LPISQA Legacy/ETS/Field activities

From Wikicap - European Commission

Can the ETS inspection be performed by field inspection?

Yes, as for the area measurements. Area measurements by OTSC and should yield comparable results. Hoever the subject, sampling, and methodologies are different:

  • OTSC inspectors “determine” areas of agricultural parcels by an area measurement methodology
  • LPIS QA inspectors verify LPIS reference parcel attribute values by large scale land cover mapping


NOTE 1: It is assumed that field survey are several times more costly than the CAPI inspection.


NOTE 2: Adopting the field inspection methodology has an effect on the sampling procedure. In particular, "skipping" a parcel on technical grounds (cloud cover, partially outside image zone...) is no longer relevant.


Common LPIS QA - OTSC samples and their use

Both LPIS QA and OTSC inspections resort to sampling procedures where the key challenge is to achieve a representative sample of reference parcels common to both inspection procedures. Obtaining sufficient common reference parcels mainly depends on the OTSC strategy:

  1. Member States applying the CwRS program probably need no action as, on European average, about one third of the agricultural area of the CwRS-site is subject to CwRS inspection. Statistically the random OTSC zones should provide a sufficiently large common CwRS-LPIS QA sample.
  2. Member States relying on Field Inspections only need to specifically select a number of claims of their OTSC as to cover a sufficiently large common sample. As the LPIS QA sample is by definition random, the OTSC checks on this would also be part the random OTSC sample.

QE7 is also used to demonstrate that LPIS is not a key contributor to irregular claims.


Conformity of parcels whose boundaries are (partly) not visible (QE 4)

In context of QE4 (Critical defects) one can ask why a parcel whose boundaries (perimeter or border) are (partly) invisible is non-conforming when its area encloses eligible land?

In general, the “non-conforming” status is attributed to an inspected parcel if either it has a critical defect or if the eligible area found exceeds the conformity level. These conditions act independently. Parcels with unclear boundaries do have a serious defect: the boundary of the LUI cannot be identified and hence the area cannot be measured via the common inspection method. For this reason they are non-conforming.

On the other hand, in specific cases such parcels may be conforming:

  1. Unchallenged visual inspection: the local field conditions justify the statement that LUI “encloses eligible land”. “Please note that in absence of any measure of absolute positional accuracy in the ETS, the presence of any ineligible feature within 5 meter of the perimeter of the LUI constitutes a challenge to this statement.
  2. For AP, FB and CP RP-types specific waivers may applied that clarify the external and local conditions to be verified in order to vindicate this potential critical defect.


NOTE: "Near multi-parcels" i.e. reference parcels that contain less than 10 singular parcels are not labelled as critical defect. However without such amalgamation parcels are performing better (i.e. simpler location and administration) and present much less risk for the system.


Can additional information from rapid field visits (RFV) be used in support to the visual interpretation?

RFV can support visual interpretation. However, the main purpose of a RFV is not targeted at collecting supplementary information in respect to a proper delineation of an unclear LUI border. RFVs are primarily intended to clarify unclear cases of land cover/land use interpretation. In order to integrate border delineation with field instruments (GPS etc) with CAPI results a new procedure has been published.


Too much work involved in field measurements

Field Observations and Boundary inspections are fairly straightforward and discretionary. Field inspections are indeed labour intensive but compulsory only where it is absolutely necessary.