Capability and limits of Remote Sensing in GAEC detection: the Health Check challenge

Transcription

1 Capability and limits of Remote Sensing in GAEC detection: the Health Check challenge Maurizio Piomponi AGEA Paolo Tosi, Sandrina Paolini, Livio Rossi SIN

2 Remote Sensing (RS) and Cross Compliance assumption in Italy Cross Compliance controls, particularly for GAEC, started in 2005 by RS Differently vs. eligibility task, all the detected negative and doubtful GAEC parcels are always double checked in situ

3 Summary Overview of AGEA 2009 test activity Main results New tables of results comparison New tasks for new requirements( )

4 2009 test purpose: AGEA test under the supervision of JRC, for validating the Use of multi spectral and multi temporal remote sensing for GAEC Controls (AGEA own investment) Target: Detection capability of GAECs issues by RS, in comparison with traditional ground survey (through two separated activities); costs, time and benefits

5 Landslides and creeping Lack of correct drainage examples of VHR RS GAEC detection: Grosseto Landslides on crops Rill erosion

6 .loss of soil and agricultural surface is an irreversible issue: a GAEC problem towards an eligibility one , July

7 .growing loss of soil on arable land (standard 1.1) Agrigento test aerea Evident increasing of linear (rill/gully) and landslide phenomena

8 The Test requested by DGAgri, the methodology discussed and agreed with JRC in sharing with DGAgri task flow: 1. Test areas identification on 2009 sample zones in Italy 2. Satellite data selection (VHR or HR) 3. Ancillary data, specifications and mobile PCs preparation 4. Ground surveys performance, as ground truth 5. Photo interpretation of VHR and HR data, 6. Joint results evaluation, cost/benefits analysis, operational considerations

9 GAEC targets to be investigated Standard 1.1 soil erosion: protect soil on slope Standard 2.1 soil organic matter: maintain soil organic levels (ban on burning residues) Standard 3.1 soil structure: maintenance of water drainage Standard 4.1 permanent pasture: correct management and ban on converting Standard 4.3 olive groves: maintenance levels Standard 4.4 terraces maintenance Additional requirement by the Commission: 4.1 analysis on vegetation encroachment on pastures, even if not applied in Italy

10 GAEC Cods used both by Ground Survey and Photo interpretation

11 Test areas identification Among 45 sample areas (municipality groups, average 500 skm each) with the following criteria: GAEC infringements presence, detected during last 3 years of controls (also neighbouring) Risk value, by AGEA GAEC risk map of Italy, updated in 2009 Declared crops presence and agro morphologic different patterns

12 Following the criteria the final 5 test areas were: Pesaro-Urbino (Marche North-centre) Grosseto (Tuscany Centre) Messina (Sicily South) Agrigento (Sicily South) Siracusa (Sicily South) Selected test sites starting from 2009 AGEA RS sample

13 Ground survey task flow: 1. Curricula selection among AGEA expert inspectors (two technicians per area) 2. Specific and ad hoc SW and data uploading on mobile PCs 3. Experts training per area (by 2 expert tutors) 4. Ground survey for GAEC controls, using GPS traceability; blind repetition by the second surveyor 5. Activity control and management via WEB 6. Test completion and results sent via WEB (reference parcels definition and eventual breach s pictures)

14 Transects with selected points (related parcels) to be investigated both in situ and by RS Parcels concentration on orthophotos by the archive: different approach by traditional sample controls

15 Data for Ground survey at work -Maps printing, per Province area -Transect maps, with reference parcels (two transects per area) -Survey sheets and cod table -Uploaded PCs Ultramobile, operational SW and GPS -Car recharge cables for PCs

16 WEB site for ground survey management data collection and verification

17 Satellite photo interpretation task flow: 1. Curricula selection among AGEA experts in Agriculture RS (proven skill) 2. Training for 3 selected technicians on common objectives (by 1 tutor) 3. Interpretation of each reference parcel using the same cods of ground survey 4. Blind repetition, on each transect, by the other two experts 5. Sample quality control by the tutor 6. Results evaluation (int. variance) and comparison

18 results/statistic per test site Yellow = declared impossible surveys in situ

19 GAEC infringements found per Test area (1)

20 GAEC infringements found per Test area (2)

21 Photo interpretation intrinsic variance

22 Messina evaluation of pasture management an additional test 2009, July 2009, April

23 Messina: pastures with soil maintenance problems and vegetation encroachment 2009, July 2009, April 2009, July

24 Results of additional test: vegetation encroachment on pastures (Messina) High consistency, mature

25 Pastures Messina: unique point of non accordance 90: permanent Encroachment interpreted by sat not validated by ground 89: permanent Encroachment Interpreted by sat and validated by ground

26 Messina: % vegetation encroachment and level of grazing 2009, July 2009, July 2009, Apri

27 % of encroachment, only detected by RS multiple aspects, complex morphology, lack of synoptic view created difficulty by ground survey

28 Spot 4, 20 m planned for end of August 2009 photointerpretation of burnt stubbles standard 2.1 Selected points to be interpreted and double checked on ground

29 Burnt and ploughed Burnt and not yet ploughed Ground pictures on Agrigento test area for standard 2.1 (Sept 11 13th)

30 Burnt stubbles detection: standard 2.1 main outputs High consistency, mature

31 Summary results per single GAEC standard

32 Crossing table of results 1

33 Crossing table: final results

34 Example of RS difficulty in detection: under tree crowns small breaks on stone walls, no long term olive pruning Example of one of the few infringements did not detect by RS techniques (Siracusa terraces)

35 Statistics on impossible ground surveys Total number of impossible visits, summing accordance (2 inspectors) and partial (only one inspector)

36 Impossible surveys post analysis Main reasons of not checked parcels in situ 4x4 car usage.? Initiative, agility (jump the fence/barbed wires )? Fear of dogs? Lack of communication between inspectors (closed gates, no practicable roads, etc.)?

37 Working time: cost/benefits after result comparison

38 Other advantages of RS Test points/parcels were close in small Transects, while in operation parcels are scattered on 500 skm areas (ref. in situ working time) Interpretation gave responses on several additional points/parcels vs ground surveys (non calculated on tables) Aerial ortho imagery used for LPIS updating can be also used to identify some of the major GAEC issues, improving national/local risk analysis

39 Examples Agrigento: landslip/erosion ground truth 2009, July 2009, April

40 Grosseto: lack of drainage damages and rill after overgrazing Detectable and measurable Damages on parcel Diffused rill erosion, provoked by overgrazing- No ditches/belt presence: detectable by RS

41 Exam. Grosseto: abandoned olives, rill erosion Abandoned olives

42 Agrigento: slight creeping effects vs. satellite detection 2009, July 2009, April

43 Examples of violation by sat VHR vs. no detection by ground survey Olive grove towards Abandoning: road network not reachable Olive grove towards abandoning: hidden by woodland

44 Examples VHR YES; ground NO Grosseto checked again in situ, guided by RS evidence late Sept Deeper linear erosion, still visible in September Sept 09

45 Sept 09 Increasing of phenomena detected in post verification Sept 09 April 09

46 Examples VHR YES; ground NO Grosseto Superficial linear erosion, non more visible in September, after ploughing Sept 09?

47 Grosseto: stable sludge without protection danger for water course NIR sat differences in detection

48 1 Comments on standard 1.1 soil erosion VHR Satellite: complete and assured detection In Situ: complete detection when parcels are visited Remote sensing always detected more parcels vs ground (mean + 100%) No parcel found in violation on ground was left by Sat

49 2 Comments on water stagnation and drainage VHR Satellite: complete detection, relating to the sat acquisition dates Ground: potential complete detection, but more difficult in summer Remote sensing detected more parcels vs ground, but only due to the best acquisition dates No parcel found in violation on ground was left by Sat

50 3 Comments on olive groves maintenance VHR Satellite: complete detection for permanent vegetation (bush, wood) Difficult pruned/not pruned det., without a reference; Ground: potential complete detection when parcels are visited (LFA = difficult access) Remote sensing detected more parcels (mean + 20%); difficult in breach s type identification 6 parcels found in violation on ground (lack of pruning) were left by Sat

51 4 Comments on permanent pastures maintenance/encroachment VHR Satellite: good detection of pasture maintenance; complete detection of vegetation encroachment, including % Ground: potential complete detection when parcels are visited; % of encroachment on site more difficult Remote sensing detected more veg. encroachments with % per parcel (mean + 8%) 2 parcels found in violation on ground (permanent crop presence) were left by Sat

52 5 Comments on terraces maintaining VHR Satellite: complete detection, but impossible for hidden phenomena (under tree crowns, shadows) Ground: potential complete detection when parcels are visited; several impossible surveys Remote sensing detected more than double infringements (13% vs 5,5%) 3 parcels found in violation on ground (under trees) were left by Sat

53 5 Comments on burnt stubbles detection HR Satellite: complete and sometimes redundant detection, due to local soil conditions (wet/ploughed) Ground: complete detection, but difficult when fields have already been ploughed Remote sensing generally indicates a redundant number of violations (24/20) No parcel found in violation on ground was left by Sat

54 Synthetic table of results

55 2010 test purpose: 1. Confirmation of the 2009 results 2. Verify the possibility to check new issues with the same devices and procedure 3. Test new sensors and method of control 4. Improve the whole control system

56 Health Check challenge: main issues Landscape features identification, improving GAEC risk analysis and controls, testing different sensors (optical, SAR) and methods, aiming at LPIS improving Winter crops coverage for GAEC risk analysis and controls, trying to use high resolution SAR, due to its all weather capability Water courses buffer protection (from 2012, annex III 73/09) using DSM at different resolutions, RS and several ancillary information and layers for mapping, risk priority and buffer size definition

57 GAECs new organisation for 2010 Annex III Reg. (EC) New Standard organisation 73/2009 Issue GAEC 2010 Application Requirement 1 SOIL EROSION 2. SOIL ORGANIC MATTER 3. SOIL STRUCTURE Standard 1.1: Minimum land management reflecting site specific conditions Standard 1.2: Minimum land cover Standard 1.3: Retain terraces Standard 2.1: Stubble management Standard 2.2: Crop rotation Standard 3.1: Appropriate machinery use all agricultural land requirement a): arable land requirement b): all agricultural land all agricultural land arable land no longer used arable land all agricultural land Temporary channelling of surface water on sloping terrain a) for the agricultural land which is no longer used for production purposes: vegetal cover, natural or sown, during the whole year b) for all surfaces with the presence of a risk for erosion: vegetal cover, natural or sown, during the winter period a) to eliminate terraces is forbidden b) every levelling intervention of the agricultural land has to be authorized by the competent bodies stubble burning is forbidden cereals can't be cultivated for a period of more than 5 years without interruption with other cultivations a. machinery use only with the correct soil condition (umidity) so to not compromise the soil structure

58 Landscape features and winter grass coverage detection through VHR SAR 1m res. Creeping sowing directions Hedgerow/trees network pasture arable

59 Water drainage problems evidences lead to a ground survey to verify the correct machine use

60 GAEC Annex III Reg. (EC) 73/2009 New Standard organisation Issue GAEC 2010 Application Requirement 4. MINIMUM LEVEL OF MAINTENANCE Standard 4.1: Permanent pasture protection Standard 4.2: Avoid the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land Standard 4.3: Maintenance of olive groves and vines in good vegetative condition Standard 4.4: Retention of landscape features permanent pasture all agricultural land olive trees, vineyards olive trees all agricultural land a) no reduction of the surface (art. 4 Reg. (EC) 1122/09) b) no convertion into arable land inside Natura 2000 areas c) no land plowghing d) respect of a minimum and maximum livestock stocking rates so to maintain and protect the pasture vegetal coverage (minimum 0,2 LSU maximun 4 LSU) minimum land maintenance a) minimum management of the land no abandon b) prohibition of the grubbing up of olive trees respect of national and regional laws on the protection of landscape features, including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches trees in line, in group or isolated

61 Vegetation encroachment on crops, starting from LPIS arable > pasture > transitional (...>abandon?)

62 Indicators: scattered and hedge trees 62

63 Terraces presence and conditions 63

64 Hedge trees and ponds

65 GAEC Annex III Reg. (EC) 73/2009 New Standard organisation Issue GAEC 2010 Application Requirement 5: PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF WATER Standard 5.1: Where use of water for irrigation is subject to authorisation, compliance with authorisation procedures Standard 5.2: Establishment of buffer strips along water courses all agricultural land Where use of water for irrigation is subject to authorisation, compliance with authorisation procedures all agricultural land applicable from January 2012

66 Satellite SAR data for winter coverage monitoring 5 m res. 40 km strip swath

67 Thank you