natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
We structured our review around the ECA programme logic model (see Figure 4), which sets out how public intervention can achieve economy, efficiency and effectiveness. 
Lbivaatamisel tugineti kontrollikoja programmiloogika mudelile (vt joonis 4), millest nhtub, kuidas saavutada avaliku sekkumisega sstlikkus, thusus ja tulemuslikkus.
The points raised in each section serve as examples of problems which we have identified in the past and which should be considered when designing the post-2020 CAP. 
Igas jaotises tstatatud punktid on toodud niteks probleemide kohta, mille kontrollikoda on varem tuvastanud ja mida tuleks 2020. aasta jrgset PPd kavandades arvesse vtta.
12 practice which we followed in our paper. The claim, made in the Communication, that 55 % of EU population live in rural areas, results from merging “predominantly rural” regions with “intermediate” regions. 
Teatises esitatud vide, et 55% ELi elanikkonnast elab maapiirkondades, tuleneb sellest, et ăvaldavalt maapiirkonnadŇ ja ăpiirkonnad, millest olulise osa moodustab maapiirkondŇ, on kokku pandud. ăPiirkonnad, millest olulise osa moodustab maapiirkondŇ, viks sama hsti rhmitada ăvaldavalt linnapiirkondadeŇ alla, mille phjal saaks siis vastupidiselt vita, et 80% ELi elanikkonnast elab linnapiirkondades.
Insufficient information to identify needs 20. 
Vajaduste kindlakstegemiseks napib teavet 20.
Better information is required to justify the need for several CAP measures12. 
Mitme PP meetme vajaduse phjendamiseks on vaja rohkem teavet12.
This is the case, in particular, for income support through direct payments, which currently consume more than 70 % of the CAP budget. 
See kehtib eesktt otsetoetustena makstava sissetulekutoetuse kohta, millele kulub praegu le 70% PP eelarvest.
Article 39 of the Treaty stipulates that the objective of the CAP is “to increase agricultural productivity (...) thus to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, in particular by increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture” (see Annex II). 
Aluslepingu artiklis 39 on stestatud, et PP eesmrk on ătsta pllumajanduse tootlikkust (...), et selle kaudu kindlustada pllumajandusega tegeleva rahvastikuosa rahuldav elatustase, eelkige pllumajandusega tegelevate inimeste isikutulu suurendamise teelŇ (vt II lisa). ăSelle kauduŇ nitab, et need kaks PP eesmrki on omavahel seotud.
Farmers’ earnings, and the living standard of their families were addressed initially through higher prices borne by consumers. 
Pllumajandusettevtjate tulu suurendasid ja nende perekondade elatustaset tstsid algselt tarbijate makstavad krgemad hinnad.
Even if the Treaty objective of ensuring a fair standard of living of the agricultural community is considered in isolation, there is not enough data to support the claim that farm households, taken as a whole, need significant support to achieve a fair standard of living. 
Isegi kui aluslepingu eesmrki kindlustada pllumajandusega tegeleva rahvastikuosa rahuldav elatustase ksitleda eraldi eesmrgina, puuduvad piisavad andmed, mis toetaksid videt, et pllumajanduslikud majapidamised vajavad ldiselt mrkimisvrset toetust rahuldava elatustaseme saavutamiseks.
The Commission argues that there is a considerable gap between what farmers gain for their work on the farm and what average wages and salaries are in the economy as a whole. 
Komisjon vidab, et pllumajandusettevtjate pllumajandusega teenitud tulu ning kogumajanduse keskmise palga ja sissetuleku vahel on suur erinevus.
However, the data presented by the Commission13 is affected by two significant limitations: (i) income sources outside farming are not included (see Box 1) and (ii) the averages mask a great variability of the income situation 14. 
Kuid komisjoni esitatud andmeid13 mjutavad kaks olulist piirangut: i) neis ei ole arvesse vetud muid sissetulekuallikaid peale pllumajanduse (vt 1. selgitus) ning ii) keskmise sissetuleku nitaja kujuneb vga erinevate sissetulekute phjal14.
14 12 13 14 Matthews, A. 
Pllumajanduse ja maaelu peadirektoraat on Matthews, A.
(2017), “Appendix 1: Why further reform?” (pp. 29–30) in Buckwell, A. et al. 2017. CAP - Thinking Out of the Box: Further modernisation of the CAP – why, what and how? 
(2017), ăAppendix 1: Why further reform?Ň (lk 29Đ30), Buckwell, A. jt 2017. aasta aruandes ăCAP Đ Thinking Out of the Box: Further modernisation of the CAP Đ why, what and how?Ň.
RISE Foundation, Brussels. 
RISE Foundation, Brssel.
Figure 6 of the Communication on the Future of Food and Farming. 
Joonis 6 komisjoni teatises toidutootmise ja pllumajanduse tuleviku kohta.
DG AGRI, Facts and figures on EU agriculture and the CAP (https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/statistics/facts-and-figures_en). 
Pllumajanduse ja maaelu peadirektoraat: fakte ja numbreid ELi pllumajanduse ja PP kohta (https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/statistics/facts-and-figures_et).
DG AGRI has previously published data15 indicating that more than 60 % of farm managers on farms of less than 5 ha spend less than 25 % of their time on their holdings and that around 80 % spend less than half their working lives on their holding. 
varasemalt avaldanud andmed15, mille kohaselt kulutab rohkem kui 60% alla 5 hektari suuruse maaga pllumajandusettevtete juhtidest oma pllumajanduslikule majapidamisele vhem kui 25% oma ajast ning umbkaudu 80% kulutab oma pllumajanduslikule majapidamisele alla poole oma tajast.
Only when farm size exceeds 20 ha do full-time managers outnumber those who spend less than 50 % of their working time on their holding. 
Pllumajandusettevtete tiskohaga ttavate juhtide arv on nende juhtide arvust, kes kulutavad oma pllumajanduslikule majapidamisele vhem kui 50% oma tajast, suurem vaid le 20 hektari suuruse maaga pllumajandusettevtete puhul.
Many CAP beneficiaries also receive pensions. 
Paljud PP toetusesaajad saavad ka pensioni.
The figures presented by the Commission exclude sources of income outside farming. 
Komisjoni esitatud numbrites ei ole arvesse vetud muid sissetulekuallikaid peale pllumajanduse.
According to a European Parliament study on farm household incomes16: “There is currently no EU statistical system that is capable of providing information on the living standards of the agricultural community”. 
Euroopa Parlamendi uuringus16, mis ksitleb pllumajanduslike majapidamiste sissetulekuid, on eldud, et kesoleval ajal puudub ELi statistikassteem, mis vimaldaks anda teavet pllumajanduses ttavate inimeste elatustaseme kohta.
Data on farm household incomes from all sources are available for some Member States and suggests that such households are not necessarily worse off than other households. 
Mne liikmesriigi puhul on olemas andmed pllumajanduslike majapidamiste kikidest sissetulekuallikatest prit sissetulekute kohta, mis nitavad, et knealused majapidamised ei ole teistest majapidamistest ilmtingimata kehvemal majanduslikul jrjel.
Farm incomes are higher (also per labour unit) for bigger farms17. 
Suuremate pllumajandusettevtete sissetulekud on suuremad (sh tju hiku kohta)17.
In calculating the income gap between farming and the economy as a whole, the Commission includes all 10.8 million EU agricultural holdings, including 7.2 million with less than 5 hectares, and 6 million with annual standard output below €4 00018. 
Komisjon on pllumajanduse ja kogumajanduse sissetuleku vahe arvutamisel aluseks vtnud kik 10,8 miljonit ELi pllumajanduslikku majapidamist, sealhulgas 7,2 miljonit majapidamist, kellel on maad vhem kui 5 hektarit, ja 6 miljonit majapidamist, kelle aastane tulem jb ldjuhul alla 4000 euro18.
The long tail of these very small farms, which often face inherent profitability challenges, distorts the picture. 
Suur hulk neid vga vikesi pllumajandusettevtteid, kellel on sageli kasumlikkusega raskusi, moonutab ldpilti.
The income situation of medium size farms between 5 and 250 hectares, which, according to the Commission, receive 72 % of EU direct support, is better. https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/rural-area-economics/briefs/pdf/09_en.pdf Hill, B. & Dylan Bradley, B. 
5Đ250 https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/rural-area-economics/briefs/pdf/09_en.pdf Hill, B. ja Dylan Bradley, B.
(2015) Comparison of farmers’ income in the EU Member States. 
(2015): ăComparison of farmersŐ income in the EU Member StatesŇ.
Report prepared for the European Parliament This correlation is stronger if size is expressed in terms of output values. Physical size is a worse indicator of income levels because many of the less profitable, extensive farms are large, while many profitable, intensive farms, especially in the meat and vegetable sectors, are relatively small in terms of hectares. 
Fsiline suurus on sissetuleku taseme nitajana halvem selleprast, et paljud vikese kasumlikkusega ekstensiivpllundusega tegelevad ettevtted on pllumajandusmaa hektareid silmas pidades suured, samas kui paljud kasumlikud intensiivpllundusega tegelevad ettevtted, eriti liha-ja kgiviljade tootmise sektoris, on hektarite poolest suhteliselt vikesed.
These two categories of smallest farms (by physical and by economic size) largely overlap. 
Need kaks pllumajandustootmisega tegelevat vikeste pllumajandusettevtete kategooriat (lhtuvalt fsilisest vi majanduslikust suurusest) kattuvad suuresti teineteisega.
15 16 17 18 
17 15 16 17 18
In addition to addressing the standard of living for the agricultural community, the Commission argues that direct payments ensure there is agricultural activity in all parts of the Union including in areas with natural constraints (which also receive income payments under Rural Development Policy) with various economic, environmental and social associated benefits, including the delivery of public goods. 
Komisjon vidab, et lisaks pllumajandusega tegeleva rahvastikuosa elatustaseme ksimuse lahendamise tagavad otsetoetused pllumajandusega tegelemise liidu kikides osades, sh looduslike piirangutega aladel (mille puhul antakse sissetulekutoetust ka maaelu arengu poliitika raames), ning sellega seotud majandusliku, keskkonnaalase ja sotsiaalse kasu saamise, sealhulgas avalike hvede pakkumise.
The validity of these arguments depends on the solidity of the data supporting them. 
Nimetatud videte igsus sltub neid toetavate andmete usaldusvrsusest.
Lack of clarity on EU value added 24. 
Selguse puudumine Euroopa lisavrtuse suhtes 24.
EU value added is usually understood as additional results delivered by EU action that could not have been achieved by uncoordinated action at national, regional or local level. 
Euroopa lisavrtuse all peetakse tavaliselt silmas ELi tegevuse tiendavaid tulemusi, mida ei oleks riiklikul, piirkondlikul vi kohalikul tasandil koordineerimata tegevusega muidu saavutatud.
However, there is no commonly accepted definition for this concept. 
Sellel mistel puudub siiski hiselt heakskiidetud mratlus.
Responding to long-term trends 25. 
Pikaajalistele arengusuundadele reageerimine 25.
Under the current arrangements the proposal for the next multiannual financial framework (and for all major policy areas, including the CAP) is made two years before its start and payments for multiannual programmes (such as those under Pillar 2 of the CAP) continue for the first three years of the following multiannual financial framework. 
Praeguse korra kohaselt esitatakse jrgmise mitmeaastase finantsraamistiku (ja kikide peamiste poliitikavaldkondade, sealhulgas PP) ettepanek kaks aastat enne selle algust ning mitmeaastaste programmide makseid (niteks PP 2. samba alla kuuluvaid makseid) jtkatakse jrgneva mitmeaastase finantsraamistiku kolme esimese aasta jooksul.
This means that policy decisions will cover payments made up to 12 years later. 
See thendab, et poliitilised otsused mjutavad kuni 12 aastat hiljem tehtavaid makseid.
Due to their link to farm area, the largest share of direct payments go to the largest farms (with around 80 % of the support received by 20 % of beneficiaries). 
Kuna toetused on seotud pllumajandusmaa pindalaga, makstakse valdav osa otsetoetusi suurimatele pllumajandusettevtetele (20%-le toetusesaajatest makstakse umbes 80% toetustest).
Various redistributive mechanisms used so far (e.g. capping and redistributive payments) have had a limited effect. 
Seni rakendatud erinevatel mberjaotamismehhanismidel (nt toetuste piirmr ja mberjaotavad toetused) on olnud piiratud mju.
The move to converge rates per hectare, both between and (in the case of the basic payment scheme) within Member States can increase payments to some larger farms. 
Hektari kohta makstava toetuse mrade htlustamine liikmesriikidevaheliselt ja (phitoetuskava korral) liikmesriikidesiseselt vib suurendada teatavatele suurematele pllumajandusettevtetele tehtavaid vljamakseid.
Some Member States applying the basic payment scheme have also used the option to preserve high support levels resulting from past levels of subsidy. 
Mni phitoetuskava kohaldav liikmesriik on kasutanud ka vimalust silitada eelnevatest riigiabi tasemetest tulenevad krged toetusetasemed.
Payment levels between Member States can therefore vary significantly. 
Maksete suurus vib seega liikmesriigiti mrkimisvrselt erineda.
Payments per hectare can range from below €100 to over €1 000. CAP Objectives 17 What the Commission’s Communication says on objectives: • The three CAP objectives are: o to foster a “smart and resilient” agricultural sector; o to bolster environmental care and climate action and to contribute to the environmental and climate objectives of the EU; o to strengthen the socio-economic fabric of rural areas. • Need for consistency with commitments under the Paris Agreement on climate, agreed by the Conference of the Parties within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and Sustainable Development Goals. • Fair contribution to EU 2030 Climate and Energy targets. • The Commission would assess and approve CAP strategic plans and so maximise the CAP’s contribution to EU priorities and objectives and Member States’ climate and energy targets. • The CAP should lead a transition towards a more sustainable agriculture. 
Hektari kohta makstavad toetused vivad kndida vhem kui 100 eurost kuni le 1000 euroni. PP eesmrgid 19 Mida eldakse komisjoni teatises eesmrkide kohta Ľ PP kolm eesmrki on jrgmised: o aruka ja vastupanuvimelise pllumajandussektori toetamine; o keskkonnahoiu ja kliimameetmete edendamine ning ELi keskkonna-ja kliimaeesmrkidesse panustamine; o maapiirkondade sotsiaalmajandusliku olukorra edendamine. Ľ Vajadus tagada kooskla kohustustega, mis veti hinenud Rahvaste Organisatsiooni kliimamuutuste raamkonventsiooni osaliste konverentsi poolt Pariisis slmitud kliimakokkuleppega, ning kestliku arengu eesmrkidega. Ľ Íiglane panustamine ELi 2030. aasta kliima-ja energiaeesmrkidesse.
The Communication’s post-2020 CAP interpretation of Treaty objectives is broadly in line with the CAP objectives for the current period (see Annex II). 
Teatises sisalduv 2020. aasta jrgse PPga seonduv aluslepingu eesmrkide tlgendus on ldjoontes koosklas kesoleva perioodi PP eesmrkidega (vt II lisa).
Insufficient clarity and specificity of objectives 28. 
Eesmrgid ei ole piisavalt selged ja konkreetsed 28.
Need for consistency with other EU objectives 29. 
Vaja on jrjepidevust teiste ELi eesmrkidega 29.
EU policies cover many different issues, areas and sectors. The CAP’s objectives should be consistent with those of other policies (including cohesion, climate action and environmental protection). 
ELi poliitika hlmab paljusid eri teemasid, valdkondi ja sektoreid. PP ja muu poliitika (sealhulgas htekuuluvuse, kliimameetmete ja keskkonnakaitse) eesmrgid peaksid olema ksteisega koosklas.
Where relevant, the CAPs contribution to achieving other EU objectives should be defined. 
Asjakohastel juhtudel tuleks mratleda PP panus teiste ELi eesmrkide titmisse.
This also concerns EU objectives in the form of binding international commitments21. 
See puudutab ka ELi eesmrke, mis on esitatud siduvate rahvusvaheliste kohustustena21.
Different EU policy areas have overlapping objectives regarding, for example, territorial balance/cohesion, social inclusion and reduction of poverty. 
ELi eri poliitikavaldkondadel on kattuvad eesmrgid niteks seoses territoriaalse tasakaalu/htekuuluvuse, sotsiaalse kaasatuse ja vaesuse vhendamisega.
Improving the CAP’s complementarity with other EU policies would be a positive development. 
Positiivne suundumus oleks suurendada PP tiendavust muu ELi poliitikaga.
For example, we found little evidence that the aims of complementarity and synergy between the ESI funds were put into practice in the partnership agreements (introduced for 2014-2020) and in the rural development programmes. 
Niteks leidis kontrollikoda vhe tendeid selle kohta, et partnerluslepingutes (mis veti kasutusele perioodiks 2014Đ2020) ja maaelu arengu programmides tideti Euroopa struktuuri-ja investeerimisfondide tiendavuse ja koostoime eesmrgid.
World Bank (2017) “Thinking CAP: Supporting Agricultural Jobs and Incomes in the EU”. 
Maailmapank (2017): ăThinking CAP: Supporting Agricultural Jobs and Incomes in the EUŇ (PP kavandamine: pllumajandussektori tkohtade ja sissetulekute toetamine ELis).
21 For example under the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21), the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO). 20 
Niteks osaliste konverentsi 21. istungjrgu (COP21), RO kestliku arengu eesmrkide ja Maailma Kaubandusorganisatsiooni (WTO) raames. 20 20 21
The allocation of funds is not sufficiently based on needs or expected EU value added 31. CAP funds are allocated to Member States in the form of national ‘envelopes’, which are not determined on the basis of Member States’ needs nor commitments to deliver specific results. 
PP sisendid Vahendite eraldamine ei phine piisaval mral vajadustel ega oodataval ELi lisavrtusel 31. PP vahendid eraldatakse liikmesriikidele riiklike pakettidena, mida ei mrata kindlaks liikmesriikide vajaduste ega konkreetsete tulemuste saavutamiseks vetud kohustuste alusel.
Instead, Member States then have to come up with measures to spend the pre-defined ‘envelopes’. 
Selle asemel peavad liikmesriigid kehtestama meetmed eelmratletud pakettide rakasutamiseks.
This method poses risks to the performance orientation of spending. 
See meetod ohustab rahakasutuse tulemuslikkusele orienteeritust.
We noted that rural development programmes often do not provide convincing justification for the allocation of funds between measures and objectives. 
Kontrollikoda leidis, et sageli ei phjendata maaelu arengu programmides veenvalt vahendite jagamist meetmete ja eesmrkide vahel.
Funding may be allocated where it is likely to be fully spent, rather than where it addresses key needs and produces results. This reflects a spending rather than a performance culture. 33. 
Vahendeid vidakse eraldada sinna, kus need tenoliselt tielikult ra kasutatakse, mitte sinna, kus nende abil rahuldatakse peamisi vajadusi ja saavutatakse tulemusi. See nitab, et rhk on pigem vahendite rakasutamisel kui tulemuslikkusel.
Refocussing EU funds on measures with the highest EU value added would improve the sound financial management of the policy. 
ELi vahendite mbersuunamine suurimat ELi lisavrtust andvatele meetmetele parandaks poliitika usaldusvrset finantsjuhtimist.
The OECD22 defines performance budgeting as "budgeting that links the funds allocated to measurable results". The Commission did not accept our recent recommendation to apply the concept of a performance budget which links each increment in resources to an increment in outputs or other results, to the funding of cohesion policy interventions for the post-2020 period where appropriate. 
Komisjon ei nustunud kontrollikoja hiljutise soovitusega kohaldada 2020. aasta jrgse perioodi htekuuluvuspoliitika sekkumiste rahastamisele asjakohasel juhul tulemuslikkusele keskenduvat eelarvet, milles muudatused vahendites toovad kaasa muudatused vljundites vi muudes tulemustes.
While arguing that the EU budget is a ‘performance budget’ with the possibility to take performance information into account during the budgetary process, the Commission stated in its replies that it did not consider the approach of explicitly linking resources allocated to outputs or results feasible or applicable for the EU budget. 
22
This is partly due to the perennial problem of the EU policy cycle, where planning for a new programming period takes place before adequate, relevant data are available as regards spending and results from previous periods. 
See tuleneb osaliselt alalisest probleemist ELi poliitikatsklis, kus uue programmit perioodi kavandamist alustatakse enne, kui eelmiste perioodide kohta on saadaval asjakohased ja vajalikud kulude
A lack of sufficient data (on a variety of issues, such as biodiversity and soil, demand for knowledge and advice, or farm households’ living standards) and the consequently imprecise identification of actual needs (see paragraphs 20-23) lead to poor targeting of support. 
Piisavate andmete puudumine (paljudes ksimustes, niteks bioloogiline mitmekesisus ja muld, nudlus teadmiste ja nustamise jrele ning pllumajanduslike majapidamiste elatustase) ja sellest tulenev tegelike vajaduste ebatpne mratlemine (vt punktid 20Đ23) toovad kaasa toetuse kehva eesmrgiasetuse.
The Commission has recently launched spending reviews but we have not yet seen the methodology. 
Komisjon alustas hiljuti kulude lbivaatamist, kuid selle metoodikat ei ole veel avaldatud.
For certain eligible activities, where this risk is particularly high, financial instruments could be considered as an option. 
Teatavate toetusklblike tegevuste puhul, kus see risk on eriti suur, viks kaaluda alternatiivina rahastamisvahendeid.
The EU decided to fund climate-related action by incorporating, or “mainstreaming”, climate action within different EU funding instruments, including the CAP. 
EL otsustas rahastada kliimamuutustega seotud meetmeid, kaasates vi integreerides kliimameetmed ELi eri rahastamisvahenditesse, sealhulgas PPsse.
However, we found that, in the areas of agriculture and rural development, there has been no significant shift towards climate action and not all potential opportunities for financing climate-related action have been fully explored. 
Kontrollikoda aga leidis, et pllumajanduse ja maaelu arengu valdkondades ei ole toimunud olulist nihet kliimameetmete rahastamise suunas ning kiki vimalusi kliimamuutustega seotud meetmete rahastamiseks ei ole lbi uuritud.
Achieving consistency between the CAP and other EU policies and between different CAP instruments 38. The CAP sometimes sends conflicting signals by supporting measures with incompatible impacts. 
Jrjepidevuse saavutamine PP ja muu ELi poliitika vahel ning PP eri vahendite vahel 38. PP saadab vahel vastuolulisi signaale, toetades kokkusobimatu mjuga meetmeid.
For example, the OECD argues23 that the potential impact of greening was largely offset by the impact of voluntary coupled support. 
Niteks vidab OECD23, et vabatahtliku tootmiskohustusega seotud toetuse mju neutraliseeris suuresti rohestamismeetme vimaliku mju.
For example income support becomes capitalised in land prices, increasing barriers to entry for younger farmers. 
Niteks sissetulekutoetus kapitaliseeritakse maahindades, mis suurendab noorte pllumajandustootjate takistusi turule sisenemisel.
Extra support is paid to younger farmers, with a significant deadweight effect, and a further impact on land values. 
Noortele pllumajandustootjatele makstakse lisatoetust, millel on suur thimju ja tiendav mju maa vrtusele.
Currently, environmental and climate objectives are mainstreamed into the CAP through greening and cross-compliance. 
Praegu integreeritakse keskkonna-ja kliimaeesmrgid PPsse rohestamise ning nuetele vastavuse kaudu.