natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
49. This amount is not linked to the viability or other characteristics of the holdings (see paragraph 42) and it is not known if it is proportional to young farmers’ needs, as these were 38 39 As of February 2017, the French authorities could not provide a database with the list of beneficiaries of this payment in 2015 indicating the amount received from this payment and the other Pillar 1 direct payments, the date of setting-up and application, the number of hectares and the share of the holding held by the young farmer (in case of joint control of the holding). 
Ta znesek predstavlja približno 4 % povprečnega dohodka kmetijskega gospodarstva (30 000 EUR) v EU38, v nekaterih 38 Do februarja 2017 francoski organi niso uspeli zagotovili podatkovne zbirke s seznamom upravičencev do tega plačila v letu 2015, v kateri bi bili navedeni zneski, prejeti v okviru tega plačila in drugih neposrednih plačil iz 1. stebra, datumi prevzema kmetijskega gospodarstva in vložitve zahtevka, števila hektarjev in delež kmetijskega gospodarstva v lasti mladega kmeta (v primeru skupnega obvladovanja kmetijskega gospodarstva).
According to the Farm Accountancy Data Network the average Farm Net Value Added (FNVA) in the E27 EU Member States in 2012 was around 30 000 euro, while the FNVA per Annual Work Unit was around 19 000 euro. 
Na podlagi Mreže za zbiranje računovodskih podatkov s kmetijskih gospodarstev je povprečna neto dodana vrednost kmetije v EU-27 v letu 2012 znašala približno 30 000 EUR, neto dodana vrednost kmetije na enoto vloženega dela pa je bila približno 19 000 EUR.
Audited beneficiaries indicated that this amount was mainly used to cover current expenditure and to make up for shortfalls in their revenue resulting from the fluctuation of agricultural prices, which is a situation that all farmers – not only those up to 40 – have to face. 
Revidirani upravičenci so navedli, da so znesek v glavnem uporabili za kritje tekočih stroškov in izpada prihodkov zaradi nihanja cen kmetijskih proizvodov, s čimer se morajo spopadati vsi kmetje, ne le tisti, stari do 40 let.
It is therefore unlikely that the amount of aid currently provided by this payment would have a substantial impact on the viability of the holdings and on the young farmers’ setting-up decisions. 
Zato je malo verjetno, da bi imel znesek pomoči, ki se trenutno zagotavlja, bistven vpliv na sposobnost preživetja kmetijskih gospodarstev ali na odločitve mladih kmetov v zvezi s prevzemom kmetijskega gospodarstva.
Italy and Spain opted for calculating the amount of aid as 25 % of the average value of entitlements held by each young farmer. 
Italija in Španija sta se odločili, da bosta znesek pomoči izračunali kot 25 % povprečne vrednosti pravic, ki jih ima posamezen mladi kmet.
This value is linked to the historical value of the entitlements held by each young farmer, who acquired or rented them from other farmers (e.g. parents or older farmers). 
Ta vrednost je odvisna od zgodovinske vrednosti pravic, ki jih ima posamezen mladi kmet, ki jih je pridobil ali jih ima v najemu od drugih kmetov (npr. staršev ali starejših kmetov).
Since the objective of this payment is to facilitate the initial establishment of young farmers it is not clear why the amount of aid is linked to the history of the holdings and consequently penalises young farmers who are not inheriting or obtaining high-value entitlements previously held by other farmers. 
Ker je to plačilo namenjeno lažjemu zagonu dejavnosti mladih kmetov, ni jasno, zakaj je znesek pomoči odvisen od zgodovine kmetijskih gospodarstev, saj so tako mladi kmetje, ki niso podedovali ali pridobili visokih vrednosti pravic drugih kmetov, v slabšem položaju.
The aid was often paid to beneficiaries who had been established for several years and, in some cases (see examples in Box 2), had already achieved a sufficient and stable income. 
Pomoč je bila pogosto plačana upravičencem, ki so kmetijska gospodarstva prevzeli že pred nekaj leti in so v nekaterih primerih (glej primere v okviru 2) že dosegali zadostne in stalne dohodke.
This means that the timing of the aid was generally not consistent with its claimed objectives, as it was often paid too late to facilitate the initial establishment of young farmers or to contribute to any structural adjustment of their holdings. 
To pomeni, da čas izplačila pomoči v splošnem ni bil v skladu njenimi zastavljenimi cilji, saj je bila pomoč pogosto plačana prepozno, da bi se z njo olajšal zagon dejavnosti za mlade kmete ali da bi pripomogla k strukturnemu prilagajanju njihovih 39 37 Istituto Nazionale di Economia Agraria, I giovani e il ricambio generazionale nell’Agricoltura italiana, 2013, str.
Nor did it act as incentive, as most of young farmers audited had set up before knowing that they would receive the aid. 
Prav tako pomoč ni delovala kot spodbuda, saj je večina mladih kmetov prevzelo kmetijska gospodarstva, preden so vedeli, da bodo pomoč prejeli.
Pillar 2 project selection system allows good targeting, although best projects were sometimes not prioritised Eligibility and selection criteria allowed targeting the aid towards more qualified farmers and less favoured areas ... 
Sistem za izbor projektov v okviru 2. stebra omogoča dobro ciljno usmerjanje pomoči, kljub temu pa najboljši projekti včasih niso dobili prednosti Z merili za upravičenost in izbirnimi merili je bilo pomoč mogoče ciljno usmeriti na bolj usposobljene kmete in na območja z omejenimi možnostmi ...
All four audited Member States directed the aid towards more qualified farmers, by requiring either to have a sufficient level of agricultural education or to acquire it within 36 months from application. 
Vse štiri revidirane države članice so pomoč usmerjale na bolj usposobljene kmete tako, da so zahtevale, da ima kmet bodisi zadostno stopnjo izobrazbe kmetijske smeri bodisi da jo v 36 mesecih od vložitve zahtevka pridobi.
The aid has generally increased the professional competence of 37 young farmers and their capacity to introduce innovations. 
S pomočjo se je v splošnem izboljšala poklicna usposobljenost mladih kmetov in njihove zmožnosti za uvedbo inovacij.
For example, in Italy (Emilia-Romagna) 31 % of supported young farmers hold an agricultural degree, while only 25 % of all young farmers existing in the region hold such a degree. 
V Italiji (Emilija-Romanja) je imelo, na primer, 31 % mladih kmetov, ki so prejeli podporo, zaključeno izobrazbo kmetijske smeri, medtem ko je imelo tako izobrazbo le 25 % vseh mladih kmetov v regiji.
In Spain (Andalucía) 84 % of supported young farmers have some agricultural training, compared to only 26 % of all young farmers existing in the region and 12 % of supported young farmers apply organic farming methods, compared to only 4 % of all young farmers existing in the region. 
V Španiji (Andaluzija) je 84 % mladih kmetov, ki so prejeli podporo, zaključilo neko stopnjo usposabljanja s področja kmetijstva, medtem ko je bilo od vseh mladih kmetov v regiji takih le 26 %. Metode ekološkega kmetovanja je uporabljajo 12 % mladih kmetov, ki so prejeli podporo, medtem ko so od vseh mladih kmetov v regiji take metode uporabljali le 4 %.
AllfourauditedMemberStatesencouragedyoungfarmerstosetupinlessfavoured areas (e.g. areas with natural constraints, with higher unemployment): - in France and Italy (Emilia-Romagna) this was done by providing significantly higher amount of aid (around 20 000 euro more) to applicants setting up in less favoured areas; - Italy (Puglia) effectively favoured young farmers setting up in less favoured areas both by awarding more points in selection criteria and by granting an additional amount of 5 000 euro to young farmers setting up in such areas. 
Vse štiri revidirane države članice so spodbujale mlade kmete, naj prevzamejo kmetijska gospodarstva na območjih z omejenimi možnostmi (npr. območja z naravnimi omejitvami ali višjo stopnjo brezposelnosti): - Francija in Italija (Emilija-Romanja) sta to storili tako, da sta vlagateljem zahtevkov, ki so prevzeli kmetijska gospodarstva na območjih z omejenimi možnostmi, zagotovili znatno višjo pomoč (približno za 20 000 EUR), - Italija (Apulija) je dajala prednost mladim kmetom, ki so prevzeli kmetijska gospodarstva na območjih z omejenimi možnostmi tako, da jim je dodelila več točk pri izbirnih merilih in jim odobrila dodatni znesek v višini 5 000 EUR.
As a result, a higher proportion of young farmers located in rural areas with overall development problems (12 %) and intermediate rural area areas (10.6 %) was supported than those in rural areas under specialised intensive farming (9.9 %) and urban hubs (8 %)40; - in Spain (Andalucía) this was done both by awarding more points in the selection criteria and by granting an additional amount (+10 %) to young farmers setting up in such areas; - in Poland this was done through selection criteria by awarding additional points, in the 2007-2013 period, to applicants setting up in areas with higher unemployment. 
Tako je pomoč prejel večji delež mladih kmetov s podeželskih območij s splošnimi razvojnimi problemi (12 %) in vmesnih 38 podeželskih območjih (10,6 %) kot tistih s podeželskih območjih s specializiranim intenzivnim kmetijstvom (9,9 %) in iz urbanih središč (8 %);40 - Španija je to storila tako, da je mladim kmetom, ki so prevzeli kmetijska gospodarstva na takih območjih, dodelila več točk pri izbirnih merilih in jim odobrila dodatni znesek v višini 10 %. - na Poljskem je bilo to izvedeno z izbirnimi merili, pri katerih so v obdobju 2007–2013 vlagateljem zahtevkov, ki so prevzeli kmetijska gospodarstva na območjih z višjo stopno brezposelnosti, dodelili dodatne točke.
40 Rural areas with overall development problems represent the most disadvantaged territories of the region, in which the difficult topography and the scarcity of infrastructure limits productive activities, and are characterised by a significantly lower GDP per capita than other areas. 38 
40 Podeželska območja s splošnimi razvojnimi problemi so najbolj prikrajšana območja neke regije, kjer so zaradi težavne topografije in pomanjkanja infrastrukture proizvodne dejavnosti omejene, zanje pa je značilen veliko nižji BDP na prebivalca kot v drugih območjih. 39
Picture 1 – Holding that received support to set up in a less favoured area Source: ECA. ... although generational renewal was rarely addressed in the selection criteria 54. 
Fotografija 1 – Kmetijsko gospodarstvo, ki je prejelo podporo za prevzem na območju z omejenimi možnostmi Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče ... vendar je bila generacijska pomladitev v izbirnih merilih le redko obravnavana 54.
Only in Spain (Andalucía) in the 2007-2013 period and in Poland in the 2014-2020 period was there a selection criterion directly encouraging generational renewal: in Spain (Andalucía) applicants setting up as a result of an early retirement received more points, while in Poland the higher the age difference between the transferor of the holding and the young farmer the more points were awarded to the project. 
Samo v Španiji (Andaluzija) v obdobju 2007–2013 in na Poljskem v obdobju 2014–2020 je eno od izbirnih meril neposredno spodbujalo generacijsko pomladitev: v Španiji (Andaluzija) so vlagatelji zahtevkov, ki so prevzemali kmetijsko gospodarstvo zaradi predčasne upokojitve nosilca kmetijskega gospodarstva, prejeli več točk, na Poljskem pa je se je število točk, ki so bile dodeljene projektu, višalo z višjo starostno razliko med prenosnikom gospodarstva in mladim kmetom.
However, in practice, such criteria almost never had a decisive impact on targeting the aid, mainly because minimum thresholds of points were too low or non-existent (see paragraph 55). 
Vendar v praksi takšna merila skoraj nikoli niso odločilno vplivala na ciljno usmerjanje pomoči, predvsem zato ne, ker so bili minimalni pragi za zbrane točke prenizki ali jih sploh ni bilo (glej odstavek 55).
Weaknesses in selection systems often hindered prioritisation of best projects 55. 
Zaradi slabosti v izbirnih sistemih najboljši projekti pogosto niso dobili prednosti 55.
The selection systems should enable the comparative assessment and ranking of the project proposals to prioritize the most cost-effective projects. However, the selection 39 
Izbirni sistemi bi morali omogočati, da se predlogi projektov primerjalno ocenijo in razvrstijo tako, da se prednost nameni stroškovno najučinkovitejšim projektom.
criteria often had a limited impact in terms of targeting aid towards the best projects, as they were either introduced late in the 2007-2013 period or hardly ever applied to exclude low-quality projects. 
Vendar so imela izbirna merila pogosto le malo vplivala na ciljno usmerjanje pomoči na najboljše projekte, saj so bila bodisi uvedena pozno v obdobju 2007–2013 bodisi se skoraj nikoli niso uporabljala za izključitev projektov slabe kakovosti.
This was due to minimum thresholds of points for projects to be selected being too low or non-existent, and to an unbalanced distribution of the seven-year budget for the measure. 
Do tega je prišlo, ker so bili minimalni pragi za zbrane točke pri izboru projektov prenizki ali pa jih sploh ni bilo in ker je bil sedemletni proračun za ta ukrep neenakomerno porazdeljen.
For example, in Italy (Puglia), the whole 2007-2013 budget of the measure was used up, as almost all the applications submitted under the call for proposals organised in 2009 were funded. 
V Italiji (Apulija), na primer, je bil izčrpan skoraj celotni proračun ukrepa za obdobje 2007–2013, saj je bila podpora dodeljena skoraj vsem vlagateljem, ki so predložili zahtevke na podlagi razpisa za zbiranje predlogov, objavljenega leta 2009.
The threshold was so low that only eight projects out of 2 424 were rejected. 
Minimalni prag za zbrane točke je bil tako nizka, da je bilo od 2 424 projektov zavrnjenih le osem.
Consequently, young farmers who set up in the following five years with potentially better projects could not be funded. 
Zato mladih kmetov, ki so prevzeli kmetijska gospodarstva v naslednjih petih letih in katerih projekti so bili morda boljši, ni bilo mogoče financirati.
Similarly, in Spain (Andalucía), the whole 2014-2020 budget of the measure was used up in the first two calls for proposals (2015 and 2016) and the minimum points threshold was only one point out of 20. 
Podobno je bilo tudi v Španiji (Andaluzija), kjer je bil celotni proračun ukrepa za obdobje 2014–2020 porabljen v prvih dveh razpisih za zbiranje predlogov (v letih 2015 in 2016), minimalni prag za zbrane točke pa je prinesel samo eno točko od 20.
This means that for the rest of the programming period young farmers with potentially better projects will not have the opportunity to be funded, unless the budget for the measure is increased. 
To je pomenilo, da v preostanku programskega obdobja mladi kmetje z morebitnimi boljšimi projekti brez povečanja proračuna za ukrep ne bodo imeli možnosti za financiranje.
In Poland, the managing authority applied a ‘first come first served’ system with no selection criteria until 2011, when the budget was exhausted. 
Na Poljskem je organ upravljanja do leta 2011, ko je bil proračun izčrpan, uporabljal sistem brez kakršnih koli izbirnih meril po načelu „kdor prvi pride, prvi melje”.
Until 2014, when the budget for the measure was increased and selection criteria were introduced, no further call for proposals could be organised, preventing young farmers who set up in the intervening three-year period from being funded. 
Do leta 2014, ko je bil proračun za ukrep povečan in so bila uvedena izbirna merila, ni bilo mogoče objaviti nobenega dodatnega razpisa za zbiranje predlogov, zato mladi kmetje, ki so kmetijska gospodarstva prevzeli v vmesnem triletnem obdobju, niso imeli možnosti za financiranje.
Only in France and Italy (Emilia-Romagna) was the budget equally spread out through the programming periods with sufficiently high minimum points thresholds (although in France only for Midi-Pyrénées in 2014-2020 period). 
Samo v Franciji in Italiji (Emilija-Romanja) je bil proračun enakomerno porazdeljen po celotnem programskem obdobju, uporabljali pa so se tudi dovolj visoki minimalni pragi pri točkovanju (čeprav v Franciji samo v regiji Midi-Pyrénées v obdobju 2014–2020).
This made it possible to select a constant number of applications of sufficient quality to be funded every year. 
Tako je bilo mogoče vsako leto izbrati podobno število prijav dobre kakovosti, ki so prejele finančna sredstva.
Little evidence of improved viability 60. 
O izboljšanju sposobnosti gospodarskega preživetja je bilo le malo dokazov 60.
The Pillar 2 measure for setting up of young farmers aims at enhancing farm viability by favouring the setting up of adequately skilled farmers in agriculture and generational renewal (see paragraph 29). Business plans are in principle useful tools to guide young 40 
Cilj ukrepa za pomoč mladim prevzemnikom kmetij v okviru 2. stebra je okrepitev sposobnosti preživetja kmetij s spodbujanjem prevzemanja kmetijske dejavnosti pri ustrezno usposobljenih kmetih in generacijska pomladitev (glej odstavek 29).
farmers in developing viable holdings. They should also allow managing authorities to assess, at selection stage, the viability of the holdings and, later, monitor and evaluate the results. 
Služiti bi morali tudi temu, da lahko organi upravljanja v fazi izbora na njihovi podlagi ocenijo sposobnost preživetja kmetijskega gospodarstva, kasneje pa spremljajo in vrednotijo rezultate.
In none of the audited Member States was the initial estimated income of the holdings (before the project) used in the selection process to assess their potential to self-finance the investments. 
V nobeni od revidiranih držav članic se v izbirnem postopku ni uporabil prvotni ocenjeni dohodek kmetijskega gospodarstva (pred projektom), da bi se ocenila zmožnost za samofinanciranje naložb.
Moreover, business plans are useful tools but we found little evidence of improved viability (see Box 4). 
Poslovni načrti so sicer koristna orodja, vendar je Sodišče našlo le malo dokazov o tem, da se je sposobnosti preživetja kmetijskih gospodarstev izboljšala (glej okvir 4).
41 Box 4 –Little evidence of improved viability France Business plans were used to assess the likely viability of the holdings and support only young farmers setting up in holdings expected to generate an income – by the end of the project (normally the fourth year) – at least equal but not more than three times to the French minimum wage41. This criterion generally allowed aid to be channelled towards holdings that were both likely to be viable and in need of public aid. 
42 Okvir 4 – Le malo dokazov o izboljšanju sposobnosti preživetja kmetijskih gospodarstev Francija Na podlagi poslovnih načrtov se je ocenjevala verjetna sposobnost preživetja, podpora pa se je dodelila samo mladim kmetom, ki so prevzemali kmetijsko gospodarstvo, ki naj bi do konca projekta (običajno v četrtem letu) prinašalo dohodek, ki je najmanj tolikšen kot francoska minimalna plača, vendar manjši kot njen trikratnik.41 To merilo je v glavnem omogočalo, da se je pomoč usmerila na kmetijska gospodarstva, ki so bila verjetno sposobna preživetja, a so hkrati potrebovala pomoč iz javnih sredstev.
However, because of the significant delays in carrying out the checks at the end of the project, for most beneficiaries who started their projects in the period 2007-2010 there is as yet no evidence that they became viable. 
Zaradi velikih zamud pri preverjanjih ob koncu projektov pa doslej za večino upravičencev, ki so svoje projekte začeli izvajati v obdobju 2007–2010, še ni dokazov, da so postali sposobni preživetja.
In Pays-Loire almost half of the 598 projects that were completed and checked by November 2016 failed to respect the business plans, while in Midi-Pyrénées only 3 % of checked projects failed to respect the business plans. 
V regiji Loire skoraj polovica od 598 projektov, ki so bili zaključeni in pregledani do novembra 2016, ni sledila svojim poslovnim načrtom, v regiji Midi-Pyrénées pa je to veljalo za 3 % pregledanih projektov.
Poland Business plans were not required to show an increase in the viability of the holdings but only to mantain the initial level of standard output (or to reach a minimum level of 4 800 euro, where the initial level was lower than that) in 2007-2013, or achieve a modest increase (+10 %) in 2014-2020. 
43 Poljska Poslovni načrti niso bili potrebni kot dokaz, da se je povečala sposobnost preživetja kmetijskih gospodarstev, ampak samo kot dokaz, da je bila ohranjena prvotna višina standardnega prihodka (ali dosežena minimalna višina 4 800 EUR, kadar je bila prvotna višina nižja od tega zneska) v obdobju 2007–2013 oziroma doseženo njegovo zmerno povečanje (+10 %) v obdobju 2014–2020.
This requirement is an attempt to prompt young farmers to maintain or slightly increase their farm size and/or to choose more productive crops. 
S to zahtevo se je mlade kmete želelo spodbuditi k ohranitvi ali rahlemu povečanju velikosti njihovih kmetij in/ali izbiri bolj produktivnih poljščin.
However, it is not necessarily prompting young farmers to increase their income and viability, since the standard output does not consider the costs or, therefore, the income. 
Vendar to ni nujno pomenilo, da se s tem spodbuja mlade kmete k povečanju njihovega dohodka in sposobnosti preživetja kmetijskih gospodarstev, saj v standardnem prihodku niso upoštevani stroški in posledično tudi ne dohodki.
It only measures the agricultural production potential of a holding on the basis of its size and type of crops/livestock. 
Z njim se meri samo potencial za kmetijsko proizvodnjo kmetijskega gospodarstva na podlagi njegove velikosti in vrste poljščin/živine.
42 Spain Business plans were used to support, as a priority, young farmers setting up in holdings expected to generate sufficient workload for at least one annual work unit and an income per annual work unit between 35 % and 120 % of the Spanish reference income42. 
Španija Na podlagi poslovnih načrtov se je prednost pri podpori namenjala mladim kmetom, ki so prevzemali kmetijska gospodarstva, za katera se je pričakovalo, da bodo imela zadosten obseg dela za vsaj eno enoto vloženega dela in dohodek na enoto vloženega dela med 35 % in 120 % španskega referenčnega dohodka42.
However, the estimated income was influenced by the cost estimates stated by the beneficiaries in their business plans, whose reliability was not checked by the managing authority when approving projects. 
Vendar je na ocenjeni dohodek vplivala ocena stroškov, ki so jo upravičenci navedli v svojih poslovnih načrtih, zanesljivosti teh ocen pa organi upravljanja pri odobritvah projektov niso preverjali.
Also the checks at the end of the project were not based on actual costs, income, equipment or employees. 
Tudi pregledi na koncu projektov niso temeljili na dejanskih stroških, dohodkih, opremi ali zaposlenih.
In addition, business plans were not required to show an increase in the viability of the holdings and were not used to assess the need for public support. 
Prav tako se ni zahtevalo, da se v poslovnem načrtu prikaže povečana sposobnost preživetja kmetijskega gospodarstva, poslovni načrti pa se tudi niso uporabljali za ocenjevanje potrebe po podpori iz javnih sredstev.
Three of the seven audited beneficiaries used the aid essentially for buying additional land or acquiring shares in a holding from parents or brothers, without demonstrating any increase in the viability of their holdings. 
Trije od sedmih revidiranih upravičencev so pomoč uporabili v glavnem za nakup dodatnih zemljišč ali pridobitev deležev v kmetijskem gospodarstvu od staršev ali bratov, ne da bi prikazali kakršno koli povečanje zmožnosti preživetja svojih kmetijskih gospodarstev.
42 Renta de referencia: Indicator of non-agricultural gross salaries for Spain. 
42 Renta de referencia: kazalnik bruto plač izven kmetijskega sektorja za Španijo.