natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
See for instance: https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/grand-bargain-hosted-iasc and https://www.devex.com/news/for-humanitarian-response-a-cash-based-payment-consensus-88238. 
21 Glej na primer: https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/grand-bargain-hosted-iasc in https://www.devex.com/news/for-humanitarian-response-a-cash-based-payment-consensus-88238.
It is difficult to assess whether this distribution of funding is proportionate to the scale of the needs in the priority areas, because the Steering Committee did not set indicative upfront allocations for each priority area. 
Slika 1 – Delež pomoči instrumenta, dodeljene vsakemu prednostnemu področju (na podlagi zneskov, za katere so bile sklenjene pogodbe) Druga humanitarna pomoč 13 % ESSN 34 % Izobraževanje 28 % Zdravje 15 % Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče na podlagi podatkov Komisije Težko je oceniti, ali je ta razdelitev sredstev sorazmerna z obsegom potreb na prednostnih področjih, ker usmerjevalni odbor ni določil okvirnih začetnih dodelitev za vsako prednostno področje.
Although this increases flexibility in the allocation of funds, it does not allow an assessment to be made of the differences between planned and actual expenditure for each priority area. 
To sicer povečuje prožnost pri dodeljevanju sredstev, ne omogoča pa ocene razlik med načrtovanimi in dejanskimi odhodki za vsako prednostno področje.
We found that the priority area Ômunicipal infrastructureŐ and Ôsocio-economic supportŐ were not sufficiently addressed. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da prednostni področji „komunalna infrastruktura” in „socialno-ekonomska podpora” nista bili dovolj obravnavani.
As shown in Box 2, the main reason was that the Commission and the Turkish authorities disagreed on how to address them. 
Kot je prikazano v okviru 2, je bil glavni razlog to, da se Komisija in turški organi niso strinjali glede načina njihovega obravnavanja.
18 Box 2 Đ Difficulties in the programming of the priority areas Ômunicipal infrastructureŐ and Ôsocio-economic supportŐ Municipal infrastructure In July 2016, the Commission allocated Ű200 million to address needs associated with municipal infrastructure. 
20 Okvir 2 – Težave pri načrtovanju programov prednostnih področij „komunalna infrastruktura” in „socialno-ekonomska podpora” Komunalna infrastruktura Komisija je julija 2016 dodelila 200 milijonov EUR za obravnavanje potreb, povezanih s komunalno infrastrukturo.
Expected results were increased capacity in the areas of water and wastewater management, and solid waste collection. 
Pričakovani rezultati so bili večja zmogljivost na področjih gospodarjenja z vodami in odpadnimi vodami ter zbiranja trdnih odpadkov.
Two partners, the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), were selected to implement related actions on the ground. 
Za izvajanje povezanih ukrepov na terenu sta bila izbrana dva partnerja, in sicer Evropska investicijska banka (EIB) in Evropska banka za obnovo in razvoj (EBRD).
The EBRD wished to make its intervention contingent on the inclusion of a loan component in the support it provided; this condition was not accepted by the Turkish authorities. 
EBRD je želela svoje posredovanje pogojevati z vključitvijo posojilne komponente v podporo, ki bi jo zagotavljala; vendar turški organi tega pogoja niso sprejeli.
Following extensive negotiations, EBRD had to be replaced by the Kreditanstalt fr Wiederaufbau (KfW). 
Po obsežnih pogajanjih je morala EBRD zamenjati banka Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW).
Ultimately, both the EIB and the KfW were forced to cancel their projects due to the lack of adequate and sufficiently mature projects put forward by the local institutions and municipalities. 
Nazadnje sta morali EIB in KfW svoje projekte odpovedati zaradi premajhnega števila ustreznih in dovolj zrelih projektov, ki so jih predlagale lokalne institucije in občine.
As a result, the priority area Ômunicipal infrastructureŐ was not addressed by the Facility22. The funds allocated to this priority area were transferred to the priority area ÔeducationŐ at the end of 2017. 
Zato instrument ni obravnaval prednostnega področja „komunalna infrastruktura”.22 Sredstva, namenjena temu prednostnemu področju, so bila konec leta 2017 prenesena na prednostno področje „izobraževanje”.
5)Ő. 19 Socio-economic support (access to the labour market, vocational training, and social inclusion) The Commission concluded contracts to a total value of Ű215 million under the priority area Ôsocio-economic supportŐ, most of it (68 %) in December 2017, at the end of the contracting period. 
Socialno-ekonomska podpora (dostop do trga dela, poklicno usposabljanje in socialno vključevanje) Komisija je v okviru prednostnega področja „socialno-ekonomska podpora” sklenila pogodbe v skupni vrednosti 215 milijonov EUR, in sicer večino (68 %) decembra 2017, na koncu obdobja sklepanja pogodb.
The conclusion of contracts in this area was delayed because it was initially not a priority for the Turkish authorities and due to disagreements on credit components included in the projects. 
Pri sklepanju pogodb na tem področju je prišlo do zamud, ker to sprva ni bila prednostna naloga za turške organe in ker je prišlo do nestrinjanja glede kreditnih komponent, vključenih v projekte.
However, given the increasingly protracted nature of the crisis, most stakeholders we met felt that more funding should be allocated to this area to develop the resilience of refugees, and enhance their participation in the economy and in society. 
Vendar je glede na vse bolj dolgotrajno naravo krize večina deležnikov, s katerimi se je sestalo Sodišče, menila, da bi bilo treba temu področju nameniti več finančnih sredstev, da bi povečali odpornost beguncev in okrepili njihovo sodelovanje v gospodarstvu in družbi.
The Facility achieved its objective of contracting three billion euros in two years The decision to set-up a ÔFacilityŐ reflected the need to mobilise additional funds. 
Instrument je dosegel svoj cilj, tj. v dveh letih skleniti pogodbe za 3 milijarde EUR Sklep o vzpostavitvi instrumenta je odražal potrebo po mobiliziranju dodatnih sredstev.
A key benefit of the Facility was that the Member States agreed23 on their Ű2 billion contribution in February 2016 immediately after the establishment of the Facility. 
Ključna korist instrumenta je bila, da so se države članice februarja 2016, takoj po njegovi V regionalnem načrtu za begunce in odpornost za Turčijo za obdobje 2018–2019, ki je namenjen odzivu na sirsko krizo, je bilo navedeno, da so naložbe v komunalno infrastrukturo in zmogljivosti še naprej pomembna prednostna naloga (str.
This provided the basis for swift use of the funds, based on a pre-defined budgeted amount. 
Tako se je zagotovila podlaga za hitro uporabo sredstev na podlagi vnaprej določenega predvidenega zneska.
The legal and administrative framework of the Facility was also put in place relatively quickly. 
Tudi pravni in upravni okvir instrumenta je bil vzpostavljen razmeroma hitro.
The Commission and the EU Member States agreed the rules of procedure of the Facility during the first Steering Committee meeting on 17 February 2016. 
Komisija in države članice EU so se na prvem sestanku usmerjevalnega odbora 17. februarja 2016 dogovorile o poslovniku instrumenta.
This meant that the Facility became operational less than three months after the EU-Turkey summit of 29 November 2015. 
Tako je instrument postal operativen manj kot tri mesece po vrhu med EU in Turčijo, ki je potekal 29. novembra 2015.
Annex V presents the key dates and events associated with the set-up and governance of the Facility. 
V Prilogi V so predstavljeni ključni datumi in dogodki, povezani z vzpostavitvijo in upravljanjem instrumenta.
The FacilityŐs funds were disbursed using a mix of existing instruments (see paragraph 8) and implementing partners. 
Sredstva instrumenta so bila izplačana z različnimi obstoječimi instrumenti (glej odstavek 8) in izvedbenimi partnerji.
This allowed the Facility to quickly absorb the significant increase in the EU funds channelled to Turkey and to contract Ű3 billion in two years. 
To je instrumentu omogočilo, da je hitro črpal bistveno povečanje sredstev EU, dodeljenih Turčiji, in da so bile v dveh letih sklenjene pogodbe za 3 milijarde EUR.
As shown in Figure 2, the scale-up in funding was particularly high for humanitarian assistance. 
Kot je prikazano na sliki 2, se je zlasti izrazito povečalo financiranje humanitarne pomoči.
The agreement was concluded on 3 February 2016, at the start of the Facility (see http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/02/03-refugee-facility-for-turkey/). 23 
21 23 Dogovor je bil sklenjen 3. februarja 2016, ob vzpostavitvi instrumenta (glej http://www.consilium.europa.eu/sl/press/press-releases/2016/02/03-refugee-facility-for-turkey/).
In Turkey, EU direct grants are usually used for much smaller projects with an average amount of Ű1 million. (b) 70 % of the Ű3 billion budget was channelled to UN organisations and international financial institutions (see Annex II). 
Neposredna nepovratna sredstva EU se v Turčiji običajno uporabljajo za veliko manjše projekte s povprečnim zneskom 1 milijon EUR. (b) 70 % proračuna v višini 3 milijard EUR je bilo dodeljenih organizacijam ZN in mednarodnim finančnim institucijam (glej Prilogo II).
This contributed to increasing the absorption capacity, since organisations of this kind normally have the means to implement large projects; for example, the multi-purpose cash-assistance project, the ESSN, which was implemented as the main vehicle to provide humanitarian assistance, with Ű998 million in funding (see Box 1). 
To je prispevalo k povečanju zmogljivosti črpanja sredstev, saj imajo tovrstne organizacije običajno sredstva za v milijonih EUR izvajanje večjih projektov, kot je na primer večnamenski projekt denarne pomoči ESSN, ki se je izvajal kot glavni način zagotavljanja humanitarne pomoči z 998 milijoni EUR finančnih sredstev (glej okvir 1).
The combined features described in paragraphs 25 to 28, are not always available to other EU instruments or EU Trust Funds outside the Facility. 
Kombinirane funkcije iz odstavkov 25 do 28 niso vedno na voljo drugim instrumentom EU ali skrbniškim skladom EU, ki ne spadajo v okvir instrumenta za pomoč beguncem v Turčiji.
This explains why the IPA funds channelled under the Facility were contracted up to five times faster than traditional IPA assistance in Turkey. 
To pojasnjuje, zakaj so bile pogodbe za sredstva iz instrumenta za predpristopno pomoč, dodeljena v okviru instrumenta za pomoč beguncem v Turčiji, sklenjene do petkrat hitreje kot za običajno pomoč iz instrumenta za predpristopno pomoč v Turčiji.
As shown in Annex VI, the contracting speed of the Facility was also faster than that of the EU Trust Funds. 
Kot je prikazano v Prilogi VI, je bila hitrost sklepanja pogodb v okviru instrumenta višja tudi od hitrosti sklepanja pogodb v okviru skrbniških skladov EU.
The Facility contributed to enhanced coordination but the streamlining and complementarity of the assistance was not systematically achieved We assessed whether the Facility coordinated and streamlined the assistance provided under different instruments to reduce the risk of inefficiencies (e.g. overlapping projects) and whether it enhanced the complementarity of support, with the aim of facilitating a transition from humanitarian to non-humanitarian assistance. 
Instrument je prispeval k boljšemu usklajevanju, vendar racionalizacija in dopolnjevanje pomoči nista bila dosežena sistematično Sodišče je ocenilo, ali je instrument usklajeval in racionaliziral pomoč, zagotovljeno v okviru različnih instrumentov, da bi se zmanjšalo tveganje neučinkovitosti (npr. prekrivanje projektov), in ali je izboljšal dopolnjevanje podpore, da bi se olajšal prehod s humanitarne na nehumanitarno pomoč.
We found that the Commission coordinated the strategic direction of the Facility through a common needs assessment, governance structure (the Steering Committee) and results framework covering both humanitarian and non-humanitarian support. 
Ugotovilo je, da je Komisija usklajevala strateško usmeritev instrumenta z oceno skupnih potreb, upravno strukturo (usmerjevalni odbor) in okvirom za rezultate, ki je zajemal humanitarno in nehumanitarno podporo.
This enabled the coordination and the exchange of information between the two main responsible Commission departments (DG NEAR and DG ECHO) and the EUTF Madad. 
To je omogočilo usklajevanje in izmenjavo informacij med glavnima odgovornima oddelkoma Komisije (GD NEAR in GD ECHO) in EUTF Madad.
However, the Commission did not set up clear demarcation lines between instruments and implementing partners. 
Vendar Komisija ni določila jasne ločnice med instrumenti in izvedbenimi partnerji.
In some cases, we found that the funding instruments used by the Facility supported very similar activities in the health and education sectors. 
Sodišče je v nekaterih primerih ugotovilo, da so instrumenti financiranja, ki jih je uporabljal instrument, podpirali zelo podobne dejavnosti v sektorjih zdravstva in izobraževanja.
This implied the use of parallel management structures for the financing of similar activities, and required comprehensive coordination efforts from the Commission and partners to mitigate the risk of overlaps. 
To je kazalo na uporabo vzporednih struktur upravljanja za financiranje podobnih dejavnosti, za zmanjševanje tveganja prekrivanja pa so bila potrebna obširna prizadevanja Komisije in partnerjev za usklajevanje.
This is not in line with the FacilityŐs objective of streamlining EU assistance. 
To ni v skladu s ciljem instrumenta, da bi racionaliziral pomoč EU.
Box 3 presents examples of how the Facility funded similar activities under different instruments. 21 
V okviru 3 so predstavljeni primeri, kako so se z instrumentom za pomoč beguncem v Turčiji financirale podobne dejavnosti kot v okviru drugih instrumentov. 23
22 Box 3 Đ Examples of similar activities funded under different instruments Education In the field of education, implementing partners received funding channelled through three instruments under the Facility and also through IPA funding (outside the Facility) and EU Member StatesŐ bilateral contributions. 
24 Okvir 3 – Primeri podobnih dejavnosti, financiranih v okviru drugih instrumentov Izobraževanje Na področju izobraževanja so izvedbeni partnerji prejeli finančna sredstva iz treh instrumentov v okviru instrumenta za pomoč beguncem v Turčiji in tudi iz financiranja iz instrumenta za predpristopno pomoč (ki ne spada v okvir instrumenta za pomoč beguncem v Turčiji) in dvostranskih prispevkov držav članic EU.
ECHOŐs key project in education (the Conditional Cash Transfer for Education - CCTE) focuses on formal education. 
Ključni projekt GD ECHO na področju izobraževanja (pogojno nakazilo sredstev za izobraževanje – CCTE) se osredotoča na formalno izobraževanje.
In addition, other donors in Turkey also supported the education sector, which complicated coordination. 
Poleg tega so sektor izobraževanja podpirali tudi drugi donatorji v Turčiji, zato je bilo usklajevanje še bolj zapleteno.
Annex VII shows the complexity of the education activities that were funded through and outside the Facility. 
V Prilogi VII je prikazana kompleksnost izobraževalnih dejavnosti, ki so se financirale v okviru instrumenta in zunaj njega.
Protection - A project submitted for funding under the Humanitarian priority area in June 2016, worth Ű40 million, was put on hold and later rejected as the activities proposed were already going to be covered under a contract signed with another partner under the EUTF Madad. 
Zaščita - Projekt, ki je bil junija 2016 predlagan za financiranje v okviru humanitarnega prednostnega področja v višini 40 milijonov EUR, je bil odložen in pozneje zavrnjen, ker naj bi bile predlagane dejavnosti že vključene v pogodbo, sklenjeno z drugim partnerjem v okviru EUTF Madad.
That contract was concluded on 31 March 2017, nine months after the initial proposal submitted to ECHO. - Activities dedicated to womenŐs and girlsŐ safe spaces were implemented simultaneously by the same implementing partner from two different sources of EU funding: (i) under the Facility via ECHO and (ii) outside the Facility, as a subcontractor of an IPA Ű40 million project. 
Ta pogodba je bila sklenjena 31. marca 2017, devet mesecev po predložitvi začetnega predloga GD ECHO. - Dejavnosti, namenjene varnim krajem za ženske in dekleta, je hkrati izvajal isti izvedbeni partner iz dveh različnih virov financiranja EU: (i) v okviru instrumenta za pomoč beguncem v Turčiji prek GD ECHO in (ii) ločeno od tega instrumenta, kot podizvajalec projekta v okviru instrumenta za predpristopno pomoč v višini 40 milijonov EUR.
In practice, this entailed both ECHO and the EU Delegation managing and monitoring the same activities in parallel, though in different geographical areas. 
V praksi je to pomenilo, da sta GD ECHO in delegacija EU vzporedno upravljala in spremljala enake dejavnosti, vendar na različnih geografskih območjih.
On the other hand, it The Commission refers to formal education in the 2017 Humanitarian Implementation Plan for Turkey as ÔAn educational system with hierarchic structures and a chronological progression through levels or grades with a set beginning and end. 
Prav tako v tem primeru dejavnosti, ki niso bile financirane iz 24 Komisija v načrtu izvajanja humanitarne pomoči za Turčijo iz leta 2017 navaja, da je formalno izobraževanje izobraževalni sistem s hierarhičnimi strukturami in kronološkim napredovanjem po stopnjah ali razredih z določenim začetkom in koncem.
Formal education usually takes place in an institution and involves some kind of assessment leading to a certificate of qualificationŐ. 
Formalno izobraževanje običajno poteka v instituciji in vključuje neko vrsto ocenjevanja, na podlagi katerega se izda potrdilo o doseženih kvalifikacijah.
On the other hand, non-formal education relates to ÔA flexible approach to education using alternative modes of delivery outside the formal systemŐ. 24 
Po drugi strani se neformalno izobraževanje nanaša na prožen pristop k izobraževanju z alternativnimi načini prenašanja znanja zunaj formalnega sistema.
added to the complexity of the management, implementation and supervision of the Facility as a whole. 
Po drugi strani se je tako povečala zapletenost upravljanja, izvajanja in nadzorovanja instrumenta kot celote.
Indeed, these instruments have different mandates and legal frameworks, different delivery mechanisms, different reporting and monitoring requirements, and are managed by different departments. 
Ti instrumenti imajo dejansko različna pooblastila in pravne okvire, različne mehanizme za zagotavljanje pomoči ter različne zahteve glede poročanja in spremljanja, upravljajo pa jih različni oddelki.
Furthermore, EU funds spent in Turkey outside the Facility also supported some of the same priority areas as the Facility25. Some of the stakeholders we interviewed during our visit to Turkey confirmed that this situation was confusing, notably in terms of the role each instrument was expected to play. 
Poleg tega so bila s sredstvi EU, porabljenimi v Turčiji izven instrumenta, podprta tudi nekatera ista prednostna področja kot v okviru instrumenta.25 Nekateri deležniki, s katerimi je Sodišče opravilo razgovore med obiskom v Turčiji, so potrdili, da je bil položaj nejasen, zlasti v smislu vloge, ki naj bi jo imel vsak instrument.
The FacilityŐs stated objective of ensuring the complementarity of the assistance includes the link between humanitarian and non-humanitarian support. 
Navedeni cilj instrumenta, tj. zagotoviti dopolnjevanje pomoči, vključuje povezavo med humanitarno in nehumanitarno podporo.
Although we identified some good examples in the health sector where the Commission ensured that humanitarian aid would give way to more durable development assistance, we found that this complementarity was not systematically achieved. 
Čeprav je Sodišče opredelilo nekaj dobrih primerov v sektorju zdravstva, kjer je Komisija zagotovila, da bo humanitarno pomoč nadomestila trajnejša razvojna pomoč, meni, da to dopolnjevanje ni bilo sistematično doseženo.
For example, the Commission did not design joint implementation plans between DGs ECHO and NEAR and the EU Member States26 although such plans could have enhanced the overall coherence and streamlining of EU assistance. 
Na primer, Komisija ni oblikovala skupnih izvedbenih načrtov med GD ECHO in GD NEAR ter državami članicami EU26, čeprav bi se lahko s takimi načrti izboljšali splošna usklajenost in racionalizacija pomoči EU.
We consider joint implementation plans to be a good practice, and the Commission used it when designing Joint Humanitarian and Development frameworks for Jordan and Lebanon with the objective of developing a comprehensive and joint response27. In seven out of the ten humanitarian projects we audited, we found no evidence of any agreed transition or exit strategy, whereby humanitarian projects, which are supposed to cover emergency needs, could be taken over by the non-humanitarian strand of the Facility, or by Turkey, when these needs persisted in the medium to long term. 
Sodišče meni, da so skupni izvedbeni načrti dobra praksa, Komisija pa jo je uporabljala pri oblikovanju skupnih humanitarnih in razvojnih okvirov za Jordanijo in Libanon, da bi razvila celovit in skupen odziv.27 Sodišče v sedmih od desetih humanitarnih projektov, ki jih je revidiralo, ni našlo dokazov o kakršni koli dogovorjeni strategiji prehoda ali izhoda, v okviru katere bi lahko Projekti EU, ki so predstavljali več kot 200 milijonov EUR, so bili izvedeni zunaj instrumenta, hkrati pa se je tudi v okviru instrumenta zagotavljala podpora beguncem v Turčiji.
Direct bilateral contribution from EU Member States, in particular Germany with more than Ű175 million for the year 2017, aimed at funding similar activities and partners as the ones under the Facility (See Annex VII in the sector of education). 
Neposredni dvostranski prispevek držav članic EU, zlasti Nemčije z več kot 175 milijoni EUR za leto 2017, namenjen financiranju podobnih dejavnosti in partnerjev, kot so tisti v okviru instrumenta (glej Prilogo VII v sektorju izobraževanja).
The Joint Humanitarian Development Framework in response to the Syrian crisis for Jordan aims at Ôaddressing the humanitarian, mid-term and development priorities, thus better integrating and aligning DG NEAR, MADAD EU Trust Fund and DG ECHO planned responsesŐ. 
Skupni humanitarni in razvojni okvir za odziv na sirsko krizo za Jordanijo je namenjen obravnavanju humanitarnih, srednjeročnih in razvojnih prednostnih nalog, da bi se doseglo boljše povezovanje in usklajevanje načrtovanih odzivov GD NEAR, skrbniškega sklada EU Madad in GD ECHO.
23 25 26 27 
25 25 26 27
transition of humanitarian aid was the end of 201828. This deadline was later extended. 
Okvirni rok, ki ga je GD ECHO določil za prehod s humanitarne pomoči, je bil konec leta 201828 in je bil kasneje podaljšan.
Box 4 provides examples of good and weak transition strategies from the sample of audited projects. 
V okviru 4 so navedeni primeri dobrih in slabih strategij za prehod iz vzorca revidiranih projektov.
24 Box 4 Đ Examples of good and weak project transition strategies Project 4, ÔSupporting adapted and culturally sensitive healthcare services to Syrian refugeesŐ, shows how the Commission used the Facility to foster synergies between ECHO and IPA funding to ensure a smooth transition from humanitarian to development assistance. 
26 Okvir 4 – Primeri dobrih in slabih strategij za prenos projektov Pri projektu 4, „Podpiranje prilagojenih zdravstvenih storitev, ki upoštevajo kulturne posebnosti, za sirske begunce”, je razvidno, kako je Komisija uporabila instrument za pomoč beguncem v Turčiji za krepitev sinergij med financiranjem v okviru GD ECHO in instrumenta za predpristopno pomoč, da bi zagotovili nemoten prehod s humanitarne na razvojno pomoč.