Managing EFA declarations and the development of LPIS in year 2015.

Transcription

1 Bernadett Csonka, Tamás Tapsonyi, Erzsébet Szabó, László Tamás, Ákos Szerletics Agriculture and Rural Development Agency, (ARDA - HU), Directorate of Direct Payment - October Managing EFA declarations and the development of LPIS in year GAEC WS - Prague

2 Outline EFA declarations in 2015 Anomalies of size limits and visibility conditions LPIS tasks related to the CAP reform The advantages and possibilities of the continuous LC layer in LPIS Open issues

3 EFA declarations in 2015 LFs with LPIS EFA layer in 2015: group of trees solitary tree pound sweep pole well , cumenian hills - 979, buffer strip along water bodies LFs with no LPIS EFA layer in 2015 : wooded strips, field margins trees in line ditches eligible hectares along forest edges, with or without production Parcel based EFAs: fallow land, catch crops or green cover, nitrogen fixing crops, SRC, afforestation

4 Geometry of the EFA declarations in 2015 Land laying fallow Wooded strip Field margin Field margin Catch crop or green cover N-fixing crop Land laying fallow

5 Statistics of the EFA declarations in HU 2015 Type of EFA feature Number of EFA in the LPIS layer Area counted as EFA using the weighting factor (ha) % of farmers (SUM= ) EFA Code Net declared area (ha) Number of farmers Land laying fallow , ,33% Wooded strips , ,36% Isolated trees , ,18% Trees in line , ,40% Group of trees , ,65% Field margin , ,16% Ponds , ,07% Ditches , ,04% Cumenian hills (Arch) , ,12% Sweep pole well , ,01% Water protection buffer strip , ,06% Eligible hectars along forest edges - with production , ,67% Eligible hectars along forest edges - without production , ,15% Short Rotation Coppice , ,02% Aforested area , ,23% Catch crops or green cover , ,08% Nitrogen fixing crops , ,35% , ,27%

6 Type of EFA feature having a complete LPIS layer Use of the complete EFA coverage Number of EFA in the LPIS layer Number of declared EFA 2015 % of declaring the EFA compared to the LPIS Share of all declared number of EFA units Isolated trees ,39% 0,37% Group of trees ,47% 1,37% Ponds ,91% 0,14% Cumenian hills ,21% 0,18% Sweep pole well ,90% 0,02% Sum: ,19% Type of EFA features declared but not having an LPIS layer Number of declared EFA units % of declared EFA units Land laying fallow ,25% Wooded strips - LF ,11% Trees in line - LF ,11% Field margin - LF ,64% Ditches - LF ,00% Eligible hectars along forest edges - with production ,99% Eligible hectars along forest edges - without production 470 0,37% Short Rotation Coppice (SRC) 82 0,06% Aforested area ,81% Catch crops or green cover ,21% Nitrogen fixing crops ,23% The efficiency of using the potential EFA coverage is surprisingly low, farmers feels safe to declare parcel based EFAs. 6,2 % of the farmers declared a LF, 372 ha is the sum net declared area of 2663 LF having LPIS-EFA layer, ave. size =1397 m declared LFs with no LPIS EFA layer in 2015 : 7089 ha, ave. size = 2954 m2 QUESTIONS: Is it economical, to create a complete potential coverage at all? OR to review all declared unit to become a reference OTSC rate? What is the value of potential coverage from the point of payment security?

7 LF limits set in the Art /2013. does not always fit to the local ecological conditions 27,9 m, can be a forest acc. to national rules Typical wooded strip, 17 m with 2 large arable parcel by the side high value, but useless for EFA Wooded strip, 8,4 m OK for EFA Why wooded strips can only be accepted up to 10 meters? According to national law, a forest is minimum 5000 m2 and 20 meters wide. Valuable linear ecological wooded strips does not count at all between meters. How to manage the update, if the trees on a field margin having 1020 m width grows over 50% canopy cover? it is not a field margin any more, but neither a wooded strip: while the ecological value is increased, the feature is out of the EFA elements Typical wooded strip, 17,6 m

8 How to define forest to validate the strip along forest edge? The national reg. states that a forest is > 5000 m2 and wider than 20 meters, connection to arable land is measured by GPS + the forest adjacency control is done by Remote Sensing Can new plantations or a clear- cutting with coppice be accepted? Can we accept wooded strips connected to larger forest units? The black line is a declaration for a strip along forest edge with production. It is a wooded strip 17 m wide, not suitable for EFA wooded strip, connected to a larger forest. The black line is a declaration for a strip along forest edge with production. The strip was accepted as part of the forest.

9 Developments of LPIS-Hu already implemented towards the CAP reform Decreasing the MMU of non-eligible areas since 2011 (> m2), 2012 > meters for linear elements Changing to 1/3rd of the area at the rotational update, update on CwRS images and complete ortho coverage in Development of DTM (GSD 40) and deriving new slope category thematic layers Complete land cover layer, compliant with the actual MMU under LPIS, using 19 eligible and 24 non-eligible categories Categorising the LC and eligibility of the former non-eligible areas because of the 2003 reference layer Additional eligibility control (ownership or renting documents) for parcels declared on a non-declared ( closed ) area of a PB Preliminary PG layer New GAEC/EFA layers in 2015: group of trees, pounds, solitary trees further EFA layers wooded strips, trees in line, filed margins - will be ready for 2016! Defining rules of how non-eligibility, GAEC-non-compliance and the new minimum maintenance rules relates to each other Creating 12 new thematic layers for the new RD programme (2016-) Opening the use of the LPIS data for: agricultural risk management, for national regional planning

10 Technical solutions of the publication of LPIS GIS data ~1,18 million declared agricultural parcel ~ farmers PB layer: 1,27 million polygons ~ PBs have eligible area Ave PB size: 22,7 ha Public browser of LPIS-Hu From 2008 : e-submission of the area declaration All data of the selected PB, including archive and versioning Thematic layers : NATURA 2000 NATURA under ministry of defence LFA HNV Slope 12% and 17% GAEC LF: group of trees, sweet pole well, cumenian mounds, pounds, solitary trees water protection strips terraces on vineyards Aforested areas before and after 2008 SAPS nonelig/elig. SRC Preliminary PG, sensitive PG For new RDM: areas endangered by waterlog, by flood, by drought, 8 target type of AE zonal schemes

11 Minimal Mapping Unit of features in the LPIS, 1:5000 scale The Minimal Mapping Unit defined by the EC: 100 or < 100 m2 required by the EC, but 300 m2 is the technical limit taking into consideration the buffer tolerance values! Our experience shows, that 300 m2 with clear boundaries can be mapped, but stability and positional accuracy decreases in case of natural habitats with fuzzy boundaries. DSCG/2014/33 guidance JRC - DS-CDP _TG_Data operability

12 Is it worth the CAPI investment? Example of a 309 m2 A well detectable case: The house is 88 m2, a 170 m2 exclusion was done in LPIS, excluding part of the PP as well. A possible scenario: If we have in average on the eligible area 2,5 non-delineated areas with 300 m2 in PBs = ha = 0,51 % of the declared area ( ha), It means 6,1 mill. EURO SAPS payment To digitise polygon is 62% of the existing polygons!!! - currently there are 1,6 million polygon in the LC layer, and only the CAPI takes minimum ~ 1600 manday's (28 month for 60 persons) appr EURO + IT capacity increase in the entire system! 8,3 % cost only for LPIS, while < 2% is the entire IACS implementation cost!

13 Exclusion of roads / path under 5 meters width DSCG/2014/33 guidance:? 2 meters rule of delineating roads as separate polygons: 2 meters is less than the width of the tracks bare soil roads created to reach the crop parcels are not so stable, and reflected different on an early and late summer image how to detect seasonal differences? roads can often be physical block boundaries that are used by machines, changing their positions rapidly and dividing the grassland but partially covered by grass The 2-meter rule does not fit the technical capability of the delineation, and might lead to unstable physical block boundaries!??? This tractor track is 3-3,5 meters wide on this img, connects 5 parcels and the detectable with depends on the vegetation by the side from 2-4 m.

14 The advantages and possibilities of the continuous LC layer in LPIS Exclusion of builtup (AS) is done > m2 Further LC specific administrative controls can be implemented under IACS Better targeting zones, different thematic categorisations and monitoring for specific activities (like: eco, AE ) Flexible selection of EFA LFs: group of trees, filed margins, tree rows, and to monitor their neighbouring LC changes if the EFA specific LC groups exists Basic of biotope diversity monitoring, to see the benefit of the EFA as an ecological network element

15 The disadvantages of the continuous RP and LC layer in LPIS Why to exclude all non-eligibles < m2 in a non-declared RP, or in a non-declared part of a PB if it does not have an effect for IACS? Why LPIS cannot contain areas without GSAA if all our farmers have an e- declaration? Bottom- up model: In an LPIS containing only the declared area (a noncontinuous coverage) additional EFA features are captured and only the covered area has to be examined for smaller MMU. Up-to-down: we select features among the existing LC for EFA evaluation (categorisation, further division), and we select certain LC for different administrative controls. Why to exclude all small hardly detectable features at the area of the PB where there is no declaration? The PB delineated independently from the farers, or should we state that these RPs are not acceptable any more?

16 New Challenge of the LPIS QC: controlling EFA layers? ETS CAPI is done by the PA, with a QGIS and PostgreSQL based specific GIS application developed for this purpose from 2010 Based on the EU-LPISQAF technology a sample based QC of the annual LPIS data delivery had been introduced in the PA since LFs in the ETS up to 2015: LFs not having an LPIS-GIS layer but part of the eligible area according to the rules, are part of the eligible LCCs conflicts with the 100 m2 rule! LFs in a separate LPIS-GIS layer and being eligible are coded as independent LCC of the eligibility profile. If the LF is not complying with its definition, and coded as non-eligible area, the RP usually fails on area conformance or on contamination. No LF specific code is given if an error is found. Question from 2016: Should we - control LF layers according to their definitions? - use specific error codes for LF layers? - store each LF layer s definition in details in the ATS? - seems to be again a quite complex issue, preparation and test is needed before real implementation!

17 General conclusion In the EC guidance more detailed delineation is required for LPIS than technically possible and experimentally accepted based on the source images: ortho + VHR Requirements of DSCG/2014/33 guidance: CAN IT BE FULLY COMPLETED AT ALL? Can it be implemented properly if there is no use of pro-rata? Under 300 m2 and 5 m width MMU delineation will dramatically increase the number of polygons, the CAPI time, with very small benefit on the side of eligible area delineation and payment allocation. LFs in Art /2014 are unnecessarily size limited, i.e. ecologically valuable elements will fall out, but they are handled individually not looking at the ecological network for biodiversity value. An LPIS with continuous coverage requires specific strategy

18 Thank you for the attention!