natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This performance audit was carried out by Audit Chamber III External actions/Security and justice, headed by ECA Member Bettina Jakobsen who was also the Reporting Member of this report. 
To revizijo smotrnosti je opravil revizijski senat III – zunanji ukrepi, varnost in pravica – , ki mu predseduje članica Evropskega računskega sodišča Bettina Jakobsen, ki je tudi poročevalka za to poročilo.
Ms Jakobsen was supported by Katja Mattfolk, Head of Private Office and Kim Storup, Private Office Attach; Alejandro Ballester Gallardo, Principal Manager; Cyril Messein, Head of Task; Florin-Alexandru Farcas, Andrej Minarovic and Nikolaos Zompolas, Auditors. 
Pri reviziji so sodelovali vodja njenega kabineta Katja Mattfolk, ataše v njenem kabinetu Kim Storup, vodilni upravni uslužbenec Alejandro Ballester Gallardo, vodja naloge Cyril Messein ter revizorji Florin-Alexandru Farcas, Andrej Minarovic in Nikolaos Zompolas.
From left to right: Katja Mattfolk, Florin-Alexandru Farcas, Bettina Jakobsen, Andrej Minarovic, Cyril Messein, Kim Storup 
Od leve proti desni: Katja Mattfolk, Florin-Alexandru Farcas, Bettina Jakobsen, Andrej Minarovic, Cyril Messein, Kim Storup.
Acronyms and abbreviations Executive summary Introduction The Facility for Refugees in Turkey The FacilityŐs Steering Committee Audit scope and approach Observations The Facility rapidly mobilised relevant support, but was not fully effective as a coordination mechanism The Facility appropriately addressed the main needs of the refugees, except those needs related to municipal infrastructure and socio-economic support The Facility achieved its objective of contracting three billion euros in two years The Facility contributed to enhanced coordination but the streamlining and complementarity of the assistance was not systematically achieved In a challenging context, the humanitarian projects helped refugees to address their basic needs, but did not always deliver the expected value for money There is potential to improve the efficiency of projects There were shortcomings in monitoring cash-assistance projects and in measuring results Audited projects have positive effects on refugees but half of them have not yet achieved their expected outcomes Conclusion and recommendations Annex I - Annex II - Annex III A - Annex III B - National contributions for the Facility for Refugees in Turkey The Facility for Refugees in Turkey: a coordination mechanism Overview of the audited humanitarian projects Performance of audited projects CONTENTS 2 Paragraph I - XI 1 - 11 6 - 9 10-11 12-15 16-63 16-35 17-24 25-29 30-35 36-63 38-47 48-54 55-63 64-74 
Kratice in okrajšave Povzetek Uvod Instrument za begunce v Turčiji Usmerjevalni odbor instrumenta Obseg revizije in revizijski pristop Opažanja Instrument je hitro mobiliziral ustrezno podporo, vendar ni bil v celoti uspešen kot mehanizem usklajevanja Instrument je ustrezno obravnaval glavne potrebe beguncev, razen potreb, povezanih s komunalno infrastrukturo in socialno-ekonomsko podporo Instrument je dosegel svoj cilj, tj. v dveh letih skleniti pogodbe za 3 milijarde EUR Instrument je prispeval k boljšemu usklajevanju, vendar racionalizacija in dopolnjevanje pomoči nista bila dosežena sistematično Humanitarni projekti so v beguncem v težavnih razmerah pomagali obravnavati njihove osnovne potrebe, vendar niso vedno zagotovili pričakovane vrednosti za denar Učinkovitost projektov je mogoče izboljšati Pri spremljanju projektov denarne pomoči in merjenju rezultatov so bile ugotovljene pomanjkljivosti Revidirani projekti pozitivno vplivajo na begunce, vendar jih polovica še ni dosegla pričakovanih izidov Zaključek in priporočila Priloga I – Nacionalni prispevki za instrument za begunce v Turčiji Priloga II – Instrument za begunce v Turčiji: mehanizem usklajevanja Priloga III A – Pregled revidiranih humanitarnih projektov KAZALO 2 Odstavek I–XI 1–11 6–9 10–11 12–15 16–63 16–35 17–24 25–29 30–35 36–63 38–47 48–54 55–63 64–74
Annex IV - Annex V - Annex VI - Annex VII - List of audit interviews conducted in Turkey in 2018 Key dates and events associated with the Facility Contracting speed of the Facility compared to EU Trust Funds Complexity of EU assistance to refugees in Turkey Đ the example of the education sector Annex VIII - Replies of the Commission ESSN beneficiary data flow and data access limitations 3 
Priloga III B – Priloga IV – Priloga V – Priloga VI – Priloga VII – Priloga VIII – Smotrnost revidiranih projektov Seznam revizijskih razgovorov, opravljenih v Turčiji leta 2018 Ključni datumi in dogodki, povezani z instrumentom Hitrost sklepanja pogodb v okviru instrumenta v primerjavi s skrbniškimi skladi EU Kompleksnost pomoči EU beguncem v Turčiji – primer sektorja izobraževanja Tok podatkov o upravičencih v okviru ESSN in omejitve pri dostopanju do podatkov Odgovori Komisije 3
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 4 CCTE Conditional Cash Transfer for Education DCI Development Cooperation Instrument DG ECHO Directorate General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations DG NEAR Directorate General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations DGMM Directorate General of Migration Management (Turkey) EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development EIB European Investment Bank ESSN Emergency Social Safety Net IcSP Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (I)NGO (International) Non-Governmental Organisation IPA Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance JAP Joint Action Plan KfW Kreditanstalt fr Wiederaufbau MoFSP Ministry of Family and Social Policies (Turkey) MoNE Ministry of National Education (Turkey) SuTP Syrians under Temporary Protection UN United Nations 
KRATICE IN OKRAJŠAVE 4 CCTE pogojno nakazilo sredstev za izobraževanje DCI instrument za financiranje razvojnega sodelovanja EBRD Evropska banka za obnovo in razvoj EIB Evropska investicijska banka ESSN mreža socialne varnosti v sili GD ECHO Generalni direktorat za evropsko civilno zaščito in evropske operacije humanitarne pomoči GD NEAR Generalni direktorat za sosedstvo in širitvena pogajanja GDMM generalni direktorat za upravljanje migracij (Turčija) IcSP instrument za prispevanje k stabilnosti in miru (I)NVO (mednarodna) nevladna organizacija IPA instrument za predpristopno pomoč JAP skupni akcijski načrt KfW banka Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau MoFSP ministrstvo za družinsko in socialno politiko (Turčija) MoNE ministrstvo za šolstvo (Turčija) SuTP Sirci, ki uživajo začasno zaščito ZN Združeni narodi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. The Facility for Refugees in Turkey is the EU response to the European Council's call for significant additional funding to support refugees in Turkey. 
POVZETEK I. Instrument za begunce v Turčiji je odziv EU na poziv Evropskega sveta k znatnemu dodatnemu financiranju za podporo beguncem v Turčiji.
It is a mechanism for coordinating and streamlining an amount of Ű3 billion from the EU and its Member States. 
Gre za mehanizem za usklajevanje in racionalizacijo zneska v višini 3 milijard EUR od EU in njenih držav članic.
The support covers humanitarian and non-humanitarian activities, with a financial allocation of Ű1.4 billion and Ű1.6 billion respectively. 
Podpora zajema humanitarne in nehumanitarne dejavnosti, za katere sta dodeljena zneska 1,4 milijarde EUR oziroma 1,6 milijarde EUR.
The Facility aims to enhance the efficiency and complementarity of support provided to refugees and host communities in Turkey. 
Cilj instrumenta je izboljšati učinkovitost in dopolnjevanje podpore, ki se zagotavlja beguncem in gostiteljskim skupnostim v Turčiji.
Our audit examined whether the Facility effectively supported the refugees in Turkey. 
Sodišče je pri reviziji preučilo, ali se z instrumentom uspešno zagotavlja podpora beguncem v Turčiji.
We focused on the management of the first tranche of the Facility, and on the results achieved so far under its humanitarian strand. 
Osredotočilo se je na upravljanje prve tranše instrumenta in dosedanje rezultate v okviru njegovega humanitarnega sklopa.
We found that, in a challenging context, the Facility for Refugees in Turkey rapidly mobilised Ű3 billion from the EU budget and the EU Member States to provide a swift response to the refugee crisis. 
Ugotovilo je, da je instrument za begunce v Turčiji v težavnih razmerah hitro mobiliziral 3 milijarde EUR, in sicer iz proračuna EU in od držav članic EU, s čimer se je omogočil hiter odziv na begunsko krizo.
The audited projects provided helpful support to refugees; most of them have achieved their outputs, but half of them have not yet achieved their expected outcomes. 
Revidirani projekti so zagotovili koristno podporo beguncem in večina je dosegla svoje izložke, vendar jih polovica še ni dosegla pričakovanih izidov.
We therefore conclude that the Facility could have been more effective, and that it could achieve more value for money. 
Zato je prišlo do zaključka, da bi bil instrument lahko uspešnejši in da bi lahko dosegel večjo stroškovno učinkovitost.
The Commission identified the priority needs of refugees based on a comprehensive needs assessment. 
Komisija je na podlagi celovite ocene potreb opredelila prednostne potrebe beguncev.
However, disagreements between Turkey and the EU on how to address the priority needs in municipal infrastructure and socio-economic support resulted in these areas being insufficiently covered. 
Vendar so ta področja nezadostno obravnavana zaradi nesoglasij med Turčijo in EU glede obravnavanja prednostnih potreb v okviru komunalne infrastrukture in socialno-ekonomske podpore.
V. The Facility supported similar type of activities in the health and education sectors through different instruments. 
V. Z instrumentom za begunce v Turčiji so se podprle podobne vrste dejavnosti v sektorjih zdravstva in izobraževanja z različnimi instrumenti.
This made coordination more complex and resulted in the parallel use of different management structures to fund similar projects. 
Zato je bilo usklajevanje bolj zapleteno in je povzročilo vzporedno uporabo različnih struktur upravljanja za financiranje podobnih projektov.
Although we identified some good examples in the health sector, where the Commission supported the transition from humanitarian to more durable development assistance, this complementarity was not systematically achieved. 5 
Čeprav je Sodišče opredelilo nekaj dobrih primerov v sektorju zdravstva, v katerih je Komisija podprla prehod s humanitarne na trajnejšo razvojno pomoč, to dopolnjevanje ni bilo sistematično doseženo.
We also found room to improve the efficiency of the humanitarian projects funded by the Facility. 
Ugotovilo je tudi, da je mogoče povečati učinkovitost humanitarnih projektov, ki jih financira instrument.
Firstly, when reviewing project proposals, the Commission did not consistently and comprehensively assess the reasonableness of the budgeted costs. 
Prvič, Komisija pri reviziji projektnih predlogov ni dosledno in celovito ocenila razumnosti predvidenih stroškov.
Secondly, even if they were in line with the legal framework, the indirect costs paid to the partners implementing large cash-assistance projects were high, and the level of advance payments was not aligned with the actual cash outflows of the projects. 
Drugič, posredni stroški, plačani partnerjem, ki so izvajali obsežne projekte denarne pomoči, so bili visoki, tudi če so bili sicer skladni s pravnim okvirom, raven predplačil pa ni bila usklajena z dejanskimi denarnimi odlivi projektov.
The Commission put in place appropriate measures to monitor humanitarian projects. 
Komisija je sprejela ustrezne ukrepe za spremljanje humanitarnih projektov.
The main limitation was the Turkish authoritiesŐ refusal to grant access to beneficiary data for the two cash-assistance projects. 
Glavna omejitev je bila, da turški organi niso omogočili dostopa do podatkov o upravičencih v okviru dveh projektov denarne pomoči.
In fact, neither the Commission nor the ECA was able to track the project beneficiaries from their registration to the payment. 
Pravzaprav ne Komisija ne Sodišče nista mogla spremljati upravičencev projektov od registracije do izplačila.
The Facility results framework, which reports on the consolidated results, was still under development: baselines, milestones or quantified targets for high-level indicators had not yet been completed. 
Okvir za rezultate instrumenta, ki poroča o konsolidiranih rezultatih, je bil še vedno v fazi priprave – izhodiščne vrednosti, mejniki ali količinsko opredeljeni cilji za kazalnike na visoki ravni niso bili dokončani.
Public reporting was limited and its scope did not capture the whole EU assistance to refugees in Turkey. 
Javno poročanje je bilo omejeno, njegov obseg pa ni zajemal celotne pomoči EU beguncem v Turčiji.
X. All the audited humanitarian projects helped refugees to meet their needs, mainly through the cash-based assistance. 
X. Vsi revidirani humanitarni projekti so beguncem zlasti z denarno pomočjo pomagali izpolniti njihove potrebe.
Most of them delivered all or most of their intended outputs. However, half of them have not yet achieved the outcomes expected and nine out of ten had to be extended. 
Večina projektov je dosegla vse ali pretežen del načrtovanih izložkov, vendar jih polovica še ni dosegla pričakovanih izidov, devet od desetih projektov pa je bilo treba podaljšati.
The challenging operating environment was the main factor hindering the timely implementation of projects managed by INGOs. 
Težavno operativno okolje je bilo glavni dejavnik, ki je oviral pravočasno izvajanje projektov, ki so jih upravljale mednarodne nevladne organizacije.
The report sets out six recommendations aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the second tranche of the FacilityŐs budget. 
V tem poročilu je navedenih šest priporočil, namenjenih izboljšanju učinkovitosti in uspešnosti druge tranše proračuna instrumenta.
The Commission should: - better address refugeesŐ needs for municipal infrastructure and socio-economic support; - improve the streamlining and the complementarity of assistance; - implement a strategy for the transition from humanitarian to development assistance; - improve the efficiency of cash-assistance projects; - address with the Turkish authorities the need to improve the operating environment for (I)NGOs; and - scale up monitoring and reporting of the Facility for Refugees in Turkey. 6 
Komisija bi morala: - bolje obravnavati potrebe beguncev po komunalni infrastrukturi in socialno-ekonomski podpori, - izboljšati racionalizacijo in dopolnjevanje pomoči, - izvajati strategijo za prehod s humanitarne na razvojno pomoč, - izboljšati učinkovitost projektov za denarno pomoč, 6 - s turškimi organi obravnavati potrebo po izboljšanju operativnega okolja za (mednarodne) nevladne organizacije in - okrepiti spremljanje instrumenta za begunce v Turčiji in poročanje o njem.
INTRODUCTION Turkey and the EU have been linked by an Association Agreement since 1963. 
UVOD Turčija in EU sta od leta 1963 povezani s pridružitvenim sporazumom.
The European Council granted the status of candidate country to become a member of the EU to Turkey in December 1999 and accession negotiations were opened in 2005. 
Evropski svet je Turčiji decembra 1999 podelil status države kandidatke za članstvo v EU, pristopna pogajanja pa so se začela leta 2005.
Turkey is by far the largest beneficiary of the EU Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA), which the EU uses to prepare candidate countries for membership of the EU, with an allocation of more than Ű9 billion for the 2007-2020 period1. Due to its location, Turkey is both a reception and transit country for many refugees. 
Turčija je daleč največja upravičenka do sredstev iz instrumenta EU za predpristopno pomoč (IPA), ki ga EU uporablja za pripravo držav kandidatk na članstvo v EU, saj ji je bilo za obdobje 2007–2020 dodeljenih več kot 9 milijard EUR.1 Turčija je zaradi svoje geografske lege država sprejema in tranzita za številne begunce.
Because of increased migratory flows, mainly due to the Syrian conflict, Turkey hosts the largest refugee population in the world: nearly 4 million people2. This includes about 3.5 million Syrians of whom about 94 % are living outside refugee camps3. Since the start of the crisis, Turkey has provided a significant and continued support to refugees. 
Zaradi povečanih migracijskih tokov, zlasti zaradi konflikta v Siriji, država gosti največ beguncev na svetu, tj. skoraj 4 milijone.2 To vključuje tudi približno 3,5 milijona Sircev, izmed katerih jih 94 % živi zunaj begunskih taborišč.3 Turčija od začetka krize zagotavlja znatno in stalno podporo beguncem.
7 1 2 3 See ECA Special Report 7/2018 ŇEU pre-accession assistance to TurkeyÓ. 
8 1 2 3 Glej posebno poročilo Evropskega računskega sodišča št. 7/2018 – Predpristopna pomoč EU Turčiji.
Source: UNHCR as of 31 May 2018 (http://www.unhcr.org/tr/en/unhcr-turkey-stats). 
Vir: UNHCR, podatki na dan 31. maja 2018 (http://www.unhcr.org/tr/en/unhcr-turkey-stats).
Turkey itself only grants the status of refugee to people affected by events occurring in Europe. 
Turčija podeljuje status begunca le osebam, ki so jih prizadeli dogodki v Evropi.
It granted a special status in 2013 to Syrians giving them the status of ÔSyrian people under Temporary ProtectionŐ. 
Sircem je leta 2013 podelila poseben status, tj. „Sirci, ki uživajo začasno zaščito”.
Unless otherwise specified, we use the term ÔrefugeeŐ in this report for all people looking for international or temporary protection. 
Če ni drugače navedeno, Sodišče v tem poročilu uporablja izraz „begunec” za vse osebe, ki prosijo za mednarodno ali začasno zaščito.
Map 1 Đ Breakdown of refugees and asylum-seekers by province in Turkey as of June 2018 Registered Refugees and Asylum-Seekers Creation date: 01 July 2018 Sources: UNHCR, DGMM Author: UNHCR - Turkey Feedback: IMTurkey@unhcr .or g Source: UNHCR. The Syrian refugee crisis did not just affect Turkey: it also affected the EU Member States. 
Zemljevid 1 – Razčlenitev beguncev in prosilcev za azil po provincah v Turčiji junija 2018 Vir: UNHCR Sirska begunska kriza ni vplivala le na Turčijo, ampak je prizadela tudi države članice EU.
In 2015 alone, some 850 000 refugees crossed the Mediterranean from Turkey to Greece4 and sought asylum in EU countries. 
Samo v letu 2015 je približno 850 000 beguncev prečkalo Sredozemsko morje iz Turčije v Grčijo4 in v državah EU zaprosilo za azil.
Following the adoption of the European Agenda on Migration in May 2015, the EU and its Member States took several measures to address the challenges identified. 
EU in njene države članice so po sprejetju evropske agende o migracijah maja 2015 sprejele več ukrepov za obravnavanje opredeljenih izzivov.
On 15 October 2015, the Commission proposed an EU-Turkey Joint Action Plan (JAP) to assist Turkey in the management of the migration crisis. 
Komisija je 15. oktobra 2015 predlagala skupni akcijski načrt EU in Turčije za pomoč Turčiji pri upravljanju migrantske krize.
The JAP identifies measures to be implemented by the EU and Turkey with the aim of (a) providing support to the Syrians under temporary protection (SuTP) and their Turkish hosting communities and (b) improving cooperation with the aim of preventing irregular migration flows to the EU. 
V sSkupnem akcijskem načrtu so določeni ukrepi, ki jih morata izvesti EU in Turčija, da bi (a) zagotovili podporo Sircem, ki uživajo začasno zaščito, in njihovim turškim gostiteljskim skupnostim ter (b) izboljšali sodelovanje, da bi preprečili neregularne migracijske tokove v EU.
The first action to be undertaken by the EU under the JAP was to mobilise a substantial amount of funds Ôto support Turkey in coping with the challenge represented by the 8 4 ECHO factsheet Đ Turkey Đ March 2016. presence of Syrian people under temporary protectionŐ5. 
Prvi ukrep, ki ga je EU sprejela v okviru skupnega akcijskega načrta, je bilo mobiliziranje znatnih finančnih sredstev v podporo Turčiji pri izzivu, ki ga predstavlja prisotnost Sircev, ki 9 4 Informativno gradivo ECHO o Turčiji – marec 2016.
The funds were to be mobilised as flexibly and rapidly as possible. 
uživajo začasno zaščito.5 Sredstva naj bi se mobilizirala čim hitreje, pri tem pa naj bi se zagotovila tudi čim večja prožnost.
As a response to this requirement, the Commission set up the Facility for Refugees in Turkey. 
Komisija je v odziv na to zahtevo vzpostavila instrument za begunce v Turčiji.
The Facility for Refugees in Turkey The Facility is a coordination mechanism aimed at assisting Turkey in Ôaddressing the immediate humanitarian and development needs of refugees and their host communities, national and local authorities in managing and addressing the consequences of the inflow of refugees.Ő Its objectives are to coordinate and streamline actions financed from the UnionŐs budget and bilateral contributions from EU Member States, and to enhance the efficiency and complementarity of support provided to refugees and host communities in Turkey6. 
Instrument za begunce v Turčiji Instrument je mehanizem usklajevanja, namenjen zagotavljanju podpore Turčiji „za zadostitev nujnih humanitarnih in razvojnih potreb beguncev in njihovih gostiteljskih skupnosti ter pomoč nacionalnim in lokalnim organom pri obvladovanju pritoka beguncev ter spoprijemanju z njegovimi posledicami”.
The Facility is an innovative pooling tool that is different from other pooling mechanisms used in the EU, such as the EU Trust Funds7 (see Table 1). 
Njegovi cilji so usklajevati in racionalizirati dejavnosti, financirane iz proračuna Unije in z dvostranskimi prispevki držav članic EU, ter povečati učinkovitost in dopolnjevanje podpore, ki se zagotavlja beguncem in gostiteljskim skupnostim v Turčiji.6 Instrument je inovativno orodje za zbiranje sredstev, ki se razlikuje od drugih mehanizmov za zbiranje sredstev, ki se uporabljajo v EU, kot so skrbniški skladi EU7 (glej tabelo 1).
9 5 6 7 The full text of the JAP is available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5860_fr.htm Articles 1 and 2 of the Commission Decision (C (2015) 9500) as amended by the Commission Decision of 10 February 2016. 
10 5 6 7 Celotno besedilo skupnega akcijskega načrta je na voljo na spletnem naslovu http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5860_fr.htm.
A ÔTrust FundŐ is a Ôlegal arrangement with a distinct financial structure that pools the funds of several donors to jointly finance an action on the basis of commonly agreed objectives and reporting formatsŐ (source: Working Document XI Đ EU Trust Fund - Draft General Budget of the European Union for the Financial Year 2018). 
Člena 1 in 2 Sklepa Komisije (C(2015) 9500), kakor je bil spremenjen s Sklepom Komisije z dne 10. februarja 2016. „Skrbniški sklad” je pravna ureditev s posebno finančno strukturo, ki združuje sredstva več donatorjev za skupno financiranje ukrepa na podlagi skupno dogovorjenih ciljev in oblik poročanja (vir: Working Document Part XI – EU Trust Funds – Draft General Budget of the European Union for the Financial Year 2018.)
Table 1 Đ Key features of the Facility for Refugees in Turkey compared to EU Trust Funds 10 Within the EU budget Pooling Mechanism Donors' fixed contributions Open to non-EU donors In charge of project selection Specific results framework Specific annual accounts Facility X X X X EU Trust Funds X X X X X Source: ECA. Established on 1 January 2016, it has a budget of Ű3 billion to be used in 2016 and 20178. 
Tabela 1 – Ključne lastnosti instrumenta za begunce v Turčiji v primerjavi s skrbniškimi skladi EU 11 Znotraj proračuna EU Mehanizem za zbiranje sredstev Fiksni prispevki donatorjev Odprto za donatorje zunaj EU Zadolženi za izbiro projektov Poseben okvir rezultatov Poseben zaključni račun Instrument X X X X Skrbniški skladi EU X X X X X Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče Instrument je bil vzpostavljen 1. januarja 2016 in ima proračun v višini 3 milijard EUR, ki naj bi se porabil v letih 2016 in 2017.8 Od tega zneska se 1 milijarda EUR financira iz proračuna EU, 2 milijardi EUR pa prispevajo države članice EU9 (v Prilogi I so prikazani nacionalni prispevki za instrument za begunce v Turčiji).