natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
74. the court examined the data collection and monitoring systems in the six Member states and found, as in previous reports28, that there was an absence of relevant and reliable information to conclude on the effectiveness of these measures. therefore, the auditors measured project results (in terms of the two cMEf indicators mentioned above) and achievements of the specific project objectives, where possible, on the basis of evidence obtained from project visits. monItorInG InformatIon Is lackInG and projEct rEsults show a mIxEd pIcturE In tErms of EffIcIEncy and EffEctIVEnEss 75. 
74. Kontrollikoda uuris andmete kogumist ja järelevalvesüsteeme kuues liikmesriigis ning leidis, nagu eelmisteski aruannetes28, et puudus asjakohane ja usaldusväärne teave nende meetmete mõjususe kohta järelduste tegemiseks. Seepärast mõõtsid audiitorid projektide tulemusi (ülalmainitud ühise järelevalve-ja hindamisraamistiku kahe näitaja järgi) ja konkreetsete projektieesmärkide saavutamist võimaluse korral auditikäikudel saadud tõendite põhjal. järeleValVeandMed on puuduliKud ning projeKtide tuleMused tõhususe ja Mõjususe VaatepunKtist eBaselged 75.
Given the element of co-financing and irrespective of the monitoring and evaluation work required by the cMEf, Member states’ authorities have their own interest in project monitoring as an important tool to keep track of the projects’ progress and to be informed as to whether they are achieving the expected results and the rdp objectives. this could be done by Member states using the administrative and control information available and by collecting periodically relevant information from the beneficiaries, at least until the expiry of the 5-year period for retaining the assets determined by article 72 of regulation (Ec) no 1698/2005. 
Arvestades kaasrahastamise tegurit, on liikmesriikide endi huvides teha projektide üle järelevalvet ja seda olenemata ühise hindamis-ning järelevalveraamistiku järelevalve-ja hindamistegevuse nõudest, sest järelevalve on oluline vahend, mille abil projekti edusammudel silma peal hoida ja olla kursis sellega, kas need saavutavad oodatud tulemused ja maaelu arengukava eesmärgid.
27 to measure the GVa of the supported businesses, Guidance note i of the cMEf guidelines suggests using the following proxy: ‘total output — total intermediate consumption’. the guidance note acknowledges that a change in GVa over the years can also be explained by factors other than the support received. 
27 Toetust saanud ettevõtete kogulisandväärtuse arvutamiseks soovitab ühise järelevalve-ja hindamisraamistiku juhendi selgitav märkus I kasutada järgmist valemit: koguväljund – vahetarbimise koguväärtus. Selgitavas märkuses mööndakse, et kogulisandväärtuse muutust aastate vältel võib selgitada ka muude teguritega kui saadud toetus.
28 seespecialreports no 8/2012 and no 1/2013 (http://eca.europa.eu). 
28 Vt eriaruanded nr 8/2012 ja nr 1/2013 (http://eca.europa.eu).
77. the auditors found that the monitoring information provided by the Member states audited was not reliable. data collected by Member states was largely based on estimates either at the time of the application (italy, sweden and the czech republic) or at the time of the final payment claim (the united Kingdom). in addition, data from beneficiary monitoring surveys was not verified by the authorities (poland and the czech republic). the auditors identified several inconsistencies and errors in the data reported, particularly differences between forecasts and the actual figures (see examples in Box 17). 
77. Audiitorid leidsid, et liikmesriikide esitatud järelevalveteave ei olnud usaldusväärne. Liikmesriikide kogutud andmed tuginesid suuresti kas taotluse esitamise (Itaalias, Rootsis ja Tšehhi Vabariigis) või lõppmakse taotluse esitamise ajal tehtud prognoosidele (Ühendkuningriigis).
78. although reliable data concerning the achievement of the projects’ objectives and results could have been obtained by Member state authorities during on-the-spot checks and ex post inspections, the audit revealed that this check was not part of the procedures. for example, even though one project in italy had undergone several checks on the existence of the purchases and works after its implementation, none of these highlighted the fact that the actual revenue was well below the forecast contained in the application. 
Audiitorid tuvastasid esitatud andmetes mitu ebakõla ja viga, ennekõike erinevusi prognooside ja tegelike arvude vahel (vt 17. selgituse näiteid). 78. Usaldusväärseid andmeid projektide eesmärkide saavutamise ja tulemuste kohta oleksid liikmesriikide ametiasutused saanud koguda ka kohapealsete ja järelkontrollide käigus, kuid audit näitas, et sellised kontrollid ei kuulunud menetluste juurde.
Given that reliable monitoring information was not available, and that, at programming level, there was little assurance that support for the axis 3 measures is directed to the projects that best fulfil the measures’ objectives, the court’s auditors assessed the efficiency and effectiveness of the 57 projects audited on the basis of information provided during the audit visits. the analysis shows that most projects achieved their objectives in terms of physical output and positive effects on GVa, but those with the objective to create jobs were only moderately successful in generating employment (see Annex II). 
Arvestades, et usaldusväärne järelevalveinfo ei olnud kättesaadav ja et kavandamise tasandil leidus vähe tõendeid, et toetus 3. telje meetmetele on suunatud projektidele, mis täidavad kõige paremini meetmete eesmärke, hindasid kontrollikoja audiitorid 57 auditeeritud projekti tõhusust ja mõjusust auditikäikudel saadud teabe põhjal. Analüüs näitab, et enamik projekte saavutas oma eesmärgid käegakatsutavate väljundite ja kogulisandväärtusele avalduva positiivse mõju näol, kuid need, mille eesmärk oli töökohtade loomine, saavutasid selle eesmärgi vaid piiratud ulatuses (vt lI lisa).
37 Special report No 6/2013 – Have the Member States and the Commission achieved value for money with the measures for diversifying the rural economy? 
37 Eriaruanne nr 6/2013 – Kas liikmesriigid ja komisjon saavutasid maamajanduse mitmekesistamise meetmetega kulutustele vastavat tulu?
38 box 16 GEnErIc objEctIVEs lEad to a sItuatIon whErE ‘EnhancInG bIodIVErsIty’ Is accEptEd as an objEctIVE for a cakE shop for a project from italy — campania, concerning the renovation of a cake shop (measure 312), the following seemingly unrelated objectives were stated in the application: ‘... balancing high-risk situations such as the depopulation of the countryside, reducing the gap with more developed areas [...], enhancing biodiversity as well as traditional farming knowledge’. these objectives cannot be quantified or measured for such a project. box 17 ExamplEs of InconsIstEncIEs In thE monItorInG data collEctEd by thE mEmbEr statEs sweden: data for the cMEf indicators were compiled from project information collected from the beneficiaries at the grant application stage (the business plan and financial forecasts), and were not updated on the basis of what was actually achieved. for a restaurant and guest house project, evidence obtained during the visit showed cMEf data for gross value added was overestimated at 1 800 000 sEK (202 000 euro), compared to the actual result of 238 000 sEK (27 000 euro) and three full-time equivalent jobs were reported in the cMEf database as compared to the actual result of one full-time equivalent job created with the supported investment. united kingdom — england: Evidence obtained in the project visits shows that the results recorded in the cMEf database were not accurate. in five cases out of nine audited, the data on jobs created and jobs safeguarded were overestimated, in the other cases they were underestimated. 
38 16. selgitus üldised eesMärgid ViiVad oluKorrani, Kus Bioloogilise MitMeKesisuse soodustaMine MuutuB VastuVõetaVaKs eesMärgiKs Kondiitriäri projeKti juures itaalias Campanias esitati kondiitriäri renoveerimise (meede 312) projekti taotluses järgmised asjasse mitte-puutuvana tunduvad eesmärgid: „ [---] selliste ohtlike olukordade tasakaalustamine, nagu maapiirkonna rahvaarvu vähenemine, maapiirkondi rohkem arenenud piirkondadest eraldava lõhe vähendamine [---], bioloogilise mitmekesisuse edendamine ja traditsioonilisi põllumajandustegevusi käsitlevate teadmiste levitamine.”Taolise projekti puhul ei saa nimetatud eesmärke arvuliselt väljendada ega mõõta.
Poland: the non-agricultural GVa figure declared by a beneficiary in the monitoring survey could not be reconciled with income data collected during the audit visit. the declared GVa was higher than the total output for the supported business, which is not possible according to the definition of gross value added. 
Poola. Toetusesaaja poolt järelevalveuuringus teatatud mittepõllumajandusliku kogulisandväärtuse näitaja ei olnud vastavuses auditikäigul kogutud sissetulekut käsitlevate andmetega. Esitatud kogulisandväärtus oli suurem kui toetatud ettevõtte koguväljund, mis ei saa kogulisandväärtuse definitsiooni arvestades olla võimalik.
Whilst projects could be seen to achieve the expected physical output (e.g. construction of a building, purchase of a vehicle) the objectives of the measures to diversify the rural economy were not necessarily achieved. this was the case where the purpose of the investment was not in line (or was only partially in line) with the objectives of the measure (11 projects in total: three in france and poland, two in sweden and italy, and one in the czech republic) or/and where there were strong indications that it was not sustainable (two cases in the czech republic) or the business had gone bankrupt (one project in france). 
Nii juhtus siis, kui investeerimise eesmärk ei olnud (või oli vaid osaliselt) meetme eesmärkidega kooskõlas (kokku 11 projekti: kolm Prantsusmaal ja Poolas, kaks Rootsis ja Itaalias ning üks Tšehhi Vabariigis) ja/või kui esinesid selged viited, et investeering ei ole jätkusuutlik (kaks juhtumit Tšehhi Vabariigis), või kui ettevõte oli pankrotistunud (üks projekt Prantsusmaal).
81. the court found cases where there was indication that Eu funds to develop the tourist sector or to support micro-enterprises were spent on investments which were at least partially used for private purposes (see Box 18 for some examples). 
81. Kontrollikoda leidis juhtumeid, kus võis märgata, et turismi arendamise või mikroettevõtete toetamise ELi vahendeid kasutati investeeringuteks, mis teenisid vähemalt osaliselt erahuve (vt näiteid 18. selgituses).
39 box 18 InVEstmEnts that dId not EffEctIVEly contrIbutE towards dEVElopInG thE tourIst sEctor and supportInG EntrEprEnEurIal InItIatIVEs italy — campania: at the time of the on the-spot visit at an agritourism project, a flat refurbished with measure 311 funds was being used by a member of the beneficiary’s family, meaning that it did not fully contribute towards the measure’s objective to increase the non-agricultural GVa through diversified activities. 
39 18. selgitus inVesteeringud, Mis ei panustanud tõhusalt turisMi edendaMisse ja etteVõtlusalgatuste toetaMisse itaalia, Campania. Ühe taluturismi projekti kohapealse kontrolli käigus leiti, et meetme 311 rahadega renoveeritud korterit kasutas üks toetusesaaja perekonnaliige, mis tähendab, et projekt ei panustanud täiel määral meetme eesmärki suurendada mittepõllumajanduslikku kogulisandväärtust tegevuste mitmekesistamise kaudu.
Poland: indications of private use were identified for a project for the purchase of office equipment that received measure 312 aid. a leather sofa for receiving clients was funded at the beneficiary’s home (which also served as the premises for the business) and used in a living room. no pre-payment visit to this project was made which ould have raised doubts by the inspectors as to the potential private use of the goods funded. 
Poola. Ühes meetme 312 raames toetust saanud kontoriseadmete soetamise projektis leiti viiteid eraotstarbeli-susele. Klientide vastuvõtmiseks mõeldud nahkdiivan, mille ostu oli sel eesmärgil rahastatud, asus toetusesaaja kodus (mida kasutati ka ettevõtte ruumidena) ja seda kasutati tema elutoas.
Special report No 6/2013 – Have the Member States and the Commission achieved value for money with the measures for diversifying the rural economy? 40 dIVErsIfIcatIon projEcts can hElp boost farmErs’ fInancIal pErformancE ... 
Eriaruanne nr 6/2013 – Kas liikmesriigid ja komisjon saavutasid maamajanduse mitmekesistamise meetmetega kulutustele vastavat tulu? 40 MitMeKesistaMisprojeKtid VõiVad põlluMajandusetteVõtjate MajandustuleMusi parandada ...
33 of the supported businesses (58 %) managed to increase their non-agricultural GVa; however, for eight of these cases, there was a weak link between this and the grant-aided investment. the GVa could not be calculated for five projects audited in poland and the czech republic because they were subject to simplified accounting rules. despite this situation, the authorities had not introduced a system to collect reliable data. 
Toetust saanud ettevõtetest 33 (58%) suutis oma mittepõllumajanduslikku kogulisandväärtust suurendada, kuigi kaheksal juhul oli kogulisandväärtuse suurendamise ja toetatud investeeringu vaheline seos nõrk. Kogulisandväärtust ei olnud võimalik välja arvutada viie Poolas ja Tšehhi Vabariigis auditeeritud projekti puhul, sest nende suhtes kohaldati lihtsustatud raamatupidamiseeskirju. Vaatamata sellele ei olnud ametiasutused viinud sisse süsteemi usaldusväärsete andmete kogumiseks.
83. of the 27 projects that were intended to create jobs, only 13 projects achieved the targets set (although the court has doubts in two cases about the sustainability of jobs created) while nine projects only partly created the foreseen number of jobs intended and five did not create any jobs. the audit revealed that jobs were largely created as envisaged in those Member states where the grant was made conditional upon job creation, and targeted checks were carried out to ensure compliance with this condition. this was the case in poland, the czech republic (for certain sub-measures) and the united Kingdom (see paragraph 37). conversely, the auditors noted that the impact on job creation was minor for projects audited in france, italy and sweden, where this type of condition did not apply and targeted checks were not carried out (see Annex II). 
Kuus projekti ei suurendanud mittepõllumajanduslikku kogulisandväärtust. ... aga tööKohtade looMises on need Vaid osaliselt Mõjusad ... 83. 27 projektist, mis pidid looma töökohti, saavutas vaid 13 projekti seatud eesmärgid (kuigi kontrollikojal on kahel juhul kahtlusi loodud töökohtade jätkusuutlikkuses), samas kui üheksas projektis loodi vaid osa ettenähtud töökohtadest ja viie projektiga ei loodud ühtki töökohta.
Special report No 6/2013 – Have the Member States and the Commission achieved value for money with the measures for diversifying the rural economy? 41 ... and thErE Is an unknown EffEct on maIntaInInG jobs 84. although projects may not all be intended to create jobs, the investments may maintain or safeguard jobs. 
Eriaruanne nr 6/2013 – Kas liikmesriigid ja komisjon saavutasid maamajanduse mitmekesistamise meetmetega kulutustele vastavat tulu? 41 ... ja Mõju tööKohtade säilitaMisele on eBaselge 84.
However, Member states are not required by the monitoring and evaluation framework to collect these data. only the united Kingdom — England defined an additional indicator in its cMEf database measuring ‘jobs safeguarded’ as jobs that would be lost if the grant-aided investment was not undertaken, although the application of this definition was inconsistent. in one project which reported two jobs as being safeguarded, the court found that the number should have been reported as zero. in poland, the audit revealed that data on jobs maintained were reported but mixed with data on job creation. as a result, the auditors were not able to conclude on the impact of the projects on jobs safeguarded or maintained, as no evidence was available to assess this at the Member state and beneficiary levels. 
Töökohtade loomine ei pruugi olla kõikide projektide eesmärk, aga investeeringud võivad töökohti säilitada ja kindlustada. Hindamis-ja järelevalveraamistik ei nõua siiski liikmesriikidelt vastavate andmete kogumist. Vaid Ühendkuningriigis Inglismaal määratleti ühise järelevalve-ja hindamisraamistiku andmebaasis lisanäitaja, mis mõõtis säilitatud töökohtade ehk selliste töökohtade arvu, mis ei oleks ilma toetatud investeeringuteta säilinud, kuigi selle määratluse kasutamine ei olnud järjekindel.
42 CoNCluSIoNS aNd rECoMMENdatIoNS 85. as part of the rural development policy Member states may use the Eu budget to finance projects that seek to diversify the rural economy in order to support growth, employment and sustainable development in rural areas. this is done through the Eu and Member states co-financing of projects in the areas of diversification into non-agricultural activities, creation of micro-enterprises and the encouragement of tourism activities. 
42 jÄRELDUSED jA SOOvITUSED 85. Liikmesriigid võivad maaelu arengu poliitika raames kasutada ELi eelarvet projektide rahastamiseks, mis püüavad mitmekesistada maamajandust eesmärgiga toetada majanduskasvu, tööhõivet ja säästlikku arengut maapiirkondades.
86. this audit examined the question ‘Have the Member states and the commission achieved value for money with measures for diversifying the rural economy?’ the court concludes overall that the commission and the Member states have, only to a limited extent, achieved value for money through the measures for diversifying the rural economy, as the aid was not systematically directed to the projects that were most likely to achieve the purpose of the measures. this was due to a lack of clear needs for intervention or specific objectives being set in the rdps, broad eligibility criteria adopted that did not limit the projects to those most likely to achieve diversification and selection criteria that did not choose the most effective projects or were not applied at all. 
86. Käesolev audit keskendus küsimusele, kas liikmesriigid ja komisjon saavutasid maamajanduse mitmekesistamise meetmetega kulutustele vastavat tulu? Kontrollikoja järeldusel saavutasid komisjoni ja liikmesriikide maamajanduse mitmekesistamise meetmete kaudu tehtavad kulutused vaid piiratud ulatuses vastavat tulu, sest toetus ei olnud järjekindlalt suunatud projektidele, mille puhul oli meetmete eesmärkide saavutamine kõige tõenäolisem.
Member states did not sufficiently mitigate the risks of deadweight and displacement, and therefore they did not ensure the most efficient use of resources. 
Liikmesriigid ei vähendanud piisavalt tühimõju ja tegevuse ümberpaiknemise ohtu ning ei taganud seega kõige tõhusamat vahendite kasutamist.
Member states checks on reasonableness of costs did not sufficiently reduce the risk of overspend and there were examples of excessive administrative burden and payment delays. 
Liikmesriikide kontrollid kulude põhjendatuse hindamiseks ei vähendanud piisavalt ülekulutamise ohtu ning esines näiteid ülemäärasest halduskoormusest ja makseviivitustest.
Better targeting of rural development support is a key issue in improving efficiency at measure level. since targeting is based on the identification of priority areas, beneficiaries or types of activity or achievements, its effectiveness depends primarily on the quality of the strategy that the programme is based on. therefore, improved targeting will follow from improved strategy making and above all a clear framework on how diversification can/will contribute towards sustainable growth (i.e. the rationale for intervention). 
Kuna toetuste parem suunamine baseerub prioriteetsete valdkondade, toetusesaajate, tegevuse või saavutuste liikide määratlemisel, siis sõltub selle mõjusus ennekõike strateegia kvaliteedist, millele programm tugineb. Seepärast oleneb parem suunamine paremast strateegiakujundamisest ja ennekõike selgest raamistikust selle kohta, kuidas mitmekesistamine saab panustada või panustab jätkusuutlikku majanduskasvu (st sekkumise põhjendused).
However, the majority of rdps which were audited did not set down the outcome that they plan to achieve and did not explain how providing funding under diversification measures would improve the economic sustainability of the rural area. nevertheless, the commission approved these rdps. 
Suuremas osas auditeeritud maaelu arengukavadest ei ole aga soovitud tulemusi kindlaks määratud ega selgitatud, kuidas mitmekesistamise meetmete raames pakutav toetus aitab parandada maapiirkonna majanduse jätkusuutlikkust. Sellele vaatamata kiitis komisjon need maaelu arengukavad heaks.
43 rEcommEndatIon 1 In their rdps, Member States should clearly identify why and how public intervention for investments in non-agricultural activities can help to redress for example market failures related to barriers to employment and growth. the rdps should set specific and measurable objectives in relation to these needs. the Commission should approve only those rdps that present substantiated and comprehensive strategies with a clear rationale that show how policy intervention will contribute to strategic aims of creating growth conditions and employment opportunities. 
43 1. sooVitus Liikmesriigid peaksid oma maaelu arengukavades selgelt välja tooma, miks ja kuidas aitab riiklik sekkumine mittepõllumajanduslikele tegevustele suunatud investeeringutesse leevendada näiteks turutõrkeid, mis on seotud takistustega tööhõives ja majanduskasvus. maaelu arengukavades tuleks seoses asjaomaste vajadustega seada täpsed ja mõõdetavad eesmärgid. Komisjon peaks heaks kiitma vaid need maaelu arengukavad, milles on esitatud põhjendatud ja kõikehõlmav strateegia koos selge arutluskäiguga, kuidas poliitikameede aitab saavutada majanduskasvu tingimuste ja tööhõivevõimaluste loomise strateegilisi eesmärke.
Where the audited Member states still had funds available from the amount which was budgeted, they financed all eligible projects, regardless of their effectiveness and efficiency. 
Seni, kuni auditeeritud liikmesriikidel eraldatud eelarvet jagus, rahastati kõiki toetuskõlblikke projekte, pööramata tähelepanu nende mõjususele ja tõhususele.
Later in the period when funding was tight ‘better’ projects were rejected. 
Hiljem, kui eelarvet oli jäänud järele vähem, lükati tagasi projekte, mis olid varasematega võrreldes paremad.
44 rEcommEndatIon 2 Member States should establish and consistently apply criteria to ensure the selection of the most effective, sustainable projects with respect to the Member States’ specific objectives in order to develop non-agricultural activities and promote employment. the potential of the projects to produce positive effects on employment and incomes should be taken into account in the design of future policy and be more prominently considered by the Member States in their project selection systems. these selection systems should systematically set a minimum threshold taking into account the ‘quality of project’. targeted controls should be carried out to ensure the respect of such criteria for example during the on the spot and ex post checks. the Commission should ensure that these criteria are correctly and continuously applied, not only in cases of budgetary shortage. 
44 2. sooVitus Liikmesriigid peaksid kehtestama kriteeriumid, mis tagaksid liikmesriikide konkreetseid eesmärke arvesse võttes kõige mõjusamate ja jätkusuutlikumate projektide väljavalimise, et arendada mittepõllumajanduslikku tegevust ja edendada tööhõivet, ning neid kriteeriume järjekindlalt rakendama. Projektide potentsiaalset positiivset mõju tööhõivele ja sissetulekutele tuleks arvestada tulevase poliitika kujundamises ja liikmesriigid peaksid seda oma projektide valikusüsteemides rohkem silmas pidama. valikusüsteemides tuleks korrapäraselt määrata projekti kvaliteeti arvesse võttev miinimumlävend.