natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, SMRs and in many cases also standards for GAEC, are derived from pre-existing legislation which may have been in place for a long time. 
Vendar predpisane zahteve ravnanja in v številnih primerih tudi standardi za dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje izhajajo iz že obstoječe zakonodaje, ki je lahko že precej stara.
For instance, the environmental SMRs are based on five legal acts (see Table 1) which were introduced in 1979, 1980, 1986, 1991 and 1992. 
Predpisane zahteve ravnanja za okolje na primer temeljijo na petih pravnih aktih (glej tabelo 1), ki so bili uvedeni v letih 1979, 1980, 1986, 1991 in 1992.
In cases where national legislation sets higher standards, the Commission has clarified in a working document5 that cross compliance should be based on the lower EU standards. 
Komisija je v delovnem dokumentu5 pojasnila, da bi morala navzkrižna skladnost temeljiti na nižjih standardih EU, kadar nacionalna zakonodaja določa višje standarde.
Consequently, at farm level, almost all obligations introduced under cross compliance policies were already included in existing usual practices. 
Posledično so bile na ravni kmetij skoraj vse obveznosti, uvedene v okviru politik navzkrižne skladnosti, že del obstoječih običajnih praks.
For instance, in Portugal, around 75 % of the farmers receiving direct payments did not have to fulfil any cross compliance requirement to respect the environmental SMRs. 
Na Portugalskem na primer približno 75 % kmetov, ki so prejemali neposredna plačila, ni bilo treba izpolniti nobene zahteve navzkrižne skladnosti, da bi spoštovali predpisane zahteve ravnanja za okolje.
More generally, the audit disclosed that farmers in the Member States audited were usually not required to change their existing practices. 
Revizija je na splošno pokazala, da kmetom v revidiranih državah članicah običajno ni bilo treba spreminjati svojih obstoječih praks.
For example, only one Member State visited (Greece) defined specific farming practices to protect colonies of wild fauna on agricultural parcels, e.g. by setting out requirements for mowing and grazing. 
Le ena od obiskanih držav članic (Grčija) je na primer določila posebne načine kmetovanja za zaščito kolonij prostoživečih živalskih vrst na kmetijskih parcelah, npr. z določitvijo zahtev za košnjo in pašo.
In France, a national environmental institute identified that limiting the tillage depth was a change in farming practice which could improve soil structure. 
V Franciji je nacionalni inštitut za okolje ugotovil, da je bila omejitev globine obdelovanja zemlje sprememba v načinu kmetovanja, s katero bi bilo mogoče izboljšati strukturo tal.
However, the French authorities did not include this standard under cross compliance. 
Vendar francoski organi oblasti tega standarda niso vključili v navzkrižno skladnost.
An advisory body in the Netherlands, which included environmental organisations and representatives of the farming sector, proposed a standard on crop rotation. 
Svetovalni organ na Nizozemskem, v katerem so sodelovali okoljske organizacije in predstavniki kmetijskega sektorja, je predlagal standard za kolobarjenje.
This standard for GAEC was not included under cross compliance as the Netherlands made the policy choice to include only standards which were based on existing national legislation. 
Ta standard za dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje ni bil vključen v navzkrižno skladnost, ker se je Nizozemska odločila, da bo v navzkrižno skladnost vključila le standarde, ki so temeljili na obstoječi nacionalni zakonodaji.
5 Commission working document “Concerning the statutory management requirements to be respected under cross compliance as from 2007 — List of cases where Community law sets minimum requirements and where the Member States may set higher, more demanding, standards in national law”; AGR 022361, 8 May 2005. 16 
5 Delovni dokument Komisije „Concerning the statutory management requirements to be respected under cross-compliance as from 2007 – List of cases where Community law sets minimum requirements and where the Member States may set higher, more demanding, standards in national law“ (Glede predpisanih zahtev ravnanja, ki morajo biti spoštovane v okviru navzkrižne skladnosti od leta 2007 – seznam primerov, v katerih zakonodaja Skupnosti določa minimalne zahteve in lahko države članice v nacionalni zakonodaji določijo višje, zahtevnejše standarde); AGR 022361, 8. maj 2005. 16
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK THE MEMBER STATES IMPLEMENTED REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS ONLY PARTIALLY 22. 
IZVAJANJE PRAVNEGA OKVIRA DRŽAVE ČLANICE SO LE DELNO IZVAJALE ZAHTEVE IN STANDARDE 22.
The legal framework leaves the main responsibility for detailing the obligations to be complied with by farmers to the Member States. 
Pravni okvir državam članicam prepušča glavno odgovornost za podrobno določitev obveznosti, ki jih morajo spoštovati kmetje.
This is consistent with the need to adapt general rules to the specific situation of a wide variety of agricultural areas. 
To je skladno s potrebo, da se splošna pravila prilagodijo specifičnemu stanju, ki ga predstavlja velika raznolikost kmetijskih območij.
However, the Court’s audit found that none of the Member States visited “translated” all elements required by the framework into operational requirements at farm level. 
Vendar je Sodišče med revizijo ugotovilo, da nobena od obiskanih držav članic ni „preoblikovala“ vseh elementov, ki jih zahteva okvir, v operativne zahteve na ravni kmetij.
National authorities did not always define such requirements and standards or, when they did, did not do it fully and did not always include them in the cross compliance checks. 
Nacionalni organi oblasti takšnih zahtev in standardov niso vedno določili, kadar pa so jih, jih niso določili v celoti in jih tudi niso vedno vključili v preglede navzkrižne skladnosti.
Missing and incomplete checks were numerous, including those that should take place in key areas (environment, food safety). 
Neizvedenih in nepopolnih pregledov je bilo veliko, tudi tistih, ki bi morali biti izvedeni na ključnih področjih (okolje, varnost hrane).
The reasons for this are analysed in the remainder of this section. 
Vzroki za to so analizirani v nadaljevanju tega razdelka.
Box 2 provides some examples of requirements and standards which were not or only partially implemented. 
V spodnjem okviru so prikazani nekateri primeri zahtev in standardov, ki sploh niso bili ali so bili le delno izvedeni.
17 BOX 2 EXAMPLES OF MISSING AND INCOMPLETE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS Portugal did not implement the requirements applicable at farm level in the area of food and feed safety. 
17 OKVIR 2 PRIMERI MANJKAJOČIH IN NEPOPOLNIH ZAHTEV IN STANDARDOV Portugalska na področju varnosti živil in krme ni izvajala zahtev, ki se uporabljajo na ravni kmetij.
In addition, it did not define the requirements for the groundwater Directive. 
Poleg tega ni določila zahtev za direktivo o podzemni vodi.
In Finland, several requirements resulting from the nitrates Directive were set out in the guides distributed to farmers but there was no evidence that they were checked on the spot. 
Na Finskem je bilo v navodilih, razdeljenih kmetom, navedenih več zahtev, ki so izhajale iz direktive o nitratih, vendar ni bilo dokazov, da so bile pregledane na kraju samem.
These requirements, such as not spreading fertiliser within 5 metres of water courses, are of key importance for the prevention of water pollution with nitrates. 
Te zahteve, kot je prepoved nanosa gnojil na območju 5 metrov od vodotokov, so ključnega pomena za preprečevanje onesnaževanja voda z nitrati.
Some Member States did not define a GAEC standard for crop rotation at all. 
Nekatere države članice sploh niso določile standarda za dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje za kolobarjenje.
The standard defined by the Netherlands (a green cover crop between 31 May and 31 August on set-aside land) is insufficient. 
Standard, ki ga je določila Nizozemska (poljščina s travno rušo med 31. majem in 31. avgustom na zemljišču v prahi) ne zadostuje.
It has a very limited application (it only covers 0,1 % of the agricultural area) and cannot be considered as a crop rotation standard as it does not concern the growing of different series of crops in the same place in sequential seasons. 
Njegova uporaba je zelo omejena (pokriva le 0,1 % kmetijskih zemljišč) in ga ni mogoče šteti za standard za kolobarjenje, saj se ne nanaša na gojenje različnih vrst poljščin na istem območju v zaporednih letnih časih.
The standard in Slovenia requires a triennial rotation on 50 % of the arable area of the farm. 
Standard v Sloveniji zahteva triletno kolobarjenje na 50 % obdelovalnih površin posamezne kmetije.
The audit could not establish the reason why the obligation is limited to 50 % of the arable land. 
Z revizijo ni bilo mogoče ugotoviti, zakaj je obveznost omejena na 50 % obdelovalnih površin.
Amongst the 19 Regulations and Directives which form the framework for SMRs, there are 14 Council Directives. 
Med 19 uredbami in direktivami, ki predstavljajo okvir za predpisane zahteve ravnanja, je 14 direktiv Sveta.
Directives prescribe the result to be achieved, but leave the choice of form and methods to the National authorities. 
Direktive predpisujejo rezultat, ki ga je treba doseči, nacionalnim organom oblasti pa prepuščajo izbiro oblike in metod.
Member States must therefore transpose the Directives into national law. 
Tako morajo države članice direktive prenesti v nacionalno zakonodajo.
The Commission found that this transposition was not always complete, and when it pursued legal action the Court of Justice decided in favour of the Commission6. 
Komisija je ugotovila, da ta prenos ni bil vedno izveden v celoti, in ko se je odločila za pravno pot, je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti odločilo v njeno korist6.
This was the case, in particular, of the three environmental Directives which require the designation of specific implementation areas, and the definition of measures to protect these areas (the birds, nitrates and habitats Directives, see Table 1). 
Tako je bilo zlasti v primeru treh direktiv o okolju, ki zahtevajo določitev specifičnih območij izvajanja in opredelitev ukrepov za njihovo zaščito (direktiva o pticah ter direktivi o nitratih in habitatih, glej tabelo 1).
Insufficient transposition into national law means that certain requirements are not or only partly included in national legislation. 
Nezadosten prenos v nacionalno zakonodajo pomeni, da določene zahteve niso zajete v nacionalno zakonodajo ali so vanjo zajete le delno.
In such cases the potential effects of cross compliance are reduced. 
V takšnih primerih so možni učinki navzkrižne skladnosti zmanjšani.
In addition, farmers facing the same environmental problem are confronted with unjustified different requirements. This leads to unequal treatment of farmers in different Member States. 
Poleg tega so zahteve za kmete z enako okoljsko težavo neutemeljeno različne, kar povzroča različno obravnavo kmetov v različnih državah članicah.
This is also the case in the same Member State when different requirements apply to areas with the same environmental problems. 
To se dogaja tudi znotraj ene države članice, kadar se različne zahteve uporabljajo za območja z enakimi okoljskimi težavami.
The framework for SMRs provided by the Council Regulation contains 48 articles which refer in most cases to other legal provisions (articles, annexes, lists) pertaining to the same or other legal acts. 
Okvir za predpisane zahteve ravnanja, ki ga zagotavlja Uredba Sveta, vsebuje 48 členov, ki se v večini primerov sklicujejo na druge zakonske določbe (člene, priloge, sezname) iz istega ali drugih pravnih aktov.
These other legal provisions thus become part of the cross compliance framework as they are needed to make the 48 selected articles operational. 
Te druge zakonske določbe tako postanejo del okvira za navzkrižno skladnost, ker so potrebne za delovanje 48 izbranih členov.
In addition, the provisions to which reference is made also refer to the same or other legal texts, which, in turn, further refer to other legal provisions. 
Poleg tega se tudi določbe, na katere je podan sklic, sklicujejo na ista ali druga pravna besedila, ki se nato sama naprej sklicujejo na druge zakonske določbe.
Member States need to identify the requirements to be checked. 
Države članice morajo opredeliti zahteve, ki se preverjajo.
This results in long lists of requirements: for example, the 2007 checklist used by the Dutch inspectors for visits on the spot mentions 172 different legal provisions to be verified. 
Tako nastanejo dolgi seznami zahtev: v kontrolnem seznamu za leto 2007, ki so ga nizozemski inšpektorji uporabljali za obiske na kraju samem, je na primer omenjenih 172 različnih zakonskih določb, ki morajo biti preverjene.
6 See for example Case C-334/04, Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 October 2007, Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic, failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – birds Directive. 18 
6 Glej na primer zadevo C-334/04, sodba Sodišča (drugi senat) z dne 25. oktobra 2007, Komisija Evropskih skupnosti proti Helenski republiki, neizpolnitev obveznosti države članice – direktiva o pticah. 18
An additional complication results from the fact that some SMRs do not specifically relate to farming activities. 
Dodatna zapletenost izhaja iz dejstva, da se nekatere predpisane zahteve ravnanja ne nanašajo izrecno na dejavnosti kmetovanja.
This is the case of provisions relating to hunting and to the transport of livestock to the market. 
Tako je pri določbah v zvezi z lovom in prevozom živine na trg.
Articles pertaining to the birds and habitats Directives, such as those prohibiting the killing of protected species, apply to all citizens and are not targeted to specific farming practices. 
Členi v zvezi z direktivama o pticah in habitatih, kot so tisti o prepovedi ubijanja zaščitenih vrst, veljajo za vse državljane in niso usmerjeni na posebne načine kmetovanja.
In some Member States, the groundwater Directive (see Table 1) was transposed with a view to addressing the pollution originating in industrial activities rather than in agricultural ones. 
V nekaterih državah članicah je bila direktiva o podzemni vodi (glej tabelo 1) prenesena zato, da bi se odpravilo predvsem onesnaževanje, ki izvira iz industrijskih in ne toliko iz kmetijskih dejavnosti.
Difficulties arise when such requirements are transformed into conditions to be applied to farming activities. 
Težave nastanejo, kadar se takšne zahteve preoblikujejo v pogoje, ki se uporabljajo za dejavnosti kmetovanja.
THE FRAMEWORK FOR GAEC IS RESTRICTED Sets of standards defined by the Member States 29. 
OKVIR ZA DOBRE KMETIJSKE IN OKOLJSKE POGOJE JE OMEJEN Vrste standardov, ki so jih določile države članice 29.
The framework for GAEC is more directly related to farming practices. 
Okvir za dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje je bolj neposredno povezan z načini kmetovanja.
This means that it does not suffer from the problems identified for the SMRs. 
To pomeni, da nanj ne vplivajo težave, ki so bile ugotovljene za predpisane zahteve ravnanja.
However, the audit identified other problems for GAEC. 
Vendar so bile pri reviziji ugotovljene druge težave na tem področju.
The first part of the GAEC framework is defined in Article 5(1) of the Council Regulation which refers to Annex IV of the Regulation. 
Prvi del okvira za dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje je določen v členu 5(1) Uredbe Sveta, ki se nanaša na Prilogo IV k Uredbi.
This Annex consists of a table identifying 4 “issues” and 11 related standards. 
To prilogo predstavlja tabela, v kateri so opredeljene štiri „zadeve“ in enajst z njimi povezanih standardov.
The scope of these four issues (and the related standards) is limited in that they only concern soil and minimum land maintenance, while other key issues, such as water usage, are not included. 
Obseg teh štirih zadev (in z njimi povezanih standardov) je omejen, saj se nanašajo le na tla in minimalno upravljanje zemljišč, medtem ko druge ključne zadeve, kot je uporaba vode, niso zajete.
In July 2007, the Commission wrote to the Member States that, under cross compliance, farmers cannot be sanctioned for disregarding obligations relating to issues or standards which are not included in Annex IV. 
Komisija je julija 2007 državam članicam poslala sporočilo, da kmetov v okviru navzkrižne skladnosti ni mogoče kaznovati zaradi nespoštovanja obveznosti v zvezi z zadevami ali standardi, ki niso zajeti v Prilogo IV.
This is the case of standards which can bring positive effects such as the one defined by France for irrigation or by Portugal for renewal of pasture through burning. 
Tako je v primeru standardov, ki lahko imajo pozitivne učinke, kot je standard, ki ga je Francija določila za namakanje, ali standard, ki ga je Portugalska določila za obnovo travnikov s požiganjem.
The prohibition to define additional standards, combined with the limited set of issues considered, make the scope of the GAEC framework restricted. 
Zaradi prepovedi določanja dodatnih standardov je skupaj z omejeno količino upoštevanih zadev obseg okvira za dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje omejen.
Moreover, problems within the scope of the four issues cannot always be addressed. 
Poleg tega ni vedno mogoče odpraviti težav znotraj obsega štirih zadev.
For instance, soil structure is one of the four issues in the table. 
Struktura tal je na primer ena od štirih zadev v tabeli.
But damage to soil structure caused by cattle, which is an issue in Poland, for example, cannot be addressed through cross compliance because the standards mentioned in Annex IV are only concerned with damages resulting from the use of machinery. 19 
Toda škode, ki jo strukturi tal povzroči govedo, kar se na primer dogaja na Poljskem, ni mogoče obravnavati v okviru navzkrižne skladnosti, saj se standardi, omenjeni v Prilogi IV, nanašajo le na škodo, ki nastane zaradi uporabe strojne opreme. 19
Obligations in relation to permanent pasture 33. 
Obveznosti v zvezi s trajnim travnikom 33.
The second part of the GAEC framework is defined in Article 5(2) of the Council Regulation that provides for land which was under permanent pasture at a certain date to be maintained as such. 
Drugi del okvira za dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje je opredeljen v členu 5(2) Uredbe Sveta, ki določa, da zemljišča, ki so se na določen datum uporabljala kot trajni travniki, to tudi ostanejo.
Derogations are allowed, but only in duly justified circumstances, and under the condition that the Member State takes action to prevent any significant decrease in its total permanent pasture area. 
Odstopanja so dovoljena, vendar le v ustrezno utemeljenih okoliščinah in pod pogojem, da država članica sprejme ukrepe za preprečitev vsakršnega znatnega zmanjšanja njene skupne površine trajnih travnikov.
In the Commission Regulation, this derogation is granted to all Member States. 
To odstopanje je v Uredbi Komisije odobreno za vse države članice.
By granting a general derogation, the Commission did not feel compelled to “duly justify the circumstances”, nor did it request Member States to do so. 
Čeprav je Komisija odobrila splošno odstopanje, ni menila, da bi morala „ustrezno utemeljiti okoliščine“ in tega tudi ni zahtevala od držav članic.
In the same Regulation, the Commission specified that decreases would be “significant” when they exceeded 10 % of a reference ratio and that such significant decreases were not authorised. 
V isti Uredbi je navedla, da so zmanjšanja „znatna“, kadar presegajo 10 % referenčnega deleža, in da takšna znatna zmanjšanja niso dovoljena.
However, the Commission could not provide studies or other relevant documents to justify whether 10 % is the right level to prevent negative environmental effects. 
Vendar Komisija ni mogla zagotoviti študij ali drugih ustreznih dokumentov, s katerimi bi utemeljila, da je 10-odstotna stopnja prava za preprečevanje negativnih vplivov na okolje.
The purpose of the reference ratio is to set a benchmark. 
Namen referenčnega deleža je postaviti primerjalno merilo.
But, given the mode of computation of the ratio (basically the permanent pasture area divided by the total agricultural area), simultaneous decreases in permanent pasture and arable land have no impact on the value of the ratio. 
Toda glede na način izračuna tega deleža (dejansko se površina trajnih travnikov deli s skupno kmetijsko površino) sočasna zmanjšanja trajnih travnikov in obdelovalnih površin nimajo nobenega vpliva na višino deleža.
Yet, such simultaneous decreases resulting from the conversion of entire areas to other forms of land use (e.g. urbanisation of rural areas) have represented a major cause (around 50 %) of the decreases in the recent past. 
Kljub temu pa so takšna sočasna zmanjšanja zaradi spremembe celotnih območij v druge oblike rabe tal (npr. urbanizacija podeželja) v zadnjem času predstavljala glavni vzrok (približno 50 %) za zmanjšanja.
Member States had difficulties with the calculation of the reference ratio defined in the Commission Regulation, and the necessary data was not always available. 
Države članice so imele težave pri izračunu referenčnega deleža, opredeljenega v Uredbi Komisije, potrebni podatki pa niso bili vedno na voljo.
This enabled some Member States (e.g. the Netherlands and Portugal) to set this reference ratio at an unrealistically low level. 
To je nekaterim državam članicam (npr. Nizozemski in Portugalski) omogočilo, da so ta referenčni delež določile nerealno nizko.
Eurostat data indicates that the proportion of permanent pasture (relative to total agricultural area) is much higher than the ratio retained by these two Member States. 
Podatki Eurostata kažejo, da je površina trajnih travnikov (glede na skupno kmetijsko površino) veliko večja od deleža, ki sta ga ohranili ti dve državi članici.
In effect, the audit established that a 10 % decrease from the reference ratio would correspond to a decrease of around 30 % of actual permanent pasture. 
Dejansko je bilo pri reviziji ugotovljeno, da bi 10-odstotno znižanje glede na referenčni delež ustrezalo približno 30-odstotnemu zmanjšanju dejanskih trajnih travnikov.
Slovenia could not apply the Commission’s definition of the reference ratio, as the land and parcel systems had changed; the audit found that the reference ratio could not be reconciled with the underlying data. 20 
Slovenija ni mogla uporabiti Komisijine opredelitve referenčnega deleža, ker se je spremenil sistem identifikacije zemljiških parcel. Pri reviziji je bilo ugotovljeno, da referenčnega deleža ni bilo mogoče uskladiti z osnovnimi podatki. 20
The Council Regulation links the goal of maintaining permanent pasture with its positive environmental effects. 
Uredba Sveta povezuje cilj ohranjanja trajnih travnikov z njihovimi ugodnimi vplivi na okolje.
However, the measures adopted by the Commission do not protect the quality of permanent pastures. 
Vendar ukrepi, ki jih je sprejela Komisija, ne varujejo kakovosti trajnih travnikov.
Certain types of permanent pasture, in particular species-rich natural grasslands, are more important for the environment than others. 
Nekatere vrste trajnih travnikov, zlasti naravna travišča, bogata z vrstami, so za okolje pomembnejše od drugih.
The current system allows for decreases in such high nature value permanent pasture to be compensated by increases in pastures of lower environmental quality. 
Sedanji sistem omogoča, da se zmanjšanja trajnih travnikov tako visoke naravne vrednosti izravnajo s povečanji travnikov nižje okoljske kakovosti.
Since data on the environmental quality of permanent pastures is not available, it is not possible to estimate to what extent this has occurred. 
Ker podatki o okoljski kakovosti trajnih travnikov niso na voljo, ni mogoče oceniti, v kolikšni meri je bilo to izvedeno.
MORE COMMISSION GUIDANCE AND CONTROL ON REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS WAS NEEDED 38. 
POTREBNIH JE BILO VEČ SMERNIC IN KONTROL KOMISIJE GLEDE ZAHTEV IN STANDARDOV 38.
One of the main initiatives taken by the Commission to help Member States implement cross compliance is issuing guidance documents. 
Izdaja dokumentov s smernicami je bila ena od glavnih pobud, ki jih je Komisija sprejela za pomoč državam članicam pri izvajanju navzkrižne skladnosti.