LPIS Building the LPIS

LPIS • Building the LPIS • • • Administrative module GIS module Updating the LPIS • • How to keep it up-to-date? Quality Assurance (QA) 10

LPIS – How to keep it up-to-date? Quality Control Update sources Farmer 5% Quality declaration controls Assurance LPIS database 11

LPIS - How to keep it up-to-date? Quality Control Update sources Farmer 5% Quality declaration controls Assurance LPIS database 12

LPIS – How to keep it up-to-date? Quality Control Update sources Farmer 5% Quality declaration controls Assurance LPIS database 13

LPIS • Building the LPIS • • • Administrative module GIS module Updating the LPIS • • How to keep it up-to-date? Quality Assurance (QA) 14

QA - Introduction • What is Quality Assurance (QA)? • • • All measures to assure the quality of the LPIS Very broad!!! o Procedures/manuals o Training o Promotion of e-application (= better quality) o … Scope of the following slides • • Focus on 1 process introduced specifically for QA in BEFlanders Will not address the entire possible scope of QA… 15

QA – Practical goal of QA • To ask the following questions: • • • Are all the claimed parcels entirely eligible? Are the boundaries correctly drawn? Practical goal of QA: Eliminate all ineligible elements from all reference parcels… ? 16

QA – Permanent ineligible features • Main focus: collect high-precision permanent ineligible features: • • • Forests Buildings Roads Watercourses Gardens … 17

QA – Permanent ineligible features • Source 1: Existing high-precision layers • • Very efficiënt! Eg. : Flemish Large scale reference layer o 20 cm point accuracy o Buildings o Roads o … o BUT: only covers 50% of Flanders at the moment… • 100% in 2015 18

QA – Permanent ineligible features • Source 2: Layer ‘Ineligible features’ • • Created in paying agency Proactively digitize high-risk areas: o Recreation areas (golf courses, football fields, …) o Castle gardens o … 19

QA – Permanent ineligible features • If permanent ineligible features found in a parcel • • • Always digitized in the layer ‘Ineligible features’ Real-time cut-out from LPIS in GIS! Reference area automatically reduced Cut-out al future campaigns… because permanent features Cut-out also in past LPIS layers if applicable o Recalculation and recovery for 4 years! To efficiently look for parcels with (permanent) ineligible elements: • Specific QA process for checking parcels 20

QA – Permanent ineligible features 2 1 Image 1 House + garden in parcel Reference area = 1. 05 ha Image 2 House + garden drawn into ineligible layer Current and 3 previous campaigns 21 3 Image 3 House + garden cut-out Reference area = 0. 88 ha

QA – Checking parcels - Workflow Parcel selection Every selected LPIS parcel GIS visualization Enough info? No On-the-spot check (3%) Yes Parcel OK? No Digitize ineligible features Other corrections Yes Done 22

QA - Results • Result of cutting out the digitized permanent ineligible features • Area cut out = 1. 178 ha (0, 17% of total area) o o o 360 ha (parts of) buildings 87 ha watercourses or ponds 74 ha recreation zones (e. g. Football fields) 54 ha gardens … 41% 59% 23

QA - Results • Result of QA process for checking parcels • 245. 000 parcels checked in 5 years (=49%) • On average 38 % of parcels were updated when checked • But: only small reduction of reference area: 208 ha out of 65. 200 ha (0, 32 %) 24

QA – Conclusions for Flemish QA • A lot of parcels can be improved when checked • Risk-based QA is an efficient tool to clean up the LPIS • Very small reduction of reference area • • Changes were generally ‘cosmetic’ in nature or were compensated in other parcels The LPIS layer looks a lot better But objectively, the “risk to the fund” eliminated was small • The QA methodology can easily be managed / monitored down to the level of the individual operator 25

QA effort • Estimation for the last 5 years: • • • Business-side: IT-side: GIS operator: On-the-spot-checks due to the QA: Total cost : o Total QA cost/year: o Cost/parcel of the QA: • Cost/parcel if number of parcels 26 365 days 340 days 1. 600 days 250 days 705. 000 euro 141. 000 euro 3 euro checked …

Practical implementation of SPS and IACS = Integrated Administration and Control System (a) a computerised database (b) a single system to record the identity of each farmer who submits an aid application (c) a system for the identification and registration of payment entitlements (d) aid applications (e) an identification system for agricultural parcels (f) an integrated control system 27

ON THE SPOT CHECKS Organisational aspects in Flanders 28

Overview Organisation of on the Spot Checks Risk Analysis On the Spot Checks in Practice 29

Control Agents and Coordinators 2 CA Declarations Controls (5) Calculations PA 10 (1) PA 20 (1) PA 30 (1) PA 40 (1) PA 70 (1) 5 CA 3 CA 9 CA 10 CA 30

Distribution of tasks Central service controls • • • Provincial offices Policy monitoring Risk analysis Control instructions & training Management of IT applications Advice Specific controls Quality control Statistics / follow up Reporting EU 2 nd complaints • • 31 Organisation of CA Distribution of controls (time) Combination of controls Execution of controls Registration Additional research Information of farmers 1 st complaints

Control types • 5% basic controls Selection 5, 50% • 25% random + 75% risk • Parcel sample: • 60% of area and 60% of parcels • 100% when < 11 parcel • 100% for Cw. RS • Automatic selection of parcels • Possibility to add extra parcels 32

Time Line J F M A M J J A S O N SPS PI RFV RS QA QA AEM Cross Compliance suckler cow 33 D

Overview Organisation of on the Spot Checks Risk Analysis On the Spot Checks in Practice 34

Risk: requirements • Combination of controls integrated • Flexibility modular • Uniformity of approach • Traceability • Immediately adaptable • Performance 35

Risk: general scheme 36

Risk: calculation principles Parameters Scales Number of controls Blocking factors Weights Data Calculation Risk scores Data Evaluation report Selected controls 37

Risk: linear model CRITERION RBT 01 - Total amount of entitlements Criterion value € 24, 312 Scale distribution Waarde 0, 00 0, 01 – 5000, 00 5000, 01 – 10000, 00 10000, 01 – 20000, 00 20000, 01 – 50000, 00 more than 50000, 00 Scale value Score 0 1 2 3 4 5 CS 01 = 4 38

Risk: individual results 39

Overview Organisation of on the Spot Checks Risk Analysis On the Spot Checks in Practice 40

SPS controls: main aspects Parcel level: • Parcel drawing and size • Crop and cropped area • Eligibility checks Application level: • Other considerations 41

Measurement of parcels 42

Eligibility Checks • • non-agricultural land non-agricultural use more than 50 trees / ha parcels wrongfully declared underdeclaration non-eligible crop parcel too narrow • intentional non-compliance 43

Non-agricultural use of a parcel January 1 – December 31 Nature of the parcel: • Cropped land • Permanent pasture • Permanent crops • Short rotation wood production • Afforestation NO No agricultural use YES During the year Parcel is being used for: • production of agricultural products OR • growing or harvesting OR • milking, breeding and keeping agricultural animals OR • keeping the land in GAEC A NO I YES Temporary other use No agricultural land GAEC sanction The agricultural activity is not hampered by the intensity, nature and timing of a nonagricultural activity that: • takes place during a maximum of 3 months per year AND • does not endanger the GAEC after the event AND • does not obstruct the objectives of AEM situated on the parcel YES OK 44

SPS and AEM • Controls are combined whenever possible and useful • Possibility of ad hoc findings • Findings are used for all premiums wherever relevant e. g. non-agricultural land e. g. wrongful declaration of parcels e. g. parcel measurements (both ways) • All CA are capable of both types of controls • Combination possible with other controlling bodies 45

Administrative cycle RISK PUT READY IN CONTROL N + 1 day DATED N + 30 days MAINTAINED CLOSED REPORT CALCULATION 46

Monitoring of controls • Progress of controls (dated) • Progress of registration (closed) • Indicators of sanction Statistics before calculation of premiums Informative on individual level • Statistics from first calculation(s) • Repeated control on sample (2%) of selected farmers certification-criterium • Controls attended by supervisors/coordinators • Indicative statistics on sanctions and measurements per province and per CA 47

Questions & Discussion 48