natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
9 as for bulgaria, there is an Eafrd expenditure of 4.8 million € in the 4th quarter of 2011, whose declaration was received by the commission services on 10 January 2012 — deadline for submitting declaration was end of January. the BG authorities intend to transfer more than 80 % of M122 budget to other rdp measures (with the 7th rdp modification indeed some 50 % of M122 initial budget was transferred to other measures, but with the 8th modification of the BG rdp 6 M Eur public expenditure is reserved for the Guarantee fund, which also covers M122, so stay within M122 and are not transferred to other measures). despite the pressing need to improve the economic value of private and municipal forests in BG, measure 122 implementation has been difficult for the following reasons. first, nearly 80 % of bg forests are state‐owned and therefore not eligible for support under M122. then, in the case of the remaining 20 %, the Bulgarian authorities indicate the following reasons for weak interest in this measure: (a) 90 % of forests restored to private owners are less than 1 ha in area and therefore only eligible for a very low level of support; (b) owners usually live far from their forests and as a result show little interest; (c) associations of forest owners covered their major needs when they received support under measure 1.4 of the BG sapard programme; (d) municipalities owning forests have a preference for preparing projects under MM 321 and 322; opportunities under M122 are therefore of less interest to them; (e) the length of time taken to process the few applications received has discouraged other potential beneficiaries from applying. 10 romania had indeed not declared any expenditure by the end of 2011. as it is implementing its first post-accession rdp there are several new measures to be implemented. it launched the first call for measure 122 in 2012. 
9 Seoses bulgaariaga moodustasid Euroopa Maaelu Arengu Põllumajandusfondi (EAFRD) kulutused 2011. aasta neljandas kvartalis 4,8 miljonit eurot, mida käsitleva deklaratsiooni said komisjoni talitused kätte 10. jaanuaril 2012 (deklaratsioonide esitamise tähtaeg oli jaanuari lõpp). Bulgaaria ametiasutused kavatsevad kanda rohkem kui 80% meetme 122 eelarvest üle muudele maaelu arengukava meetmetele (maaelu arengukava 7. muutmise käigus kanti tõepoolest ligikaudu 50% meetme 122 esialgsest eelarvest üle muudele meetmetele, ent Bulgaaria maaelu arengukava 8. muutmise tagajärjel on 6 miljoni euro ulatuses avaliku sektori vahendeid reserveeritud tagatisfondi jaoks, mis hõlmab ka meedet 122, ning seega jääb see summa meetme 122 jaoks ega kanta üle muudele meetmetele).
11 on 10 January 2011 a new modification of the greek programme was adopted and Greece opted for not using Eu support for measure 122. Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development 
11 10. jaanuaril 2011 võeti vastu kreeka programmi uus muudatus ning Kreeka tegi otsuse mitte kasutada ELi toetust meetme 122 alusel. Eriaruanne nr 8/2013 – Euroopa Maaelu Arengu Põllumajandusfondist antav metsade majandusliku väärtuse parandamise toetus
46 33. the commisssion will further analyse the points raised by the court. certain types of machinery are very expensive and provide a return on investment only in the long term — a fact accepted in the forest sector. this makes it difficult to set rigid rules about proportionality at Eu level. it should be decided in the programme negotiation process whether a limit on funding in proportion to holding size is appropriate, taking into account the characteristics of the programme area12. action was taken to rectify problems in the cases of Hungary and austria. see also comment on subsidiarity in the reply to paragraph 32. 
46 33. Komisjon analüüsib täiendavalt kontrollikoja tõstatatud küsimusi. Teatavat liiki masinad on väga kallid ja nendesse investeerimine tasub ära alles pika aja jooksul, mis on metsandussektoris üldtunnustatud asjaolu.
34. indeed, this was the case in Hungary prior to 2010. the managing authority changed the eligibility requirements in 2010 to make support proportional to the size of the registered forest areas and decreased the maximum support per application. 
34. Ungaris valitses enne 2010. aastat tõepoolest selline olukord. Korraldusasutus muutis 2010. aastal abikõlblikkus-nõudeid, et viia toetus paremasse vastavusse registreeritud metsaala suurusega, ning vähendas maksimaalset toetust taotluse kohta.
12 WithregardtotheparticularcaseofHungary,seereplytoparagraph37. With regard to the particular case of slovenia: the slovenian rdp includes a requirement that the support to investments in construction or reconstruction of forest roads must comply with the applicable forest management plan and the support to investments in felling and extraction of wood and for forest tracks must comply with the silvicultural plan. in austria, beneficiaries of measure 122 are defined in the rdp as forest owners, their associations and communes. in case of support for associations of forest owners the association as such might not own any specific area of forest. 
12 Ungari erijuhtumi kohta vt vastus punktile 37. Seoses Sloveenia erijuhtumiga hõlmab Sloveenia maaelu arengukava nõuet, et metsateede ehitamisse või ümberehitamisse tehtavate investeeringute toetus peab vastama kohaldatavale metsamajandamiskavale ning raie, puidu väljaveo ja metsaradadega seotud investeeringute toetus peab vastama metsanduskavale.
(Eu) 1698/2005. the type of beneficiaries was further clarified, deleting ‘other beneficiaries’ at the occasion of the second programme modification. the coM notification on the approval of this programme amendment was sent to at on 27 april 2009 (arEs (2009) 79362. 
Toetusesaajate liike täpsustati veelgi, jättes programmi teisel muutmisel välja väljendi„teised toetusesaajad”. Komisjoni teade programmi kõnealuse muudatuse heakskiitmise kohta saadeti Austriale 27. aprillil 2009 (ARES (2009) 79362.
Reply of the CoMMISSIoN 35. it (tuscany): the observation has been taken into account. the rural development programme for tuscany 2007–13 has been modified accordingly on 11/12/2012. 
Itaaliat (Toscanat) käsitlevat märkust on arvesse võetud. Toscana maaelu arengukava aastateks 2007–2013 muudeti vastavalt sellele 11. detsembril 2012.
36. the commission considers that investments need not serve exclusively the purposes of a specific forest holding in order to be eligible for support — though they would have to serve at least partly that holding. see also reply to paragraph 24. as for Hungary, M122 only supports the purchase of machinery to forest holders who run forestry activities on the basis of a forest management plan on at least 50 ha of forest. in the commission’s understanding the beneficiaries used the machines for their forest areas although maybe not exclusively, but there should be a link to a forest area. 
36. Komisjoni arvamuse kohaselt ei pea investeeringud selleks, et need oleksid toetuse saamiseks abikõlblikud, teenima üksnes konkreetse metsandusettevõtte eesmärke, kuigi need peavad vähemalt osaliselt teenima asjaomast ettevõtet.
With regard to the particular case of Hungary: in 2010 the Hungarian authorities decided to adjust the list of eligible machines, restricting them to items which are ‘forestry-specific’. 
Seoses Ungari erijuhtumiga otsustasid Ungari ametiasutused 2010. aastal muuta abikõlblike masinate loetelu, piirates selle konkreetselt metsandusega seotud masinatega.
39. in general terms, the commission notes that difficulties of legal interpretation have arisen regarding the demarcation between measures 122 and 123. it has proposed that these two measures be merged in the post-2013 period. 
39. Komisjon märgib üldiselt, et meetmete 122 ja 123 eristamisel on tekkinud probleeme seoses õigusliku tõlgenda-misega.
41. some machinery can be used both for forestry and agriculture. the fact that a machine could also be used for agriculture should not make its purchase ineligible for support under measure 122 if it can be used in forestry work. taking this approach could force some operators to buy two machines instead of one, which would be inefficient. 
41. Mõnda masinat saab kasutada nii metsanduses kui ka põllumajanduses. Asjaolu, et masinat saab kasutada ka põllumajanduses, ei tohiks muuta selle ostmist meetme 122 alusel toetuse saamiseks abikõlbmatuks, kui seda saab ühtlasi kasutada metsatöödeks.
Reply of the CoMMISSIoN 43. the indicators are not established only through guidelines, but are included in the implementing regulation (annex Viii of regulation 1974/2006). result indicators are not set at measure level, but at axis level, reflecting the fact that it is the combined action of a range of measures which causes the result. 
Komisjoni vastused 43. Näitajaid ei kehtestata mitte üksnes suuniste kaudu, vaid need sisalduvad ka rakendusmääruses (määruse (EÜ) nr 1974/2006 VIII lisa).
46. the evaluation questions relate directly to the rationale and specific objectives of the measure, as set out in recital 22 of regulation 1698/2005, and in Guidance note E of the cMEf Handbook. taken together they cover the scope of the measure and its activities. it is noteworthy that the questions related to sustainable management of forests are relevant to all beneficiaries. 
46. Hindamisküsimused on otseselt seotud meetme aluspõhimõtete ja konkreetsete eesmärkidega, nagu on sätestatud määruse (EÜ) nr 1698/2005 põhjenduses 22 ning ühise järelevalve-ja hindamisraamistiku käsiraamatu selgitavas märkuses E. Üheskoos hõlmavad need meetme ja selle raames teostatavate tegevuste ulatust.
13 the objective of axis 1 is ‘competitiveness of agriculture and forestry by supporting restructuring, development and innovation’. 
13 1. telje eesmärk on „põllumajanduse ja metsanduse konkurentsivõime parandamine, toetades ümberkorraldamist, arendamist ja innovatsiooni”.
Ms or regions are supposed to track the increase in gross value added (GVa), and indeed, there have been difficulties in relation to this (e.g. in the collection of data). the commission has taken steps to address the problem and in a working paper of March 2010 provided guidance on the definition and the methodology to be used for measurement of this indicator. in addition, and as result of the lack of quantitative data available for carrying out the MtEs, the commission sent a letter in 2011 inviting the Ma of Galicia (and other programmes) to implement all necessary systems to collect monitoring information so that the results and impacts of the programme can be measured. such systems may involve approaches other than simply asking the beneficiaries the value of their forest before and after the investment, as it is often difficult for the beneficiaries to provide the relevant information in such a direct form. the commission also emphasises that, whatever difficulties may have been involved in assessing increases in GVa, ex ante judgements about what types of practice increase the value of a forest can be made on a very well-established foundation of experience in the domain of forest science. in the context of the mid-term review, slovenia and austria established procedures intended to determine the effect of measure 122 on the economic value of forests. 
Liikmesriigid või piirkonnad peaksid jälgima kogulisandväärtuse kasvu ja sellega seoses on tõepoolest olnud probleeme (nt andmete kogumisel). Komisjon on astunud samme selle probleemi lahendamiseks ning esitas 2010. aasta märtsi töödokumendis suunised kõnealuse näitaja määratluse ja selle mõõtmiseks kasutatavate meetodite kohta.
With regard to investments which supposedly concerned ‘agriculture’, the commission is of the view that an investment related to chestnuts need not necessarily be considered ‘agricultural’ and may improve the value of a forest — as chestnuts grow on trees and these trees may form part of a forest. 
Seoses investeeringutega, mis väidetavalt hõlmasid põllumajandust, on komisjon seisukohal, et kastanitega seotud investeeringuid ei tule tingimata käsitada põllumajandus-likena ning need võivad parandada metsa väärtust, sest kastanid kasvavad puudel ja sellised puud võivad moodustada osa metsast.
However, if the chestnuts in question come from an orchard rather than a forest, the investment would indeed be ‘agricultural’. the commission will assess what additional guidance is needed on this and similar issues in future. it will also investigate with the council and the European parliament to what extent these issues could be solved through a definition of ‘forest’ in the relevant legal acts. Reply of the CoMMISSIoN With regard to processing and marketing, the commission notes that in some cases it is difficult to draw a clear dividing line between what activities related to thinning/fell-ing and activities related to processing/marketing. for example, the purchase and use of wood-chipping equipment can help to provide organic matter for the soil and reduce the risk of fire and pests which would increase the value of the forest. if the equipment is suited for these purposes, it is considered eligible. 
Komisjon hindab, milliseid täiendavaid suuniseid on selles ja muudes sarnastes küsimustes edaspidi vaja. Ühtlasi uurib komisjon koos nõukogu ja Euroopa Parlamendiga, mil määral oleks neid küsimusi võimalik lahendada mõiste „mets” määratlemise kaudu asjakohastes õigusaktides. Komisjoni vastused Seoses töötlemise ja turustamisega märgib komisjon, et mõnel juhul on keeruline selgelt eristada, milline tegevus on seotud harvendamise/raiega ja milline töötlemise/ turustamisega.
However, the purchase of equipment for the purpose of producing wood chips for fuel should not be supported under measure 122. the commission has proposed to combine the current measures 122 and 123 after 2013. 
Seadmete ostmist kütteks kasutatava hakkpuidu tootmise eesmärgil ei tohiks aga meetme 122 alusel toetada.
52. decisions about which specific categories of private owners to support belongs to the process of formulating/ negotiating a given rdp, on the basis of a sWot analysis related to the programme area in question. common reply to paragraphs 52 and 53. the combination of a number of measures from the current period into one measure — as proposed by the commission — provides a clearer overview. in particular, measures 122 and 123 from the current period will be combined into a single ‘sub-measure’ with one set of maximum aid intensities rather than two. 
52. Otsused selle kohta, milliseid konkreetseid eraomanike kategooriaid toetada, tehakse asjaomase maaelu arengukava koostamise ja selle üle läbirääkimiste pidamise menetluses asjaomast programmitöö piirkonda käsitleva SWOT-analüüsi põhjal. ühine vastus punktidele 52 ja 53 Mitme praeguse programmitöö perioodi meetme koondamine üheks meetmeks, nagu komisjon on välja pakkunud, annab selgema ülevaate.
49 nevertheless, it is not appropriate to set identical conditions for all of the forestry sub-measures: they are too different in terms of their content and the relevant categories of beneficiary. overall, the commission considers that, where problems exist, they can be addressed essentially through guidance, through the combination of the current measures 122 and 123 and through greater attention to certain issues during the programming process. conclusions and recoMMendations 54. although some aspects of the measure could have been explained more clearly to the management authorities, implementation could be improved and challenges needed to be overcome in monitoring and evaluation, implementation and results were stronger in some cases. 
49 Sellele vaatamata ei ole asjakohane kehtestada kõikide metsanduse alameetmete suhtes ühesuguseid tingimusi, sest need on oma sisu ja toetusesaajate asjakohaste kategooriate poolest liiga erinevad. Üldiselt leiab komisjon, et kui esineb probleeme, on neid võimalik lahendada peamiselt suuniste, praeguste meetmete 122 ja 123 ühendamise ning programmitöös teatavatele küsimustele suurema tähelepanu pööramise kaudu. järeldused ja soovitused 54.
Moreover, lessons have been learned which will be applied for the coming period — especially through guidance and within the programming process. 
Peale selle kasutatakse tulevasel perioodil ära saadud kogemusi, seda eelkõige suuniste kaudu ja programmitöös.
Reply of the CoMMISSIoN 55. the commission considers that, where problems exist, they can be addressed primarily through guidance, through the combination of the current measures 122 and 123 and through greater attention to certain issues during the programming process. 
Komisjoni vastused 55. Komisjon leiab, et kui esineb probleeme, on neid võimalik lahendada peamiselt suuniste, praeguste meetmete 122 ja 123 ühendamise ning programmitöös teatavatele küsimustele suurema tähelepanu pööramise kaudu.
56. 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), which identified needs and strategic objectives. the commission is in the process of reviewing the 1998 Eu forestry strategy. the adoption of the ‘communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European Economic and social committee and the committee of the regions; together with our for-ests: a new Eu forest strategy’ is intended for 2013 and the communication and a staff Working document annexed to the communication will provide an Eu-level analysis of the Eu forestry sector. 
Komisjon uurib aga koos nõukogu ja Euroopa Parlamendiga, mil määral oleks teatavaid küsimusi võimalik lahendada asjakohastes õigusaktides mõiste „mets” määratlemise ning seadmetesse tehtavate investeeringute ja metsade majandusliku väärtuse suurenemise vahelise seose täpsema selgitamise kaudu. 56. Komisjon analüüsis metsandussektori olukorda komisjoni talituste 2005. aasta töödokumendis, mis lisati komisjoni teatisele ELi metsastrateegia rakendamise kohta (doku-mendi viide SEK(2005) 333), milles on kindlaks tehtud vajadused ja strateegilised eesmärgid.
50 57. in forest science and practice the concept of ‘economic value of forests’ is well recognised, and a set of operations leading to a likely increase in value in the long term is also well recognised. 
50 57. Metsateaduses ja praktikas on metsade majandusliku väärtuse mõiste üldtunnustatud, nagu ka toimingute kogum, mille tulemusel väärtus pikas perspektiivis tõenäoliselt suureneb.
Ms can tailor this set of operations to their own circumstances. some indication as to the types of project that may be financed under the heading of improving the economic value of forests is suggested by the chapeau of article 20(b) of regulation 1698/2005 which refers to ‘restructuring and developing physical potential and promoting innovation’. the ‘potential’ economic value of a forest stand may depend on the possible use of a forest and its socioeconomic and technological environment. this argues against defining ‘economic value’ too narrowly. finally, the common Monitoring and Evaluation framework sets out a result indicator ‘increase in gross value added in supported holdings’. this contributes to a notion of what the measure should achieve. additional guidance on the term ‘forestry holding’ may be needed in future. the commission will also investigate with the council and the European parliament to what extent certain issues could be solved through a definition of ‘forest’ in the relevant legal acts. particular conditions concerning the size, main activity and legal status of beneficiaries are considered an issue to be addressed in individual rdps on the basis of a sWot analysis. 
Liikmesriigid võivad kohandada seda toimingute kogumit vastavalt oma olukorrale. Teatav viide projektide liikidele, mida metsade majandusliku väärtuse parandamise raames võib rahastada, on esitatud määruse (EÜ) nr 1698/2005 artikli 20 punkti b sissejuhatavas lõigus, milles osutatakse „füüsilise kapitali ümberkorraldamisele ja arendamisele ning innovatsiooni edendamisele”.
58. the commission will pay the necessary attention to this issue in the negotiation of future rdps and will provide guidance as necessary. 
58. Komisjon pöörab tulevastes maaelu arengukavade üle peetavates läbirääkimistes sellele küsimusele vajalikku tähelepanu ja koostab vajaduse korral vastavad suunised.
Reply of the CoMMISSIoN recommendation 1 the commission accepts that it should continue to define and assess the need to improve the economic value of forests in the Eu, in such a way as to justify in general terms the inclusion of relevant support in rural development policy. it considers that studies already available indicate needs in general terms at Eu level. these studies include (among others): — ‘prospects for the market supply of wood and other forest products from areas with fragmented forest-ownership structures’; http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/external/supply‐ wood/index_en.htm — ‘Good practice guidance on the sustainable mobilisation of wood in Europe’; http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/publi/forest_ brochure_en.pdf — ‘study of the Effects of Globalisation on the Economic Viability of Eu forestry’. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/external/ viability_forestry/index_en.htm the commission considers that more specific needs should continue to be assessed and defined at national and programme level by the competent national and regional authorities. the commission believes it should continue to define basic eligibility conditions at Eu level, but that more precise eligibility conditions and selection criteria should be set within individual rdps. it believes that its proposals for a rural development policy for after 2013 follow this approach. 
Komisjoni vastused 1. soovitus Komisjon nõustub, et ta peaks jätkama ELi metsade majandusliku väärtuse parandamise vajaduse määratlemist ja hindamist sellisel viisil, et üldiselt põhjendada asjaomase toetuse hõlmamist maaelu arengu poliitikaga.
However, additional guidance in this matter should be provided. the commission will also 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. 
Selles küsimuses tuleks aga esitada täiendavaid suuniseid. Samuti uurib komisjon koos nõukogu ja Euroopa Parlamendiga, mil määral oleks võimalik asjakohastes õigusaktides selgitada seadmetesse tehtavate investeeringute ja metsade majandusliku väärtuse suurenemise vahelist soovitatavat seost.
Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development 
Eriaruanne nr 8/2013 – Euroopa Maaelu Arengu Põllumajandusfondist antav metsade majandusliku väärtuse parandamise toetus
However, the commission agrees that adequate descriptions are needed. the level of detail required with regard to types of area and beneficiary may vary from one rdp territory to another. in the period 2014–20, rdps will be influenced by partnership agreements (pas) at Member state level, which will contain analyses of development needs for the Member state concerned in relation to the thematic objectives of the European structural and investment (Esi) funds. the commission has already provided an analytical position paper to each Member state to help guide the elaboration of the pas, and will provide further input through dialogue once the legislative framework is in place. 
Komisjon nõustub aga, et piisavad kirjeldused on vajalikud. Vajalik üksikasjalikkuse tase seoses metsaalade ja toetusesaajate eri liikidega võib maaelu arengukava piirkonniti erineda. Ajavahemikul 2014–2020 mõjutavad maaelu arengukavasid liikmesriikide tasandil sõlmitavad partnerluslepingud, mis sisaldavad asjaomase liikmesriigi arenguvajaduste analüüsi seoses Euroopa struktuuri-ja investeerimisfondide temaatiliste eesmärkidega.