natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Daphne projects have been extensively and regularly evaluated.
Daphne projekte on laialdaselt ja regulaarselt hinnatud.
In 2003, a comprehensive
2003. aasta pýhjalikus uuringus a n a - l Ÿ Ÿ s i t i aastatel 1997›2003 rahastatud ning rohkem kui 1500 koostûûpartnerit esindanud
1 1 study analysed the outputs and outcomes of the 303 (
303 projekti vêljundeid ja tulemusi.
This enabled the Commission to have a precise idea of individual results and impacts, but also to con«rmthee.ectivenessandthee/ciencyof the programme.
See výimaldas komisjonil saada têpne Ÿlevaade indivi- duaalsetest tulemustest ja mýjudest ning samas kinnitada programmi efektiivsust ja tasuvust.
This continuous evaluation work shows that Daphne is e.ective,i.e.itsresultsandtheirim-pacts contribute to achieving its objectives.
Jêtkuva hindamise tulemusena výib vêita, et Daphne on efektiivne, st Daphne tulemused ja mýju aitavad kaasa selle eesmêrkide saavutamisele.
The e/ciencyoftheprogrammeisevidencedbythe impressive number of outputs and outcomes, compared with the resources allocated.
Programmi týhusust týestab selle tule-muste ning vêljundite suur hulk sellele eraldatud ressurssidega výrreldes.
However, the sustainability of the results is rather weak.
Siiski výib ûelda, et tulemuste jêtkusuutlikkus on Ÿsna vilets.
Once the project is completed, insuf-«cientdisseminationandpost-projectfundingareimplemented.
Projekti lýpuleviimisele jêrgnevad levitamistûû ja rahastamine on ebapiisavad.
Project typology between 1997 and 2003
Projektide t Ÿ po l o o g i a aastatel 1997›2003
The « n a l e v a l u a t i o nffo f t h e D a p h n e p r o g r a m mffe p r o v i d e d p l e n tffy o f d a t a cffo n c e r n i n g t h e p r o j e c t s , their outputs and outcomes.
Daphne programmi lýplik hindamine andis projektide, nende vêljundite ja tulemuste kohta hulgaliselt teavet.
(a) There is a balance between projects dedicated to children/young people and to women or to combined targets:
a) Lapsi/noori ja naisi výi kombineeritud s i h t r Ÿ h m i kêsitlevad projektid on omavahel tasa-kaalus:
Children and young
Lapsed ja noored
Children and women
Lapsed ja naised
Young and women
Noored ja naised
Some 39 % of the projects speci«callyaddressedonetypeofend-bene«ciary(children,young people or women).
Umbes 39% projektidest olid suunatud Ÿhele teatud t Ÿ Ÿ p i lýppabisaajale (lapsed, noored výi naised).
Grouping the types of end-bene«ciaryshowsthat`children'wereaddressed by 48 % of the projects, young people by 52 % and women by 61 %.
Lýppabisaajate r Ÿ h m i t a m i n e nêitab, et lastele olid mýeldud 48% projektidest, noortele 52% ja naistele 61%.
) Of these 303 funded projects, 218 were analysed in detail, representing 1 212 partners.
Nendest 303 projektist analüüsiti p÷hjalikult 218 projekti, mis h÷lmas kokku 1212 partnerit.
Other projects could not be contacted for various reasons: bankruptcy, move of the key person, documentation no longer available, etc.
Teiste projektidega ei suudetud mitmetel p÷hjustel kontakti saavutada: pankrot, v÷tmeisiku elukoha muutus, kadunud dokumentatsioon jne.
Of these 218 projects, 148 were completed at the time of the study and could deliver documentation on outputs and outcomes.
Nendest 218 projektist l÷ppesid 148 uuringu tegemise ajal, v÷imaldades ligipääsu oma tulemustele ja väljunditele.
Each type of end-bene«ciaryreferstooneormoresubcategoriesasfollows:
Iga lýppabisaaja t Ÿ Ÿ p viitab Ÿhele výi mitmele alljêrgnevatest allkategooriatest:
People in prison or in custody
Inimkaubitsemise ohvrid
Note: `Other' refers to soldiers and their family, isolated women, unaccompanied minors, torture survivors and people with a mentally ill parent.
¶Muudƒ viitavad sýduritele ning nende perekonnaliikmetele, isoleeritud naistele, saatjateta alaealistele, vêgival-laohvritele ning vaimse hêirega vanemate jêreltulijatele.
(b) 21 % of the projects are multiannual (two or three years), which improves their sustainabil-ity.
b) 21% projektidest on mitmeaastased (kahe- výi kolmeaastased) ning see týestab nende jêtkusuutlikkust.
But these projects weigh heavily on the budget; this is why their number was limited.
Samas on need projektid eelarvet silmas pidades kulukad ja seetýttu on nende arv piiratud.
(c) All 15 Member States are involved (as coordinator or partner) and organisations in the EFTA/EEA and central and east European countries represent 6 % of the total number of partners.
c) Kaasatakse kýik 15 liikmesriiki (koordinaatorite výi partneritena) ning EFTA/EMP riikide ning Kesk- ja Ida-Euroopa assotsieerunud riikide esindused moodustavad 6% partnerite koguhulgast.
(d) The average number of partners per projects is six, but 3 % of the projects have 10 or more partners (mainly local partners in these cases).
d) Keskmine partnerite arv projekti kohta on 6, aga 3%-l projektidest on 10 výi rohkem part-nerit (sel juhul peamiselt kohalikud partnerid).
It appears from the monitoring visit and from the ex-post evaluations that there are usually too many partners for each to be ad-equately involved.
K o n t r o l l k Ÿ l a s t u s e s t ning hindamistest ilm-neb, et partnerite adekvaatseks osalemiseks on neid projektis liiga palju.
In addition, it adds to the management burden of the coordinator to the detriment of mainstreaming of the project activity.
Lisaks ka kahju projekti koordinaatori pýhitegevusega seotud juhtimiskoormale.
(e) Organisations participating in projects are of the following categories (see next page):
e) Projektides osalevad organisatsioonid kuuluvad jêrgmistesse kategooriatesse (vaata jêrg-mist l e h e k Ÿ l g e ) .
NGOs have always been the focus of Daphne.
MTâd on alati olnud Daphne fookuses.
They represent 56 % of the partners and 65 % of the project coordinators.
Nemad moodustavad 56% partneritest ja 65% pro-jekti koordinaatoritest.
Nevertheless, in 2002 and 2003 the proportion of NGOs as co-ordinators decreased from 65 % to 54 % compared with previous years.
Samas kahanes 2002. ja 2003. aastal MTâde osakaal koordinaatori-tena 65-lt protsendilt 54-le eelmiste aastatega výrreldes.
Research centres, universities and public institutions increased their presence as coordinators: they each rep-resent about 13 %.
Uurimiskeskuste, Ÿlikoolide ja riigi-asutuste osakaal koordinaatoritena suurenes: igale neist kuulub 13%.
This evolution is probably due to two factors: «rst,since2000,publicinstitutions have been allowed to apply; second, as stated by several stakeholders, some NGOs might have been discouraged by the increasing requirements and procedures of the EU funding schemes over the years.
See tuleneb týenêoliselt kahest faktorist: esiteks on alates 2000. aastast lubatud avaldusi esitada ka riigiasutustel; tei-seks (nagu on mêrkinud mitmed koostûûpartnerid) výisid ELi rahastusskeemide kasvavad nýudmised ja protseduurid MTâsid heidutada.
In fact, among 41 projects funded in 2000 or 2001 and coordinated by an NGO, 71 % were not satis«edwiththepromptnessofthepaymentpro-cedures compared with 32 % for 19 projects funded in the same years and not coordinated by an NGO (see also point 4.5 on implementation and delivery mechanisms).
Tegelikult ei olnud 2000. výi 2001. aastal ra-hastatud MTâde poolt koordineeritud 41 projektist maksmisprotseduuride jêikusega rahul 71%, výrreldes 32%ga 19st samal aastal rahastatud muude asutuste poolt koordineeritud projektist (vt ka punkti 4.5 rakendamise ja kêttetoimetamise mehhanismide kohta).
NGOs are key players in Daphne projects.
MTâd omavad Daphne projektides pýhirolli.
The analysis shows that, among the 25 «nishedprojects with close contacts with e n d - b e n e « c i a r i e s , 2 2 w e r e cffo o r d i n a t e d b y a n N G O .
A n a l Ÿ Ÿ s i kohaselt oli 25 lýpetatud projekti hul-gas, mille puhul oli sêilinud lêhikontakt lýppabisaajatega, 22 koordineeritud MTâde poolt.
Categories of partners and coordinators (1 212 partners i, 218 coordinatorsi) was taken into account in the proposal of the Commission to establish the Daphne II pro- gramme (2004›08) (12
Partnerite ja koordinaatorite kategooriad ( ̈1212 partnerit, ̈ 218 koordinaatorit).
), stating that `organisations responsible for assistance to victims are still the best relay to reach and help the bene«ciariesoftheseactions'.
eest vastutavad organisatsioonid on jêtkuvalt parimateks vahenditeks selliste tegevuste puhul abisaajateni jýudmiseks ning aitamiseks.ƒ f) Eelkýige on projektid suunatud otseselt lýppabisaajatega tegelevatele vahendajatele: sot-siaal-, haridus- ja meditsiinitûûtajad ning politsei.
Out of 218 projects, 92 % involve target groups and 75 % show their ac-tive involvement as adviser and/or executor in the design, running and promotion of the project.
218 projektist on 92% seotud sihtgruppidega ning 75% aktiivselt seotud projekti planeerimise, juhtimise ja kampaaniate nýustamise výi teostamisega.
This active involvement is a very important factor in the impact of the projects as described in more detail in point 4.4 below.
Mainitud aktiivne seotus on êêrmiselt têhtis faktor punktis 4.4 êra toodud mýjudes.
(g) The areas of violence tackled by the selected projects are split as follows:
g) Vêgivalla liigid, millega tegelevad valitud projektid, jagatakse jêrgnevalt:
(N = 218 projects, up to two choices per project)
(N = 218 projekti, kuni kaks valikut projekti kohta)
(h) A vast majority of the partners have a long experience of violence prevention or protection „
Daphne kogemuse tulemused h) Enamikul partneritest on pikaajalised kogemused vêgivalla ennetamise výi kaitse vallas „
(N = 216 projects with experience)
(N = 216 kogemustega partnerit)
29 % i > 0 and < = 5 yearsi > 5 and < = 10i > 10 and < = 20i > 20 40 %
2 9 % i > 0 ja < = 5 aastati > 5 ja < = 10i > 10 ja < = 20i > 20 4 0 %
„ and that experience is used in the projects: there is a great correspondence between their area of expertise and the area tackled by the project, as can be seen from the follow-ing diagram:
„ ja need kogemused leiavad kasutust ka projektides: nagu nêha alljêrgnevast diagram-mist, on partnerite eriala ning projekti probleemistiku vahel suur Ÿhilduvus:
7 % i Areas of the project are in the `core activities' of the coordinator
7 % i Projekti probleemistik kuulub koordinaatori pýhitegevuste hulka i"Koordinaatori pýhitegevuste hulka kuulub Ÿks osa projekti probleemistikust
(i) A link with past projects and synergies with running projects were developed: as sug-gested in the priorities of the calls for proposals, a number of projects have built upon the experience of others or have developed synergies with other running projects as follows:
5 4 % i"Projekti probleemistik ei kuulu koordinaatori pýhitegevuste hulka i) Varasemate ning kêsilolevate projektide s Ÿ n e r g i a d liideti: arvestades projektikonkursi prio-riteete, on mitmed projektid Ÿles ehitatud just teiste kogemustele výi loonud s Ÿ n e r g i a i d teiste jooksvate projektidega:
104 (50 %) of projects have a link with a previous project:
104 projekti (50% koguarvust) on seotud mýne eelneva projektiga:
‡ for 80 of these, this was with a Daphne project.
‡ 80 projekti on seotud mýne Daphne projektiga, Ÿks kohaliku projektiga ning Ÿks hari-duse ja kultuuri peadirektoraadi rahastatud projektiga;
One of them also has a link with a local project and one with a project funded by the Education and Culture Directorate- General;
‡ Ÿheksat projekti rahastas kohalik/piirkondlik/riiklik výimuesindaja/asutus;
‡ nine projects were funded by local/regional/national authorities/organisations;
‡ kahte projekti rahastas STOPi programm;
‡ eight projects were funded by other EC programmes (`Injury protection' from the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General, `Jeunesse pour l'Europe', Information, Communication, Culture and Audiovisual Directorate-General, Employment and Social A . a i r s D i r e c t o r a t e - G e n e r a l , ` E u r op e a g a i n s t A I D S ' , E d u c a t i o n a n d C u l tffu r e D i r e c t o r a t e - G e n - e r a l , Internal Market Directorate General, `Leonardo da Vinci') (one project each);
‡ kaheksat projekti rahastasid teised Euroopa Komisjoni programmid (¶Vigastuste enne-tamineƒ › tervise- ja tarbijakaitse peadirektoraat, ¶Noored Euroopa heaksƒ, i n f o Ÿ h i s k o n - n a peadirektoraat, tûûhýive ja s o t s i a a l k Ÿ s i m u s t e peadirektoraat, ¶Euroopa aidsi vastuƒ, hariduse ja kultuuri peadirektoraat, siseturu peadirektoraat, Leonardo da Vinci) (igale Ÿks projekt);
‡ one project was funded by the National Council of Researchers.
‡ Ÿhte projekti rahastab Riiklik Uurimisnýukogu.
Type of link with previous project
Eelneva projektiga seotuse t Ÿ Ÿ p
Previous project gave the idea of the project
Eelnevalt projektilt saadi projektiidee
Project uses results of previous project
Projekt kasutab eelneva projekti tulemusi
Project reinforces/extends results of previous project
Projekt kindlustab/laiendab eelneva projekti tulemusi
Project disseminates results of previous project
Projekt levitab eelneva projekti tulemusi
Project replicates results to other target groups/bene«ciaries
Projekt rakendab tulemusi teistele sihtgruppidele/abisaajatele
Project replicates results to other areas of violence
Projekt rakendab tulemusi teistes vêgivalla valdkondades
Project replicates results to another location
Projekt rakendab tulemusi teistes piirkondades
Projects developing synergies with other running projects
Teiste jooksvate projektidega s Ÿ n e r g i a t loovad projektid
Sixty-one projects (29 %) have synergies with another running project:
61 projektil (29%) on s Ÿ n e r g i a mýne teise jooksva projektiga:
‡ seven projects were Daphne projects, including one that also developed synergies with national projects;
‡ seitse projekti olid Daphne projektid, nende hulgas Ÿks lýi s Ÿ n e r g i a ka riikliku projektiga;
‡ 29 projects were funded by local/regional/national authorities/organisations;
‡ 29 projekti rahastas kohalik/piirkondlik/riiklik výim/asutus;
‡ four projects were funded by the EQUAL programme (respectively by the `NOW' and `Em-ployment' initiatives (one project each) as well as `Social exclusion' (two projects));
‡ nelja projekti rahastas EQUALi programm (vastavalt NOW ja Employmenti initsiatiivil (kum-malgi Ÿks projekt) ning samuti sotsiaalse kýrvalejêetuse programm (kaks projekti));
‡ two projects were funded by Employment and Social A . a i r s D i r e c t o r a t e - G e n e r a l ;
‡ kahte projekti rahastas tûûhýive ja s o t s i a a l k Ÿ s i m u s t e peadirektoraat;
‡ two projects were funded by `Europe against AIDS', including one that also developed synergies with national projects;
‡ kahte projekti rahastas ¶Euroopa aidsi vastuƒ, mille hulgast Ÿhel tekkis s Ÿ n e r g i a riikliku projektiga;
‡ three projects were funded by other EC programmes (RURIS, Prisma, STOP) (one project each);
‡ kolme projekti rahastasid teised Euroopa Komisjoni programmid (RURIS, PRISMA, STOP) (igal Ÿks projekt);
Type of links with the other running project
Mýne teise jooksva projektiga seotuse t Ÿ Ÿ p
Project uses the results of other project
Projekt kasutab mýne teise projekti tulemusi
Project disseminates results of other project
Projekt levitab mýne teise projekti tulemusi
Exchange of information/experience between both projects
Projektidevaheline teabe výi kogemuste vahetus
Other project learns from/builds on the Daphne project
Teine projekt kasutab Daphne projektilt ýpitut
A brief history of Daphne
A brief history of Daphne k) Daphne eesmêrke (otsuses mêêratletud ning projektikonkurssides mainitud) arvesse výttes têheldati jêrgmist:
Support to multidisciplinary networks
Toetus eri elualade výrgustikele
Studies, research or data collection
Uuringud výi andmete kogumine
Recognition and reporting of violence
Vêgivalla avastamine ja sellest teavitamine
Daphne objectives of the projects: i1997›99 , i65 projects 2000›01 andi70 projects 2002›03
Daphne projektide eesmêrgid: i 1997›99; i 65 projekti 2000›01 ja i 70 projekti 2002›03.
The objective of 65 % (on average) of the projects is the exchange of good practices and this is increasingly so when looking at the evolution of the projects' generations.
Keskmiselt 65% projektide eesmêrgiks on heade tavade vahetamine ning projektide aja-lugu vaadates on tegu kasvava tendentsiga.
This illustrates the true added value of Daphne, i.e. the transfer of good practices within and between transnational partnerships.
See kirjeldab hêsti Daphne týelist lisavêêrtust, st heade tavade vahetamist rahvusvahelise partnerluse raames.
On the contrary, the building of information sources is still not greatly tackled.
Samas ei ole eriti tegeldud infoallikate loomisega.
An interesting evolution that emerges from the diagram is the decrease of the `informa-tion campaigns' and of the `recognition and reporting of violence' categories, in favour of more `studies, research or data collection' and `exchange of good practices'.
âks diagrammist ilmnev huvitav areng on infokampaaniate ja vêgivalla avastamine ja sellest teavitamise vêhenemine ning uuringute ja heade tavade vahetamise suurenemine.
Obviously, after the «rstfewyearswhentheneedforsuchcampaignswasobvious,theorganisationsinvolved in the «ghtagainstviolencestartedtorelylessonthisapproachandtofocusmore on other objectives.
Nêhtavas-ti hakkasid vêgivalla vastu výitlevad organisatsioonid pêrast esimesi aastaid, kui vajadus sarnaste kampaaniate jêrele oli ilmsem, seda lêhenemist vêhem usaldama ning teistele eesmêrkidele keskenduma.
When analysing in more detail the nature of the projects' objec-tives, the following categories appear:
Projektide eesmêrkide iseloomu a n a l Ÿ Ÿ s i d e s výib eristada jêrg-misi kategooriaid:
Improved understanding of violence
Paranenud arusaam vêgivallast
Detection of violence
Vêgivalla avastamine
Protection from violence
Kaitse vêgivalla eest
Reintegration of o.enders
Ohvrite taasintegreerimine
Results and impact of Daphne
Daphne tulemused ja mýju
For the purpose of this report, an evaluation of the seven years of Daphne activities (1997›2003) was carried out.
Kêesoleva aruande jaoks hinnati Daphne tegevusi seitsme aasta jooksul (1997›2003).
The main characteristic of this study is that it is exhaustive: all projects (303) from the initiative (1997›99) and the programme (2000›03) have been analysed.
Tegemist on êêrmiselt pýhjaliku uurimusega: a n a l Ÿ Ÿ s i t u d on kýiki 303 projekti Daphne algatusest (1997›99) programmini (2000›03).
The conclusions were as follows:
Kokkuvýtvalt výib ûelda:
`The initiative and programme objectives were and remain relevant to the needs at their origin i.e. protecting children, young people and women from violence and preventing it.
¶Daphne algatuse ja programmi eesmêrgid olid ja jêêvad vastavusse nende algvajadustega: laste, noorte ja naiste vêgivalla eest kaitsmine ning vêgivalla êrahoidmine.
Both the outputs and the impacts contribute to achieving each objective of the Daphne programme, so con«rmingits e.ectiveness.Thee/ciencyof theprogrammeis evidencedby theimpressiveoutputsandim-pacts, compared with the modest resources allocated.
Nii Daphne vêljundid kui mýjud aitavad kaasa programmi eesmêrkide saavutamisele, nýnda selle týhusust kinnitades. Výr-reldes programmile eraldatud tagasihoidlike ressurssidega on selle vêljundid ja mýjud muljetaval-davad ning týestavad programmi kasutegurit.
Their sustainability once the projects have ended is rather weak, because of insu/cientlyplannedandtargeteddisseminationanddi/cultieswith post-project funding.'
Projektide lýppemisel on nende jêtkusuutlikkus aga Ÿpris nýrk ebapiisavalt planeeritud ja suunatud teabelevi ning projektijêrgse rahastamise prob-leemsuse týttu.ƒ
The «ndingscanbesummarisedasfollows:
Tulemusi výib kokku výtta jêrgnevalt:
" young people and women
Laste, noorte ja naistevastane vêgivald
Daphne Initiative and Programme
Daphne algatus ja programm
E/ciency: excellent value for money
Kasutegur: vêga kasulik raha paigutamine
E.ectiveness: good for both outputs and impacts
Týhusus: kasulik nii vêljendeid kui mýjusid silmas pidades
Sustainability: weak
Jêtkusuutlikkus: nýrk
The relevance of the Daphne programme is evaluated by the extent to which the objectives are and remain appropriate to the context, i.e. to the social needs the programme is meant to satisfy.
Daphne programmi asjakohasust hinnatakse selle kaudu, kui hêsti programmi eesmêrgid praegu ja tulevikus sobivad sotsiaalsete vajadustega, mida programm rahuldama peaks.
Relevance of the Daphne objectives to the social needs
Daphne eesmêrkide vastavus sotsiaalsete vajadustega
Instead, the programme aims to support organisations whose actions contribute to protecting against violence, preventing it and assisting victims.
Daphne ei ole otseselt suu-natud vêgivallaohvrite arvu vêhendamisele, vaid p Ÿ Ÿ a b toetada organisatsioone, mille tege-vus aitab kaasa vêgivalla ennetamisele, kaitsele selle eest ja ohvrite abistamisele.
This explains the key role played by NGOs in Daphne since its origin.
See selgitab, miks Daphne programm on algusest peale asetanud pýhirýhu MTâdele.
The Daphne objectives were d e « n e d i n g e n e r a l t e r m s s o t h a t t h e y w o u l d b e v a l i d f o r m a n y d i . e r e n t tffy p e s o f v i o l e n c e .
Daphne eesmêrgid on mêêratletud Ÿldiselt, et nad kehtiks eri vêgivallavormide suhtes.
T h e r e a r e s i x D a p h n e o b j e c t i v e s :
Daph-ne kuus peaeesmêrki:
‡ support to multidisciplinary networks;‡ exchange of good practice;
‡ elualade výrgustike toetus;‡ heade tavade vahetus;
‡ studies, research and data collection;‡ information campaigns;‡ information sources;‡ recognition and reporting of violence.
‡ uuringud, teadustûû ja andmete kogumine;‡ teabekampaaniad;‡ teabeallikad;‡ vêgivalla avastamine ning sellest teatamine.
By being independent from the areas of violence covered, these objectives are not in‹uencedby priorities set annually on aspects of violence.
Neid eesmêrke ei mýjuta iga-aastaselt vêgivalla aspektidele seatud prioriteedid, kuna need on vêgivalla valdkondadest sýltumatud.
In addition, these objectives are instruments rather than objectives, stricto sensu.
Lisaks sellele on need eesmêrgid pigem vahendid kui eesmêrgid nende kitsas têhenduses.
In fact, they contribute to the more general meta-objec-tives that implicitly underpin the programme, i.e. European response to violence through networking and exchange of best practice, prevention and protection of victims, increased awareness (see Graph 2 below).
Tegelikult tûûtavad nad Ÿldisemate metaeesmêrkide ni-mel, mis toestavad programmi kaudselt, sh Euroopa vastus vêgivallale výrgustiku arenda-mise ja parimate tavade vahetamise, ohvrite êrahoidmise ja kaitse ning suurendatud teadlik-kuse kaudu (vt joonist 2 allpool).
Continuing relevance
Jêtkuv asjakohasus
The fact that these objectives remained relevant over the years is evident to a majority of stakeholders interviewed.
Enamikule k Ÿ s i t l e t u d koostûûpartneritest on selge fakt, et programmi eesmêrgid on aastate jooksul asjakohasena p Ÿ s i n u d .
For some of them, the programme represented an improvement on the initiative in this respect, as the objectives partly moved from awareness-raising through informing, to changing behaviours, which is the most crucial impact.
Mýne koostûûpartneri jaoks on Daphne programm selles mýt-tes Daphne algatuse edasiarendus, et eesmêrgid on osaliselt nihkunud teadlikkuse týstmisest ning teavitamisest olulisimani: inimeste kêitumise muutmiseni.
In fact, raising awareness does not `naturally' provoke changes in behaviour; those changes require time, resources, organisational variation, etc.
Tegelikkuses výib ûelda, et teadlikkuse týus ei pýhjusta automaatselt muutusi kêitumismallis; need nýuavad aega, res-sursse, organisatsioonilisi muudatusi jne.
Some stakeholders also envisage that, in the medium term, prevention should increase in importance relative to the protection of victims.
Mýned koostûûpartnerid arvavad ka, et ennetustûûd peaks tegema ohvrite abistamisega výrreldes oluliselt rohkem.
Several stakeholders point to the critical im-portance of the treatment of o.endersasameansofpreventingfurtherviolence.
Mitmed koostûûpartnerid on viidanud r Ÿ n d a j a t e ravi kriitilisele têhtsusele, kuna see výiks êra hoida edasist vêgivalda.