natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
We recommended to make access to any direct payments conditional upon meeting a set of basic environmental and climate requirements encompassing the current cross-compliance and greening rules. 
Kontrollikoda soovitas muuta juurdepsu otsetoetustele sltuvaks philiste keskkonna-ja kliimanuete jrgimisest, mis hlmab praeguseid nuetele vastavuse ja rohestamise eeskirju.
Better coordination with policy instruments outside the CAP is also needed. 
Samuti on vaja paremat koordineerimist PP-vliste poliitikavahenditega.
There is an overlap in scope between the projects funded from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (CAP pillar 2) and those funded from other European Structural and Investment funds, mainly the European Regional Development Fund. 
Maaelu Arengu Euroopa Pllumajandusfondist (EAFRD) (PP teine sammas) ning muudest Euroopa struktuuri-ja investeerimisfondidest, peamiselt Euroopa Regionaalarengu Fondist, rahastatavate projektide ulatus kattub.
For example investments in renewable energy can be supported by the EAFRD and several other funds. 
Niteks vib taastuvenergia investeeringuid toetada EAFRD-st ja mitmest muust fondist.
Simplification needed, but not at the cost of effectiveness 41. One example of counter-productive complexity is rural development programmes, which often are several hundred pages long and provide prescriptive details of certain aspects of implementation, while remaining unspecific on the expected results. 
Lihtsustamine on vajalik, kuid mitte tulemuslikkuse arvelt 41. ks kahjuliku keerukuse nide on maaelu arengu programmid, mis on sageli mitusada leheklge pikad ja milles esitatakse ettekirjutavalt ja ksikasjalikult teatavad rakendamisaspektid, kuid oodatavaid tulemusi ksitletakse ebamraselt.
Another example is the overlapping requirements of greening, the agri-environment-climate measure and, to a lesser extent, cross compliance. 
Teine nide on rohestamise, pllumajanduse keskkonna-ja kliimameetme ning vhemal mral nuetele vastavuse omavaheline kattuvus.
However, a certain degree of complexity may be needed for policy to be effective and efficient. 
Samas vib teatav keerukus olla vajalik, et poliitika oleks thus ja tulemuslik.
Sufficient time must be allowed to roll out the next CAP reform 42. 
Jrgmise PP reformi elluviimiseks tuleb anda piisavalt aega 42.
We have previously recommended that Commission should avoid overlaps of eligibility periods, aligning as far as possible the eligibility with the programme period and align the multiannual financial framework with the EU’s strategy periods. 
Kontrollikoda on varem soovitanud, et komisjon vldiks toetusklblikkusperioodide kattumist, koosklastades toetusklblikkuse vimalikult suurel mral programmit perioodiga ja mitmeaastase finantsraamistiku ELi strateegia perioodidega.
Implementation of current rural development programmes started late, partly due to complex rules, and the time needed for the Commission to review and approve the voluminous programming documents. 22 
Praeguseid maaelu arengu programme hakati hilja rakendama, osaliselt keerukate eeskirjade ja selle tttu, et komisjon vajas aega mahukate programmidokumentide lbivaatamiseks ja heakskiitmiseks. 24
CAP outputs, outcomes and external actors Need for an effective performance system linking outputs, results, impacts and objectives 43. 
PP vljundid, tulemid ja vlistegurid Vaja on thusat tulemuslikkuse mtmise ssteemi, milles on hendatud vljundid, tulemused, mju ja eesmrgid 43.
The Commission currently has a complex and diverse performance reporting framework with numerous indicators. 
Komisjonil on olemas paljude nitajatega kompleksne ja mitmekesine tulemusaruandluse raamistik.
We have recommended reducing the number of indicators so as to focus on those that best measure performance of the EU budget. 
Kontrollikoda on soovitanud nitajate arvu vhendada, et keskenduda neile, mis mdavad ELi eelarve tulemuslikkust kige paremini.
The indicators often do not provide information that is relevant for assessing policy results and impacts. 
Tihtipeale ei anna nitajad poliitika tulemuste ja mju hindamiseks asjakohast teavet.
The ‘result indicators’ which the Commission uses often do not measure results, but rather outputs (or, in some cases, inputs), and lack a clear link to EU objectives25. 
Komisjoni kasutatavad tulemusnitajad ei mda sageli tulemusi, vaid pigem vljundeid (vi mnel juhul sisendeid), ja neil puudub selge seos ELi eesmrkidega25.
For the previous programming period (2007-13) we concluded that the Commission and Member States had not sufficiently shown what had been achieved in relation to the rural development policy objectives. 
Eelmise programmit perioodi (2007Đ2013) kohta jreldas kontrollikoda, et komisjon ja liikmesriigid ei nidanud piisavalt, mida saavutati seoses maaelu arengu poliitika eesmrkidega.
We found that the objectives were not sufficiently clear and that despite support from the Commission, Member States had not produced reliable, consistent and relevant enough monitoring and evaluation information to show the results achieved in relation to the objectives set. 
Kontrollikoda leidis, et eesmrgid ei olnud piisavalt selged ja et hoolimata Kontrollikoja tulemusauditi ksiraamatus on vljund mratletud sellena, mis toodetakse vi saavutatakse sekkumisele eraldatud ressurssidega.
Outcomes are the changes arising from the implementation of an intervention and normally related to the objectives of this intervention. 
Tulem on sekkumise rakendamisest tulenev muudatus, mis on tavaliselt seotud nimetatud sekkumise eesmrkidega.
Outcomes encompass results. i.e. immediate changes that arise for direct addressees at the end of their participation in an intervention” and impacts. i.e. longer-term socio-economic consequences that can be observed after a certain period after the completion of an intervention, which may affect either direct addressees of the intervention or indirect addressees falling outside the boundary of the intervention. 
Tulem sisaldab tulemusi, s.o vahetuid muutuseid, mis mjutavad otseseid adressaate nende sekkumises osalemise lppemisel, ja mju, s.o pikemaajalisi sotsiaalmajanduslikke tagajrgi, mida on vimalik nha teatud aja jooksul prast sekkumise lpetamist, mis vib mjutada kas otseseid sekkumise adressaate vi sekkumise piiridest vlja jvaid kaudseid adressaate.
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).
23 What the Commission’s Communication says on outputs, outcomes and external factors24: • Member States should pursue realistic and adequate targets. • The assurance process would need to be adapted to the requirements of a results-driven policy design including the development and application of solid and measurable indicators and of credible performance monitoring and reporting. 
25 Mida eldakse komisjoni teatises vljundite, tulemite ja vlistegurite kohta24: Ľ liikmesriigid peaksid jrgima realistlikke ja asjakohaseid eesmrke; Ľ nuetekohasuse tagamise protsessi tuleks kohandada tulemustest lhtuva poliitika nuetega, sealhulgas ttada vlja usaldusvrsed mdetavad nitajad ja tulemuste seire ja neist aru andmise meetodid ning neid kohaldada.
The introduction of the current Common Monitoring and Evaluation System was a step forward but information on policy performance remains incomplete and sometimes unreliable. 
Praeguse hise seire-ja hindamisssteemi loomine oli samm edasi, kuid teave poliitika tulemuslikkuse kohta on endiselt puudulik ja vahel ebausaldusvrne.
In 2016, the Commission’s Internal Audit Service identified serious weaknesses in the objectives set, indicators used and data collected, and noted that this may impair DG Agriculture and Rural Development’s ability to monitor, evaluate and report on the performance of the 2014-2020 CAP. 
Komisjoni siseauditi talitus (IAS) tegi 2016. aastal kindlaks suured puudused eesmrkide pstitamises, kasutatavates nitajates ja andmete kogumises ning nentis, et need vivad vhendada pllumajanduse ja maaelu arengu peadirektoraadi suutlikkust jlgida ja hinnata perioodi 2014Đ2020 PP tulemuslikkust ja sellest aru anda.
We also reported that the Commission’s performance documents do not always assess the quality of the data used26. 
Samuti teatas kontrollikoda, et komisjoni tulemusalastes dokumentides ei hinnata alati kasutatud andmete kvaliteeti26.
Link between money paid and achievement of agreed performance targets 47. 
Seos makstud raha ja kokkulepitud tulemuseesmrkide titmise vahel 47.
The performance reserve provides little incentive for a better result orientation since its evaluation is mostly based on spending and outputs. 
Tulemusreserv ei soodusta kuigivrd suuremat tulemustele orienteeritust, sest selle hindamine phineb enamjaolt kulutustel ja vljunditel.
However, we noted that appropriate conditionality and a longer monitoring period increase the likelihood of projects being useful. 
Samas leidis kontrollikoda, et projektid on tenolisemalt kasulikud, kui kehtestada asjakohane tingimuslikkus ja pikendada seireperioodi.
Policy should be monitored and – when necessary – adjusted 48. 
Poliitikat tuleks seirata ja vajaduse korral kohandada 48.
For the 2014-2020 period we recommended that the Commission and the Member States should collect timely, relevant and reliable data that provide useful information on the achievements of the projects and measures financed. 
Kontrollikoda soovitas komisjonil ja liikmesriikidel perioodil 2014Đ2020 koguda igeaegseid, asjakohaseid ja usaldusvrseid andmeid, mis annaksid rahastatavate projektide ja meetmetega saavutatu kohta kasulikku teavet.
This information should allow conclusions to be drawn on the efficiency and effectiveness of the funds spent, identify the measures and types of projects delivering the greatest contribution to the EU objectives and provide a sound basis for improving the management of the measures. 
See teave peaks vimaldama teha jreldusi kulutatud vahendite thususe ja tulemuslikkuse kohta ning mrata kindlaks kige rohkem ELi eesmrkide saavutamisele kaasa aitavad meetmed ja projektiliigid ning andma meetmete haldamise tiustamisele usaldusvrse aluse.
24 26 27 COM(2017) 497 final – IAS 2016 Annual Report. 
COM(2017) 497 final Đ IASi 2016. aasta aruanne.
OECD: Budgeting and performance in the European Union: A review by the OECD in the context of EU budget focused on results. 
OECD, ăBudgeting and performance in the European Union: A review by the OECD in the context of EU budget focused on resultsŇ (Eelarvestamine ja tulemuslikkus Euroopa Liidus: OECD aruanne tulemustele orienteeritud ELi eelarve kontekstis).
Accountability for the CAP 25 What the Commission’s Communication says on accountability: The assurance process would need to be adapted to the requirements of a results-driven policy design including the development and application of solid and measurable indicators and of credible performance monitoring and reporting. 
26 26 27 PP aruandlus 27 Mida eldakse komisjoni teatises aruandluse kohta: nuetekohasuse tagamise protsessi tuleks kohandada tulemustest lhtuva poliitika nuetega, sealhulgas ttada vlja usaldusvrsed mdetavad nitajad ja tulemuste seire ja neist aru andmise meetodid ning neid kohaldada.
Our Landscape Review on EU accountability and public audit arrangements identified six key elements for a strong accountability, transparency and audit chain: • clear definition of roles and responsibilities; • management assurance about the achievement of policy objectives and the use of funds; • full democratic oversight; • feedback loops to allow for corrective action/improvements; • a strong mandate for independent external audit to verify accounts, compliance and performance; • implementation and follow-up of audit recommendations. 
Kontrollikoja levaatearuandes ELi aruandekohustuse ja avaliku sektori auditeerimiskorra kohta tehti kindlaks tugeva aruandluse, lbipaistvuse ja auditiahela kuus phielementi: Ľ lesannete ja kohustuste selge mratlemine; Ľ juhtkonna kinnitus poliitikaeesmrkide saavutamise ja vahendite kasutamise kohta; Ľ tielik demokraatlik jrelevalve; Ľ parandusmeetmeid/parandusi vimaldavad tagasisidemehhanismid; Ľ sltumatu vlisauditi tugev mandaat raamatupidamisaruannete, vastavuse ja tulemuslikkuse kontrollimiseks; Ľ auditisoovituste rakendamine ja jrelkontroll.
We welcome the Commission’s ambition to move towards a performance based delivery model. 
Kontrollikoda pooldab komisjoni pdlust liikuda tulemusphise rakendamismudeli suunas.
If well implemented, such a model may improve the CAP’s efficiency and effectiveness. 
Hea rakendamise korral vib selline mudel muuta PP thusamaks ja tulemuslikumaks.
On the basis of our review, we formulate a set of criteria for assessing the future CAP (per stage of the programme logic model) and highlight some of the key challenges ahead. 
Kontrollikoda koostab oma levaate phjal tulevase PP hindamise kriteeriumid (programmiloogika mudeli etappide kaupa) ja toob esile mned eelseisvad philesanded.
To ensure the success of the next CAP, a key challenge will be to identify the needs to be addressed using relevant and reliable data. 
Et tagada jrgmise PP edu, on thtsaim lesanne teha kindlaks vajadused, mille titmiseks tuleb kasutada asjakohaseid ja usaldusvrseid andmeid.
The decision on which needs to address should be based on an assessment of potential EU value added. 
Otsus selle kohta, milliste vajadustega tegeleda, peaks phinema vimaliku ELi lisavrtuse hindamisel.
Since some CAP payments will continue until 12 years after the policy proposals have been presented, these proposals will need to take account of long-term trends. 
Teatavaid PP toetusi makstakse veel kuni 12 aastat prast poliitika ettepanekute esitamist, mistttu tuleb nendes ettepanekutes arvestada pikaajalisi suundumusi.
Lastly, a functioning agricultural single market is an important achievement of the CAP. 
Lisaks on ks PP thtsaid saavutusi toimiv htne pllumajandusturg.
EU CAP objectives are clearly defined and reflect the needs identified and the long-term vision for the CAP. 2.2. 
ELi PP eesmrgid on selgesti mratletud ja kajastavad kindlakstehtud vajadusi ja pikaajalist visiooni PP kohta; 2.2.
EU CAP objectives are translated into quantified targets at the level of impacts and results. 2.3. 
ELi PP eesmrgid esitatakse mju ja tulemuste tasandi kvantifitseeritud eesmrkidena; 2.3.
EU CAP objectives are consistent with other general and sectoral EU policy objectives and international commitments28. 
ELi PP eesmrgid on jrjepidevad muude ldiste ja valdkondlike ELi poliitiliste eesmrkide ja rahvusvaheliste kohustustega28.
Defining the specific results and impacts expected of the policy will become an even bigger challenge in the future, in the context of a performance-based delivery model. 
Poliitika eeldatavate konkreetsete tulemuste ja mju mratlemine muutub tulevikus tulemusphise rakendamismudeli raames veelgi raskemaks lesandeks.
The EU For example under Conference of the Parties 21, Sustainable Development Goals and the World Trade Organisation. 28 
EL suudab tita oma Niteks osaliste konverentsi 21. istungjrgu, kestliku arengu eesmrkide ja Maailma Kaubandusorganisatsiooni raames. 28
will only be able to achieve its objectives, if the Member States, in their strategic plans, commit to sufficiently ambitious and relevant performance targets. 
eesmrgid vaid siis, kui liikmesriigid vtavad oma strateegiakavades kohustuse tita piisavalt suured ja asjakohased tulemuseesmrgid. PP sisendite hindamine 54.
Assessing CAP inputs 54. A key challenge is to couple a performance-based delivery model with performance budgeting, with funding reflecting identified needs and expected results. 
Raske lesanne on siduda tulemusphine rakendamismudel tulemuslikkuse eelarvestamisega, kus rahastamine kajastab kindlakstehtud vajadusi ja oodatud tulemusi.
There should be a clear requirement to apply these principles in delivering the CAP strategic plans. 
Tuleks kehtestada selge nue, et neid phimtteid tuleb kohaldada PP strateegiakavade elluviimisel.
The Communication does not address co-financing. 
Teatises ei ksitleta kaasrahastamist.
The new delivery model would combine the two pillars under one strategic plan. 
Uues rakendamismudelis koondataks kaks sammast he strateegiakava alla.
The existence or not of co-financing has a strong influence on the balance of incentives operating in the implementation of the CAP. 
Kaasrahastamise olemasolu vi puudumine mjutab tugevalt PP rakendamisel kasutatavate stiimulite tasakaalu.
The new delivery model cannot be assessed without clarity on the mechanisms for co-financing. 
Uut rakendamismudelit ei ole vimalik hinnata, kui puudub selgus kaasrahastamise mehhanismide kohta.
EU co-financing rates should reflect the EU value added of the different types and areas of intervention. 
ELi kaasrahastamismrad peaksid kajastama eri liikidesse ja valdkondadesse kuuluvate sekkumistega loodavat ELi lisavrtust. PP protsesside hindamine 29 KRITEERIUMID: 3.1. vahendid eraldatakse vajaduste hindamise ja oodatud tulemuste phjal; 3.2. vahendeid kulutatakse seal, kus need tekitavad mrkimisvrset ELi lisavrtust.
The Communication advocates continuing direct payments to farmers and many of the objectives it mentions are already addressed by existing measures. 
Teatises pooldatakse pllumajandustootjatele otsetoetuste maksmise jtkamist ja paljude teatises mainitud eesmrkidega tegeletakse juba olemasolevate meetmete raames.
It is therefore likely that the measures that Member States will roll out after 2020 will be similar to current measures. 
Seeprast on tenoline, et liikmesriikides prast 2020. aastat vetavad meetmed sarnanevad praeguste meetmetega.
The clarity and wider quality of CAP strategic plans will be the key to the success of the post-2020 CAP. 
2020. aasta jrgse PP edu tagamiseks on thtis, et PP strateegiakavad oleksid selged ja laiema katvusega.
The cost-effectiveness of instruments that Member States will select and/or design will need to be demonstrated in these plans, on the basis of solid evidence, including scientific sources and stock taking of existing measures. CAP strategic plans will have to set out how different CAP instruments will complement each other and how they will be coordinated with other policies affecting rural areas. 
Nendes kavades tuleb nidata liikmesriikide valitavate ja/vi kavandatavate vahendite kuluthusust usaldusvrsete tendite, sealhulgas teaduskirjanduse ja olemasolevate meetmete hindamise phjal. PP strateegiakavades tuleb stestada, kuidas PP eri vahendid ksteist tiendavad ja kuidas neid koordineeritakse maapiirkondi mjutava muu poliitikaga.
The Commission and Member States should aim to simplify rules, focussing on what is essential for performance. 
Komisjon ja liikmesriigid peaksid eesmrgiks seadma eeskirjade lihtsustamise, keskendudes tulemuslikkuse seisukohast hdavajalikule.
There will be a continued need for some basic rules at EU level. 
Jtkuvalt on vaja teatavaid ELi tasandi phieeskirju.
If direct payments are retained, basic requirements will need to be defined in EU law. 
Kui otsetoetused silitatakse, tuleb ELi iguses mratleda phinuded.
EU rules should ensure fairness and a level-playing field (including rules on state aid and WTO requirements). 
ELi eeskirjadega (sealhulgas riigiabi eeskirjade ja WTO nuetega) tuleks tagada iglus ja vrdsed tingimused.
It is also crucial to allow sufficient time and to put adequate arrangements in place for the transition to the new delivery model. Assessing CAP outputs, outcomes and external factors 28 CRITERIA: 5.1. An effective performance system links the objectives of the policy and its outputs, results and impacts. 
Samuti on hdavajalik anda piisavalt aega ja kehtestada asjakohane kord uuele rakendamismudelile leminekuks. PP vljundite, tulemite ja vlistegurite hindamine 30 KRITEERIUMID: 5.1. thus tulemuslikkuse mtmise ssteem seob poliitika eesmrgid selle vljundite, tulemuste ja mjuga; 5.2.
5.2. There is a clear link between money paid from the EU budget and the achievement of agreed performance targets. 
ELi eelarvest makstud raha ja kokkulepitud tulemuseesmrkide titmise vahel on selge seos; 5.3. poliitika tulemuslikkust ja asjakohaseid vlistegureid seiratakse ning vajaduse korral poliitikat kohandatakse.
A key challenge for the performance-based delivery mechanism for the post-2020 CAP is ensuring that the EU pays for outputs which are relevant to EU objectives and have been delivered. The link between Member State performance targets to EU objectives should be demonstrated in CAP strategic plans. 
2020. aasta jrgse PP tulemusphise rakendamismehhanismi ks raskemaid lesandeid on tagada, et EL maksab selliste saavutatud vljundite eest, mis on thtsad ELi eesmrkide titmiseks. PP strateegiakavades tuleks selgesti nidata liikmesriikide tulemuseesmrkide ja ELi eesmrkide vahelist seost.
Assurance about the actual achievement of outputs and results should stem from two sources: 
Kindluse vljundite ja tulemuste tegeliku saavutamise kohta peaksid andma kaks vahendit:
• solid management and control systems underlying management performance reporting, which makes greater use of modern technologies for real-time checks. • independent external audit. 
Ľ juhtimise tulemuslikkuse aruandluse aluseks olevad usaldusvrsed juhtimis-ja kontrollissteemid, mis kasutavad reaalajas kontrollideks rohkem ndisaegset tehnoloogiat; Ľ sltumatu vlisaudit.
If the post-2020 CAP is to be a performance-based policy, there should be a clear link between the results achieved and the financial support received. 
Et 2020. aasta jrgne PP oleks tulemusphine poliitika, peaksid saavutatud tulemused ja saadud rahaline toetus olema omavahel selgesti seotud.
Such arrangements could be applied both to the relation between the Commission and Member States and, where feasible, to the relation between Member States and individual farms or projects. 
Sellist nuet vib kohaldada nii komisjoni ja liikmesriikide vahelisele suhtlusele kui ka asjakohasel juhul liikmesriikide ja ksikute pllumajandusettevtete vi projektide vahelisele suhtlusele.
In order to ensure sound financial management, the Commission and Member States need timely information as to whether measures achieve policy objectives in an efficient way. 
Et tagada usaldusvrne finantsjuhtimine, vajavad komisjon ja liikmesriigid igeaegset teavet selle kohta, kas meetmetega tidetakse thusalt poliitilised eesmrgid.
This information should be used to adjust policy and spending when necessary. 
Vajaduse korral tuleks seda teavet kasutada poliitika ja kulutuste kohandamiseks.
Ensuring accountability 64. 
Aruandluse tagamine 64.
The nature of the change in role of Member States and the Commission is not made clear in the Communication and will need to be clarified in the legislative proposal. 
Teatises ei ole selgeks tehtud, kuidas liikmesriikide ja komisjoni roll muutub, ning seda tuleb tpsustada seadusandlikus ettepanekus.
While the document talks of a larger role for Member States, it gives the Commission a key role in approval of Member States’ CAP strategic plans “with a view to maximising the contribution of the CAP towards the EU priorities and objectives, and the achievement of Member States’ climate and energy targets”. 
Kuigi dokumendis rgitakse liikmesriikide suuremast rollist, antakse selles komisjonile phiroll liikmesriikide PP strateegiakavade heakskiitmisel, ăpidades silmas PP panuse maksimeerimist ELi prioriteetide ja eesmrkide saavutamisel ning liikmesriikide kliima-ja energiaeesmrkide titmistŇ.
The introduction of a new delivery model should build on the stronger elements of the current governance structures, including control systems (such as the LPIS). 
Uue rakendamismudeli kasutuselevtmisega tuleks tugevdada praeguseid juhtimisstruktuure, sealhulgas kontrollissteeme (nagu pldude identifitseerimise ssteem).