News | 17 Mar 2025

Demonstrating LEADER’s added value: new assessment tool in Luxembourg

A new simple tool co-designed by the Managing Authority and Local Action Groups in Luxembourg demonstrates the added value LEADER can produce.

Hiking trail in Luxembourg

LEADER Local Action Groups (LAGs) and Managing Authorities (MAs), as well as the wider EU network of Community-led local development (CLLD) stakeholders, will be interested in a new simple tool developed in Luxembourg for demonstrating the broad breadth of added value benefits that LEADER inputs can produce. A key to the tool’s simplicity is the bottom-up process that merged MA and LAG needs within a common system for administering and reporting on the added value of LEADER funds within the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

Assessing added value generated from the CAP’s LEADER support had been spotlighted by the European Court of Auditors as important. This inspired Luxembourg’s MA to develop and launch an innovation in EU fund management systems that clarifies and simplifies the way that LEADER projects and LAGs can demonstrate their added value to the local communities and more widely.

Françoise Bonert from Luxembourg’s MA explains how. “We wanted to be able to better assess LEADER’s added value, both to help us understand LAG achievements ex-post from the previous Rural Development Programme and also for the new CAP Strategic Plan. As LEADER added value builds mainly on qualitative interactions, it was important to collect more than only quantitative information. We knew how useful it is to have evidence for local politicians and others that can confirm why or how LEADER is valuable. We also thought that it could help LAGs operate better if they were able to self-reflect more and properly evaluate their successes against their goals, especially about LEADER achievements as seed funding for getting rural development ideas going.”

Added value indicators

At the end of 2023, Luxembourg co-hosted a dedicated EU CAP Network workshop on LEADER added value, which helped compile guidelines in assessing LEADER’s added value. “We took account of the LEADER added value components that were being developed by the EU CAP Network’s Evaluation Helpdesk and it was very important for us to consult our LAGs because they are the main actors”, says Sebastian Hans from the Luxembourg MA.

Sebastian was instrumental in the implementation of the project that developed the new tool for the Luxembourg LAGs, and he recalls how

“A dialogue process was organised with the LAGs to develop our new LEADER reporting system, and the main message we received throughout our discussions was to ‘keep it simple’. LAGs also asked for space to show added value of local networking and other qualitative aspects.” “Thankfully, the end results cover everyone’s needs. It uses a simple Excel spreadsheet with a relatively small set of indicators [see below] that were agreed in consultations with LAGs. Our bottom-up approach worked well, and the LAGs feel an ownership of the system because they helped co-design it. We developed one spreadsheet for use by LEADER projects [see Table 1] and another simple similar spreadsheet for LAGs [see Table 2].” Sebastian Hans from the Luxembourg MA

Simplified LEADER

Focusing the choice of indicators within a single Excel spreadsheet allows for lots of options to simplify CAP reporting. Françoise notes that “Our aim was simplification to improve efficiency by reducing duplication and excessive data records. Everyone now keeps everything they need in one place. The spreadsheet has rows for added value reporting fields, and their content can be filled in based on the application form, as well as our national EU reporting requirements on LEADER. The same information also feeds directly into our communication about LEADER and can be used by the LAGs in their Project reports, which they publish to promote LEADER’s visibility around their communities.”

She explains further that “a big advantage is the consistency of data that the simple system provides. We can compare more now, as more coherent data is starting to be collected. Projects submit the Excel spreadsheet at the same time as their final claim for funds after each project closes, so we are beginning to see the new tool working in practice now.”

Sebastian highlights a point for other Member States to note: “We are collecting more coherent quantitative and qualitative data and information than before. This is one of the things that will help us address some of the issues identified by the Court of Auditors. We will now have precise information to provide accurate assessments and evaluations showing LEADER’s full and true added value”.

Jargon busting

Feedback from LAGs during the co-design process revealed a need to demystify (by simplifying) technical evaluation definitions of added value. Françoise comments, “It is useful to use language that people understand because complex terminology can be counter-productive.”

User instructions for the simple spreadsheets apply this bottom-up advice by translating complex academic terms like ‘social capital’ or ‘governance’ into real-life measurable things. A list of these is provided in the tables below.

Summing up the MA’s reflections from this experience, Françoise stresses that “The main success story behind our work has been the cooperation between everyone involved. We all worked together in very constructive ways to create a good result for us all. Sometimes, it may seem complicated to be simple, but our experience here shows it is worth it. We have managed to combine our national obligations at the MA with the needs of our LEADER regions.”

Further information is available from the new Luxembourg LEADER website, which includes a full report (in German) of the study from Austrian consultants who helped facilitate the new LEADER tool.

Table 1. LEADER Project reporting Excel spreadsheet rows

Part 1 – Mandatory indicators

Jobs – defined consistently as FTE (Full Time Equivalent).

Part 2 - Supplementary Indicators (Quantitative Indicators)

Total number of project partners.

Number of project partners by type:

  • Public project partners.
  • Private project partners.
  • Number of project partners per sector.
    • Agriculture and forestry.
    • Tourism.
    • Other economic sectors.
    • Social Affairs, Education, Culture, Sports, Youth.
    • Environmental, climate and nature conservation.
    • Other.

Information on types of meetings & events:

  • Total number of project partner meetings or project working group meetings (online, physical).
  • Number of meetings Project Partners - LEADER Office (online, physical).
  • Number of events implemented during the project (workshops, information sessions, excursions, project visits, educational events, training events, etc.) (online, physical).
  • Total number of participants in all these events (all participants in each event are counted).

Information on results and products:

  • Number of concepts, studies, strategies, and guidelines created.
  • Number of digital products created (apps, databases, websites, etc.).
  • Number of recorded movies, videos, podcasts, etc.
  • Number of printed information products produced (folders, roll-ups, posters, brochures, etc.).
  • Number of media reports (newspaper reports, articles, social media posts, newsletters, etc.).
  • Number of other products or materials developed.

Part 3 - Short report on project implementation (qualitative assessment)

  • Who were the project partners?
  • Provide a brief description of the project.
  • What measures have been implemented?
  • What were the goals of the project according to the application?
  • What goals could be achieved?
  • Which goals could not be achieved?
  • What were the reasons for this?

Further information on project implementation:

  • What has been particularly successful in the project?
  • What were the highlights of the project, and why?
  • What could have been improved in the project implementation?
  • What didn't work well at all?
  • Did the LEADER project help to network actors? How?
  • Have you gained new knowledge through the project? In which areas?
  • Has the LEADER project helped to implement new ideas? Which ones?
  • In your opinion, did the LEADER project meet the needs of the region and the project sponsor (or individual actors)? How?
  • Will the project results or parts of the project continue beyond the end of the project without funding? How?
  • Is the project innovative from your point of view? Why?

Supplementary materials (e.g. project final presentation, project report, photos, documentation, studies, concepts) as well as references to (digital) products or websites, etc., can be included in the appendix to the project report.

Table 2. LAG self-reflection Excel spreadsheet

Part 1 - Overview: quantitative indicators

Information on the members of the LAG (as of October 14, 2025 and October 14, 2029):

  • Total number of LAG members (= main delegates, not substitute delegates)

Number of LAG members per sector:

  • Agriculture and forestry
  • Tourism
  • Other economic sectors
  • Social Affairs, Education, Culture, Sports, Youth
  • Environmental, climate and nature conservation
  • Other

Number of LAG members per type of organisation (current at the time of completion of the questionnaire):

  • Organisations representing the interests of public administrations (e.g. municipalities, municipal or other syndicates, schools).
  • Organisations representing private local economic interests (e.g. business associations, local companies).
  • Organisations representing social and cultural interests (e.g. non-governmental organisations, local associations, museums).
  • Other organisations (e.g. environmental associations, tourist information offices, Auberges de Jeunesse, energy cooperatives).
  • Number of LAG delegates to the LEADER Committee by gender (only effective delegates, not substitute delegates).
  • Number of LAG delegates in the LEADER Committee under 40 years of age (only effective delegates, not substitute delegates).

Information on events of the LAG

  • Number of LAG board meetings.
  • Number of information- or project-related events organised by the LAG and its project promoters/LAG management.
  • Total number of participants in the information and project-related events.
  • Number of training events organised by the LAG and its project promoters/LAG management.
  • Total number of participants in these continuing education events.
  • Number of excursions, study visits, and transnational activities organised by the LAG and its project promoters/management.
  • Total number of participants in these excursions, study trips, and transnational activities.

Part 2 - Further information: qualitative assessments and reflection

  • What information can be found on the website of the LEADER region? (e.g. description of the LEADER region, partners, board, LEADER office, local development strategy, description of the projects, procedure for project selection & criteria, information on events)
  • What types of communication and public relations work are implemented by the LAG? (e.g. newsletters, social media channels, magazines, press releases, etc.)
  • Which types of communication and public relations work are particularly well received?
  • Why could that be so?
  • What kind of advisory and activation services does the LAG/LAG management offer? (e.g. consultations, telephone calls, events, networking meetings, etc.)
  • Which consulting and activation services are particularly well received?
  • Why could that be so?
  • What types of events were offered by the LAG/LAG management?
  • What project-related events were offered? (e.g. information events, networking meetings, informal meetings, workshops, etc.)
  • What types of events seem to be particularly successful?
  • Why?
  • Has the LAG been able to reach out to new/different/complementary actors?
  • How did this succeed? Where are the challenges?
  • For which concerns do stakeholders in the LAG or in project implementation currently need special support?
  • Are there structured reflection processes (e.g. on decision-making procedures and structures, quality of projects, diversity of actors, etc.) within the LAG? If so, what are they?

Reflection

  • How did the networking of the relevant actors work during the reporting period?
  • What level of support did this need?
  • To what extent did trust among the relevant actors change during the reporting period?
  • What level of support did this need?
  • How did the cooperation between people, departments and actors in the LAG work during the reporting period?
  • What level of support did this need?
  • How has the regional participation culture changed during the reporting period (LAG members, project partners, other actors)?
  • What level of support did this need?
  • What level of support was needed to enable local and regional actors to come up with innovative project ideas during the reporting period?
  • To what extent did the projects implemented in the reporting period address the needs of the region?
  • What level of support did this need?