lpis quality assessment overview of the 2016 ets ... · qe4: categorization of the non-conforming...
TRANSCRIPT
LPIS Quality Assessment
Overview of the 2016 ETS scoreboards and remedial actions
Alain Vander VeldeDG Agri.D3
May 2017
Outline
• What
• Results + Analyse
• Actions
2
QA - 6 QE
• is a quality control exercise performed by the MS and monitored by the EC services;
• allows MS to identify and analyse possible weaknesses in the system and to take corrective actions;
• Precondition to reduce OTSC control rate (Art. 36.3 IA 809/2014)
3
D3 support
-Application of the QA methodology
-Performance of the QA itself.
-Actions to tackle weaknesses
4
LPIS QA
LPIS
Who does what
5
RP lot JRC
Satellite imagery. VHR
Sample to follow
LPISMS
LPIS
Observations
QA scoreboard
JRC
remedial actions
package consistency validation
Screening
Feedback to MS
LPIS QA missions
AGRI(word docs)
QA reports
6
• Metadata• Data: Scores – AC• Comments• Remedial actions
MS
LPIS
QA
JRC
Risk Analysis
Short list
QA support mission to MS
Late / Missing ETS reports
• Latest reception- 20170410
- 20160506
- 20150323
- 20140303
• Missing:- France
7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
ETS 2016 reception
MS
LPIS
LPIS QA
8
JRC(XML)
AGRI(word docs)
Observations on ETS reports
• "Error" in QE1b with positive values instead of negatives values;
• QE thresholds, acceptance value more reliable;
• No more obvious "illogical" thresholds.
• Correction of RP_type (IXIT)
9
Results: qualitative assessment
• Scores value:"Good" value conforming
"Poor" value non-conforming
"Good" value conforming
"Poor" value non-conforming
• !! If erroneous thresholds values…."Good" value conforming
"Poor" value non-conforming
10
Analysis of the ETS scoreboards and actions
• Emails exchanges:
• 2017 -> 11 emails towards MS, 8 replies
• 2016 -> 15 emails towards MS, and 15 replies received, with corrections
• More to say:
• 2017: 5 (+3) letters towards MS
• 2016: 12 letters towards MS
Letters include comments on presented remedial actions.* Precise actions and their expected results. * Timeline with milestones missing. 11
Overview of 2016 scores
12
QE1a: correct quantification MEA
13
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
AT
BE-
FL
BE-
WA
BG CY
CZ
DE-
BB
DE-
BW
DE-
BY
DE-
HE
DE-
MV
DE-
NI
DE-
NW
DE-
RP
DE-
SH
DE-
SL
DE-
SN
DE-
ST
DE-
TH DK EE EL ES FI FR HR
HU IE IT LT LU LV MT
NL
PL
PT
RO SE SI SK
UK
-EN
UK
-NI
UK
-SC
UK
-WA
QE1a cQE1a_T cQE1a_T
LPIS QA: ETS 2016%
QE1b LIB and UIB
14
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
AT
BE-
FL
BE-
WA
BG CY
CZ
DE-
BB
DE-
BW
DE-
BY
DE-
HE
DE-
MV
DE-
NI
DE-
NW
DE-
RP
DE-
SH
DE-
SL
DE-
SN
DE-
ST
DE-
TH DK EE EL ES FI FR HR
HU IE IT LT LU LV MT
NL
PL
PT
RO SE SI SK
UK
-EN
UK
-NI
UK
-SC
UK
-WA
QE1b_LIB QE1b_UIB cLIB_T cUIB_T_
LPIS QA: ETS 2016%
QE2a: Proportion of items (>0.1ha) with incorrectly recorded area or contaminated
with ineligible feature
15
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
AT
BE-
FL
BE-
WA
BG CY
CZ
DE-
BB
DE-
BW
DE-
BY
DE-
HE
DE-
MV
DE-
NI
DE-
NW
DE-
RP
DE-
SH
DE-
SL
DE-
SN
DE-
ST
DE-
TH DK EE EL ES FI FR HR
HU IE IT LT LU LV MT
NL
PL
PT
RO SE SI SK
UK
-EN
UK
-NI
UK
-SC
UK
-WA
QE2a QE2a_AC cQE2a_AC_calc
LPIS QA: ETS 2016
QE2b: Distribution of RPs, according to the correctness of the eligible area recorded
16
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90AT BE-FLBE-WA BGCY CZDE-BB DE-BWDE-BY DE-HEDE-MV DE-NIDE-NW DE-RPDE-SH DE-SLDE-SN DE-STDE-TH DKEE ELES FIFR HRHU IEIT LTLU LVMT NL
LPIS QA: ETS 2016
QE2c: Items with classification error
17
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
AT
BE-
FL
BE-
WA
BG CY
CZ
DE-
BB
DE-
BW
DE-
BY
DE-
HE
DE-
MV
DE-
NI
DE-
NW
DE-
RP
DE-
SH
DE-
SL
DE-
SN
DE-
ST
DE-
TH DK EE EL ES FI FR HR
HU IE IT LT LU LV MT
NL
PL
PT
RO SE SI SK
UK
-EN
UK
-NI
UK
-SC
UK
-WA
QE2c QE2c_AC cQE2c_AC_calc
LPIS QA: ETS 2016
QE3: Critical Defects: parcels that have functional issues
18
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
AT
BE-
FL
BE-
WA
BG CY
CZ
DE-
BB
DE-
BW
DE-
BY
DE-
HE
DE-
MV
DE-
NI
DE-
NW
DE-
RP
DE-
SH
DE-
SL
DE-
SN
DE-
ST
DE-
TH DK EE EL ES FI FR HR
HU IE IT LT LU LV MT
NL
PL
PT
RO SE SI SK
UK
-EN
UK
-NI
UK
-SC
UK
-WA
QE3 QE3_AC cQE3_AC_calc
LPIS QA: ETS 2016
QE4: Categorization of the non-conforming RP.
19
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
AT
BE-
FL
BE-
WA
BG CY
CZ
DE-
BB
DE-
BW
DE-
BY
DE-
HE
DE-
MV
DE-
NI
DE-
NW
DE-
RP
DE-
SH
DE-
SL
DE-
SN
DE-
ST
DE-
TH DK EE EL ES FI FR HR
HU IE IT LT LU LV MT
NL
PL
PT
RO SE SI SK
UK
-EN
UK
-NI
UK
-SC
UK
-WA
QE4_updates QE4_upgrades QE4_omissions QE4_errors QE4_design QE4_AC cQE4_AC_calc
LPIS QA: ETS 2016LPIS QA: ETS 2016LPIS QA: ETS 2016LPIS QA: ETS 2016463 539
QE5: Ratio of total declared area in relation to the total area recorded for the
conforming RPs
20
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
AT
BE-
FL
BE-
WA
BG CY
CZ
DE-
BB
DE-
BW
DE-
BY
DE-
HE
DE-
MV
DE-
NI
DE-
NW
DE-
RP
DE-
SH
DE-
SL
DE-
SN
DE-
ST
DE-
TH DK EE EL ES FI FR HR
HU IE IT LT LU LV MT
NL
PL
PT
RO SE SI SK
UK
-EN
UK
-NI
UK
-SC
UK
-WA
QE5_V1 cQE5_T
LPIS QA: ETS 2016
Remedial actions presented
21
4
0
5
10
15
20
25
Total
Sum of cRAP needed
Sum of cRAP presented_
Sum of cRAP needed and not presented
Sum of cRAP not needed and presented
LPIS QA: ETS 2016
Conclusion• QE1a MEA 1-2 LPIS
• QE1b 5
• QE2a: #RPs with incorrectly recorded area or “contaminated”
14 LPIS (30%)
• QE2c Classification error
12 LPIS (27%)
22
Conclusion
• QE3 Critical Defects 9 LPIS (20%)
• QE4 Causes
• Update 4
• Upgrade 0
• Omission 3
• Error 10
• Design 3
• QE6 Remark advanced groupBE_FL, NL, SE, UK_SC, UK_NI, DK
23
All LPIS, same application of
methodology ?
Conclusion
• Remedial actions / comments: provided
• Some well detailed and structured
• Other not sufficient information to understand fullythe situation, actions, timeline.
• But improvement is there.
24
LPIS
• #RP area/cont.
• #RP Land classification
LPIS QA
• Methodo
• Remedial Actions
• Use the QA resultsproject management
QA reports
25
Risk Analysis
QA support mission to MS
• scores
• Comments
• Remedial actions
-Application of the QA methodology
-Performance of the QA itself.
-Actions to tackle weaknesses
2017: more D3/JRC support visits to MS
Trend analysis by RP_type (ECA).
Thank you!
See you soon26