natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
49. the court found that only a few improved the economic value of the forests, either by improving the value of the land (building of forest tracks and roads) or the value of the stands (silvicultural operations like pruning or thinning). for the other projects the court did not find sufficient evidence on their relevance or on their significant contribution to the improvement of the value of forests, as they concerned: (a) agriculture (fruit chestnuts49, pastures, short-rotation coppice, agricultural machinery, farm buildings); (b) processing and marketing of wood (equipment for fuel wood chipping and subsequent drying, or sawing, storehouses, transport con-tainers); and (c) operating costs for wood production (harvesting, chipping and drying, consumables like overalls, footwear and gloves). pROGRAmmInG pERIOd 2014–20 50. the commission presented in october 2011 a proposal for a regulation on support for rural development for the programming period 2014–2050. the draft regulation proposes support for investments ‘related to the improvement of the economic value of forests’ to ‘be granted to private forest owners, municipalities and their associations’51. the investments shall be at the level of the forest holding and may include investments for soil and resource-friendly harvesting machinery and practices. 
Teiste projektide puhul ei leidnud kontrollikoda piisavalt tõendeid nende asjakohasuse või olulise panuse kohta metsade väärtuse parandamisel, sest need puudutasid: a) põllumajandust (kastanivilju49, karjamaid, lühikese raieringiga madalmetsi, põllumajandusmasinaid, põllumajanduslikke tootmis-hooneid), b) puidu töötlemist ja turustamist (seadmed küttepuidu saagimiseks või hakkimiseks, hakkimisjärgseks kuivatamiseks, laohooned, trans-pordikonteinerid) ning c) puidutootmise tegevuskulusid (raie, hakkimine ja kuivatamine, tar-bekaubad, nagu kombinesoonid, jalatsid ja kindad). prograMMitöö periood 2014–2020 50.
51. in the proposal once again no indication is given why the provision addresses private owners in general, and not specific categories of owners or specific situations of certain private owners. 
51. Ettepanekus ei ole jällegi täpsustatud, miks see säte käsitleb eraomanikke üldiselt, mitte konkreetseid omanike kategooriaid või teatud eraomanike eriolukordi.
52. in its opinion no 1/2012, the court noted that although in the draft regulation a single measure should cover all types of support for forestry investments, and all relevant sub-measures are mentioned in one single article52, each of them remains governed by specific requirements and provisions. 
Kontrollikoda märkis oma arvamuses nr 1/2012, et kuigi määruse eelnõus peaks üks meede katma kõiki metsandusinvesteeringute toetuse tüüpe ja kõik asjakohased alameetmed on ühes artiklis mainitud,52 kohaldatakse igale alameetmele erinevaid tingimusi ja sätteid.
53. the court considers that if the commission proposal is adopted without any change, the problems noted in this report are likely to persist in the next programming period. 
53. Kontrollikoda on arvamusel, et kui komisjoni ettepanek võetakse ühegi muudatuseta vastu, siis käesolevas aruandes välja toodud probleemid püsivad tõenäoliselt ka järgmisel programmitöö perioodil.
49 see paragraph 38. 
49 Vt punkt 38.
50 coM(2011) 627 final/2 of 19 october 2011. 
50 KOM (2011) 627 l(õplik)2, 19. oktoober 2011.
51 article 27 of coM(2011) 627 final of 12 october 2011, p. 50. 52 article 22. 
51 KOM (2011) 627 (lõplik), 12. oktoober 2011, lk 50, artikkel 27. 52 Artikkel22.
24 Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development 
24 Eriaruanne nr 8/2013 – Euroopa Maaelu Arengu Põllumajandusfondist antav metsade majandusliku väärtuse parandamise toetus
25 CoNCluSIoNS aNd rECommENdatIoNS 54. the specific measure 122 ‘improvement of the economic value of forests’ was introduced in the programming period 2007–13. the court’s audit revealed deficiencies in terms of the design, implementation and monitoring of the measure. consequently, the court concludes that the commission and the Member states did not manage the audited aspects of the support for the improvement of the economic value of forests efficiently and effectively. 
Meedet 122 „Metsade majandusliku väärtuse parandamine” hakati rakendama programmitöö perioodil 2007–2013. Kontrollikoja audit tõi ilmsiks puudusi meetme kavandamises, rakendamises ja järelevalves. Sellest tulenevalt järeldab kontrollikoda, et komisjon ja liikmesriigid ei hallanud metsade majandusliku väärtuse parandamise toetuse auditeeritud aspekte tõhusalt ja mõjusalt.
SIGnIFICAnT wEAknESSES In THE dESIGn OF THE mEASURE 55. the audit identified weaknesses in the design of the measure which significantly hinders its successful implementation, as explained hereunder. 
Auditi käigus tuvastati meetme kavandamises puudusi, mis pärsivad oluliselt selle rakendamise edukust, nagu järgnevalt selgitatakse. 56.
56. the commission did not specifically analyse the situation in the forestry sector at Eu level so as to justify the proposal of specific financial support for improving the economic value of forests of private owners and municipalities or defining the public interest to which such a support should respond (paragraphs 18 to 22). 
Komisjon ei analüüsinud täpsemalt metsandussektori olukorda ELi tasandil, et põhjendada ettepanekut anda konkreetset rahalist toetust eraomanikele ja omavalitsustele kuuluvate metsade majandusliku väärtuse parandamiseks, ega määratlenud avalikku huvi sellise toetuse andmiseks (punktid 18–22).
Key features of the measure were not defined in the legal provisions, namely the meaning of ‘economic value of forests’ and what is a ‘forestry holding’. 
Õigussätetes ei defineeritud meetme põhielemente, nimelt „metsade majandusliku väärtuse” tähendust ning seda, mida kujutab endast „metsandusettevõte”.
Moreover, there were no particular conditions concerning the size, main economic activity or legal status of potential beneficiaries to avoid risks of potential distortion of competition (paragraphs 23 to 25). 
Lisaks puudusid täpsed tingimused võimalike toetusesaajate suuruse, peamise majandustegevuse või õigusliku seisundi suhtes, mis aitaksid vältida võimalikku konkurentsimoonutuse ohtu (punktid 23–25).
Member states set very different sizes of forest holdings above which a forest management plan was required, ranging from a minimum size set so as to increase the forest areas under management plan to such a high threshold that in practice in a Member state (austria) 99 % of private forest owners were exonerated from that obligation (paragraph 26). Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development 
Liikmesriigid kehtestasid väga erinevaid metsandusettevõtete piirsuurusi, millest alates nõuti metsamajandamiskava koostamist: need ulatusid minimaalsest suurusest (eesmärgiga suurendada metsamajandamiskavade alusel hallatavate metsaalade hulka) kuni nii kõrge piirmäärani, et ühes liikmesriigis (Austria) vabastati 99% erametsaomanikest selle kohustuse täitmisest (punkt 26). Eriaruanne nr 8/2013 – Euroopa Maaelu Arengu Põllumajandusfondist antav metsade majandusliku väärtuse parandamise toetus
59. also the needs were not adequately described in the rdps by the Member states. the audit found several instances of inadequate initial analysis of the specific needs regarding the measure or that the measure did not respond to any specific or urgent needs in Member states (paragraphs 28 to 31). several Member states discontinued the measure or reallocated most of the allocated amounts in favour of other measures (paragraph 32). 
59. Lisaks ei olnud liikmesriigid maaelu arengukavades vajadusi asjakohaselt kirjeldatud. Auditi käigus leiti mitu juhtumit, kus meedet puudutavate konkreetsete vajaduste esialgne analüüs oli ebapiisav, või kus meede ei vastanud ühelegi liikmesriigi konkreetsele või kiireloomulisele vajadusele (punktid 28–31).
26 RECOmmEndATIOn 1 the Commission should: — define and assess the Eu needs for improving the economic value of the forests; — clearly define the key features that would ensure that the Eu support is targeted to address those needs, and thus create Eu added value. 
26 1. soovitus Komisjon peaks: — määratlema ja hindama metsade majandusliku väärtuse parandamisega seotud ELi vajadusi; — defineerima selgelt põhielemendid, mis tagaksid, et ELi toetus on suunatud nende vajaduste käsitlemisele ning looksid seeläbi Euroopa lisaväärtust.
RECOmmEndATIOn 2 member States should: — adequately describe in their rdps the specific economic needs and opportunities of the different types of forest areas and beneficiaries; — enhance forest management by providing for the elaboration of forest management plans for the bulk of forest holdings and the promotion of certification of forest areas. Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development 
2. soovitus Liikmesriigid peaksid: — kirjeldama asjakohaselt oma maaelu arengukavades erinevat liiki metsaalade ja toetusesaajate konkreetseid majanduslikke vajadusi ja võimalusi; — tõhustama metsamajandamist, laiendades metsamajandamiskavade koostamise nõuet enamikule metsandusettevõtetest ja edendades metsaalade sertifitseerimist. Eriaruanne nr 8/2013 – Euroopa Maaelu Arengu Põllumajandusfondist antav metsade majandusliku väärtuse parandamise toetus
SIGnIFICAnT wEAknESSES In THE ImpLEmEnTATIOn HAVInG REGARd TO THE ObjECTIVES SET 60. the audit found numerous weaknesses in the implementation of the measure (paragraphs 33 to 41). 
oLuLised puudused kehtestatud eesMärkide eLLuviiMiseL 60. Auditi käigus leiti puudusi meetme rakendamises (punktid 33–41).
Hence the court concludes that, in certain respects, the implementation process was not appropriate. 
Sellest tulenevalt järeldab kontrollikoda, et teatavas osas ei olnud rakendamisprotsess sobilik.
61. in particular, the court found cases of public support which were disproportionately high compared to the real needs (paragraphs 33 to 34). depending on the Member state approach, many of the projects subsequently funded are not in line with the measure’s provisions, for instance cases were found of support granted for non-durable goods and operating production costs and of aid de facto supporting felling (paragraphs 35 to 36). furthermore, Member states supported under measure 122 operations which do not correspond to the objectives of the measure and which would be more appropriately financed by other measures with different eligibility requirements and aid financing rates, usually lower (paragraphs 37 to 39). 
61. Ennekõike leidis kontrollikoda juhtumeid, kus toetus avalikust sektorist oli võrreldes tegelike vajadustega ebaproportsionaalselt suur (punktid 33–34). Liikmesriigi lähenemisviisist sõltuvalt ei olnud paljud rahastatud projektid meetme sätetega kooskõlas, näiteks leiti juhtumeid, kus toetust anti mittekestvuskaupade soetamiseks ja tootmiskulude eest tasumiseks ning otseselt metsalangetamiseks (punktid 35–36).
62. not all the investments per se increase the economic value of forests. the inherent link between the aid granted and a possible improvement of the economic value of a forest varied depending on the typology of investment (paragraphs 40 to 41). 
62. Mitte kõik investeeringud ei paranda metsade majanduslikku väärtust. Eraldatud toetuse ja metsade majandusliku väärtuse võimaliku parandamise vaheline olemuslik seos oli erinev ning sõltus investeeringu liigist (punktid 40–41).
27 RECOmmEndATIOn 3 member States should: — set adequate requirements to ensure that forestry support within the rural development policy is consistent, in line with state aid provisions and maximises its effectiveness, — put in place adequate procedures to ensure that support is effective so as to actually increase the economic value of the forest areas where the investments take place. Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development 
27 3. soovitus Liikmesriigid peaksid: — kehtestama piisavad nõuded, tagamaks, et maaelu arengu poliitika raames antakse metsandustoetusi järjepidevalt, kooskõlas riigiabi eeskirjadega ning nende mõjusust maksimeerides; — kehtestama asjakohase menetluskorra, et tagada toetuste mõjusus investeeringuid saanud metsaalade majandusliku väärtuse parandamisel. Eriaruanne nr 8/2013 – Euroopa Maaelu Arengu Põllumajandusfondist antav metsade majandusliku väärtuse parandamise toetus
THE ASSESSmEnT OF THE EFFECTIVEnESS OF THE SUppORT wAS nOT SATISFACTORY 63. as a result of the audit, the court considers that important shortcomings hindered the assessment of the effectiveness of the support. 
toetuste Mõjususe hindaMine ei oLnud rahuLdav 63. Auditi tulemusel leiab kontrollikoda, et olulised puudused pärssisid toetuste mõjususe hindamist.
64. the cMEf is inadequate to appraise the impact of the financial support under measure 122 because the performance indicators and evaluation questions included in the cMEf do not allow determining whether the funded investments resulted in an improvement of the economic value of the forests where they were carried out (paragraphs 42 to 46). 
64. Ühine järelevalve-ja hindamisraamistik on ebapiisav meetme 122 raames antava rahalise toetuse mõju hindamiseks, kuna ühises järelevalve-ja hindamisraamistikus sisalduvad tulemusnäitajad ja hindamisküsimused ei võimalda otsustada, kas rahastatud investeeringute tulemusel parandati metsade majanduslikku väärtust investeeringu tegemise kohas (punktid 42–46).
Member states did not determine or require beneficiaries to determine the value of the forest areas prior to and after the investments. the lack of assessments at Member state or regional level on the effective increase of the value of the forests where actions were supported hinders the assessment regarding the achievement of the main objective of the measure, and therefore also the assessment of the effectiveness of the support (paragraph 47). 
Liikmesriigid ei määratlenud ei enne ega pärast investeeringute tegemist metsaalade väärtust ega nõudnud seda ka toetusesaajatelt. Metsade väärtuse tõhusat suurendamist käsitlevate hinnangute puudumine liikmesriigi või piirkonna tasandil, kus tegevusi toetati, pärsib meetme põhieesmärgi saavutamise hindamist ja seeläbi ka toetuse mõjususe hindamist (punkt 47).
66. the court found that only a few of the audited projects improved the economic value of the forests, either by improving the value of the land (building of forest tracks and roads) or the value of the stands (silvicultural operations like pruning or thinning). 
66. Kontrollikoda leidis, et auditeeritud projektidest olid vaid vähesed suutnud parandada metsade majanduslikku väärtust kas maa väärtuse parandamise (metsaradade ja -teede ehitamise) või puistute väärtuse parandamise (metsandustööde, nagu kärpimine ja harvendamine) kaudu.
28 RECOmmEndATIOn 4 the Commission should improve its monitoring of the measure to ensure that the member States implement it in line with the specific objectives set. 
28 4. soovitus Komisjon peaks parandama meetme järelevalvet, tagamaks, et liikmesriigid rakendaksid seda kooskõlas kehtestatud konkreetsete eesmärkidega.
In concrete terms, member States should require beneficiaries to provide details of the value of their forest areas both prior to and after the aided investments and managing bodies should be required to validate these values. Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development 
Täpsemalt peaksid liikmesriigid nõudma, et toetusesaajad esitaksid andmeid oma metsaalade väärtuse kohta enne ja pärast toetust saanud investeeringute tegemist ning korraldusasutustelt tuleks nõuda nimetatud andmete tõendamist. Eriaruanne nr 8/2013 – Euroopa Maaelu Arengu Põllumajandusfondist antav metsade majandusliku väärtuse parandamise toetus
this report was adopted by chamber i, headed by Mr ioannis sarMas, Member of the court of auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 12 June 2013. 
I auditikoda, mida juhib kontrollikoja liige Ioannis SARMAS, võttis käesoleva aruande vastu 12. juuni 2013. aasta koosolekul Luxembourgis.
For the Court of Auditors Vítor Manuel da siLVa caLdEira President 29 Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development 
Kontrollikoja nimel president Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA 29 Eriaruanne nr 8/2013 – Euroopa Maaelu Arengu Põllumajandusfondist antav metsade majandusliku väärtuse parandamise toetus
125 100 75 50 25 0 30 AnnEX I ALLOCATIOn OF FInAnCIAL RESOURCES FOR mEASURE 122 VS EXTEnSIOn OF FOREST AREAS In pRIVATE OwnERSHIp bY mEmbER STATE Programmed EAFRD contribution under measure 122 vs forests in private ownership per Member State EAFRD contribution under measure 122 (million euro) Forests in private ownership (million ha) Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development Romania Italy Portugal Spain France Slovakia Latvia Austria Slovenia Hungary Bulgaria Czech Republic United Kingdom Estonia Lithuania Germany Luxembourg 
125 100 75 50 25 0 30 i Lisa rahaListe vahendite eraLdaMine MeetMeLe 122 ja eraMetsade pindaLa suurus LiikMesriigiti Meetme 122 raames kavandatud EAFRD panus ja erametsade suurus liikmesriigiti EAFRD panus meetmesse 122 (1000 eurot) EAFRD panus meetme 122 raames (miljon eurot) Eriaruanne nr 8/2013 – Euroopa Maaelu Arengu Põllumajandusfondist antav metsade majandusliku väärtuse parandamise toetus Rumeenia Itaalia Portugal Hispaania Prantsusmaa Slovakkia Läti Austria Sloveenia Ungari Bulgaaria Tšehhi Vabariik Ühendkuningriik Eesti Leedu Saksamaa Luksemburg
Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development 38 Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development Country Number of project Nature of project Forest area declared/ managed (ha) Total investment (euro) Total public expenditure (euro) Total EAFRD contribution (euro) On-the-spot visit SI Machinery — Trailer AnnEX II 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Forest Track 38,15 23,70 19,82 15 641,00 69 510,00 66 170,00 40 564,00 7 965,00 34 550,00 31 521,00 20 282,00 5 973,00 25 913,00 23 641,00 15 211,00 Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No 8 Machinery — Harvester, Tractor, Forwarder, Truck with Crane/Cable-boom 3,30 1 157 730,00 500 000,00 375 000,00 Yes 9 10 Forest Track Machinery — Tractor 15 350,00 1,70 21 752,00 79 099,00 10 876,00 39 550,00 8 157,00 -29 662,00 No No Machinery — Tractor Forest Road Forest Road 261,15 3,49 45,63 24,00 Machinery — Tractor, Harvester 230 890,00 45 449,00 50 654,00 138 534,00 5 500,00 21 106,00 103 901,00 4 125,00 15 829,00 Forest Road 
Eriaruanne nr 8/2013 – Euroopa Maaelu Arengu Põllumajandusfondist antav metsade majandusliku väärtuse parandamise toetus
Moreover, lessons have been learned which will be applied for the coming period — especially through guidance and within the programming process. vii. the commission analysed the situation of the forest sector in the 2005 commission staff Working document, which formed an annex to the communication on the implementation of the Eu forestry strategy (document reference sEc(2005) 333). the term ‘economic value’ was indeed not defined in the legal provisions. 
Peale selle kasutatakse tulevasel perioodil ära saadud kogemusi, seda eelkõige suuniste kaudu ja programmitöös. vii. Komisjon analüüsis metsandussektori olukorda komisjoni talituste 2005. aasta töödokumendis, mis lisati komisjoni teatisele ELi metsastrateegia rakendamise kohta (doku-mendi viide SEK(2005) 333).
1 sWot-analysis: analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. 
1 SWOT-analüüs: tugevate ja nõrkade külgede, võimaluste ja ohtude analüüs.
Every rdp must contain a sWot analysis as part of the basis for planning spending through the rdp. Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development 
Iga maaelu arengukava peab sisaldama SWOT-analüüsi, mis moodustab osa maaelu arengukava kaudu tehtavate kulutuste kavandamise alusest. Eriaruanne nr 8/2013 – Euroopa Maaelu Arengu Põllumajandusfondist antav metsade majandusliku väärtuse parandamise toetus
40 iX. the commission considers that measure 122 was used incorrectly in some but not all cases cited by the court. nevertheless, it will make the necessary efforts (including through initial guidance) to ensure that Member states/ regions use the correct measure to support a given operation in the next period. see also the replies to paragraphs 35, 36 and 37 for concrete examples with regard to correct implementation in general, and the replies to paragraphs 40 and 42 for examples with regard to use of the correct measure. the commission considers that where measure 122 was the correct measure to use, the economic value of forests was indeed increased — even if the exact nature of the link between the aid and the increase of value of the forest varied according to the type of investment. the commission will investigate with the council and the European parliament to what extent the desired relationship between investments in equipment and improvements to the economic value of forests could be clarified in the relevant legal acts. 
Komisjon on seisukohal, et meedet 122 kasutati vääralt osadel, kuid mitte kõikidel kontrollikoja nimetatud juhtudel. Sellest hoolimata teeb ta vajalikud jõupingutused (sealhulgas esialgsete suuniste kaudu) tagamaks, et järgmisel perioodil kasutavad liikmesriigid/piirkonnad teatava tegevuse toetamiseks õiget meedet. Vt ka vastused punktidele 35, 36 ja 37, kus on esitatud konkreetsed näited õige rakendamise kohta üldiselt, ning vastused punktidele 40 ja 42, kus on esitatud näited õige meetme kasutamise kohta.
Reply of the CoMMISSIoN common reply to paragraphs X and Xi. the indicators and the evaluation questions of the current cMEf are related to the rationale and the objectives of the measure and the axis in which it is included, and make a useful contribution to overall assessment of the measure. the commission considers that appropriate analysis of relevant data within the framework provided can illustrate the economic improvements generated through investments supported under this measure. it is recognised however, that Member states have experienced some difficulties in undertaking this economic analysis, and as a result the commission has 1. issued additional guidance in relation to the current period, and 2. reviewed the situation in order to improve the effectiveness of monitoring and evaluation for the future period. for the next programming period, together with the Member states the commission is developing a cMEf which will allow the assessment, for each rdp, of progress in implementation against commonly defined target indicators for the priorities and focus areas selected for the programme. at the basis is an indicator plan which for each focus area sets the target and the planned outputs and expenditure for the measures that will be used to achieve the targets and objectives of the programme. the indicator plan represents more accurately the quantified intervention logic for each individual programme than does the current rigid axis structure. the qualitative assessment of measure 122 plays an important role alongside quantitative assessment, as it sometimes takes more time for policy intervention to lead to a clearly measurable effect in the case of forestry than in the case of farming. 
Komisjon leiab, et asjakohaste andmete nõuetekohane analüüsimine olemasolevas raamistikus võib näitlikustada kõnealuse meetme alusel toetatavate investeeringute kaudu saavutatud majandusliku olukorra paranemist.