natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the annual meetings, all available data and information, e.g. financial, monitoring data, evaluation findings, are taken into account to assess progress in implementation and any need for adjustments in strategy and financial allocations are discussed. 
Na letnem zasedanju se zberejo in upoštevajo vsi podatki in informacije, ki so na voljo, npr. finančni podatki, podatki o spremljanju, ugotovitve vrednotenj, z namenom ocene napredka pri izvajanju, razpravlja pa se tudi o morebitnih potrebah po prilagoditvi strategije in dodeljenih finančnih sredstev.
Since the report quoted by the Court is an implementation report on strategy plans/strategic guidelines, it cannot go in the detailed reasoning behind the budget for each individual Rural Development measure. 
Ker je poročilo, ki ga je citiralo Sodišče, poročilo o izvajanju strateških načrtov/strateških smernic, ne more podrobno argumentirati razlogov za proračun vsakega posameznega ukrepa razvoja podeželja.
Moreover, it refers to results, but lets the reader understand that is too early for them to become visible. (see point 4: ‘outlook’ in the report). 
Poleg tega se nanaša na rezultate, a bralcu da vedeti, da je še prezgodaj, da bi ti bili vidni (glej točko 4: „obeti“ v poročilu).
Poor results for one indicator are not a sufficient basis to change a policy with a 7 to 9 year implementation period. 
Slabi rezultati za en kazalnik niso zadostna osnova za spremembo politike, katere obdobje izvajanja traja 7 do 9 let.
REPLY OF THE COMMISSION 72. Although evaluation results for the current programming period (2007-13) were not yet available, the Commission’s Common Agricultural Policy reform proposals were strongly based on the lessons learnt so far with the CMEF, the on-going experience with implementation of the Rural Development Programmes and on the evaluations of previous programming periods and of rural development measures. 
Čeprav rezultati vrednotenja za sedanje programsko obdobje (2007–13) še niso bili na voljo, so predlogi Komisije za reformo skupne kmetijske politike močno temeljili na dosedanjih lekcijah iz skupnega okvira spremljanja in vrednotenja, na trajajoči izkušnji z izvajanjem programov razvoja podeželja in na vrednotenjih prejšnjih programskih obdobij in ukrepov razvoja podeželja.
This allowed the Commission to develop and underpin a more results oriented policy with a reinforced monitoring and evaluation system, overcoming some of the shortcomings identified for the 2007-13 programming period. 
To je Komisiji omogočilo, da je razvila in podprla politiko, bolj usmerjeno v rezultate, z okrepljenim sistemom spremljanja in vrednotenja, ki odpravlja nekatere pomanjkljivosti, ugotovljene za programsko obdobje 2007–13.
Common reply to 73 and 74 The Commission was bound to present a Common Agricultural Policy reform proposal for the period 2014-2020 early enough in order that it could enter into force in 2014. 
Skupni odgovor na odstavka 73 in 74 Komisija je bila zavezana, da predlog reforme skupne kmetijske politike za obdobje 2014–2020 predstavi dovolj zgodaj, da bi lahko leta 2014 začel veljati.
Taking into account the necessary consultation process and the legislative procedures, the exercise needed to be launched in 2010. 
Ob upoštevanju neizogibnega postopka posvetovanja in zakonodajnih postopkov se je morala naloga začeti leta 2010.
This led to a need to use the evaluation data available at that time for the impact assessment. 
Zaradi tega je nastala potreba po uporabi podatkov vrednotenja, ki so bili takrat na voljo, za oceno učinka.
The Commission could not wait for more recent evaluation results, i.e. the synthesis of the ex-post evaluation reports of 2000-2006 programming period or the mid-term evaluation reports of the programming period 2007-2013, without substantially delaying the reform. 
Komisija ni mogla čakati na novejše rezultate vrednotenja, npr. povzetek poročil o naknadnem vrednotenju za programsko obdobje 2000–2006 ali poročil o vmesnem vrednotenju za programsko obdobje 2007–2013, brez znatnega odlašanja reforme.
However, the Commission publishes in due time all the evaluations performed on its behalf together with their quality assessments, so the information does become available to Parliament and Council. 
Vendar pa Komisija pravočasno objavi vsa vrednotenja, izvedena v njenem imenu, skupaj z njihovimi ocenami kakovosti in tako informacije postanejo dostopne za Evropski parlament in Svet.
The seven measures presented in Annex 4a of the Impact Assessment represent important rural development measures and provide an overview of different types of support measures. 
Sedem ukrepov, predstavljenih v Prilogi 4a ocene učinka, predstavlja pomembne ukrepe razvoja podeželja in zagotavlja pregled različnih vrst podpornih ukrepov.
See replies to paragraphs 73 and 74. 
Glej odgovora na odstavka 73 in 74.
Policy choices are based on a wide range of information, including monitoring and evaluation, and on different political visions on prioritisation of problems and possible solutions. 
Izbire politike temeljijo na širokem obsegu informacij vključno s spremljanjem in vrednotenjem in na različnih političnih vizijah o določanju prednostnih vprašanj in možnih rešitev.
The Commission considers that the questions referred to by the Court come in only once the objectives have been decided and focus on the choice of measures to reach these objectives. The information available through the monitoring and evaluation system, while incomplete and possibly not always fully reliable, was the best available at this stage, taken into account financial and practical limitations faced by the Commission and Member States. 
Komisija meni, da šele po določitvi ciljev postanejo vprašanja, na katera se nanaša Sodišče, relevantna, saj se lahko osredotočijo na izbiro ukrepov za dosego teh ciljev. Informacije, ki so bile na voljo prek sistema spremljanja in vrednotenja, so bile nepopolne in verjetno včasih tudi nezanesljive, a ob upoštevanju finančnih in praktičnih omejitev Komisije in držav članic so bile na tej stopnji tudi najboljše, ki so bile na voljo.
The Commission has proposed solutions to a number of problems related to the Monitoring and Evaluation system for the next programming period, however, it should be noted that there will always be the need to find a balance between the benefits of monitoring and evaluation and the costs and administrative burden related to it. 
Komisija je predlagala rešitve za več težav, povezanih s sistemom spremljanja in vrednotenja, za naslednje programsko obdobje, vendar je treba priznati, da bo vedno obstajala potreba po ravnovesju med koristmi spremljanja in vrednotenja in povezanimi stroški in upravnim bremenom.
Moreover, the results and impacts of a measure will also be impacted by external factors, hence there will never be 100 % certainty in advance about what is the most effective and efficient measure to reach a given target. 
Poleg tega na rezultate in vplive ukrepa vplivajo tudi zunanji dejavniki, zato nikoli ni vnaprejšnje 100-odstotne gotovosti o tem, kateri ukrep je najbolj učinkovit in uspešen za doseganje dane ciljne vrednosti.
REPLY OF THE COMMISSION CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 76. 
ODGOVOR KOMISIJE ZAKLJUČKI IN PRIPOROČILA 76.
The Commission considers that, where available, the Commission - for the design - and the Member States - for the implementation - have used the available monitoring and evaluation input. The Commission publishes the entire reports of evaluations carried out on its behalf together with their quality assessments on the Europa site, and transmits them to the European Parliament, Council and Court of Auditors. 
Komisija meni, da je skupaj z državami članicami uporabila vložek spremljanja in vrednotenja, kjer je bil na voljo, sama za zasnovo, države članice pa za izvajanje. Poleg tega Komisija na spletni strani Europa objavi vsa poročila o vrednotenjih, izvedenih v njenem imenu, skupaj z njihovimi ocenami kakovosti in jih posreduje Evropskemu parlamentu, Svetu in Evropskemu računskemu sodišču.
The Commission considers that the CMEF is a valid instrument to monitor and evaluate progress towards achieving the EU’s rural development policy objectives and it has many strengths, although some difficulties have been encountered. 
Komisija meni, da je skupni okvir spremljanja in vrednotenja dober instrument za spremljanje in vrednotenje napredka pri doseganju ciljev politike razvoja podeželja EU in ima mnogo dobrih lastnosti, čeprav je bilo opaziti nekaj težav.
The Commission, Member States and various stakeholders devote much effort to continuously improving the system. 
Komisija, države članice in različne udeležene strani si močno prizadevajo za stalno izboljševanje sistema.
This experience is being used for the development of an improved monitoring and evaluation system for the next programming period. Special Report No 12/2013 – Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent? 
Ta izkušnja bo uporabljena za pripravo izboljšanega sistema spremljanja in vrednotenja za naslednje programsko obdobje. Posebno poročilo št. 12/2013 – Ali lahko Komisija in države članice dokažejo, da so bila proračunska sredstva EU, dodeljena za politiko razvoja podeželja, dobro porabljena?
55 The Commission has proposed solutions for a number of problems related to the monitoring and evaluation system for the next programming period, however, it should be noted that there will always be the need to find a balance between the benefits of monitoring and evaluation and the costs and administrative burden related to it. 
55 Komisija je predlagala rešitve za več težav, povezanih s sistemom spremljanja in vrednotenja, za naslednje programsko obdobje, vendar je treba priznati, da bo vedno obstajala potreba po ravnovesju med koristmi spremljanja in vrednotenja in povezanimi stroški in upravnim bremenom.
The Commission considers that the objectives expressed in Regulation 1698/2005 and in the Community Strategic Guidelines provide sufficient basis to identify the objectives of the policy. 
Komisija meni, da cilji, navedeni v Uredbi (ES) št. 1698/2005 in strateških smernicah Skupnosti, zagotavljajo zadostno osnovo za določitev ciljev politike.
Rural Development Programmes proposals have been assessed by the Commission against these objectives and against the needs identified in each programming region (or country) and the money has been allocated on that basis. 
Komisija je na podlagi teh ciljev in potreb, ugotovljenih v vsaki programski regiji (ali državi), ocenila predloge programov razvoja podeželja, denar pa je bil dodeljen na podlagi rezultatov ocene.
As targeting takes many forms, targeting takes into account identified structural and territorial needs and may result in directing the support to those in greatest needs while the support could have resulted in higher values for indicators in other areas. 
Ker ima ciljno usmerjanje mnogo oblik, upošteva ugotovljene strukturne in ozemeljske potrebe in lahko vodi v usmerjanje podpore k tistim, ki jo najbolj potrebujejo, medtem ko bi podpora lahko povzročila višje vrednosti kazalnikov na drugih površinah.
For multi-year programmes such as the Rural Development Programme, certain results and impacts can only be properly assessed well into the programming period, and afterwards through evaluations. 
Za večletne programe, kot so programi razvoja podeželja, se lahko določeni rezultati in vplivi ustrezno ocenijo le, ko že preteče nekaj časa programskega obdobja in pa pozneje prek vrednotenj.
REPLY OF THE COMMISSION 81. 
ODGOVOR KOMISIJE 81.
The Commission considers that, where available, the Commission - for the design - and the Member States - for the implementation - have used the available monitoring and evaluation input. 
Komisija meni, da je skupaj z državami članicami uporabila vložek spremljanja in vrednotenja, kjer je bil na voljo, sama za zasnovo, države članice pa za izvajanje.
Monitoring information is used to support the case for Rural Development Programmes modification. 
Informacije o spremljanju se uporabljajo za podporo sprememb programa razvoja podeželja.
The Commission was bound to present a Common Agricultural Policy reform proposal for the period 2014-2020 early enough in order that it would enter into force in 2014. 
Komisija je bila zavezana, da predlog reforme skupne kmetijske politike za obdobje 2014–2020 predstavi dovolj zgodaj, da bi lahko leta 2014 začel veljati.
This led to a need to use the evaluation data available at that time. 
Zaradi tega je nastala potreba po uporabi podatkov vrednotenja, ki so bili takrat na voljo, za oceno učinka.
The Commission could not wait for more recent evaluation results, i.e. the synthesis of the ex-post evaluation reports of 2000-2006 programming period or the mid-term evaluation reports of the programming period 2007-2013, without substantially delaying the reform. 
Komisija ni mogla čakati na novejše rezultate vrednotenja, npr. povzetek poročil o naknadnem vrednotenju za programsko obdobje 2000– 2006 ali poročil o vmesnem vrednotenju za programsko obdobje 2007–2013, brez znatnega odlašanja reforme.
The information available through the monitoring and evaluation system, while incomplete and possibly not always fully reliable, was the best available at this stage, taken into account financial and practical limitations faced by the Commission and Member States. 
Informacije, ki so bile na voljo prek sistema spremljanja in vrednotenja, so bile nepopolne in verjetno včasih tudi nezanesljive, a ob upoštevanju finančnih in praktičnih omejitev Komisije in držav članic so bile na tej stopnji tudi najboljše, ki so bile na voljo.
The Commission has proposed solutions for a number of problems related to the Monitoring &Evaluation system for the next programming period, however, there will always be the need to find a balance between the benefits of monitoring and evaluation and the costs and administrative burden related to it. 
Komisija je predlagala rešitve za več težav, povezanih s sistemom spremljanja in vrednotenja, za naslednje programsko obdobje, vendar bo vedno obstajala potreba po ravnovesju med koristmi spremljanja in vrednotenja in povezanimi stroški in upravnim bremenom.
Moreover, the results and impacts of a measure will also be impacted by external factors, hence there will never be 100 % certainty in advance about what is the most effective and efficient measure to reach a given target. Special Report No 12/2013 – Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent? 
Poleg tega na rezultate in vplive ukrepa vplivajo tudi zunanji dejavniki, zato nikoli ni vnaprejšnje 100 % gotovosti o tem, kateri ukrep je najbolj učinkovit in uspešen za doseganje dane ciljne vrednosti. Posebno poročilo št. 12/2013 – Ali lahko Komisija in države članice dokažejo, da so bila proračunska sredstva EU, dodeljena za politiko razvoja podeželja, dobro porabljena?
56 Recommendation 1 The Commission is already addressing this recommendation within the constraints of the legislative framework for the current programming period. 
56 Priporočilo 1 Komisija že obravnava to priporočilo znotraj omejitev zakonodajnega okvira za sedanje programsko obdobje.
The justification for the proposed Rural Development Programmes modifications is already a legal requirement. 
Utemeljitev za predlagane spremembe programov razvoja podeželja je že zakonska zahteva.
The problems related to the mid-term evaluations were mainly due to the fact that they were carried out too early for the impacts to become visible. 
Težave, povezane z vmesnimi vrednotenji, so bile v glavnem posledica prezgodnjega izvajanja, zaradi česar vplivi še niso bili vidni.
They did however provide useful information on the implementation of the programmes. 
So pa vrednotenja posredovala koristne informacije o izvajanju programov.
As far as the ex-post evaluation in 2015 is concerned, the evaluator can –and should-use data from different sources (‘triangulation’). 
Kar zadeva naknadno vrednotenje leta 2015, izvajalec vrednotenja lahko uporabi (in bi moral uporabiti) podatke iz različnih virov („triangulacija“).
Recommendation 2 The Commission accepts the recommendation. 
Priporočilo 2 Komisija sprejme priporočilo.
A large number of Mid-Term Evaluations findings related to preparation for the ex-post evaluation, and actions have already been undertaken at Member States level. 
Veliko število ugotovitev vmesnih vrednotenj je bilo povezano s pripravo na naknadno vrednotenje, na ravni držav članic pa so se že začeli izvajati ukrepi.
Recommendation 2 (i) A Thematic Working Group of the Evaluation Network will be launched by the Commission in autumn 2013 to prepare guidelines for the ex-post evaluation of 2007-2013 Rural Development Programmes. 
Priporočilo 2 (i) Komisija bo jeseni leta 2013 sprožila delovanje tematske delovne skupine za pripravo smernic za naknadno vrednotenje programov razvoja podeželja za obdobje 2007–2013.
REPLY OF THE COMMISSION Recommendation 2 (iii) The Commission together with Member States undertook an exercise in 2008 and 2009 to fill in gaps in Rural Development Programmes. 
ODGOVOR KOMISIJE Priporočilo 2 (iii) Komisija se je skupaj z državami članicami leta 2008 in 2009 namenila zapolniti vrzeli v programih razvoja podeželja.
For each Rural Development Programme, the Commission services have pointed out the missing targets and the target not adequately quantified and invited Managing Authorities to improve their set of targets. 
Za vsak program razvoja podeželja so službe Komisije izpostavile manjkajoče ciljne vrednosti in ciljne vrednosti, ki niso bile zadostno količinsko opredeljene, organe za upravljanje pa pozvale, naj izboljšajo sklop ciljnih vrednosti.
This exercise led to improve significantly the set of targets via Rural Development Programmes modifications. 
Tako se je prek sprememb programov razvoja podeželja sklop ciljnih vrednosti bistveno izboljšal.
Afterwards, on an on-going basis, efforts are made to solve the fewer remaining issues. 
Za tem sledijo nenehna prizadevanja za rešitev manj preostalih vprašanj.
Recommendation 3 The Commission has already addressed the recommendation by proposing a new design for the 2014-2020 Monitoring and Evaluation system. 
Priporočilo 3 Komisija je že obravnavala priporočilo, in sicer prek predloga nove oblike za sistem spremljanja in vrednotenja za obdobje 2014–2020.
However, in the proposed design of the new monitoring and evaluation system, results will not be assessed at individual measure level but at the more appropriate focus area level. It incorporates a number of changes compared to the CMEF. 
Vendar pa pri predlagani obliki novega sistema spremljanja in vrednotenja rezultati ne bodo ocenjeni na ravni posameznega ukrepa, ampak na bolj primerni ravni področij, na katera se je treba osredotočiti.
Instead of a Mid-Term Evaluations, there will be enhanced Annual Implementation Reports in 2017 and 2019, which will incorporate evaluation findings. 
Namesto vmesnih vrednotenj se bodo leta 2017 in 2019 sestavila izboljšana letna poročila o izvajanju, ki bodo vključevala ugotovitve vrednotenj.
The first will concentrate on elements related to programme steering, and the second on providing an initial assessment of the impact of the Rural Development Programmes. 
Prvo poročilo se bo osredotočilo na elemente, povezane s programskim krmiljenjem, drugo pa na posredovanje prvotne ocene vpliva programov razvoja podeželja.
Member States are required to carry out evaluation activities throughout the programming period in accordance with the Evaluation Plan included as part of the Rural Development Programmes. 
Države članice morajo izvajati vrednotenja skozi celotno programsko obdobje v skladu z načrtom vrednotenja, ki je vključen kot del programov razvoja podeželja.
Thus, assessment and reporting on the results and impacts of the policy will be linked more appropriately to the stage of implementation of the Rural Development Programmes. Special Report No 12/2013 – Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent? 
Ocena in poročanje o rezultatih in vplivih politike bosta zato bolj primerno povezana s stopnjo izvajanja programov razvoja podeželja. Posebno poročilo št. 12/2013 – Ali lahko Komisija in države članice dokažejo, da so bila proračunska sredstva EU, dodeljena za politiko razvoja podeželja, dobro porabljena?
57 Quantified target indicators are foreseen for each of the Focus Areas. 
57 Za vsako od področij, na katera se je treba osredotočiti, se predvidevajo kazalniki za količinsko opredeljene ciljne vrednosti.
Annual reporting in the Annual Implementation Reports is required for each of these, and one of the lessons of implementing the CMEF is that this is not always possible or appropriate for result. 
Letno poročanje v letnih poročilih o izvajanju se zahteva za vsako od teh področij, ena od pridobljenih izkušenj izvajanja skupnega okvira spremljanja in vrednotenja pa je, da to za rezultat ni vedno mogoče ali primerno.
For some Focus Areas, the target indicator is set at output level. 
Za nekatera področja, na katera se je treba osredotočiti, je kazalnik za ciljne vrednosti določen na ravni izložka.
Recommendation 3 (i) While indicators can contribute to the evaluation of a policy, an indicator value alone is of little value and may be meaningless. 
Priporočilo 3 (i) Kazalniki lahko prispevajo k vrednotenju politike, sama vrednost kazalnika pa nima prave koristi in je lahko brez pomena.
It is rarely a single measure that contributes to the achievement of an objective, more often multiple measures contribute together, and equally, an individual measure may contribute to multiple objectives. 
Le redko en sam ukrep prispeva k doseganju cilja, pogosto k temu prispeva več ukrepov skupaj, enako pa lahko en sam ukrep prispeva k dosegu več ciljev.
The Commission proposes for the new period that result indicators will be assessed at the level of the Focus Area, which may be the result of a number of measures acting in complementary fashion. 
Za novo obdobje Komisija predlaga, da bi se kazalniki rezultatov ocenjevali na ravni področij, na katera se je treba osredotočiti, kar je mogoče posledica delovanja več ukrepov na dopolnjujoč način.
The strategic approach to the 2014-2020 policy, based on priorities and focus areas, with measures contributing flexibility to these, as shown in the associated intervention logic and indicator hierarchy demonstrates the links between different types of indicator and the different levels of objectives. 
Strateški pristop k politiki za obdobje 2014–2020, ki temelji na prednostnih nalogah in področjih, na katera se je treba osredotočiti, z ukrepi, ki tem nalogam in področjem prispevajo prožnost kot kaže logika intervencije, in hierarhijo kazalnikov prikazuje povezavo med različnimi vrstami kazalnikov in različnimi ravnmi ciljev.
Recommendation 3 (ii) Checks of the quality of the data are an integral part of a monitoring system, in the respect of the shared management. 
Priporočilo 3 (ii) Preverjanja kakovosti podatkov so sestavni del sistema spremljanja v zvezi z deljenim upravljanjem.
The Commission considers that the three overarching objectives for rural development are sufficiently clear and spelled out in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. 
Komisija meni, da so trije glavni cilji za razvoj podeželja dovolj jasni in natančno opredeljeni v členu 4 Uredbe (ES) št.
They are further specified and substantiated in the recitals and in the Community strategic guidelines. 
Dodatno so določeni in podkrepljeni v uvodnih izjavah in v strateških smernicah Skupnosti.
These objectives were to be used by the Member States in their programming. 
Te cilje morajo države članice uporabiti pri svojem programiranju.