natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Reply of the CoMMISSIoN 60. 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). in any case, the commission does not consider that weaknesses in implementation of measure 122 occurred in every case cited by the court. nevertheless, it will make the necessary efforts (including through initial guidance) to ensure that Member states/ regions use the correct measure to support a given operation in the next period. it will also investigate with the council and the European parliament to what extent some of the issues in question could be solved through a definition of ‘forest’ in the relevant legal acts. 
Komisjoni vastused 60. 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).
With regard to ‘disproportionately high’ aid, it must be borne in mind that certain types of machinery are very expensive and provide a return on investment only in the long term — a fact accepted in the forest sector. this makes it difficult to set rigid rules about proportionality at Eu level. it should be decided in the programme negotiation process whether a limit on funding in proportion to holding size is appropriate, taking into account the characteristics of the programme area. 
Seoses ebaproportsionaalselt suure abiga tuleb meeles pidada, et teatavat liiki masinad on väga kulukad ja nendesse investeerimine tasub ära alles pika aja jooksul, mis on metsandussektoris üldtunnustatud asjaolu. Seetõttu on keeruline kehtestada ELi tasandil rangeid proportsionaalsust käsitlevaid eeskirju.
With regard to felling, because of the primarily economic nature of the operations refered to by the court, state aid clearance in respect of measure 122 is sought not under the set of state aid guidelines cited by the court but rather under the Guidelines on national regional aid (2006/c 54/08), commission regulation 800/2008 (the so-called ‘Block exemption regulation’) or commission regulation 1998/2006 (the so-called ‘de minimis regulation’). 
Seoses metsalangetamisega ei taotleta kontrollikoja viidatud toimingute peamiselt majanduslikust laadist tulenevalt meetme 122 puhul riigiabi heakskiitmist mitte kontrollikoja nimetatud riigiabi suuniste alusel, vaid pigem regionaalabi suuniste (2006/C 54/08), komisjoni määruse (EÜ) nr 800/2008 (nn üldine grupierandi määrus) või komisjoni määruse (EÜ) nr 1998/2006 (nn vähese tähtsusega abi määrus) alusel.
52 62. the commission considers that where measure 122 was the correct measure to use, the economic value of forests was indeed increased — even if the exact nature of the link between the aid and the increase of value of the forest varied according to the type of investment. the commission considers that the economic value of a forest is linked to its multifunctionality: it depends on various potential uses of the forest and not only on the single (though important) component that is wood. in the case of a forest which is used commercially for recreation on the basis of entrance fees, thinning and pruning may increase the potential economic value of the trees as a source of wood, but the main value of the forest stand may come from the accessibility of the land and the forest structure. recommendation 3 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). the commission notes that precisely measuring increases in the economic value of a given forest may continue to present challenges in some cases. nevertheless, the possiblity of a certain level of measurement, combined with general expert knowledge about the benefits of certain types of investment for the value of a forest, constitute a valid basis for operating measure 122. 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. 
52 62. Komisjon leiab, et kui meede 122 oli kasutamiseks õige meede, siis metsade majanduslik väärtus tõepoolest suurenes, isegi kui abi ja metsa majandusliku väärtuse suurenemise vahelise seose täpne olemus erines sõltuvalt investeeringu liigist.
Reply of the CoMMISSIoN common reply to paragraphs 63–64. the indicators and the evaluation questions of the current cMEf are related to the rationale and the objectives of measure 122 and the axis in which it is included. the commission considers that appropriate analysis of relevant data within the framework provided can illustrate the economic improvements generated through investments supported under this measure. it is recognised however, that Member states have experienced some difficulties in undertaking this economic analysis, and as a result the commission has 1. issued additional guidance in relation to the current period, and 2. reviewed the situation in order to improve the effectiveness of monitoring and evaluation for the future period. 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. it should be understood that 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. slovenia and austria established procedures intended to determine the effect of measure 122 on the economic value of forests. 
Komisjoni vastused ühine vastus punktidele 63 ja 64 Kehtiva ühise järelevalve-ja hindamisraamistiku näitajad ja hindamisküsimused on seotud meetme 122 põhimõtte ja eesmärkidega ning teljega, mille alla see kuulub. Komisjon leiab, et asjakohaste andmete nõuetekohane analüüsimine olemasolevas raamistikus võib näitlikustada kõnealuse meetme alusel toetatavate investeeringute kaudu saavutatud majandusliku olukorra paranemist.
66. the commission considers that where measure 122 was the correct measure to use, the economic value of forests was indeed increased. 
66. Komisjon leiab, et kui meede 122 oli kasutamiseks õige meede, siis metsade majanduslik väärtus tõepoolest suurenes.
53 recommendation 4 the commission accepts that beneficiaries should be required to provide data. 
53 4. soovitus Komisjon nõustub, et toetusesaajatelt tuleks nõuda andmete esitamist.
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 GVa’, Ms have been invited14 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. in practice, it has been difficult for 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 the establishment of values for this indicator will rather be undertaken by the programme evaluators. the commission considers this a feasible and adequate approach. 
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 kogulisandväärtuse kasv, paluti liikmesriikidel14 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.
14 WorkingdocumentprovidingguidancetoMsfortheresultindicator ‘increase of GVa’: http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/app_templates/filedownload. cfm?id=84053593-c697-ff89-Ed5c-51797d9754fd Reply of the CoMMISSIoN Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development 
14 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 Eriaruanne nr 8/2013 – Euroopa Maaelu Arengu Põllumajandusfondist antav metsade majandusliku väärtuse parandamise toetus
European Court of auditors special report no 8/2013 support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the european agricultural fund for rural development luxembourg: publications office of the European union 2013 — 53 pp. — 21 × 29.7 cm ISBN 978-92-9241-248-7 doi:10.2865/83666 
Euroopa Kontrollikoda eriaruanne nr 8/2013 euroopa maaelu arengu Põllumajandusfondist antav metsade majandusliku väärtuse parandamise toetus Luxembourg: Euroopa Liidu väljaannete Talitus 2013 – 53 lk – 21 × 29,7 cm ISBN 978-92-9241-250-0 doi:10.2865/84203
Free publications: HOw TO ObTAIn EU pUbLICATIOnS • one copy: via Eu Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); • more than one copy or posters/maps: from the European union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm); from the delegations in non-Eu countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm); by contacting the Europe direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the Eu) (*). (*) the information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). priced publications: • via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). priced subscriptions: • via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union (http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm). 
tasuta väljaanded: kust saab eLi väLjaandeid? • üksikeksemplarid: EU Bookshopi kaudu (http://bookshop.europa.eu); • rohkem eksemplare ning plakatid ja kaardid: Euroopa Liidu esindustest (http://ec.europa.eu/ represent_et.htm), delegatsioonidest väljaspool ELi (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_et.htm), kasutades Europe Direct’i teenistust (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_et.htm) või helistades infotelefonile 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (kõikjalt EList helistades tasuta) (*). (*) Antav teave on tasuta nagu ka enamik kõnesid (v.a mõne operaatori, hotelli ja telefonikabiini puhul). tasulised väljaanded: • EU Bookshopi kaudu (http://bookshop.europa.eu). tasulised tellimused: • Euroopa Liidu Väljaannete Talituse edasimüüjate kaudu (http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_et.htm).
EuropEaN Court of audItorS QJ-aB-13-005-EN-C 
EUROOPA KONTROLLIKODA Qj-AB-13-005-ET-C
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS EN CAN THE COMMISSION AND MEMBER STATES SHOW THAT THE EU BUDGET ALLOCATED TO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY IS WELL SPENT? 
EUROOPA KONTROLLIKODA ET KAS KOMISJON JA LIIKMESRIIGID SUUDAVAD TÕENDADA, ET ELi EELARVEST MAAELU ARENGU POLIITIKALE ERALDATUD VAHENDEID KASUTATAKSE OTSTARBEKALT?
Special Report No 12 2013 ISSN 1831-0834 
Eriaruanne nr 12 2013 ISSN 1831-0818
Special Report No 12 2013 CAN THE COMMISSION AND MEMBER STATES SHOW THAT THE EU BUDGET ALLOCATED TO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY IS WELL SPENT? (pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU) EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS 
Eriaruanne nr 12 2013 KAS KOMISJON JA LIIKMESRIIGID SUUDAVAD TÕENDADA, ET ELi EELARVEST MAAELU ARENGU POLIITIKALE ERALDATUD VAHENDEID KASUTATAKSE OTSTARBEKALT? (vastavalt Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 287 lõike 4 teisele lõigule) EUROOPA KONTROLLIKODA
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi 1615 Luxembourg LUXEMBOURG Tel. +352 4398-1 Fax +352 4398-46410 E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu Internet: http://eca.europa.eu Special Report No 12 2013 More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu). 
EUROOPA KONTROLLIKODA 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi 1615 Luxembourg LUXEMBOURG Tel +352 4398-1 Faks +352 4398-46410 E-post: eca-info@eca.europa.eu Internet: http://eca.europa.eu Eriaruanne nr 12 2013 Lisateavet Euroopa Liidu kohta saab internetist Euroopa serverist (http://europa.eu).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2013 ISBN 978-92-9241-428-3 doi:10.2865/42819 © European Union, 2013 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 
Luxembourg: Euroopa Liidu Väljaannete Talitus, 2013 ISBN 978-92-9241-430-6 doi:10.2865/43518 © Euroopa Liit, 2013 Allikale viitamisel on reprodutseerimine lubatud.
3 CONTENTS Paragraph I–VII 1–14 7–14 15–18 19–75 19–34 22–25 26–34 35–57 37–42 43–45 46–50 51–57 GLOSSARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND THE COMMON MONITORING AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK (CMEF) AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH OBSERVATIONS ARE THERE CLEAR STATEMENTS ON WHAT THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE IS INTENDED TO ACHIEVE? 
3 SISUKORD Punktid I–VII 1–14 7–14 15–18 19–75 19–34 22–25 26–34 35–57 37–42 43–45 46–50 51–57 SÕNASTIK KOKKUVÕTE SISSEJUHATUS MAAELU ARENGU POLIITIKA NING ÜHINE SEIRE-JA HINDAMISRAAMISTIK AUDITI ULATUS JA LÄHENEMISVIIS TÄHELEPANEKUD KAS TULEMUSED, MIDA MAAELU ARENGU KULUDEGA KAVATSETAKSE SAAVUTADA, ON SELGELT SÕNASTATUD?
COMMON MONITORING INDICATOR DATA ON RESULTS IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY RELIABLE THE MID-TERM EVALUATIONS DID NOT GIVE SUFFICIENTLY EVIDENCE-BASED CONCLUSIONS ON THE EFFECTS OF THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT MEASURES THE COMMISSION HAS ENCOURAGED MEMBER STATES TO IMPROVE MONITORING AND EVALUATION AND THERE IS USEFUL INFORMATION ON WHAT THE EU’S BUDGET IS SPENT ON ... ... 
ÜHISTE JÄRELEVALVENÄITAJATE TEAVE TULEMUSTE KOHTA EI OLE PIISAVALT USALDUSVÄÄRNE VAHEHINDAMINE EI ANDNUD PIISAVALT TÕENDITELE TUGINEVAID JÄRELDUSI MAAELU ARENGUMEETMETE MÕJUST KOMISJON SOOVITAS LIIKMESRIIKIDEL PARANDADA JÄRELEVALVET JA HINDAMIST, NING ELi EELARVE KULUTAMISE KOHTA ON OLEMAS KASULIK TEAVE ... ...
BUT THERE HAS BEEN INSUFFICIENT REPORTING OF THE RESULTS ACHIEVED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE EU’S BUDGET HAS BEEN SPENT WELL Special Report No 12/2013 – Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent? 
KUID SAAVUTATUD TULEMUSTE ALANE ARUANDLUS, MIS PEAKS NÄITAMA, ET ELi EELARVE ON OTSTARBEKALT KULUTATUD, ON EBAPIISAV Eriaruanne nr 12/2013 – Kas komisjon ja liikmesriigid suudavad tõendada, et ELi eelarvest maaelu arengu poliitikale eraldatud vahendeid kasutatakse otstarbekalt?
58–75 61–62 63–64 65–75 76–87 HAS MONITORING AND EVALUATION INFORMATION BEEN USED TO IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY OF THE EXPENDITURE? THE COMMISSION DID NOT TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE EFFICIENCY OF THE MEASURES WHEN INITIALLY APPROVING RDPS MEMBER STATES HAVE USED MONITORING AND EVALUATION INFORMATION TO HELP IMPROVE TAKE-UP OF THE MEASURES ... ... 
KOMISJON EI VÕTNUD MAAELU ARENGUKAVADE ESMASEL HEAKSKIITMISEL ARVESSE MEETMETE TÕHUSUST LIIKMESRIIGID ON KASUTANUD JÄRELEVALVE-JA HINDAMISALAST TEAVET, ET PARANDADA MEETMETE KASUTUSELEVÕTTU, ... ...
Diversification measures: Three RDP measures aiming at diversification of the rural economy: ‘diversification into non-agricultural activities’; ‘support for the creation and development of microenterprises’; and ‘encouragement of tourism activities’. 
Mitmekesistamismeetmed: kolm maaelu arengukava meedet, mis on suunatud maapiirkondade majanduse mitmekesistamisele: mitmekesistamine mittepõllumajandusliku tegevuse suunas, toetus mikroettevõtete rajamiseks ja arendamiseks ning turismitegevuse edendamine.
Effectiveness: Achieving the objectives set. 
Mõjusus: seatud eesmärkide saavutamine.
Indicator: A measurable proxy for an objective that will give useful information to assess the degree to which an objective is met. 
Näitaja: mõõdetav vaste eesmärgile, mis annab kasulikku teavet eesmärgi saavutamise ulatuse mõõtmiseks.
(Public) Intervention: An action, such as an ‘operation’, ‘measure’, programme or project carried out by or funded by a public authority. 
(Riiklik) sekkumine: tegevus (näiteks toiming, meede, kava või projekt), mida viib ellu või mida rahastab avaliku sektori asutus.
Operation: A project, contract or other action financed under a ‘measure’. 
Toiming: meetme raames rahastatav projekt, leping või muu tegevus.
Results: The direct effects or changes that arise due to the ‘intervention’. 
Tulemused: sekkumise tulemusel tekkiv otsene mõju või muutused.
Sound financial management: Managing the EU budget in accordance with the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. 
Usaldusväärne finantsjuhtimine: ELi eelarve haldamine kooskõlas säästlikkuse, tõhususe ja mõjususe põhimõtetega.
6 Special Report No 12/2013 – Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent? 
6 Eriaruanne nr 12/2013 – Kas komisjon ja liikmesriigid suudavad tõendada, et ELi eelarvest maaelu arengu poliitikale eraldatud vahendeid kasutatakse otstarbekalt?
7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. For the 2007–13 programming period, the EU has allocated almost 100 billion euros to achieve its rural development objectives. 
7 KOKKUVÕTE I. Euroopa Liit eraldas maaelu arengu eesmärkide saavutamiseks programmitöö perioodil 2007–2013 peaaegu 100 miljardit eurot.
This audit examines the question of whether the Commission and Member States can show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent. 
Käesoleva auditiga uuritakse, kas komisjon ja liikmesriigid suudavad tõendada, et ELi eelarvest maaelu arengu poliitikale eraldatud vahendeid kasutatakse otstarbekalt.
The system of monitoring and evaluation should provide information on where spending is, or is not, effective and efficient. 
Järelevalve-ja hindamissüsteem peaks andma teavet selle kohta, millised kulutused on mõjusad ja tõhusad ning millised mitte.
Such information is needed for accountability: to inform the European Parliament, the Council and the public of what has been achieved with the EU budget and to demonstrate that it has been spent efficiently and effectively in accordance with the principles of sound financial management. 
Selline teave on vajalik aruandluskohustuse täitmiseks, et anda Euroopa Parlamendile, nõukogule ja üldsusele teavet sellest, mida ELi eelarvevahendite abil on saavutatud, ning näidata, et vahendeid on kasutatud tõhusalt ja mõjusalt vastavalt usaldusväärse finantsjuhtimise põhimõtetele.
Monitoring and evaluation also allows weaknesses to be identified and changes to be made both within the 7-year programming period and when designing future policies, legislation and spending programmes. 
Järelevalve ja hindamine võimaldab tuvastada puudusi ning teha muudatusi nii seitsmeaastase programmitöö perioodi kestel kui ka tulevasi tegevuspõhimõtteid, õigusakte ja kuluprogramme kavandades.
In its previous reports, the Court has repeatedly highlighted serious weaknesses in the availability and quality of the monitoring and evaluation information relating to the spending on rural development. 
Kontrollikoda on oma eelnevates aruannetes toonud korduvalt esile tõsiseid puudusi maaelu arengu kulutustega seotud järelevalve-ja hindamisteabe kättesaadavuse ja kvaliteedi osas.
This report consolidates and develops these previous findings. 
Käesolevas aruandes võetakse kokku eelnevad tähelepanekud ning jätkatakse teema käsitlemist.
Special Report No 12/2013 – Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent? V. Specifically the Court found that: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VII. 
Eriaruanne nr 12/2013 – Kas komisjon ja liikmesriigid suudavad tõendada, et ELi eelarvest maaelu arengu poliitikale eraldatud vahendeid kasutatakse otstarbekalt? V. Kontrollikoda tegi järgmised tähelepanekud: KOKKUVÕTE VII.
The Court therefore recommends: (a) The objectives set for rural development expend-(a) iture were not sufficiently clear. (b) There was insufficient information on and reporting of the results achieved to demonstrate the extent to which the objectives set have been met (b) and that the EU’s budget has been spent effectively and efficiently. (c) The monitoring and evaluation information that is available has not sufficiently been used to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the rural (c) development expenditure. 
Sellest tulenevalt esitab kontrollikoda järgmised soovitused: a) maaelu arengu kulutustele seatud eesmärgid ei olnud piisavalt selged; a) b) saavutatud tulemusi käsitlev teave ja aruandlus ei olnud piisavad, et näidata, millises ulatuses olid seatud eesmärgid saavutatud ning kas ELi eelarvevahendeid kasutati mõjusalt ja tõhusalt; b) c) saadaolevat järelevalve-ja hindamisalast teavet ei kasutatud piisavalt, et parandada maaelu arengu kulutuste tõhusust ja mõjusust.
Improvements to monitoring and evaluation can and should be made for the remainder of the current programming period, for which the expenditure will be concluded in 2015. 
Perioodi viimased kulutused tehakse 2015. aastal.
For the 2014–20 programming period, the Commission should improve the CMEF design to produce more timely, relevant, reliable and comparable information, in particular on the effectiveness and efficiency of the measures in achieving results. Member States and the Commission should ensure that the 2014–20 RDPs provide a better foundation for sound financial management, with specific, measurable objectives and plans for monitoring and evaluation of the programmes’ efficiency and effectiveness. (e) Member States should design effectiveness and efficiency into the 2014–20 RDP implementation systems, with the information gathered for the application, selection and payment processes reused for monitoring and evaluation. (f) Member States and the Commission should improve their reporting on the results achieved with the EU budget to enhance accountability. 
Lisaks on komisjonil ja liikmesriikidel võimalus järgmise programmitöö perioodi jooksul (2014–2020) pöörata suuremat tähelepanu kulutuste mõjususele ja tõhususele d) meetmete kavandamisel ja kavandamisotsuste tegemisel ning sellest tulenevalt ka rahastatavate toimingute ja projektide valimisel. c) programmitöö perioodiks 2014–2020 peaks komisjon parandama ühise seire-ja hindamisraamistiku ülesehitust, et tagada õigeaegsem, asjakohasem, usaldusväärsem ja võrreldavam teave, eelkõige selle kohta, kui mõjusad ja tõhusad on meetmed tulemuste saavutamisel; liikmesriigid ja komisjon peaksid tagama, et programmitöö perioodi 2014–2020 maaelu arengukavad annavad parema aluse usaldusväärsele finants-juhtimisele, seades konkreetsed ja mõõdetavad eesmärgid ning koostades arengukavade mõjususe ja tõhususe järelevalve-ja hindamiskavad; e) liikmesriigid peaksid muutma mõjususe ja tõhususe osaks 2014–2020 maaelu arengukavade rakendussüsteemidest, nii et taotluste esitamise, valiku-ja makseprotsesside jaoks kogutud teavet kasutataks uuesti järelevalve ja hindamise käigus; f) liikmesriigid ja komisjon peaksid aruandluskohustuse paremaks täitmiseks parandama aruandlust ELi vahendite abil saavutatud tulemustest.