As use cases are defined bottom up, they identified very diverse Key Performance Indicators (see Table 2 below), highlighting the need for aligning them in a common impact framework. This will be established in the inception phase of the project, leading up to the first project milestone. It will include a methodology to estimate or measure baseline performance, against which performance on the project results can be plotted, and that can be used to establish the baseline in the first year of the project. As not all KPI’s will be suited for quantitative measurement, a mixed method approach, including a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods will be implemented. Moreover, the work will need to examine economic approaches, e.g. to determine cost structure of processes, differentiate its elements and identify ways to objectively calculate or survey economic effects of NIVA innovations. It is expected that this Impact Framework will need to be updated and improved during the running time of NIVA.

Table 1 Uce Cases of NIVA, news and status

Use Cases




Table 2 Uce Cases of NIVA, KPI’s (planed) and KPI’ (achieved)

Use Cases

KPI`s (planed)

KPI`s (achieved)

Result (planed)

Results (achieved)

Administrative burden reduction

Lower administrative burden for Pas (secondary controls)

– 3 land eligibility criteria algorithms developed

– 5 system components developed

– 3 algorithms

– 5 components

Number of stakeholders having adopted the indicators

Number of datasets reused and valorized

– 3 indicators and 6 tiers developed

– 1 dataset per indicator min. created covering 5 % of area for France

– 2 indicators (IC, IN) ad tier 1

– 2 datasets

Decrease in perceived administrative burden

– 1 prototype developed, with 3 indicators of farmer performance

– 1 prototype

Reduced administrative burden for Pas

Reduced farmers burden, i.e. time spent on filling the application

– 1 robotized tool for parcel data automatic filling developed

– datasets filled automatically

– 1 tool

– 1 dataset

Reduced administrative burden for Pas

Reduced administrative burden for farmers

– 1 farm registry data created & updating interfaces (web services)

– 1 data model

Reduced errors in positioning and image requirements

– 1 app developed

– 1 app (agrisnap)

Reduces administrative burden for farmers and other users

– 7 open source sw components developed & open source datasets

– 7 components

Reduced administrative burden for Pas

Reduced administrative burden farmers

– 7 algorithms developed

– 2 algorithms (high vegetation, buildings)

Reduced administrative burden for farmers

Reduced administrative burden for Pas

Number of recommendations for standards/guidelines uptake

– 3 tools developed

– 2 tools

*KPI – Key Performance Indicator is a measurable value that demonstrates how effectively the project is achieving its key objectives. KPIs are elaborated during the project implementation.

KPIs are measured in terms of burden reduction for farmers and PAs, and uptake by other stakeholders. For administrative burden reduction, some UCs have already established a baseline, as well as an assessment method and clear targets e.g. related to lower costs of the field controls.  For other UCs the way burden reduction will be assessed still needs to be developed, as the testing of the underlying technical solutions still have to be finalized and so the estimate of the cost reduction.  The relevant PAs do have, in any case, baseline values (related to the current IACS control practices) and consolidated methods for carrying out a quantitative assessment of administrative burden reduction.  For the reduction of the burden on the side of farmers and other users, the assessment will mostly rely on ad-hoc, semi quantitative surveys which will compare current and improved practices. This applies also to the uptake of other NIVA products that are not immediately connected to burden reduction (such as environmental indicators, number of recommendations for standards/guidelines up taken, etc.). Also, in this case there will be ad-hoc surveys to elicit the degree of appreciation and adoption by the relevant stakeholders.

When moving to single (SMS) to multi member state (MMS) pilots, outreach and result indicator targets will also change as such targets set at the beginning of the project only considered the SMS situation. Depending on the member states selected for the MMS pilots, the assessment methods could change as also the baseline information could differ (e.g. for the additional testing PAs a full quantitative assessment of administrative burden reduction would not be necessarily possible).  At this stage NIVA will also try to devise methods foe aggregating similar indicators (from UC to project level).  With reference to outreach indicators this is relatively straightforward, e.g. summing numbers of farmers reached or area covered. Less so for some of the result indicators.  Administrative burden reduction could, in principle, aggregated considering the economic value of it. However, a reduction of burden for farmers measured in a semi- quantitative way, and other indicators of adoption introduce challenges in the aggregation.  The likely solution will be to try as much as possible to aggregate through quantitative, comparable measurements, while relying on visual representations for the semi-quantitative and qualitative assessments. use if geotagged photos in connection to the EO traffic light system, for field controls).