p 1-2+3-marcel_meijer

Preliminary results and experiences of the ETS in Sweden, Flanders, Denmark, and The Netherlands

Follow Up from Copenhagen 2010

Joint Presentation

Flanders

Sweden

The Netherlands

Denmark

Goal of the presentation

Share experiences

Generate discussion

Illustrate issues/problems related to the LPIS QAF that affect us all and should be addressed

Address specific issues related to the different implementations of LPIS

The State of LPISDenmark: performed a total refresh in 2006/2007

After update implemented a continuous update cycle

Sweden: performed a total refresh in 2008After update implemented a continuous update cycle

The Netherlands: performed a total refresh in 2009After update implemented a continuous update cycle

Flanders has a continuous update strategy since 2004

1. General Remarks LPIS QAF

2. General Experiences

3. Quality Elements 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (sample)1. 3 Different LPIS implementations2. Results (before and after changes Copenhagen)3. General remarks on results4. Specific issues related to the different implementations of LPIS5. Impact latest changes LPIS QAF

4. Quality Elements 6 and 7 (IACS)1. Results 2. General remarks on results

5. Conclusions/Suggestions

Structure/Set UpGeneral

The QAF for LPIS improves quality awarenessThe QAF, especially the ETS, is elaborate and complex to performIntroducing waivers for different implementations of LPIS improves ‘fit for purpose’ of the ETSThis presentation will demonstrate that meeting the thresholds will be a challenge… even after a complete refresh

1. General remarks

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE TYPE OF SYSTEM AND WORKFLOW

Tools for performing the ETSDifferent approaches

FL, DK, and SE used standard functionality and programs NL created a specific tool (add on in ArcGIS)

Why create a customized tool?Guide the workflowStandardize the performance of operatorsFacilitate the analysisIncorperating QE’s into regular quality processes

1. General remarks

There’s a flyer available detailing the functionality of the ETS-Tool (Alterra)

2. General experiencesLPIS QAF isnLPIS QAF isn’’t an of the t an of the shelf productshelf product

‘‘TranslationTranslation’’ of instructions to of instructions to national situation national situation Performing the ATS and ETS Performing the ATS and ETS After Copenhagen some issues were addressed After Copenhagen some issues were addressed but it became even more complex but it became even more complex Subject to misinterpretation (e.g. calculations)Subject to misinterpretation (e.g. calculations)Purpose unclearPurpose unclearLPIS QAF still evolving/changingLPIS QAF still evolving/changing

LPIS QAF

2. General experiences

Overview time (in hours) needed for QAF Flanders Netherlands Sweden Average

2010Preparations 560 240 400 400Software development 80 325 80 162ATS 160 400 120 227ETS 240 430 280 317Analyses and reporting 80 60 160 100Total 1.120 1.455 1.040 1.205Total per parcel 1.40 1.16 0.83 1.10

2011 and further expectedETS 240 430 280 317Preperations, analyses etc. 80 100 240 140Total 320 530 520 457Total per parcel 0.40 0.42 0.42 0.42

Previous estimates from the JRC/EC were exceeded by 4 timesPrevious estimates from the JRC/EC were exceeded by 4 times

Demands substantial effort from MSDemands substantial effort from MS’’s both in time and in costs.s both in time and in costs.

2. General experiences

Overview costs for LPIS QAF Flanders Netherlands Sweden Average

2010Preparations € 28.000.00 € 21.720.00 € 20.000.00 € 23.240.00Software development € 4.000.00 € 29.440.00 € 4.000.00 € 12.480.00ATS € 8.000.00 € 36.200.00 € 6.000.00 € 16.733.33ETS € 9.000.00 € 38.915.00 € 14.000.00 € 20.638.33Analyses and reporting € 4.000.00 € 5.430.00 € 8.000.00 € 5.810.00Total € 53.000.00 € 131.705.00 € 52.000.00 € 78.901.67Cost per parcel € 66.25 € 105.36 € 41.60 € 71.73

2011 and further expectedETS € 9.000.00 € 38.915.00 € 10.500.00 € 19.471.67Preperations, analyses etc. € 4.000.00 € 9.050.00 € 12.000.00 € 8.350.00Total € 13.000.00 € 47.965.00 € 22.500.00 € 27.821.67Total per parcel € 16.25 € 38.37 € 18.00 € 25.29

Costs differ between member states but on a whole are acceptable provided the LPIS QAF becomes really effective

From the percespective of 3 different LPIS implementations

Flanders : Agricultural Parcel (AP)

Sweden: Farmers Block (FP)

Denmark & The Netherlands: Physical Block (PB)

3. QA elements 1,2, 3, 4 and 5 (QC sample)

• reflects the real land-use as cultivated by farmers• relatively high effort to maintain due to changes in land-use of farmers• created and maintained based on farmers input and digital orthoimagery and other

available datasources

Creation of a Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS):The agricultural parcel system

3.1 Three Different LPIS implementations

• relatively stable borders (streets, rivers, ...)• only one farmer with n (farmers) parcels per reference parcel• created and maintained based on farmers input and digital orthoimagery and other


Creation of a Land Parcel Identification system (LPIS):The farmers block system (Ilot)


• relatively stable borders (streets, rivers, ...)• allows n farmers and m (farmers) parcels inside a reference parcel• created and maintained based on farmers input and digital orthoimagery and other


Creation of a Land Parcel Identification system (LPIS):The physical block system


3.2 Preliminary results

One Reference parcel…temporarily four LCC-areas

What is expected of us in the ETS?

3.2 Preliminary results Quality Element - 1

COMPARING THE SUM OF THE REFERENCE AREA WITH THE SUM OF THE OBSERVED AREA

PATH

Reference = 2,11 haObserved (eligible) = 1,98 ha 6,2% difference

FL (AP)

SE (FB)

NL (PB)

DK (PB)

JRC/EC

RP sample sizeRP sample size 800800 12501250 12501250 800800 N/A N/A

CheckedChecked 276276 415415 287287 923 N/AN/A

SkippedSkipped 2424 88 1212 83 N/AN/A

Quality Element 1 Quality Element 1 ––ResultResult

100,3100,3 99,599,5 98,698,6 100,4 98% 98% -- 102%102%

Maximum eligible area:maximum eligible area is the recordedquantity of land for which farmers can,from a landcover perspective, apply foraid under SAPS / SPS

Quality Element nr. 1


BEFORE/AFTER COPENHAGEN

√ √ √ √

NO PROBLEM WITH QE-1


EXAMPLE SKIPPED REFERENCE PARCEL

3.2 Preliminary results Quality Element – 2

Proportion of non conforming RP’s

Three groups related non-coforming: • the reference parcel holds an unwaivered potential critical defect

• the difference between the eligible area observed and recorded exceeds the threshold

• the LUI contains unwaivered contaminations of ineligible area

Quality Element nr. 2 Proportion of RPs with incorrectrecorded area

FL FL

(AP)(AP)SE SE

(FB)(FB)NL NL

(PB)(PB)DK DK

(PB)(PB)JRC/ECJRC/EC


DigitizedDigitized 276276 312312 287287 800800 N/AN/A

Non ConformingNon Conforming 133 140 41 255 N/AN/A


48%48% 41,3%41,3% 15,1%15,1% 31,8%31,8% <= 5%<= 5%

BEFORE COPENHAGEN


X X X X

NOT COMPLYING!



RP – size taken into consideration

For Reference parcels greater than 5000m2 97 % and 103 %

For Reference parcels between (or equal to) 2000m2 and 5000 m2.95 % and 105 %

For Reference parcels less than 2000 m2 93 % and 107 %

Modified after Copenhagen

Quality Element nr. 2 Proportion of RPs with incorrectrecorded area (taking into account theRP size)

AFTER COPENHAGEN3.2 Preliminary results

FL (AP)

SE (FB)

NL (PB)

DK(PB)

JRC/EC


CheckedChecked 210210 415415 287287 923923 N/AN/A

Non conformingNon conforming 29 123 40 255 N/AN/A


13,8%13,8% 39,4%39,4% 15,1%15,1% 31,8%31,8% <= 5%<= 5%

X X X X

STILL NOT COMPLYING!

Quality Element nr. 2Distribution of RPs, according tothe correctness of the eligiblearea recorded

FL (AP)

SE (FB)

NL (PB)

DK (PB)

% RPs% RPs % RPs% RPs % RPs% RPs % RPs% RPs

00‐‐2%2% 71,171,1 42,642,6 76,276,2 57,557,5

22‐‐4%4% 15,615,6 21,321,3 12,112,1 2121

44‐‐8%8% 5,25,2 20,020,0 8,38,3 12,112,1

88‐‐12%12% 2,82,8 5,65,6 1,91,9 4,44,4

1212‐‐20%20% 2,82,8 6,76,7 0,80,8 2,32,3

2020‐‐50%50% 1,41,4 3,63,6 00 1,81,8

>50%>50% 0,50,5 0,30,3 0,50,5 1,01,0

TotalTotal 100100 100100 100100 100100

BEFORE & AFTER COPENHAGEN


Bulk of the deviations between 0 – 8%

Purely informative!

Quality Element nr. 3Categorization of the RP withincorrect recorded area

BEFORE AND AFTER COPENHAGEN

Causes for non conformity FL (AP) SE (FB) NL (PB) DK (PB)

Changes in the land not applied

30 82 8 40

Revisions of Regultion not applied

0 8 0 1

Incomplete processsing 0 0 7 0

Erroneous processing 0 64 0 211

Incompatible LPIS design 0 0 12 0

Other 0 0 15 3

Acceptance number 14 15 13 40


NOT COMPLYING ON CERTAIN POINTS!


An example a of Critical Defect

Is not adhering to the LPIS implementation (in this case the block paradigm) truly a (potential) critical defect??

Quality Element nr. 4Occurrence of RP with potentialcritical defects

BEFORE COPENHAGEN

FL SE NL DK

Number of (Potential) Critical Defects

57 95 10 63

Acceptance level 3 3 3 10

3.2 Results (before and after changes Copenhagen)

Hier aangeven of voldaan wordt aan norm of niet….

X X X X

NOT COMPLYING!

Quality Element nr. 4Occurrence of RP withunwaivered critical defects

AFTER COPENHAGENINTRODUCTION OF SO CALLED WAIVERS


FL SE NL DK

Number of Critical Defects 1 25 10 63

Acceptance level 3 3 3 10

√ X X X

FLANDERS SEEMS TO BENEFIT THE MOST

OTHERS STILL NOT COMPLYING!

No waivers for the Physical Block System

3.2 Results Example of a waiver


BEFORE AND AFTER COPENHAGEN

Ratio of declared area in relationto the maximum eligible areainside the reference parcels

FLFL SESE NLNL DKDK

90 – 110% 142142 261261 NANA NANA

Outside 90 ‐ 110% 2424 5151 NANA NANA

Acceptance number 1212 1717 NANA NANA


X X

Doesn’t take into account the underdeclaration

Farmers behaviour Not quality LPIS

3.3 Problems encountered

Quantification on different scales(VHR imagery vs data used to create LPIS)

Orthoimagery 2010

PATH

Orthophoto 2009


To be Eligible or not to be Eligible

Orthophoto 2009Orthophoto 2008 Orthoimage 2010

6655-628-4546• LPIS recorded area 1,27 ha (blue)• ETS observed area 1,10 ha (red)

• 86,3% = non-conforming


6655-628-4546• LPIS recorded area 1,27 ha (blue)• ETS observed area 1,10 ha (red)

• 86,3% = non-conforming


• Recorded area (blue line)• Observed area (red line)


Declared Area

NOT CLAIMEDdoesn’t mean

NOT AGRICULTURE

3.4 General Remarks on Results


2009 DECLARED

2010 NOT DECLARED(leased by a ‘non farmer’)

NEGATIVE IMPACT ON QE5 EVENTHOUGH IT’S STILL AGRICULTURAL LAND!


Declared Area = 1,80Observed Area = 2,00Percentage 90% declared

PARTIALLY NOT DECLARED

NO RISK FOR THE FUND!

OBSERVED

REFERENCE

Potential critical defect

Reference parcelsestablished by a field visit

should have a waiver

example:


6238-457-6885

• LPIS recorded area 1,73 ha (blue)

• ETS not digitized as boundary notpossible to draw

• Potential critical defect,less than 100% eligible

• Reference parcel eligibility andboundary established in field visit

• Is should NOT be a critical defect


6238-457-6885

• LPIS recorded area 1,73 ha (blue)

• ETS not digitized as boundary notpossible to draw

• Potential critical defect,less than 100% eligible

• Reference parcel eligibility andboundary established in field visit

• Is should NOT be a critical defect


4.1 Quality Element 6 & 7(Flanders)

Not relevant for a system based on Agricultural ParcelsFarmers are obliged to indicate changes on a yearly bases

Same applies if farmers are supplied with a recent orthophotoat the beginning of the campaign

Area not found for random OTSC: 47,64 ha

0,61% of the declared area

OK! Conformance level 2 %

Quality Element nr. 6 LPIS cumulative land changes

Quality Element nr. 7On the spot check (OTSC) rate of irregularities

5. Suggestions/ConclusionsGeneral Remarks:

ETS should (together with the member states) be evaluatedAre all criteria necessary/meaningful?

Some QE’s will by very hard to meet with the current instructions andrequired conformance levels

Purpose of the ETS is unclearare we measuring the quality of the data presented to the farmerat the beginning of the campaign?measuring the risk for the fund?

More information about the rational of the certain ETS-instructions will have a positive impact on the performance of the ETS

Current ETS doesn’t take into account the results of cross checks andfarmers input

5. Suggestions/ConclusionsSuggestion:

Earlier this year with formed a group consisting of 6 member states/regionsIn order:

to help each otherto clarify issueswhere possible act as oneencourage different ways of looking at the same problemnot trying to reinvent the wheel twice……

This initiative is supported by a Dutch Reserach Institute (Alterra, Wageningen UR) complementing on a scientific basis

We feel that this initiative has been succesful up til now. Some examples:Joint presentationsDeveloping concepts related to GeoCAPFacilitating exchange of information (www.geocap.wur.nl)

From our point of view the current LPIS QAF • is still a draft version. • following a prototyping approach.

(‘With us MSs in the role as guinea pigs….’ )

To get out of this role we suggest in order also to help the JRC/EC and more efficiently and more effectively establish the QAF in the MS’s we consider

• An advisory board consisting of representatives from MS (comparable to SDIC’s in INSPIRE) as a necessary instrument

5. Suggestions/Conclusions

5. Suggestions/Conclusions• Quality Element 1

• Good indicator for the LPIS Quality

• Quality Element 4• Waiver for RP’s that were checked on the spot

• Quality Element 5 only those parcels are relevant where:• Observed Area < Delcared Area < Reference Area

• Quality Element 6 not relevant:• for a system based on Agricultural Parcels• if recent orthophoto’s are provided to the farmers (each year)

Questions/Discussion

p 1-2+3-marcel_meijer

Documents