natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The results of the sample presented above show only whether there is evidence of progress being made but not the extent of that progress. 
Meetmete vhene mjusus 57. lal esitatud valimi tulemused annavad ksnes testust edusammude tegemise kohta, kuid ei nita nende ulatust.
Although many actions in the sample had clearly moved the producer organisation forward from its initial situation towards the related objectives, in other cases the progress made was only marginal. Replacement machinery usually resulted in some progress as it represented an improvement over the old model. 
Kuigi paljude valimi meetmete puhul toimus tootjaorganisatsioonil esialgse olukorraga vrreldes selge edasiminek asjakohaste eesmrkide saavutamise suunas, olid teistel juhtudel edusammud vaid vhese thtsusega. Masinate vljavahetamise nol oli tavaliselt tegemist teatavate edusammudega, kuna vrreldes vana mudeliga oli tegemist edasiarenguga.
However, in relation to the total cost of the replacement, the progress was sometimes not significant. 
Vljavahetamise kogumaksumuse seisukohalt ei olnud aga edusammud alati mrkimisvrsed.
Similarly, the continuing employment of staff to check product quality enabled the producer organisations to maintain quality levels, but did not necessarily lead to a discernable improvement in quality in relation to previous years. 
Samuti palkasid tootjaorganisatsioonid stabiilselt kvaliteeditaseme kontrollimiseks tjudu, kuid see ei toonud varasemate aastatega vrreldes kaasa mrgatavat kvaliteedi paranemist.
In order to gauge the incidence of these Ôlow effective-nessŐ measures, the Court reviewed each of the 104 actions that had been audited on the spot to consider if they represented a significant advance for the producer organisation from its initial situation towards one or more of the EUŐs objectives (Text box 16). 
Et hinnata neid vhese mjususega meetmeid, vaatas kontrollikoda lbi kik kohapeal auditeeritud 104 meedet, et selgitada, kas vrreldes tootjaorganisatsiooni esialgse olukorraga tehti he vi mitme ELi eesmrgi saavutamise suunas mrkimisvrseid edusamme (16. selgitus).
Against this criterion, more than half (55 %) of the random sample of actions were classed as Ôlow effectivenessŐ. 
Selle kriteeriumi kohaselt hinnati rohkem kui pooled (55 %) juhusliku valimi meetmetest vhese mjususega meetmeteks.
20.11.2006 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/45 59. 
20.11.2006 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja C 282/45 59.
These findings show the extent to which Member Sates have approved actions in operational programmes on the basis of their nature (is the action eligible?) without also taking into account their effectiveness (does the action advance the producer organisation towards the objective?). 
Need leiud nitavad ulatust, milleni liikmesriigid on meetmeid nende iseloomu phjal (kas meede on abiklblik?) heaks kiitnud, arvestamata nende mjusust (kas tootjaorganisatsioon teeb meetme abil edusamme eesmrgi saavutamise suunas?).
Text box 16 Examples of actions where we often found a significant advance from the initial situation: Ń improvements in production facilities (irrigation systems, energy-efficient greenhouses); Ń introduction of certified quality schemes. 
16. selgitus Meetmed, mille puhul esialgse olukorraga vrreldes olulisi edusamme tehti: Ń tootmisvahendite parandamine (niisutusssteemid, energiasst-likud kasvuhooned), Ń akrediteeritud kvaliteedissteemide juurutamine.
Examples of actions where we often found no significant advance: Ń replacements of machinery such as pallet-movers, fork-lift trucks, lorries and tractors; Ń pallet-boxes, crates, containers, etc.; Ń salaries of existing staff (marketing departments, quality checkers). 
Meetmed, mille puhul esialgse olukorraga vrreldes olulisi edusamme ei tehtud: Ń masinate (krud, tstukid, veoautod ja traktorid) vljavahetami-ne, Ń kaubaalused, kastid, konteinerid jne, Ń ttajate palgad (turundusosakond, kvaliteedikontrollid).
Conclusions on the effectiveness of operational programmes 60. 
Jreldused rakenduskavade mjususe osas 60.
Member States formally applied most of the aspects of the programming model that were specifically required in the regulation. 
Ametlikult rakendasid liikmesriigid enamikku mruses stestatud programmit mudeli aspekte.
However, they did not take account of the likely effectiveness of the actions in their decisions to approve operational programmes. 
Rakenduskavade heakskiitmisel ei vetud siiski arvesse meetmete tenolist mjusust.
This increased the risk of low-effectiveness actions being supported with EU aid. 
See suurendas ohtu, et ELi toetust antakse vhese mjususega meetmetele.
Member States instead followed a Ôsubsidy approachŐ using the eligibility lists to approve programmes in relation to the nature of the proposed expenditure without having to take account of the producer organisationsŐ situations and objectives. 
Selle asemel jrgisid liikmesriigid toetuse lhenemisviisi, kasutades abiklblikkuse nimekirju kavade heakskiitmiseks, lhtudes kavandatavatest kuludest ning mitte tootjaorganisatsiooni olukorrast ja eesmrkidest.
However, this has not resulted in the uniform application and simplicity that such an approach could offer. The eligibility lists did not set sufficiently clear criteria to guide the expenditure towards the activities that the EU wants to support, with the result of uncertainty and increased costs of control. 
See ei ole siiski kaasa toonud toetuskava eeskirjade htlustatud kasutamist ja lihtsust, mida selline lhenemisviis vimal-danuks. Abiklblikkuse nimekirjad ei stestanud piisavalt selgelt kriteeriume, mille abil oleks rahastatud meetmeid, mida EL soovib toetada.
The coexistence of the programming model required producer organisations to prepare operational programmes and evaluations to comply with the regulations at a significant cost, and for little benefit. 
Kahe programmit mudeli paralleelse kasutamise tttu kaasnesid tootjaorganisatsioonidele mrusest tulenevate nuete titmiseks vajalike rakenduskavade ja hindamiste koostamisega mrkimisvrsed kulud ja vhene tulu.
The aid has also been granted for operational programme actions with low effectiveness that achieve little change. In these cases, the aid could be more effective if better targeted Diagram 8 Sample of actions: impact on EU objectives 
Toetust anti ka rakenduskava vhese mjususega meetmetele, mis tid kaasa vhe muutusi. Sellistel juhtudel oleks paremini suunatud toetus tulemuslikum olnud.
C 282/46 EN Official Journal of the European Union 20.11.2006 PART II: PROGRESS MADE BY PRODUCER ORGANISATIONS 64. 
C 282/46 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja 20.11.2006 II OSA: TOOTJAORGANISATSIOONIDE EDUSAMMUD 64.
Many factors have an impact on the progress made by producer organisations, in addition to the effectiveness of the operational programmes described in Part I. Foremost among these are the activities undertaken by producer organisations and their members that are not financed by operational programmes. 
Lisaks I osas kirjeldatud rakenduskavade mjususele mjutavad tootjaorganisatsioonide poolt tehtavaid edusamme ka paljud teised tegurid. Eelkige on tegemist tootjaorganisatsioonide ja nende liikmete vetavate meetmetega, mida rakenduskavade raames ei rahastata.
Many producer organisations undertake significant investments under Rural Development programmes, for example. 
Niteks teevad paljud tootjaorganisatsioonid suuri investeeringuid maaelu arengu programmide raames.
Furthermore, other EU aid schemes also support producer organisations, notably the schemes for the withdrawals of surplus production and for the processing of fruit and tomatoes. 
Tootjaorganisatsioone toetatakse ka teiste ELi, iseranis letoodangu turult krvaldamise ning puuviljade ja tomatite ttlemise toetuskavadega.
Also affecting the producer organisationsŐ achievement of the objectives are the strategy followed by the producer organisation, the competition it faces, changing customer requirements and preferences, other EU policies such as for quality and the environment, and even, in the shorter term, weather conditions. 
Tootjaorganisatsiooni eesmrkide saavutamist mjutavad ka tootjaorganisatsiooni poolt jrgitav strateegia, konkurents, muutused klientide nudmistes ja eelistustes ning muud ELi poliitikasuunad, nagu niteks kvaliteedi-ja keskkonnapoliitika, ning lhiajaliselt isegi ilmastikuolud.
This part of the report examines whether this progress has been reflected in the overall performance of producer organisations. 
Selles aruande osas vaadeldakse, kas need edusammud kajastusid tootjaorganisatsioonide ldises tulemuslikkuses.
The report first assesses the sample of producer organisations visited during the audit (Text box 17), then considers the CommissionŐs aggregated data at EU level. 
Aruandes hinnatakse esmalt auditi kigus klastatud tootjaorganisatsioonide valimit (17. selgitus) ja seejrel hinnatakse komisjoni kogutud andmeid ELi tasandil.
Text box 17 Sample characteristics: Producer organisations in the random sample represented 2 % of the total number and 5 % of the turnover of EU producer organisations in 2004. 
17. selgitus Valimi tunnused: Juhuslikku valimisse kaasatud tootjaorganisatsioonid esindasid 2 % ELi tootjaorganisatsioonide koguarvust ja 5 % 2004. aasta kibest.
Sample of producer organisations 66. 
Tootjaorganisatsioonide valim 66.
The 30 producer organisations visited were asked to demonstrate the progress they had made towards each of the 11 objectives, regardless of whether they had included actions related to those objectives in their operational programmes. 
30 klastatud tootjaorganisatsioonil paluti esitada levaade iga 11 eesmrgi osas tehtud edusammudest, olenemata sellest, kas rakenduskavades sisaldusid nende eesmrkidega seonduvad meetmed.
This gave a total of 330 cases examined. 
See andis kokku 330 kontrollitud juhtumit.
In 54 % of these, the producer organisation was able to provide evidence to show that it had made progress. 
54 % juhtudest suutis tootjaorganisatsioon esitada edusamme kinnitavaid tendeid. lejnud 12 % juhtudest juti jreldusele, et tootjaorganisatsioonid on arvatavasti edusamme teinud.
A lack of information, particularly on production costs and the stability of prices, explained most of the 16 % of cases where a conclusion could not be made (Diagram 9). 
Teabe puudumine, eriti tootmiskulude ja hindade stabiilsuse osas, oli sageli phjuseks, miks 16 % juhtudest ei olnud vimalik edusammude kohta jreldust teha (vt 9. diagramm).
Many producer organisations had not followed the objectives Ôorganic productionŐ and Ôpromoting products to consum-ersŐ, which accounts for most of the 18 % of cases where Ôno progressŐ was observed. 
Enamikul juhtudel sellest 18 protsendist, kus edusamme ei tehtud, ei jrginud paljud tootjaorganisatsioonid orgaanilise tootmise ja toodete aktiivse tarbijatele turustamise eesmrke.
Producer organisations explained that they aimed for increasing prices rather than stable prices, although most considered themselves price-takers and could do little to influence the prices they obtained. 
Tootjaorganisatsioonid selgitasid, et nende eesmrgiks oli stabiilsete hindade asemel hindade tst-mine, kuigi enamik neist pidas end hinnavtjateks, kellel oli vhe vimalust saadud hindu mjutada.
Producer organisations also noted that improving environmental practices usually increased costs, without necessarily leading to increased product prices. 
Tootjaorganisatsioonid theldasid ka, et keskkonnatavade parandamisega kaasnes tavaliselt kulude suurenemine, kuid mitte alati krgemad tootehinnad.
Although the sample results show that most producer organisations made at least some progress towards most of the 11 objectives, this is not sufficient on its own to confirm that the operational programme aid scheme has been effective, because of the influence of the other factors described in paragraph 64. 
Kuigi valimi tulemused nitavad, et enamik tootjaorganisatsioone tegi vhemalt mingeid edusamme enamiku 11 eesmrgi saavutamise suunas, ei kinnita see ksinda piisavalt rakenduskava toetuskava tulemuslikkust, kuna seda mjutavad ka muud punktis 64 kirjeldatud tegurid.
Diagram 9 Sample of producer organisations: progress towards EU objectives 
9. diagramm Tootjaorganisatsioonide valim: edusammud ELi eesmrkide saavutamise suunas
20.11.2006 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/47 Commission data on producer organisations 69. 
20.11.2006 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja C 282/47 Komisjoni andmed tootjaorganisatsioonide kohta 69.
As shown in Part I, the Commission has not taken the opportunity of exploiting the evaluations made by producer organisations in their final reports to monitor achievement of the operational programme objectives. 
Nagu I osas nidatud, ei kasutanud komisjon vimalust rakendada tootjaorganisatsioonide lpparuannetes antud hinnanguid rakenduskava eesmrkide saavutamise jlgimiseks.
Furthermore, the Commission has not so far complied with its obligation under the EU Financial Regulation to evaluate the policy. 
Komisjon ei ole siiani titnud oma ELi finantsmruses stestatud poliitika hindamise kohustust.
An evaluation study is scheduled to start in 2008, with the results expected in 2009. 
Hindamisuuring on kavandatud 2008. aastaks ning tulemusi oodatakse 2009. aastal.
Nevertheless, the Commission does have some information on producer organisations. 
Sellest hoolimata on komisjonil tootjaorganisatsioonide kohta mningast teavet.
It obtains data on the quantities of surplus produce withdrawn from the market for which aid is claimed. 
Komisjonil on andmeid turult krvalda-tud leliigse toodangu koguste kohta, millele toetust taotletakse.
Since 2000, it has also required information on operational programmes and extended the information collected on producer organisations in an annual statistical report from the Member States. 
Alates 2000. aastast on komisjon nudnud rakenduskavade-alase teabe esitamist ja avaldanud selle liikmesriikide iga-aastases statistilises aruandes.
The data on operational programmes is limited to breakdowns of the aid paid by categories of expenditure. 
Rakenduskavade andmed piirduvad toetuse jaotumisega kululiikide kaupa.
This indicates what the operational programme aid is being spent on, but not what is being achieved with that aid. 
Andmed nitavad, millele rakenduskava toetus on kulutatud, aga mitte seda, mida sellega saavutatud on.
The Commission requires a more extensive set of data on producer organisations, in particular on their membership, their production and their sales. 
Komisjon nuab tootjaorganisatsioonide kohta ulatuslikumaid andmeid, eriti nende liikmelisuse, toodangu ja mgi kohta.
The CourtŐs checks on the reliability of this information were made difficult, as the Commission does not have a proper management information system for recording the data. 
Kontrollikojal oli raskusi andmete usaldusvrsuse kontrollimisega, kuna komisjonil puudub korralik juhtimisteabe ssteem andmete salvestamiseks.
The Commission addressed numerous queries to the Member States in 2004 and 2005 on inconsistencies in the data, but did not follow these up. 
Komisjon esitas liikmesriikidele 2004. ja 2005. aastal arvukaid jreleprimisi vastuolude kohta andmetes, kuid ei teostanud edasist kontrolli.
Important data is lacking, particularly for the three largest fruit and vegetable producing Member States: Italy, Spain and France. 
Eriti esineb puudu-jke kolme suurimat puu-ja kgivilja tootvat liikmesriiki Đ Itaaliat, Hispaaniat ja Prantsusmaad Đ puudutava olulise teabe osas.
Analysis of the data is hampered by its incompleteness and the large number of inconsistencies, making it insufficiently reliable for indicating anything other than broad trends. 
Andmete puudulikkus ja vastuolulisus takistavad nende analsi, mistttu on nende ebausaldusvrsete andmete phjal vimalik vlja tuua vaid ldiseid suundumusi.
The main indicator that can be derived from this data is the share of producer organisationsŐ output in the EU total. 
Peamine nendest andmetest tulenev indikaator on tootjaorganisatsioonide toodangu osa ELi kogutoodangu suhtes.
This shows how much production is concentrated in producer organisations, which is the overall aim of the policy for the fruit and vegetable sector. It also indicates the broader success of the policy by showing what proportion of fruit and vegetable growers choose to participate in the EU aid scheme. 
See nitab tootjaorganisatsioonidesse koondatud toodangu mahtu, mis on puu-ja kgiviljasektori ldiseks eesmrgiks, samuti ka poliitika laiemaid edusamme, niteks kui suur on ELi abikavas osalevate puu-ja kgiviljakasvatajate osakaal.
In the 2005 budget documents the Commission set a target of 60 % for this indicator by 2013, with an annual increase. 
Komisjon seadis 2005. aasta eelarve dokumentides sellele nitajale 60 % sihtmr-gi, mis tuleks vastavalt iga-aastasele kasvule saavutada 2013. aastaks.
Consequently, while it has data on withdrawals and the concentration of supply, the Commission has no indicators to show the progress made by producer organisations towards achieving the other policy objectives such as reducing costs, stabilising prices, improving quality and the environment. 
Seetttu on komisjonil kll andmeid turult krvaldamise ja pakkumise koondamise kohta, kuid puuduvad nitajad tootjaorganisatsioonide poolt muude poliitika eesmrkide, nagu kulude vhendamise, hindade stabiliseerimise, kvaliteedi parandamise ja keskkonna osas tehtud edusammude kohta. letoodangu turult krvaldamise andmete anals 75.
The reform of the fruit and vegetable policy in 1996 limited the quantities of surplus produce that could be disposed of under the withdrawals aid scheme, and cut the compensation paid to growers for those withdrawals. 
Puu-ja kgivilja valdkonna poliitika reform 1996. aastal piiras leliigse toodangu turult krvaldamise toetuskava raames realiseeritavaid koguseid ja nende eest tootjatele makstavaid toetusi.
The Commission data shows that this has resulted in a substantial reduction in the quantities of withdrawals within the EU aid scheme (Diagram 10). 
Komisjoni andmed nitavad, et selle tulemusena vhene-sid ELi toetuskava raames turult krvaldamise kogused (vt 10. diagramm).
This is in line with the result of the CourtŐs sample that 90 % of producer organisations had reduced withdrawals, or maintained them at zero. 
See on koosklas kontrollikoja valimi tulemustega, mille kohaselt 90 % tootjaorganisatsioonidest on turult krvaldamisi vhendanud vi neid ldse vltinud.
Diagram 10 Withdrawals of fruit and vegetables for which aid was paid 1994-2004 (EU 15) 76. One of the objectives set for the operational programme aid scheme was to support measures taken by producer organisations to reduce withdrawals. 
10. diagramm 1994.Đ2004. a puu-ja kgivilja turult krvaldamisele makstud toetus (EL-15) 76. heks rakenduskava toetuskava eesmrgiks oli toetada meetmeid, mis tootjaorganisatsioonid on vtnud turult krvaldamiste vhendamiseks.
However, this reduction in withdrawals does not necessarily prove that the operational programme aid has resulted in producer organisations planning and adjusting their production to the demand: producer organisations explained that the reduced aid rates for withdrawals phased in since 1996, together with increased controls, make it no longer worthwhile to claim the aid on their surplus production. 
Turult krvaldamiste vhenemine ei testa alati, et rakenduskava toetus on mjutanud tootjaorganisatsioonide teostatavat kavandamist ja toodangu nudlusega kohanda-mist: tootjaorganisatsioonid selgitasid, et kuna turult krvaldamisele antav toetuse mr on alates 1996. aastast vhenenud ja kontrollide arv suurenenud, pole enam kasulik leliigsele toodan-gule toetust taotleda.
Analysis of data on the concentration of supply 77. 
Pakkumise koondamise andmete anals 77.
The policy introduced in 1996 should result in a situation where the aid helps producer organisations to adapt and succeed and other growers are encouraged to join. 
1996. aastal kasutusele vetud poliitika peaks tagama, et toetus aitab tootjaorganisatsioonidel kohaneda ja edukalt toimida ning see omakorda innustab teisi tootjaid tootjaorganisatsioonidega liituma.
Both of these factors should increase the turnover of producer organisations, Ôconcentrating supplyŐ in their hands. C 282/48 EN Official Journal of the European Union 20.11.2006 Diagram 11 Share of producer organisations in total value of marketed production (EU 15) 78. 
Mlemad tegurid peaksid suurendama tootjaorganisatsioonide kivet ja pakkumise koondamist tootjaorganisatsioonidesse. C 282/48 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja 20.11.2006 78.
However, the CommissionŐs data shows that the concentration of supply indicator has decreased: producer organisationsŐ share of the total output fell from 40 % in 1999 to 31 % in 2003 (Diagram 11). 
Komisjoni andmed nitavad pakkumise koondamise nitaja vhenemist: tootjaorganisatsioonide kogu toodangu osa langes 40 protsendilt 1999. aastal 31 protsendile 2003. aastal (11. diagramm).
(The figure shown for 2004 is provisional, as two of the largest Member States, France and Italy, have not reported complete data). 
(2004. aasta tulemus on esialgne, kuna kaks suurimat liikmesriiki, Prantsusmaa ja Itaalia, ei ole esitanud tielikke andmeid).
While the value of marketed production of the total fruit and vegetable sector increased by 45 % from 1999 to 2003, that of producer organisations increased by only 12 %. 
Kui kogu puu-ja kgiviljasektori turustatud toodangu vrtus kasvas aastatel 1999Đ2003 45 % vrra, oli tootjaorganisatsioonide puhul kasv ainult 12-protsendiline.
As described in paragraph 72, it is not possible to place too much reliance on this data, other than to indicate the broad trend. 
Nagu kirjeldatud punktis 72, on nende ebausaldusvrsete andmete phjal vimalik esitada ksnes ldiseid suundumusi.
The 2003 percentage was incorrectly reported by the Commission, for example, because of an error concerning missing data for Greece. 
Niteks oli komisjoni esitatud 2003. aasta osakaal vale Kreekat puudutavates andmetes esinenud puuduvast teabest tulenenud vea tttu.
While the Court was able to easily find and correct this, the Commission could not demonstrate to the Court that the other data is sufficiently reliable. 
Kuigi kontrollikoda suutis vea kiiresti leida ja parandada, ei suutnud komisjon kontrollikojale testada muude andmete piisavat usaldusvrsust.
The data also shows the continuing geographical disparity in participation in the aid scheme (Diagram 12). 
Toetuskavas osalemise kohta nitavad andmed jtkuvat geograafilist erinevust (12. diagramm).
Portugal and Greece, the Member States in which fruit and vegetables represents the largest share of agricultural output, have the lowest participation rates, and have not shown any significant increase. 
Portugali ja Kreeka, liikmesriikide, kus puu-ja kgivili esindavad pllumajandusliku toodangu suurimat osa, osalemise aste on kige madalam ja nende puhul mingit mrgatavat kasvu ei toimunud.
Because of this low participation in producer organisations, only 6 % of PortugalŐs fruit and vegetable sector receives aid for operational programmes, and 13 % in Greece compared to 80 % in the Netherlands. 
Vhese osalemise tttu tootjaorganisatsioonides saab rakenduskavadele toetust ainult 6 % Portugali ja 13 % Kreeka puu-ja kgiviljasektorist, Hollandis on see protsent aga 80.
The design of the aid scheme, which rewards success by paying aid as a percentage of producer organisationsŐ turnover, should create an incentive for smaller producers with lower value production, and with the most need for adapting to the marketŐs increasing quality and environmental standards and concentrated demand, to join producer organisations. 
Toetuskava lesehitus, mis keskendub edukusele Đ toetust makstakse protsendina tootjaorganisatsioonide kibest Đ, peaks motiveerima tootjaorganisatsioonidega liituma madalama vrtusega toodanguga viksemaid tootjaid, kellel on kige suurem vajadus end turu kasvavate kvaliteedi-ja keskkonnanuetega ja kontsentreeritud nudlusega kohandada.