Fine-tuning of the LPIS philosophy and methodology

Méret: px

Mutatás kezdődik a ... oldaltól:

Download "Fine-tuning of the LPIS philosophy and methodology"

Bernadett Csonka
5 évvel ezelőtt
Látták:

1 Fine-tuning of the LPIS philosophy and methodology C H A L L E N G E S, P O S S I B I L I T I E S A N D R E Q U I R E M E N T S D E T E M I E D B Y T H E N E W T E C H N O L O G I E S A N D B Y T H E C H A N G E S O F T H E C A P B E R N A D E T T C S O N K A C S O N K A. B E R N A D E T A L L A M K I N C S T A R. G O V. H U D E P A R T M E N T O F D I R E C T P A Y M E N T S H U N G A R I A N P A Y I N G A G E N C Y

2 Reference parcel s type main functionalities RP = Agriparc RP = cadastre parcel RP = farmer block RP = physical block RP delineation AP boundary and eligibility cadastre + eligibility on VHR Boundary of eligible area used by a single farmer Boundary of elig. area of a continuous management unit RP - LCC 1 to 1 1 to 1 or many? 1 to 1 or many 1 to many RP - Farmer 1 to 1 1 to 1? 1 to 1 1 to many Systematic update land cover: VHR IMG LR boundaries or user changes + land cover: VHR IMG land cover: VHR IMG LU control? land cover: VHR IMG Management of updates during an annual campaign GSAA support: boundary localisation GSAA support: spatial overlap all changes (user, boundaries) must be maintained RP = BPS/SAPS AP RP = many crops? AP/crop (?) boundaries + eligibility + LCC + all thematic layers changes of the land registry (cad.) and of land/eligibility if larger area is declared single RP to many AP or single AP to many RP? disposal + eligibility + LCC + all thematic layers Admin control AP + disposal + LCC max. eligible area of overlapping cadastre parcels? + disposal + LCC all user changes + land/eligibility changes if larger area is declared RP fully includes only declared APs disposal + eligibility + LCC + all thematic layers 100% max. elig area + disposal + LCC land/eligibility changes if larger area is declared RP fully includes all APs both declared and nondeclared ones eligibility + LCC + all thematic layers max. eligible area + LCC

3 Multi-functional LPIS: several scheme-related thematic layers: AEM, GAEC-LF, EFA Slope categories RP-homogen categories, and eligibility criterias for HNV, AEM zonal activities Source: Additional LPIS layers: - AP level, - RP level, - LPIS independent units on different scale: is RP categorisation recommended? - individual geometry: dividing RP, AP GAEC LFs Risk of waterlog erosion: AEM afforestation SRC PG categories GAEC LF + EFA EFA only

GSAA: parcels cannot overlap with each other + with non-eligible area tolerances/limits?

4 Development of data content increases the possibility of spatial and administrative controls 1. area control for sum eligible area 2. GSAA: parcels cannot overlap with each other + with non-eligible area tolerances/limits? Is AL/PG/PC control necessary? as numeric sum on RP level, or with it s full spatial element? AL/PG boundaries have higher annual change rate!

area, less input to introduce a new scheme with different eligibility Changing of RP delineation rules or developing additional processes to monitor the non-declared area?

5 Stable visible boundary or smaller blocks to increase the efficiency of administrative controls? Main LPIS data input approaches: only declared parcels are stored additional eligible area by request Wall-to-wall full LPIS-GIS coverage, containing not only declared eligible area, less input to introduce a new scheme with different eligibility Changing of RP delineation rules or developing additional processes to monitor the non-declared area? Using less stable RP of physical block boundaries leads to more updates, and worst understanding of RP! Boundary visibility has less priority in farmers block and AP based systems, while stability is their key factor! Different annual rates of LU and AL-PG changes!

Temporal aspects: multi-annual or seasonal (inter annual) characteristics of PG use: water-effect, mid

6 Multi annual or actual use defines elligbility? Eligible: land can be utilised by the usual agricultural practices or land actively used/maintained? Temporal aspects: multi-annual or seasonal (inter annual) characteristics of PG use: water-effect, mid season dry period, not closed herbaceous vegetation When to apply spatial exclusion reduction, or ELP? Can AP and RP eligibility definition be different in the future?

vegetation with fuzzy boundaries Sharp edge = AL or a well reflecting element is

7 Minimum mapping unit capability of the image and efficiency of LPIS to avoid the risk of payment 100 m2 MMU is not reliable on 40 cm GSD image for natural vegetation with fuzzy boundaries Sharp edge = AL or a well reflecting element is needed to detect and to delineate features Can a system be accepted if no pro-rata is used?

MMU and EFA size limits 170 m2 natural vegetation, not used for agricultural activity inside AL can be delineated with proper accuracy, as the boundary of the

8 MMU and EFA size limits 170 m2 natural vegetation, not used for agricultural activity inside AL can be delineated with proper accuracy, as the boundary of the ploughing presents a sharp edge of the parcel and the natural habitat. Source: JRC studies Should EFA be functioning as a reference area with such a small size and instability?

9 Exclusion of man-made costruction is not size dependent (DSCG/2014/33) Is this correct? Should e-poles be excluded?.they are artificial, stable and mappable but still seems too far out! Changing the definition or all these RP fails in LPISQA ETS.

Hasonló dokumentumok

Data interoperability Working Group - for inspiration -

Data interoperability Working Group - for inspiration - Data interoperability Shared BPS/EFA geometries, ancillary data, environmental data LPIS_2015_WS_Baveno Bernadett Csonka ARDA HU csonka.bernadett@mvh.gov.hu