natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
41 Xii. the commission considers that where measure 122 was the correct measure to use, the economic value of forests was indeed increased. 
41 Xii. Komisjon leiab, et kui meede 122 oli kasutamiseks õige meede, siis metsade majanduslik väärtus tõepoolest suurenes.
When assessing the contribution to improving the economic value of forests different factors such as multifunctionality and sustainability must also be taken into account. 
Metsade majandusliku väärtuse suurendamiseks antud panuse hindamisel tuleb arvesse võtta ka selliseid mitmesuguseid tegureid nagu multifunktsionaalsus ja jätkusuutlikkus.
Xiii. as for the recommendation that the commission should define and assess the Eu needs for improving the economic value of the forests, as well as clearly define the key features, the commission agrees 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.2 2 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 and ‘study of the Effects of Globalization on the Economic Viability of Eu forestry’; http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/external/viability_forestry/index_ en.htm Reply of the CoMMISSIoN 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. 
Xiii. Seoses soovitusega, et komisjon määratleks metsade majandusliku väärtuse parandamisega seotud ELi vajadused ja hindaks neid ning määraks selgelt kindlaks põhioma-dused, nõustub komisjon, et ta peaks jätkama ELi metsade majandusliku väärtuse parandamise vajaduse määratlemist ja hindamist sellisel viisil, et üldiselt põhjendada asjaomase toetuse hõlmamist maaelu arengu poliitikasse.
Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development 42 as for the recommendation that the Member states should set requirements to ensure that forestry support is consistent, as well as put in place adequate procedures to ensure that support is effective in increasing the economic value of the forest areas, the commission notes that the principle of subsidiarity hands considerable discretion to Member states and regions in respect of the points raised — in line, for example, with the European parliament’s ‘report on the implementation of a European union forestry strategy’ (a6-0015/2006). for the next programming period, together with the Member states the commission is developing a cMEf which will allow the assessment, for each rdp, of progress in implementation against commonly defined target indicators for the priorities and focus areas selected for the programme. at the basis is an indicator plan which for each focus area sets the target and the planned outputs and expenditure for the measures that will be used to achieve the targets and objectives of the programme. the indicator plan represents more accurately the quantified intervention logic for each individual programme than does the current rigid axis structure. the qualitative assessment of measure 122 can play a valuable role alongside quantitative assessment, as it sometimes takes more time for policy intervention to lead to a clearly measurable effect in the case of forestry than in the case of farming. as for the recommendation that the commission should improve its monitoring of the measure, the commission agrees that beneficiaries should be required to provide data. 
Eriaruanne nr 8/2013 – Euroopa Maaelu Arengu Põllumajandusfondist antav metsade majandusliku väärtuse parandamise toetus 42 Seoses soovitusega, mille kohaselt liikmesriigid peaksid kehtestama nõuded tagamaks, et metsandustoetusi antakse järjepidevalt, ning kehtestama asjakohased protseduurid tagamaks, et toetused on metsaalade majandusliku väärtuse parandamisel mõjusad, märgib komisjon, et subsidiaarsuse põhimõtte kohaselt on liikmesriikidel ja piirkondadel tõstatatud küsimustes ulatuslik kaalutlusõigus kooskõlas näiteks Euroopa Parlamendi aruandega Euroopa Liidu metsastrateegia rakendamise kohta (A6-0015/2006).
However, these data may be of a very basic nature and require significant processing to allow conclusions about increases in value. to compile result indicators such as ‘increase of gross value added (GVa)’, Ms have been invited3 to capture relevant information on GVa from the supported holdings when the application is approved and 2 years after the investment completion in order to integrate as much as possible the long-term effect of the investments. 
Kõnealused andmed võivad aga olla väga lihtsat laadi ning vajada märkimisväärset töötlemist, et väärtuse suurenemise kohta oleks võimalik järeldusi teha. Selleks et teha kokkuvõte sellistest tulemusnäitajatest nagu toetust saanud ettevõtjate kogulisandväärtuse kasv, paluti liikmesriikidel3 koguda toetust saanud ettevõtjatelt asjakohast teavet kogulisandväärtuse kohta taotluse heakskiitmise ajal ning kaks aastat pärast investeeringu lõpuleviimist, et võtta võimalikult ulatuslikult arvesse investeeringute pikaajalist mõju.
3 Working document providing guidance to Ms for the result indicator ‘increase of GVa’: http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/app_templates/filedownload. cfm?id=84053593-c697-ff89-Ed5c-51797d9754fd Reply of the CoMMISSIoN in practice, it has been difficult for managing authorities (Mas) to compile the necessary data and conduct the analysis required to establish values for these types of result indicators as part of their regular monitoring activities. therefore, for the next programming period, this task of the establishment of values for this indicator will rather be undertaken by the programme evaluators. the commission considers this a feasible and adequate approach. observations 20. during the formulation of the forestry-related measures, the commission used the analysis that was available. one of the main sources was the commission staff working document in annex to the communication on the implementation of the Eu forestry strategy of 10.3.2005 (sEc(2005) 333), which identified needs and strategic objectives. see paragraph 30 and the associated footnotes. 
3 Töödokument, milles esitatakse liikmesriikidele suunised seoses tulemusnäitajaga „kogulisandväärtuse kasv”: http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/app_ templates/filedownload.cfm?id=84053593-C697-FF89-ED5C-51797D9754FD Komisjoni vastused Tegelikkuses on korraldusasutustel olnud keeruline teha oma korrapärase järelevalvetegevuse käigus kokkuvõtteid vajalikest andmetest ja teostada seda liiki tulemusnäitajate väärtuse kindlaksmääramiseks vajalikke analüüse. Seepärast täidavad kõnealuse näitaja väärtuse kindlaksmääramise ülesannet järgmisel programmitöö perioodil pigem programmide hindajad.
21. the opinions to which the court refers were indeed not available in 2004. 
21. Kontrollikoja viidatud arvamused ei olnud 2004. aastal tõepoolest kättesaadavad.
However, the main substance of the opinions in question was already contained in the Eu forestry strategy (coM (1998) 649) and the subsequent related council resolution 99c56, which were available in 2004. among other things, the strategy sets out the extent of private forest ownership in the Eu (accounting for 65 % of total forest), the number of private owners and the resultant level of fragmentation. the commission proposal for the post-2013 rural development regulation took account of an sfc opinion from 2009 and the European parliament’s ‘report on the implementation of a European union forestry strategy’ (a6-0015/2006) of 2006. 
Kõnealuste arvamuste põhisisu oli aga juba esitatud ELi metsastrateegias (KOM(1998) 649) ja sellele järgnenud nõukogu resolutsioonis nr 1999/C 56/01, mis olid 2004. aastal kättesaadavad. Muu hulgas on strateegias täpsustatud eraomandis oleva metsa osakaal ELis (mis moodustab 65% kogu metsast), eraomanike arv ja sellest tulenev killustatuse tase.
43 22. the rdp of tuscany clearly states that support is available only in respect of forests owned by private owners or their associations, or by municipalities and their associations. 
43 22. Toscana maaelu arengukavas on selgelt sätestatud, et toetust antakse ainult eraomanike või nende ühenduste või omavalitsuste või nende ühenduste omanduses olevatele metsadele.
Eligibility for support in the case of forests owned by national or regional governments but managed by other entities is a subject of debate in the ongoing formal discussions about the future cap. 
Riigi-ja piirkondlike valitsuste omanduses, ent muude üksuste hallatavate metsade abikõlblikkust arutatakse tulevast ühist põllumajanduspoliitikat käsitlevates käimasolevates ametlikes aruteludes. 23.
23. 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. 
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 socio-economic 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. 
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”.
24. additional guidance on the term ‘forestry holding’ may be needed for the future. to the extent that the equipment is used primarily for the purposes of managing the investor’s holding and the excess capacity is not such as to imply a disproportionate purchase for this purpose this investment should be considered as being made at the level of the holding. 
24. Edaspidi võib olla vaja esitada täiendavaid suuniseid mõiste „metsandusettevõte” kohta. Sel määral, mil seadmeid kasutatakse peamiselt investori ettevõtte haldamiseks ning üleliigse võimsuse ulatus ei viita sellele, et nende ostmine on selleks eesmärgiks eba-proportsionaalne, tuleks leida, et investeering tehti ettevõtte tasandil.
44 27. during the process of rdp negotiation, the commission clarified the intended meaning of the relevant provision of article 18 of regulation (Ec) 1974/2006. the intended meaning is that replanting with the same tree species and the same structure cannot be supported. this is considered an aspect of normal practice in commercial forestry and does not lead to a sufficiently high increase in value of the forest compared to the situation before felling. on the other hand, it is intended that a significant restructuring of a forest, or change of species composition — leading to an increase in value — should be eligible for support. 
44 27. Maaelu arengukavade üle peetavate läbirääkimiste käigus selgitas komisjon määruse (EÜ) nr 1974/2006 artikli 18 asjaomase sätte kavandatud tähendust.
28. the requirement of optimising the allocation of resources is not stated explicitly in the legislation, but is nonetheless implied. 
28. Ressursside eraldamise optimeerimise nõuet ei ole õigusaktides sõnaselgelt sätestatud, ent sellele on siiski viidatud.
Besides analysis provided in rdps, Ms provided analysis of their situation in their national strategy plans (nsps). in several cases they referred in these to their national forest programmes/plans or equivalent instrument as the main basis of their forestry-related policies. 
Lisaks maaelu arengukavades sisalduvatele analüüsidele esitasid liikmesriigid nende olukorda käsitleva analüüsi oma riiklikes strateegiakavades. Mitmel juhul viitasid nad neis kavades riiklikele metsandusprogrammidele/-kavadele või samaväärsetele vahenditele, mis moodustavad nende metsandusega seotud poliitika põhialuse.
29. the commission notes that the principle of subsidiarity hands considerable discretion to Member states and regions in respect of the points raised — in line, for example, with the European parliament’s ‘report on the implementation of a European union forestry strategy’ (a6-0015/2006). Reply of the CoMMISSIoN the authorities of Hungary4, tuscany5, slovenia6, austria7 and Galicia8 all made reasonable attempts at a suitably specific identification of needs which allowed a link to be made to measure 122. 
29. Komisjon märgib, et subsidiaarsuse põhimõtte kohaselt on liikmesriikidel ja piirkondadel tõstatatud küsimustes ulatuslik kaalutlusõigus kooskõlas näiteks Euroopa Parlamendi aruandega Euroopa Liidu metsastrateegia rakendamise kohta (A6-0015/2006). Komisjoni vastused Ungari,4 Toscana,5 Sloveenia,6 Austria7 ja Galicia8 ametiasutused tegid kõik mõistlikke jõupingutusi vajaduste sobili-kult konkreetseks kindlaksmääramiseks, mis võimaldas luua seosed meetmega 122.
4 as for Hungary, the nHrdp (new Hungary rural development programme) reads: ‘Because of recent privatisation of the forests (40 % of the forests have been privatised) the most urgent need is therefore the modernisation of machinery and equipment of the private forests.’therefore the nHrdp identifies specific needs for private forests and targets the support to private forests of at least 50 ha where forest management based on a forest management plan is ensured. 
4 Ungari puhul on Ungari uues maaelu arenguprogrammis (NHRDP) täpsustatud järgmine:„Tulenevalt metsade hiljutisest erastamisest (erastatud on 40% metsadest) on kõige pakilisem vajadus erametsades kasutatavate masinate ja seadmete moderniseerimine”. Seega on NHRDP-s kindlaks tehtud konkreetsed erametsadega seotud vajadused ja suunatud toetus vähemalt 50 ha suurustele erametsadele, mille puhul on tagatud metsade majandamine metsamajandamiskava alusel.
5 as for italy (tuscany), much of the relevant analysis is in fact contained in the related national strategic plan (nsp). the italian nsp provides a clear sWot analysis on forests and establishes a series of related objectives, e.g. promotion of energy saving; modernisation of machinery and equipment of the private forests — which have a clear link to measure 122. 
Itaalia riiklikus strateegiakavas on ette nähtud metsade selge SWOT-analüüs ning kehtestatud mitu seotud eesmärki, nt energiasäästu edendamine ning erametsades kasutatavate masinate ja seadmete moderniseerimine, millel on selge seos meetmega 122.
6 as for slovenia, the rdp provides for a detailed ‘analysis of the situation in the light of strengths and weaknesses’ in respect of the forestry sector (chapter 3.1.2). it looks at specific features of the forestry sector in slovenia and suggests improvements. 
6 Sloveenia puhul on maaelu arengukavaga ette nähtud metsandussektori üksikasjalik „olukorraanalüüs, võttes arvesse tugevaid ja nõrku külgi” (peatükk 3.1.2).
Low labour performance characterises the sector and the situation of forests can be improved by better accessibility of forests, e.g. providing forest roads and trails. in addition, weak and inadequate infrastructure and insufficient equipment for forestry work are mentioned as reasons for high management costs. 
Selles on käsitletud Sloveenia metsandussektori eripärasid ja pakutud välja täiustused. Asjaomast sektorit iseloomustavad tööjõu madal tootlikkus; metsade olukorda on võimalik parandada metsadele parema juurdepääsu tagamise teel, nt metsateede ja -radade loomise kaudu.
7 as for austria, the rdp identifies the following needs: (a) to increase the economic and ecological value of forests by reinforcing a mixed stand composition (chapter 3.1.3, p. 34); (b) to enhance the competitiveness of the forestry sector (chapter 3.2.2.1, p. 
7 Austria puhul on maaelu arengukavas kindlaks tehtud järgmised vajadused: a) suurendada metsade majanduslikku ja ökoloogilist väärtust, tugevdades mitmesugustest puistutest koosnevaid kooslusi (peatükk 3.1.3, lk 34); ja b) parandada metsandussektori konkurentsivõimet (peatükk 3.2.2.1, lk 63).
63). this shall be achieved by increasing the availability of the raw material wood and, consequently, increasing the energy supply. it has been found that M 122 in the table on page 64 (sWot) was omitted due to an editorial mistake. this will be corrected by introducing it in the frame of the next programme modification. 8 as for Galicia, the specific needs for the forestry sector identified in the sWot analysis, such as the small economic dimension of forest holdings (p. 
Tehti kindlaks, et meede 122 jäi lk 64 esitatud tabelist (SWOT-analüüs) välja toimetamisvea tõttu. Selle parandamiseks lisatakse meede programmi järgmise muutmise käigus. 8 Seoses Galiciaga on SWOT-analüüsiga kindlaks tehtud metsandussektori erivajadused, näiteks metsandusettevõtete väike majanduslik mõõde (maaelu arengukava lk 45), meetmega 122 otseselt seotud ja sellele suunatud.
45 30. the commission takes the view that needs and opportunities were described with sufficient clarity to make programming measure 122 appropriate and possible in each case, even if the analyses in question could have been improved in some cases. box 1 With regard to slovenia: its rdp clearly identifies a number of weaknesses in the forestry sector. for example, equipment of low technical standard and poor working techniques are listed as being among the causes of a low utilisation of forests’ economic potential. 
45 30. Komisjon on seisukohal, et vajadusi ja võimalusi kirjeldati piisavalt selgelt, tänu millele oli iga juhtumi puhul võimalik veenduda programmi meetme 122 asjakohasuses ja võima-likkuses, isegi kui mõnel juhul oleks kõnealuseid analüüse saanud parandada.
Making forests more open/accessible is described as an opportunity to lower the cost of obtaining wood and therefore to help to increase income from forests. 
Metsade avatumaks/juurdepääsetavamaks muutmist on kirjeldatud kui võimalust vähendada puidu hankimise kulusid ja seega aidata suurendada metsadest saadavat tulu.
However, with respect to a separate analysis of needs based on types of beneficiaries this was not a legal requirement and slovenia did not provide such an analysis. 
Eraldi vajaduste analüüs erinevat liiki toetusesaajate kohta ei olnud aga õiguslik nõue ning Sloveenia ei esitanud kõnealust analüüsi.
While the weaknesses were not explicitly mentioned in the austrian rdp, these weaknesses were identified in the case of austria as: limited profitability of small forests and small availability of biomass. as a consequence, the potential competitiveness is reduced. the experience gained during the previous programming period led the managing authority to expect that about 50 000 ha would be covered. this omission will be corrected by including them in the next programme modification. 
Kuigi Austria maaelu arengukavas ei ole nõrku külgi sõnaselgelt märgitud, tehti Austria puhul nõrkade külgedena kindlaks väikeste metsade piiratud kasumlikkus ja biomassi vähene kättesaadavus. Selle tagajärjel väheneb potentsiaalne konkurentsivõime. Eelmise programmitöö perioodi kogemuste põhjal prognoosis korraldusasutus, et hõlmatakse ligikaudu 50 000 hektarit.
31. the commission considers that the information gained through the Eu forestry strategy implementation report preparation, the continuous discussion with stakeholder representatives (e.g. through the advisory group on forestry and cork) and the series of bilateral negotiations with Member states and regions provided an adequate basis for approving rural development programmes. please also see reply to paragraph 30. 
31. Komisjon leiab, et ELi metsastrateegia rakendamist käsitleva aruande koostamise, sidusrühmade esindajatega (nt metsanduse ja korgitootmise nõuanderühma kaudu) toimunud pidevate arutelude ning liikmesriikide ja piirkondadega peetud kahepoolsete läbirääkimiste raames saadud teave on piisav alus maaelu arengukavade heakskiitmiseks.
Reply of the CoMMISSIoN 32. the commission notes that the principle of subsidiarity hands considerable discretion to Member states and regions in respect of the points raised — in line, for example, with the European parliament’s ‘report on the implementation of a European union forestry strategy’ (a6-0015/2006). Various points should be borne in mind with regard to the particular cases of Bulgaria9 (which had in fact declared some expenditure), romania10 and Greece11. 
Komisjoni vastused 32. Komisjon märgib, et subsidiaarsuse põhimõtte kohaselt on liikmesriikidel ja piirkondadel tõstatatud küsimustes ulatuslik kaalutlusõigus kooskõlas näiteks Euroopa Parlamendi aruandega Euroopa Liidu metsastrateegia rakendamise kohta (A6-0015/2006). Seoses konkreetselt Bulgaaria9 (kes tegelikult deklareeris teatavad kulud), Rumeenia10 ja Kreeka11 juhtumitega tuleb arvesse võtta mitut punkti.