LPISQA Legacy/2013 Workshop Baveno

From Wikicap - European Commission

The 2013 LPIS workshop was organised October 14th and 15th in Baveno, Italy. The presentations can be downloaded from the workshop webpage

The Workshop was followed by a training day, dedicated for LPIS QA inspectors.


General Observations

The LPIS workshop conclusions can be summarized

  • The presentations have been published online for further review by the participants.
  • The LPIS community appreciates these technical meetings and is active, either in public or during the "off session" time. Some regret was expressed for the limitations of scope linked to this particular LPIS-event.
  • Any proposal for changes on the LPIS QA methodology is generally met with ambiguity: there is a clear and general demand for simplification, clarity and stability, but this demand is offset by a desire to address problematic findings.
  • DGAgri reiterated the importance of the LPIS and LPIS QA for the post-reform CAP. It invited the participants to integrate the insights of the workshop in all level of negotiations.


Proposals for ETS changes

Below are the responses to the methodological proposals made the JRC during the workshop.

Please note that these proposals do not constitute the official guidance, merely discussion material for the scope of the workshop

  • On the announcement to revise the ETS guidance (including its transfer to UML), some MS expressed that they were satisfied with the current WikiCAP documentation.
  • On QE1, there was no objection that the current measure (expression of bias) should be completed with an expression of the precision. The proposal of JRC, an extra calculation of existing results to assess the area overestimates, was presented but not discussed in depth. However, DG AGRI made two observations
  1. It never was and never will be the purpose of LPIS QA to quantify financial risk. This is stated in all published documents.
  2. Whereas the JRC proposal addresses the area overestimates of LPIS reference parcels, DG AGRI would also appreciate information of the area underestimates of the reference parcels.
  • An additional skipping code for the processing particular scoping issues detected during the analysis was welcomed by several MS. No objections were expressed to this proposal.
  • Changing the measurement guidelines to loosen the "feasibility for measurement"-test and so ensuring higher numbers of measured parcels, found little support. Some MS expressed it could complicate the methodology whereas the MS who demanded such change expressed that the JRC proposal did not reflect its original suggestion. The Commission Service therefore concluded that it would not implement the proposal in 2014 without prior results and analysis of a feasibility trail. Such voluntary trial would be possible during the 2013 assessment if candidates present themselves.
  • On the linkage between OTSC and LPIS QA sampling, MS ask for a further elaboration of practical issues, such as on the timeline of the processes and for detailed description of this procedure for MS not using CwRS. This proposal therefore needs further discussion in the running up for 2014.
  • The proposal on the peer reviewing of the ETS on mutual basis (i.e. one Member state reviews the methodology and the results of another) was met with concerns of the limited resources and the tight timeline for MS to perform such task. Others raised the question of liability: who is responsible for the residual errors? In general, MS expressed that they would prefer if JRC/EC continued systematic screening and providing feedback.
  • A "long term" proposal on dedicated LPIS QA zoning was presented but not discussed in depth. In part, this proposal relies on the others (ensuring delineation of inspected parcels and appropriate linkage with the OTSC sample).

LPIS QA inspector training

The dedicated training day was found very useful but suggestions were made to:

  • focus on the majority of (mostly basic) methodological issues as identified by the JRC.Hypothetical, unlikely cases are irrelevant if the basic issues are not solved and “addressed”.
  • address cases in realistic conditions, possibly proposed by the Member States' inspectors.
  • keep the audience strictly technical to enable focused, technical discussions.

The training presentations can be downloaded from the download article


Methodological support group

As systematic methodological screening of all Member States is currently not foreseen, JRC will establish a methodological support group with help line for the MS who intend to implement article 31a during 2014. Conditions and modus operandi will be communicated.