LPIS QC the Hungarian example

Átírás

1 LPIS QC the Hungarian example Experiences of executing the ETS on physical block system Focusing on questions of quality elements Institute of Geodesy, Cartography and Remote Sensing Hungary FÖMI B. Csonka L. Tóth A. Kocsis

2 Content of the presentation ETS results by QEs - physical block 2010 Questions and non-clear details related to: - potential and real critical defects (PCD, CD), waivers - eligibility profile - contamination - rate of declared area - QE5 - cumulative land changes QE6 Allocated man-days Conclusions

3 Philosophy of implementing the manuals Using strictly what is in the manual asking JRC in case of missing or confusing information Strictured data capture of cases in CAPI it can be loosed at the evaluation step Capturing the max. information in the ETS- CAPI phase, deciding later what not to use Setting up PB specialised details: PCDs + waivers

4 Quality elements LPIS maximum eligible area ([98%,102%]) 99.67% 2 - Number of non-conforming RPs in LPIS (max. 40) bloks with + 16 blocks with unwaivered contamination area over tol. not having the other criteria Distribution of the RPs in LPIS, according to the correctness of the eligible area recorded (no limit) 3 - Abundance of the causes for occurrence of non-conforming RPs 0-2%: 82.47% 2-4%: 15.38% 4-8%: 0.63% 8-12%: 0.5% 12-20%: 0.63% 20-50%: 0.13% 50%-: 0.25% Each 40

5 Causes of non-conformance Changes of the underlying land were not applied 20 Revisions of the regulations were not applied 0 Incomplete processing- supposed to be there, but were not found -1 Erroneous processing - wrong data were found, wrong initial digitization - 13 Incompatible LPIS design 1

6 Quality elements 4-7 LPIS potential critical defects (no limit) LPIS unwaivered critical defects (max. 8) LPIS declared area (min. 95%) 51.55% 6 - LPIS cumulative land changes (25% starting in 2010) 2.67% 7 - OTSC rate of irregularities area not found (max. 2%) 1.91%

7 Reason for skipping a PB Reason Code Number of RPs Parcel partially or wholly outside image area T2 9 Parcel outside control zone (i.e. VHR zone) T3 1 Parcel partially or wholly covered by clouds T4 3 LUI interpretation impossible with the given orthoimage Failure to inspect the reference parcel due to force major circumstances, observed on the LUI (floods, waterlog, fires,..) Obvious error not covered by another code (ie.: army mask) C4 1 F1 12 E1 1

8 Potencial and real critical defects??? Inability to identify the PB boundary, it doesn't enclose and identify a distinct unit of land, = not visible boundary of the PB - over cultivation of the PB boundary Discontinuity - presence of a non-digitized internal non-agriculture land cover features, which cuts the eligible area = ERRONEOUS PROCESSING Total absence of eligible features (or land) Multi-parcel new non-eligible feature separates the eligible area of the PB = CHANGE OF THE LAND Multi-polygon - one unit of land (identifier) contains two separately identifiable units 25/7 UW 6/3 UW 1/1 UW 0/0 UW Not relevant for PB

9 How to separate PCD cases? Multi-polygon - A multi-polygon is a situation where one unit of land (identifier) actually contains two separately identifiable units (i.e. should according to the internal rules or even holds the actual polygons). It is common for cadastral systems. The issue with multi-polygon is that it does not allow unambiguous location of the agricultural activity, even if managed by the same farmer. = One parcel is in 2 blocks? = NON VISIBLE BOUNDARY as well OR Inability to identify the boundary of the Reference Parcel - the reference parcel doesn't enclose and identify a distinct unit of land. The land cover features assigned to be the boundaries of the reference parcel, are either no existing (or insignificant) or have been changed.

10 How to separate PCD cases? Multi-parcel - the inspected reference parcels is in fact a multitude of two or more clearly distinct units of agriculture land, which can be stored as separate reference parcels in the LPIS. = new non-eligible feature separates the eligible area of the PB = CHANGE OF THE LAND OR Discontinuity - presence of internal non-agriculture land cover features, which could adversely affect the integrity and homogeneity of the land represented by the Reference Parcel. An example of that can be a non-agriculture linear feature (road or paths), which can almost of entirely cut the Reference Parcel = ORIGINALY NOT DIGITISED???

11 Neither multi parcel nor a discontinuity? The roads (< 5 m or 1,5 x row distance) inside the permanent crops are part of the cultivation, no need to digitise as noneligible based on the initial PB definition the rule was kept in ETS CAPI as well. These roads are only used as PB boundaries if there are too many farmers or too many parcels in a PB.

12 Where is it stated, that the reference parcel (block or other) is considered to be a single unit of land use? + unclear explanation of the multiparcel and discontinuity Solution: unified coding of each case-group, the explanation can be decided after discussion Long time schemes when the PB ID and boundary must be stable: AE, NATURA 2000, LFA A SAPS non-eligible, but AE eligible feature cuts the eligible area: wetlands, weeds The PB eligible area is cut by a special non-eligible polygon usually not visible as land cover - used as waivers based on declaration or additional layers: GAC 2003 aforestation of agricultural land not eligible for SAPS GAC 2003

13 Waivers the most sophisticated and important part of the evaluation!!! W1 Observed eligible area is not in GAC on 30 of June 2003 Multi-parcel W2 W8 W9 W12 W11 Pilar II specialities: NATURA, aforestation of agricultural land not eligible for SAPS, VINGIS The update is done as part of the CwRS or OTSC and the correct data was in the control in 2010 PB change was requested by the farmer, and it is done before the payment calculation Boundary of the army-mask Currently non-visible PB boundary, but stable parcel boundaries back for many years - based on time series of satellite images Multi-parcel Not-visible PB boundary, contamination, multi-parcel, discontinuity Not-visible PB boundary, contamination, multiparcel, discontinuity Not-visible PB boundary Not-visible PB boundary W13 Non-eligible areas less then the limit (0,1, linear=2m ) Contamination, Discontinuity W14 W16 Non-visible boundary, different farmers declared on both side of the not visible boundary The boundary of non-eligible and eligible area is not stable enough in time and in position to be used as a PB boundary. Not-visible PB boundary Discontinuity, Contamination

14 Defining waivers for physical block All problem can be waivered in case it is corrected before the annual payment calculation and not if the result is only used in the next year campaign? What if there is a 100% block update on the CwRS sites using the VHR for digitisation?

15 Inability to identify the PB boundary Non-visible boundary, different farmers declared on both side of the not visible boundary, no risk of area declaration PCD + W11 PB U1A2U-A-05 Ortho VHR 2010 Stable parcel boundaries, different farmers

16 Inability to identify the PB boundary Can these few meters be a reason of a PCD? It is declared correctly, there are 2 parcels in 2 block, but the cultivation is done together. Merging to one block is also not the best solution, because of too many parcels and a non-compact shape. PB boundary is accepted CIR Ortho image 2010 VHR meters of continuous cultivation

17 Discontinuity - PCD + W16 presence of a nondigitized internal nonagriculture land cover features, which cuts the eligible area The boundary of noneligible and eligible area is not stable enough in time and in position to be used as a PB boundary.

18 Un-permanent infrastructure - pipeline OR digitising + PCD + waiver? not to digitise as it is in the LPIS manual Precision of digitisation = problem found!

19 Eligibility profile A arable land - OK G grassland declaration? N natural grassland - OK H greenhouse - OK T permanent tree crop S permanent scrub crop VINGIS can be used? C permanent herbaceous crop (hop) declaration? P short rotation coppice (energetic plantation) declaration? R (irrigated) rice declaration? A-mixed K kitchen gardens (SAPS only) Non-eligible land cover catagories RT tree rows bigger then 0,3 ha over 2m (LF) TN natural habitats with bushes >0,1 ha F forest FP pillar-ii aforestation parcels, not eligible for SAPS AS infrastrukture >0,1 ha VH wetlands, reeds AEM eligible VB permanent water body NV rock, natural soil DV damp, state-maintained, not eligible for SAPS What kind of additional data can be used to define land cover categories? -declaration? -LPIS thematic layers? - CIR ortho image from 2010?

20 Limit of digitisation As we have seen in the examples that elements under the area limit of delineation were digitised, we used separate codes for these units What is the definition of landcape feature (LF): -LF used in GAEC? - all LF defined by? ecological network definitions? - those listed in the documents? Separately digitised, but eligible landscape features FM grass margin TE terraces in permanent crops HE hedges <2m CAPI separataion was done in case of relative stable elements, unpermanent units were not digitised: ex: waterlog or flod PO small draining ponds part of the cultivation <0,1 ha DI small draining channels <2m ST single tree can be grazed under <0,1 ha PT small arboreal spots in PP <0,1 ha

21 RFV: short rotation coppice - energetic plantation How to recognise? Can the declaration be used? The same land cover can be SAPS eligible and non-eligible, depending on the payment sheme (pilar II = no SAPS) DF65E-1-09 VHR SAPS energetic crop Non eligible in the LPIS = pilar II declaration

22 Calculation of contamination How to summarise the area of eligible and non-eligible intersections? CONT. CALC. USED = if the SUM area of all intersect related to DJ05E-K (minimum) one non-eligible polygon is over 0,1 ha 1 = m2 OK 2 = = = m2 - OK OR POSSIBLE CONT. CALC. = SUM area of only those intersect polygons witch are over 0,1 ha? Rersult: NO COMTAMINATION

23 QE5: Non-conformance rate of declaraed area on the observed eligible area Rate of declared area -underdeclaration: 47.6% - does not force any risk of the payment. -overdeclaration: only 0.8% Why is it a question of LPIS quality? It is more an indicator of the IACS management! Counted from the declared IACS data compared to the potential SAPS eligible area IS THIS CORRECT? Could be used the IACS data before payment.

24 Quality Element 5 the eligible area observed differs more than 10% from the area declared in absolute terms - Max 5% The PB was created on the image, delineating the potential max. SAPS area, independently from the farmers, not compulsory to declare all agri-area. In HU the PBs are closed for admin control as the eligible area is maximised by the declared from the prev. year, but it has no geometry. This measure indicates more the IACS than the LPIS, and ensures admin control of area overdeclaration. Is QE5 relevant for the physical block? OR Why is it understood as non-compliance?

25 Quality Element 6 LPIS cumulative land changes: 2010 = 2,67% one singe PB change value for the entire country: farmers request OR the OTSC problems - how many years to cumulate? as the oldest PB exists? A few PB can add or discared the data one year? - OR should we count separate values for each update-zone and to use the MAX value, or the AREA WEIGHTED?

26 LPIS QC 2010-allocated man-days Tasks of the LPIS QC work Already allocated man-days Preparing the ATS result 35 2 ETS-CAPI workflow definition, software specification and development Further expect ed 82,25 1,5 Training of the ETS-CAPI 24,63 7 ETS-CAPI: digitization and photo-interpretation + 100% internal QC + 2 nd IQC step on the nonpassed PBs all detailed explanations. 93,25 43 RFV of problematic PBs 20 0 Preparing the ETS results Presenting and documenting related organisational issues SUM: 314,13 131,5

27 Details to understand the manday calculation Hungary has participated in the LPIS QC pilot, so it is not the 1st time to understand the task and the method in detail, the ETS was mainly done in the pilot these days are not counted here! ETS CAPI users are permanent staff of a state institute and working on the LPIS and CwRS continuously for many years, being familiar with all details and the interpretation on multi-spectral images. The SW was made as an additional LPIS QC toolset/module added to the LPIS update SW environment, so not all the functions were developed from zero. The sample size is : 800 PB.

28 Conclusions 1. Good sampling the weaknesses known are confirmed 2. PCD and the waiver list needs more detailed explanation and information for the evaluation 3. Calculation of the contamination also needs more detailed explanation 4. The result we delivered is PRELIMINARY, because we need further discussion to define PB specific implementation and to finalise the evaluation WORKSHOPS + TECHNICAL MEETINGS