2017 CTS and other technical guidance updates

Transcription

1 The European Commission s science and knowledge service Joint Research Centre 2017 CTS and other technical guidance updates 2017 IACS workshop May 2017 Ghent - Belgium Philippe LOUDJANI DG JRC D5 Status of On-the-Spot checks technical guidance for 2017 Two options Not implementing Greening Review No big change Implementing Greening Review Impact on some elements, especially EFA, Thus impact on checks and EFA layer 2 1

2 Changes and additions in the CTS (DS-CD_ ) Highlight of important messages Different solutions may be considered to set a method, and many elements of the IACS may lead to weaknesses in the system. So it is recommended to administrations to document, justify and provide evidence as to their choices, decisions and actions. It is also very crucial that procedures decided and decisions and rules set are largely and openly shared between all stakeholders of the IACS (Administration, controllers, farmers, and Commission on request). Commission guidance, technical guidance and WikiCAP webpages can obviously be used for that purpose. However, it is again recommended to develop and make use in each Member States of solutions like: Highlight or introduce Myths and legends from Lisbon 3 Remember Myths and legends from Lisbon Belief Validated buffer tolerance and Single Buffer Tolerance are the same Fact Tool validation is to determine tool accuracy. Single buffer tolerance is to account for actual parcel measurement conditions Difference between validation test and proficiency test 4 2

3 Changes and additions to the CTS (DS-CD_ ) Reintroduce area measurement rules of permanent crops Vineyards, olive trees, nuts trees Vineyards Vineyards on terraces Buffer width, if no physical limit is ½ x, m Physical boundary of the parcel (from Vineyard register or LPIS) ½ x ½ x Limit of the eligible area x Inter row distance x (m) 5 Changes and additions in the CTS (DS-CD_ ) Introduce chapter on the use of geo tagged photos Minimum requirements of geo-tagged photo characteristics to be accepted as evidence Similar to Field Observation procedure in ETS Certified no falsification Date of field visit (DD-MM-YYYY) Position of field observation point (format: North X and East Y coordinates with meter accuracy in the national SRS) Minimum 800x600 pixels, rgb 24bit jpeg image Photo ID (naming: RP_ID_FO_1.jpg and RP_ID_FO_2.jpg) Record azimuth and position (format example: 275 ) Name of operator, inspector(format: Name Surname) 6 e.g. AVEPA Veneto applet 3

4 Other technical guidance Image ortho rectification guidance Introduction of elements from myths and legends Fact Belief They are similar but not identical Parameters expressing the geometric accuracy are generally interchangeable RMSE - true values are known a priori (r=n) StDev true values are estimated from observations (r=n-1) Source: DigitalGlobe CE90 radius of a circle, where true point location lies with the probability of 90 % (CE90 = 2,146.RMSE 1d ; CE95 = 2,448RMSE 1d ) 7 Greening Review legal proposal amending the Delegated Act n. 639/2014 (approval during the first quarter of 2017) Technical consequences EFA layer updates reminders warnings technical advices CAPI Changes Period for on thespot-checks If Member States implement in 2017 Need to update EFA layer, CD and EFA checks guidance 8 4

5 Definition of Landscape Features Elimination of the maximum dimension as an eligibility criteria for some EFA features (hedges, trees in group, field margin, ponds) Corresponding area calculated up the maximum width or size defined by legislation More than 10 m Measure width, exclude some parts now EFA area = x * y x Agricultural parcel y Whole feature is eligible If measured as area, width should be still measured Line measurement more practical Reduce problems of area variations and heterogeneity in features Make measurement and OTSC less disputable and more accurate Try to get rid as much as possible of quantitative limits (conversion factor instead of real width) 9 Definition of Landscape Features Merger of some landscape feature types: hedges and/or wooded strips and/or trees in line What is this feature? No need to differentiate between similar EFA feature types (OTSC easier) Update if only one EFA type was previously allowed 10 5

6 Isolated trees Isolated trees: minimum crown diameter is deleted (4m) No need to measure crown HOWEVER, still need to define what is a tree Need to define a set of interpretation keys Please note: need of clear definition for all features 11 Adjacency Adjacency concept extended to the 2nd element adjacent to the 1st element directly adjacent to the arable land The eligibility of the ditch depended on eligibility of the hedgerow now If hedgerow is EFA -> ditch is EFA Some EFA areas not previously included shall be added to the EFA layer 12 6

7 Land lying fallow Minimum duration of six consecutive months (no limit before) Use of remote sensing to control fallow land if management conditions should be checked -> RFV Anticipate field check to be in the appropriate period NB: Provide clear rules for identification? No change in specification 13 Catch crops and green cover Minimum duration of 8 consecutive weeks Elimination of deadline for sowing (before 1st October) Later period for specific on-the-spot check Organise field check in the appropriate period Appropriate image requests (autumn, winter) 14 7

8 Ban of use of pesticides Makes sense for environment However very difficult to check Not possible with imagery Very difficult on field (absence-presence of weeds ) 15 Late in delivery Complains Conclusions Philippe Loudjani However not much changes if Greening Review not implemented this year But depends also on discussions during this workshop Q&A on current CAP implementation Clarification in guidance? New elements to bring? Acting to have 2018 CTS ready by Dublin conference 16 8

9 17 9