natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
An independent study of local energy agencies will be carried out under a tender funded by the IEE 2008 work programme. 
Euroopa aruka energeetika programmi 2008. aasta tööprogrammist rahastatava hanke raames teostatakse kohalike energiaagentuuride sõltumatu uuring.
The creation of agencies depends mainly on the availability of local and regional structures for co-financing and their committing to their agency in the long-run. 
Agentuuride loomine sõltub peamiselt kaasrahastamise kohalike ja piirkondlike struktuuride kättesaadavusest ning nende sidumisest vastava agentuuriga pikaajalises perspektiivis.
Acknowledging this diversity, the Commission encouraged in particular new MS to take up the concept of energy agencies (e.g. call 2004 gave priority to the creation of agencies in new MS). 
Sellist mitmekesisust arvestades innustas komisjon energiaagentuuride kontseptsiooni juurutama eelkõige uusi liikmesriike (nt 2004. aasta konkursikutses eelistati agentuuride loomist uutes liikmesriikides).
This helped to build momentum and influence the decision making process at local level. 
See aitas anda hoogu ja mõjutada otsustusprotsessi kohalikul tasandil.
As a result, after a slow start, 16 new energy agencies were established in the new Member States from 2005 to 2007. 
Selle tulemusena loodi uutes liikmesriikides 2005.–2007. aastal pärast aeglast algust 16 uut energiaagentuuri.
The ECUBA study, which was performed by experts closely involved with the work of the agencies (but independent of the European Commission), provided useful insights into the challenges associated with the management on energy agencies at local and regional level. 
ECUBA uuring, mille teostasid agentuuride tööga lähedalt seotud (kuid Euroopa Komisjonist sõltumatud) eksperdid, andis väärtuslikku teavet energiaagentuuride kohaliku ja piirkondliku tasandi haldamisega seotud väljakutsete kohta.
A new study is being launched as a Tender under the 2008 IEE Work Programme, and this will be carried out by a consortium which has not been associated with local energy agencies before. 
Euroopa aruka energeetika programmi 2008. aasta tööprogrammi raames toimuva hanke tulemusena käivitatakse uus uuring, mille teostab konsortsium, mis pole varem kohalike energiaagentuuridega koostööd teinud.
Regular feedback to the Commission on the activities of the agencies is collected via Managenergy and its Reflection Group (MERG), which meets 2-3 times per year to discuss the needs, priorities and activities of local actors, notably the energy agencies. 
Komisjon saab agentuuride tegevuse kohta regulaarset tagasisidet Managenergylt ja selle analüüsirühmalt (MERG), mis kohtub 2–3 korda aastas, et arutada kohalike osalejate, eelkõige energiaagentuuride vajadusi, prioriteete ja tegevusi.
The Managenergy consortium is keeping the agencies section of the Managenergy web site and the related agencies booklet up to date by checking on an annual basis that the agencies are still active. 
Managenergy konsortsium haldab Managenergy veebilehe agentuuride alajaotust ja ajakohastab sellega seonduvat agentuuride trükist, kontrollides iga-aastaselt, et agentuurid ikka veel tegutseksid.
The Commission supports the energy agencies only in the start-up phase. 
Komisjon toetab energiaagentuure ainult tegevuse alustamise faasis.
The fact that most of the new agencies, which have been established with Community support, are still operating demonstrates both a demand and sufficient public use across Europe to justify the investment of public funds. 
Asjaolu, et enamik ühenduse toel loodud uusi agentuure ikka veel tegutseb, näitab nii nõudlust kui ka piisavat ühiskondlikku kasutust terves Euroopas, et õigustada avaliku sektori vahendite investeerimist.
The Commission has information on the costs incurred by the Commission and the Agency in programme management and does not normally include costs incurred by the participants for preparing proposals as administrative costs. 
Komisjon valdab teavet komisjoni ja agentuuri poolt programmi haldamisel kantud kulude kohta ega käsitle üldjuhul osalejate ettepanekute koostamisel kantud kulusid halduskuludena.
The present legal base does not define “costs” incurred by all applicants’ while filling in their project proposals as eligible for reimbursement. 
Praeguses õiguslikus aluses ei määratleta “kulusid”, mida kõik taotlejad kannavad projektiettepanekuid koostades, abikõlblikena.
In the Commission’s view such costs are incurred for a necessary step of the project’s operations and cannot be defined as administrative nor can reporting costs be considered as purely administrative. 
Komisjoni hinnangul kantakse sellised kulud projekti teostamise vajaliku etapina ning neid ei saa määratleda halduskuludena, nagu ka aru-andluskulusid ei saa pidada puhtalt halduskuludeks.
It is the price participants have to pay in any kind of competitive procedure (According to the Court’s survey, almost 60 % of the respondents judged these costs as “fair”). – Preparing a proposal is an investment in planning a sound and competitive project, and reporting is both a contractual and an operational obligation which provides the basis for the Executive agency and Commission to disseminate the projects results to stakeholders. 
Tegu on hinnaga, mida osalejad peavad maksma igasuguse konkursi eest (kontrollikoja küsitluse põhjal pidas peaaegu 60 % vastanutest neid kulusid “õiglaseks”). – Ettepaneku koostamine on investeering pädeva ja konkurentsivõimelise projekti planeerimisse ning aruandlus on nii lepinguline kui ka jooksev kohustus, mis annab rakendusametile ja komisjonile aluse edastada projekti tulemused sidusrühmadele.
Such publications generate positive spill over effects and increase interest in the programme, thus maximising the value of Community funding, and give credibility to the project owner. – The costs estimates of the respondents’ are, by nature, difficult to quantify in a systematic manner. 
See toob kaasa positiivse mõju leviku ja suurendavad huvi programmi vastu, maksimeerides sellega ühenduse rahastamise väärtust, ning tekitavad usaldusväärsust projekti läbiviija suhtes. – Vastanute kuluprognoose on nende olemuse tõttu raske süstemaatiliselt kvantifitseerida.
The Commission notes that the Court’s survey did not define in its questionnaire the nature of the costs to be taken into account, nor a methodology for evaluating them. 
Komisjon märgib, et kontrollikoja küsitluse küsimustikus ei täpsustatud arvesse võetavaid kulusid ega nende hindamise meetodit.
Survey participants were not asked to provide accounting data, and their replies were not audited. 
Küsitletutel ei palutud esitada raamatupidamisandmeid, ja nende vastuseid ei auditeeritud.
The replies of the 29 % of those approached who participated in the survey will therefore necessarily be a subjective perception by respondents and diverging in terms of content and extrapolations from them unreliable. 
Küsitlusele vastas 29 % nendest, kellele see saadeti ja nende vastused kujutavad endast eeltoodu valguses paratamatult subjektiivset hinnangut, nad on sisu osas lahknevad ja nendest tehtavad järeldused mitteusaldatavad.
Some stakeholders commented that the application process had become easier and that there was improved clarity surrounding the procedure and the evaluation criteria. 
Mõned sidusrühmad märkisid, et taotlusprotsess on muutunud lihtsamaks ning et protsessi ja hindamiskriteeriumide osas on selgus suurenenud.
The Commission understands therefore that the respondents to the external evaluation assessed positively the application process, which is related with the costs of preparing proposals mentioned by the Court. 
Sellega seoses mõistab komisjon, et välishinnangu subjektid hindasid taotlusprotsessi positiivselt, mis on seotud kontrollikoja nimetatud ettepanekute koostamise kuludega.
The “contract negotiation process” that the Court mentions is not part of the proposal phase but very distinct from it. 
Kontrollikoja mainitud “lepingu läbirääkimise protsess” ei ole osa taotluse esitamise faa-sist, vaid sellest täiesti eraldiseisev.
It applies only to proposals selected for funding and is designed to prepare the grant agreement between the beneficiaries’ consortium and the Commission. 
See kehtib ainult toetamiseks väljavalitud taotluste suhtes ning see on mõeldud abisaajate konsortsiumi ja komisjoni vahelise toetuslepingu ettevalmistamiseks.
Therefore, resources used for “contract negotiation” should be considered separately from the costs of writing a proposal. 37-38. 
Seetõttu tuleks “lepingu läbirääkimiseks” kasutatavaid vahendeid käsitleda ettepaneku koostamise kuludest eraldiseisvatena. 37.–38.
The Court adds costs incurred by the Commission and the Executive Agency together with “costs” estimated by beneficiaries. 
Kontrollikoda liidab komisjoni ja rakendusameti kantud kulud abisaajate poolt prognoositavate “kuludega”.
These last costs are of a very different nature and therefore should be considered separately. 
Viimati nimetatud kulud on aga sootuks erineva iseloomuga ja seetõttu tuleks neid käsitleda eraldi.
Preparing a proposal is an investment in planning a sound and competitive project. 
Ettepaneku koostamine on investeering pädeva ja konkurentsivõimelise projekti planeerimisse.
In the IEE case, programme management costs also include investment in the establishment of an Executive Agency which will bring benefits and cost-savings in the future. 
Euroopa aruka energeetika programmi haldamiskulud sisaldavad ka investeeringuid rakendusameti ülesehitamisse, mis toob tulu ja kokkuhoiu tulevikus.
39 As for the participants’ estimated costs of preparing proposals, and reporting on projects (22 million euro on the basis of a survey conducted by the Court), and as replied to in paragraph 32, the Commission notes that these are of a different nature and incurred for a necessary step of the project’s operations. 
39 Mis puudutab osalejate prognoositavaid kulusid (kontrollikoja küsitluse põhjal 22 miljonit eurot) seoses ettepanekute koostamise ja projektide aruandlusega ning nagu juba öeldud punktis 33, märgib komisjon, et need on erineva iseloomuga ja need kantakse projekti teostamise vajaliku etapina.
Furthermore, the Court’s survey did not define in its questionnaire the nature of the mentioned costs to be taken into account, nor a methodology for evaluating them. 
Lisaks ei täpsustatud kontrollikoja küsitluse küsimustikus nimetatud arvesse võetavaid kulusid ega nende hindamise meetodit.
Survey participants were not asked to provide accounting data, and their replies were not audited. 
Küsitletutel ei palutud esitada raamatupidamisandmeid ja nende vastuseid ei auditeeritud.
The Commission does not consider that the costs estimates relating to preparing proposals and reporting borne by the participants can be assimilated, added or compared to the administration costs incurred by the Commission and the Agency to manage the programme as they are of different nature. 
Komisjon ei usu, et osalejate kantud ettepanekute koostamise ja aruandluse kulude prognoose oleks võimalik ühendada, liita või võrrelda komisjoni ja rakendusameti kantud programmi haldamise kuludega, kuna nad on erineva iseloomuga.
With regard to the pay-out of the programme grants, the Court correctly states in paragraph 38 that in a programme such as IEE the costs of preparing proposals are front-end loaded. At the same time, the pay-out to beneficiaries is typically back-end loaded. 
Mis puudutab programmitoetuste väljamaksmist, siis sedastab kontrollikoda punktis 39 õigesti, et Euroopa aruka energeetika programmi laadse programmi puhul on ettepanekute koostamise kulud suuremad programmi alguses.
The Commission considers that the planning of the programme represents an acceptably high standard given the inherent constraints of a policy instrument of this nature. 
Komisjon on seisukohal, et arvestades programmi olemuslikke piiranguid, on selle kavandamine toimunud aktsepteeritaval tasemel.
See reply to paragraph 18. 
Vt vastust punktile 18.
The decision on IEE 1 is referring to a number of specific communications relevant to each of the four programme fields, and each of these documents contains a list of important areas of action4. 
Euroopa aruka energeetika esimest programmi käsitlevas otsuses on viidatud mitmele programmi nelja valdkonnaga seonduvale konkreetsele teatisele, millest igaühes on nimetatud olulised tegevusvaldkonnad4.
4 For example, the White paper for a Community Strategy and Action Plan [COM(1997) 599 final of 26/11/1997] contains four activity areas and 22 specific actions for the field renewable energies alone; the Communication from the Commission, entitled: “Action Plan to improve energy efficiency in the European Community” [COM(2000) 247 of 26/04/2000] puts forward actions in all sectors and in 15 main areas. 
4 Näiteks ühenduse strateegiat ja tegevuskava käsitlevas valges raamatus [KOM(1997) 599 (lõplik), 26.11.1997] on määratletud üksnes taastuvate energiaallikate lõikes neli tegevusala ja 22 erimeedet; komisjoni teatises Euroopa Ühenduse energiatõhususe parandamise tegevuskava kohta [KOM(2000) 247, 26.4.2000] on sätestatud meetmed kõigis valdkondades ja 15 põhivaldkonnas.
40 RECOMMENDATION 1 – PLANNING See replies to paragraphs 17 & 18. 
40 SOOVITUS 1 – KAVANDAMINE Vt vastuseid punktidele 17 ja 18.
The Commission is already implementing the Court’s recommendation on planning. 
Komisjon juba rakendab kontrollikoja soovitust kavandamise kohta..
The Commission has established an explicit policy model for IEE which reflects the expected link between expenditure, output and impact on the level of each intervention area and this is monitored concretely on a project by project basis. 
Komisjon on juurutanud Euroopa aruka energeetika programmi üksikasjaliku poliitikamudeli, mis kajastab eeldatavat seost kulude, väljundi ja mõju vahel iga sekkumisvaldkonna tasandil, ning seda seiratakse konkreetse projekti põhiselt.
IEE1 is a programme with a wide scope for addressing sustainable energy in all sectors of society as defined in the decision of the Parliament and the Council. 
Euroopa aruka energeetika esimene programm on laiaulatuslik programm, milles on vastavalt parlamendi ja nõukogu otsuses sätestatule käsitletud säästvat energeetikat ühiskonna kõigis sektorites.
Monitoring of the programme is done on a project basis, allowing the impacts of the programme to be determined with regard to its objectives. 
Programmi seiratakse projektipõhiselt, mis võimaldab välja selgitada programmi mõju seoses selle eesmärkidega.
It is hardly feasible to introduce monitoring at a higher aggregated level given the difficulty to isolate causal links between the programme results as catalyst and macroeconomic trends such as the EU’s energy dependency. 
Arvestades raskusi programmi tulemuste kui katalüsaatorite ja makromajanduslike trendide, näiteks ELi energiasõltuvuse vaheliste põhjuslike seoste väljaselgitamisel, ei ole eriti mõistlik hakata teostama seiret kõrgemal koondtasemel.
See also reply to paragraph 23. 
Vt ka vastust punktile 23.
Feedback from public authorities across the EU, as witnessed by the recent growth in demand for such agencies from public authorities, confirms that they believe a local or regional agency makes a significant impact. 
Terve ELi ametiasutuste tagasiside nende hiljuti kasvanud nõudluse näol selliste agentuuride järele kinnitab ametiasutuste usku, et kohaliku või piirkondliku agentuuri mõju on märkimisväärne.
The fact that each public authority must not only co-finance during the first 3 years of IEE support but must also ensure the continuation of the agency for a further 5 years afterwards confirms that local authorities are convinced about the value of having such an agency. 
Asjaolu, et iga ametiasutus ei pea mitte üksnes kaasrahastama esimese kolme aasta jooksul Euroopa aruka energeetika programmi toetust, vaid ka tagama agentuuri töö jätkumise järgneva viie aasta jooksul, kinnitab, et kohalikud ametiasutused on veendunud sellise agentuuri käigushoidmise väärtuses.
See also reply to paragraph 28. 
Vt ka vastust punktile 28.
Change in behavior can only be estimated over the long term, using consolidated data such as those provided by EUROSTAT. 
Käitumise muutumist on võimalik hinnata üksnes pikaajalises perspektiivis, kasutades näiteks EUROSTATi pakutavaid konsolideeritud andmeid.
Nevertheless the programme has had a positive impact on the development of EU policy. 
Sellest hoolimata on programm mõjunud ELi poliitika arengule positiivselt.
Concerning the use of evaluation in the design of successor programmes, existing evaluation findings (mid-term/final evaluation of an ongoing programme and ex post evaluation of the previous programme) are a key input to the ex ante evaluation/Impact Assessment of the successor programme. 
Mis puudutab hindamise kasutamist jätkuprogrammide kavandamisel, siis on olemasolevad hindamistulemused (käimasoleva programmi vahe-/lõpphinnang ja eelneva programmi järel-hinnang) jätkuprogrammi eelhinnangu/mõju-hinnangu võtmesisendid.
Regarding performance indicators, delegation of programme management to a full-time team of dedicated professionals in an executive agency results in a more efficient process of continuous feedback, which permits the direction of the programme and its priorities to be adjusted / refocused annually in response to changes in the market as well as to the evolution of EU policy. 
Mis puudutab tulemusnäitajaid, siis programmi haldamise delegeerimine rakendusameti täistööajaga töötavate spetsialiseerunud profes-sionaalide meeskonnale toob kaasa pideva tagasiside tõhusama protsessi, mis võimaldab programmi haldust ja selle prioriteete iga-aastaselt kohandada /ümber seada, et reageerida turumuutustele ning ELi poliitika arengule.
RECOMMENDATION 2 – MONITORING Monitoring of the programme is done on a project basis, allowing their impacts to be determined with regard to their objectives. 
SOOVITUS 2 – JÄRELEVALVE Programmi seiratakse projektipõhiselt, mis võimaldab välja selgitada nende mõju seoses nende eesmärkidega.
RECOMMENDATION 3 – EVALUATION The Commission intends to implement the recommendation regarding the evaluation of programmes. 
SOOVITUS 3 – HINDAMINE Komisjon kavatseb rakendada soovitust programmide hindamise kohta.
These costs are of a very different nature and therefore should be considered separately. 
Nimetatud kulud on aga sootuks erineva iseloomuga ja seetõttu tuleks neid käsitleda eraldi.
Programme management costs are incurred only by the Commission and Executive Agency and, for the period in question, include investments in the establishment of an Executive Agency which will bring benefits and cost-savings in the future. 
Programmi halduskulusid kannavad ainult komisjon ja rakendusamet ning kõnealuse ajavahemiku puhul sisaldavad need investeeringuid rakendusameti ülesehitamisse, mis toob tulu ja kokkuhoiu tulevikus.
42 The Court’s survey did not define the nature of the costs to be taken into account, nor a method for determining them. 
42 Kontrollikoja küsitluses ei täpsustatud arvesse võetavaid kulusid ega nende määratlemise meetodit.
Survey participants were not asked to provide accounting data, and the replies were not audited. 
Küsitletutel ei palutud esitada raamatupidamisandmeid ja vastuseid ei auditeeritud.
The replies are therefore necessarily very approximate. 
Vastused on seetõttu paraku väga ligikaudsed.
Working documents to the preliminary draft budget each year provide breakdowns of administrative costs of the Directorate General’s activities and of each executive agency5. 
Iga-aastase esialgse eelarveprojekti töödokumentides esitatakse peadirektoraadi tegevuste ja kõigi rakendusametite halduskulude jaotus5.
For those agencies using the Commission’s IT accounting system, ABAC, to support their own accounting systems, the Commission will offer a facility for allocating the agency’s expenditure to each of its activities. 
Nendele ametitele, kes kasutavad oma raamatupidamissüsteemide toetamiseks komisjoni infotehnoloogilist raamatupidamissüsteemi ABAC, pakub komisjon võimaluse asutuse kulude jaotamiseks tegevuste lõikes.
It is planned to offer this facility to certain agencies as from the 2009 financial year, and to subsequently extend it to others. 
Nimetatud võimalust kavatsetakse pakkuda teatavatele asutustele alates 2009. eelarveaastast ja seejärel laiendada seda teistele.
RECOMMENDATION 4 – MANAGING COSTS The Agencies using Commission’s IT accounting system will be offered a facility for allocating the agency’s expenditure to each of its activities. 
SOOVITUS 4 – HALDUSKULUD Komisjoni infotehnoloogilist raamatupidamissüsteemi kasutavatele ametitele pakutakse võimalust asutuse kulude jaotamiseks tegevuste lõikes.
The extra control burden on both beneficiary and Commission of collecting information on the costs to the beneficiary of preparing proposals is not currently justified. 
Nii abisaajale kui ka komisjonile langev kontrolliga seonduv lisakoorem koguda teavet abisaaja ettepanekute koostamise kulude kohta ei ole praegu õigustatud.
The Commission maintains records and analysis of its programme management costs. 
Komisjon säilitab oma programmihalduskulusid käsitlevaid andmeid ja analüüse.
5 Working documents II, III and IV to the Preliminary Draft Budget. 
5 Esialgse eelarveprojekti II, III ja IV töödokument.
43 ANNEX 1 Extract of the: Mid Term Evaluation of the Multi-annual Programme for Action in the Field of Energy “Intelligent Energy for Europe, 2003-2006”, ECOTEC Research & Consulting Limited, UK Programme Added Value (page 58) In the view of the evaluators an important aspect of added value that the IEE programme brings is the strength of the synergy between the fields. 
43 I LISA Väljavõte: energeetika mitmeaastase tegevusprogrammi “Arukas energeetika – Euroopa, 2003–2006” vahehinnang, ECOTEC Research & Consulting Limited, Ühendkuningriik Programmi lisandväärtus (lk 58) Hindajate arvates on Euroopa aruka energeetika programmi loodava lisandväärtuse tähtsaks aspektiks valdkondadevahelise sünergia tugevus.
This can have the effect of bringing together actors in renewables, energy efficiency and transport. 
Programm võib kokku tuua taastuvenergia, energiatõhususe ja transpordivaldkonna osapooled.
Evaluations of predecessor programmes and our consultations have pointed out that the projects funded have inspired member state policy changes and interventions. 
Eelnevate programmide hindamine ja meie konsultatsioonid on näidanud, et rahastatud projektid on innustanud liikmesriike muutma poliitikat ja sekkuma.
It is too early to say that this will occur as a result of the projects being currently funded. 
On veel liiga vara öelda, kas ka praegu rahastatavad projektid toovad kaasa samasuguseid tulemusi.
However, in the view of the evaluators as the projects are of the same nature as in the predecessor programmes it is reasonable to assume that this will occur. 
Kuna projektid on aga sama iseloomuga kui eelnevad programmid, siis on hindajate arvates mõistlik eeldada, et see leiab aset.
This aspect should be covered in the ex-post evaluation of the IEE programme. 
Seda aspekti peaks Euroopa aruka energeetika programmi järelhindamisel uurima.
European Court of Auditors Special Report No 7/2008 Intelligent Energy 2003-2006 Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 2008 — 43 pp. — 21 × 29.7 cm ISBN 978-92-9207-050-2 DOI 10.2865/12922 
Euroopa Kontrollikoda Eriaruanne nr 7/2008 Perioodi 2003–2006 arukas energeetika Luxembourg: Euroopa Ühenduste Ametlike Väljaannete Talitus 2008 – 43 lk – 21 x 29,7 cm ISBN 978-92-9207-052-6 DOI 10.2865/11629
SPECIAL REPORT “INTELLIGENT ENERGY 20032006” EXAMINES, IN TURN, THE USE MADE OF EU FUNDS, THE SUCCESSES AND LIMITATION OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION, AND THE OVERHEAD COSTS FOR BOTH THE COMMISSION AND FOR PARTICIPANTS OF AN EU SCHEME AIMED AT PROMOTING ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND THE USE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY. 
ERIARUANDES “PERIOODI 20032006 ARUKAS ENERGEETIKA” UURITAKSE OMAKORDA ELI RAHALISTE VAHENDITE KASUTAMIST, JÄRELEVALVE JA HINDAMISE EDUSAMME JA PIIRANGUID NING NII KOMISJONI KUI ELI ENERGIASÄÄSTLIKKUSELE JA TAASTUVA ENERGIA KASUTUSELE SUUNATUD KAVAS OSALEJATE ÜLDISEID KULUTUSI.