natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Mid-term evaluation (MTE): A type of ongoing evaluation report. 
Vmesno vrednotenje: vrsta poročila o sprotnem vrednotenju.
Mid-term evaluation reports propose measures to improve the quality of rural development programmes and their implementation. 
V poročilih o vmesnem vrednotenju se predlagajo ukrepi za izboljšanje kakovosti programov razvoja podeželja in njihovega izvajanja.
Monitoring: Regular examination of the resources, outputs and results of interventions. NPI: Non-productive investments supported by EAFRD measure 216. 
Vrednotenje: periodično zbiranje in analiza dokazov z namenom oblikovanja zaključkov o uspešnosti in učinkovitosti intervencij.
Executive 07 summary I IV As part of the EU rural development policy, Member States may use the EU budget to give grants towards the costs of non-productive investments (NPIs). 
Povzetek 07 I IV Države članice lahko v okviru politike EU za razvoj podeželja iz proračuna EU dodelijo nepovratna sredstva za kritje stroškov neproduktivnih naložb.
NPIs are investments which do not generate a significant return, income, or revenue, or increase significantly the value of the beneficiary’s holding, but have a positive environmental impact. 
Neproduktivne naložbe so naložbe, ki ne ustvarjajo bistvenega donosa, prejemkov ali prihodkov ali ki bistveno ne povečujejo vrednosti gospodarstva upravičenca, vendar imajo pozitiven vpliv na okolje.
In particular, NPIs should play a complementary role in helping to achieve agri-environmental objectives or commitments, which can be undertaken under other environmental schemes, or in enhancing the environmental value of protected areas. 
Neproduktivne naložbe bi morale imeti zlasti dopolnilno vlogo pri doseganju kmetijsko-okoljskih ciljev ali zavez, ki se lahko sprejmejo v okviru drugih okoljskih shem, ali pri krepitvi okoljske vrednosti zaščitenih območij.
II Public support for NPIs is provided by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and national co-financing. 
II Javna podpora za neproduktivne naložbe se zagotavlja v okviru Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja (EKSRP) in nacionalnega sofinanciranja.
The public aid rates applied for NPIs are much higher than those granted to other productive investments, and often reach 100 % of the total investment costs. 
Stopnje javne pomoči, ki se uporabljajo za neproduktivne naložbe, so veliko višje od tistih za druge, tj. produktivne naložbe, in pogosto dosežejo 100 % skupnih naložbenih stroškov.
For the 2007-2013 programming period, approximately 860 million euros of public money were spent on NPIs. 
V programskem obdobju 2007–2013 je bilo za neproduktivne naložbe porabljenih približno 860 milijonov EUR javnih sredstev.
This audit examined the cost-effectiveness of NPIs in contributing to the achievement of environmental objectives in the 2007-2013 programming period. 
Pri reviziji je bila preučena stroškovna učinkovitost neproduktivnih naložb pri prispevanju k doseganju okoljskih ciljev v programskem obdobju 2007–2013.
While the Member States did not always ensure the complementary role of NPIs in synergies with other support schemes, they targeted NPI funds to the types of investments with the potential to effectively address their agri-environmental needs. 
Države članice niso vedno zagotovile dopolnilne vloge neproduktivnih naložb v smislu sinergij z drugimi shemami podpore, vendar so sredstva za neproduktivne naložbe usmerile v vrste naložb s potencialom za uspešno obravnavanje njihovih kmetijsko-okoljskih potreb.
However, the audit revealed that the Member States reimbursed investment costs which were unreasonably high or insufficiently justified, making the NPI support not cost-effective. 
Vendar je revizija pokazala, da so države članice povrnile naložbene stroške, ki so bili nerazumno visoki ali nezadostno utemeljeni, zato podpora za neproduktivne naložbe ni bila stroškovno učinkovita.
Furthermore, weaknesses in the selection procedures led Member States to fund NPI projects which were ineligible for EU funding, or to select project applications without verifying appropriately that they respected crucial selection criteria. 
Poleg tega so države članice zaradi slabosti v izbirnih postopkih financirale projekte neproduktivnih naložb, ki niso bili upravičeni do financiranja EU, ali izbrale projektne vloge, ne da bi ustrezno preverile, ali te izpolnjujejo ključna izbirna merila.
V The audit found that 71 % of the visited projects contributed to the achievement of agri-environment objectives such as landscape and biodiversity protection. 
V Pri reviziji je bilo ugotovljeno, da je 71 % projektov, ki jih je obiskalo Sodišče, prispevalo k doseganju kmetijsko-okoljskih ciljev, kot sta varstvo krajine in biotske raznovrstnosti.
For this contribution to be cost-effective, it is essential that the costs of the supported NPIs are reasonable and justified. 
Za stroškovno učinkovitost tega prispevka je bistveno, da so stroški neproduktivnih naložb, ki prejmejo podporo, razumni in utemeljeni.
The Court found clear indications of unreasonable costs in 75 % of these projects. 
Sodišče je pri 75 % teh projektov našlo jasne dokaze, da so bili njihovi stroški nerazumni.
As a result, only 5 of the 28 (18 %) audited projects proved to be cost-effective. 
Pokazalo se je torej, da je bilo samo 5 od 28 (18 %) revidiranih projektov stroškovno učinkovitih.
VI The problems with the reasonableness of costs of NPIs may not be confined to the sample of projects, since the concrete cases identified stem from weaknesses in the management and control systems of the Member States. 
VI Težave v zvezi z razumnostjo stroškov neproduktivnih naložb niso nujno omejene le na vzorec projektov, saj konkretni primeri, ki so bili odkriti, izhajajo iz slabosti upravljavskih in kontrolnih sistemov držav članic.
In particular, they reimbursed investment costs on the basis of unit costs which were much higher than the actual market costs, or did not appropriately verify the reality of the costs claimed, or accepted the most expensive offer for undertaking the investment without requiring justification from the beneficiaries or without comparing the proposed costs against benchmarks. 
Pri tem je šlo zlasti za primere, ko so države članice povrnile naložbene stroške na podlagi stroškov na enoto, ki so bili veliko višji od dejanskih tržnih stroškov, ali ko niso ustrezno preverjale resničnosti prijavljenih stroškov ali ko so sprejele najdražjo ponudbo za izvedbo naložbe, ne da bi od upravičencev zahtevale utemeljitev ali ne da bi predlagane stroške primerjale z referenčnimi vrednostmi.
In addition, the Court found several cases in all the Member States audited where NPIs with obvious remunerative characteristics benefited from the maximum aid rates stipulated for this type of investments, which meant that, in most cases, they were fully funded with public money. 
Poleg tega je Sodišče v vseh revidiranih državah članicah odkrilo več primerov, pri katerih so imele neproduktivne naložbe z očitnimi profitnimi značilnostmi koristi od najvišjih možnih stopenj pomoči, predvidenih za to vrsto naložb, kar pomeni, da so bile v večini primerov v celoti financirane z javnimi sredstvi.
Executive summary 08 VII There was a lack of performance information to show what has been achieved with the support to NPIs at EU and Member State levels. 
Povzetek 08 VII – Informacij o smotrnosti poslovanja, iz katerih bi bilo razvidno, kaj je bilo doseženo s podporo za neproduktivne naložbe na ravni EU in držav članic, ni bilo.
The available monitoring indicators measured only input and output data, such as the amount of public expenditure, the number of holdings receiving support, and the total investment volume. 
Z razpoložljivimi kazalniki spremljanja so se merili le vhodni in izhodni podatki, kot so znesek javnih odhod-– kov, število gospodarstev, ki prejemajo podporo, in skupni obseg naložbe.
The absence of specific result indicators led some Member States to bundle the performance assessment of NPIs with other environmental schemes, wishfully assuming that all performed in the same way. 
Zaradi pomanjkanja posebnih kazalnikov rezultatov so nekatere države članice oceno smotrnosti poslovanja pri neproduktivnih naložbah združile z drugimi okoljskimi shemami, saj so iluzorno predvidevale, da je njihova smotrnost poslovanja enaka.
VIII EAFRD support for NPIs continues in the 2014-2020 programming period, but the Commission and the Member States have not yet corrected most of the weaknesses identified by the Court. 
VIII hovo preglednost, ter pregledati, ali države članice Podpora iz EKSRP za neproduktivne naložbe se bo v programskem obdobju 2014–2020 še naprej izvajala, vendar pa Komisija in države članice še niso odpravile – večine slabosti, ki jih je odkrilo Sodišče.
The main reason is that they did not do enough to identify weaknesses in a timely manner, so that the necessary corrective actions could be taken before the start of the new period. 
Glavni razlog za to je, da niso storile dovolj, da bi pravočasno odkrile slabosti, tako da bi se lahko potrebni popravljalni ukrepi sprejeli pred začetkom novega obdobja.
On the one hand, the Member States did not analyse the causes of the irregularities detected through their own controls to improve the management of the scheme. On the other hand, the Commission’s own audits took place too late to help Member States identify and correct management shortcomings during the 2007-2013 implementation period. 
Po eni strani države članice niso analizirale vzrokov za nepravilnosti, ugotovljenih v okviru njihovih lastnih kontrol – za izboljšanje upravljanja sheme, po drugi strani pa je Komisija opravila revizijo prepozno, da bi državam članicam pomagala ugotoviti in odpraviti pomanjkljivosti upravljanja v obdobju izvajanja 2007–2013. uporabljajo ustrezne postopke za izbiro projektov.
IX On the basis of these findings the Court makes the following recommendations aimed at improving the cost-effectiveness of NPIs that will be funded during the 2014-2020 Rural Development programme period: — The Commission should monitor the relevant Member States’ implementation of NPIs through their annual implementation reports, from 2017, which should also include the number and proportion of NPI projects that have been implemented in combination with other rural development measures or environmental schemes, including integrated projects. — The Member States should include in their evaluation plans, an assessment of the extent to which NPIs are implemented in synergy with other rural development measures or environmental schemes. — The Member States should make public all the criteria used in the selection and prioritisation of NPIs and systematically verify the supporting documentation proving compliance with these criteria. 
Na podlagi te ocene bi morale Na podlagi teh ugotovitev Sodišče izreka naslednja priporočila za izboljšanje stroškovne učinkovitosti neproduktivnih naložb, ki se bodo financirale na – področju razvoja podeželja v programskem obdobju 2014–2020: države članice prilagoditi intenzivnost pomoči.
Executive summary 09 — The Commission should, in the context of its multiannual audit plan, verify the Member States’ effective application of the controls foreseen to ensure reasonableness of costs. — Member States should define, before the first on-the-spot controls for the 2014-20 period are performed, a method for the timely consolidation and analysis of the cause of the errors found during these controls. — In planning future audits, the Commission should take due account of the scale of weaknesses identified by the Court in the area of expenditure, irrespective of its limited financial importance. 
Povzetek 09 – Komisija bi morala v okviru svojega večletnega revizijskega načrta preveriti, ali države članice uspešno izvajajo predvidene kontrole za zagotavljanje razumnosti stroškov. – Države članice bi morale pred prvimi kontrolami na kraju samem za obdobje 2014–2020 opredeliti način za pravočasno uskladitev in analizo vzrokov napak, odkritih med temi kontrolami. – Komisija bi morala pri načrtovanju prihodnjih revizij ustrezno upoštevati obseg slabosti, ki jih je Sodišče ugotovilo na področju odhodkov, tudi če je njihov finančni pomen omejen.
Introduction 10 EU support for non-productive investments in agriculture 01 Non-productive investments (NPIs) are investments which do not generate a significant return, income, or revenue, or increase significantly the value of the beneficiary’s holding, but have a positive environmental impact. 
Uvod 10 Podpora EU za neproduktivne naložbe v kmetijstvu 01 Neproduktivne naložbe so naložbe, ki ne ustvarjajo bistvenega donosa, prejemkov ali prihodkov ali ki bistveno ne povečujejo vrednosti gospodarstva upravičenca, vendar imajo pozitiven vpliv na okolje.
Public support for NPIs provides a financial incentive for the owners of agricultural holdings to undertake this type of environmentally friendly investments. 
Javna podpora za neproduktivne naložbe zagotavlja lastnikom kmetijskih gospodarstev finančno spodbudo za izvajanje tovrstnih okolju prijaznih naložb.
NPIs have a varied content, ranging from the restoration of landscape features such as traditional boundaries, wetlands, hedges and dry-stone walls, to creating and/or restoring a habitat or landscape element, such as restoring heathland, species-rich grassland or floristically enhanced grass margins (see Box 1). 
Neproduktivne naložbe so vsebinsko raznolike: nanašajo se lahko na obnavljanje krajinskih značilnosti, kot so tradicionalne meje, mokrišča, žive meje in suhi zidovi, ali pa na ustvarjanje in/ali obnavljanje habitata ali elementa krajine, kot so obnavljanje resave, z vrstami bogatega travinja ali rastlinsko oboga-tenih meja (glej okvir 1).
02 During the 2007-2013 period, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) granted support for NPIs under measure 216. 
02 V obdobju 2007–2013 se je podpora za neproduktivne naložbe iz Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja (EKSRP) zagotavljala v okviru ukrepa 216.
As shown in Figure 1, this measure is part of Axis 2 of the EU rural development policy relating to the overarching objective of sustainable use of agricultural land. 
Kot je prikazano v diagramu 1, je ta ukrep del osi 2 politike EU za razvoj podeželja, ki se nanaša na splošni cilj trajnostne rabe kmetijskih zemljišč.
Examples of supported NPI Dry‐stone wall in Puglia (IT) Wetland boardwalk in East Devon (UK) Source: European Court of Auditors. 
Primeri neproduktivnih naložb, ki so prejele podporo Suhi zid v Apuliji (Italija). Lesena potka čez mokrišče v okraju East Devon (Združeno kraljestvo). Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče.
Introduction 11 Structure of Axis 2 of the EU rural development policy with regard to the sustainable use of agricultural land Axis 2 - Improving the environment and the countryside Sustainable use of agricultural land 212 213 Natura 2000 payments and payments linked 211 Natural handicap payments to farmers in mountain areas Payments to farmers in areas with handicaps, other than mountain areas to Directive 2000/60/EC 214 Agri-environment payments 215 Animal welfare payments 216 Non-productive investments Source: The European Network for Rural Development (ENRD). 
Uvod 11 Struktura osi 2 politike EU za razvoj podeželja, ki se nanaša na trajnostno rabo kmetijskih zemljišč. Os 2 – Izboljšanje okolja in podeželja Trajnostna raba kmetijskih zemljišč 212 213 Plačila v okviru območij Natura 2000 in plačila, vezana na 211 Plačila kmetom zaradi omejenih možnosti na gorskih območjih Plačila kmetom na območjih z omejenimi možnostmi, ki niso gorska območja Direktivo 2000/60/ES 214 Kmetijsko-okoljska plačila 215 Plačila za dobro počutje živali 216 Neproduktivne naložbe Vir: Evropska mreža za razvoj podeželja (ENRD).
03 The EAFRD regulation1 states that ‘support should be granted for non-remunerative investments where they are necessary to achieve the commitments undertaken under agri-environmental schemes or other agri-environmental objectives, or where they enhance on-farm the public amenity value of Natura 2000 areas and other areas of high natural value’. 
03 V uredbi EKSRP1 je navedeno, da je „[t]reba [...] dodeliti podporo naložbam neprofitnega značaja, kadar so potrebne za izpolnjevanje obveznosti, sprejetih v okviru kmetijsko-okoljskih shem ali drugih kmetijsko-okoljskih ciljev, oziroma ko na kmetijah povečujejo javno uporabnost območij Natura 2000 in drugih območij visoke naravne vrednosti“.
04 In particular, NPIs should play a complementary role in helping to achieve the sustainable use of agricultural land, either by enhancing the environmental value of protected areas or by contributing towards achieving agri-environment commitments, such as those supported by rural development measure 2142, ‘agri-environment payments’. 
04 Neproduktivne naložbe bi morale imeti predvsem dopolnilno vlogo pri prispevanju k doseganju trajnostne rabe kmetijskih zemljišč, in sicer z okrepitvijo okoljske vrednosti zaščitenih območij ali s prispevanjem k doseganju kmetijsko-okoljskih zavez, kot so tiste, ki se podpirajo v okviru ukrepa 214 za razvoj podeželja „kmetijsko okoljska plačila“2.
Alternatively, NPIs can be implemented independently to achieve other agri-environmental objectives, often shared by other environmental schemes and/or measures. 
V drugem primeru se lahko neproduktivne naložbe izvajajo neodvisno za doseganje drugih kmetijsko-okoljskih ciljev, ki so pogosto skupni tudi drugim okoljskim shemam in/ali ukrepom.
05 In the 2014-2020 programming period, support for NPIs remains under the new sub-measure3 4.4 ‘support for non-productive investments linked to the achievement of agri-environment-climate objectives’. 
05 V programskem obdobju 2014–2020 je podpora za neproduktivne naložbe pod novim podukrepom 4.43 o podpori za neproduktivne naložbe, povezane z doseganjem kmetijsko-okoljskih-podnebnih ciljev.
The measure is essentially the same as in 2007-2013 as regards its rationale, scope, beneficiaries, type and level of support. 
Ukrep je glede utemeljitve, obsega, upravičencev ter vrste in stopnje podpore v bistvu enak tistemu iz obdobja 2007–2013.
It also retains its complementary role towards other measures4 and/or other environmental objectives. 
Ohranil je tudi svojo dopolnilno vlogo v odnosu do drugih ukrepov4 in/ali drugih okoljskih ciljev.
Annex I provides, for comparison, the rationale and certain characteristics of the measure in the 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 programming periods. 
V Prilogi I je ponazorjena primerjava utemeljitve in nekaterih značilnosti ukrepa iz programskega obdobja 2007–2013 in ukrepa iz obdobja 2014–2020.
1 Recital 37 of the preamble to Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p.1). 
1698/2005 z dne 20. septembra 2005 o podpori za razvoj podeželja iz Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja (EKSRP) (UL L 277, 21.10.2005, str. 1).
2 Rural development measure 214 ‘agri-environment payments’ supports the sustainable development of rural areas. 
2 Ukrep 214 za razvoj podeželja „kmetijsko okoljska plačila“ podpira trajnostni razvoj podeželskih območij.
The payments granted under this measure represent 57 % of the public funding for sustainable use of agricultural land. 
Plačila, dodeljena v okviru tega ukrepa, pomenijo 57 % javnih sredstev za trajnostno rabo kmetijskih zemljišč.
It encourages farmers and other land managers to commit, on a voluntary basis, to introducing or continuing to apply agricultural production methods compatible with the protection and improvement of the environment, the landscape and its features, natural resources, the soil and genetic diversity. 
Ukrep je namenjen spodbujanju kmetov in drugih upravljavcev zemljišč, da se prostovoljno zavežejo uvajanju ali nadaljnji uporabi metod kmetijske proizvodnje, ki so skladne z varstvom in izboljšanjem okolja, krajine in njenih značilnosti, naravnih virov, tal in genetske raznovrstnosti.
3 As defined in the Commission implementing Regulation (EU) No 808/2014 of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ L 227, 31.7.2014, p. 
808/2014 z dne 17. julija 2014 o določitvi pravil za uporabo Uredbe (EU) št. 1305/2013 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o podpori za razvoj podeželja iz Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja (EKSRP) (UL L 227, 31.7.2014, str.
Figure 1 
Diagram 1
Introduction 12 06 The Commission and the Member States share responsibility for managing EU support to NPIs. 
Uvod 12 06 Komisija in države članice si delijo odgovornost za upravljanje podpore EU za neproduktivne naložbe.
Member States must define specific objectives and implement effective management and control systems to ensure that the supported investments respect the applicable rules and are cost-effective. 
Države članice morajo določiti posebne cilje in uvesti uspešne upravljavske in kontrolne sisteme za zagotovitev, da naložbe, ki se podpirajo, izpolnjujejo veljavna pravila in so stroškovno učinkovite.
07 The Commission establishes implementing rules and guidelines, and approves national or regional rural development programmes (RDPs) where the Member States identify their objectives for the selected support measures. 
07 Komisija določi izvedbena pravila in smernice ter odobri nacionalne ali regionalne programe razvoja podeželja, v katerih države članice opredelijo svoje cilje za izbrane ukrepe podpore.
The Commission monitors and supervises the implementation of the programmes and checks that national administrations of the Member States have implemented effective management and control systems. 
Komisija spremlja in nadzoruje izvajanje programov ter preverja, ali so nacionalne uprave držav članic uvedle uspešne upravljavske in kontrolne sisteme.
08 For the 2007-2013 period, the public support rates stipulated for NPIs can reach 100 % of total eligible costs. 
08 Za obdobje 2007–2013 lahko stopnje javne podpore, predvidene za neproduktivne naložbe, dosežejo 100 % skupnih upravičenih stroškov.
This compares with a support rate of 40 % generally applied to other productive investments, such as those linked with the modernisation of agricultural holdings or adding value to agricultural products. 
Za druge, produktivne naložbe, kot so naložbe, povezane s posodobitvijo kmetijskih gospodarstev ali zagotavljanjem dodane vrednosti kmetijskim proizvodom, se običajno uporablja stopnja podpore v višini 40 %.
For the 2014-2020 period, these public support rates are maintained. 
V obdobju 2014–2020 so te stopnje javne podpore ohranjene.
09 For the 2007-2013 programming period, approximately 1 014 million euros, i.e. 1,5 % of public funding (EAFRD plus national co-financing) for the sustainable use of agricultural land was programmed for non-productive investments (see Table 1). 
09 Za programsko obdobje 2007–2013 je bilo za neproduktivne naložbe načrtovanih približno 1 014 milijonov EUR ali 1,5 % javnega financiranja (EKSRP in nacionalno sofinanciranje) za trajnostno rabo kmetijskih zemljišč (glej tabelo 1).
In the 2014-2020 programming period, since most of the RDPs had not been approved by the time of writing (late May 20155), it is not possible to present the amounts of EAFRD expenditure that is programmed. 
Za programsko obdobje 2014–2020 zneskov načrtovanih odhodkov EKSRP ni mogoče navesti, saj v času priprave tega poročila (konec maja 20155) večina programov razvoja podeželja še ni bila odobrena.
4 ‘Agri-environment-climate’ refers to the new rural development measure 10 for the period 2014-2020. 
4 „Kmetijsko-okoljska-podnebna plačila“ se nanašajo na novi ukrep 10 za razvoj podeželja za obdobje 2014–2020.
The payments under this measure aim to preserve and promote necessary changes to agricultural practices with intent to make a positive contribution to the environment and climate. 
Plačila iz tega ukrepa so namenjena ohranjanju in spodbujanju potrebnih sprememb kmetijskih praks, ki naj bi pozitivno vplivale na okolje in podnebje.