evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

SATIKAS — Estonia's Deep-Learning Satellite System Monitors 100% of Grasslands for CAP Mowing Compliance

Estonia · Tartu · See the Estonia profile · See the Tartu profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 6% 87/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Estonia's paying agency ARIB uses a deep-learning system built with Tartu Observatory and KappaZeta to check mowing compliance on all ~101,000 registered grassland parcels by satellite. A peer-reviewed evaluation found 92.4% detection accuracy.

94.8 %
End-of-season detection accuracy (2018 growing season, 2,000 parcels) (2018)
92.4 %
Accuracy after reject-region flagging of ambiguous cases (2018)
101,000
Registered grassland parcels monitored nationally (2017–present)
SATIKAS — Estonia's Deep-Learning Satellite System Monitors 100% of Grasslands for CAP Mowing Compliance

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Estonian Agricultural Registers and Information Board (ARIB/PRIA), Tartu Observatory, KappaZeta
Period
2017–present
Region (NUTS)
EE00
Keywords
agriculture, machine learning, compliance, earth observation

Context

Since 2017 Estonia's Agricultural Registers and Information Board (ARIB, now part of PRIA) has used SATIKAS, a satellite-based mowing-detection system built with the University of Tartu's Tartu Observatory and its spin-off KappaZeta, to check compliance with the EU Common Agricultural Policy's grassland-mowing rule. It feeds Sentinel-1 radar and Sentinel-2 optical time series into a deep-learning classifier, replacing on-site inspections with continuous remote monitoring of Estonia's roughly 101,000 registered grassland parcels.

Results

A peer-reviewed evaluation (Preidane et al., Scientific Reports, 2022) tested the method on 2,000 parcels through the 2018 growing season, finding 94.8% end-of-season accuracy and an AUC of 0.97; flagging the 12.8% most ambiguous cases for manual review raised overall accuracy to 92.4%. The same study reports successful trial extensions of the method to Sweden, Denmark and Poland.

Conclusions

The reject-region approach defers about one case in eight to human review, and the published accuracy figures come from a single growing season, so year-to-year robustness under varying weather conditions is not yet independently documented at the same depth.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k) — Ongoing multi-year partnership between a national paying agency and a university remote-sensing spin-off; no public budget figure found.
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — Operational since 2017, continuously monitoring all registered grassland parcels each growing season.
Staffing & skills
University of Tartu's Tartu Observatory and spin-off KappaZeta (remote-sensing technical partner), ARIB/PRIA staff for manual review of reject-region flagged cases

Conditions for success

  • Access to Sentinel-1/Sentinel-2 satellite time series
  • Deep-learning classifier trained and validated on historical mowing data
  • Manual review capacity for ambiguous (reject-region) cases

Common failure modes

  • Year-to-year robustness under varying weather has not been independently validated beyond the single 2018 season

Where it fits

Governance type
national public agency
Scale
national
Income level
high-income

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful