natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
C 303/14 EN Official Journal of the European Union 7.12.2004 (c) one Strand B programme in particular (Europe) demonstrates the transnational significance of a series of new themes linked to spatial development (ESDP). These include the development and complementarity of alternative modes of transport, coordination in the management of regional rivers, reafforestation, measures to increase complementarity between urban areas, the development of transport from the regionŐs peripheral areas and the coordination of measures to prevent pollution of the English Channel. 
C 303/14 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 7.12.2004 (c) program usmeritve B (program pobude Skupnosti za severozahodno Evropo) prikazuje nadnacionalni pomen vrste novih vprašanj prostorskega razvoja (EPPR), kot so razvoj in dopolnjevanje alternativnih vrst prevoza, usklajenost upravljanja velikih rek v regiji, pogozdovanje, razvoj dopolnjevanja med mesti, razvoj prometa iz obrobnih območij regij, usklajevanje ukrepov za boj proti onesnaževanju Rokavskega preliva itd. Ali so programske prednostne naloge skladne z ugotovljenimi potrebami?
Most of the Strand A programmes were drawn up using the Ôbottom-upŐ approach advocated in the Commission guidelines: potential partners in a CI were invited to propose areas in which projects could be implemented. 
Večina programov usmeritve A je bila oblikovana na podlagi pristopa od spodaj navzgor, ki ga Komisija priporoča v svojih smernicah: partnerji, ki bi jih morebiti zanimala pobuda Skupnosti, so bili povabljeni, da predlagajo področja, na katerih bi se projekti lahko izvedli.
These proposals were used to determine CIP measures and, subsequently, priorities, without any choices being made. 
Predloge so najprej izkoristili za opredelitev ukrepov in nato prednostnih nalog programov pobude Skupnosti, ne da bi opravili izbiro.
There was rather a tendency to establish very broad programmes so that as many partners as possible could then be involved in implementation. 
Poglavitni namen je bil oblikovati zelo obsežne programe, da bi lahko pri njihovem izvajanju sodelovalo čim več partnerjev.
Sometimes the Member States concerned agreed on measures before analysing the regional situation (Ems-Dollart Region and Spain-Portugal). 
Včasih so se zadevne države članice o ukrepih dogovorile, preden so opravile analizo položaja v regiji (programa pobude Skupnosti za regijo Ems-Dollart ter za Španijo in Portugalsko).
This often results in very broad programmes composed of artificial groupings of measures and in the formulation of abstract priorities and objectives. 
Zato se pogosto pripravijo zelo obsežni programi z umetno združenimi ukrepi, kar privede do oblikovanja abstrak-tnih prednostnih nalog in ciljev, katerih uresničitve se ne da oceniti.
Similar criticisms were voiced of the evaluations of previous periods and, here, by certain ex ante assessors (see paragraphs 52 and 53). 
Pripombe v zvezi s tem so bile oblikovane v ocenah prejšnjih obdobij, izrazili pa so jih tudi nekateri predhodni ocenjevalci (glej odstavka 52 in 53).
For example all the Strand A programmes examined included measures in the economic, social, rural development, human resources, environment, cultural heritage and tourism sectors. 
Tako najdemo v vseh pregledanih programih usmeritve A ukrepe na področju gospodarstva, sociale, razvoja podeželja, človeških virov, okolja, kulturne dediščine in turizma.
This explains why these CIPs are no different from traditional intervention programmes, save as regards the specific implementing rules attached to the Initiative (see paragraphs 43 to 49). 
To pojasnjuje, zakaj se programi pobude Skupnosti ne razlikujejo od tradicionalnih programov pomoči, razen glede posebnih pravil za izvajanje pobude (glej odstavke 43 do 49).
In one case where the Commission found the measures to be too broad in scope (Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein), one priority was cancelled, only for the measures under this priority to be transferred to the remaining priorities. 
Komisija je v enem primeru, kjer se ji je obseg ukrepov zdel prevelik (program pobude Skupnosti za Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein), eno prednostno nalogo ukinila in njene ukrepe uvrstila k preostalim prednostnim nalogam.
Under Strand B, measures are more specific because, in the two cases examined, a connection exists with the ESDP. 
Pri usmeritvi B so ukrepi bolj specifični, ker so v dveh pregledanih primerih povezani z Evropsko perspektivo prostorskega razvoja.
Nevertheless, for the sake of agreement between the different Member States, the various ESDP priorities (1) were retained and supplemented with others. Given that the geographical area of the programme is greater than that of the largest EU Member States, none of the measures has much significance. 
Kljub temu so se različne prednostne naloge EPPR (1) ohranile, dodane pa so jim bile še druge, da bi dosegli dogovor med različnimi državami članicami, čeprav je ozemlje, ki ga zadeva program, veliko kot največje države članice. Zato ima vsak ukrep le majhen pomen.
(1) The ESDP priorities concern Ôpolycentric spatial development and a new urban-rural relationshipŐ, Ôparity of access to infrastructure and knowledgeŐ and Ôwise management of the natural and cultural heri-tageŐ. 
(1) Prednostne naloge EPPR so: „policentrični prostorski razvoj in nov odnos med mestom in podeželjem“, „enakovreden dostop do infrastruktur in znanja“ ter „premišljeno upravljanje narave in kulturne de-diščine“.
The Strand C programmes, which contain no needs analysis and no breakdown of the general objective assigned to the Strand by the guidelines, are not broken down by priority and measure. 
Programi usmeritve C, ki ne vsebujejo analize potreb in razčlenitve splošnega cilja, ki je bil tej usmeritvi dodeljen v smernicah, niso razčlenjeni na prednostne naloge in ukrepe.
In all the Strand A and B programmes examined, therefore, there is a discrepancy between the analysis of the region eligible for Interreg and the definition of a strategy and priorities for the programme. 
V vseh pregledanih programih usmeritev A in B torej obstaja neskladje med analizo regije, ki izpolnjuje pogoje za Interreg, ter opredelitvijo strategije in prednostnih nalog programa.
The key programme measures were drawn up on the basis of other concerns which the programmes do not make explicit, and there is a very broad content base. 
Smernice programov so bile določene na podlagi drugih skrbi, ki jih ti programi ne opredeljujejo, in njihova vsebina je precej ob-sežna.
By combining the Ôtop-downŐ and Ôbottom-upŐ approaches, it should be possible to take account both of the needs emerging from the preliminary analyses and of those expressed by local partners. 
Kombinacija pristopov od zgoraj navzdol in pristopov od spodaj navzgor bi morala omogočiti, da se upoštevajo potrebe, ki jih razkrijejo vnaprejšnje analize, in tiste, ki jih izrazijo lokalni akterji.
Although the sharing of the implementing bodies and financial elements is conducive to cooperation (see paragraph 50), it has not resulted in a targeted strategy that might resolve border-related problems. 
Enotnost organov za izvajanje programov pobude Skupnosti in finančnih elementov ni privedla do ciljno naravnane strategije za razrešitev mejnih težav, čeprav spodbuja sodelovanje (glej odstavek 50).
Is there complementarity between the Interreg III CIPs and traditional ERDF interventions? 
Ali se programi pobude Skupnosti Interreg III in tradicionalne pomoči Evropskega sklada za regionalni razvoj dopolnjujejo?
The Strand A CIPs examined sometimes include arguments that seek to demonstrate complementarity with traditional intervention programmes. 
Iz pregledanih programov pobude Skupnosti v okviru usmeritve A je včasih razvidno dopolnjevanje s tradicionalnimi programi pomoči.
In fact, this complementarity is simply the consequence of the very broad scope of the CIPs, which comprise many measures resembling those implemented through traditional intervention programmes, the only difference in general being in the implementing rules (2) (see paragraphs 22 to 25, 59 and 60). 
Dejansko je to dopolnjevanje preprosto posledica velike obsežnosti programov pobude Skupnosti Interreg, ki vsebujejo številne ukrepe, podobne ukrepom tradicionalnih programov pomoči, od katerih se na splošno razlikujejo samo v načinih izvajanja (2) (glej odstavke 22 do 25 in 59 do 60).
The audit did not perform the same comparison in respect of Strands B and C, since the regions concerned are generally eligible under scores of different Objective 1 and 2 programmes. 
Pri pregledu ni bila v zvezi z usmeritvama B in C opravljena nobena primerjava, ker so ustrezne regije na splošno izpolnjevale pogoje za več deset različnih programov v okviru ciljev 1 in 2.
Any emphasis on complementarity is a formal response to legislative requirements (Europe). 
Morebitna razmišljanja o dopolnjevanju so uradni odgovor na zakonske zahteve (program pobude Skupnosti za severozahodno Evropo).
Do the first projects adopted qualify as trans-European and do they offer added value? 
Ali imajo prvi sprejeti projekti transevropski značaj in ali zagotavljajo dodano vrednost?
In every one of the programmes examined, the definition of a trans-European project given in the Commission guidelines (see paragraphs 13 and 14) is put into practice by means of eligibility and selection criteria to which a rating scale is applied (save in the case of the Ems-Dollart Region CIP). 
Opredelitev transevropskega projekta, vključena v smernice Komisije (glej odstavka 13 in 14), se v vseh pregledanih programih izvaja z merili za pridobitev pomoči in izbiro projektov, ki jim je dodeljena vrednostna lestvica (razen za program pobude Skupnosti za regijo Ems-Dollart).
Such criteria might be, for example, that there is an impact on both sides of the border, the intensity of cooperation within the partnership or the setting up of cross-border networks. 
Ta merila zadevajo na primer obstoj učinka na obeh straneh meje, intenzivnost sodelovanja med partnerji in oblikovanje čezmejnih omrežij.
Other criteria are added for (2) For a given eligible region, it is difficult to compare the financial resources made available under Interreg III with those made available under Objective 1 and Objective 2 Intervention programmes, given that the eligible regions are not exactly the same, since regions eligible under Interreg do not necessarily have to be regions eligible under Objectives 1 and 2. 
Dodana so bila (2) Za izbrano regijo, ki izpolnjuje pogoje, je težko primerjati finančna sredstva, ki so na voljo v okviru Interreg III, s sredstvi, ki so na voljo v okviru programov pomoči ciljev 1 in 2, ker območja, ki izpolnjujejo pogoje, niso natanko ista, zato ker regije, ki izpolnjujejo pogoje za pridobitev pomoči v okviru Interreg, ne izpolnjujejo nujno tudi pogojev v okviru ciljev 1 in 2.
It may, however, be estimated that, for Strand A Interreg programmes, the ratio of financial resources varies between 1:20 and 1:50. 
Kljub temu lahko ocenimo, da se za programe Interreg v okviru usmeritve A razmerje med temi finančnimi sredstvi giblje med 1/20 in 1/50.
7.12.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/15 the assessment of overall project quality and might include a measureŐs contribution towards the objectives, whether or not it is innovative, the sustainability of its results and the partnersŐ capacity to see it through to its conclusion. 
7.12.2004 SL Uradni list Evropske unije C 303/15 druga merila za ocenitev splošne kakovosti projekta, kot so na primer njegov prispevek k ciljem ukrepa, inovativnost, trajnost učinkov in zmožnost partnerjev, da ga dokončajo.
A total score for each project would enable it to be compared with other projects but is not always calculated (Alps, Spain-Portugal, Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein and Northern Zone). Furthermore, none of the programmes examined defines a minimum quality threshold for projects to be submitted for consideration or approved, however useful such a threshold would be, given that concerns about the utilisation of appropriations may lead to the adoption of projects of inferior quality. 
Splošni rezultat projekta, ki omogoča primerjavo med projekti, ni bil vedno izračunan (programi pobude Skupnosti za Alpe, Španijo in Portugalsko, Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein ter Severno cono). Poleg tega ni bila za noben pregledani program opredeljena minimalna kakovost, potrebna za predložitev projekta v odločanje ali za njegovo sprejetje. Vendar bi bila ta opredelitev koristna, ker so lahko zaradi skrbi glede porabe sredstev sprejeti manj kakovostni projekti.
Most of the projects examined (1) can be termed trans-European, having been prepared by a number of Member States which were to implement them jointly. 
Večina pregledanih projektov (1) ima transevropski značaj, ker so jih partnerji iz različnih držav članic pripravili skupaj in jih morajo tudi skupaj uresničiti.
Cooperation is a salient feature. 
Sodelovanje je njihova pomembna značilnost.
However, some projects essentially consist of bringing parallel subprojects on both sides of the border under a single roof and have relatively little trans-European interest (Strand A: work on both sides of a border to develop river tourism infrastructure and museums and renovate two historic buildings, even if there are plans to follow up by imparting a cross-border identity to these projects; the resurfacing of two roads on one side of the border while a new road is built on the other; construction of part of a technology park on one side and a business park on the other. 
Kljub temu nekaj projektov temelji predvsem na vzporednem izvajanju podprojektov na eni in drugi strani meje, zaradi česar je njihova transevropska vrednost razmeroma omejena (usmeritev A: urejanje infrastrukture za rečni turizem in muzejev na obeh straneh meje, obnova dveh zgodovinskih stavb, čeprav se načrtuje nadaljevanje dejavnosti, da bi tem projektom dodelili čezmejni značaj; obnova dveh cest na eni strani meje in izgradnja ene ceste na drugi strani meje, izgradnja dela tehnološkega parka na eni strani in poslovnega parka na drugi strani; usmeritev B: vzpostavitev mreže osmih partnerjev iz štirih držav članic, da bi spletni portal vsake regije oblikovali na podlagi istega vzorca).
Projects do not always make a significant contribution to the resolution of border-related problems because some of them are limited almost exclusively to the exchange of experience and are not sufficiently focused on practical action (Strand A: the transfer of medical expertise, the exchange of experience between growers and the establishment of a network of organisations offering business support by means of joint seminars. Strand B: the exchange of experience on the prevention of coastal erosion). 
Prispevek projektov k rešitvi mejnih težav ni vedno velik, ker so nekateri omejeni skoraj izključno na izmenjavo izkušenj in niso dovolj usmerjeni k izvajanju ukrepov (usmeritev A: prenos znanja in izkušenj v medicini, izmenjava izkušenj med kmeti, oblikovanje mreže organizacij za pomoč podjetjem z organiziranjem skupnih seminarjev; usmeritev B: izmenjava izkušenj na področju boja proti eroziji obal).
It appears from the first projects to have been adopted that the definition of trans-European projects has been respected and that many projects entail the cooperation of all the partners. 
Na podlagi prvih sprejetih projektov se zdi, da se opredelitev transevropskega projekta uporablja in da pri veliko projektih sodelujejo različni partnerji.
Nonetheless, some offer limited added value because they do not focus on practical action or could have been implemented in other regions. 
Dodana vrednost nekaterih projektov je kljub temu majhna, ker niso usmerjeni k izvajanju ukrepov ali jih ni mogoče izvesti v drugih regijah.
Although the systems of selection criteria could be improved, this weakness is largely due to the imprecise nature of the stated objectives and the broad scope of the measures within each CIP (see paragraphs 59 to 63). 
Čeprav je mogoče izboljšati sisteme izbirnih meril, je ta pomanjkljivost predvsem posledica ne dovolj natančno določenih ciljev in obsežnosti ukrepov vsakega programa pobude Skupnosti (glej odstavke 59 do 63).
(1) The audit focused on a sample of projects selected among the first to have been adopted by the authorities responsible for each CIP chosen for inspection. 
(1) Pregledan je bil vzorec projektov, izbranih med prvimi projekti, ki so jih sprejele oblasti, pristojne za vsak program pobud Skupnosti, ki je bil del pregleda.
No statements of expenditure had yet been made for these projects. 
Za te projekte še niso bila izdelana poročila o izdatkih.
The basic instrument establishing the Structural Funds provides that interventions shall be evaluated, especially ex post, in order to assess their impact. 
Osnovna uredba o strukturnih skladih predvideva ocenjevanje pomoči, zlasti naknadno, da bi presodili njihov učinek.
The results of evaluation should be used to improve the quality of interventions in subsequent periods. 
Rezultati ocene bi morali prispevati k izboljšanju kakovosti pomoči v poznejših obdobjih.
Are the programme objectives well structured? 
Ali so cilji programov dobro strukturirani?
As is shown by the process of defining priorities and measures for the CIPs of Strands A and B previously examined (see paragraphs 55 to 63), it was not possible to set objectives on the basis of the regional situational analysis or any strategic choices made. 
Kot kaže proces opredelitve prednostnih nalog in ukrepov pregledanih programov pobude Skupnosti v okviru usmeritev A in B (glej odstavke 55 do 63), ciljev ni bilo mogoče določiti na podlagi analize položaja v zadevni regiji in opravljenih izbir v okviru strategije.
Most programmes have one or two very general objectives and a few sub-objectives, although a greater number of sub-objectives were set in some cases (15 for Spain-Portugal, 21 for Europe and 10 for the Western Mediterranean Ń see Table 5). 
Programi imajo v glavnem enega ali dva zelo splošna cilja in nekaj podciljev, razen nekaterih programov, za katere so bili določeni številni podcilji (15 za program pobude Skupnosti za Španijo in Portugalsko, 21 za severozahodno Evropo in 10 za zahodno Sredozemlje) (glej tabelo 5).
The absence of one main, clear and concrete objective broken down into its most important sub-objectives betokens difficulties in evaluating impact. 
Odsotnost jasnega in konkretnega glavnega cilja, razčlenjenega v najpomembnejše podcilje, napoveduje težave pri ocenjevanju učinka.
The Strand C CIPs were designed in response to a single Commission objective, namely, to improve the effectiveness of policies and instruments for regional development and cohesion. No sub-objectives were set. 
Programi pobude Skupnosti v okviru usmeritve C so bili zasnovani na podlagi enega cilja, ki ga je določila Komisija, namreč izboljšanja učinkovitosti politik in orodij regionalnega in kohezijskega razvoja.
Are the objectives measurable and quantified? 
Ali so cilji merljivi in kvantificirani?
The Commission insisted that all programmes should include indicators. The only exception concerns Strand C programmes: here it was decided not to establish indicators until such time as a sufficient number of projects had been adopted, so as to give a clearer understanding of the content of the actions carried out. 
Komisija je vztrajala, da se navedejo kazalniki za vsak program, razen za programe v okviru usmeritve C, za katere je bila ta opredelitev odložena na čas, ko bo sprejetih dovolj projektov, da bi bolje razumeli vsebino izvajanih dejavnosti.
Indicators were therefore identified. 
Kazalniki so bili torej določeni.
However, every one of the programmes examined suffers from an unclear or very incomplete assessment of impact, that is, the indicators measure just one aspect of the stated objectives or, where they address a priority, deal with only a few of the measures under that priority (see Table 5). 
Pri vseh pregledanih programih ocena učinka kljub temu ali ni določena ali pa je zelo nepopolna, se pravi, da kazalniki merijo samo en vidik določenih ciljev ali, kadar zadevajo prednostno nalogo, kažejo samo del ukrepov, ki jo sestavljajo (glej tabelo 5).
What is more, in some programmes each project partner also has the option of determining its own indicators (Ems-Dollart Region, Alps and Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein). 
Poleg tega ima pri nekaterih programih vsak nosilec projekta možnost, da sam določi lastne kazalnike (program pobude Skupnosti za regijo Ems-Dollart, za Alpe in za Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein).
Some of the Strand A programmes have indicators which are independent of the stated objectives and known as Ôcross-border contextŐ (2) and Ôcooperation intensityŐ (3) indicators (Alps, Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein and Ems-Dollart Region; the Spain-Portugal CIP provides for such indicators but has not developed them). 
Nekateri programi v okviru usmeritve A vsebujejo kazalnike, neodvisne od določenih ciljev, imenovane kazalniki čezmejnega konteksta (2) in kazalniki intenzivnosti sodelovanja (3) (programi pobude Skupnosti za Alpe, za Alpenrhein-Bodensee-Hochrhein, za regijo Ems-Dollart ter za Španijo in Portugalsko jih predvidevajo, vendar jih niso razvili).
Although these vary from one programme to the next, they are very general in nature and of limited relevance to (2) For example, the number of cross-border workers, the number of firms engaged in cross-border activity and the percentage of the population that can speak the language of the neighbouring country. 
Čeprav se spreminjajo glede (2) Na primer: število čezmejnih delavcev, število podjetij s čezmejno dejavnostjo, odstotek prebivalstva, ki govori jezik sosednje države.
(3) For example, the number of shared information systems and cross-border networks. 
(3) Na primer: število skupnih informacijskih sistemov, število čezmejnih omrežij.
C 303/16 EN Official Journal of the European Union 7.12.2004 the programme concerned. 
C 303/16 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 7.12.2004 na program, so splošni in njihova korist za zadevni program je omejena.
They could, however, have had some relevance for Strand A as a whole if they had been developed and applied as standard to all the CIPs in this strand. 
Na splošnejši ravni usmeritve A pobude bi bili lahko kljub temu koristni, če bi se razvijali in usklajeno uporabljali za vse programe pobude Skupnosti te usmeritve.
It is often impossible to establish the relationship between indicators from the lowest to the highest levels, i.e., from project level to that of global CIP objectives. 
Pogosto je težko opredeliti povezave med kazalniki, ki segajo od najnižje do najvišje ravni, se pravi od projektov k splošnim ciljem programov pobude Skupnosti.
However, the working documents that were necessary to establish how quantification was carried out were unavailable. Yet if these quantified objectives are to have any relevance, it must be possible to compare them ex post with what has been achieved so that conclusions can be drawn. 
Vendar ni bilo mogoče dobiti delovnih dokumentov, na podlagi katerih bi se lahko prepričali o načinu izvedbe te kvantifikacije. Da bi bili ti kvantificirani cilji koristni, jih je treba naknadno primerjati z doseženim in iz tega potegniti sklepe.
If the context in which targets were set cannot be recreated, there will be little basis on which to draw conclusions from this comparison. 
Če pogojev, v katerih so se oblikovali cilji, ni mogoče obnoviti, sklepi te primerjave ne bodo utemeljeni.
The general nature of the objectives defined for each CIP and the diversity of measures hamper the identification of relevant and workable indicators. 
Splošnost ciljev, upoštevanih na ravni programov pobude Skupnosti, in raznovrstnost ukrepov ovirata določitev ustreznih in koristnih kazalnikov.
However, it is important that the situation be clarified and a selection made with the aim of retaining only those indicators that are essential for monitoring the progress of the CIP, making decisions or measuring programme impact. 
Vendar je pomembno pojasniti položaj v zvezi s kazalniki in opraviti izbiro, da bi ohranili samo tiste, ki so potrebni za spremljanje napredka programa pobude Skupnosti in sprejetje odločitve ter tudi oceno njegovega učinka.