Implementing a Gmes Land-Monitoring Pilot Service

IMPLEMENTATION OF A GMES LAND MONITORING PILOT SERVICE BY 2008

Result of a discussion process and a user workshop1

Final, 17.03.06

1. INTRODUCTION

As the pressure on land grows, so has the effort into its monitoring, its documentation and the security of its resources. “Land Monitoring” is one of three pilot services selected to begin the implementation of GMES. It will be built on the basis of existing and mature capacities and structures, on user uptake and on perspectives for long-term sustainability. According to EU Council and Parliament mandates this service is to become operational by 20082.

An outline of such a service, consisting of a regular coverage of Europe with independent Earth Observation data sources and derived actual land cover information was endorsed by the GMES Advisory Council (GAC) on 1 June 2005. Draft versions of this document were then discussed with a broad user community from 22 European countries as well as EU services in an open on- line consultation process in the 3rd quarter of 2005 and in a dedicated GMES Land Monitoring workshop in Brussels, 20-21 October 2005.

The political goal of land monitoring within GMES is to support a farsighted environment and resource management for the benefit of all Europeans. Land resources are in particular soils, food and water, forests, energy and utilities, buildings and property, infrastructures and other public assets, mobility and recreation. Soil sealing, for instance, and urban sprawl are amongst the most serious pressures on land and they progress with an unprecedented speed in most European countries3. Intelligent and coordinated land use management for the necessary economic investments and activities depends fundamentally on an up to date and Europe-wide consistent knowledge base. These issues will be addressed by the better integrated information system (from local to continental) which GMES aims to make possible, with cost-effective, frequent, reliable and, above all, coherent spatial data at appropriate scales. At the same time such services will provide better opportunities for European industry in the growing world market for geographic content.

Though there are also vital global applications of land monitoring (ranging from humanitarian aid, development programmes, food security, development of agricultural and other Earth resources up to scientific input to various multilateral environmental agreements) this workshop focussed on continental (here Europe) and local applications (such as urban areas, construction

1 Legal notice: The views expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Commission of the European Communities 2 “- considers that environmental strategies should be able to include … exploiting relevant data from national observation and monitoring systems to give a continuous and comprehensive picture of the state of the environment.” (The European Parliament in: “Resolution on the environment, security and foreign policy”, 28.1.1999) “..stresses the importance of the initial period in preparing the next phase of GMES, aimed at achieving by 2008 an operational and autonom- ous European capability for global monitoring for environment and security…” (The European Council in resolution 2001/C 350/02 of 13 November 2001, following a commitment at the Gothenburg summit of 16.6.2001) 3 E.g. In Germany an average of 380 km2 of natural soil are lost each year, depriving the country of retention areas for flood prevention, recreational areas or retreat zones for biodiversity and sinks for greenhouse gases. Likewise the Mediterranean coastlines are under extreme urbanisation pressure.

1 sites, mining/dumping sites, transport and power infrastructures, precision agriculture and forestry, other points of interest or rapid change), which have, of course, a global influence4.

2. SCOPE OF THE SERVICE AND CONSOLIDATED REQUIREMENTS

2.1 User requirements

As one of the publicly facilitated first enabling services the GMES Land Monitoring service has to be sufficiently cross-cutting and generic to provide a basis for a wide range of downstream and customised activities. Such activities will be encouraged but mainly left to the forces of the market or the de-centralised public servicing sector (subsidiarity and business development). As such, the service aims to stimulate the value adding and geo-informa- Registered users per economic sector tion service industry, in a similar (period: 17th Novem ber 2004 to 22 July 2005) way to that demonstrated by COR- 1 10 100 1000 10000

INE Land Cover 2000 which has, E n v i r o n m e n t with Community investment of €13 R e s e a r c h million (covering EU-25), leveraged A g r i c u l t u r e E d u c a t i o n almost twenty times that amount in F o r e s t r y secondary turnover (fig.2.1). P h y s i c a l p l a n n i n g E n e r g y T r a n s p o r t To meet as far as possible the re- D e m o g r a p h y quirements of a wide variety of ver- T o u r i s m H e a l t h tical (geographical administrative Fig.2.1: Intensity of use by 11 downstream application sectors measured by levels) and horizontal (thematic ap- download statistics from the CORINE Land-Cover server (http://dataservice.eea.eu.int). The European Environment Agency EEA is plication sectors) user communities, tracking downloads since the CORINE Land-Cover 2000 database was made respective inquiries were evaluated available end 2004. Inclusion of national derivatives such as the higher detailed versions of Hungary, Poland, Spain and Sweden, would even enlarge the prior to the workshop. Common to all statistics of institutional use to more than 30,000 land monitoring approaches is of course the request for repeated coverage of the territory with imaging sensors (multispectral or radar). Whilst this maximises standardisation and interoperability of derived products, it also conditions the nature of questions related to the geographic content of the required information (size of the territory of interest, spatial and temporal resolution etc.). This is reflected in the following sections.

2.1.1 European policies related to land monitoring

In the land domain, many potential applications are represented within the services of the EU Commission and the Council. Thus, upon recommendation by the GAC, an internal preparatory group was formed from those DG’s and agencies that make regular use of geospatial data. The policies to be served and related requirements are listed in the table 2.1.1.

Further requirements expressed by the group concern data archiving periods (required over 10- 20 years) and needs for RTD support (mostly with regard to data fusion and automation of fea- ture extraction and map generalisation).

4 Institutions operating globally are extensively involved in GMES preparatory projects (e.g. EUMETSAT in “Geoland”). Care will be taken to ensure that results of the service can be aggregated to contribute to global environment and resources management issues (the global context was presented to the workshop by the Joint Research Centre). Data outside Europe will likewise be acquired that help compare Europe with other continents or that are of European interest.

2 Director- Policies (sub- Geographic coverage Observables Working Updating Interoperability ate Gen- policies) scale / Min- frequency wished with other eral imum unit data ENV / Water Policy: EU25 / EEA31 MS land cover change in river preference 1- 3-5 years CCM, DEM, COR- EEA WISE basins 5 ha (instead INE of 25 ha) Soil and agricul- agricultural land land management 1-5 ha LUCAS, CORINE ture Urban mophological soil sealing, fragmenta- 0.1 - 5 ha 5 years CORINE, transport zones with >100,000 tion, temperature increase, infrastructure inhabitants green space “ Rehabilitation of brown- field sites new MS, candidate land use change 5 ha CORINE countries High nature value farm- CORINE, FADN, land LFA Biodiversity EU25 pSCI/SPA sites land cover change in hab- 1-5 ha 5 years CORINE (22600) itats Natura2000 sites habitat fragmentation, transport infrastruc- urban sprawl ture EU25 biodiversity headline indicators (tbd) land use data EU25/EEA31 core land cover data 25 ha 5 years Natura2000 site centre EEA data, CCM, LU- CAS, CORINE, topography vulnerable areas core land cover data 1 ha 1-5 years EEA environment- EEA31 + Balkan climate change impacts 25 (5 ha for 5-10 years Topographic refer- al assessment and countries and adaptation changes ence data reporting 1:100,000- 1:250,000 EEA31 + Balkan water and agriculture 1 ha, 25 ha 3-5 years “ countries (5 ha for changes) EEA31 + Balkan spatial integrated assess- 1ha, 25 ha (5 3-5 years “ countries ments ha for changes) EEA31 + Balkan land and ecosystem ac- 25 ha (5 ha 1, 5, 10 “ countries counting for changes) years EEA31 + Balkan environmental outlooks 25 ha ( 5 ha 5 years “ countries land use change for changes) AGRI Rural development EU25 + candidate Identify/validate less fa- 1 ha 3-5 years 100m DEM, com- (less favoured countries + Applicant voured areas, discriminate mune level popula- areas, definition of countries rural from non-rural areas tion data rural areas) Agri-environment EU-25 + candidate Landscape diversity indic- 25 ha (5 ha 2/5/10 100m DEM countries ators for changes) years IACS EU-25 (sub-)parcel land-use 10 m 5 years Aerial imagery CAP evaluations EU-25 Areas of agricultural land- 1 ha 3-5 years Farm survey data use classes ESTAT Application of aer- 100,000 SSU’s, Land-use / land-cover 3 m 3-5 years IACS (LPIS), COR- ial survey and re- LUCAS sample areas INE mote-sensing tech- à 90ha: niques to the agri- 2005: LT, LV, PL cultural statistics (12,000 pts.) for 1999-2007 - 2006: part of EU-25 LUCAS (180.000 pts.): GISCO reference EU-25 and candidate General purpose land- 1:100,000 / 3 years CORINE database countries cover data 10 m REGIO Policy 1(see relev- NUTS level 2 and 3 Socio-economic disparit- 1:100,000 3 years Admin. boundaries, ant sub-policies of EU-25 plus can- ies, endowment in physic- transport networks, below): didates plus Norway al networks and environ- topography, Natur- Balanced and sus- and Switzerland mental infrastructure a2000, CORINE tainable socio-eco- Land Cover nomic development of the regions and territorial cohesion. Cross- border and inter- -regional cooperation

3 Sub-policy 1.1: NUTS level 2 and 3 Socio-economic disparit- 1:100,000 3 years Admin. boundaries, Convergence of EU-25 plus can- ies, endowment in physic- transport networks, didates al networks and environ- topography mental infrastructure Sub-policy 1.2: NUTS level 2 and 3 Infrastructure and natural 1:100,000 5 years Admin. boundaries, Cooperation of EU-25 plus can- hazards, (flooding, transport networks, didates drought, fires), land-cover topography and topography Policy conception NUTS level 2 and 3 Relative measures of peri- 1:25,000 3 years Admin. boundaries, and research of EU-25 plus can- pherality and accessibil- transport networks, didates plus Norway ity, polycentric urban de- topography, COR- and Switzerland velopment patterns, urban INE Land Cover mophological zones and typologies, high-speed networks, ESPON research themes, urban environment EUSC Basic services Local, outside EU-25 Infrastructures, roads, ter- 1:5,000- tbd OGC-Standard Agency rain cities 1:2,000,000 / servicing 0.5-15 m CFSP Support for EU Countries, regions Cities 1:5,000- tbd “ police/military op- outside EU-25 1:200,000 erations Support to human- Regions outside EU- Cities, road network 1:5,000- tbd “ itarian missions 25 1:200,000 Treaty verification Local, outside EU-25 Infrastructures 0.5-5 m tbd, typic- “ ally months Non combatant Local, outside EU-25 Infrastructures (airports, 0.5-5 m tbd “ evacuation plan road network, embassies) (very detailed city mapping) Event planning Local Security of communica- 0.5-5 m tbd “ tion links (roads, (very de- airports..) tailed city mapping) TREN Planning, design EU-25 Roads, highways, rivers 1m 1 month “ and analysis of road and highway infrastructures; River Information Services Directive ENTR Tourism Policy EU-25+ Land-use change in tour- 5 ha 5 years ism areas / destinations Tab.2.1.1: Compilation of requirements from EU services. Acronyms: CAP (Common Agricultural Policy), CCM (Catchment Characterization & Modelling), CORINE (COoRdination of IN- formation on the Environment), ESPON (European Spatial Planning Observatory Network), FADN (Farm Accountancy Data Net- work), IACS (Integrated Administrative & Control System), LFA (Less Favoured Areas), LPIS (Land Parcel Identification System), LUCAS (Land-Use/Cover Area frame Statistical survey), SSU (Secondary Sampling Units), WISE (Water Information System for Europe)

From the table the identification of a core service for regular provision of land cover and land use data which are of common interest to different sectors and policy areas can be enhanced (2.2). Main policy areas are:  Environmental thematic strategies on urban environment, soil protection and sustainable use of natural resources  Reporting obligations under the Water framework directive, management of Natura2000 sites, UN-ECE Long Range Trans-boundary Air Pollution deposition and dispersion modelling, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and Kyoto Protocol;  Environmental impact assessments and reporting;  Common Agricultural Policy i.e. rural development, agri-environmental measures;  Regional policy, territorial cohesion and European spatial development perspective;  INSPIRE5;

5 INfrastructure for SPatial InfoRmation in Europe, directive proposal of 2004 which aims at a European Spatial Data Infrastructure (ESDI), laying down the technical arrangements for interoperability and harmonisation of spatial datasets

4 The geographical area of interest is extensive and covers the EU territory and neighbouring countries (EU25: ~4 million km2, EU25 + candidates: ~6 million km2, European continent: ~10 million km2).

2.1.2 Assessment of user requirements by GMES preparatory projects

The coordinators of five recent key preparatory projects related to land monitoring were asked to contribute to the definition of user requirements. All projects had undertaken detailed use studies in their respective domain. Geospatial information produced in these projects covers up to 4 million km2. They provide(d) services to some 170 user institutions. The overall expenditure (EC/ESA sponsoring plus own contributions) for these projects amounts to roughly €45 million over the period 2003 to 2008. Table 2.1.2 lists those observables for which maximum requirements were derived from these projects.

GMES project(s) Geographic cover- Observables Scale / Minimum map- Height Updating age ping unit / Resolution dimension frequency Geloand / SAGE Continental Soil, inland waters, land take, agri- 1:25,000 – 1:100,000 / n.a. 3 years cultural practices 1 – 5 ha / 5 – 20 m Urban Services Local Land Use 1:5,000 – 1:25,000 / n.a. 3 years 0.1– 0.25ha / 0.5 – 2.5m (“hot spots” 4 months) Terrafirma Local Mining, landfill, stability of struc- 1:25,000 centimetres 4 months tures (highways, power stations) Forest Monitor- Continental Forest areas, biomass, timber stock 0.5 ha / 5 m n.a. 1 year ing inventory parameters Local Disturbances (fire, storm damage, 0.1 ha / 5 m n.a. 3 years defoliation, discolouration) Tab.2.1.2: Requirements from key GMES land monitoring projects

Numerous other dedicated Earth observation application services are developed within and outside the GMES preparatory programmes of the EC, ESA6 and Member States (MS).

2.1.3 Comprehensive GMES user survey

In 2005 the European Commission carried out a survey among the user organisations involved in 67 preparatory projects (not limited to land use) sponsored both by the EC and ESA. 57 organisations responded to a questionnaire asking about objects to be observed, working scales, geographic areas of interest, updating frequencies, preferred state of pre-processing of the data, other geospatial data regularly used and with which interoperability is desired, and whether they are onward information distributors and to how many parties.

The survey revealed that the users are mostly multipliers, each providing onward information services to an average of 50 other institutions. The majority (75%) were interested in land monitoring. 68% are also regularly receivers of geospatial information from various sources.

72% are interested in High Resolution images (2.5-30m), compared to 37% for Very High Res- olution ( 1m), 33% for Medium and Low Resolution (50-1000m) and 32% for in-situ measure- ments. 58% prefer weekly to monthly updates while yearly updates were desired by 51% and  24h updates by 44% (multiple choices were possible). The majority (72%) requested interpreted data as opposed to 26% for source data.

Among the major expectations regarding GMES is that of continuity in data supply.

6 http://www.eomd.esa.int/, http://www.esa.int/due

5 2.1.4 User Workshop on a GMES “Fast-track Service on Land Monitoring”, 20/21 October 05

A well represented community of user organisations from 22 countries, Commission services (Environment, Agriculture, Regional Policy, Enterprise, Research & Technology Development, Information Society, Eurostat, Joint Research Centre), European agencies and organisations (ESA, EEA, EUSC, GISIG, Eurogi, Eurogeographics, Eurogeosurveys) discussed together with service providers the development of the GMES Land monitoring pilot service. The discussions in plenary and splinter sessions were structured along three objectives:  Consolidation of user requirements and detailed description of the service to be delivered;  Identification of the implementing steps – action plan 2006-2008;  Key conditions for long-term sustainability and European added value; Which correspond the titles of chapters 2, 3 and 4 of this report.

2.2 Definition of the service

Starting form the commonly agreed overall objective, that the GMES Land Monitoring service should provide regularly updated core land cover / land use data for information requirements at European, national, regional and local level, the workshop addressed a number of boundary conditions that the service has to meet:  Long-term availability of both input components, namely earth observation (multi-temporal / multi-seasonal, geometrically and radiometrically corrected, spatially and spectrally [incl. radar] adapted to classification needs) as well as in-situ data;  Coverage of all EU member states and neighbouring countries providing a snapshot of a spe- cific year in which the majority of the satellite data would be acquired;  Release of core land cover / land use data preferably within 1 year after the data acquisition in order to ensure timely information;  Updates with a continental coverage at least every 3-5 years; some environmental or other sensitive areas i.e. urban areas, mining sites, coastal zones or other regions with high rate of land use and land cover changes, require more frequent updates;  Continuity and compatibility with past land cover and land use monitoring activities such as CORINE Land Cover (for continental monitoring), MOLAND7 (for urban monitoring) as well as the FAO land cover classification system (for global monitoring);  Coordination of European with national/regional/urban monitoring activities, in line with the principle of subsidiarity – co-ownership of MS/local bodies involved in the service implementation, depending on their degree of commitment;  Synchronisation of data model definition (nomenclature) and object-oriented image analysis with INSPIRE (notably the Drafting Team for Data Specification) and observance of established geo-information standards;  Data policy ensuring a non-discriminatory access;

This would yield a Core Service of (see fig.2.2)  Satellite images from independent operational sources8 for both continental (5–60m resolution) and local (2.5m resolution) scales, pre-processed in different levels including ortho-rectification and mosaicking;

7 MOLAND: Monitoring Land Use/Cover Dynamics – Towards sustainable urban and regional development. European Commission, Joint Research Centre/Institute for Environment and Sustainability 8 With associated rights for multiple uses according to a t.b.d. data policy in line with § 2.2 of the Commission Communication COM(2004)65 final, requiring non-discriminatory access for public and private entities in the EU and MS. For the time being, the use and dissemination practise established by EEA for CORINE can be applied

6  In–situ data9 necessary for satellite data processing as well as calibration, classification and validation of derived land information;  Core land cover/land use information of continental coverage with minimum mapping units of 1-5 ha, absolute geometric accuracy 20 m  Core land cover/land use information of up to 500 urban mophological zones ³100,000 inh., minimum mapping unit 0.1-0.25 ha, absolute geometric accuracy 5 m  Validation and quality control with user-side contributions  Data dissemination service

Fig.2.2: Earth Observation and in-situ data (rendered in geospatially interoperable formats through the INSPIRE framework) will be acquired to the extent necessary to produce the core data, but are also routed directly through to the downstream sector. Core land cover/land use information together with the source data constitute the “Core Service” which results from the requirements as an optimum com- promise to be shared across Europe and to produce as much as possible downstream activity. The “Fast-Track” version of the service includes parts of all components but is tailored to budget and timeframe up to 2008

Other requested service elements that need further clarification until 2008 include:  Higher frequency / annual change-detection and/or low-cost/lower resolution updates for both the continental and the urban land information part (or even multi-seasonal coverage for better discrimination of vegetation classes)  Monitoring of “hot spots” outside urban areas (construction, mining, other sensitive sites)  Height dimension and its changes

In the suite of the core service, there is of course ample room for self-organising and self-sustained Downstream Service activities by adding more detail, integrating other geo-referenced data including socio-economic data and/or applying individual algorithms and models for users of different geographic levels and thematic sectors. To register for the GMES label they should follow a liberal, non-discriminatory data access policyError: Reference source not found. Ex- amples are:

9 The term “in-situ” is used within GMES to denote all data from other sources than Earth observing satellites. Part of these data will come from National Spatial Data Infrastructures (NSDI), rendered interoperable through the INSPIRE process. These include Digital Terrain Models (DTM), preferably computed on the basis of the European Vertical Reference System

7  Managing and securing land resources: soil, food & water, environment, energy, properties, infrastructure…  Global change: Support to reporting obligations under international treaties (e.g. the Kyoto Protocol or the UN-ECE Trans-boundary Air Pollution Deposition Modelling)  Water: WFD implementation, characterisation of river catchment areas, re-naturalisation, prevention of groundwater pollution from diffuse and local soil contamination, securing ir- rigation resources  Soil: Mitigation of degradation, erosion, pollution, sealing and compaction  Designated areas and habitats: Change in ecosystems, fragmentation, preservation of biodiversity  Agriculture and Forestry: CAP, proof of cross-compliance with nature protection legislation, crop statistics and predictive modelling, precision farming, subsidy control, policy impact and development indicators  Spatial planning: Land use and land cover inventories (higher levels of detail) & change detection, cross-border coordination of territorial planning, settlement of land use conflicts  Urban environment: Urban Audit, sprawl monitoring, investment guidance, noise mapping  Energy and utilities: Exploration & mining, sites for renewable energies, yield prediction, monitoring of installations and pipelines, waste disposal  Commercial services: Road mapping, car and personal navigation, tourism, location based services, real estate, insurances..

3. IDENTIFICATION OF THE IMPLEMENTING STEPS AND ACTION PLAN 2006- 2008 (“Fast Track” version of the service)

To cope with the 2008 deadline a “fast track” version of the core service described under 2.2 will be realised on the basis of existing and committed funds in both, RTD and operational application programmes of the EU and ESA. In the same timeframe decisions will be brought about to ensure long-term sustainability and continued evolution of the service (see chapter 4), including the open issues mentioned.

3.1 Product specification of Fast Track Service

Product 1: Ortho-rectified images for EU 25+; Product 2: Core land cover / land use data based on automatic / semi-automatic classification methods using a nomenclature to be elaborated by Geoland, compatible with CORINE Land Cover (Annex 1); Product 3: CORINE Land Cover Update 2005 (Change Cover 2000-2005 and CLC 2005) for EU25+ with minimum mapping unit (MMU) of 1-5 ha changes for selected classes which are important for 2008 reporting obligations, consistent with former inventories of CORINE Land Cover; Product 4: Land use/land cover of major urban mophological zones within the EU 25+ con- taining selected classes with higher spatial resolution (MMU 0.25ha) and more detailed description as was required during the initial phase of the GMES projects and already developed in the “MOLAND”Error: Reference source not found project, consistent with the level 3 CORINE Land Cover system.

3.2 Action plan for a pan-European land monitoring service – continental part

8 The following implementation steps describe the tasks and milestones until the delivery of the first operational services by end 2007.

3.2.1 Preparatory phase (October 2005 – March 2006)

 Consolidate user requirements for the Land Monitoring service based on EU policy needs for the period 2007-2013  Prepare a project document of the GMES pilot service Land Monitoring 2005-2008  Endorse with stakeholders the defined pilot GMES Land Monitoring products and services  Prepare organisational set-up including steering committee  Identify and evaluate most cost-effective satellite platform and sensor for data acquisition 2005-2008  Define acquisition window of multi-temporal imagery together with experts and GSE project teams  Identify existing data sources (DTM, topography, control points, administrative boundaries, hydrography etc.) and coordinate ancillary data collection with planned in-situ monitoring for 2006, i.e. LUCAS area frame sampling

3.2.2 Satellite data acquisition (April 2006 – December 2006)

 Negotiate multi-user license agreements for multispectral imagery to be acquired until 2008  Procure satellite data (within a joint GMES procurement regime) including programming if needed  Select quality approved images  Document (catalogue of metadata descriptions) and archive acquired imagery

3.2.3 Satellite image processing (April 2006 – March 2007)

 Apply atmospheric corrections  Collect ground control points from GPS or national topographic maps  Collect useable existing elevation models  Perform ortho-correction and resampling to European standard grid  Check quality of accuracy  Create image mosaic  Archive data  Set up web services to provide access to the mosaic

3.2.4 Land cover mapping (July 2006 – September 2007)

 Integration of ancillary data from different sources in GIS  Image segmentation/stratification  Image processing  Semi-automated classification (integration of expert knowledge)  Change detection  Verification and ground truth survey for problem areas  Data integration  Validation based on land use area frame sampling survey LUCAS 2006:

9 3.2.5 Data dissemination service (November 2007 onwards)

 Implement agreed data policy for GMES products and services  Upload data for web services to retrieve, view and download the core land cover data  Monitor the use of the GMES “Fast Track” products and services

3.3 Action plan for a pan-European Land Monitoring service – local part

The aim of the GMES land monitoring service at local scale is to monitor the most sensitive and rapidly changing areas in greater detail. It will contribute to a more intelligent control of urban expansion and the optimised direction of investments. Thus it has to serve simultaneously the needs of regional/local users and EU institutions. This dual approach is expected to have the local administrations and users involved while offering a product whose result is comparable all across Europe and thus corresponding to the remit of EU institutions (e.g. the “Urban Audit”) concerning the perspective of assessing wider trends in urban and territorial dynamics.

Presently some 36 urban mophological zones in the EU25 plus candidate countries will be monitored under the GSE Land project ending Sept. 2008. The applied method is such that this number can be gradually increased towards the target of 500 from 2008 onwards plus “hot spots” (e.g. tourist coastal areas with explosive growth, transport and power infrastructures, construction and mining activities, agricultural and forestry sites of interest etc.) with an adequate repetition rate.

3.3.1 Finalise definition of scope (cities/conurbations/urban mophological zones)

 Verify and formally approve user requirements for the implementation period (DGs ENV, JRC, REGIO, ESTAT, EEA and MS) based on GMES user needs and service specification results  Verify entities with reference to other fundamental datasets (SABE10, as far as useable) and nomenclatures (CORINE level 4 and MOLAND)  Verify final technical specifications, particularly with respect to classification needs together with service providers and user organisations before the background of results obtained by GMES projects  Prepare organisational set-up including steering committee  Prepare for the definition of the “Hot Spots” part and requirements for elevation data by 2008

3.3.2 Sourcing, acquisition and treatment of high-resolution satellite data and ancillary material

 Identify useable satellites in the multispectral and radar range in agreement with classification needs and evaluate the most cost-effective provider by April 2006  Negotiate multi-user license agreements for imagery to be acquired until 2008 and procure satellite data (within a joint GMES procurement regime) including programming if needed A one-by-one approach for the generation of the service will be considered for the following actions:  Define acquisition windows together with experts and task the satellites if needed (3 to 6 months depending on the city size )  Select quality approved images

10 Seamless Administrative Borders of Europe (EuroGeographics Association)

10  Document (catalogue of metadata descriptions) and archive acquired imagery  Apply atmospheric corrections if needed  Collect ground control points from GPS or existing databases  Collect useable existing elevation models where needed  Generate ortho-images and mosaics  Check quality of accuracy  Set up web services to provide access to the images

3.3.3 Production and testing of geo-datasets

 Qualify providers and processing chains against product and quality specifications as needed  Generate GIS datasets (raster and vector) and documentation (metadata)  Verify mapping results using ancillary data and ground truthing involving MS and local bodies’ assets (using the same data as used for production)  Establish summary statistics and derived products

3.3.4 Service delivery

 Implement web-based data server together with MS and local bodies  Have GIS datasets’ documentation (metadata) available on server  Establish technical support and customisation framework  Define up-date cycle with stakeholders

3.4 Funding options and organisation

3.4.1 Funding

Until 2008 funding of the different components of the pilot Land Monitoring services (in-situ monitoring, satellite data acquisition and processing, interpretation, quality assurance, dissemination) has to come from existing sources; partly from already committed research budgets (national, EC, ESA) and on operational (non R&D) budgets from European (EC, EEA) and in-kind contributions from national/regional institutions (as was the case in the past for the CORINE Land Cover programme).

The total budget of the FP6 Integrated Project Geoland (2004-2006) for the development of the operational services at global, European and local scale is in the order of magnitude of €20 million. During 2006, Geoland will continue to provide the necessary technical and scientific support for fine-tuning the technical specifications and production steps of an operational land monitoring service.

ESA is investing around €10 million in GSE projects related to land monitoring during the period 2005-2008. These projects will include: 1. Detailed pan-European land cover data compatible with CORINE data level III (minimum mapping unit 1 ha) for updates every 3-5 years 2. 36 urban mophological zones within Europe with more than 100,000 inhabitants, of which 28 are involved in the Urban Audit programme (minimum mapping unit 0.25 ha) 3. Forest Monitoring (continental and local) Service providers contracted by ESA will be encouraged to explore additional co-funding for full coverage and for long-term sustainability of the services.

11 EEA is currently spending around €5 million/year of Community funding on operational services related to land information in Europe (€2 million/year on land cover information including CORINE, €2 million on modelling, quality control, indicators and reporting and €1 million/year on operating the spatial information system). During 2005, EEA and the members of the European Information and Observation Network EIONET agreed to collaborate with the GSE land projects to explore the possibility to update land cover data for the reference year 2005/6.

Each of the 31 EEA Member Countries is considering to contribute to the definition and validation of the land cover products and services with an in-kind contribution of between 1 and 6 months (depending on the size of the country and the possibility to support national land monitoring programmes). Member States spend a significant amount of their national/regional budgets on operational services for collecting, handling and reporting information related to land cover and land use up to very high levels of detail. A number of countries already have plans for updating their national land cover/land use databases during the period in question (2006-2008). No comprehensive figures are available. GMES will investigate ways to streamline the pilot service with these activities using appropriate processes (INSPIRE). Access to existing databases at MS disposal is in any case needed for quality assurance of the GMES service.

The LUCAS survey planned for 2006, organised by Eurostat, will be used as the main source for in-situ monitoring and specifically for validation of the European core land cover data. The LUCAS survey is carried out by the Commission (cost estimate: €1 million for stratification every 5 years, around €4.5 million/year for a 2006 survey and €2 million/year for post-2006 potential surveys). For land cover and land use mapping of urban areas access to existing topographic maps, city maps, airborne or spaceborne ortho-imagery and other large scale surveys is needed for verification and validation of the data.

The option of co-funding from other Commission services that will benefit from the core land cover data service will be further investigated.

3.4.2 Organisation

For the implementation of the different steps of the “fast track” service up to 2008, GMES will build on existing or already planned activities at EU and MS level for that period

Main building blocks are the GMES projects:  FP6 Integrated Project “GEOLAND” (2004-2006)  FP6 Integrated Project “BOSS4GMES”  ESA funded GSE Land (2005-2008), based on consolidated results of “GSE SAGE” and “Urban Services”  ESA funded “GSE Forest Monitoring”

Work has also to be coordinated with:  Other land-related GMES projects (e.g. RISE11)  EEA/Eionet CORINE Land Cover (2004-2008)  LUCAS survey (2006-2007)  National land cover/land use inventory programmes  Urban Audit

11 RISE (Reference Information Specifications for Europe) will develop guidelines for the creation of geospatial data implementation specifications. These guidelines will be prepared and tested on the experience of two geographic themes: water and elevation.

12  COGI12 (for consultation on data procurement and internal EC use)

Necessary in-situ data will consist of:  Ground control points for geo-referencing of satellite images  Digital elevation model(s) for ortho-rectification of satellite images  Ancillary thematic data (from statistics, forest inventories, city maps, topographic maps…) for interpretation and classification of the satellite images  Ground survey for validation of the derived land cover/land use data

The main actions related to the organisation of the service include:  Setup of an implementation group for the GMES Land Monitoring service  Assessment of existing and planned land inventories in Europe to avoid duplication of work  Institutional arrangements and agreements on joint data procurement and service implementation (involving COGI for EU internal coordination)  Initialisation of FP7 studies13 of critical items (e.g. cases and legal conditions of data acquisition for multiple use, harmonised nomenclature and updating schemes, 3D-modelling, data cataloguing system)

The main challenge prior to the transition to a fully operational, sustained status is that of providing for repeated and coordinated funding for the coverage of the whole of Europe as well as setting up an adequate institutional arrangement. There is a need to establish an institutional agreement on procurement and access to the current generation of earth observation data for GMES operational services and to ensure long-term continuity of all components (in-situ, spaceborne, information infrastructure).

This includes the MS as well as regional and urban authorities who, by the degree of their commitment, become co-owners of the GMES services. Their involvement relates to the whole chain of the core service production (contribution of satellite and in-situ data, mapping validation and quality checks using their own test-sites, further development of methodology etc.) as well as developing and applying attractive and compelling downstream services under their aegis. For the continental part EEA and its European Topic Centre for Terrestrial Environment together with the European Environmental Information and Observation Network (EIONET) of National Reference Centres for Land Cover are willing to undertake the core service validation by establishing an efficient user-side quality control.

Further downstream the MS have a share in data dissemination (from both, core and customised services) by connecting them to their National Spatial Data Infrastructure and other relevant networks and organisations including the private sector. This involves integration of local expertise, audits, training and outreach activities14. According to the subsidiarity principle such MS with own commitment have a vote in the release of data to third parties in so far as requests concern a MS’s own territory only.

As outlined in the new (2005) GMES communication15 by the EC a small implementation group will coordinate the work until 2008. Members of this group, which will come from key user services of the EU as well as thematic communities and MS networks, will have to link with the lar-

12 Commission Interservice group on Geographic Information, involving 23 DG’s plus the Secretariat General under ESTAT’s coordination. Its mandate is to propose a joint acquisition of basic GI and reduce duplication of efforts. 13 Taking stock of respective efforts within thematic GMES preparatory projects. 14 An increase of the present GMES land user community by a factor of 20 was proposed at the workshop. 15 COM(2005)565 final and annex SEC(2005)1432

13 ger user community which will meet for further workshops in regular time intervals to guide the service development and report on complementary actions. Between these dates the GAC (GMES Advisory Council) will be the main representative of the MS’ interests.

4. KEY CONDITIONS FOR LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY AND EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE

Under this objective, conditions are discussed which ensure the move from “what is available” to “what is needed” to operate the requested globally-comparable, cross-border homogeneous European land resources information core service from 2008 onwards. Only if a continuity perspective of 10 years or more can be given, will users significantly invest in its use and assimilate it in their modelling and production chains16. It is clear that a key condition to maintain GMES momentum will be an increased investment in both data sources and value- added services. As prior GMES studies have shown, costs would have been at least 30% higher had services not been organised on a Europe-wide basis (European added value).

4.1 Key conditions

4.1.1 Data sources

The workshop concluded that the essential condition for long-term sustainability of all land cover mapping services within Europe is long-term availability of the required in-situ and space- based observations. It was underlined that this condition is not currently assured for multi-spectral data of the Landsat and SPOT types, upon which such European-level services depend. Even a simple update of CORINE Land Cover can not be unconditionally assured after the failure of Landsat 7.

A key benefit of GMES will be to enable the land monitoring community to determine what European space-based observation systems have to be put in place and maintained in the long- term. GMES offers a European framework that can realise benefits comparable to those already demonstrated by the European meteorological community, namely quality of public service, eco- nomies of scale and operating efficiency.

It was stressed that decisions to implement space systems have to be made some five years in ad- vance of any system becoming operational. The workshop noted that the proposal for a GMES space segment should make explicit provision for long-term continuity of the multi-spectral and radar observations needed for a European land monitoring service. It was recognised that this represents a critical step towards the long-term sustainability of the proposed Land Monitoring service.

A fully-fledged service as defined in 2.2 would require the following quantity of image data:

Continental part:  High resolution (HR, 5-30m) coverage up to the size of the European continent (4-10 million km2) once in every 3 years and in at least 2 seasons.

16 This is particularly true for European land observation satellites which are not operational with one exception (SPOT) and soon expiring. In Sweden, for instance, it took 6000 trials to get 200 good images for a forest inventory. There is however a new generation of operational Earth observation satellites on the horizon, manufactured either in Public-Private Partnership or in national space programmes of MS which can be gradually exploited from 2006 onwards (“TerraSAR-X”/2006, “Cosmo-Skymed”/2007, “Rapid Eye”/2007, “Pleiades”/2008)

14 Processing must include ortho-rectification and mosaicking.  Annual update17 (MR, 50-1000m), depending on feasibility proof

Local part:  Very high resolution (VHR,  1 m) coverage of urban mophological zones 100,000 inhabit- atnts. (estimated 500 x 250 km²=125,000 km²) once in every 5 years, including ortho-rectification and mosaicking treatment.  Annual updateError: Reference source not found (HR, 2.5-10m) of the same area.  Very high to high resolution (0.5 - 2.5 m) coverage of “hot spots” (sites of rapid change or sensitivity outside cities, possibly also outside Europe in cases of European interest) in agriculture/forestry, transport/tourism, construction, mining etc., estimated at an average cumu- lative area of 150,000 km² with a 4 months repetition rate yielding 450,000 km² per year.

Costs for these data may not be much higher than current Community spending (see box) but render, when coordinated on EU and MS18 level, a significant efficiency gain. As with all operational programmes with long lead times a project-type structure of the budget is not optimal. Constant sale perspectives, on the contrary, will motivate providers to further reduce data prices.

Community spending for net satellite data procurement for land observation amounts to roughly €10 million an- nually: ~€8 million for agricultural policies (€32.2 million over 4 years in the procurement note of 12 April 05, without counting interpretation costs in MS) ~€0.2 million for running an image procurement campaign for CORINE Land Cover every five years (the cost of IMAGE 2000 having been €1.15 million without interpretation costs in MS being in the order of €12 million) ~€2 million that the EUSC invests in satellite data for security use by the EU Council and MS

4.1.2 Need for improved Digital Elevation data for Europe

An important in-situ (or ancillary) dataset for land monitoring is a high quality digital elevation model (DEM). Such a product is crucial for the geometric correction of images and thus the integration of different data layers in GIS (geographic information system) needed for policy-support at European level. The service until 2008 will work with fragmented national DEMs of different standards, event though it has been proven in the past that it is extremely difficult to work across boundaries with these products. Also, in a lot of cases poor accuracy hampers the generation of the information needed19.

The set-up of a harmonised pan-European DEM that meets the different needs of land monitoring should therefore be taken into consideration as an additional GMES service soon after 2008. Elevation models of reasonable quality for the European scale can be established on the basis of airborne or spaceborne optical stereo-photogrammetry or radar interferometry, the latter will only deliver sufficient quality in the X-Band. Prices are in the €5 to €10 range, per km2.

Elevations can change as a result of different natural or anthropogenic processes such as land- slides, underground construction or water and raw material extraction and can have a substantial environmental impact (e.g. reversed flow direction of watercourses) or can be related to environ-

17 Annual updates are done with lower(medium for the continental part) resolution data at lower cost than the basic inventories 18 MS own spending in basic EO imagery was estimated at €25-30 Million by BAH & VEGA, 2004. Over 60% of European data purchase goes presently to non-European data sources. The overall European expenditure for satellite data compares with some $200 Million of civil US gov- ernment spending (without NASA and NOAA and a tremendous military data budget) 19 This was stressed at the “EuroDEM” workshop organised by the EC and ESA in 2002, as part of the dialogue between users and suppliers where different solutions were debated.

15 mental assets (e.g. groundwater level). Procurement of satellite data could include monitoring of vertical movements with accuracies in the millimetre range20.

4.1.3 Core Land Cover / Land Use Information

Facts and figures regarding resources and funding of the existing activities related to Land Mon- itoring services 2005-2008 provide an indicative cost estimate of the main components of the proposed pilot service. The following options with cost figures were estimated in pertinent GMES preparatory projects and are intended for guidance only.

Continental part The total envisaged geographical coverage as well as the smallest mapped unit are the main factors defining the total cost of the service. The Geoland consortium has provided preliminary estimates for different scenarios of fully fledged inventories the repetition periods of which have still to be defined:  Scenario 1: EU-25 (4 Million km2), minimum mapping unit 25ha, 5 ha changes: ~€14 million  Scenario 2: EU-25 (4 Million km2), minimum mapping unit 1ha urban / 5ha rural: ~€35 million  Scenario 3: EU-25 (4 Million km2), minimum mapping unit 1ha for all classes: ~€70 million Increasing the area to EU-25+ (6 Million km2) or continental Europe (10 Million km2) would, of course, not entail a linear increase of costs.

Local part: The cost estimate made under the auspices of the GMES Urban Services project was done under the assumption of a centralised provision by a European entity and would amount to an average cost per urban mophological zone of €6,000 to 13,000.

Updating costs are, going by experience, in the order of 40% of the basic investment.

Further key conditions that apply to the land information component include establishing or ad- hering to a framework that allows integration of other multiple geospatial datasets in cross-border coverages (other in-situ datasets in the form of land cover / land use inventories, topographic and other spatial reference databases as well as geo-referenced socio-economic data of EU and MS origin) within tight time constraints. The INSPIREError: Reference source not found proposal for a directive, and more specifically the ongoing development of Implementing Rules provides such a framework within which efforts towards data model specifications (level of detail, nomenclature..), change detection and update procedures (object dependent) have to be aligned, e.g. between basic topographic and environmental geodata sets. Some GMES-related projects at both, EU and MS level, are undertaking practical attempts in this direction 21. This im- plies linking the Geoland GMES project with the INSPIRE Drafting Teams on “Data Specifica- tions” and “Network Services” (the latter dealing with middleware services). The users of Geo- land form already an INSPIRE Spatial Data Interest Community.

Likewise the core data output must respect established standards (ISO, CEN) and harmonised specifications (OGC) to be compatible with such routine mapping and land inventorisation efforts in the MS, which either use or in the long run could make use of satellite data. This will

20 Experience from the GMES “TerraFirma” project indicates that total monitoring costs can amount to some €50,000 per site (city, mining area etc.) and a repetition of the observation is desired every 5 years on average, amounting to an annual €10,000 per site. 100 sensitive sites can be assumed for Europe (TerraFirma presently works with ~30 sites). 21 E.g. the EU-GMES project RISEError: Reference source not found, initiatives in Germany (“De-Cover”), Spain, UK and The Netherlands

16 happen in particular since higher ground resolutions become progressively compliant with basic acquisition scales of 1:5,000 or larger (e.g. topographic databases like ATKIS-ALKIS in Ger- many, RGE in France, Definitive Digital Map in the UK, or their environmental equivalents, whose updates could in the past only be based on aerial photography). GMES core data on land must not duplicate national and regional efforts, but associate closely to qualify themselves for cost-effective data sharing by virtue of the emerging NSDIError: Reference source not found’s for innovative geo-information production22.

4.1.4 Further development of downstream services

Development of innovative downstream services shall not only be stimulated trough availability of the core service, but also by grants. These could come from the EU and national RTD programmes, for the EU in particular, from programmes on environmental research and IST.

4.2 European added value

Europe invests billions of Euros per year from agricultural and Structural Funds on measures which have an impact on land consumption and use. Their effects have to be carefully monitored in order to prevent costly corrective measures. The potential for substantial savings have already become clear in the preparatory GMES projects. Other factors will cause efficiency gains in ad- dition:  EC and MS becoming enabled to implement and monitor policies coherently  Cross-border harmonised European products for further use at all levels  Robustness and enhanced continuity of the service reducing downstream investment  Faster receipt of information resulting in more timely decision making  Reduction of interfacing to data sources (Geospatial one-stop-shop)  Benefits from data sharing (estimated cost effect ~30%; in CORINE2000, 28% of the satellite images were shared by more than 1 country!) supporting in general a cultural shift away from dotted, subjective information collection towards globally coherent, objective decision support generation23.

To reap these benefits two Community approaches must be strengthened; data procurement and data cataloguing.

Firstly, European added value will clearly be tangible if data procurement budgets are pooled in such a way that double procurement for whatever purpose is avoided24. It is evident that the larger the surface the cheaper the satellite data prices per unit of surface area, even when multi-user licensing aspects are taken into account. Access to this data is the centrepiece of GMES. The implementation of a common data policy that progressively eases current policy-level barriers to data sharing is crucial to a successful implementation of this service.

Secondly, a centralised cataloguing or inventory of all acquired imagery as well as derived products and models under the GMES umbrella alone can guarantee a non-discriminatory access by all stakeholders. What should be avoided is users having to examine many data catalogues de-

22 Estimates for current annual investments in overall geo-information indicate an average of €8-12 per inhabitant (TU Munich, 2004, and other sources), or, roughly equivalent, a total of €4.5 billion spent by governments across the EU (Pira Ltd., 2000). The economic importance of that investment is underlined by the fact that the Geo-information thus produced leverages 50-80% of all industrial activities. Actually one downstream business sector, “location based services (LBS)”, mainly private ventures, is undergoing a near 100% annual growth rate in Europe (2005: €274 Million) 23 A more detailed business model of the Land Monitoring service remains to be developed. 24 An example for the benefits of data sharing was recently published in the UK: Local governments, entrusting an agency [here the Improve- ment and Development Agency IDeA] with a joint geodata procurement, saved more than £100 million in 4 years.

17 pending on the data set (and also the models) they are using25. A system including a “clearing- house functionality” with suitable metadata descriptions of the datasets and service elements including a viewing (“quick look”) capability which provides also for registry of downstream services, best practise examples, useable algorithms and models will be developed taking stock of existing standards for geospatial data and of functioning systems in the MS.

Service provision for such centralised data cataloguing and access can be entrusted to a technic- ally specialised organisation, preferably a user organisation at EU or MS level that can ensure synergy with access to other geospatial data. It will have to provide orderly and coordinated access and re-use conditions under harmonised licensing regulations (in agreement with the IN- SPIRE policy principles 8 and 10 as identified in the position paper on data policy26).

This given, archiving and delivery can follow de-centralised routes (subsidiarity).

25 recommendation of the former GMES-DPAG (Data Policy Assessment Group) in its Final report of 3/2004 26 http://www.ec-gis.org/inspire/

18 A n n e x 1

Thematic Core Service Classes - consolidated in IP geoland

Artificial Surfaces Agriculture Areas Forest and Wetlands Surface Water Semi-Natural Areas 1 2 3 4 5

Urban Fabric Arable Land Forests Inland Wetlands

1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1

Industrial, Permanent Crops Coastal Wetlands Commercial and Central European Mediterranean Transport Units & Scandinavian Forests Forests 1.2 2.2 4.2

Mine, Dump Pastures Scrubs and/or & Construction herbaceous vege- Sites tation associations 1.3 2.3 3.2

Artificial, non Agricultural Natural Moors Transitional Mediterranean Alpine Classes Urban Areas Grasslands & Heathland woodland shrubs 1.4 / shrub 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4

Dwarf Green Alder Mountain Pine Nomenclature compatible Open Spaces with with CORINE Land Cover ittle orno vegetation (unvegetated soil) 3.3

Beaches, Bare rocks Sparsely Burnt Areas Snow & ice Dunes & Sand Vegetated Areas 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5

19 A n n e x 2

Land use classes for Urban mophological zones as proposed by the MOLAND project

1 1.1 Urban 1.1.1 Continuous 1.1.1.1 Residential continuous dense urban fabric Artifici fabric urban fabric 1.1.1.2 Residential continuous medium dense urban fabric al 1.1.1.3 Informal settlements surface s 1.1.2 Discontinuous 1.1.2.1 Residential discontinuous urban fabric urban fabric 1.1.2.2 Residential discontinuous sparse urban fabric 1.1.2.3 Residential urban blocks 1.1.2.4 Informal discontinuous residential structures 1.2 1.2.1 Industrial, 1.2.1.1 Industrial areas Industrial, commercial, public 1.2.1.2 Commercial areas commercial and private units 1.2.1.3 Public and private services not related to the transport and system transport 1.2.1.4 Technological infrastructures for public service units 1.2.1.5 Archaeological sites 1.2.1.6 Places of worship 1.2.1.7 Non-vegetated cemeteries 1.2.1.8 Hospitals 1.2.1.9 Restricted access services 1.2.1.10 Agro-industrial complexes 1.2.1.11 Surface pipelines 1.2.2 Road and rail 1.2.2.1 Fast transit roads and associated land networks and 1.2.2.2 Other roads and associated land associated land 1.2.2.3 Railways and associated land 1.2.2.4 Other rails 1.2.2.5 Additional transport structures 1.2.2.6 Parking si tes for private vehicles 1.2.2.7 Parking sites for public vehicles 1.2.3 Port areas 1.2.4 Airports 1.3 Mine, 1.3.1 Mineral dump and extraction sites construction 1.3.2 Dump sites sites 1.3.3 Construction sites 1.3.4 Abandoned 1.3.4.1 Bombed areas land 1.4 Artificial 1.4.1 Green urban 1.4.1.1 Vegetated cemeteries non- areas agricultural vegetated 1.4.2 Sport and areas leisure facilities 2 2.1 Arable 2.1.1 Non-irrigated 2.1.1.1 Arable land without dispersed vegetation Agricul land arable land 2.1.1.2 Arable land with scattered vegetation tural 2.1.1.3 Greenhouses areas 2.1.1.4 Drained arable land 2.1.2 Permanently irrigated land 2.1.3 Rice fields 2.2 2.2.1 Vineyards Permanent 2.2.2 Fruit trees and crops berry plantations 2.2.3 Olive groves 2.3 Pastures 2.3.1 Pastures 2.3.1.1 Pastures without tree and shrubs 2.3.1.2 Pastures with trees and shrubs 2.4 2.4.1 Annual crops Heterogene associated with ous permanent crops agricultural 2.4.2 Complex 2.4.2.1 Complex cultivation patterns without settlement areas cultivation patterns 2.4.2.2 Complex cultivation patterns with scattered settlement 2.4.3.1 Prevalence of arable land and SANV

20 2.4.3 Land principally 2.4.3.2 Prevalence of pastures and SANV occupied by agriculture (LPOA), with significant areas of natural vegetation (SANV) 2.4.4 Agro-forestry areas 3 3.1 Forests 3.1.1 Broad-leaved 3.1.1.1 Deciduous forest with continuous canopy Forests forests 3.1.1.2 Deciduous forest with discontinuous canopy and 3.1.1.3 Evergreen forest with continuous canopy semi- natural 3.1.1.4 Evergreen forest with discontinuous canopy areas 3.1.2 Coniferous 3.1.2.1 Coniferous forest with continuous canopy forests 3.1.2.2 Coniferous forest with discontinuous canopy 3.1.3 Mixed forests 3.1.3.1 Forest mixed by alternation of single trees with continuous canopy 3.1.3.2 Forest mixed by alternation of single trees with discontinuous canopy 3.1.3.3 Forest mixed by alternation of stands of trees with continuous canopy 3.1.3.4 Forest mixed by alternation of stands of trees with discontinuous canopy 3.2 Shrub 3.2.1 Natural 3.2.1.1 Coarse permanent grassland / Tall Herbs without trees and/or grassland and shrubs herbaceous 3.2.1.2 Coarse permanent grassland / Tall Herbs with trees and vegetation shrubs associations 3.2.1.3 Coastal and floodplain meadow 3.2.2 Moors and 3.2.2.1 Heath land heath land 3.2.2.2 Dwarf pine 3.2.3 Sclerophyllous vegetation 3.2.4 Transitional 3.2.4.1 Artificial young stands woodland/shrub 3.2.4.2 Natural young deciduous stands 3.2.4.3 Natural young coniferous stands 3.2.4.4 Wooded fens, bog and wooded transitional bog 3.3 Open 3.3.1 Beaches, 3.3.1.1 Dunes spaces with dunes, sands 3.3.1.2 Beaches little or no 3.3.1.3 Inland sand vegetation 3.3.2 Bare rock 3.3.2.1 Littoral/sub-littoral rocks 3.3.2.2 Coastal cliffs 3.3.2.3 Inland cliffs/bare rock/volcanic debris 3.3.3 Sparsely 3.3.3.1 Sparse vegetation on sands vegetated areas 3.3.3.2 Sparse vegetation on bare rock 3.3.4 Burnt and 3.3.4.1 Burnt areas damaged by natural disasters areas 3.3.5 Glaciers and perpetual snow 4. 4.1 Inland 4.1.1 Inland marshes 4.1.1.1 Marshes with reeds Wetlan wetlands 4.1.1.2 Marshes without reeds ds 4.1.1.3 Open fen and transitional bog 4.1.2 Peat bog 4.1.2.1 Exploited peat bog with lawn communities 4.1.2.2 Unexploited peat bog with lawn communities 4.1.2.3 Peat bog with pool communities 4.2 Coastal 4.2.1 Salt marshes 4.2.1.1 Salt marshes with reeds wetlands 4.2.1.2 Salt marshes without reeds 4.2.2 Salines 4.2.3 Intertidal flats 5. 5.1 Inland 5.1.1 Water courses 5.1.1.1 Canals Water waters 5.1.1.2 Rivers bodies 5.1.2 Water bodies 5.1.2.1 Natural standing water 5.1.2.2 Artificial reservoirs 5.2 Marine 5.2.1 Coastal lagoons waters 5.2.2 Estuaries 5.2.3 Sea and oceans