natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The data generally showed a positive effect of the investments. 
Podatki so v glavnem pokazali, da so imele naložbe pozitiven učinek.
However, one project for relaying asphalt on a rural road in a tourist area of Spain (Extremadura) did not have a positive impact on the number of tourists. 
Vendar pa projekt ponovnega polaganja asfalta na podeželsko cesto v turističnem območju v Španiji (Ekstremadura) ni imel pozitivnega učinka na število turistov.
The average number of visitors had actually decreased in the years following the project completion, compared to the average number of visitors before the project. 
Povprečno število obiskovalcev je v letih po zaključku projekta v primerjavi s povprečnim številom obiskovalcev pred projektom pravzaprav upadlo.
There was no information regarding the effects of the investment on the agricultural holdings. 
Informacij o učinkih naložbe na kmetijska gospodarstva ni bilo.
In Romania, the beneficiaries provided to the auditors quantified target and result data for four of the five audited projects, which received grants ranging between 1 and 2.4 million euro. 
V Romuniji so upravičenci revizorjem predložili količinsko opredeljene podatke za ciljne vrednosti in rezultate za štiri od petih revidiranih projektov, ki so prejeli nepovratna sredstva v višini med 1 in 2,4 milijona EUR.
Only one project had reached its target of connecting 575 users to the new water and sewerage system. 
Samo en projekt je dosegel svojo ciljno vrednost, ki je bila priključiti 575 novih uporabnikov na nov sistem vodovoda in kanalizacije.
Three other projects were still far from achieving their targets almost 3 years after project completion: less than half of the target number of users had been connected to the sewerage network for two water projects and no new jobs had been created for the remaining project, although creating employment was one of its objectives. 
Trije drugi projekti so bili skoraj tri leta po zaključku še daleč od doseganja svojih ciljnih vrednosti: pri dveh projektih, povezanih z vodo, je bila na novo kanalizacijsko omrežje priključena manj kot polovica ciljnega števila uporabnikov, pri tretjem projektu pa ni bilo ustvarjeno nobeno novo delovno mesto, čeprav je bilo ustvarjanje zaposlitev eden od njegovih ciljev.
In Germany (Saxony), the data reported for the three main result indicators established for the measures were based on the authorities’ assumptions on the likely result deriving from an investment. 
V Nemčiji (Saška) so navedeni podatki v zvezi s tremi glavnimi kazalniki rezultatov, določenimi za ukrepe, temeljili na predpostavkah organov o verjetnih rezultatih, ki naj bi jih naložba imela.
Targets and actual result data were not available for these indicators. 
Podatki o ciljnih vrednostih in dejanskih rezultatih za te kazalnike niso bili na voljo.
The information that could be obtained by the auditors for the audited projects was therefore limited to basic indicators such as the number of households served by the financed roads. 
Informacije v zvezi z revidiranimi projekti, ki so jih revizorji lahko pridobili, so bile zato omejene na osnovne kazalnike, kot so število gospodinjstev, ki jim služijo financirane ceste.
In Poland, for four of the five audited projects, the beneficiaries reported to the managing authority data on project results, which showed an increase in the number of users and a general achievement of project objectives. 
Na Poljskem so upravičenci za štiri od petih revidiranih projektov organu upravljanja poročali o rezultatih projektov, ki so pokazali porast števila uporabnikov in splošno doseganje projektnih ciljev.
However, in three cases, no supporting evidence was provided to allow the Court to verify the reported figures. 
Vendar v treh primerih ni bilo predloženih dokazil, na podlagi katerih bi lahko Sodišče navedene vrednosti preverilo.
Box 16 
Okvir 16
Observations 42 The Commission has encouraged Member States to improve monitoring and evaluation, but some weaknesses are likely to persist in the 2014-2020 programming period 84 Although Member States are primarily responsible37 for collecting the data to feed output and result indicators, the Commission is responsible for monitoring and supervising the implementation of RDPs and publishes the information collected from Member States through the CMEF. 
Opažanja 42 Komisija je države članice pozvala k izboljšanju spremljanja in vrednotenja, vendar v programskem obdobju 2014–2020 nekatere slabosti verjetno ne bodo odpravljene 84 Čeprav je zbiranje podatkov, ki se uporabljajo za kazalnike izložkov in rezultatov, prvenstveno naloga37 držav članic, je Komisija odgovorna za spremljanje in nadzor izvajanja programov razvoja podeželja, informacije, ki jih zbere od držav članic, pa objavi v okviru CMEF.
85 As regards the measure 125 result indicator ‘increase in gross value added in holdings/enterprises supported’, the Commission recognised that, despite the guidance provided in 2010 on the methodology to measure the GVA increase, most of the Member States faced difficulties in reliably assessing this indicator. 
85 Komisija je v zvezi s kazalnikom rezultatov „zvišanje bruto dodane vrednosti pri podprtih gospodarstvih/podjetjih” v okviru ukrepa 125 ugotovila, da je imela večina držav članic kljub navodilom iz leta 2010 o metodologiji za merjenje povečanja bruto dodane vrednosti težave z zanesljivo oceno tega kazalnika.
Thus, it has been replaced in the 2014-2020 programming period by the indicator ‘Change in agricultural output on supported farms/annual work unit’. 
Zato je bil v programskem obdobju 2014–2020 nadomeščen s kazalnikom „sprememba v kmetijski proizvodnji na podprtih kmetijah/letno delovno enoto”.
The Commission indicated that the new indicator will only be assessed by external evaluators, as Member States lack the required expertise within their administrations. 
Komisija je navedla, da bodo nov kazalnik ocenjevali le zunanji izvajalci vrednotenj, saj države članice v svojih upravah za to nimajo potrebnega strokovnega znanja in izkušenj.
An additional compulsory result indicator has been introduced in the 2014-2020 programming period for the equivalent measure 125, namely ‘percentage of irrigated land switching to more efficient irrigation system’. 
V programskem obdobju 2014–2020 je bil tudi za ukrep 125 uveden dodaten obvezni kazalnik rezultatov: „odstotek namakanih zemljišč, ki so prešla na učinkovitejši namakalni sistem”.
86 As regards the result indicator used for measures 321, 322 and 323, ‘population in rural areas benefiting from improved services’, the Commission accepted the reported figures, despite the risk of over-estimating the number of users. 
86 Pri kazalniku rezultatov „prebivalstvo na podeželju, ki ima koristi od izboljšanih storitev” v okviru ukrepov 321, 322 in 323 je Komisija sprejela vrednosti, o katerih so poročale države članice, kljub tveganju, da je število uporabnikov precenjeno.
For the 2014-2020 period, a similar result indicator will be used for these measures (‘Percentage of rural population benefiting from improved services/infrastructures’). 
V obdobju 2014–2020 se bo za te ukrepe uporabljal podoben kazalnik rezultatov („odstotek podeželskega prebivalstva, ki ima koristi od izboljšanih storitev/infrastruktu-re”).
The Commission will not accept the same population being reported several times (for each project implemented in the area) for the new result indicator; however, such a reporting method is explicitly allowed for the new output indicator, ‘Population benefiting from improved services/infrastructures’. 
Komisija ne bo sprejela poročil, v katerih bo za novi kazalnik rezultatov ista populacija navedena večkrat (za vsak projekt, izveden na območju), je pa takšna metoda poročanja izrecno dovoljena za nov kazalnik izložkov „prebivalstvo, ki ima koristi od izboljšanih storitev/infrastrukture”.
87 The Court could not assess at the time of the audit to what extent the new indicators will remedy the weaknesses of the previous ones. 
87 Sodišče v času revizije ni moglo oceniti, v kolikšni meri bodo novi kazalniki odpravili slabosti svojih predhodnikov.
However, assessing the effectiveness of the measures only on the basis of the change in agricultural output, percentage of land switching to a more efficient irrigation system and the population benefiting from the new infrastructure will not provide a complete picture on the success or otherwise of the funds allocated to the measures, given the great diversity of projects financed. 
Vseeno pa ocenjevanje uspešnosti ukrepov samo na podlagi sprememb v kmetijski proizvodnji, odstotka zemljišč, ki so prešla na učinkovitejši namakalni sistem, in prebivalstva, ki ima koristi od nove infrastrukture, zaradi velike raznovrstnosti financiranih projektov ne bo zagotovilo celostne slike o uspešnosti ali neuspešnosti ukrepom namenjenih sredstev.
37 Article 79 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. 
37 Člen 79 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1698/2005.
Observations 43 88 In the 2007-2013 programming period, due to the significant delays in the implementation of infrastructure measures, there was a mismatch between the spending cycle and the timing of the reporting requirements. 
Opažanja 43 88 Zaradi velikih zamud pri izvajanju infrastrukturnih ukrepov je v programskem obdobju 2007–2013 nastalo neskladje med ciklom porabe in časovnim razporedom obveznosti poročanja.
This led to a lack of pertinent data for mid-term evaluations and, most likely, even the ex post evaluations will come too early to be able to use reliable data. 
Zaradi tega za vmesna vrednotenja ni bilo na voljo dovolj primernih podatkov, verjetno pa bodo tudi naknadna vrednotenja prišla prezgodaj, da bi se lahko uporabili zanesljivi podatki.
If monitoring and evaluation information is not available at key reporting moments, Member States and the Commission cannot use it to improve the implementation of the measures. 
Če informacije o spremljanju in vrednotenju v ključnih trenutkih za poročanje niso na voljo, jih države članice in Komisija ne morejo uporabiti za izboljšanje izvajanja ukrepov.
89 This situation is likely to persist in the 2014-2020 programming period, as Member States are required to prepare the first ‘enhanced annual implementation report’ including evaluation findings, in 2017, even though spending started quite late due to delays in the RDP approval process38. 
89 To stanje se bo verjetno nadaljevalo v programskem obdobju 2014–2020, saj bodo morale države članice leta 2017 pripraviti prvo razširjeno letno poročilo o izvajanju, vključno z ugotovitvami vrednotenja, čeprav se je poraba zaradi zamud v postopku odobritve programov razvoja pode-želja38 začela izvrševati precej pozno.
The absence of timely, reliable and pertinent information on the results of the use of the public funds invested in infrastructure makes the result-based management of future funds difficult to achieve. 
Zaradi pomanjkanja pravočasnih, zanesljivih in primernih informacij o rezultatih uporabe javnih sredstev, ki se vlagajo v infrastrukturo, bo vodenje skladov, ki temelji na rezultatih, v prihodnosti težko dosegljivo.
38 Only 79 of the 118 RDPs had been approved by the Commission by September 2015. 
38 Do septembra 2015 je Komisija odobrila samo 79 od 118 programov razvoja podeželja.
Conclusions and 44 recommendations 90 In 2007-2013 the EU provided 13 billion euro for rural infrastructure projects aimed at boosting the competitiveness of agricultural and forestry holdings and improving the quality of life in the countryside. 
Zaključki in priporočila 44 90 EU je v letih 2007–2013 zagotovila 13 milijard EUR za projekte podeželske infrastrukture, katerih cilj je bil povečali konkurenčnost kmetijskih in gozdarskih gospodarstev ter izboljšati kakovost življenja na podeželju.
Together with Member States’ co-financing, the total support channelled through four rural development measures reached 19 billion euro. 
Skupaj s sofinanciranjem držav članic je skupna podpora v okviru štirih ukrepov za razvoj podeželja dosegla 19 milijard EUR.
91 Infrastructure measures were implemented under shared management, whereby the Commission approved the RDPs submitted by Member States, which then selected the projects to be funded. 
91 Infrastrukturni ukrepi so se izvajali v okviru deljenega upravljanja, tako da je Komisija odobrila programe razvoja podeželja, ki so jih predložile države članice, te pa so nato izbrale projekte za financiranje.
92 The Court’s audit sought to answer the following question: Have the Member States and the Commission achieved value for money with the support for rural infrastructure investments? 
92 Z revizijo je Sodišče želelo odgovoriti na naslednje vprašanje: Ali so države članice in Komisija s podporo za naložbe v podeželsko infrastrukturo dosegle stroškovno učinkovitost?
93 Even though the individual audited projects delivered their expected physical outputs and, in some cases, made a clear positive contribution to the rural areas, the Court found that the Member States and the Commission, acting through shared management, had achieved only limited value for money, as aid was not systematically directed towards the most cost-effective projects addressing the objectives set in the RDPs and there was insufficient information to demonstrate the success or otherwise of the measures. 
93 Čeprav so posamezni revidirani projekti dosegli pričakovane fizične izložke in so v nekaterih primerih prinesli jasen pozitiven prispevek k podeželskim območjem, je Sodišče ugotovilo, da so države članice in Komisija v okviru deljenega upravljanja dosegle le omejeno stroškovno učinkovitost, saj pomoč ni bila sistematično usmerjena v stroškovno najučinkovitejše projekte, ki bi obravnavali cilje, določene v programih razvoja podeželja, za prikaz uspešnosti ali neuspešnosti ukrepov pa ni bilo na voljo zadosti informacij.
94 The Commission and the Member States share the responsibility for the implementation of a huge number of infrastructure projects, not only related to rural development but across the spectrum of structural funds. 
94 Komisija in države članice si delijo odgovornost za izvajanje velikega števila infrastrukturnih projektov, ne le tistih, ki so povezani z razvojem podeželja, temveč v celotnem spektru strukturnih skladov.
Despite this, there was little evidence of effective coordination or sharing of best practice in order to improve the management of the funds and achieve greater value for money through, for example, project selection procedures, checks on the reasonableness of costs and sustainability-related checks. 
Kljub temu ni bilo veliko dokazov o uspešnem usklajevanju in izmenjavi najboljših praks, da bi se izboljšalo upravljanje sredstev in dosegla večja stroškovna učinkovitost, na primer s postopki izbire projektov, pregledi razumnosti stroškov ter pregledi trajnosti projektov.
There remains scope for greater cooperation, which would allow for far more to be achieved with the existing level of funding. 
Potrebno bi bilo tesnejše sodelovanje, ki bi omogočilo, da se z obstoječo količino financiranja doseže veliko več.
95 The weaknesses identified and the Court’s related recommendations are further developed below. 
95 Slabosti, ki jih je odkrilo Sodišče, in z njimi povezana priporočila so natančneje pojasnjeni v nadaljevanju.
Conclusions and recommendations 45 96 The audit found that the Member States lacked a coordinated approach for quantifying rural infrastructure needs (e.g. the number of roads needing repairs and the corresponding budget needed) and identifying sources of financing. 
Zaključki in priporočila 45 96 Pri reviziji je bilo ugotovljeno, da države članice nimajo usklajenega pristopa za količinsko opredelitev potreb v zvezi z infrastrukturo na podeželju (npr. število cest, ki potrebujejo popravilo ter ustrezna potrebna proračunska sredstva) in opredelitev virov financiranja.
None of the audited RDPs considered the existing national, regional, local public or private funds that could address — or were already addressing — the same needs as the RDPs. 
V nobenem od revidiranih programov razvoja podeželja niso bila upoštevana obstoječa nacionalna, regionalna ali lokalna javna ali zasebna sredstva, s katerimi bi bilo mogoče obravnavati – ali s katerimi se že obravnavajo – iste potrebe kot s programom razvoja podeželja.
Therefore, there was no attempt to quantify the remaining funding gap — which would justify the EAFRD intervention — for such investments (see paragraphs 20 to 22). 
Zato pri takšnih naložbah ni bilo poskusov, da bi se količinsko opredelila preostala vrzel v financiranju, s katero bi se utemeljilo posredovanje EKSRP (glej odstavke 20 do 22).
97 In the absence of a coordinated approach encompassing all financing possibilities, substitution of funds may occur, leading to an inefficient use of scarce resources. 
97 Brez usklajenega pristopa, ki bi zajemal vse možnosti financiranja, lahko pride do zamenjave sredstev, kar vodi v neučinkovito porabo že tako omejenih virov.
In two of the audited Member States, there were indications that substitution had occurred, as the national or regional funds available for rural roads were cancelled or decreased precisely when similar projects started to be supported under the RDP (see paragraphs 23 to 24). 
V dveh revidiranih državah članicah so obstajali znaki, da je prišlo do zamenjave sredstev, saj so bila nacionalna ali regionalna sredstva, namenjena podeželskim cestam, ukinjena ali zmanjšana točno takrat, ko so se podobni projekti začeli podpirati v okviru programa razvoja podeželja (glej odstavka 23 in 24).
98 Although some good practices were identified, Member States did not systematically channel the RDP funding to projects for which there was a demonstrable need for public support. 
98 Sodišče je sicer odkrilo nekaj dobrih praks, vendar države članice sredstev v okviru programa razvoja podeželja niso sistematično usmerjale na projekte, ki so dokazljivo potrebovali javno podporo.
As a consequence, there is a risk of deadweight and the results achieved by projects cannot necessarily be attributed to the grant (see paragraphs 25 to 30). 
Posledično se je pojavilo tveganje mrtvih izgub, rezultatov, ki jih dosežejo projekti, pa ni mogoče z gotovostjo pripisati nepovratnim sredstvom (glej odstavke 25 do 30).
99 The lack of clear demarcation lines led in some cases to the alternate use of different funds for the same types of infrastructure, with the inherent risk of needlessly duplicating management structures (see paragraphs 31 to 32). 
99 Pomanjkanje jasne razmejitve je v nekaterih primerih privedlo do izmenične uporabe različnih skladov za iste vrste infrastrukture, kar je predstavljalo tveganje za nepotrebno podvajanje upravljavskih struktur (glej odstavka 31 in 32).
100 Whilst four of the five Member States audited had set up coordination structures, they did not actively promote complementarity between funds. 
100 Štiri od petih revidiranih držav članic so sicer vzpostavile usklajevalne strukture, vendar dopolnjevanja med sredstvi iz različnih skladov niso dejavno spodbujale.
There were cases where the lack of complementarity with national and local funds jeopardised the efficiency and effectiveness of the projects (see paragraphs 33 to 36). 
V nekaterih primerih je pomanjkanje dopolnjevanja z nacionalnimi in lokalnimi sredstvi ogrožalo učinkovitost in uspešnost projektov (glej odstavke 33 do 36).
101 The Commission took steps to improve coordination between EU funds in the 2014-2020 programming period, but the Member States’ programming documents do not yet provide sufficient assurance that the new approaches will lead to better coordination (see paragraphs 37 to 41). 
101 Komisija je sprejela ukrepe za izboljšanje usklajevanja med sredstvi iz skladov EU v programskem obdobju 2014–2020, vendar programski dokumenti držav članic še ne dajejo zadostnega zagotovila, da bodo novi pristopi pripomogli k boljšemu usklajevanju (glej odstavke 37 do 41).
Conclusions and recommendations 46 Recommendation 1 — Analysis of needs and coordination between funding sources (a) The Member States should have a coordinated approach for supporting rural infrastructure, which quantifies needs and funding gaps and justifies the use of the RDP measures. 
Zaključki in priporočila 46 Priporočilo 1 – Analiza potreb in usklajevanje med viri financiranja (a) Države članice bi morale imeti usklajen pristop za podpiranje infrastrukture na podeželju, s katerim bi bilo mogoče količinsko opredeliti potrebe in vrzeli pri financiranju ter utemeljiti uporabo ukrepov v okviru programov razvoja podeželja.
This approach should consider the EU, national, regional and local public funds and the private funds that could address — or are already addressing — the same needs as the RDP. 
Ta pristop bi moral upoštevati sredstva EU ter nacionalna, regionalna in lokalna javna in zasebna sredstva, s katerimi bi bilo mogoče obravnavati – ali s katerimi se že obravnavajo – iste potrebe kot s programom razvoja podeželja.
Member States should ensure that RDP funds do not merely replace other public funds dedicated to the same policy area and select projects for which there is a demonstrable need for public support and which deliver added value. (b) In fulfilling its role in shared management, the Commission should promote the adoption of best practices in mitigating the risk of deadweight and encourage Member States to avoid simple substitution of other funds by the RDP resources, thereby achieving greater added value for the EU funds employed. (c) Member States should make better use of the existing coordination structures such as coordination bodies and joint management, control and monitoring arrangements to implement effective mechanisms aimed at minimising gaps and overlaps in funding, in line with the guiding principles of the common strategic framework. 
Države članice bi morale zagotoviti, da sredstva iz programov razvoja podeželja ne služijo zgolj kot zamenjava za druga javna sredstva, namenjena istemu področju, in izbirati projekte, ki dokazljivo potrebujejo javno podporo in prinašajo dodano vrednost. (b) Z uresničevanjem svoje vloge pri deljenem upravljanju bi morala Komisija podpirati izvajanje najboljših praks za zmanjševanje tveganja mrtvih izgub, države članice pa spodbujati, da se izognejo enostavni zamenjavi drugih sredstev s sredstvi iz programov razvoja podeželja ter tako dosežejo večjo dodano vrednost uporabljenih sredstev iz skladov EU. (c) Države članice bi morale uspešneje uporabljati obstoječe strukture za usklajevanje, kot so usklajevalna telesa in ureditve za skupno upravljanje, nadzor in spremljanje, da bi izvajale uspešne mehanizme, katerih cilj je zmanjšati vrzeli in prekrivanja pri financiranju v skladu z temeljnimi načeli skupnega strateškega okvira.
For example, Member States could prioritise projects that best fit with national, regional or local plans for the integrated development of infrastructure. (d) The Commission should build upon the first steps taken to ensure effective coordination between the different EU funds and carry out a thorough assessment of the complementarity between the different EU funds to be used by Member States in the 2014-2020 programming period. 
Države članice bi na primer lahko dale prednost projektom, ki se najbolje ujemajo z nacionalnimi, regionalnimi ali lokalnimi načrti za integrirani razvoj infrastrukture. (d) Komisija bi morala nagraditi svoje prve ukrepe za zagotovitev uspešnega usklajevanja med različnimi skladi EU in izvesti temeljito oceno dopolnjevanja med sredstvi iz različnih skladov EU, ki jih bodo države članice uporabljale v programskem obdobju 2014–2020.
The Commission should be proactive in encouraging Member States to draw on the experience gained with other funds supporting infrastructure (such as the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund) to improve the efficiency of the management of the measures. 
Komisija bi morala biti proaktivna pri spodbujanju držav članic, naj se opirajo na izkušnje, pridobljene z drugimi skladi za podporo infrastrukturi (kot sta ESRR in Kohezijski sklad), da bi izboljšale učinkovitost upravljanja ukrepov.