natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
After considering all possible interventions that could be financed by the various funds, Member States should decide strategically which funds are best suited to addressing needs and coordinate their use. 
Po preučitvi vseh možnih posredovanj, ki bi se lahko financirala iz različnih skladov, se morajo strateško odločiti, katera sredstva so najprimernejša za izpolnjevanje teh potreb, ter usklajevati njihovo uporabo.
18 Funds can be coordinated effectively by setting demarcation lines (minimising funding overlaps) and ensuring complementarity (minimising funding gaps and encouraging synergies). 
18 Sredstva iz skladov je mogoče uspešno usklajevati z razmejevanjem (čim večje zmanjšanje podvajanja pri financiranju) ter zagotavljanjem dopolnjevanja (čim večje zmanjšanje vrzeli v financiranju in spodbujanje sinergij).
Potential funding gaps in rural areas are particularly detrimental when they occur with infrastructure projects, given that infrastructure generally operates as a network of interconnected elements (e.g. roads, irrigation networks, water supply and sewerage, power grids), in which each element is important for the effective operation of the entire network. 
Morebitne vrzeli v financiranju na podeželskih območjih še zlasti negativno vplivajo na infrastrukturne projekte, saj infrastruktura na splošno deluje kot omrežje med seboj povezanih elementov (npr. ceste, namakalna omrežja, oskrba z vodo in kanalizacija, električna omrežja itd.), od katerih je prav vsak pomemben za uspešno delovanje celotnega omrežja.
Figure 2 shows a simplified example of how better coordination in a given sector or territory can lead to improved results. 
Slika 2 prikazuje poenostavljen primer, kako lahko izboljšano usklajevanje v določenem sektorju ali na določenem ozemlju privede do boljših rezultatov.
Observations 15 Coordination of funds in a given sector or territory ARBITRARY ALLOCATION OF FUNDING IN THE ABSENCE OF COORDINATION CLEAR DEMARCATION EXISTS, BUT COMPLEMENTARITY IS NOT ENSURED EFFECTIVE COORDINATION ACHIEVED Fund 3 Need not addressed • Risk of funding overlaps • Risk of funding gaps • No synergies Fund 1 Fund 2 Fund Fund 1 3 Fund 2 Need not addressed • Risk of funding overlaps is mitigated • Risk of funding gaps persists • No synergies COMMON OBJECTIVE Fund 4 • Risks of funding overlaps and gaps are mitigated • Synergies achieved Fund 1 Fund 3 Fund 2 Source: European Court of Auditors. 
Opažanja 15 Usklajevanje sredstev v določenem sektorju ali na določenem ozemlju POLJUBNO DODELJEVANJE FINANCIRANJA BREZ USKLAJEVANJA RAZMEJITEV JE JASNA, VENDAR NI ZAGOTOVOLJENO DOPOLNJEVANJE DOSEŽENO USPEŠNO USKLAJEVANJE Sklad 3 potreba ni obravnavana • tveganje za prekrivanje financiranja • tveganje za vrzeli v financiranju • brez sinergij Sklad 1 Sklad 2 Sklad 3 potreba ni obravnavana Sklad 1 Sklad 2 • zmanjšano tveganje za prekrivanje financiranja • ostaja tveganje za vrzeli v financiranju • brez sinergij SKUPNI CILJ Sklad 3 Sklad 2 • zmanjšano tveganje za prekrivanje financiranja in vrzeli v financiranju • dosežene sinergije Sklad 1 Sklad 4 Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče.
19 The implementing rules for the 2007-2013 EU rural development regulation required Member States to include demarcation criteria and information about complementarity with other EU funds in their RDPs11, but there was no similar requirement with regard to the Member States’ own funds and support programmes. 
19 Izvedbena pravila uredbe EU o razvoju podeželja za obdobje 2007–2013 določajo, da morajo države članice v svoje programe razvoja podeželja vključiti razmejitvena merila in informacije o dopolnjevanju z drugimi skladi EU11, medtem ko za lastna sredstva držav članic in podporne programe podobnih zahtev ni bilo.
Member States did not always clearly justify the need for the EU rural development funds 20 A first step in justifying the need for EU rural development funds (RDP intervention) is to identify and quantify the need for investments in rural infrastructure. 
Države članice niso vedno jasno utemeljile potrebe po sredstvih iz skladov EU za razvoj podeželja 20 Prvi korak pri utemeljitvi potrebe po sredstvih iz skladov EU za razvoj podeželja (posredovanje v okviru programa razvoja podeželja) je določitev in količinska opredelitev potrebe po naložbah v podeželsko infrastrukturo.
The audited RDPs explained why support was needed for infrastructure in rural areas. 
V revidiranih programih razvoja podeželja je bilo obrazloženo, zakaj infrastruktura na podeželskih območjih potrebuje podporo.
For example, the Polish RDP stated that ‘some flood protection facilities only fulfil their tasks to a limited extent, and restoring their full technical capacity may require modernisation or rebuilding’ and listed the facilities concerned (such as water tanks with a total capacity of 35 000 m3 and 180 pumping stations). 
V poljskem programu razvoja podeželja je bilo na primer navedeno, da nekateri protipoplavni objekti svoje naloge izpolnjujejo v zmanjšanem obsegu, ponovna vzpostavitev njihove polne tehnične zmogljivosti pa naj bi zahtevala posodobitev ali obnovo, nato pa so bili našteti omenjeni objekti (kot so vodni rezervoarji s skupno 11 Člen 5(1) Uredbe Komisije (ES) št.
11 Article 5(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 of 15 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ L 368, 23.12.2006, p. 
1974/2006 z dne 15. decembra 2006 o podrobnih pravilih glede uporabe Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1698/2005 o podpori za razvoj podeželja iz Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja (EKSRP) (UL L 368, 23.12.2006, str.
Observations 16 21 After assessing their investment needs, Member States should identify the resources available to address those needs (the existing EU funds, national, regional and local public funds, as well as private funds) and quantify the funding gap to be covered by EU rural development funds. 
21 Potem ko ocenijo svoje potrebe po naložbah, bi morale države članice določiti sredstva, ki so na voljo za izpolnitev teh potreb (obstoječa sredstva EU, nacionalna, regionalna in lokalna javna sredstva ter zasebna sredstva), in količinsko opredeliti vrzel v financiranju, ki naj bi jo zapolnili s sredstvi iz skladov EU za razvoj podeželja.
22 The RDPs of all the audited Member States referred to other EU funds supporting similar projects. 
22 Vse revidirane države članice so v svojih programih razvoja podeželja navedle druga sredstva iz skladov EU, s katerimi se podpirajo podobni projekti.
This is a legal requirement, checked by the Commission before approving the RDPs. 
To je pravna zahteva, ki jo Komisija preveri, preden odobri programe razvoja podeželja.
Other Member State or private funding sources addressing the same needs were, however, not mentioned or quantified. 
Drugi viri financiranja držav članic EU ali zasebni viri financiranja, s katerimi se obravnavajo iste potrebe, pa niso bili navedeni ali količinsko opredeljeni.
Only one RDP (Romania) referred to a national programme funding cultural establishments. 
Le v enem programu razvoja podeželja (Romunija) je bil omenjen nacionalni program za financiranje kulturnih ustanov.
Despite neglecting to mention them in the RDP, the audit found that the Member States actually had many public programmes and funds dedicated to rural infrastructure. 
Čeprav tega niso omenile, pa je Sodišče pri reviziji ugotovilo, da so imele države članice dejansko veliko javnih programov in sredstev, ki so bila namenjena podeželski infrastrukturi.
23 In the absence of a strategy which coordinates all the potential funding sources and quantifies needs and the resulting funding gap, the justification for RDP intervention is weak. 
23 Če ni strategije, v skladu s katero bi se uskladili vsi možni viri financiranja in količinsko opredelile potrebe po financiranju ter posledične vrzeli v financiranju, je utemeljitev za posredovanje v okviru programa razvoja podeželja pomanjkljiva.
In this instance, substitution of funds is more likely to occur, whereby Member State funds earmarked for infrastructure projects are replaced by RDP funds, thus entailing the risk of compromising the added value of the EU intervention. 
Tako lahko hitreje pride do zamenjave sredstev, pri čemer se namenska sredstva države članice za infrastrukturne projekte nadomestijo s sredstvi iz programov razvoja podeželja, kar prinaša tveganje, da se ogrozi dodana vrednost posredovanja EU.
24 In two of the Member States audited, there were indications that substitution of public funds had occurred (see Box 2). 
24 V dveh revidiranih državah članicah so bili ugotovljeni znaki, da je prišlo do zamenjave javnih sredstev (glej okvir 2).
Observations 17 Indications of the substitution of national and regional funds with RDP funds Italy (Sicily) In 2000, when EU funds became available for road projects in rural areas, Italy (Sicily) cancelled its own budget for financing the maintenance of local and farm roads. 
Opažanja 17 Znaki zamenjave nacionalnih in regionalnih sredstev s sredstvi iz programov razvoja podeželja Italija (Sicilija) Leta 2000, ko so postala na voljo sredstva EU za cestne projekte na podeželskih območjih, je Italija (Sicilija) ukinila lastni proračun za financiranje vzdrževanja lokalnih in kmetijskih cest.
Germany (Saxony) Since 2007, when RDP funds became available for rural road projects, the provision of national and regional funds for such projects has decreased substantially. 
Nemčija (Saška) Od leta 2007, ko so postala na voljo sredstva programa za razvoj podeželja za projekte podeželskih cest, so se nacionalna in regionalna sredstva za take projekte znatno zmanjšala.
As shown in the graph below, while the total funding allocated to rural roads has remained relatively stable at between 140 and 160 million euro per year, the decrease in the national and regional funds has been offset by an increase in RDP funding (see Figure 3). 
Kot prikazuje spodnji graf, so ostala skupna sredstva, dodeljena za podeželske ceste, v višini med 140 in 160 milijoni EUR letno na sorazmerno enaki ravni, zmanjšanje nacionalnih in regionalnih sredstev pa je izravnalo povečanje financiranja iz programa razvoja podeželja (glej sliko 3).
Figure 3 — Allocation of funds for rural roads in Germany (Saxony) 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Sum of national, regional and RDP funds National and regional funds RDP funds Source: European Court of Auditors 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 The risk of deadweight was not effectively mitigated, though some good practices were identified 25 Just as entire budget lines can be replaced with the RDP measures, substitution of funds can occur at project level, without any additional effect on the outcome achieved. 
Slika 3 – Dodelitev sredstev za podeželske ceste v Nemčiji (Saška) 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 vsota nacionalnih in regionalnih sredstev ter sredstev v okviru programa razvoja podeželja nacionalna in regionalna sredstva sredstva v okviru programa razvoja podeželja Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče. 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Tveganje mrtvih izgub ni bilo uspešno zmanjšano, čeprav so bile ugotovljene nekatere dobre prakse 25 Tako kot je z ukrepi v okviru programov razvoja podeželja mogoče nadomestiti celotne proračunske vrstice, lahko pride do zamenjave sredstev tudi na ravni projekta, brez vpliva na dosežen izid.
The risk of deadweight refers to the likelihood that a beneficiary would have undertaken the investment even without the grant funding. 
Tveganje mrtvih izgub se nanaša na verjetnost, da bi upravičenec naložbo izvedel tudi brez nepovratnih sredstev.
The primary means of reducing the risk of deadweight is to design the measures in such a way as to direct RDP support to where there is a funding gap, for example to sectors or types of projects providing public goods but for which the financial returns are insufficient to justify the full costs of the investment. 
Najlažje se zmanjša z zasnovo ukrepov, ki omogoča, da se podpora v okviru programa razvoja podeželja usmeri na vrzeli v financiranju, na primer v sektorje ali vrste projektov, ki zagotavljajo javne dobrine, a imajo premajhen finančni donos, da bi bilo z njim mogoče upravičiti celotne stroške naložbe.
26 The high aid rates set for infrastructure measures by the audited Member States were not backed by an analysis assessing the appropriate level of public funding needed to encourage investments while, at the same time, mitigating the risk of deadweight. million euro Box 2 
26 Visoke stopnje pomoči, ki so jih revidirane države članice določile za infrastrukturne ukrepe, niso temeljile na analizi, s katero bi se ocenila ustrezna stopnja javnega financiranja, potrebna za spodbujanje naložb, hkrati pa zmanjšalo tveganje mrtvih izgub. v milijonih EUR Okvir 2
Observations 18 27 Only in Germany (Saxony), for the 2014-2020 programming period, did the Court find an economic rationale behind the setting of aid rates for measure 125. 
Opažanja 18 27 Sodišče je ekonomsko utemeljitev za določitev stopnje pomoči odkrilo le v primeru ukrepa 125 v programskem obdobju 2014–2020 v Nemčiji (Saška).
Following the recommendation arising from the 2010 mid-term evaluation to differentiate the aid rates under this measure on the basis of the profitability of the forest holdings, the managing authority decided to revise the aid rates from a standard 80 % for all holdings to a differentiated aid rate based on the size of the holdings, as a proxy for their profitability. 
Na podlagi priporočila po vmesnem vrednotenju sredi leta 2010, da bi se morale stopnje pomoči v okviru tega ukrepa razlikovati glede na donosnost gozdnega gospodarstva, se je organ upravljanja odločil, da bo standardne stopnje pomoči za vsa gospodarstva v višini 80 % spremenil v stopnje pomoči, ki se razlikujejo glede na velikost gospodarstva, kar naj bi predstavljalo približek njihove donosnosti.
Larger holdings (above 200 ha) would receive an aid rate of 75 %, while smaller holdings (up to 200 ha) would receive 90 %. 
Večja gospodarstva (nad 200 ha) bi tako prejela stopnjo pomoči v višini 75 %, medtem ko bi manjša gospodarstva (do 200 ha) prejela 90 %.
28 Still, the audit identified an example of good practice in directing RDP support to where it is most needed. 
28 Revizija pa je vendarle ugotovila primer dobre prakse pri usmerjanju podpore v okviru programa razvoja podeželja na projekte, ki jo najbolj potrebujejo.
Romania (under measure 322), Poland (under measures 321 and 322/323) and Italy (Sicily) (under measure 125) used selection criteria to prioritise projects submitted by communities with high poverty rates and/or located in remote areas (Box 3 shows an example of this). 
Romunija (ukrep 322), Poljska (ukrepi 321 in 322/323) in Italija (Sicilija) (ukrep 125) so uporabile izbirna merila, ki so dala prednost projektom v skupnostih z visoko stopnjo revščine in/ali tistih, ki se nahajajo na oddaljenih območjih (primer je predstavljen v okviru 3).
Directing RDP support to poor areas Romania One of the selection criteria used under measure 322 assigned 10 out of a maximum of 100 scoring points to communes with high poverty rates (i.e., rates between 60 % and 89.6 %). 
Usmeritev podpore v okviru programov razvoja podeželja na revna območja Romunija V skladu z enim od izbirnih meril za ukrep 322 je bilo 10 od skupno 100 točk dodeljenih občinam z visokimi stopnjami revščine (tj. stopnjami med 60 % in 89,6 %).
Communes with a medium poverty rate (between 40 % and 59.9 %) obtained 7 scoring points, and those with a low poverty rate (< 40 %) obtained 5 points. 
Občine s srednjo stopnjo revščine (med 40 % in 59,9 %) so dobile 7 točk, tiste z nizko stopnjo revščine (< 40 %) pa 5 točk.
Poverty was defined and calculated according to a methodology provided by the World Bank and the national authorities, based on the welfare of a household. 
Revščina je bila opredeljena in izračunana v skladu z metodologijo Svetovne banke in nacionalnih organov na podlagi socialnega statusa gospodinjstva.
29 Member States can also mitigate the risk of deadweight through the project selection process, by checking, where appropriate before approving applications for support, whether the applicant had sufficient capital or access to capital to finance all or part of the project. 
29 Države članice lahko tveganje mrtvih izgub zmanjšajo tudi med postopkom izbire projektov, tako da pred odobritvijo vlog za podporo preverijo, če je to ustrezno, ali imajo vlagatelji zadosti kapitala ali zadosten dostop do kapitala za financiranje celotnega projekta ali njegovega dela.
The audit found that four out of the five Member States audited did not check the applicants’ capacity to finance the projects from their own funds or other public programmes (see Box 4). Box 3 
Pri reviziji je bilo ugotovljeno, da štiri od petih držav članic niso preverjale, ali je vlagatelj sposoben financirati projekt iz lastnih sredstev ali drugih javnih programov (glej okvir 4). Okvir 3
Observations 19 Granting RDP funding to projects that had access to other funds In Italy (Sicily), one of the audited projects concerning public water infrastructure had already been included in the beneficiary’s investment plan before the submission of the application for RDP support and was to be funded from the beneficiary’s own resources. 
Opažanja 19 Dodelitev sredstev v okviru programov razvoja podeželja projektom, ki so imeli dostop do drugih sredstev V Italiji (Sicilija) je bil eden od revidiranih projektov v zvezi z javno vodovodno infrastrukturo že pred predložitvijo vloge za podporo v okviru programa razvoja podeželja vključen v naložbeni načrt upravičenca, financiral pa naj bi se iz lastnih sredstev upravičenca.
The project was nevertheless approved for RDP funding. 
Projekt je bil kljub temu odobren za financiranje v okviru programa razvoja podeželja.
Similarly, another water infrastructure project had already been approved for funding under the national irrigation plan at the time of its approval under the RDP. 
Nek drug projekt v zvezi z vodovodno infrastrukturo je bil na podoben način ob potrditvi v okviru programa razvoja podeželja že potrjen za financiranje v okviru nacionalnega namakalnega načrta.
The RDP approval was subsequently withdrawn; nonetheless, these examples show that funds are used interchangeably and some of the projects would probably have been implemented even in the absence of the RDP funds. 
Čeprav je bila njegova potrditev v okviru programa razvoja podeželja pozneje umaknjena, ta primera kažeta, da so sredstva zamenljiva in da bi bili nekateri projekti verjetno izvedeni tudi brez sredstev v okviru programa razvoja podeželja.
In Spain (Extremadura), an audited project with an estimated cost of 11 million euro involved the creation of a 145 km road network to improve the access to 1 629 agricultural holdings. 
V Španiji (Ekstremadura) je Sodišče revidiralo projekt za izgradnjo 145 km cestnega omrežja zaradi izboljšanja dostopa do 1 629 kmetijskih gospodarstev s predvidenimi stroški 11 milijonov EUR.
Although the roads were likely to increase the value of the private land and the farms’ economic performance, the authorities approved the project, granting a 100 % public aid rate, without checking whether the private beneficiaries could have borne part of the project costs. 
Čeprav je bilo zelo verjetno, da se bo z izgradnjo cest povečala vrednost zasebnih zemljišč in gospodarska uspešnost kmetij, so organi projekt odobrili s stoodstotno stopnjo javne podpore, ne da bi preverili, ali bi zasebni upravičenci lahko nosili del stroškov projekta.
Similarly, an audited project of 1 million euro, involving the upgrade of an irrigation network to reduce water losses, received a 90 % aid rate without requiring the beneficiary (irrigation community) to demonstrate its need for such a grant with reference to its financial capacity and the profitability of the investment. 
Na podoben način je tudi revidiran projekt za posodobitev namakalnega omrežja zaradi zmanjšanja vodnih izgub v vrednosti 1 milijona EUR prejel 90-odstotno stopnjo podpore, pri tem pa upravičencu (namakalni skupnosti) ni bilo treba dokazati potrebe po takih nepovratnih sredstvih in pri tem navesti svojih finančnih zmožnosti in donosnosti naložbe.
The beneficiary might, for example, have been able to finance a greater part of the investment by increasing the tariffs paid by farmers for the water irrigation service12 or through a loan. 
Upravičenec bi večji del naložbe morda lahko financiral s povečanjem tarif, ki jih kmetje plačujejo za storitve vodnega namakanja12, ali s posojilom.
These examples show that the managing authority not only set very high aid rates of the measures without an economic justification but also did not verify at project level the actual need for such high aid rates. 
Ti primeri kažejo, da je organ upravljanja v okviru ukrepov dodelil zelo visoke stopnje pomoči brez ekonomske utemeljitve, prav tako pa ni preveril na ravni projektov, ali so tako visoke stopnje pomoči dejansko potrebne.
12 For similar findings, see Special Report No 9/2010 ‘Is EU structural measures spending on the supply of water for domestic consumption used to best effect?’, in particular paragraphs 64 to 67, which state that ‘Member States tend to maximise EU financial assistance by keeping tariff levels low’. 
12 Za podobne ugotovitve glej Posebno poročilo št. 9/2010 – Ali so sredstva EU iz strukturnih ukrepov za oskrbo z vodo za gospodinjsko uporabo porabljena učinkovito?, zlasti odstavke 64 do 67, v katerih je navedeno, da „države članice tarife pogosto ohranjajo na nizki ravni, da lahko zaprosijo za najvišjo mogočo finančno pomoč EU”.
30 In Romania, an eligibility check was carried out to ensure that the RDP grant was needed. 
30 V Romuniji je bil opravljen pregled upravičenosti, da bi se zagotovilo, da so nepovratna sredstva v okviru programa razvoja podeželja dejansko potrebna.
The check was applied in the case of revenue-generating operations, such as the provision of water supply and sewage services, supported under measure 322. 
Pregledane so bile dejavnosti, ki ustvarjajo prihodek, kot so vodooskrbne in kanalizacijske storitve, ki se podpirajo v okviru ukrepa 322.
However, in practice, the check had limited relevance, as it was based on unreliable assumptions regarding the future revenues and expenditure associated with the operation of the infrastructure. 
Vendar pa pregled v praksi ni imel velikega pomena, saj je temeljil na nezanesljivih predpostavkah o prihodnjih prihodkih in odhodkih v zvezi z obratovanjem infrastrukture.
For two of the three water infrastructure projects audited, the Court found that the actual tariffs paid by users were respectively seven times and nine times higher than the beneficiary’s estimates indicated in the project documentation, which had been used to justify the need for support and received the approval of the authorities. 
Pri dveh od treh revidiranih projektov v zvezi z vodno infrastrukturo je Sodišče ugotovilo, da so bile dejanske tarife, ki so jih plačevali uporabniki, sedemkrat oziroma devetkrat višje od ocenjenih vrednosti, ki jih je upravičenec navedel v projektni dokumentaciji, s katero je utemeljil potrebo po podpori in ki so jo odobrili organi.