natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Som fżlge af deres art er det meget vanskeligt at holde de velgżrende organisationer, der deltager i ordningen, ansvarlige i normal administrativ forstand, eftersom de primžrt er bemandet med frivillige, og de arbejder med en ustabil mlgruppe, som det ikke er nemt at overvge. 
By their nature, the charitable organisations involved in the scheme are difficult to be held accountable in normal administrative terms as they are mainly staffed by volunteers and deal with an unstable and not easily monitored target population.
Disse omstžndigheder gżr, at det er sžrlig vanskeligt at forvalte ordningen. 
These circumstances pose particular challenges for the administration of the scheme.
De mžngder mad, der stilles til rdighed under programmet, udgżr normalt kun en del af den samlede mžngde fżdevareprodukter, de deltagende velgżrende organisationer uddeler gratis. 
The quantities of food provided by the EU programme generally represent only one element of the totality of the food products distributed for free by the charitable organisations involved.
Men for nogle af de velgżrende organisationer, der opererer p lokalt niveau, er EU-programmet den eneste kilde til mad til uddeling blandt drligt stillede personer. 
However, for certain charitable organisations operating at local level, the EU programme is the only source of food for distribution to deprived persons.
Der blev givet fżlgende data for de reviderede medlemsstater og velgżrende organisationer13 (jf. tekstboks 5): 12 De velgżrende organisationer understregede ogs, at det ville blive nżdvendigt at żge de administrative og logistiske infrastrukturer (oplagrings-og distributionskapaciteten og den dertilhżrende arbejdskraft) for at imżdekomme behovet for at uddele stigende mžngder af produkter. 
For the Member States and charitable organisations audited the following figures were given13 (see Box 5). 12 Charitable organisations also stressed that it would be necessary to increase the administration and logistics infrastructure (storage and distribution capacities and related manpower) for meeting the need to distribute increased quantities of products.
13 Kommissionen rder ikke over fuldstžndige data for samtlige medlemsstater. 
13 The Commission does not dispose of complete data for all Member States.
11 TEKSTBOKS 5 EU-PROGRAMMETS BIDRAG I FORHOLD TIL DE SAMLEDE UDDELTE MŽNGDER Spanien: I 2006 uddelte de udpegede organisationer 60 048 ton, hvoraf 32 660 (54 %) kom fra EU-programmet og den resterende del fra andre kilder (fżdevareindustrien, engrosvirksomheder, markeder, indsamlingsaktioner mv.). 
11 BOX 5 PARTICIPATION OF THE EU PROGRAMME TO THE TOTAL QUANTITIES DISTRIBUTED Spain: In 2006 the quantities distributed by the designated organisation amounted to 60 048 tonnes, of which 32 660 (54 %) were from the EU programme and the remainder from other sources (food industry, wholesalers, markets, collect actions, etc.).
Frankrig: Der er et nationalt program, som supplerer EU-programmet. 
France: There is a national programme supplementary to the EU one.
Der er ingen nżjagtige data, men det skżnnes, at det nationale program og EU-programmet repržsenterer henholdsvis ca. 6 % og 30 % af de samlede uddelte mžngder. 
There is no exact data but it is estimated that the national programme represents about 6 % and the EU programme 30 % of the total quantities distributed.
Italien: Der er ingen data p nationalt niveau. 
Italy: There is no data on country level.
For s vidt angr to af de reviderede organisationer džkker EU-programmet nžsten 100 % af de uddelte mžngder. 
For two organisations audited the EU programme covers almost 100 % of the quantities distributed.
For en anden organisations vedkommende er EU-deltagelsen omkring 60 %. 
For another organisation the EU participation is about 60 %.
Polen: Der er ingen konkrete samlede tal. 
Poland: There are no concrete global figures.
EU-programmet omfatter omkring 60 %-70 % af den mad, der uddeles af de to reviderede organisationer (skżn). 
EU programme covers approximately 60–70 % of food distributed by the two organisations audited (estimation).
6/2009 Ń Den Europžiske Unions fżdevarehjžlp til socialt drligt stillede personer: en vurdering af mlene og de anvendte midler og metoder 12 REVISIONENS OMFANG OG REVISIONSMETODE 18. 
Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed 12 AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH 18.
Mlet for revisionen var at vurdere Den Europžiske Unions program for fżdevarehjžlp til socialt drligt stillede personer med udgangspunkt i forholdet mellem ml og anvendte midler og metoder. 
The audit objective was to assess the programme ‘European Union food aid for deprived persons’ with reference to the relationship between objectives, means and methods employed.
Ved revisionen undersżgte Retten navnlig, om mlene for programmet stadig er gyldige i lyset af den udvikling, som markedet og de sociale forhold har gennemget. 
In particular, the audit examined whether the intended aims of the programme are still valid in the context of an evolving market and social situation.
Endvidere blev hensigtsmžssigheden af de midler, der blev stillet til rdighed, og af de systemer, der blev anvendt til at mle programmets effekt p modtagerne, ogs vurderet p basis af de tilvejebragte og uddelte produkters vžrdi, kvantitet og variation. 
Furthermore the adequacy of the means made available and of the systems applied for measuring the programme’s impact on the beneficiaries was also assessed in terms of value, quantity and variety of products provided and distributed.
Endelig vurderede revisorerne de administrative og forvaltningsmžssige procedurer, der blev anvendt til gennemfżrelse af rsplanerne. 
Finally the audit examined the administrative and management procedures used for the implementation of the annual plans.
De vžsentligste spżrgsml, som stilles i denne beretning er: a) Er programmets ml stadig gyldige, og er fremgangsmden hensigtsmžssig? b) Str midlerne i et rimeligt forhold til de tilsigtede ml, og anvendes de hensigtsmžssigt? c) Anvendes procedurerne efter hensigten? 
The main questions addressed in this report are the following: (a) Do the objectives of the programme remain valid and is the approach appropriate? (b) Are the means commensurate with the objectives sought and adequately implemented? (c) Are the procedures being applied as intended?
For at besvare disse spżrgsml reviderede revisorerne dataene til mling af programmets effekt i relation til hvert enkelt af de fastsatte ml, udvžlgelses-og stżtteberettigelseskriterierne for de deltagende velgżrende organisationer og for de endelige modtagere, gennemfżrelsen af rsplanerne for alle involverede aktżrer, og de mekanismer, der anvendes til uddeling af levnedsmidler, p basis af kvantiteten, kvaliteten og variationen af de uddelte produkter. 
To answer these questions the audit work covered the data for measuring the programme’s impact in relation to each of the objectives set, the selection and eligibility criteria for charitable organisations participating in the scheme and for the final beneficiaries, the implementation of the annual plans by all stakeholders involved and the mechanisms used for the distribution of the foodstuffs in terms of quantity, quality and variety.
Endelig undersżgte Retten systemet for vurdering af behov, fordelingen af de finansielle ressourcer blandt medlemsstaterne og udbudsprocedurerne for de endelige produkter, der skulle leveres til de velgżrende organisationer til uddeling. 
Finally the system for establishing the needs, the allocation of the financial resources to the Member States and the procurement procedures for the final products to be supplied to charitable organisations for distribution were examined.
Revisionen omfattede forvaltningen og overvgningen af programmet bde i Kommissionen og i udvalgte medlemsstater. 
The audit covered the management and monitoring of the programme at both the Commission and in selected Member States.
Revisionsarbejdet fokuserede p analyse, dokumentation og test af de procedurer og systemer, der anvendes til forvaltning af programmet af Kommissionen, af de nationale myndigheder og af nogle af de udpegede velgżrende organisationer p nationalt, regionalt og lokalt niveau, der deltager i selve uddelingen af levnedsmidler til socialt drligt stillede personer. 
The audit work focused on the analysis, documentation and testing of the procedures and systems applied for the management of the programme by the Commission, by the competent national authorities, and by some of the designated charitable organisations at national, regional and local level participating in the actual distribution of foodstuffs to deprived persons.
Revisionen blev gennemfżrt i fire medlemsstater Ń Spanien, Frankrig, Italien og Polen Ń der tegner sig for mere end 72 % af de rlige budgetbevillinger. 
The audit was carried out in four Member States — Spain, France, Italy and Poland — accounting for more than 72 % of the annual budgetary appropriations.
Revisionen fokuserede p rsplanerne for 2006-2008. 
The audit focused on the plans for the years 2006–2008.
13 Kilde: velgżrende organisationer Sžrberetning nr. 6/2009 Ń Den Europžiske Unions fżdevarehjžlp til socialt drligt stillede personer: en vurdering af mlene og de anvendte midler og metoder 
13 Source: Charitable Organisations. Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed
14 BEMŽRKNINGER PROGRAMMETS ML OG FREMGANGSMDE: ER PROGRAMMETS ML STADIG GYLDIGE, OG ER FREMGANGSMDEN HENSIGTSMŽSSIG? 
14 OBSERVATIONS THE PROGRAMME’S OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH: DO THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAMME REMAIN VALID AND IS THE APPROACH APPROPRIATE?
PROGRAMMLENES DIKOTOMI 23. 
THE DICHOTOMY OF THE PROGRAMME’S OBJECTIVES 23.
I retsgrundlaget14 for foranstaltningen opstilles det dobbelte ml at hjžlpe de socialt drligst stillede og at stabilisere landbrugsmarkederne ved at frigive en del af interventionslagrene (jf. tekstboks 6). 
The legal provisions14 set for the measure the twin objectives of making a significant contribution towards the well-being of the most deprived citizens and the stabilisation of agricultural markets through the disposal of part of the intervention stocks (see Box 6).
Ansvaret for gennemfżrelse af programmet er blevet givet til de aktżrer, som normalt er involveret i forvaltningen af landbrugsudgifter, nemlig Kommissionens Generaldirektorat for Landbrug og Udvikling af Landdistrikter og, i medlemsstaterne, det betalingsorgan, der str for landbrugsbetalinger, og som er ansvarligt for at forvalte interventionslagrene. 
The programme’s implementation responsibility has been given to the actors generally involved in the management of agricultural expenditure, namely the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development within the Commission and, in the Member States, the paying agency dealing with agricultural payments, and responsible for managing the intervention stocks.
14 Forordning (EŻF) nr. 3730/87 om almindelige regler som indarbejdet i forordning (EF) nr. 
14 Regulation (EEC) No 3730/87 laying down general rules as incorporated in Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.
TEKSTBOKS 6 PROGRAMMETS ML ČFžllesskabet har i kraft af sine interventionslagre af forskellige landbrugsprodukter i hżj grad mulighed for at hjžlpe de socialt drligst stillede; det er i Fžllesskabets interesse og tillige i overensstemmelse med mlene i den fžlles landbrugspolitik, at det til stadighed kan udnytte denne mulighed, indtil lagrene er nedbragt til normal stżrrelse [...]Ç Sžrberetning nr. 6/2009 Ń Den Europžiske Unions fżdevarehjžlp til socialt drligt stillede personer: en vurdering af mlene og de anvendte midler og metoder 
BOX 6 THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAMME ‘The Community has through its intervention stocks of various agricultural products the potential means to make a significant contribution towards the well-being of its most deprived citizens; it is in the Community interest, and in line with the objectives of the common agricultural policy, to exploit this potential on a durable basis until the stocks have been run down to a normal level [...].’ Special Report No 6/2009 — European Union food aid for deprived persons: an assessment of the objectives, the means and the methods employed
NR INTERVENTIONSLAGRENE ER LAVE, ER FORBINDELSEN TIL LANDBRUGSUDGIFTERNE SPINKEL 25. 
WHEN INTERVENTION STOCKS ARE LOW THE LINK WITH AGRICULTURAL EXPENDITURE IS TENUOUS 25.
Det nuvžrende program har vžret gžldende siden 1987. 
The current programme has been in application since 1987.
De oprindelige bestemmelser fremmede finansiering af programmet ved hjžlp af interventionslagrene i overensstemmelse med mlene i den fžlles landbrugspolitik om at nedbringe lagrene til normal stżrrelse15. 
The initial provisions favoured the financing of the programme using intervention stocks in line with the objectives of the common agricultural policy ‘to run down the stocks to a normal level’15.
De senere rs reform af den fžlles landbrugspolitik, hvor interventions-foranstaltningerne for en ržkke produkter er blevet faset ud, og de eksisterende interventionslagre er blevet reduceret til et minimum, har i hżj grad indvirket p gennemfżrelsen af programmet, idet stżrstedelen af produkterne nu skal opkżbes direkte p markedet16. 
However, the reform of the CAP in recent years, whereby intervention measures for certain products are being phased out, and the decrease of existing intervention stocks to zero, have considerably affected the implementation of the programme: the majority of the products now have to be purchased directly on the market16.
Ikke desto mindre bestr der en spinkel forbindelse til landbrugsudgifterne, i og med at de produkter, der stilles til rdighed til socialt drligt stillede personer, stadig er produkter, der er afledt af landbrugsprodukter, der er berettigede til interventionsoplagring. 
Nevertheless, a tenuous link is still maintained with agricultural expenditure insofar as the products made available to deprived persons are still those derived from agricultural products eligible for intervention storage.
Det komplicerer forvaltningen af foranstaltningen og begržnser valget af produkter, der kan uddeles. 
This complicates the management of the measure and restricts the choice of products to be distributed.
Endelig er hjžlpens art, dvs. et bidrag til at afhjžlpe fattigdom, vanskelig at forene med EU-landbrugsud-gifternes generelle art, hvor stżtten er rettet mod landbrugere og/ eller landbrugsvirksomheder, og stżtteberettigede modtagere har ret til at modtage et specifikt stżttebelżb. 
Finally, the nature of the aid, i.e. a contribution to alleviate poverty, is difficult to reconcile with the general nature of EU agricultural expenditure, whereby the support is targeted at farmers and/or the farming industry and eligible beneficiaries are entitled to receive a specific amount of aid.
Spżrgsmlet om hensigtsmžssigheden af at behandle udgifterne til programmet som led i den fžlles landbrugspolitik er blevet drżftet p Forvaltningskomitens mżder. 
The issue of the appropriateness of treating the expenditure for the programme as part of the Common Agricultural Policy has been raised in the Management Committee meetings.
Visse medlemsstater, som ikke deltager i EU-fżdevareprogrammet, har i de senere r stemt imod vedtagelsen af rsplaner, fordi de mener, at denne stżtte er uforenelig med den fžlles landbrugspolitiks ml og finansieringstype17. 
Certain Member States who do not participate in the EU food programme have voted against the approval of the annual plans in the recent years considering this aid incompatible with the CAP’s focus and type of financing17.
15 Jf. tekstboks 6. 
15 See Box 6.
16 For s vidt angr rsplanen for 2008 var der kun sukker p interventionslagrene, og resten af produkterne skulle tilvejebringes p markedet. 
16 For the annual plan 2008 only sugar was available in intervention and the rest of the products had to be mobilised on the market.
Et skżn, som blev offentliggjort af GD AGRI i juli 2007 (ČThe Prospects For Agricultural Markets and Income in the European UnionÇ), for perioden 2007-2014, er: Ń at de offentlige kornlagre i stor udstržkning vil forsvinde tidligt i prognoseperioden Ń at markedet for sukker forventes at balancere fra 2010 Ń at de smżrinterventionslagre, der blev tżmt i fżrste halvr af 2007, vil forblive tomme indtil udgangen af 2014 Ń at markedet for skummetmžlkspulver forventes at fortsžtte med at balancere i hele prognoseperioden, uden at det bliver nżdvendigt at tilbyde produkter til interventionsopkżb. 
A forecast published by DG AGRI in July 2007, ‘The Prospects For Agricultural Markets and Income in the European Union’, for the period 2007–2014, is that: — for cereals ‘public stocks would largely disappear in the early projection period’, — sugar is ‘expected to reach balance as from 2010’, — for butter ‘emptied intervention stocks in the first semester of 2007 will remain empty until the end of 2014’ and — for skimmed milk powder (SMP) ‘the market is expected to remain balanced throughout the projection period with no necessity to offer products for intervention buying-in’.
17 Referat af mżderne i Forvaltningskomiten for Korn (vedtagelse af rsplanen for 2008): DE: Mener, at der ikke lžngere er overensstemmelse mellem Rdets forordning og gennemfżrelsesforordningen. NL, SE, UK: Żnsker ikke, at en social foranstaltning finansieres over budgettet for den fžlles landbrugspolitik. NL: Żnsker desuden ikke, at en social foranstaltning skal finansieres over fžllesskabsbudgettet. 
17 Minutes of the meetings of the Management Committee for Cereals (adoption of the annual plan 2008): ‘DE: finds that there is no longer any consistency between the Council Regulation and the Implementing Regulation; NL, SE, UK: do not want a social measure to be financed by the CAP budget; NL: likewise because they do not want a social measure to be financed by the Community budget.’
FORANSTALTNINGENS SOCIALE ML ER DET DOMINERENDE 28. 
THE SOCIAL OBJECTIVE OF THE MEASURE IS PREDOMINANT 28.
Selv om hjžlpen til de socialt drligst stillede var knyttet til reguleringen af landbrugsmarkederne gennem frigivelse af interventionslagrene, gżr udviklingen i den senere tid, at foranstaltningens sociale forml er blevet meget mere dominerende. 
Although the contribution towards the well-being of the most deprived citizens was linked to the stabilisation of agricultural markets through the disposal of intervention stocks, recent developments mean that the social aim of the measure has become much more predominant.
Allerede i 1998 offentliggjorde Kommissionen en evaluering af Det Europžiske Fžllesskabs fżdeva-reprogram, som konkluderede, at foranstaltningens sociale aspekter blev anset for at vžre vigtigere end rollen som markedsregulerings-instrument (jf. tekstboks 7). 
As early as 1998, the Commission published an evaluation of the European Community Food Programmes which concluded that the social aspects of the measure were regarded as a more important objective than that as an instrument of market regulation (see Box 7).
Evalueringen viste sledes, at foranstaltningens effektivitet som markedsregulator var tvivlsom, dels fordi en del af de produkter, der var frigivet fra fžllesskabslagrene, i nogle tilfžlde indirekte kom tilbage til intervention, dels fordi foranstaltningen var vžsentligt dyrere end eksportrestitutioner som metode til at reducere det strukturelle overskud. 
Indeed, the evaluation considered that the effectiveness of the measure in terms of market regulation was doubtful since, on the one hand in some cases a proportion of the products withdrawn from Community stocks returned indirectly back to intervention and, on the other hand, the measure was considerably more expensive than export refunds as a method of reducing the structural surplus.
16 TEKSTBOKS 7 KOMMISSIONENS 1998-EVALUERING (VIGTIGSTE KONKLUSIONER OG ANBEFALINGER) ČForanstaltningens sociale mlsžtning fremgr klart af forordningerne. [...] dens relevans inden for rammerne af den vedvarende og udbredte fattigdom i Europa attesteres af de velgżrende organisationer [...]. 
16 BOX 7 COMMISSION’S 1998 EVALUATION (MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS) ‘The social purpose of the measure is clearly set out in the regulations. [...] its usefulness in the context of persistent widespread poverty in Europe is attested by the charities [...].
Da foranstaltningen blev indfżrt, var et andet, men dog sekundžrt ml, at bidrage til at nedbringe Fžllesskabets omfattende og omkostningskržvende interventionslagre [...]. 
When the measure was introduced another, admittedly secondary, purpose was to help run down the Community’s huge and costly intervention stocks [...].
Foranstaltningen kan derfor stadig betragtes som et instrument til markedsregulering. 
The measure can therefore still be regarded as a market regulation instrument’.
Medlemsstaterne [...] er i stand til at anvende ressourcerne effektivt [...]. 
‘The Member States [...] are well able to make effective use of the resources [...].
P den anden side er det tvivlsomt, om foranstaltningen er effektiv til at regulere markederne. [...] i visse tilfžlde vender en mske stor del af de produkter, der er frigivet fra fžllesskabslagrene, indirekte tilbage til intervention. 
On the other hand, there is some doubt about the effectiveness of the measure in terms of market regulation. [...] in some cases, possibly a large proportion of the products withdrawn from Community stocks returns indirectly to intervention’.
Der ikke er nogen tvivl om, at stżtten er et effektivt instrument til social bistand, men denne form for stżtte er vžsentlig dyrere end eksportrestitutioner som metode til at reducere de strukturelle overskud [...]. [...] i lyset af Europas alvorlige fattigdomsproblem og den uomtvistelige nytte af stżtten til de tržngende, er der ingen tvivl om, at det bżr anbefales, at foranstaltningen fortsžttes, og de finansielle bevillinger til foranstaltningen bżr mske endda forżges. [...] 
‘While there is no doubt that it [the aid] is an efficient instrument of social aid, it is considerably more expensive than export refunds as a method of reducing the structural surplus [...]’. ‘[...] in view of Europe’s serious poverty problem and of the unquestionable usefulness of the aid to the needy, continuation of the measure should certainly be recommended and possibly even an increase in the financial resources devoted to it. [...]
Rdet har gjort det klart, [...] at de sociale aspekter blev betragtet som vigtigere end foranstaltningens rolle som et instrument til markedsregulering.Ç Sžrberetning nr. 
The Council has made it clear [...] that the social aspects were regarded as more important than the role of the measure as an instrument of market regulation.’
I forordning (EF) nr. 1234/2007, som konsoliderede forordning (EŻF) nr. 
Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, which consolidated Regulation (EEC) No 3730/87, also considers the scheme ‘an important social recital18. measure’18.
En lignende opfattelse af foranstaltningens sociale ml deles af forvaltningsmyndighederne i de medlemsstater, Retten besżgte under revisionen, og som understregede, at det var vigtigt, at programmets sociale dimension koordineres godt p nationalt plan. 
A similar perception of the social aim of the measure is shared by the managing authorities of the Member States visited during the audit, which expressed the importance of the social dimension of the programme being well coordinated at national level.
Endvidere har Europa-Parlamentet s sent som i april 2006 vedtaget en erklžring Čom forsyninger til de velgżrende organisationer, der er godkendt til at gennemfżre EUŐs fżdevarehjžlpeprogram for de drligst stilledeÇ. 
Furthermore, as recently as April 2006, the European Parliament adopted a declaration ‘on supplying approved charities working to implement the European food aid programme for the most deprived’.