LPIS QAF in Denmark Flanders Sweden The Netherlands

Transcription

1

2 LPIS QAF in Denmark Flanders Sweden The Netherlands

3 DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THE CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE JRC? JRC EC 3

4 Structure of the Presentations A general overview of LPIS QAF (NL) Marcel Meijer LPIS QAF Experiences in Denmark and Sweden (DE & SE) Henrik Friis & Anders Forsberg ETS Experiences (NL) Marcel Meijer ETS Experiences (past & present) (FL) Ruben Fontaine General overview from 4 countries (DK, SE, FL and NL) 4

5 Presenters Flanders (Ruben Fontaine) Denmark (Henrik Friis) Sweden (Anders Forsberg) The Netherlands (Marcel Meijer) 5

6 A general overview of LPIS QAF (NL) by Marcel Meijer 6

7 A general overview of LPIS QAF 1. Introduction / Setting the Scene 2. Getting to grips with the LPIS QAF 3. ATS 4. ETS 5. General remarks related to the LPIS QAF 6. Possible suggestions for improvements 7

8 1. Introduction / Setting the Scene Until 2007 From 2007 Now EC audits with a focus on LPIS revealed several shortcomings 8

9 1. Introduction Overview Key Findings EC NL Reference layer is not 1) up-to-date, 2) accurate enough: nonconformity with art. 20 of Reg. (EU) nr. 1782/2003 (art. 17 of Reg. (EU) nr. 73/2009) Reference parcels are insufficiently current regarding changes in physical borders (area) and vegetation (eligibility) Reference parcels are insufficiently detailed because certain ineligible parts (landscape elements) are not excluded Results of OTSC and CwRS, changes in the field submitted by applicants and current ortho-imagery are not followed up by an update of the concerned reference parcels Areas claimed in the 1st and 2nd pillar are not checked in an integrated GIS (only alphanumerically) and there is no exchange of results of OTSC, CwRS, and administrative controls. 9

10 1. Introduction Example (old reference layer) The RP was not current but of course this doesn t mean that the farmer applied for this area! 10

11 1. Introduction Total Refresh of Reference Layer A lot of resources have gone into Gathering information/knowledge Creating a new reference layer Updating/creating procedures Integrating different systems Still an ongoing proces Complicating factors: Politics The press Farmers want to be paid on time (December) and...receive the correct amount Ambiguity regarding the required quality level 11

12 2. Getting to grips with the LPIS QAF Finally some guidelines! EC Anonymous Member State 12 LPIS QAF NL September 2010

13 2. Getting to grips with the LPIS QAF Some First Remarks What will the EC do with the results? What is the (legal) status of the thresholds? 13

14 2. Getting to grips with the LPIS QAF Legal Framework & Documentation LPIS QAF 14

15 2. Getting to grips: Legal Framework & Documentation Art. 6(2) from Reg. (EC) no 1122/2009 Amended by Art. 1 from Reg. (EC) no 146/2010 Discussion paper JRC LPIS quality inspection: EU requirements and methodology WikiCAP Report (feasibility study) Report on LPIS Quality Assessment feasibility trial 15

16 2. Getting to grips: Legal Framework & Documentation (There s more..) Feature Catalogue documentation UML diagrams and GML encoding for the LPIS Core Model (LCM): LCM Technical Specification. The GML application schema for LPIS Core Model: LPIS Core Model Schema. ATS documentation A_11 Module: Definition of Reference parcel A_11.pdf A_12 Module: Eligibility and Land cover type A_12.pdf A_13 Module: Attributes of Reference parcel A_131 Mandatory attributes of Reference parcel A_131.pdf A_132 Attributes for xcompliance A_132.pdf A_133 Specific attributes of Reference Parcel A_133.pdf ETS documentation ANNEX I: LPIS data quality measures ANNEX I ANNEX II: ETS inspection procedure Description of the workflow ANNEX II ANNEX III: The concept of land cover and eligible hectares" ANNEX III ANNEX IV: IACS data quality measures ANNEX IV ANNEX V: SAPS with historical GAC supplemental Test Suite ANNEX V 16

17 2. Getting to grips: Legal Framework & Documentation (and finally.) Templates Feature Catalogue template LPIS Core Model schema LPIS ATS results schema LPIS GML state valid example LPIS GML state schema LPIS sample pre-selection schema ETS observations schema ETS scoreboard Eligibility Profile Other (related) documentation Common Technical Specifications for the 2010 CwRS Campaign CTS 2010 Guidelines for Best Practice and Quality Checking of Ortho Imagery, v 3.0 Orthoguidelines Zone definition for the CwRS programme Zone Definition for the CwRS campaign Example of a design of specific land cover class, using LCCS Appendix A 17

18 2. Getting to grips: Planning Plan of Action was needed 18

19 2. Getting to grips: Planning Some dates are already fixed 2. Member States shall annually assess the quality of the identification system for agricultural parcels. That assessment shall cover the following quality elements: a) the correct quantification of the maximum eligible area; b) the proportion and distribution of reference parcels where the maximum eligible area takes ineligible areas into account or where it does not take agricultural area into account; c) the categorization of reference parcels where SAMPLE the maximum eligible area DATA takes ineligible areas into account or where it does not take agricultural area into account; d) the occurrence of reference parcels with critical defects; e) the ratio of declared area in relation to the maximum eligible area inside the reference parcels; f) the percentage of reference parcels which have been subject to change, accumulated over the years; g) the rate of irregularities determined during on-the-spot checks. IACS DATA When performing the assessment referred to in the first subparagraph, Member States shall: a) use data allowing to assess the current situation on the ground; b) select an adequate random sample of all reference parcels. An assessment report and, where appropriate, the remedial actions and the timetable for their implementation shall be sent to the Commission by 31 January following the calendar year in question at the latest. However, in respect of the calendar year 2010, this information shall be sent to the Commission by 28 February 2011 at the latest. Some dates are related to internal processess Report date 19

20 2. Getting to grips: Planning NL (more detail) Sampling July/August 2010 Writing Instructions/Concept/ July September 2010 Translating Creating tool (add on in ArcGIS) September 2010 Asking the JRC for feedback Performing ATS July October 2010 Preparing Testing Reporting Discussions with other MS Performing ETS October December 2010 Preparing Checking selected RP s Analysing Results Analysing IACS data December 2010 Reporting January 2011 Remedial Actions February

21 3. ATS Preparation Testing Reporting Some issues that pupped up. Different document versions Is the current extensive ATS really necessary for performing the ETS? Is the LCCS really suitable as a basis for digitizing RP s? 21

22 3. ATS Different document versions Not always clear if a document has changed. Please use clear indications! - Version Number - Date 22

23 3. ATS Eligibility profile / LCCS 23

24 3. ATS Eligibility Profile / LCCS Why distingish between: - Arable land - Permanent pasture - Pulses and vegetables - Etc...? - Time consuming - Endresult is the same Shouldn t the focus be on eligible and ineligible? (phase 1) Thresholds not met More detailed analysis (phase 2) 24

25 LPIS QAF Experiences in Denmark and Sweden (DE & SE) by Henrik Friis & Anders Forsberg 25

26 ETS Experiences (NL) by Marcel Meijer 26

27 4. ETS first results An overview of problem areas in the LPIS QAF Problem Area 1: - Potential eligible area / Areas temporarily not in GAEC Problem Area 2: -The use of imagery (orthophoto) Problem Area 3: - Reference layer 2010 without corrections made by the farmer Problem Area 4: - Conducting agricultural measures in parcels vs. land cover 27

28 4. ETS An overview of problem areas in LPIS QAF Problem area 1: Temporarily not in GAEC 28

29 4. ETS An overview of problem areas in LPIS QAF Problem area 1: Temporarily not in GAEC One reference parcel temporarily four Landcover classes 29

30 4. ETS An overview of problem areas in LPIS QAF Problem area 1: Temporarily not in GAEC Areas of bare soil (to be considered as ineligible can be temporal (images from 2008 and 2009) 30

31 4. ETS - An overview of problem areas in LPIS QAF Problem area 1: Temporarily not in GAEC Possible suggestion to tackle this problem: Create an extra LCC Areas that for a period less than 3 months* are not in GAEC * Based on Art. 9 of Reg. (EU) no. 1120/2009 Area = Eligible 31

32 4. ETS An overview of problem area in LPIS QAF Problem Area 2: Phenological development of crops vs image acquisition date Description: LCC in the QAF has to be conducted on a relatively high level of detail that can be compared to the process of CwRS Characteristics of agricultural land vary significantly throughout the vegetation period (e.g. significant amount of wetness damages in crop fields appear in early spring but usually have cleared out until summer) Single moment images constitute snapshots for LCC determination and may cause misleading assumptions for the majority of the reference year Example 32

33 4. ETS An overview of problem areas in LPIS QAF Problem area 2: Phenological development of crops vs. image acquisition date Later spring image reveals crop damage: Should that become ineligible? 33

34 4. ETS An overview of problem area in LPIS QAF Problem area 3: Farmers declarations Art. 12(3) of Reg. (EU) no. 1122/

35 4. ETS An overview of problem area in LPIS QAF Problem area 3: Farmers declarations Update procedure parallels the SPSapplication Indicated by the farmer as not eligible 35

36 4. ETS An overview of problem area in LPIS QAF Problem area 3: Conducting agricultural measures in parcels vs. land cover Description: Maintaining areas in GAEC in the 21st century involves entering parcels with machinery Machine employment leaves traces on areas in most cases the traces show negative crop marks (often bare soil) The current LCCS system considers these traces as ineligible areas in a reference parcel (at least it s unclear how to deal with them) Taking machinery traces out of the eligible areas implicitly means that subsidies would be coupled to production and not to measures Machinery traces are relatively dynamic Some examples 36

37 4. ETS An overview of problem area in LPIS QAF Problem area 4: Conducting agricultural measures in parcels vs. land cover Temporal traces of machinery employment: Should that be considered as ineligible in the LCCC? 37

38 4. ETS An overview of problem area in LPIS QAF Problem area 4: Conducting agricultural measures in parcels vs. land cover 38

39 4. ETS An overview of problem area in LPIS QAF Problem area 4: Conducting agricultural measures in parcels vs. land cover 39

40 5. LPIS QAF Costs Cost of LPIS QAF NL (NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT POTENTIAL COSTS FOR REMEDIAL ACTIONS): First Year Software development/consultancy ,- Advisor (700 hours x 90,50) ,- Operator (430 hours x 90,50) 38,915,- Total ,- Second Year Advisor (100 hours x 90,50) 9.050,- Operator (430 hours x 90,50) ,- Total ,- DELINEATING EVERY REFERENCE PARCEL! 40

41 ETS Experiences (past & present) (FL) by Ruben Fontaine 41

42 General overview from 4 countries (DK, SE, FL and NL) 42

43 6. Legal Status of WikiCAP I ve never heard of WikiCAP... 43

44 Questions/Discussion? 44