1. Leader+ OBSERVATORY Common Leader+indicators monitoring tables – quality evaluation & generic errors Seminar on monitoring and evaluation of the Leader approach, 23 Sept. 2006 European Commission

2. Errors occurred throughout all the tables 1. 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 n°1) 2. 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 n°2)

3. Errors specific to some tables 3. 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 n°3) 4. Population data expressed in a wrong scale: T. 2b ! When requested, the number should be given in thousands and not in real terms ! (example n°4) 5. 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 n°5)

4. Errors specific to some tables 6. 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) 7. 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 8. 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 n°8) 9. Another type of data indicated that asked (year instead of the number of projects in the reference year): T. 4 (example n°9) 10. 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 n°10)

6. Tables partially completed Expenses declared for intervention fields (Action 1) but no final beneficiaries or projects indicated: T. 4 / T. 5 Expenses declared for intervention fields (Action 1) but no final beneficiaries or projects indicated: T. 4 / T. 5 (example n°11) 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 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 n°12)

7. Errors specific to some tables 13. 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 year=> 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 n°13)

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