S1_Meijer_NL

LPIS QAF Results NL | 6th of April 2011
LPIS QAF Results NL
Marcel Meijer

National Service for the Implementation of Regulations2
Goal of the presentation
Share experiences
Generate discussion / Feedback Commission
Illustrate issues/problems related to the LPIS QAF that affect us all
and should be addressed

Outline
1. General remarks
2. Results LPIS QAF QE nr. 1 - 7
3. Specific remarks related to QE’s
4. Actions taken after LPIS QAF
5. Becoming more pro-active
6. Conclusions/Suggestions

General Remarks
Positive
• Increased quality awareness.
• A good way to focus actions
related to improving the
overall quality of LPIS.
• A random and representative
sample.
• Benchmarking between
Member States possible.
• ‘Teaming up’ with other
Member States.
Negative
1. Very time consuming.
2. ‘Learning on the job’.
3. Focus seems to be on thresholds
and less on process.
4. Unclear how the outcome of the
LPIS QAF will be treated.

Results LPIS QAF (QE-1)
Quality element 1:
Maximum eligible area is the recorded quantity of land for which farmers can, from a land
cover perspective, apply for aid under SAPS / SPS
Result:
99,62 % conforming for 2010
Number of parcels Arec > Aobs: 475
Number of parcels Arec < Aobs: 684
Number of parcels Arec ≈ Aobs: 42
This result is within the thresholds for 2010. Based on the outcome of this QE no
direct remedial action is necessary.

Quality element 2:
Proportion of RPs with incorrectly recorded area
Result:
177 RP’s are non-conforming.
The proportion of the RP’s with incorrectly recorded area is divided in 3
separate classes:
>= 5.000 m2 AND 14,4%
>= 2.000 m2 AND < 5.000m2: 25,6%
< 2.000 m2: 7,4%
Total 14, 7%
88% RPs > 5.000 m2

Quality element 3:
Categorization of the non-conforming RP
Result:
Of the total of 177 non-conforming RP’s there are 3 main causes:
Erroneous processing: 122 (68,9%)
Changes of the underlying land were not applied: 34 (19,2%)
Incompatible LPIS design: 21 (11,9%)

Some examples of non-conforming parcels

Quality element 4:
Occurrence of RP with unwaivered critical defects
Result:
Unclear boundary : 73
Multi-parcel : 52
Not eligible : 26
Total : 151

Some examples of Critical Defects

Quality element 5:
Ratio of declared area in relation to the maximum eligible area inside the
reference parcels.
Result:
163 RP’s are claimed less then 90% or more then 110%.
The acceptance numbered for this QE 5 is 73
result is non-conforming for 2010

Quality element 6:
Percentage of reference parcels which have been subject to change,
accumulated over the years.
Not relevant for 2010 (?).
- Just performed a total refresh.
- 50% of all RP’s were checked again in 2010.
JRC:
You should
provide figures!

Quality element 7:
Rate of irregularities determined during on-the-spot checks (randomly
Checked farms).
Result: 0,43% conforming for 2010
Compared to 2009 a slight ‘improvement’ (0,80%)

Specific Remarks
1. Number of non-conforming RP’s is (also) the result of
a) Operator effects
b) Fuzziness of the border
c) Quality of the imagery
2. Quality element nr. 5 seems to partly overlap with other QE’s.
3. In a LPIS based on a physical block paradigm QE5 is always going
to be a problem.
Presentation (Sinergise):
‘Uncertainty of LPIS data
or how to interpret ETS’

Specific Remarks
4. On the spot checks focus on measuring agricultural parcels. Differences
found can not be directly attributed to a faulty RP.
5. LPIS QAF doesn’t take into account farmers remarks.
6. Why check the quality with orthoimagery of a lesser quality than the original
data used for the creation of the LPIS? For qualification OK but for
quantification NOT OK.

QE5 Declared Area
Eligible Area
Reference Parcel
Declared Area
Area declared < 90%

QE7 OTSC Measurement
Cropparcel I
Cropparcel II
Reference parcel
OTSC Measurement
More area found
than declared

Actions taken
1. ‘Remove’ parcels which haven’t been claimed for two years (inactive).
2. Upscaling Rapid Field Visits.
3. Updating/amending current digitisation rules.
4. Reducing the number of large physical blocks (where appropriate).
5. Increasing awareness in relation to the eligibility of land.

Updating / amending current digitisation rules
Christmas trees
discovered during
EC-Audit Nov. 2010
Looked like a
treenursery

Updating / ameding current digitisation rules
Area used
for horses

Becoming more pro-active
I. Airports (using a nationwide topographical layer)

Overview off all Airports in the NL

Conclusions / Suggestions
I. LPIS QAF is an important step forwards! ‘It gives us something
to talk about’. Standardising concepts!
II. Timeframe between reporting and sampling very short (not a lot
of room for improvements). It’s very likely that LPIS QAF 2011
will measure the same issues as LPIS QAF 2010.
III. In the current setup farmers remarks do not play a role. To
measure the real risk/quality the end result of the LPIS QAF
should be corrected for any remarks made by the farmer.
IV. You should also take into account the effectiveness of systems
that are already in place How many non-conforming RP’s or
RP’s with critical defects would have remained unnoticed??
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS:
- WAIVER
- LATER SAMPLING DATE

V. Quality Elements nr. 5 – 7 do not really seem to be linked to LPIS data.
• They seem to be more linked to the behaviour of the
applicant.
• Focussed towards agricultural parcels.
• ‘Punish’ an active involvement of the farmer.
VI. Possible amendments for QE5
a) An alternative of QE5 would be to focus on RP’s not declared at
all.
b) Another alternative for QE5 would be to introduce a waiver for
situations where the RP is 100% eligible but only partly claimed.

VII. To prevent operator effects an option would be correct an existing copy
instead of creating a new polygon. Or change the thresholds.
VIII. We would like to see more examples. Illustrating Critical Defects and Non-
Conforming parcels. Member States use WikiCAP.

S1_Meijer_NL

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (7)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to S1_Meijer_NL

Similar to S1_Meijer_NL (20)

S1_Meijer_NL