Leader OBSERVATORY

1
Leader OBSERVATORY
European Commission

• Common Leaderindicators monitoring tables
  quality evaluation generic errors
• Seminar on monitoring and evaluation of the
  Leader approach, 23 Sept. 2006

2
Errors occurred throughout all the tables

• Cells not filled-in or filled with text
• ! All light turquoise cells in the tables should
  in any case be
• filled in, no matter if the relevant information
  is available or
• not !
• - If the data not available for the indicator in
  question NA
• - Any specific comments should be inserted in
  Annex at the end of the
• monitoring tables (example n1)
• Format changed, tables removed
• ! No alterations should be made to the order,
  titles of the tables or to
• the structure of the tables themselves (e.g.
  added or deleted rows,
• inserted explanatory footnotes) ! (example n2)

3
Errors specific to some tables

• Wrong reference for the GDP/capita as of
  national T. 1
• ! This relates only to regional programmes. For
  national programmes the value
• shoud be 100 ! (example n3)
• Population data expressed in a wrong scale T. 2b
• ! When requested, the number should be given in
  thousands and not
• in real terms ! (example n4)
• Financial data expressed in a wrong scale T. 2a,
  2b, 3, 4,
• ! When requested, the number should be given in
  thousands and not
• in real terms ! (example n5)

4
Errors specific to some tables

• LAG counted more than once when indicating
  distribution of themes T. 2a
• ! Double counting of LAGs which have identified
  more than one priority
• theme should be avoided. In such cases, one of
  the chosen themes has
• to be designated as a main theme. So each LAG
  is identified by one
• priority theme ! (example n 6)
• Data indicated for the reference year instead of
  for the whole programming period T. 3
• ! A total amount as indicated in the programme
  complement should be
• put ! (example n 7)

5
Errors specific to some tables

• Cumulated data (number of projects) for the whole
  period is lower than the one in the reference
  year T. 4
• ! A total amount as indicated in the programme
  complement should be
• put ! (example n8)
• Another type of data indicated that asked (year
  instead of the number of projects in the
  reference year) T. 4
• (example n9)
• Misunderstanding of the concept of final
  recipient of payments T. 5
• ! The final recipient is the individual or
  organisation who/which is carrying out
• a project and who/which receives the payment. It
  is not a target public !
• (example n10)

6
Tables partially completed

• Expenses declared for intervention fields (Action
  1) but no final beneficiaries or projects
  indicated T. 4 / T. 5
• (example n11)
• Expenses declared for intervention fields (Action
  2) but no participating LAG indicated nor
  cooperation partners or no expenses indicated,
  no participating LAG but a positive number of
  projects T. 6a
• (example n12)

7
Errors specific to some tables

• Misunderstanding of the concept Participating
  LAGs and Participating partners under
  Inter-territorial co-operation projects T. 6a
• ! Participating LAGs LAGs within the programme
  which received
• payments for inter-territorial co-operation
  projects in the reporting
• yeargt in case of a national programme, all the
  partners of inter
• territorial co-operation should be included in
  the n of participating
• LAGs. The n of co-operation partners meaning
  LAGs outside
• the programme area should be 0 ! (example n13)

8
Utility of the data quality evaluation

• On the basis of the most common errors
  encountered, amendments to the Guidelines and
  tables were proposed
• New version of the Guidelines used for the 1st
  time in 2005