined by both its biotic and abotic features.Land use is determined by the purposes of active and passive management of land by people and the material non-material benefits they derive from it. Natural Capital is includes natural resource stocks, land and ecosystems, as well as biodiversity which is the variety of ecological elements present in a place (genes, species, communities and habitats, etc.).Land and ecosystem functions are the potentials or capacities that land and ecosystems have to generate useful outputs for people.Ecosystem services are the specific and final contributions that ecosystems make to human well being.

Figure 1.2: Land Cover, Land Use and Natural Capital

Figure 1.3: Flow accounts for land cover and the relationship between the concepts of stocks and flows and fundamental questions about sustainable development

Figure 1.4: Land and Ecosystem Capital Relationships (after JLW, 2010)

Figure 1.5 a&b: Maps of urban temperatures and GBI [DO THESE NEED TO BE UPDATED WITH 2006 DATA OR WILL 2000 DO? – WE MAP CHANGE LATER]

a b

Figure 1.6: new map of Dominant landscape Types

PART 2

Figure 2.1 Origins of Artificial Land, 2000-2006

Figure 2.2

Figure 2.3:

Figure 2.4

Is there a map equivalent to for 2000-2006?

Figure 2.5

Figure 2.6 Percent change in forest area as a result of forest creation (LCF7) as a proportion of 2006 forest area [perhaps 2000 area is better?]

Figure 2.7 Land cover flows by country (NUTS0) [CAN WE ADD 1990-2000 FLOWS TO THESE GRAPHS?]

Figure 2.8: Land cover flows by biogeographic zone [CAN WE ADD 1990-2000 FLOWS TO THESE GRAPHS?] Figures in ha/yr to assist comparison

Figure 2.9: Land cover flows by major elevation zone [CAN WE ADD 1990-2000 FLOWS TO THESE GRAPHS?]; Figures in ha/yr to assist comparison

Figure 2.10 Changing urban temperatures

NOTE THE TITLE OF THIS IS WRONG... – IT IS URBAN

Figure 2.11 Changes in pressures from intensive agricultural activities

Figure 2.12: areas where urban sprawl between 2000 and 2006 has been detected.

Figure 2.13 Withdrawl of farming 90-00 and 00-06

Figure 2.14:

Figure 2.15:

Figure 2.16

Figure 2.17

Artificial surfaces

Agriculture Forest, semi-natural open dry land,

wetland and water bodies

755

4694

1593

273

18148

3831Artificial surfaces

Agriculture Forest, semi-natural open dry land,

wetland and water bodies

363

2255

1650

244

5252

1967

1990-2000

2000-2006

Should we calculate the 1990 data for the same courtiers as the 2006 data are available for – should we have average transfer per year?

Figure 2.18: Overview of land cover changes (1990-2006) for 25 European countries covered by CLC2006 (figures in km2)

Figure 3.2: Change in GBI – Map like this one but for GBI?

Figure 3.3

Figure 3.5

Figure 3.6 map like this for 2006

Figure 3.7 Map lke this for 2000-2006

Figure 3.8 - Method of assigning DLT using Dominant land cover Needs redrawing and explaining as flow diagram?

Dominant Landcover Types Europe 51% Artificial Surfaces

Large Crops Agriculture

Pastures and Mosaic Farmland

Forests and Woodland

Natural Grassland and Shrub

Bare Soil

Wetlands and Water Bodies

Composite no Dominance

No Data

®

The DLT 51% method utilizes the principle of “majority ownership” in order to establish DLT, applying the logic that if any given pixel has 51% class membership, it is certainly dominant over all other Landcover types. DLT classes are filtered according to per-pixel percentage membership, and pixels containing less than 51% proportional membership to a respective DLT class are classified as composite land with no dominance.

Normalised DLT 51 Change - 1990 - 2006

-10.00 -8.00 -6.00 -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00

Artificial Surfaces

Large Crops Agriculture

Pastures and MosaicFarmland

Forests

Natural Grassland and Shrub

Bare Soil

Wetlands and Water Bodies

Composite

Figure 3.9 – DLT 51% rule

®

Dominant Landcover Type 34%

Pastures and Mosaic Farmland / Natural Grassland and Shrub

Composite

Artificial Surfaces

Large Crops Agriculture

Artificial Surfaces / Large Crops Agriculture

Pastures and Mosaic Farmland

Artificial Surfaces / Pastures and Mosaic Farmland

Large Crops Agriculture / Pastures and Mosaic Farmland

Forests and Woodland

Artificial Surfaces / Forests and Woodland

Large Crops Agriculture / Forests and Woodland

Pastures and Mosaic Farmland / Forests and Woodland

Natural Grassland and Shrub

Artificial Surfaces / Natural Grassland and Shrub

Large Crops Agriculture / Natural Grassland and Shrub

Forests and Woodland / Natural Grassland and Shrub

Bare Soil

Artificial Surfaces / Bare Soil

Large Crops Agriculture / Bare Soil

Pastures and Mosaic Farmland / Bare Soil

Forests and Woodland / Bare Soil

Natureal Grassland and Shrub / Bare Soil

Wetlands and Water Bodies

Artificial Surfaces / Wetlands and Water Bodies

Large Crops Agriculture / Wetlands and Water Bodies

Pastures and Mosaic / Wetlands and Water Bodies

Forests and Woodland / Wetlands and Water Bodies

Natural Grassland and Shrub / Wetlands and Water Bodies

Bare Soil / Wetlands and Water Bodies

Fig 4. Dominant Landcover Types for Europe (2000) according to the 34% co-dominance rule (see legend)

Figure 3.10 – DLT using sub-dominant rule

2A1 2A2 2B1 2B2 3A1 3A2 5A 5B

Artificial areas

Arable land &

permanent crops

Irrigated agricultur

ePastures Mosaic

farmlandStanding forests

Transitional

woodland & shrub

Semi-natural

vegetation

Open spaces/

bare soilsWetlands

Inland water

bodiesSea

A B C D E F G H I J K LA Artificial areas A#A A#K A#LB Arable land & permanent crops B#J B#KC Irrigated agriculture C#J C#KD Pastures

E Mosaic farmland

F Standing forests

G Transitional woodland & shrub

H Semi-natural vegetation H#LI Open spaces/ bare soils I#LJ Wetlands J#J J#K J#LK Inland water bodies K#K K#LL Sea L#L

3B 3C 4

HI#J HI#K

DE#DE

FG#FG

HI#HI

F#HIJ FG#K FG#LG#HIJ

B#DE B#HI

BC#DE#LDE#F DE#G DE#HI DE#J DE#K

BC#F

A#DE A#FG

13A 52A

BC#BC BC#G C#HI

A#HIJA#BC

2B

C#DE

Figure 3.11: Ecotones- see also next slide

Figure 3.11, cont

Figure 3.12

Figure 4.1

Figure 4.2 Redraw this to include land cover?

Obs

erva

tion,

As

sess

men

tC

omm

unic

atio

n

Core SNA Accounts

Data, Statistics

Framework

Sets of indicators

“Satellite” Accounts – e.g. SEEA

==

===

//, %, f()

Data, Statistics

Framework

Sets of indicators

Aggregates

Data, Statistics

Framework

Sets of indicators

AggregatesO

bser

vatio

n,

Asse

ssm

ent

Com

mun

icat

ion

Aggregates

==

===

//, %, f()

Common Aggregates of Income & ConsumptionCommon Aggregates of Income & Consumption

Data, Statistics

Framework

Sets of indicators

Aggregates

Data, Statistics

Framework

Sets of indicators

Aggregates

Data, Statistics

Framework

Sets of indicators

Aggregates

Data, Statistics

Framework

Sets of indicators

Aggregates

The present situation…

and what it should be…

Figure 4.3 Proposed structure and design of national, satellite and ecosystem accounts

Figure 4.4: Conceptual framework for development of a common classification of ecosystem services

Figure 4.5: Conceptual Framework for the Fast Track Ecosystem Capital Iniative.

Figure 4.6

Changein Total

Ecosystem Potential

Serv

ices

Sect

ors

Spat

ial U

nits

Bas

ic p

hysi

cal b

alan

ces

Spat

ial U

nits

Hea

lth

coun

ts

Water resource,

supply & use

Land Use (surfaces

& commodities)

Carbon/ biomass resource,

supply & use

Water functions & ecosystem

services

Land functions & ecosystem

services

Carbon/ biomass

functions & ecosystem

services

Water bodies resource & abstraction

Land cover stocks & change

Carbon/ biomass

resource and extraction/ harvesting

Water quantity & quality

Landscape patterns

Carbon/ Biomass,

productivity

Human morbidity/

environment & food security

Dependency from

regulating ecosystem

services

Biodiversity related

ecosystem services

Distribution of critical areas

for health

Natural and semi-natural habitats & species

distribution

Water, C, energy, NPK,

subsidies

Ecosystem health factors

Biodiversity factors

Net external balances by

socio-ecosystems

LCA: impacts of chemical,,

on human and wildlife health

Fishing, hunting,

harvesting of wild species

(non cultivated)

Sect

ors

Expe

nditu

re

acco

unts Water

protection & management

Land protection & management

Carbon/ biomass

Protection & management

Health protection/

environment

Biodiversity protection

Agriculture & fishery

subsidies

Virtual land, water, and carbon use

(domestic and in imports)

Spat

ial U

nits

Inde

xes Water Index

(exergy lossfrom evaporation

& pollution)

Landscape Index

(the LandscapeEcological Potential)

Carbon/ biomass

Index(carbon, biomass,

diversion fromNature)

Health Index

(human, wildlife and plants

populations)

Biodiversity Index

(rarefaction,loss of

adaptability)

Inter-dependency

Index(land, soil, energy,

water, N,P,K...)Spat

ial U

nits

Inde

xes

Spat

ial U

nits

Inde

xes Water Index

(exergy lossfrom evaporation

& pollution)

Landscape Index

(the LandscapeEcological Potential)

Carbon/ biomass

Index(carbon, biomass,

diversion fromNature)

Health Index

(human, wildlife and plants

populations)

Biodiversity Index

(rarefaction,loss of

adaptability)

Inter-dependency

Index(land, soil, energy,

water, N,P,K...)

Water Index(exergy loss

from evaporation & pollution)

Landscape Index

(the LandscapeEcological Potential)

Carbon/ biomass

Index(carbon, biomass,

diversion fromNature)

Health Index

(human, wildlife and plants

populations)

Biodiversity Index

(rarefaction,loss of

adaptability)

Inter-dependency

Index(land, soil, energy,

water, N,P,K...)

Ecosystem capital

depreciation

Maintenance/ Restoration

Costs

degradation

mean

€

Implementation prioritiesImplementation priorities

Figure 4.7 Article 17 biodiversity data

Figure 4.8: Proposed methodology for calculation of biodiversity index.

Present StatusPopulation

Range

Habitat

Prospect Article_17_Index

Ecotones

Weighted Article17 Final Indicator

Specialist type

Weighted index of ecotone change