Co-operation of Public and Private Sector by Development of Practical
Requirements for EU Accession Countries for Land Information Systems
by Carsten Krugh
Key words:
Abstract
Co-operation of Public and Private
Sector by Development of Practical Requirements for EU Accession
Countries for Land Information Systems in Respect to Agriculture
by Carsten Kragh
Key words: EU requirements, spatial reporting, declaration
systems
Abstract
In 1992 a reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was
introduced. The reform required a complete restructure of the aid
system and, subsequently, a new spatial agricultural reporting system
had to be invented and implemented in all the Member States. The
reform is by far the most radical requirement imposed by the European
Commission in terms of geographical reporting, and the different
Member States have made substantial investments in their different
Integrated Administrative Control Systems (IACS).
With the current legislation, new Member States joining the EU will
have to create similar systems. Creating an IACS has been a
substantial project for all the Member States and it is therefore
essential for coming Member States to prepare the entry in the EU in
order to use the co-financing opportunities in an optimal way and to
be ready with the system within the timeframe given.
Carsten Kragh
Rasmussen og Kragh
Vestensborg Alle 34
DK-4800 Nykøbing F.
DENMARK
Tel. + 45 54 85 01 77
Fax.: + 45 54 82 29 77
E-mail: [email protected]
Practical Requirements for EU Accession
Countries for Land Information Systems in Respect to Agriculture
1. INTRODUCTION
In 1992 a reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was
introduced. The reform required a complete restructure of the aid
system and, subsequently, a new spatial agricultural reporting system
had to be invented and implemented in all the Member States. The
reform is by far the most radical requirement imposed by the European
Commission in terms of geographical reporting, and the different
Member States have made substantial investments in their different
Integrated Administrative Control Systems (IACS).
With the current legislation, new Member States joining the EU will
have to create similar systems. Creating an IACS has been a
substantial project for all the Member States and it is therefore
essential for coming Member States to prepare the entry in the EU in
order to use the co-financing opportunities in an optimal way and to
be ready with the system within the timeframe given.
2. Policy
The reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP)
adopted in June 1992 represents a watershed in agricultural support
measures, involving a shift from price support to compensatory aid
paid directly to producers.
This aid is related to the land cultivated and the
number of livestock reared by the farmer. It entails measures to
control production, such as set-aside and support for extensification
of stockfarming.
The methods for administering and monitoring the
aid must be adapted accordingly, in line with two main concerns:
-
facilitating the task of farmers who wish to
take advantage of the aid offered,
-
administering the huge number of applications
with the greatest speed and security.
Experience gained in the past in the administration
and monitoring of this type of aid showed that, unless a totally new
approach was adopted, the difficulties of application would have been
considerable for both farmers and the departments in charge of
administration and controls. It was also unthinkable to administer and
verify each scheme separately. Accordingly, it was decided that a
single processing system would cover all aid applied for by each
agricultural holding.
In view of the large number of applicants, special
means were adopted to optimise controls. In order to deal with this
large number of applications and make payments to the farmers in time,
exhaustive on-site checks could not be contemplated and provision was
accordingly made for a maximum number of checks to be carried out at
the administrative verification stage.
Sight needed not to be lost of the practical
consequences for the farmers themselves of the adoption of new aid
schemes. To that end, the administrative procedures were simplified as
far as possible while a uniform framework was introduced for the
application of several types of aid.
On that basis, the Integrated Administration and
Control System for compensatory aid provided for under the reform of
the CAP ("Integrated System") was adopted, utilising in
particular modern techniques like data-processing and remote sensing,
and perhaps one day soon the electronic identification of animals. The
Integrated System provides for a single area aid application, to be
submitted by the farmer each year. This is the key component for the
administration and monitoring of area-related aid schemes. The
Integrated System also entails the setting-up of computerised data
bases enabling cross-checks to be conducted on holdings, as well as
parcels and livestock. To conduct this type of check, provision was
made for a system for identifying and registering agricultural parcels
and livestock.
Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92, which introduces the
Integrated System, provides for Community part-financing of
expenditure incurred on its establishment. The Integrated System
became applicable from 1 February 1993 as regards aid applications and
integrated controls thereof, and as regards the system for identifying
and registering cattle. The Member States had originally until 1
January 1996 to introduce the other components of the system. For the
new Member States which acceded to the Community in 1995, the
transitional period expired on 1 January 1997. Due to the fact that
nearly all Member States were not ready by the 1 January 1996 a
one-year extension was given in regulation 2466/92.
Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92
introduces Community part-financing of expenditure covering the
implementation of the Integrated Administration and Control System as
regards temporary staff resources and data-processing and technical
equipment. Initially set at three years from 1992, the duration of the
part-financing arrangements was extended to the end of 1995 in view of
the work still to be completed and the transitional period laid down
for the introduction of the system.
3. Regulation 3508/92
The legal base for the agricultural reform is
described in regulation 1765/92. Shortly after, the regulation 3508/92
was adopted and the physical description of the Integrated System was
drawn up.
According to article 2 in regulation 3508/92, the
integrated system shall comprise the following elements:
1) a computerised data base;
2) an alphanumeric identification system for
agricultural parcels;
3) an alphanumeric system for the identification
and registration of animals;
4) aid applications;
5) an integrated control system.
Article 4 in the same regulation states that the
alphanumeric system for identification of the fields is to be created
on the basis of the cadastral maps and documents or other map
references, on the basis of aerial photographs or satellite images or
on similar documentation or on the basis of several of these elements.
4. Data source / map base
Apart from the wide description of the regulations,
no further requirements have been put forward to the Member States.
It is, however, the opinion of the Commission that
the accuracy must be equivalent to a 1:10,000 scale analogue map. In a
set of recommendations for aerial photography acquisition and
orthorectification for the creation of a parcel identification system,
the Commission states that:
"The expected output from this task is the
production of digital orthophotos and optional hard-copy products
with a geometric quality equivalent to 1:10,000 scale analogue
mapping. This specification can be encapsulated as:
From the observation of an independent set of
well-defined points in the image, the resulting residuals between
the measured points and their absolute positions will lead to a
2D-RMSE of no greater than 2,5 m from their absolute position."
The systems that have been created all refer to
either cadastral or topographic mapping. Within those two map sets
different ways of identifying each parcel or group of parcels
(hereafter block) have been created. In general, this can be
summarised in three groups, each with benefits and disadvantages. The
systems are:
- Cadastral based system
- Parcel based system
- Block based system
5. Cadastral based system
Countries like Italy have well established
cadastres, which for historical reasons have been focused at land
parcel tenure particularly relating to agricultural usage. Whilst
there is good correspondence between the agricultural parcel and the
cadastral parcel, it is not universal - it is thought that about 80%
of agricultural parcels can be defined in terms of a cadastral parcel,
but in other cases, the cadastral parcel must operate as an
identification parcel.
The important feature of the cadastral based system
is that the land parcels have an official status in terms of their
identity, location, area and other features relating to land tenure.
The official management of the cadastre should in practice provide the
unique identification system (a register of parcel IDs) required at
the level of identification parcels.
There is however a number of features of a
cadastral based system, which need to be considered:
- the cadastre and hence the parcel register are generally outside
the control of the agricultural administration and because it is
managed for a different purpose, the timing of the update and
revision of cadastral parcel IDs is an issue.
- there is a requirement to uniquely identify agricultural parcels
using a combination of the cadastral parcel ID, the use, the
utilised area, the applicant and the year of the claim.
6. Parcel based systems
In parcel based systems there is a requirement for
the farmer to delineate the boundary of every agricultural parcel on a
cartographic document. These are generally possible in those Member
States that have large-scale topographic mapping or aerial
photography, from which the boundaries of agricultural parcels can be
identified.
In the UK for example, the topographic maps
delineate to a large extent many of the agricultural parcels, and also
have a unique ID in the form of an "official" grid reference
for the centroid of the parcel. The topographic parcel does not
universally correspond to the agricultural parcel, in which case the
sub-parcel is used and identified by the applicant by adding a suffix
to the parcel ID and delineated by the applicant. If a permanent
change is implemented then a new reference for the centroid is
generated and used for the parcel ID.
The requirements for such a system place a heavy burden on the
maintenance of the annual changes to the agricultural parcel
boundaries; however, a parcel based system would be the only system
capable of managing the agricultural parcel to achieve the full degree
of control specified by the regulation.
7. Block based systems
Other countries have adopted identification systems
based upon topographic mapping wholly using the concept of the
identification parcel (block). In these systems no attempt is made to
record the delineation of the individual agricultural parcel.
Block based systems make recognition of the fact
that it may not be possible to delineate the agricultural parcels
themselves on the cartographic reference documents because, as is the
case in Portugal, parcel size is too small in many cases.
They also take account of the fact that
agricultural practice produces as much as a 20% annual change in the
boundary delineation of agricultural parcels and that it may be both
impracticable and unnecessary to record this type of change.
Such systems are based upon the concept that there
are many permanent boundary features (or at least semi-permanent) that
can be found on topographic maps or orthophotos. These are used to
define areas having as far as possible homogeneous characteristics -
principally eligible or ineligible. The ideal situation being that all
land within a block must be declared annually in order to achieve an
acceptable level of control.
It works on the principle that:
- if the sum of the areas declared within a block equal the
official area of the block, then no false area claims can exist
- if the sum exceeds the block area then a false declaration has
been made, and so all applicants participating in the block are
forced to resolve the anomaly
- if the sum is less than the block area, then the accuracy of the
declarations may be true but is inconclusive from a control point
of view.
The issues to be considered are:
- the definition and maintenance of the blocks
- the fact that the block IDs are under the control of the
agricultural administration
- the requirement for an agricultural parcel to be uniquely
identified by Block ID, the use, the utilised area, the applicant
and the year of the claim
- the simplicity of management, block boundaries need only be
revised if consistently under-claimed
- the limited degree of control at the agricultural parcel level
8. Main geographic
development in the Member States
Member States do not apply the same system of
identification. The systems for identifying agricultural land applied
by the Member States may be distinguished by reference to two main
criteria:
-
Some systems are based on references (maps and
numbering) existing beforehand, like the land register in Spain,
Italy, France, Germany, Luxembourg and Austria, and the Ordnance
Survey maps which cover most of the United Kingdom.
-
Other systems have been created from scratch to
meet requirements laid down by regulation. This is the case in
Ireland, Greece, Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark,
Scotland, Finland and Sweden.
-
Some systems identify agricultural parcels, as
in Germany (11 Länder), Belgium, Italy, Spain, France (simplified
system), Ireland (arable land), Luxembourg and the United Kingdom.
Others identify blocks (or îlots) comprising land
declared, as in Germany (5 Länder), Austria, Denmark, France
(general system), Finland, Sweden, Portugal, Greece, Ireland
(fodder areas), Scotland (fodder areas) and the Netherlands. In
the latter case, two major variants exist alongside each other,
whereby the block is created by the farmer (AT, DE, FR, IE and FI)
or defined by the authorities on the basis of maps or aerial
photographs (DK, EL, NL, PT and SE).
As a result there are various situations differing
in terms of:
-
Cost and time required for the implementation:
where it is feasible, the land-registry approach (whether or not
involving blocks) is the quickest system to introduce and
consequently least costly;
-
Ease of use for declarants: the approach by
blocks makes declaration easier in so far as the references are
fewer in number and more stable over time;
-
The need to validate the units created by the
farmer by comparison with official sources, on-the-spot
inspections and recent aerial photographs;
-
Effectiveness of computerised cross-checks
based on the size of the reference units, their stability, the
updating intervals, the proportion of ineligible land, and the
number of farmers using the same identifier.
In general, the main trends have been to create
sophisticated systems (sometimes GIS solutions) by which it is
possible to:
- handle large amounts of data in a relatively simplified way.
- encode and match data against existing registers
- make 100% cross controls and create risk analysis based on e.g.
amount of hectare, declared crop types, amount of aid.
- update and validate administrative and map information
It is, however, the individual Member States that
define their strategy and consequently whether or not a sophisticated
system is created. The initial costs for creating these systems are
relatively high compared to the use of more manual / simple systems.
The sophisticated systems have however shown that they are easier to
run and maintain and that they are more efficient.
9. Possible changes in the
legislation
During the creation and implementation process of IACS the EU has
been very active in supporting the different Member States and the EU
has constantly been evaluating the different systems.
During 1999, several discussions have taken place in Brussels in
order to change the current regulation 3508/92. After the
implementation period and after running the different systems in the
Member States for several years, it appears that the countries using
digital orthophotos and geographic information systems have the
systems that are most effective and valid.
However, any amendments to the regulation 3508/92 have not yet been
approved, but the opinion of the Commission is clearly shown in a
"Note for the file" from September 1999, where the following
points are written:
- Locating and measuring agricultural areas create wide-ranging
difficulties for farmers who are not technically prepared for the
task. These difficulties become more pronounced when the available
maps are old, or when the agricultural parcels to be declared no
longer match the reference parcels used to locate them. This is
often the case with parcels as recorded in the land register.
Errors at this stage cause delays and penalties. Any
simplification can only improve the image of compensatory aid, and
thus of the authorities.
- Photographs are undeniably more revealing than simple maps.
Firstly, there are far fewer errors of localisation, thanks to
landmarks recognised by the declarant (trees, hedges, buildings,
ditches, etc.). Secondly, a recent photograph taken on a known
date allows existing maps to be subdivided more finely by better
location of the current boundaries.
- Measuring distance or surface area on a scale document permits a
first check of the areas being declared. Such an approach allows
the authority to take a harder line on problems and, in certain
cases, to identify and solve any problems with the declaration at
source.
- Agricultural associations could play a greater role in the
process. Making GIS data available as a management aid could
motivate them to provide a service that is currently the
responsibility of the authority, either by providing support for
declarations, or by resolving irregularities.
- Making GIS data available in digital form means they can be used
by the most technically advanced 5-10% of farmers who have
computer systems capable of managing their cropping plans.
Further down in the "Note for the file" it is written:
"Both the declarant and the authority benefit from the use of
orthophotography. In practice, orthophotography can be used flexibly,
either to complement and existing identification system (the land
register), or as the basis for an identification system proper to IACS.
The use of orthophotography to verify the area identification
system leads to 100% validation of the eligibility of areas thus
checked (at least it allows any non-agricultural, wooded, built-up or
non-areas to be rejected immediately). In a single stroke, this
protects the system from accepting any ineligible areas that may be
declared."
10. CONCLUSION
Being a coming Member State to the EU, it is difficult to create a
clear strategy of what to do and what is actually required, knowing
that it might take 2, 4, 6 or even more years before the country
becomes a fully integrated member of the EU.
Being a Member State entering the EU today, it is without any doubt
that the existing legislation must be fulfilled. With the current
success IACS has had, it is doubtful that the whole concept of area
aid to the farmers will redesigned. However, in case many big
agricultural countries enter the EU, the concept might be changed.
However, being a coming Member State a pre-entry strategy should be
created. In 1992, when the regulation 3508/92 was adopted, the EU had
realised that the development and creation costs for these large and
complex systems were considerable and had therefore accepted to
finance up to 50% of the creation costs. In general, it took most of
the Member States nearly 1 year before they had designed their systems
and many of the Member States did consequently not use the
co-financing opportunities fully the first and second year.
A reasonable pre-entry strategy could therefore be:
- Get an overview of the current mapping situation in the country,
- Identify a possible solution based on existing knowledge,
- Continue to monitor the possible new solution. E.g. can the
Ikonos satellite provide acceptable data?
- Follow the mapping situation in the rest of Europe,
- Identify new requirements from EU,
- On the basis of these facts, create a clear strategy that
identifies what must be done when entering the EU and get the
acceptance of the EU.
By using this strategy a new Member State can work purposefully
just after the entry and benefit the most from the considerable
co-financing.
Carsten Kragh
Rasmussen og Kragh
E-mail: [email protected]
21 June 2000
|
