Evaluation of LEADER and LEADER added value

LEADER/community-led local development (CLLD) has been implemented within the EU for over thirty years. Its scope and tools have expanded over multiple programming periods.

According to the evaluation support study on the impact of LEADER on balanced territorial development, the LEADER approach has proven to be effective for local rural development, targeting and achieving economic development, strengthening social fabric and capacity, and enhancing local governance, with good coherence alongside other policies.

Acknowledged in the CAP Strategic Plans Regulation, LEADER remains a compulsory element also in the 2023-2027 programming period under the cooperation type of interventions (Article 77), with a minimum allocation of 5% of the total European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) contribution to the CAP Strategic Plan (CSP).

LEADER/CLLD operates within a multilevel framework and requires a multilevel evaluation at both the CSP and local level. Here’s how it works:

Besides assessing the extent to which an LDS has contributed to achieving local and relevant CSP objectives, an important aspect is assessing LEADER added value. The added value is generated through the application of the seven LEADER principles, which lead to improved governance and social capital as well as enhanced results and impacts, which also bring structural changes in a LAG’s area. 

The added value of LEADER can be assessed as a specific evaluation topic if this is in line with the needs and intervention logic of the CSP.

Evaluations of SOs where LEADER has been designed to contribute as a cooperation type of intervention (Article 77) shall be conducted during the implementing period with enough time to prepare the subsequent CSP period and ex post.

For such evaluations, Member States are required to define evaluation questions (EQ) and factors of success (FoS) to assess the evaluation criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and Union added value. The guidelines ‘Use of factors of success in evaluation’ offer relevant EQs, FoS, main indicators and steps to assess FoS.

For example, when assessing ‘local development’ the guidelines propose the EQ ‘To what extent have CAP Strategic Plan interventions contributed to local development and the provision of local services and infrastructure?’ and the relevant FoS ‘Local services and infrastructures are improving due to CAP support’. Results from LDS will feed into the assessment of this FoS, particularly for LAGs that have identified the PMEF Result Indicator R.41 ‘Connecting rural Europe: Share of rural population benefitting from improved access to services and infrastructure through CAP support’ as relevant in their LDS.

There is no specific EU regulation defining the evaluation framework for local level evaluations of LEADER. However, considering that the results of local level evaluations may feed into CSP evaluations, it is beneficial to apply a similar evaluation framework structure. This includes defining EQs, FoSs for applied evaluation criteria and relevant measurable indicators.

Given that LEADER added value is a specific topic within the CSP to be assessed, the non-binding guidelines ‘Assessing the added value of LEADER’ have been developed. These guidelines provide the background and rationale for assessing LEADER added value in the context of the 2023-2027 CSP and offer an example of an evaluation framework for practical implementation.

The evaluation framework is developed around the three components of LEADER added value: improved social capital, improved governance, and enhanced results and impacts. Each component is analysed using its key constituent elements, associated with corresponding evaluation questions.

EQs help formulate the issues that need to be assessed, clarify the key evaluation element and guide the formulation of the corresponding FoS.

FoS further specify certain aspects of evaluation questions/topics and express the expected change of the evaluated intervention(s). They provide insight into how the EQs will be answered by specifying what must be assessed and by setting the rationale for developing and using specific metrics (output, result and impact indicators). They form the basis for establishing a causal chain and can be the core component for structuring evaluation findings. 

For each FoS, a list of output, result and impact indicators, with their corresponding data sources, is proposed in these guidelines. These indicators use quantitative and qualitative data to measure the direction of change indicated by the FoS and consequently answer the EQ.

Such a framework is key to generating robust evidence on LEADER added value and identifying areas for improvement. It is recommended that Managing Authorities, if possible, in consultation with evaluators, develop such a framework early in the programming period. This allows for the adaptation and/or design of the necessary monitoring/information systems at LAG level to collect the required data and information.

Although Article 2(d) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1475 stipulates that the evaluation of LEADER added value is conducted at the CSP level, Member States can also initiate it at the local level

See the EU CAP Network’s publications database: LEADER Member States evaluations

The following European Evaluation Helpdesk for the CAP training materials can be applied in Member State contexts: