natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
32 a number of separated properties managed under one corporate strategy could constitute a forestry holding according to unEcE definition and thus receive as such public support but this was not the case in the audited cases of Hungary and slovenia. Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development 
32 Mitu valdust, mida hallatakse ühe ettevõttestrateegia raames võivad UNESCO definitsiooni kohaselt moodustada metsavalduse ning kvalifitseeruda seega avaliku sektori toetust saama, kuid auditeeritud juhtudel leiti, et nii see ei olnud Ungaris ja Sloveenias. Eriaruanne nr 8/2013 – Euroopa Maaelu Arengu Põllumajandusfondist antav metsade majandusliku väärtuse parandamise toetus
SIzE OF THE bEnEFICIARY 25. according to the legal basis support in the forestry sector should avoid any negative effect on competition33. for other forestry measures (such as the forestry component of measure 12334) support is limited to microenterprises35. as such a condition is not foreseen for measure 122 the absence of any preventive restriction in terms of size, main economic activity or legal status of the beneficiary could reinforce the market position of large enterprises36. 
toetusesaaja suurus 25. Õigusnormide kohaselt tuleks metsandussektori toetuste puhul vältida negatiivset mõju konkurentsile33.
FOREST mAnAGEmEnT pLAnS 26. according to the legal basis, investments shall be based on forest management plans for forest holdings above a certain size to be defined by the Member states in their programmes37. the audit found that Member states set very different sizes of forest holdings above which a forest management plan was required and that in a Member state (austria) 99 % of private forest owners were exonerated from that obligation 38. 
MetsaMajandaMiskavad 26. Õigusnormide kohaselt peavad liikmesriikide arengukavades kehtestatud piirmäärasid ületavate metsandusettevõtete investeeringud põhinema metsamajandamiskavadel37. Auditi käigus leiti, et liikmesriigid olid metsandusettevõtetele kehtestanud väga erinevaid suurusi, mille ületamisel nõuti metsamajandamiskava koostamist ning ühes liikmesriigis (Austria) vabastati 99% erametsaomanikest selle kohustuse täitmisest38. raie ja Metsa taastaMine pärast LõpLikku raiet 27.
HARVESTInG And REGEnERATIOn AFTER FInAL FELLInG 27. according to the legal provisions39, supported operations for the improvement of the economic value of forests concern investments at the level of the forestry holding and may include investments for harvesting equipment, while activities related to regeneration after final felling are excluded from support. the court considers that it does not seem coherent on the one hand to support investment in harvesting equipment and on the other to exclude support for regeneration after final felling. 
Õigusaktis39 osutatud tegevused metsade majandusliku väärtuse parandamiseks hõlmavad investeeringuid metsandusettevõtte tasandil ja võivad hõlmata investeeringuid metsatehnikasse, kuid toetust ei anta tegevustele, mis on seotud taastamisega pärast lõplikku raiet. Kontrollikoda leiab, et ei ole järjepidev ühest küljest toetada investeeringuid metsatehnikasse, ent teisest küljest jätta toetatavate tegevuste seast välja pärast lõplikku raiet tehtav taastamine.
33 preamble (32) of regulation (Ec) no 1698/2005: ‘this support (in forestry) should avoid distorting competition and should be market-neutral’. 
33 Määruse (EÜ) nr 1698/2005 preambul 32:„See toetus peaks vältima konkurentsi moonutamist ning olema turu suhtes erapooletu”.
34 Measure ‘adding value to agricultural and forestry products’ (measure 123), article 28(3) of regulation (Ec) no 1698/2005: ‘in the case of forestry support shall be limited to micro-enterprises’. 
34 Meede „Põllumajandustoodetele ja metsasaadustele lisandväärtuse andmine” (meede 123), määruse (EÜ) nr 1698/2005 artikli 28 lõige 3: „Metsasaaduste osas piirdub toetus mikroettevõtetega”.
35 i.e. enterprises which employ fewer than 10 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total does not exceed 2 million euro. 
35 Ehk ettevõte, mis annab tööd vähem kui kümnele inimesele ja mille aastakäive ja/või aasta bilansimaht ei ületa 2 miljonit eurot.
36 in their reply to the court, to the question why they didn’t activate the measure swedish authorities explained that support for the purpose of increasing production or the real estate value should not be given as it might distort competition between forest owners. 
36 Oma vastuses kontrollikoja küsimusele, miks meedet ei aktiveeritud, selgitasid Rootsi ametiasutused, et tootmise või kinnisvara väärtuse suurendamise eesmärgil ei tohiks toetusi anda, kuna see võib moonutada metsaomanikevahelist konkurentsi.
37 article 27(2) of regulation (Ec) no 1698/2005. forest management plans appropriate to the size and use of the forest area should be based on relevant national legislation as well as existing land use plans and they should adequately cover the forest resources (article 18 of regulation (Ec) no 1974/2006). 
37 Määruse (EÜ) nr 1698/2005 artikli 27 lõike 2 kohaldamisel põhinevad metsamaa suurusele ja kasutusele vastavad metsamajandamiskavad nii vastavatel riiklikel õigusaktidel kui ka kehtivatel maakasutuskavadel ning hõlmavad piisaval määral metsaressursse (määruse (EÜ) nr 1974/2006 artikkel 18).
16 38 While in one Member state (spain) a minimum size of 15 hectares was set so as to increase the forest areas under management plan, in another (austria), the rural development programme set such a high threshold for a forest management plan to be compulsory, 1 000 ha, that in practice 99 % of private forest owners were exonerated from the obligation to produce a forest management plan when claiming aid under measure 122. 
16 38 Kui ühes liikmesriigis (Hispaania) oli metsamajandamiskavade alusel hallatavate metsaalade suurendamiseks kehtestatud minimaalne suurus15 hektarit, siis üks teine liikmesriik (Austria) oli oma maaelu arengukavas kohustuslikule metsamajandamiskavale kehtestanud nii kõrge piirsuuruse (1000 ha), et praktikas vabastati 99% erametsaomanikest meetme 122 raames toetuste taotlemisel metsamajandamiskava koostamise kohustusest.
39 article 18 of regulation (Ec) no 1974/2006. 
39 Määruse (EÜ) nr 1974/2006 artikkel 18.
17 FOR THE pROGRAmmES AUdITEd, THE InITIAL AnALYSIS bEFORE AdOpTIOn wAS nOT AdEqUATE 28. the Eafrd is implemented in the Member states through rdps that should include an ex ante evaluation and an analysis of the situation in terms of strengths, weaknesses and identified needs, as well as the strategy chosen to meet them and optimise the allocation of resources. 
17 auditeeritud arengukavade vastuvõtMiseLe eeLnes ebapiisav anaLüüs 28. EAFRD toetust rakendatakse liikmesriikides maaelu arengukavade kaudu, mis peaksid sisaldama eelhindamist ja olukorra analüüsi, milles toodaks välja tugevad ja nõrgad küljed, määratletud vajadused ning ka nende täitmiseks ja ressursside eraldamise optimeerimiseks valitud strateegia.
29. in the rdps of the five Member states40 or regions visited, the identification of needs, to the extent that it was undertaken, related to the forestry sector as a whole, which makes it difficult to establish links between particular needs and measures. 
29. Viie külastatud liikmesriigi40 või piirkonna maaelu arengukavades oli vajaduste määratlemine (nii palju kui seda tehti) seotud terve metsan-dussektoriga, mis muutis konkreetsete vajaduste ja meetmete vaheliste seoste kindlakstegemise keeruliseks.
30. the audit found that such needs were generally not adequately described in the rdps (see box 1). in particular, there was insufficient analysis and justification of priorities of the different types of forest areas and beneficiaries. 
30. Auditi käigus leiti, et üldiselt ei kirjeldatud nimetatud vajadusi maaelu arengukavades piisavalt (vt 1. selgitus).
Moreover, the required description of the economic opportunities was set out in general terms only or even had not been presented at all. 40 Galicia(spain),tuscany (italy), Hungary, austria, and slovenia. bOX 1 EXAmpLES OF UnCLEAR IdEnTIFICATIOn OF nEEdS In THE RdpS OF THE mEmbER STATES in slovenia, low investment capacity was identified as a weakness in the forestry sector, however there was not a separate analysis of needs in respect of type of beneficiaries, be these enterprises, legal entities or physical persons. as a consequence the court found that also forestry enterprises with high investment capacity could benefit from significant amounts of public support. in austria, the rdp does not set out which weaknesses of the forest sector the measure is intended to redress. although in the rdp there is a quantitative estimation of the areas targeted by the support, it is not explained why those areas require public funding. 
Pealegi oli nõutud majanduslike võimaluste kirjeldus sõnastatud vaid üldiselt või seda ei esitatudki. 40 Galicia (Hispaania), Toscana (Itaalia), Ungari, Austria ja Sloveenia. 1. seLgitus näiteid LiikMesriikide MaaeLu arengukavades sisaLduvate vajaduste ebaseLge MääratLeMise kohta sloveenias määratleti madal investeerimissuutlikkus metsandussektori puudusena, kuid sellest hoolimata ei koostatud eraldi vajaduste analüüsi erinevat liiki toetusesaajate kohta (ettevõtted või füüsilised isikud).
31. the commission approved the rural development programmes although they did not define any specific need of any private forest owners of financial support to improve the economic value of their forests. 
31. Komisjon kiitis maaelu arengukavad heaks, kuigi neis ei määratletud metsaomanike konkreetset vajadust rahalise toetuse järele, millega parandada metsade majanduslikku väärtust.
Bulgaria, romania and Greece, although they had planned large financial amounts, had not declared any expenditure by the end of 2011(Greece and romania) or very small amounts (Bulgaria). the court was informed by these Member states that their managing authorities decided to transfer the amounts of financial resources planned for measure 122 to other measures (Bulgaria and romania reallocated around 80 % and 33 % respectively of the amounts initially planned), to a later implementation of the measure within the programming period or even to discontinue the measure (Greece). 
Bulgaaria, Rumeenia ja Kreeka olid küll planeerinud suurte rahasummade kasutust, kuid ei olnud 2011. aasta lõpuks mitte mingeid kulusid deklareerinud (Kreeka ja Rumeenia) või deklareerisid väga väikseid summasid (Bulgaaria). Nimetatud liikmesriigid teavitasid kontrollikoda asjaolust, et nende korraldusasutused olid otsustanud paigutada meetmele 122 kavandatud summad ümber teistesse meetmetesse (Bulgaaria ja Rumeenia paigutasid ümber vastavalt ligi 80% ja 33% esialgselt kavandatud summadest), lükata meetme rakendamine edasi programmitöö perioodi hilisemasse etappi või isegi meetme rakendamine lõpetada (Kreeka). oLuLised puudused kehtestatud eesMärkide eLLuviiMiseL juhtuMid, kus avaLiku sektori toetus oLi võrreLdes tegeLike vajadustega ebaproportsionaaLseLt suur 33.
SIGnIFICAnT wEAknESSES In THE ImpLEmEnTATIOn HAVInG REGARd TO THE ObjECTIVES SET CASES OF pUbLIC SUppORT dISpROpORTIOnATELY HIGH COmpAREd TO REAL nEEdS 33. regarding the relationship between the size of the forest areas declared by the applicants and the level of public support granted, the audit found that certain Member states (Hungary and slovenia), while setting relatively high ceilings for public support41 did not establish any proportionality between the size of the forest areas declared by the applicants and the level of public support which could be granted. in one Member state (slovenia), a beneficiary having declared three hectares of forest areas was approved for an investment of 1,1 million euro in respect of harvesting and ancillary machinery and received 375 000 euro from the Eafrd. another Member state (austria) financed until 2009 beneficiaries who were not forest owners for biomass processing investments without requiring them to declare any specific forest area, for example a beneficiary, with no forest land declared was approved for a project of 132 000 euro and received 17 000 euro from the Eafrd. 
Taotlejate poolt deklareeritud metsaalade suuruse ja avaliku sektori toetuse määra vahelise suhte puhul leiti auditis, et mõni liikmesriik (Ungari ja Sloveenia) kehtestas avaliku sektori toetusele küll suhteliselt kõrged piirmäärad41, kuid ei kehtestanud taotlejate poolt deklareeritud metsaalade suuruse ja avaliku sektori toetuse määra vahelist proportsiooni.
However in Hungary, the managing authorities changed the eligibility requirements in 2010 to make support proportional to the size of the registered forest areas and limited the aid to a maximum of 115 500 euro. 
Ungari korraldusasutused muutsid siiski rahastamiskõlblikkuse nõudeid 2010. aastal, et viia toetused paremasse vastavusse registreeritud metsaala suurusega ning kehtestasid toetuse maksimummääraks 115 500 eurot.
41 500 000 euro (si); 735 000 euro (Hu — in 2008). 
41 500000eurot (Sloveenia); 735 000 eurot (Ungari – aastal 2008).
18 Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development 
18 Eriaruanne nr 8/2013 – Euroopa Maaelu Arengu Põllumajandusfondist antav metsade majandusliku väärtuse parandamise toetus
19 InVESTmEnTS nOT COnSIdEREd In LInE wITH THE pROVISIOnS OF THE mEASURE 35. although support under measure 122 may only be provided for investments, the audit found cases of support granted for non-durable goods such as short-cycle consumables (tuscany)42 and operating production costs (austria)43. the court considers that, in general, the acquisition of such non-durable goods is not an investment. similarly, operating costs cannot be considered as investments. 
19 investeeringud ei oLnud kooskõLas MeetMe sätetega 35. Kuigi meetme 122 raames võib toetusi anda vaid investeeringuteks, leiti auditi käigus juhtumeid, kus toetust anti mittekestvuskaupade ehk kulukaupade (Toscana)42 soetamiseks ja tootmiskulude (Austria)43 eest tasumiseks.
36. in certain Member states (Hungary and slovenia, see annex ii) there was no requirement for the beneficiaries to own or rent the forests where grant-aided machines can be used. investments made by contractors/ service providers cannot be considered as being exclusively for the purposes of a specific forest holding and, as such, cannot be considered as being eligible under the governing regulation (see paragraph 24). 
Samuti ei saa investeeringuks pidada tegevuskulusid. 36. Teatud liikmesriikides (Ungari ja Sloveenia, vt II lisa) ei olnud kehtestatud nõuet, et toetusesaajad peavad omama või rentima metsa, kus toetusega soetatud masinaid võiks kasutada.
Eafrd support is implemented via a multiplicity of measures, amongst which consistency 44 shall be ensured. 
EAFRD toetuste andmiseks kasutatakse palju erinevaid meetmeid, mille kooskõla44 tuleb tagada.
Given the difference in the maximum aid rate which can be granted depending on the different measures, financing an operation under one measure or another is not neutral in budgetary terms45. it should be noted that the audit did not find any case of double financing of the same operation. 
Võttes arvesse asjaolu, et meetmetel on erinevad maksimaalsed toetusmäärad, ei ole sama tegevuse rahastamine ühest või teisest meetmest eelarve seisukohast samaväärne45. Märkimist väärib asjaolu, et auditiga ei leitud sama tegevuse topeltrahastamise juhtumeid.
However, the audit found cases of investments supported by measure 122 which better correspond to the purpose of the measure 121 ‘Modernisation of agricultural holdings’ which supports investments in agricultural holdings to improve their overall performance. for example, in Hungary, the acquisition of agricultural machinery was financed under measure 122. in tuscany, measure 122 financed the purchase of drying machines for cultivated chestnuts, the renovation of farm buildings not located in woodlands and to be used during harvesting for sorting and temporary storage of chestnuts, as well as the refurbishment of farm premises for storing tools and machines. 
Siiski leiti auditi käigus meetme 122 raames toetatud investeeringuid, mis vastavad pigem meetme 121 „Põllumajandusettevõtete moderniseerimine” eesmärgile toetada investeeringuid põllumajandusettevõtetesse, et parandada nende üldist tulemuslikkust. Ungaris rahastati näiteks meetme 122 raames põllumajandusmasinate soetamist.
42 personal protection equipment such as overalls, helmets, footwear, gloves, first-aid kits, etc. 
42 Isikukaitsevahendid nagu nt kombinesoonid, kiivrid, jalatsid, kindad, esmaabivahendite komplektid jne.
43 support was granted for the partial reimbursement of operating costs for activities related to bio-mass preparation such as transportation, drying and storage. 
43 Toetust anti biomassi valmistamisega seotud tegevuste, nagu transport, kuivatamine ja ladustamine, tegevuskulude osaliseks hüvitamiseks.
44 article2(1)(b) of regulation (Ec) no 1974/2006. 
44 Määruse (EÜ) nr 1974/2006 artikli 2 lõike 1 punkt b.
45 for example the maximum aid rate for measure 122 is 10 % higher than the maximum aid rate for measure 121 (Modernisation of agricultural holdings) or measure 123 (adding value to forest products), see annex of regulation (Ec) no 1698/2005. the general rate for investments under measure 122 is 50 % while for measures 121 and 123 is only 40 %. 
45 Näiteks on meetme 122 maksimaalne toetusmäär 10% suurem meetme 121 (põllumajandusettevõtete moderniseerimine) või meetme 123 (metsasaaduste lisandväärtuse suurendamine) omast, vt määruse (EÜ) nr 1698/2005 lisa. Meetme 122 raames on investeeringute üldine toetusmäär 50%, kuid meetmete 121 ja 123 raames vaid 40%.
Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development 
39. Itaalias, Ungaris ja Sloveenias anti metsandusettevõtetele toetust selliste masinate soetamiseks, mida kasutatakse puidu kui toormaterjali ettevalmistamiseks enne selle tööstuslikku saagimist saeveskis (raie, laasi-mine, tükeldamine, transportimine) või töötlemiseks (puidu hakkimine, puude lõhkumine, puitplaatide kaubaaluste tootmine).
Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development 
Auditikäikude raames leidis kontrollikoda, et paljud metsaomanikud tegelevad ka põllumajandusliku tegevusega ja et mitmel juhul rahastati meetme 122 raames näiteks veoautode, põllumajandustraktorite, atrade, äkete, väetiselaoturite, ekskavaatorite ja teiste masinate soetamist, mida saab kasutada samuti põllumajanduslikel eesmärkidel (vt 3. selgitus).
22 THE ASSESSmEnT OF THE EFFECTIVEnESS OF THE SUppORT wAS nOT SATISFACTORY IndICATORS nOT AdEqUATELY mEASURInG THE ACHIEVEmEnT OF OpERATIOnAL ObjECTIVES 42. in accordance with the legislation46, a ‘common Monitoring and Evaluation framework’ (cMEf) has been drawn up in cooperation between the commission and the Member states. the regulation sets out that the progress, efficiency and effectiveness of rural development programmes in relation to their objectives shall be measured by means of indicators relating to the baseline situation as well as to the financial execution, outputs, results and impact of the programmes47. 
Vastavalt õigusaktis46 sätestatule on komisjoni ja liikmesriikide koostöös loodud ühine seire-ja hindamisraamistik (CMEF). Määruses on sätestatud, et maaelu arengukavade rakendamise arengut, tõhusust ja tulemuslikkust seoses nende eesmärkidega mõõdetakse näitajate abil, mis on seotud lähteolukorraga ning käsitlevad kavade finantsteostust, tootlust, tulemusi ja mõju47.
43. concerning measure 122, the commission issued guidelines setting as output indicators the ‘number of forest holdings that received investment support’ and the ‘total volume of investment’, and as result indicators the ‘number of holdings introducing new products and/or techniques’ and the ‘increase in gross value added (GVa) in supported holdings’. 
43. Meetme 122 kohta välja antud komisjoni suuniste kohaselt on väljun-dinäitajateks investeerimistoetust saanud metsandusettevõtete arv ja investeeringute kogumaht ning tulemusnäitajateks uusi tooteid ja/ või tehnikat kasutusele võtnud ettevõtete arv ning toetust saanud ettevõtete kogulisandväärtuse kasv.
44. the court notes that these output indicators do not measure the achievement of any operational objective, which is an inevitable consequence of the fact that the objectives had not been clearly defined for this measure. qUESTIOnS TO ASSESS THE ImpROVEmEnT OF THE ECOnOmIC VALUE OF FORESTS SHOULd HAVE bEEn bETTER TARGETEd 45. the cMEf also provides for a mid‐term evaluation to be carried out in 2010 by independent evaluators. for measure 122 the evaluation questions relate to diversification of production48, enhancement of market access and market share, sustainable management of forests and competitiveness of forest holdings. 
44. Kontrollikoda märgib, et meetme selgelt määratlemata eesmärkide vältimatu tagajärg on see, et väljundinäitajad ei mõõda ühegi tegevusees-märgi saavutamist. küsiMused Metsade MajandusLiku väärtuse parandaMise hindaMiseks oLeksid pidanud oLeMa pareMini suunatud 45.
46 article 80 of regulation (Ec) no 1698/2005. 
46 Määruse (EÜ) nr 1698/2005 artikkel 80.
47 article 81 of regulation (Ec) no 1698/2005. 
47 Määruse (EÜ) nr 1698/2005 artikkel 81.
46. the court considers that none of these questions allows for a comprehensive assessment of whether the measure resulted in any improvement of the economic value of the forest. the questions relating to market share and competitiveness of forest holdings are not relevant to assess the performance of the measure in those beneficiary holdings that do not carry out a commercial activity. furthermore, the evaluation reports generally refer to replies from beneficiaries to evaluation questionnaires or reproduce global statistical data on the forestry sector, and do not furnish any concrete information on the effects of measure 122 on the economic value of forests. nO dETERmInATIOn OF THE VALUE OF THE FOREST AREAS pRIOR TO And AFTER THE InVESTmEnTS 47. the audit found that none of the Member states or regions visited during the audit had established adequate procedures to determine the effect of the actions co-financed by the Eafrd on the economic value of the forest areas (forest land and stands) involved, nor were the beneficiaries required to indicate this. the value of the forest areas prior to the investment was not determined and compared with the situation after the investments financed by the measure. in the absence of such valuations, which are not readily available, it is difficult to determine whether the objectives of the measure have been achieved. 
46. Kontrollikoda leiab, et ükski neist küsimustest ei võimalda põhjalikult hinnata seda, kas meetme rakendamine suurendas metsa majanduslikku väärtust.
EFFECTIVEnESS In A LARGE nUmbER OF pROjECTS AUdITEd IS pOOR 48. the court assessed for 50 projects audited during the audit visits whether they achieved the objectives set by the measure (to improve the economic value of forests). 
Kontrollikoda hindas auditikäikudel auditeeritud 50 projekti juures seda, kas nende puhul saavutati meetme raames seatud eesmärgid (parandada metsade majanduslikku väärtust).
23 Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development 
23 Eriaruanne nr 8/2013 – Euroopa Maaelu Arengu Põllumajandusfondist antav metsade majandusliku väärtuse parandamise toetus