natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Member States are thus mainly responsible for the implementation of cross compliance: first, they should “translate” SMRs and GAEC standards into operational requirements and standards which farmers have to respect and, second, they have to establish a control system under which a sample of farmers are checked with a view to detecting non-compliance. 
Tako so za izvajanje navzkrižne skladnosti odgovorne predvsem države članice: najprej bi morale predpisane zahteve ravnanja in standarde za dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje „preoblikovati“ v operativne zahteve in standarde, ki jih morajo upoštevati kmetje, nato pa vzpostaviti sistem kontrole, v okviru katerega se pregleda vzorec kmetov, da se odkrije neskladnost.
The Commission is responsible for ensuring that Member States carry out these responsibilities according to the legal provisions and for reviewing the application of cross compliance. 10 
Komisija mora zagotoviti, da države članice te dolžnosti izvajajo v skladu z zakonskimi določbami, ter preverjati izvajanje navzkrižne skladnosti. 10
11 AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH THE AUDIT OBJECTIVE WAS TO ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CROSS COMPLIANCE 9. 
11 OBSEG REVIZIJE IN REVIZIJSKI PRISTOP CILJ REVIZIJE JE BIL OCENITI USPEŠNOST NAVZKRIŽNE SKLADNOSTI 9.
The Court’s audit was to determine whether cross compliance is effective by analysing its setting up and the first years of its implementation by the Commission and the Member States. 
Cilj revizije Sodišča je bil ugotoviti, ali je navzkrižna skladnost uspešna, zato je v ta namen analiziralo njeno vzpostavitev ter kako so jo Komisija in države članice prva leta izvajale.
More specifically, the audit aimed at answering the following questions: – Are the objectives and the scope of cross compliance well defined, and can results be expected at farm level? – Can the legal framework defining cross compliance be effectively implemented? – Are cross compliance and rural development policy adapted to one another? – Are the control and sanction systems effective? – Is reporting and monitoring adequate? 
Ožji namen revizije je bil odgovoriti na naslednja vprašanja: – Ali so cilji in obseg navzkrižne skladnosti dobro opredeljeni ter ali je mogoče pričakovati rezultate na ravni kmetij? – Ali je mogoče uspešno izvajati pravni okvir, s katerim je opredeljena navzkrižna skladnost? – Ali sta politiki navzkrižne skladnosti in razvoja podeželja usklajeni? – Ali sta sistema kontrole in sankcij uspešna? – Ali sta poročanje in spremljanje ustrezna?
The audit work was carried out at Commission headquarters and in a sample of seven Member States: Finland, France, Greece, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, and Slovenia. 
Revizijsko delo je bilo izvedeno na sedežu Komisije in na vzorcu sedmih držav članic: Finske, Francije, Grčije, Nizozemske, Poljske, Portugalske in Slovenije.
On-the-spot visits took place between September and November 2007. 
Obiski na kraju samem so bili izvedeni med septembrom in novembrom leta 2007.
Audit evidence was collected and examined by means of interviews and analysis of documents and data. 
Revizijski dokazi so bili zbrani in preverjeni z razgovori ter analizo dokumentov in podatkov.
In each Member State a number of farms were visited in order to review, with the farmers and the inspectors charged with carrying out the on-the-spot checks, the implementation of cross compliance at farm level. 
V vsaki od teh držav članic so bile obiskane številne kmetije, da bi se skupaj s kmeti in inšpektorji, zadolženimi za izvedbo pregledov na kraju samem, pregledalo izvajanje navzkrižne skladnosti na ravni kmetij.
The global objectives are stated in the Council Regulation. 
Splošni cilji so navedeni v Uredbi Sveta.
They are not formulated in the operative paragraphs of the Regulation but in the “whereas” paragraphs, and are expressed as follows: (a) “The full payment of direct aid should be linked to compliance with rules relating to agricultural land, agricultural production and activity. 
Niso oblikovani v operativnih odstavkih Uredbe, ampak v uvodnih izjavah, izraženi pa so takole: (a) „Celotno plačilo neposredne pomoči mora biti pogojeno z izpolnitvijo pravil v zvezi s kmetijskim zemljiščem, kmetijsko proizvodnjo in dejavnostjo.
Those rules should serve to incorporate in the common market organisations basic standards for the environment, food safety, animal health and welfare and good agricultural and environmental condition” (paragraph 2); (b) “In order to avoid the abandonment of agricultural land and ensure that it is maintained in good agricultural and environmental condition, standards should be established which may or may not have a basis in provisions of the Member States” (paragraph 3); (c) “Since permanent pasture has a positive environmental effect, it is appropriate to adopt measures to encourage the maintenance of existing permanent pasture to avoid a massive conversion into arable land” (paragraph 4). 
Namen teh pravil je vključiti v skupne ureditve trgov osnovne standarde za okolje, varno hrano, zdravje in dobro počutje živali ter dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje“ (uvodna izjava 2); (b) „Da bi se izognili opuščanju kmetijskih zemljišč in da bi zagotovili, da se ta obdelujejo v skladu z dobrimi kmetijskimi in okoljskimi pogoji, je treba uvesti standarde, katerih podlaga so lahko ali pa ne predpisi držav članic“ (uvodna izjava 3); (c) „Ker imajo trajni travniki ugoden učinek na okolje, je primerno sprejeti ukrepe za spodbuditev ohranjevanja obstoječih trajnih travnikov, da ne bi prišlo do množičnega spreminjanja njihove namembnosti v orna zemljišča“ (uvodna izjava 4).
As can be seen from the above quotation, the objectives set out by the Council are fairly general, as befits the wording of high-level legislation. 
Kot je razvidno iz zgornjih navedb, je Svet določil precej splošne cilje, kar se pričakuje od besedila zakonodaje na visoki ravni.
However, they were not further developed and detailed in the operative paragraphs of the Council Regulation or in its annexes. 
Vendar ti cilji niso bili nadalje razviti in podrobno določeni v operativnih odstavkih Uredbe Sveta ali v njenih prilogah.
Annex III lists SMRs which, in effect, consist in a series of articles pertaining to pre-existing Regulations and Directives that were not established in the context of cross compliance. 
V Prilogi III so navedene predpisane zahteve ravnanja, ki jih dejansko predstavlja vrsta členov iz že obstoječih uredb in direktiv, ki niso bile pripravljene v okviru navzkrižne skladnosti.
Similarly, Annex IV articulates very general “issues” and “standards” that are intended to define good agricultural and environmental condition but are also not directly applicable at farm level. 
Podobno so v Prilogi IV zelo na splošno navedeni „zadeve“ in „standardi“ za opredelitev dobrih kmetijskih in okoljskih pogojev, vendar se tudi te zadeve in standardi ne uporabljajo neposredno na ravni kmetij.
With few exceptions (for instance the requirements deriving from the Regulation on food and feed law, see Table 1) these legal provisions were not clarified nor more precisely defined by the Commission or the Member States. 
Komisija ali države članice razen nekaterih izjem (na primer zahtev, ki izhajajo iz uredbe o zakonodaji o krmi in živilih, glej tabelo 1) teh zakonskih določb niso ne pojasnile ne natančneje določile.
The end result of this legal framework is that the objectives to be achieved by cross compliance are nowhere defined in a “SMART” manner. 
Končni izid tega pravnega okvira je, da cilji, ki naj bi jih navzkrižna skladnost dosegla, niso nikjer opredeljeni v obliki „SMART“.
The principles of sound financial management (to which Article 27(3) of the Financial Regulation of the Council specifically refers) require, in particular, that policy objectives be formulated in a specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timed manner (in one word, they should be “SMART”) and that they be arranged into a hierarchy going down from the global to the intermediate, to the specific and the operational. 
Načela dobrega finančnega poslovodenja (na to se izrecno sklicuje člen 27(3) Finančne uredbe Sveta) zahtevajo zlasti, da so cilji politike specifični, merljivi, dosegljivi, ustrezni in časovno opredeljeni (oziroma z eno besedo „SMART“) ter da se hierarhično razvrstijo od splošnih, vmesnih, specifičnih do operativnih.
Another principle which is not fulfilled is that performance indicators and baseline levels be established. 
Še eno neizpolnjeno načelo je določitev kazalnikov uspešnosti in izhodiščnih ravni.
Due to the absence of “SMART” objectives, performance indicators and baseline levels, achievement of objectives cannot be precisely monitored (see also paragraphs 81 to 84). 
Doseganja ciljev ni mogoče natančno spremljati, ker ni ciljev „SMART“, kazalnikov uspešnosti in izhodiščnih ravni (glej tudi odstavke 81 do 84).
As an illustration of the situation outlined above, one may consider the objective of avoiding the abandonment of agricultural land. 
V ponazoritev zgoraj opisanega stanja bi lahko navedli primer cilja izogibanja opuščanju kmetijskih zemljišč.
The Commission did not provide a precise definition of land abandonment and did not explain which problems (environmental and/or social) needed to be addressed nor how cross compliance could contribute to this objective amongst the different available policy instruments. 
Komisija ni zagotovila točne definicije opuščanja zemljišč in ni pojasnila, katere težave (okoljske in/ali socialne) bi bilo treba odpraviti, niti, kako bi lahko navzkrižna skladnost med različnimi razpoložljivimi instrumenti politike prispevala k temu cilju.
The Commission did not gather data to monitor the different kinds of land abandonment such as land which is not used at all or semi-abandoned. 
Komisija ni zbirala podatkov za spremljanje različnih vrst opuščanja zemljišč, kot so zemljišča, ki se sploh ne uporabljajo ali ki so napol opuščena.
In the absence of more precise definitions and the collection of relevant data, it is not possible to measure whether the objective of avoiding abandonment of agricultural land is achieved. 
Ker ni natančnejših definicij in zbiranja ustreznih podatkov, ni mogoče izmeriti, ali je cilj izogibanja opuščanju kmetijskih zemljišč dosežen.
In this context, the audit disclosed that, while some relevant obligations were imposed at farm level, depending on the Member State and the policy area concerned, in a significant number of cases these obligations were purely formal and could not be expected to produce the relevant results. 
V okviru tega je revizija pokazala, da so se odvisno od države članice in zadevnega področja politike sicer določile nekatere ustrezne obveznosti na ravni kmetij, vendar so bile te obveznosti v številnih primerih zgolj formalne in od njih ni bilo mogoče pričakovati ustreznih rezultatov.
Box 1 below provides examples of both situations. 
V okviru 1 spodaj so navedeni primeri obeh stanj.
13 BOX 1 THE EFFECTS OF CROSS COMPLIANCE AT FARM LEVEL Regarding the objective of incorporating basic environmental standards in the common market organisations, the Council Regulation refers to five Directives (see Table 1), and requires Member States to define operational requirements which farmers have to respect. 
13 OKVIR 1 UČINKI NAVZKRIŽNE SKLADNOSTI NA RAVNI KMETIJ Uredba Sveta se glede cilja vključitve osnovnih okoljskih standardov v skupne ureditve trgov sklicuje na pet direktiv (glej tabelo 1) in zahteva, da države članice določijo operativne zahteve, ki jih morajo kmetje spoštovati.
At farm level, the audit found that: – In Slovenia, the only requirement checked for most farmers in respect of the two Directives aiming to protect birds and habitats is that they do not have criminal convictions for offences against certain legal provisions. 
Revizija je na ravni kmetij pokazala naslednje: – V Sloveniji se pri večini kmetov glede dveh direktiv za zaščito ptic in habitatov preverja samo zahteva, da kmetje niso bili kazensko obsojeni zaradi kršitve določenih zakonskih določb.
There are no requirements concerning farming practices which may be harmful for birds or habitats. – In France, for the Directive aiming to protect the soil when sewage sludge is spread, the only requirement checked is the existence of a contract with the sludge provider articulating some formal provisions. 
Glede načinov kmetovanja, ki bi lahko škodili pticam ali habitatom, ni nobenih zahtev. – V Franciji se za direktivo, katere cilj je zaščita tal ob nanosu blata iz čistilnih naprav, preveri le zahteva o obstoju pogodbe z dobaviteljem blata, v kateri so navedene nekatere formalne določbe.
The content of the sludge (e.g. the quantity of heavy metals) or the quality of the soil are not taken into consideration to define the requirement. – In the Netherlands, the inspection body responsible for checking cross compliance requirements deriving from the Directive aiming to protect groundwater against pollution, decided that a visit to the farm was not necessary on the grounds that “the farm was connected to a sewage system”. 
Vsebnost blata (npr. količina težkih kovin) ali kakovost tal se pri določanju zahteve ne upoštevata. – Na Nizozemskem je inšpekcijski organ, odgovoren za preverjanje zahtev navzkrižne skladnosti, ki izhajajo iz direktive za varstvo podzemne vode pred onesnaževanjem, sklenil, da obisk kmetije ni bil potreben, ker je bila „kmetija priključena na kanalizacijski sistem“.
Agricultural practices which may cause pollution were not checked. 
Kmetijske prakse, ki lahko povzročijo onesnaženje, niso bile pregledane.
THE SCOPE OF CROSS COMPLIANCE IS NOT WELL DEFINED 16. 
OBSEG NAVZKRIŽNE SKLADNOSTI NI DOBRO OPREDELJEN 16.
The determination of the scope of cross compliance by Council was not supported by relevant studies or other forms of documentary evidence from the Commission assessing action needed as well as potential difficulties. 
Svet se pri določitvi obsega navzkrižne skladnosti ni oprl na ustrezne študije ali druge oblike dokumentarnih dokazov Komisije, v katerih bi bili ocenjeni potrebni ukrepi in možne težave.
Thus the Commission could not provide to the auditors documented justification of the reasons why certain SMRs or GAEC standards had been included within cross compliance while others had not. 
Zato Komisija revizorjem ni mogla zagotoviti dokumentiranih utemeljitev razlogov, zakaj so bili nekateri predpisane zahteve ravnanja in standardi za dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje zajeti v navzkrižno skladnost, drugi pa ne.
For example, the initial proposals submitted by the Commission included a GAEC standard to “ensure balance of irrigation, drainage and water table replenishment”. 
V začetnih predlogih Komisije je bil na primer tudi standard za dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje za „zagotovitev ravnovesja med namakanjem, odvodnjevanjem in obnavljanjem podzemne vode“.
This standard was not retained, although it addressed one of the main environmental problems in most Member States. 
Ta standard ni bil ohranjen, čeprav se je nanašal na eno od glavnih okoljskih težav v večini držav članic.
Furthermore, certain key issues, such as air pollution, were not even included in the initial proposals. 
Poleg tega v začetnih predlogih sploh ni bilo nekaterih ključnih zadev, kot je onesnaževanje zraka.
Concerning the scope of GAEC, the Council Regulation stipulates that Member States shall ensure that all agricultural land, especially land which is no longer used for production purposes, is maintained in good agricultural and environmental condition. 
Uredba Sveta glede obsega dobrih kmetijskih in okoljskih pogojev določa, da države članice zagotovijo, da se vsa kmetijska zemljišča, zlasti zemljišča, ki se ne uporabljajo več za proizvodne namene, obdelujejo v skladu s pravili za dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje.
However, a significant proportion of agricultural land is not subject to GAEC rules. 
Vendar se pravila za dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje za precejšen del kmetijskih zemljišč ne uporabljajo.
Examples of such situations include small olive oil producers in Greece, horticulturists (who are in some areas amongst the heaviest polluters) in the Netherlands, and parcels in Austria held by Slovenian farmers residing in Slovenia and conversely. 
Med takšne primere sodijo majhni pridelovalci oljčnega olja v Grčiji, vrtnarji (ki na nekaterih območjih sodijo med največje onesnaževalce) na Nizozemskem in parcele v Avstriji, ki jih imajo v Sloveniji živeči slovenski kmetje in obratno.
In each of these cases, farmers did not receive direct payments and the agricultural land was not controlled in the framework of cross compliance. 
Kmetje v nobenem od teh primerov niso prejeli neposrednih plačil in kmetijska zemljišča niso bila kontrolirana v okviru navzkrižne skladnosti.
14 BOX 1 Regarding the objective of ensuring that agricultural land is maintained in good agricultural and environmental condition, the Council Regulation specifies the issues concerned (see Table 2) and requires the Member States to define operational standards which farmers have to respect. 
14 OKVIR 1 V Uredbi Sveta so glede cilja zagotavljati obdelovanje kmetijskega zemljišča v skladu z dobrimi kmetijskimi in okoljskimi pogoji, podrobno navedena zadevna področja (glej tabelo 2), države članice pa morajo v skladu z Uredbo določiti operativne standarde, ki jih morajo kmetje spoštovati.
The audit revealed that, although Poland and the Netherlands defined some national standards, these standards could not be considered as sufficient to maintain all agricultural land in GAEC because either their scope or their nature was too limited. 
Revizija je pokazala, da sta Poljska in Nizozemska sicer določili nekatere nacionalne standarde, vendar teh ni bilo mogoče šteti za zadostne za obdelovanje vseh kmetijskih zemljišč v skladu z dobrimi kmetijskimi in okoljskimi pogoji, ker so bili ali po obsegu ali po naravi preveč omejeni.
Regarding the objective of avoiding massive conversion of permanent pasture into arable land, the Commission adopted a number of measures in its Regulation. 
Komisija je za cilj preprečevanja množičnega spreminjanja namembnosti obstoječih trajnih travnikov v orna zemljišča v svoji Uredbi sprejela številne ukrepe.
However, the audit disclosed that, in Portugal for example, more than half of the permanent pasture area registered by Eurostat was not included under cross compliance (see also paragraph 36). 
Vendar je revizija pokazala, da na primer na Portugalskem več kot polovica obstoječih travniških površin, ki jih je zabeležil Eurostat, ni bila zajeta v navzkrižno skladnost (glej tudi odstavek 36).
For the area which is included (47 %), farmers do not have to meet any requirement related to this objective. 
Za zajeto površino (47 %) kmetom ni treba izpolnjevati nobenih zahtev v zvezi s tem ciljem.
The Council Regulation invokes the “positive environmental effect” of preserving permanent pasture, but neither the Commission nor the Portuguese authorities defined any indicators to measure such an effect. 
Uredba Sveta se sklicuje na „ugoden učinek na okolje“, ki ga ima ohranjevanje trajnih travnikov, vendar ne Komisija ne portugalski organi oblasti niso določili nobenih kazalnikov za merjenje takšnega učinka.
The same situation was found in the other Member States audited. 
Enako stanje je bilo ugotovljeno v drugih revidiranih državah članicah.
Furthermore, the scope of the framework is rendered unclear by unresolved disagreements between the Commission and the Member States. 
Poleg tega je obseg okvira za navzkrižno skladnost zaradi nerešenih nesoglasij med Komisijo in državami članicami nejasen.
For example, the framework for GAEC annexed to the Council Regulation consists of four “issues” (three related to soil preservation and one to land maintenance) which are detailed in eleven standards. 
Okvir za dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje, ki so priloženi k Uredbi Sveta, na primer sestavljajo štiri „zadeve“ (tri v zvezi z ohranjanjem tal in ena v zvezi z vzdrževanjem zemljišč), ki so podrobno razčlenjene v enajstih standardih.
The Commission considers that Member States should define norms for the implementation of all 11 standards, except those not relevant to the national context. 
Komisija meni, da bi morale države članice določiti norme za izvajanje vseh enajstih standardov, razen tistih, ki niso pomembni za nacionalni kontekst.
However, France and Portugal consider that such norms only need to be defined for the four “issues” mentioned in the framework. 
Vendar Francija in Portugalska menita, da bi bilo treba takšne norme določiti le za štiri „zadeve“, omenjene v okviru.
With respect to SMRs, the audit revealed that the exact scope of the Regulation on food and feed law (see Table 1) was still not clear. 
Glede predpisanih zahtev ravnanja je revizija pokazala, da natančen obseg uredbe o zakonodaji o krmi in živilih (glej tabelo 1) še vedno ni bil jasen.
For example, the Portuguese authorities and the Commission disagree on which hygiene regulations should be checked as part of cross compliance. 
Portugalski organi oblasti se na primer ne strinjajo s Komisijo glede tega, katere uredbe o higieni bi bilo treba pregledati v okviru navzkrižne skladnosti.
The Commission specified in a working document4 that three Regulations on food and feed law, in addition to the one mentioned in Annex III to the Council Regulation, were part of cross compliance. 
Komisija je v delovnem dokumentu4 navedla, da so bile poleg uredbe, omenjene v Prilogi III k Uredbi Sveta, del navzkrižne skladnosti tudi tri uredbe o zakonodaji o krmi in živilih.
But Portugal considers that there is no legal basis for adding to the requirements listed in Annex III. 
Vendar Portugalska meni, da ni pravne podlage za dodajanje k zahtevam, navedenim v Prilogi III.
4 Commission working document “Guidance document of the Commission services on the hygiene provisions relevant for cross compliance”, DS/2006/16-final, May 2006. 
4 Delovni dokument Komisije „Guidance document of the Commission services on the hygiene provisions relevant for cross compliance“ (Smernice za higienske predpise, ki so relevantni za navzkrižno skladnost), DS/2006/16-konč., maj 2006.
15 BOX 1 In contrast to the above examples, the audit also identified a small number of cases where obligations imposed on farmers under cross compliance were designed to produce positive environmental results. – Surveys identified that the GAEC standard defined by France, which requires farmers to leave unfertilised buffer strips of 5–10 metres width along watercourses, is a good way to prevent water pollution. – The standard applied in Greece for crop rotation aims to improve soil organic matter by requiring farmers to cultivate grain legumes and incorporate these into the soil on 20 % of the cultivated area of their farm each year. – The detailed and strict requirement for the application of animal fertilisers established by the Netherlands is one of the main factors which has contributed to a significant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by agricultural activity. 
15 OKVIR 1 Za razliko od zgornjih primerov je bilo pri reviziji ugotovljenih tudi nekaj primerov, kjer so bile obveznosti, ki so bile v okviru navzkrižne skladnosti naložene kmetom, zasnovane za zagotavljanje za okolje ugodnih rezultatov. – Pregledi so pokazali, da je standard za dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje, ki ga je določila Francija in ki zahteva, da kmetje ne gnojijo na 5 do 10-metrskem varnostnem območju ob vodotokih, dober način preprečevanja onesnaževanja voda. – Cilj standarda, ki se v Grčiji uporablja za kolobarjenje, je izboljšanje organske snovi v tleh, zato se od kmetov zahteva, da gojijo zrnate stročnice, ki jih vsako leto zaorjejo v tla na 20 % obdelovalnih površin na svoji kmetiji. – Podrobna in stroga zahteva za nanos živalskih gnojil, ki jo je določila Nizozemska, je eden od glavnih dejavnikov, ki je prispeval k bistvenemu zmanjšanju emisij toplogrednih plinov zaradi kmetijske dejavnosti.
ONLY LIMITED RESULTS CAN BE EXPECTED AT FARM LEVEL 19. 
NA RAVNI KMETIJ JE MOGOČE PRIČAKOVATI LE OMEJENE REZULTATE 19.
The objective of the Council Regulation is “to incorporate basic standards into the common market organisations”. 
Cilj Uredbe Sveta je „vključiti osnovne standarde v skupne ureditve trgov“.