natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
While the rdps examined had identified some potential benefits that could be achieved by Measures 311, 312 and 313, none of them set out a clear intervention logic along the lines of: identified needs — specific objectives — activity needed to achieve these objectives. for example, in sweden, the rdp listed a number of areas where public intervention may be needed to achieve the diversification of the rural economy and support growth (eliminating obstacles to women’s participation, creating credit guarantee associations, etc.) but it did not set specific objectives nor did it identify specific types of activities to be financed to meet those needs. 
Kui kontrollitud maaelu arengukavades oli toodud välja kasu, mida meetmete 311, 312 ja 313 raames oleks võinud saavutada, siis üheski neist ei esitatud selget sekkumisloogikat, mis käsitleks kindlakstehtud vajadusi, konkreetseid eesmärke ja eesmärkide saavutamiseks vajalikku tegevust. Näiteks Rootsi maaelu arengukavas oli loetletud mitmeid valdkondi, kus avalik sekkumine oleks maamajanduse mitmekesistamiseks ja majanduskasvu toetamiseks vajalik (nt naiste osaluselt takistuste eemaldamine, krediidi tagamise ühingute loomine jne), aga selles ei esitatud konkreetseid eesmärke ega määratletud tegevusliike, mida nende vajaduste katmiseks tuleks rahastada.
9 ‘Each rural development programme shall include: (a) an analysis of the situation in terms of strengths and weaknesses, the strategy chosen to meet them and the ex ante evaluation referred to in article 85’. 
9 „Iga maaelu arengukava sisaldab järgmist: a) olukorra analüüsi tugevuste ja puuduste osas, nendega tegelemiseks valitud strateegiat ning artiklis 85 nimetatud eelhindamist.”
10 annex ii, point a.5.2 to regulation (Ec) no 1974/2006 requires that ‘evidence for investment measures support is targeted on clearly defined objectives reflecting identified territorial needs and structural disadvantages’. box 2 ExamplE of a rdp whErE thE nEEd for fundInG dIVErsIfIcatIon mEasurEs Is not clEarly dEmonstratEd united kingdom — england: according to the rdp, each region should have particular regard to economic underperformance and disadvantages when implementing the measures. the Yorkshire and Humber regional implementation plan gives the justification that the region has a lower proportion of diversified farms than the national average, but it does not show that there is a need for more diversification of the rural economy, whether in terms of farm incomes, farm viability, volatility of revenues, or other factors, nor does it identify why there is less diversification in this region and how public intervention could help. 
10 Määruse (EÜ) nr 1974/2006 II lisa punkti A.5.2 kohaselt on nõutavad„tõendid selle kohta, et investeerimismeetmete puhul on toetus suunatud selgelt määratletud eesmärkidele, mis kajastavad määratletud territoriaalseid vajadusi ja nõrku struktuurilisi külgi.”
20. in all the national/regional rdps audited, with the exception of a particular example in italy (see paragraph 21) the objectives provided were so general and open-ended that the national/regional authorities were not able to develop measurable targets (see Box 3). therefore, each measure’s contribution towards the operational objectives was only quantified in terms of targets for the monitoring indicators set out in the Eu’s common monitoring and evaluation framework11. 
20. Kõikides auditeeritud riiklikes/piirkondlikes maaelu arengukavades, v.a. üks erandlik näide Itaalias (vt punkt 21), olid esitatud eesmärgid nii üldised ja laialt mõistetavad, et riiklikud/piirkondlikud ametiasutused ei olnud võimelised seadma mõõdetavaid sihte (vt 3. selgitus).
However, these ‘tar-gets’ were established by calculating the expected results based on the volume of planned expenditure rather than first identifying the desired results required to fulfil a need or achieve an objective and subsequently identifying how much of a given target could be met with the available funding. 
Viimased seati aga sellest lähtudes, milliseid tulemusi kulutusteks kavandatud eelarve piires võis oodata, selle asemel et määratleda esmalt soovitud tulemused, mida läheb vaja mõne vajaduse rahuldamiseks või eesmärgi saavutamiseks, ja seejärel välja selgitada, mil määral on olemasolevate rahadega võimalik sihti saavutada.
Measure 311 in italy — campania was an exception insofar as it established a specific objective ‘promoting the full employment of members of the farm household’, to which it associated an additional quantified indicator (i.e with a target): ‘number of members of the farm household who find employment in the supported activities’. 
Meede 311 Itaalias Campanias oli erand, sest seadis erieesmärgi saavutada põllumajandustootja leibkonda kuuluvate isikute täielik tööhõive, mille ta sidus lisaks arvnäitajaga (st sihiga): toetatud tegevustes töö leidnud põllumajandustootja leibkonda kuuluvate isikute arv.
11 the implementing regulation establishes the following result indicators within the common Monitoring and Evaluation framework (cMEf): — increase in non-agricultural gross value added in supported business (measures: 311, 312, 313); — gross number of jobs created (division according to on-farm/off-farm jobs, gender and age category) (measures: 311, 312, 313); — additional number of tourist visits (division according to the number of overnight stays and the number of day visitors) (measure: 313). 
11 Rakendusmääruses on sätestatud järgmised ühise seire ja hindamisraamistiku tulemusnäitajad: — Toetust saavate ettevõtete mittepõllumajandusliku kogu lisandväärtuse kasv (meetmed 311, 312, 313); — loodud töökohtade koguarv (jaotus vastavalt töökohtadele põllumajandusettevõtte territooriumil või väljaspool seda, soole ja vanusekategooriale; meetmed 311, 312, 313); — lisandunud turistide arv (jaotus vastavalt ööbimiste ja ühepäeva-külastajate arvule) (meede 313).
15 box 3 ExamplE of too broad objEctIVEs sEt for dIVErsIfIcatIon mEasurEs in the czech republic, identical objectives were set for all three measures: ‘the diversification of agricultural activities into non-agricultural production, the development of non-agricultural production and support for job creation’, ‘diversity in the rural economy’, ‘the improvement of the quality of life in rural areas and economic diversification’. these objectives are taken from recital 46 of the preamble to regulation (Ec) no 1698/2005 without any further specification being added and are general and open-ended. for example, the objective ‘diversity of rural economy’ does not specify the extent of improvement of the current situation which the measure aims to achieve and can therefore not be translated into a qualitative or quantitative indicator. in the rdp for Poland, the objectives of Measure 313 (tourism) were only broadly stated in the framework of an integrated measure12 as follows ‘the measure will improve the living conditions of rural areas’; ‘this will contribute to the development of rural population identity’; ‘this will contribute to the (...) preservation of (...) specificity of rural areas ... ’. this general formulation does not specify how this measure will contribute towards encouragement of tourism activities. 
15 3. selgitus näide MitMeKesistaMise MeetMetele seatud liiga üldsõnalistest eesMärKidest tšehhi vabariigis seati kõigile kolmele meetmele samad eesmärgid: põllumajandustegevuse mitmekesistamine mittepõllumajandusliku tootmise suunas, mittepõllumajandusliku tootmise arendamine ja töökohtade loomise toetamine, maamajanduse mitmekesistamine, maapiirkondade elu kvaliteedi parandamine ja majanduslik mitmekesistamine.
12 Measures 313 ‘Encouragement of tourism activities’, 322 ‘Village renewal and development’ and 323 ‘conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage’ were merged into one measure. Special report No 6/2013 – Have the Member States and the Commission achieved value for money with the measures for diversifying the rural economy? 
12 Meetmed 313 „Turismi soodustamise meede”, 322 „Külade uuendamise ja arendamise meede” ja 323 „Maapiirkondade kultuuripärandi säilitamise ja selle kvaliteedi parandamise meede” olid liidetud kokku üheks meetmeks. Eriaruanne nr 6/2013 – Kas liikmesriigid ja komisjon saavutasid maamajanduse mitmekesistamise meetmetega kulutustele vastavat tulu?
22. the fact that the audited Member states and regions have not specified clearly what they wish to achieve indicates a strategy that is demand led rather than objective driven. as a consequence, many different activities and sectors remain eligible, with the risk that the aid will not be sufficiently targeted to the identified needs and structural disadvantages (the rationale for intervention) which inter alia represent the obstacles to growth and job creation. thE commIssIon approVEd rdps dEspItE wEaknEssEs 23. regulation (Ec) no 1974/2006 specifies that Member states must identify the rationale for intervention, the objectives, the scope and the actions of the measures. furthermore the rdps should provide ‘evidence that, for investment measures, support is targeted on clearly defined objectives reflecting identified territorial needs and structural disadvantages’. therefore, prior to approving the Member states’ rdps, the commission is required to check the consistency of the rdp objectives with Eu and national strategies and with the identified needs and weaknesses. 
22. Tõsiasi, et auditeeritud liikmesriigid ja piirkonnad ei ole selgelt välja toonud seda, mida nad soovivad saavutada, viitab pigem nõudlusest lähtuvale kui eesmärgipõhisele strateegiale. Selle tagajärjel püsib seoses mitme toetuskõlbliku tegevuse ja sektoriga oht, et toetused ei ole piisavalt täpselt suunatud kindlaksmääratud vajadustele ja struktuurilisele halvemusele (sekkumise põhjendused), mis kujutab endast muu hulgas takistusi majanduskasvule ja töökohtade loomisele.
However, as the rdps which were audited defined objectives in such general terms, the consistency checks that were made could only be of limited usefulness. nevertheless, the commission approved rdps despite these weaknesses and it did not make a critical assessment of the arguments in favour of intervention. it also gave no consideration as to how effectively or efficiently the proposed measures could generate growth and sustainable jobs. thE ElIGIbIlIty condItIons/crItErIa sEt by thE audItEd mEmbEr statEs do not rEstrIct thE scopE of thE aId for dIVErsIfIcatIon 25. once the Member states have established their objectives, they must set out the conditions for eligibility — (e.g. the types of investment, the categories of beneficiary and the nature of the support) — so as to ensure that aid is targeted towards achieving the objectives set. 
Kuna auditeeritud maaelu arengukavades olid eesmärgid määratletud nii üldiselt, siis said läbiviidud vastavuskontrollid olla vaid piiratud määral kasulikud. Sellegipoolest kiitis komisjon maaelu arengukavad puudustele vaatamata heaks ega hinnanud kriitiliselt sekkumise pooltargumente. Samuti ei kaalunud komisjon seda, kui mõjusalt või tõhusalt saaks kavandatud meetmetega luua tingimusi majanduskasvuks ja jätkusuutlike töökohtade loomiseks. auditeeritud liiKMesriiKide seatud toetusKõlBliKKuse tingiMused/KriteeriuMid ei piiranud MitMeKesistaMistoetuse ulatust 25.
16 Special report No 6/2013 – Have the Member States and the Commission achieved value for money with the measures for diversifying the rural economy? 
16 Eriaruanne nr 6/2013 – Kas liikmesriigid ja komisjon saavutasid maamajanduse mitmekesistamise meetmetega kulutustele vastavat tulu? 26.
26. these eligibility conditions are intended to restrict the scope of the aid. the court found that the Member states’ eligibility criteria were also very broad so funds were allocated to projects that did not actually address the aims of the specific measures even though they may provide some benefit to the local population (see Box 4). the court even found projects that were not eligible under Eu regulations in the czech republic and sweden (see Annex II). sElEctIon procEdurEs dId not dIrEct fundInG towards thE bEst projEcts 27. after establishing their objectives and eligibility criteria, the Member states must set out procedures for the selection of operations and projects from the population of eligible projects. the selection criteria should allow the Member states to identify and spend the available budget on those operations and projects that will contribute most to the objectives. 
Toetuskõlblikkuse tingimuste eesmärk on piirata toetuse ulatust. Kontrollikoda leidis, et liikmesriikide toetuskõlblikkuse kriteeriumid olid samuti väga üldsõnalised, mistõttu rahastati projekte, mis ei käsitlenud tegelikkuses konkreetsete meetmete eesmärke, ehkki nad võivad kohalikule elanikkonnale kasu tuua (vt 4. selgitus).
13 article 71(2) of regulation (Ec) no 1698/2005 states that: ‘Expenditure shall be eligible for Eafrd contribution only where incurred for operations decided on by the Managing authority of the programme in question or under its responsibility, in accordance with the selection criteria fixed by the competent body’. 
13 Määruse (EÜ) nr 1698/2005 artikli 71 lõige 2 sätestab, et „kulutused on abikõlblikud saama EAFRD toetust ainult siis, kui nad on tehtud kõnealuse programmi korraldusasutuse poolt või tema vastutusel otsustatud tegevuste jaoks vastavalt pädeva organi poolt kindlaksmääratud valikukriteeriumidele”.
17 box 4 broad ElIGIbIlIty crItErIa lEd to thE fundInG of cErtaIn projEcts whIch dId not addrEss thE objEctIVEs of thE mEasurEs Poland: although measure 311 aims to diversify holdings towards non-agricultural activities and to promote employment outside agriculture in rural areas, in the Malopolska region, 42 % of the beneficiaries purchased equipment (such as tractors, etc.) so as to be able to provide basic agricultural services like those carried out on their own farms to third parties, without making any contribution to diversification in the rural economy. also in poland, 68 % of the projects financed under measure 313 (tourism) at the time of the audit related to the construction of municipal sports facilities or investments in playing fields for children. for example, a football field located beside a school was modernised under measure 313. this project aimed to improve the quality of life for the rural community by creating a modern sport and leisure infrastructure and providing primary school children with sports facilities. 
Kuigi meetme 311 eesmärk on põllumajandusettevõtete mitmekesistamine mittepõllumajandusliku tegevuse suunas ja põllumajandusega mitteseotud töökohtade loomise edendamine maapiirkondades, soetas Väike-Poola piirkonnas 42% toetusesaajatest varustust (traktoreid jmt), millega pakkuda tavalisi põllumajandus-teenuseid, näiteks selliseid, mida viiakse läbi nende endi põllumajandusettevõtetes kolmandate isikute jaoks, panustamata ühelgi moel maamajanduse mitmekesistamisse.
However, this type of project is not likely to diversify the economy by attracting tourists, which is the aim of the measure14. 
Seda liiki projektid ei mitmekesista siiski suure tõenäosusega majandust turistide arvu suurendamise kaudu, nagu nõuab meetme eesmärk14.
14 article 55 of regulation (Ec) no 1698/2005 set the type of investment eligible under measure 313 — Encouragement of tourism activities — ‘the support referred to in article 52(a)(iii) shall cover the following: (a) small-scale infrastructure such as information centres and the signposting of tourist sites; (b) recreational infrastructure such as that offering access to natural areas, and small-capacity accommodation; (c) the development and/or marketing of tourism services relating to rural tourism’. Special report No 6/2013 – Have the Member States and the Commission achieved value for money with the measures for diversifying the rural economy? 
14 Määruse (EÜ) nr 1698/2005 artikkel 55 turismi soodustamise kohta sätestab meetme 313 raames toetuskõlblikud investeeringuliigid: „Artikli 52 punkti a alapunktis iii nimetatud toetus hõlmab järgmist: a) väiketaristu, nagu infopunktid ja vaatamisväärsuste tähistamine; b) puhkemajanduse taristu, näiteks selline, mis võimaldab juurdepääsu loodusaladele, ja väikemajutus; c) maaturismiga seotud turismiteenuste arendamine ja turustamine.” Eriaruanne nr 6/2013 – Kas liikmesriigid ja komisjon saavutasid maamajanduse mitmekesistamise meetmetega kulutustele vastavat tulu?
28. selection criteria should allow the relative merits of project proposals to be evaluated on an objective and transparent basis; they should also ensure that any projects that do not represent value for money are rejected. indeed, even where projects do fulfil the conditions, some are better than others at addressing the objectives which have been set to satisfy the needs of the rural areas. for instance, as available funds are limited, all else being equal, if one investment project creates more jobs in rural areas than another project, it should be preferred. 
28. Valikukriteeriumid peaksid võimaldama hinnata projektiettepanekute suhtelisi kasutegureid objektiivselt ja läbipaistvalt; samuti peaksid need tagama, et projektid, mis ei paku kulutustele vastavat tulu, lükatakse tagasi.
30. the remaining three Member states (italy — campania, the czech republic and united Kingdom — England) applied selection criteria and a number of different scoring systems, although the czech republic suspended the application of their selection criteria in 2009. 
30. Ülejäänud kolmes liikmesriigis (Itaalias Campanias, Tšehhi Vabariigis ja Ühendkuningriigis Inglismaal) rakendati valikukriteeriume ja mitut erinevat punktisüsteemi, kuigi Tšehhi Vabariik peatas oma valikukriteeriumide rakendamise 2009. aastal.
However, these became meaningless in italy — campania and the czech republic, since none of these two Member states/regions set an effective minimum threshold score which a project had to reach in order to be selected. this means that, whilst funding was available, projects could be selected even if they were assessed as not being particularly relevant to the national/ regional priorities (see Box 5). 
Itaalias Campanias ja Tšehhi Vabariigis muutusid need tähtsusetuks, sest kumbki neist liikmesriikidest/piirkondadest ei seadnud tõhusat miinimumlävendi punktisummat, mille projekt pidi valituks osutumiseks koguma. See tähendab et seni, kuni eelarvet jagus, said valituks isegi sellised projektid, mis hinnangute kohaselt ei vastanud eriti täpselt riiklikele või piirkondlikele prioriteetidele (vt 5. selgitus).
31. four of the audited Member states (france (aquitaine), italy — campania, sweden (Västra Götaland) and the czech republic), selected as many eligible projects as possible with the resources available regardless of their potential contribution towards the measures objectives. 
31. Auditeeritud liikmesriikidest neljas (Prantsusmaal (Akvitaanias), Itaalias (Campanias), Rootsis (Västra Götalandis) ja Tšehhi Vabariigis) valiti välja nii mitu toetuskõlblikku projekti, kui eelarve maht võimaldas, võtmata arvesse projektide potentsiaalset panust meetme eesmärkide saavutamisse.
However, the audit found that, later on, if the budget was insufficient to cover all eligible applications, Member states selected the projects in a stricter manner. as a consequence, better projects were rejected later in the process solely as a result of budgetary reasons (see Box 6). 
Auditi käigus leiti, et hiljem, kui eelarve osutus kõikide toetuskõlblike projektide rahastamiseks ebapiisavaks, hakkasid liikmesriigid rangemalt projekte valima. Selle tagajärjel lükati hiljem paremad projektid üksnes eelarvelistel põhjustel tagasi (vt 6. selgitus).
15 in poland, selection criteria were only applied in 2011 call for proposal for M311, in 2010, 2011 calls for proposal for M312 and in 2009, 2010 calls for proposals for M313. 
15 Poolas rakendati valikukriteeriume meetme 311 puhul vaid 2011. aasta projektikonkursi raames, meetme 312 puhul 2010. ja 2011. aasta projektikonkursi raames ning meetme 313 puhul 2009. ja 2010. aasta projektikonkursi raames.
18 Special report No 6/2013 – Have the Member States and the Commission achieved value for money with the measures for diversifying the rural economy? 
18 Eriaruanne nr 6/2013 – Kas liikmesriigid ja komisjon saavutasid maamajanduse mitmekesistamise meetmetega kulutustele vastavat tulu?
While this resulted in a stringent targeting of the remaining budget, most of it had actually already been spent. Special report No 6/2013 – Have the Member States and the Commission achieved value for money with the measures for diversifying the rural economy? 
Tulemuseks oli järelejäänud eelarve rangem suunamine, kuid suurem osa eelarvest oli selleks ajaks juba kulutatud. Eriaruanne nr 6/2013 – Kas liikmesriigid ja komisjon saavutasid maamajanduse mitmekesistamise meetmetega kulutustele vastavat tulu?
33. the audit revealed that, with the exception of france, all the Member states audited considered the job creation potential in their assessment of project proposals. 
33. Ilmnes, et kõik auditeeritud liikmesriigid, v.a. Prantsusmaa, võtsid projektiettepanekute hindamisel arvesse nende töökohtade loomise potentsiaali.
However, the weaknesses in the selection systems described above meant that, in practice, in some Member states this was not effective in prioritising projects that created employment (see paragraphs 30, 31). as an example, although the italian (campania) measure 311 selection system did allow for the prioritisation of projects that promoted the full employment of a member of the farm household (see paragraph 21), there were weaknesses in the application of this criterion (see Box 7). box 7 a Good systEm on papEr but not In practIcE in italy — campania, the criterion linked to the objective to promote the full employment of the member of the household is described as the ratio investment cost/number of employees. 
Ülalkirjeldatud valikusüsteemide puudused tähendasid aga tegelikkuses seda, et mõnes liikmesriigis ei olnud süsteemid uusi töökohti loovate projektide pingereastamiseks mõjusad (vt punktid 30 ja 31).
34. for projects with the objective of creating jobs, the cost per job created is an indicator of their financial efficiency. the court calculated this in-dicator16 for the 26 projects audited that managed to create jobs (see Annex II). this calculation showed that the cost per job created varied widely between projects, ranging from 3 000 euro to 215 000 euro. Whilst the court recognises that projects may have other objectives that should also be considered during the selection process, the significant differences in the cost per job created within/for similar activities indicate the need for greater attention to this aspect. 
Kontrollikoda arvutas selle näitaja välja 26 auditeeritud projekti puhul16, millega suudeti luua uusi töökohti (vt II lisa). Arvutus näitas, et loodud töökoha maksumus varieerus projektide lõikes palju, ulatudes 3000 eurost 215 000 euroni. Kontrollikoda tõdeb, et projektidel võivad olla ka teised eesmärgid, mida tuleks valikuprotsessi käigus arvesse võtta, kuid märkimisväärne erinevus sarnase tegevuse jaoks või raames loodud töökohtade maksumuses näitab vajadust pöörata sellele aspektile suuremat tähelepanu.
35. three of the Member states audited considered financial efficiency of the projects proposals submitted in terms of cost per job. in their projects’ appraisal, the uK authorities assessed and scored the skills level of the planned jobs relating to the project and their value for money (cost per job and cost per skill level in terms of the grant). 
35. Auditeeritud liikmesriikidest kolmes kaaluti esitatud projektiettepanekute rahalist tõhusust töökoha maksumuse seisukohast. Projektide hindamisel võtsid Ühendkuningriigi ametiasutused arvesse kavandatud töökohtadel nõutavate oskuste taset ja töökohtade loomise kulutustest saadud tulu ning andsid sellele punkte (hinnati töökoha maksumust ja oskuste taseme maksumust toetuse seisukohast).