natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The momentum and direction of reform has come from elsewhere and has not, in any sense, borne the marks of EU influence. 
Vrijeme i pravac još jedne ključne reforme bili su također pod utjecajem drugih agencija i ponovno bez ikakvog pozivanja na EU i bez njenog utjecaja.
The social welfare reform project, led by the then Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, began in April 2002, with the first phase, lasting a year, financed by the World Bank, the UK's Department for International Development (DFID) and the Government of Japan. 
Projekt reforme sustava socijalne skrbi, započet u travnju 2002. godine, čija je prva faza trajala godinu dana, financirale su Svjetska banka, Odjel za međunarodni razvoj Vlade Velike Britanije (DFID) te Vlada Japana.
In addition to work on the reform of social services, social assistance, and labour market policies, one part of the project was devoted to the problem of monitoring poverty and, in particular, strengthening the institutional capacities for measuring poverty. 
Uz reformu socijalnih službi, socijalne pomoći i tržišta rada, jedan je dio projekta bio posvećen problemu praćenja siromaštva te, posebice, jačanju institucionalnih kapaciteta za njegovo mjerenje.
Social dialogue 
Socijalni dijalog
Prospects for social dialogue were also partly improved after the election of the new Government in January 2000 although, again, without significant EU influence or involvement. 
I mogućnosti socijalnog dijaloga dijelom su poboljšane nakon izbora nove Vlade u siječnju 2000. godine premda, također, bez znatnije uključenosti EU.
In 1999 the biggest trade union federation, the SSSH (Savez samostalnih sindikata Hrvatske) signed an Agreement for a Legal Croatia with the then six opposition parties (Cimeša and Marinković Drača, 2002; Cvitković, 2003). 
Godine 1999. najveća je sindikalna središnjica SSSH potpisala Ugovor za pravednu Hrvatsku s tada šest oporbenih stranaka (Cimeša i Marinkovič Drača, 2002; Cvitković, 2003).
This contributed to the victory of the six in the elections in 2000, and led to high expectations of a change in the relationship between the Government and the trade unions. 
To je pridonijelo njihovoj političkoj pobjedi na parlamentarnim izborima 2000. godine, ali i očekivanju promjena u odnosima između Vlade i sindikata.
Subsequently, the institutional framework for social dialogue was improved through three events: the adoption of the Agreement about the Economic-Social Council and other forms of social partnerships; the adoption of the agreement “Partnership for Development”, signed by the Government, the employers federation (HUP) and four trade unions; and the establishment of the Office for Social Partnership in Croatia. 
Postupno je institucionalni okvir socijalnog dijaloga poboljšan trima činjenicama: usvajanjem Ugovora o gospodarsko socijalnom vijeću i drugim oblicima socijalnog partnerstva, usvajanjem dogovora Partnerstvo za razvoj, potpisanoga između Vlade, HUP-a i četiri sindikalne središnjice te osnivanjem Ureda za socijalno partnerstvo u Hrvatskoj.
The latter, in particular, received substantial support, both financial and technical, from USAID. 
Ured je osnovan uz znatnu financijsku i tehničku pomoć USAID-a.
Changing the institutional framework does not in itself guarantee changed practices, of course. 
Promjena institucionalnog okvira nije, naravno, sama po sebi jamčila promjenu prakse.
The trade unions quickly abandoned their pre-election Agreement and became vocal opponents of aspects of Government policy. 
Sindikati su ubrzo raskinuli svoj predizborni sporazum i postali javni kritičari nekih (ponajviše socijalnih) sastavnica Vladine politike.
In addition, at the micro-level, different analyses have shown that at the level of industrial sectors or of individual companies, partnership between employers and trade unions is almost nonexistent (Zrinščak, 2005). 
Usto, mnoge analize pokazuju da na razini industrije i pojedinih poduzeća partnerstvo između poslodavaca i sindikata gotovo i ne postoji (Zrinščak, 2004).
In this sense, the recent EU conclusion, in the avis, that social dialogue is “quite developed“ in Croatia does not appear to be justified. 
U tom smislu nedavni zaključak EU, objavljen u Mišljenju o zahtjevu RH za članstvo u EU, u kojemu se navodi da je socijalni dijalog u Hrvatskoj “vrlo razvijen”, nije opravdan.
In this respect the Croatian situation is very similar to that found in other post-communist countries: “The annual reports on the achievements of the acquis concentrated on the existence of the legal grounds of social dialogue. 
Hrvatska je situacija zapravo slična onoj u drugim postkomunističkim zemljama: “Godišnja izvješća o postignućima u primjeni acquisa koncentrirana su na pravnu osnovu socijalnog dijaloga.
They rarely produced a critical assessment on the implementation of the legislation. 
Ona rijetko daju kritičku procjenu primjene zakonodavstva.
Lacking the obligatory nature of rules governing this field, the efforts of EU agents proved insufficient to overcome the impediments to establishing effective social dialogue” (Ferge and Juhasz, 2004:238). 
Bez obveznog karaktera pravila koja postoje u ovom području, EU se pokazuje nemoćnom u prevladavanju zapreka za uspostavom učinkovitoga socijalnog dijaloga” (Ferge i Juhasz, 2004:238).
Unlike Hungary, however, where there was a degree of EU financial support for social dialogue, the strong role of USAID in Croatia has, at least implicitly, tended to push policy transfer in the sphere of social dialogue based on the somewhat different US experience. 
Suprotno Mađarskoj, međutim, u kojoj je EU financijski potpomagao razvoj socijalnog dijaloga, velika je uloga USAID-a u Hrvatskoj, barem implicitno, to što je nastojao utjecati na transfer političkog iskustva u području socijalnog dijaloga iz ponešto drukčije, američke prakse.
Social policy and the CARDS programme 
Socijalna politika i CARDS program
To support the SAP, the EU makes available considerable project-based funding. 
Kako bi pomogao proces pridruživanja, EU je odobrio financijska sredstva za mnoge projekte.
In March 1995, a decision was made to include Croatia in the PHARE programme of assistance. 
U ožujku 1995. godine donesena je odluka da se Hrvatska uključi u PHARE program pomoći.
However, before this began in earnest, the decision was revoked following Croatian military actions in August 1995. 
Međutim, prije nego je odluka stupila na snagu, a nakon akcije Oluja u kolovozu 1995. godine, EU je odustao od nje.
EU financial support for Croatia was then limited, with Croatia receiving only a total of 33 million euros in 1999 and 2000, mainly for projects promoting refugee return. 
Financijska potpora Hrvatskoj nakon toga je bila ograničena te je Hrvatska u 1999. i 2000. godini dobila samo 33 mil. eura, ponajviše za povratak izbjeglica.
Under a European Council decision of 5 December 2000, a new programme of financial support to the countries of the Western Balkans as well as a regional programme was introduced. 
Odlukom Europskog vijeća od 5. prosinca 2000. godine uveden je novi program financijske pomoći za zemlje zapadnog Balkana.
The CARDS Programme was envisaged as running from 2000-2006, within an overall financial envelope of 4.65 billion euros. 
Osmišljen je CARDS program za razdoblje 2000-2006, s ukupnim iznosom od 4,65 mlrd. eura.
Under the programme, Croatia received 60 million euros of assistance in 2001, 59 million euros in 2002 and 62 million euros in 2003, some 9.4% of total allocations™. 
Hrvatska je od toga dobila 60 mil. eura 2001. godine, 59 mil. eura 2002. i 62 mil. eura 2003. godine, oko 9,4% ukupno predviđenih sredstava.
In the light of the positive avis, Croatia's 2004 allocation has been revised to 76 million euros, covering five priority areas: Democratic Stabilisation (17.5 million euros); Economic and Social Development (17.75 million euros); Justice and Home Affairs (21.85 million euros); Administrative Capacity Building (15.1 million euros); and Environment and Natural Resources (3.8 million euros) (Delegation of the European Commission to the Republic of Croatia, 2004). 
™ U svjetlu pozitivnog mišljenja o hrvatskoj kandidaturi za EU, za 2004. godinu predviđena su sredstva povećana na 76 mil. eura, a pokrivaju pet prioritetnih područja: demokratsku stabilizaciju (17,5 mil. eura), ekonomski i socijalni razvoj (17,75 mil. eura), pravosuđe i unutarnje poslove (21,85 mil. eura), razvoj administrativnih kapaciteta (15,1 mil. eura) te okoliš i prirodne izvore (3,8 mil. eura) (Delegation of the European Commission to the Republic of Croatia, 2004).
Within the CARDS programme as a whole, very limited attention has been paid to issues of social inclusion or social dialogue, for any of the countries individually or in terms of the regional programme (Stubbs, 2004). 
Unutar CARDS programa vrlo je malo pozornosti pridano pitanjima socijalne uključenosti i socijalnog dijaloga, bilo u pogledu pojedinih zemalja uključenih u program, bilo u smislu regionalnog programa (Stubbs, 2004).
Whilst it could be argued that, implicitly at least, social dimensions are important within the CARDS programme support for the revitalisation of Croatia's war-affected areas, it is significant that social policy concerns are singularly absent from 2004's social development priorities (which focus on adult learning, training for the unemployed, and university co-operation) and from administrative capacity building (focusing on public finances, regional development, and telecommunications). 
Premda se može tvrditi da je socijalna komponenta, barem implicitno, važna u CARDS-ovu programu potpore revitalizaciji ratom devastiranih područja, važno je istaknuti da je socijalna politika izostala iz društvenorazvojnih prioriteta za 2004. godinu (koji su usredotočeni na obrazovanje odraslih, osposobljavanje nezaposlenih i sveučilišnu suradnju) te iz programa jačanja administrativnih kapaciteta (s naglaskom na javne financije, regionalni razvoj i telekomunikacije).
Currently, the only CARDS-funded initiative with an explicit social policy focus in Croatia is the ongoing support for capacity building and grants to NGOs involved in the social sector, through the newly established Foundation for Civil Society Development. 
Trenutačno, jedina inicijativa unutar CARDS-ova financiranja s eksplicitnim naglaskom na socijalnu politiku jest potpora nevladinim organizacijama u socijalnom sektoru, i to putem novosnovane Zaklade za razvoj civilnog društva.
The project is likely to have some impact in terms of promoting a “welfare mix”, but it is of relatively small size, and still mainly focused on war-affected areas. 
Projekt vjerojatno može imati određen utjecaj na promociju kombinirane socijalne politike, ali je malog opsega i značenja te je većinom orijentiran na ratom zahvaćena područja.
In addition, it makes too few connections with any broader process of building strategies or promoting social dialogue in the field of social inclusion. 
Usto, on u načelu nije povezan ni sa kojim širim procesom razvoja strategije ili promocijom socijalnog dijaloga na području socijalne uključenosti.
Currently, in the context of the regional programme, the European Commission has a consultancy which is designed to increase the responsiveness of the CARDS programme to social policy concerns, particularly in relation to administrative capacities. 
U kontekstu regionalnog programa Europska komisija trenutačno provodi konzultacije kako bi CARDS učinila osjetljivijim za različita socijalna pitanja, posebice s obzirom na administrativne kapacitete.
However, in view of the time lags and inevitable delays involved in EU programming, this seems unlikely to be a catalyst for greater alignment of Croatia with EU work on social inclusion in the foreseeable future. 
Međutim, zbog vremenskog pomaka i kašnjenja u EU programima teško je očekivati da će to imati ikakav utjecaj na Hrvatsku u smislu pojačanog rada na europskom procesu socijalne uključenosti u neposrednoj budućnosti.
It is interesting to compare the CARDS programme with PHARE which was also seen as having a limited social policy dimension (de la Porte and Deacon, 2002:29). 
Vrlo je zanimljivo usporediti CARDS s PHARE programom, koji je također imao ograničenu socijalnopolitičku dimenziju (de la Porte i Deacon, 2002:29).
Two of the three factors which are said to account for this, that TORs were written by experts with little understanding of “the political context and priorities of the recipient countries”, and “poor project design and selection of inappropriate experts for implementing the projects” (ibid:28), still remain the case, relating to wider concerns with the EU's sub-contracting regime. 
Dva od tri razloga koja su spomenuta kao moguće objašnjenje, a povezana su sa sustavom podugovaranja s EU, i dalje su na snazi; ugovore su pisali stručnjaci sa slabim razumijevanjem “političkog konteksta i prioriteta zemalja primatelja pomoći” te je na djelu bio “slab dizajn projekata te odabir neprimjerenih stručnjaka za primjenu/izvedbu projekta” (str.
However, whilst this has occurred in areas such as regional development and civil society strengthening in Croatia, it is far from the case regarding social policy, social inclusion, and social dialogue. 
Međutim, ako je to vidljivo na području regionalnog razvoja ili jačanja civilnog društva u Hrvatskoj, isto se ne može reći za socijalnu politiku, socijalnu uključenost i socijalni dijalog.
In addition, the failings of the PHARE programme in regard to social policy were explicitly recognised in rationale for the launch, in 1995, of the CONSENSUS programme which, for all its faults, many of which also related to sub-contracting and choice of experts, did serve to advance the external dimension of EU social policy and facilitate a dialogue between member states' and accession countries' welfare ministries and officials of the Directorate General for Employment and Social Affairs (ibid:31). 
Valja dodati i to da je nesposobnost PHARE programa da obuhvati pitanja socijalne politike eksplicitno priznata pokretanjem CONSENSUS programa 1995. godine, koji je, usprkos svojim slabostima, uglavnom pripisanima podugovaranju i izboru stručnjaka, poslužio promociji vanjske dimenzije socijalne politike EU te olakšavanju dijaloga između ministara za socijalna pitanja zemalja članica i pridruženih zemalja s Odjelom Europske komisije za zapošljavanje i socijalna pitanja (de la Porte i Deacon, 2002:31).
The goals of CONSENSUS were to assess the state of accession country social policy, to promote a dialogue concerning social protection and social policy, as well as signalling priority areas for further work in the future. 
Cilj CONSENSUSA bio je procijeniti stanje u socijalnoj politici zemalja kandidatkinja, promovirati dijalog vezan za socijalnu zaštitu i socijalnu politiku, kao i naznačiti prioritetna područja budućih aktivnosti.
It thus represents a precursor to the OMC. 
On je time bio prethodnica OMC-a.
The demise of CONSENSUS in 1999 can itself be seen as “indicative of a lack of consistent external policy thinking on the part of the Commission” (ibid:42), and leaves the CARDS programme without any similar counterweight in terms of social issues. 
Gašenje CONSENSUSA 1999. godine može se shvatiti kao “indikativno nepostojanje konzistentne vanjske politike u dijelu Komisije” (de la Porte i Deacon, 2002:42), što je ostavilo CARDS bez ikakva sličnog potpornog programa na području socijalne politike.
The avis and the European partnership agreement 
Avis i Sporazum o europskom partnerstvu
The opinion or avis regarding Croatia's application for EU membership, issued by the Commission in April 2004, states that social dialogue is “quite developed” in Croatia although it also suggests that “efforts towards the creation of an autonomous bi-partisan dialogue, especially at branch level, should be strengthened” (Commission of the European Communities, 2004a:86). 
U Mišljenju o zahtjevu RH za članstvom u EU ili tzv. avis, koji je Europska komisija objelodanila u travnju 2004. godine, tvrdi se da je socijalni dijalog u Hrvatskoj “vrlo razvijen”, premda se sugerira da “napori prema stvaranju autonomnoga bipartitnog dijaloga, posebice unutar industrijskih grana, trebaju biti ojačani” (Commission of the European Communities, 2004a:86).
In contrast to Romania and Bulgaria, there is an absence of discussion of social issues within broader political criteria. 
Suprotno Mišljenju o Bugarskoj i Rumunjskoj, nema rasprave o socijalnim pitanjima unutar široko definiranih političkih kriterija.
Overall, the avis suggests that “considerable and sustained efforts” will be needed to align legislation with the social acquis and effectively to implement the provisions in the medium term. 
Sve u svemu, Mišljenje sugerira da je potreban “značajan i dugoročan” napor kako bi se zakonodavstvo usuglasilo sa socijalnim acquisom te učinkovito primijenilo u srednjoročnom razdoblju.
In addition, Croatia needs to prepare itself for communication processes at the EU level on employment, social inclusion and pensions. 
Osim toga, Hrvatska se mora pripremiti za komunikacijski proces na razini EU u području zapošljavanja, socijalne uključenosti i mirovina.
In the light of this, it is perhaps surprising that the EU Partnership Agreement with Croatia, issued at the same time as the avis, is virtually silent on social policy issues. 
U svjetlu svega toga možda je čudno da Sporazum o europskom partnerstvu s Hrvatskom, objavljen u isto vrijeme kad i Mišljenje, gotovo i ne spominje socijalnu politiku.
The document sets out the priority areas for Croatia's preparation for further integration with the EU based on the avis, in terms of short-term (1 to 2 years) and medium-term (3 to 4 year) priorities. 
Dokument govori o prioritetima u hrvatskoj pripremi za buduću integraciju u EU, zasnovanima na Mišljenju, te ih dijeli na kratkoročne (1-2 godine) i srednjoročne (3-4 godine).
There are no social issues listed in the short-term priorities. 
Socijalna pitanja nisu uključena u kratkoročne prioritete.
In the medium-term, there is a concern with alignment of social and economic policies with EU law, and the importance of administrative regulations for the co-ordination of social security. 
U srednjoročnima se izražava potreba usklađivanja s ekonomskom i socijalnom politikom unutar zakonodavstva EU, kao i važnost administrativne regulacije na području koordinacije socijalne sigurnosti.
In addition, the document calls on Croatia “further to develop the capacity of the social partners, notably in bipartite social dialogue, to develop and implement the acquis” (Commission of the European Communities, 2004b: 13). 
Osim toga, dokument poziva Hrvatsku “da dalje razvija kapacitete socijalnih partnera, posebice u bipartitnom socijalnom dijalogu, te da usvoji i primjenjuje acquis” (Commission of the European Communities, 2004b:13).
There is no mention in the document of issues of social inclusion or of the importance of aligning Croatian statistics and procedures with those of the EU, regarding poverty and social exclusion or social protection as a whole. 
U dokumentu se ne spominju pitanja socijalne uključenosti ili važnost usklađivanja hrvatske statistike i procedura s onima u EU, a u području siromaštva, socijalne isključenosti ili socijalne zaštite u cjelini.
The European Social Model has been intensively developed amongst member states in the 1990s and has been further developed in the new millennium. 
Europski se socijalni model intenzivno razvija među zemljama članicama u 1990-ima te dalje početkom novog milenija.
A more active role for the EU in social policy and social protection, based on the OMC, is now at the heart of Social Europe. 
Aktivnija uloga EU u socijalnoj politici i socijalnoj zaštiti, zasnovana na OMC-u, danas je u središtu socijalne Europe.
With the exception of Bulgaria and Romania, this has not, thus far, been an important element of the pre-accession process for aspiring new member states. 
Osim za Bugarsku i Rumunjsku, to nije, međutim, do sada, činilo važan element pretpristupnog procesa za buduće članice.
It was only in the latter stages of the accession process, with completion of the Joint Inclusion Memoranda, that the eight post-communist countries who joined the EU in May 2004, first encountered these processes in earnest. 
Osam postkomunističkih zemalja, koje su u svibnju 2004. godine pristupile EU, tek su se u završnoj fazi procesa pridruživanja, u sklopu donošenja zajedničkog memoranduma o socijalnoj uključenosti, u potpunosti susrele s tim procesom.
However, because of the latest development of the European Social Model, it may well be that Croatia will encounter more demands during the pre-accession phase. 
Međutim, zbog recentnog razvoja europskoga socijalnog modela može se očekivati da će se Hrvatska susresti s većim zahtjevima u procesu pridruživanja.
As it stands at the moment, social protection and social dialogue are not priority areas in the EU's relation with Croatia. 
Kao što se sada čini, socijalna zaštita i socijalni dijalog nisu prioritetno područje odnosa EU i Hrvatske.
This is in part, perhaps, because other issues, many of which include a social component, of course, such as the questions of regional and local development in the context of geographical inequalities, the development of the waraffected areas, refugee return, minority rights, and the workings of the legal system, are seen as far more pressing problems. 
To se možda može objasniti i činjenicom što se druga pitanja sada čine mnogo važnijima, a i ona dijelom obuhvaćaju socijalnu komponentu: regionalni i lokalni razvoj u kontekstu geografskih nejednakosti, razvoj ratom zahvaćenih područja, povratak prognanika, manjinska prava te funkcioniranje pravnog sustava.
It is also, perhaps, because, in terms of the scale of social problems, Croatia appears to resemble the eight countries of Central Europe rather more than it does Bulgaria and Romania. 
Razlog je možda i u tome što po prirodi svojih socijalnih problema Hrvatska više sliči zemljama koje su 2004. ušle u EU nego Bugarskoj i Rumunjskoj.
Still, the avis regarding Croatia's application for EU membership asks, as we noted, for considerable and sustained efforts to align Croatian legislation with the social acquis and, moreover, to effectively implement it. 
Ipak, Mišljenje o hrvatskoj kandidaturi za EU zahtijeva, kao što smo naglasili, značajan i dugoročan napor u usklađivanju hrvatskog zakonodavstva sa socijalnim acquisom te, štoviše, njegovu učinkovitu primjenu.
This chapter has, therefore, demonstrated that there is no cause for complacency in Croatia. 
Ovo poglavlje, stoga, pokazuje da nema razloga za zadovoljstvo u Hrvatskoj.
Above all, in the context of the EU's concern not only with alignment of legislation but, also, of implementation and the development of excellence, Croatia's lack of strategic direction in the social sphere, the lack of leadership, as well as a lack of broader consultation and public awareness, are major deficits in the path towards European integration. 
Uz sve ostalo, u kontekstu europskoga zanimanja ne samo za usklađivanje sa zakonodavstvom EU, nego i za njegovu primjenu te razvoj izvrsnosti, nedostatak hrvatske strategije u socijalnom području, izostanak vodstva, kao i nepostojanje širokoga konzultativnog procesa i javne svijesti o nizu socijalnih pitanja, glavni su nedostaci na putu europske integracije.
In addition, the lack of a statistical base for work on social inclusion suggests a high degree of unpreparedness for what will, by 2007, be a strengthened and more holistic EU approach to social policy within its member states. 
Osim toga, nepostojanje statističke osnove za rad na području socijalne uključenosti sugerira veliku dozu nepripremljenosti za ono što će u 2007. godini predstavljati ojačani i holistički pristup EU u socijalnoj politici među članicama.
In the context of possible revisions to the CARDS programme, the EU needs to take a much more proactive role in debates and in programmes regarding social policy and social dialogue in Croatia. 
U kontekstu moguće revizije CARDS programa EU treba preuzeti proaktivnu ulogu u raspravama i programima u socijalnoj politici i socijalnom dijalogu u Hrvatskoj.