natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Thus this aim was directly related to the other „impact“ objective in the Phare Review and not to the objective of „moving to Structural Funds“ as such. 
Thus this aim was directly related to the other ÔimpactŐ objective in the Phare Review and not to the objective of Ômoving to Structural FundsŐ as such.
THE OVERALL APPROACH OF USING THE PHARE PROGRAMME TO PREPARE CANDIDATE COUNTRIES FOR MANAGING THE STRUCTURAL FUNDS 15. 
THE OVERALL APPROACH OF USING THE PHARE PROGRAMME TO PREPARE CANDIDATE COUNTRIES FOR MANAGING THE STRUCTURAL FUNDS 15.
Concerning the twofold objective of Phare ESC, see reply to paragraph 9. 
Concerning the twofold objective of Phare ESC, see reply to paragraph 9.
As Structural Funds (SF) operate under shared management and Phare under decentralised implementation, legal and financial procedures are different and „learning by doing“ would be thereby constrained. 
As Structural Funds (SF) operate under shared management and Phare under decentralised implementation, legal and financial procedures are different and Ôlearning by doingŐ would be thereby constrained.
This is why the Phare Review referred specifically to „pilot testing“ of SF-type measures. 
This is why the Phare Review referred specifically to Ôpilot testingŐ of SF-type measures.
Thus even if design modalities could be aligned, implementation would still have to comply with external aid Financial Regulation requirements. 
Thus even if design modalities could be aligned, implementation would still have to comply with external aid Financial Regulation requirements.
Outside the limits mentioned in paragraph 15, the use of Phare institution building for Structural Funds preparation was not problematic. 
Outside the limits mentioned in paragraph 15, the use of Phare institution building for Structural Funds preparation was not problematic.
Phare is a flexible, general external assistance instrument, within which it is possible to combine investment and institution-building actions as well as partial alignment with other instruments. 
Phare is a flexible, general external assistance instrument, within which it is possible to combine investment and institution-building actions as well as partial alignment with other instruments.
In the interests of sound financial management it was prudent to remain within the established evolutionary approach of Phare involving gradual and controlled progress from centralised to decentralised with ex ante control, to fully decentralised management systems. 
In the interests of sound financial management it was prudent to remain within the established evolutionary approach of Phare involving gradual and controlled progress from centralised to decentralised with ex ante control, to fully decentralised management systems.
In the late 1990 s the decision to establish only two new pre-accession instruments reflected a complete consensus and was fully endorsed by the European Parliament and the Council. 
In the late 1990s the decision to establish only two new pre-accession instruments reflected a complete consensus and was fully endorsed by the European Parliament and the Council.
It was evident in 1999 that the scale of the preparations required was enormous and the demands on the administrations of the candidate countries were considerable. 
It was evident in 1999 that the scale of the preparations required was enormous and the demands on the administrations of the candidate countries were considerable.
They were unable to take on the challenge of a sophisticated multiannual planning exercise coupled with complex implementation arrangements as well as support a second movement to the ex post control arrangements as apply in the Structural Funds regulation. 
They were unable to take on the challenge of a sophisticated multiannual planning exercise coupled with complex implementation arrangements as well as support a second movement to the ex post control arrangements as apply in the Structural Funds regulation.
Therefore it was prudent to opt for a more phased approach under Phare in order to avoid overloading the limited resources of the candidate countries as well as avoiding a potential interruption of pre-accession assistance delivery. 
Therefore it was prudent to opt for a more phased approach under Phare in order to avoid overloading the limited resources of the candidate countries as well as avoiding a potential interruption of pre-accession assistance delivery.
Only the ESC (approximately 35 %) component of Phare National Programmes was deemed to support Objective 1 ERDF and ESF-type projects. 
Only the ESC (approximately 35 %) component of Phare National Programmes was deemed to support Objective 1 ERDF and ESF-type projects.
Implementation of Phare and coordination of all pre-accession assistance has been the competence of DG Enlargement. 
Implementation of Phare and coordination of all pre-accession assistance has been the competence of DG Enlargement.
However, as provided in the Communication COM(97) 112, since 1998 closer cooperation with Commission services responsible for regional structural policies was established. 
However, as provided in the Communication COM(97) 112, since 1998 closer cooperation with Commission services responsible for regional structural policies was established.
The involvement of Structural Funds Directorates-General in ESC programming has been substantial. 
The involvement of Structural Funds Directorates-General in ESC programming has been substantial.
Since inauguration of preliminary National Development Plans (PNDPs), prepared by candidate countries in late 1999, all concerned services contributed to their assessment and implementation. 
Since inauguration of preliminary National Development Plans (PNDPs), prepared by candidate countries in late 1999, all concerned services contributed to their assessment and implementation.
In particular, the Regional Policy DG was 
In particular,
C 15/22 CS Úřední věstník Evropské unie 20.1.2005 systematically involved in annual ESC programming and in programming missions. 
C 15/22 EN Official Journal of the European Union 20.1.2005 the Regional Policy DG was systematically involved in annual ESC programming and in programming missions.
A high degree of coordination between all services was ensured in the negotiations on Regional Policy (Chapter 21) and in the context of Council Coordination Regulation of 1999. 
A high degree of coordination between all services was ensured in the negotiations on Regional Policy (Chapter 21) and in the context of Council Coordination Regulation of 1999.
Concerning the twofold objective of the ESC, see paragraph 9. 
Concerning the twofold objective of the ESC, see paragraph 9.
The method followed aimed at introducing, in a phased manner, effective ESC programming to move progressively towards the full approach used in Objective 1. 
The method followed aimed at introducing, in a phased manner, effective ESC programming to move progressively towards the full approach used in Objective 1.
In this context, the dynamic impact of the negotiations has to be underlined. 
In this context, the dynamic impact of the negotiations has to be underlined.
In 1999, the perspective was to use most of the 2000 to 2006 period to progressively move towards the SF approach. 
In 1999, the perspective was to use most of the 2000 to 2006 period to progressively move towards the SF approach.
This perspective was changed by the Nice and Laeken European Councils. 
This perspective was changed by the Nice and Laeken European Councils.
The Structural Funds Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 prescribe that Member States, irrespective of their regional structure, shall submit a draft Single Programming Document (SPD) when the Community allocation is less than EUR 1 000 million. 
The Structural Funds Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 prescribe that Member States, irrespective of their regional structure, shall submit a draft Single Programming Document (SPD) when the Community allocation is less than EUR 1 000 million.
For Community allocations above this threshold, the choice between Community Support Framework/Operational Programmes or Single Programming Document is to a large extent left to the Member State. 
For Community allocations above this threshold, the choice between Community Support Framework/Operational Programmes or Single Programming Document is to a large extent left to the Member State.
In addition, in 1999 in most applicant countries the NUTS classification was not yet established. 
In addition, in 1999 in most applicant countries the NUTS classification was not yet established.
And in 1999 no one knew what geographical set-up was going to be implemented for Structural Funds upon accession and when this was going to happen. 
And in 1999 no one knew what geographical set-up was going to be implemented for Structural Funds upon accession and when this was going to happen.
To facilitate the introduction of ESC and in accordance with the principles of focus, concentration and impact (see reply to paragraph 9), ESC investment support was limited to target regions while institution-building support covered the whole country. 
To facilitate the introduction of ESC and in accordance with the principles of focus, concentration and impact (see reply to paragraph 9), ESC investment support was limited to target regions while institution-building support covered the whole country.
This regionally focused approach was implemented only in 2000 (the first year of ESC programming). 
This regionally focused approach was implemented only in 2000 (the first year of ESC programming).
In the context of the progressive move towards the Objective 1, this approach was widened in 2001 ESC programming (see the Phare Review) where the possibility to have sectoral schemes at national level was introduced. 
In the context of the progressive move towards the Objective 1, this approach was widened in 2001 ESC programming (see the Phare Review) where the possibility to have sectoral schemes at national level was introduced.
In particular, smaller countries had the option to implement only sectoral schemes at the national level. 
In particular, smaller countries had the option to implement only sectoral schemes at the national level.
While the county level regions were likely not to perform Structural Fund managing authority’s functions, they would almost certainly perform Structural Fund intermediate body’s functions (see paragraph 25). 
While the county level regions were likely not to perform Structural Fund managing authorityŐs functions, they would almost certainly perform Structural Fund intermediate bodyŐs functions (see paragraph 25).
Thus, experience acquired in implementing ESC measures would not be lost. 
Thus, experience acquired in implementing ESC measures would not be lost.
Building on the lessons learned in 1994 to 1999, in the 2000 to 2006 period Member States substantially expanded the share of regional programme versus sectoral (national) programmes. 
Building on the lessons learned in 1994 to 1999, in the 2000 to 2006 period Member States substantially expanded the share of regional programme versus sectoral (national) programmes.
This trend was massive in larger countries with a regionalised structure. 
This trend was massive in larger countries with a regionalised structure.
Despite their essentially centralised administrative structure, 47 % of the 2000 to 2006 Structural Funds in Portugal are implemented through Regional Programmes and 34 % in Greece. 
Despite their essentially centralised administrative structure, 47 % of the 2000 to 2006 Structural Funds in Portugal are implemented through Regional Programmes and 34 % in Greece.
Ireland is a special case. 
Ireland is a special case.
In 1994 to 1999 Ireland had still a fully centralised administrative structure, thus 100 % of Structural Funds were implemented centrally. 
In 1994 to 1999 Ireland had still a fully centralised administrative structure, thus 100 % of Structural Funds were implemented centrally.
For the 2000 to 2006 period two regions were newly created and 31 % of Structural Funds will be implemented through Regional Programmes. 
For the 2000 to 2006 period two regions were newly created and 31 % of Structural Funds will be implemented through Regional Programmes.
Concerning acceding countries, the Commission’s approach to recommending sectoral programmes was mainly dictated by the aim of simplifying a very short (less than three-year) Structural Funds programming period (see paragraph 23). 
Concerning acceding countries, the CommissionŐs approach to recommending sectoral programmes was mainly dictated by the aim of simplifying a very short (less than three-year) Structural Funds programming period (see paragraph 23).
Only in 2001, when it became clear that the Structural Funds programming period was going to be very short (three years), did DG Regional Policy propose to the countries not to have individual Regional Operational Programmes (contrary to current practice in Member States) but one integrated Regional OP (IROP) covering all regions. 
Only in 2001, when it became clear that the Structural Funds programming period was going to be very short (three years), did DG Regional Policy propose to the countries not to have individual Regional Operational Programmes (contrary to current practice in Member States) but one integrated Regional OP (IROP) covering all regions.
Thus, for example, the IROP in Poland covers all 16 regions. 
Thus, for example, the IROP in Poland covers all 16 regions.
There was eventual agreement with the countries that IROPs be managed centrally, but focusing on measures to be implemented in individual regions by relevant regional authorities. 
There was eventual agreement with the countries that IROPs be managed centrally, but focusing on measures to be implemented in individual regions by relevant regional authorities.
After a first year (2000) where ESC investment was limited to target regions (to facilitate its introduction), as indicated in paragraph 21, DG Enlargement introduced ESC sector schemes at national level for small (NUTS II) countries. 
After a first year (2000) where ESC investment was limited to target regions (to facilitate its introduction), as indicated in paragraph 21, DG Enlargement introduced ESC sector schemes at national level for small (NUTS II) countries.
For larger „regionalised“ countries, sector schemes could co-exist with the regional approach (see Phare 2000 Review). 
For larger Ôregiona-lisedŐ countries, sector schemes could co-exist with the regional approach (see Phare 2000 Review).
As indicated in paragraph 21, it was a phased move towards the introduction of an Objective 1 approach. 
As indicated in paragraph 21, it was a phased move towards the introduction of an Objective 1 approach.
Experience shows that even in the case of centrally managed Operational Programmes, regional bodies still have an implementation role to play. 
Experience shows that even in the case of centrally managed Operational Programmes, regional bodies still have an implementation role to play.
Thus Phare institution building to strengthen programming and administrative capacity was done at both central and regional level. 
Thus Phare institution building to strengthen programming and administrative capacity was done at both central and regional level.
On the other hand (as explained in paragraph 9), the principles of sound financial management (economy, efficiency, effectiveness) required ESC investment support to be focused and concentrated to ensure impact. 
On the other hand (as explained in paragraph 9), the principles of sound financial management (economy, efficiency, effectiveness) required ESC investment support to be focused and concentrated to ensure impact.
And as highlighted in the Phare Review, it was neither feasible nor wise to pilot test all regional structures by spreading limited resources across too many programmes. 
And as highlighted in the Phare Review, it was neither feasible nor wise to pilot test all regional structures by spreading limited resources across too many programmes.
The 1999 Guidelines Decision stipulated that: „project selection and monitoring remain the responsibility of the ministries/administrations directly benefiting from assistance“ and „as far as possible, of sustainable institutions which will be responsible for management and implementation of Community funds upon accession, particularly the structural funds“. 
The 1999 Guidelines Decision stipulated that: Ôproject selection and monitoring remain the responsibility of the ministries/administrations directly benefiting from assistanceŐ and Ôas far as possible, of sustainable institutions which will be responsible for management and implementation of Community funds upon accession, particularly the structural fundsŐ.
Thus, where capacity existed there was an IA each for Regional Development, ESF, SMEs and CBC (e.g. in Poland). 
Thus, where capacity existed there was an IA each for Regional Development, ESF, SMEs and CBC (e.g. in Poland).
It is also worth mentioning that the Guidelines stipulated „institution building (IB) activities will be focused on the weaknesses identified at the central, regional, and local level particularly in view of the increased emphasis to be given to economic and social cohesion“. 
It is also worth mentioning that the Guidelines stipulated Ôinstitution building (IB) activities will be focused on the weaknesses identified at the central, regional, and local level particularly in view of the increased emphasis to be given to economic and social cohesionŐ.
20.1.2005 CS Úřední věstník Evropské unie C 15/23 27. 
20.1.2005 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 15/23 27.
ESC objectives (see paragraph 9) were not conflicting and, as quoted in paragraph 24, the „target region“ approach for investments was followed only in the first year of ESC programming (2000). 
ESC objectives (see paragraph 9) were not conflicting and, as quoted in paragraph 24, the Ôtarget regionŐ approach for investments was followed only in the first year of ESC programming (2000).
While institution-building support for preparing for Structural Funds covered the whole country (both at central and regional level), ESC investment support, given its limited resources, had to be concentrated on a few priorities to have an impact as well as to ensure compliance with sound financial management principles. 
While institution-building support for preparing for Structural Funds covered the whole country (both at central and regional level), ESC investment support, given its limited resources, had to be concentrated on a few priorities to have an impact as well as to ensure compliance with sound financial management principles.
This was an essential lesson for the nascent programming structures and was a vital complement to the preparing for Structural Funds objectives. 
This was an essential lesson for the nascent programming structures and was a vital complement to the preparing for Structural Funds objectives.
The preparatory process was not static but dynamic and determined by the wider regional policy negotiations strategy (including common position papers). 
The preparatory process was not static but dynamic and determined by the wider regional policy negotiations strategy (including common position papers).
This strategy included the responsive and evolving policy framework of the progress reports and resulting accession partnership priorities which underpinned the Commission decision to make Phare ESC investment available under conditions of slow designation of managing structures and insufficient institutional stability. 
This strategy included the responsive and evolving policy framework of the progress reports and resulting accession partnership priorities which underpinned the Commission decision to make Phare ESC investment available under conditions of slow designation of managing structures and insufficient institutional stability.
However, this approach was justified by the outcome of the negotiations in terms of both actual results and timing. 
However, this approach was justified by the outcome of the negotiations in terms of both actual results and timing.
PHARE PROCEDURES 29. 
PHARE PROCEDURES 29.
See reply to paragraph 17. 
See reply to paragraph 17.
The 1999 Coordination Regulation stipulated that the management of pre-accession assistance aims to be gradually decentralised, taking account of management and control capacities. 
The 1999 Coordination Regulation stipulated that the management of pre-accession assistance aims to be gradually decentralised, taking account of management and control capacities.
This approach involved first the Decentralised Implementation System (DIS) and then the Extended Decentralised Implementation System (EDIS) which both facilitates the phasing out of Phare as indicated in the 2002 Communication and allows the countries to operate with ex-post controls. 
This approach involved first the Decentralised Implementation System (DIS) and then the Extended Decentralised Implementation System (EDIS) which both facilitates the phasing out of Phare as indicated in the 2002 Communication and allows the countries to operate with ex-post controls.
Even though the Coordination Regulation of 1999 did not make the process mandatory for the countries, already in 2000 the Commission elaborated guidelines on preparing for EDIS (see Commission working document Preparing for Extended Decentralisation of the Phare and Ispa Programmes). 
Even though the Coordination Regulation of 1999 did not make the process mandatory for the countries, already in 2000 the Commission elaborated guidelines on preparing for EDIS (see Commission working document Preparing for Extended Decentralisation of the Phare and Ispa Programmes).
This Working document, which included checklists on the control standards expected to be attained for EDIS, was distributed to all countries already also in 2000. 
This Working document, which included checklists on the control standards expected to be attained for EDIS, was distributed to all countries already also in 2000.
In 2001, the Roadmap to EDIS for Ispa and Phare was prepared and sent to the countries, giving a step-by-step methodology for realisation of the conditions set out in the Coordination Regulation. 
In 2001, the Roadmap to EDIS for Ispa and Phare was prepared and sent to the countries, giving a step-by-step methodology for realisation of the conditions set out in the Coordination Regulation.
Both the Working documents and Roadmap were sent by joint letters from the Regional Policy and Enlargement DGs underpinning the strong coordinated approach maintained for Phare and Ispa programmes. 
Both the Working documents and Roadmap were sent by joint letters from the Regional Policy and Enlargement DGs underpinning the strong coordinated approach maintained for Phare and Ispa programmes.
The Phare Review affirmed that „decentralisation cannot start before 2002 at the earliest“ and it will not be implemented „unless clear preconditions have been met and the necessary financial and human resources are in place“. 
The Phare Review affirmed that Ôdecentralisation cannot start before 2002 at the earliestŐ and it will not be implemented Ôunless clear preconditions have been met and the necessary financial and human resources are in placeŐ.
Thus while earlier EDIS would have indeed been desirable, in the reduced timeframe it proved not to be feasible. 
Thus while earlier EDIS would have indeed been desirable, in the reduced timeframe it proved not to be feasible.
In 2001 considerable pressure was brought to bear on the countries on the need to move towards EDIS, culminating in a seminar at ministerial level in February 2002 with both the Commissioner and the Director-General responsible for Enlargement as well as senior management from the Regional Policy and Agriculture DGs. 
In 2001 considerable pressure was brought to bear on the countries on the need to move towards EDIS, culminating in a seminar at ministerial level in February 2002 with both the Commissioner and the Director-General responsible for Enlargement as well as senior management from the Regional Policy and Agriculture DGs.