natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The ‘result indicators’ which the Commission uses often do not measure results, but rather outputs (or, in some cases, inputs), and lack a clear link to EU objectives25. 45. 
Kazalniki rezultatov, ki jih Komisija pogosto uporablja, ne merijo rezultatov, ampak izložke (ali v nekaterih primerih vložke), in niso jasno povezani s cilji EU.25 45.
For the previous programming period (2007-13) we concluded that the Commission and Member States had not sufficiently shown what had been achieved in relation to the rural development policy objectives. 
Sodišče je glede prejšnjega programskega obdobja (2007–2013) zaključilo, da Komisija in države članice niso dovolj dobro prikazale, kaj je bilo doseženo v zvezi s cilji politike razvoja podeželja.
We found that the objectives were not sufficiently clear and that despite support from the Commission, Member States had not produced reliable, consistent and relevant enough monitoring and evaluation information to show the results achieved in relation to the objectives set. 
Ugotovilo je, da cilji niso bili dovolj jasni ter da države članice kljub podpori Komisije niso zagotovile dovolj zanesljivega, doslednega in ustreznega spremljanja in vrednotenja informacij, da bi prikazale rezultate, dosežene v zvezi z opredeljenimi cilji.
In our Performance Audit Manual we define outputs as what is produced or accomplished with the resources allocated to an intervention. 
Sodišče je v priročniku za revizijo smotrnosti poslovanja izložke opredelilo kot tisto, kar se proizvede ali doseže z viri, dodeljenimi posamezni intervenciji.
Outcomes are the changes arising from the implementation of an intervention and normally related to the objectives of this intervention. 
Izidi so spremembe, ki izhajajo iz izvedbe intervencije in so običajno povezane s cilji te intervencije.
Outcomes encompass results. i.e. immediate changes that arise for direct addressees at the end of their participation in an intervention” and impacts. i.e. longer-term socio-economic consequences that can be observed after a certain period after the completion of an intervention, which may affect either direct addressees of the intervention or indirect addressees falling outside the boundary of the intervention. 
Izidi zajemajo rezultate, tj. takojšnje spremembe za neposredne naslovnike ob koncu njihovega sodelovanja v intervenciji, in učinke, tj. dolgoročnejše družbeno-ekonomske posledice, ki jih je mogoče opaziti v nekem obdobju po zaključku intervencije in se lahko nanašajo na neposredne naslovnike intervencije ali posredne naslovnike zunaj meja intervencije.
World Bank (2017) “Thinking CAP: Supporting Agricultural Jobs and Incomes in the EU”. 
24 25 Svetovna banka, Thinking CAP: Supporting Agricultural Jobs and Incomes in the EU, 2017.
The introduction of the current Common Monitoring and Evaluation System was a step forward but information on policy performance remains incomplete and sometimes unreliable. 
Uvedba sedanjega skupnega sistema spremljanja in vrednotenja je bila korak naprej, vendar informacije o smotrnosti politike ostajajo nepopolne in občasno nezanesljive.
In 2016, the Commission’s Internal Audit Service identified serious weaknesses in the objectives set, indicators used and data collected, and noted that this may impair DG Agriculture and Rural Development’s ability to monitor, evaluate and report on the performance of the 2014-2020 CAP. 
Služba za notranjo revizijo Komisije je leta 2016 pri opredeljenih ciljih, uporabljenih kazalnikih in zbranih podatkih ugotovila resne pomanjkljivosti ter opozorila, da bi to lahko ogrozilo zmožnost GD za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja za spremljanje in vrednotenje smotrnosti SKP v obdobju 2014–2020 ter poročanje o njej.
We also reported that the Commission’s performance documents do not always assess the quality of the data used26. Link between money paid and achievement of agreed performance targets 47. The consequences of underperformance to Member States are currently limited27. 
Sodišče je poročalo tudi, da dokumenti o smotrnosti poslovanja, ki jih je pripravila Komisija, ne ocenjujejo vedno kakovosti uporabljenih podatkov.26 Povezava med plačili in doseganjem dogovorjenih ciljev v zvezi s smotrnostjo 47.
The performance reserve provides little incentive for a better result orientation since its evaluation is mostly based on spending and outputs. 
Nezadostna smotrnost zaenkrat nima velikih posledic za države članice .27 Rezerva za smotrnost zagotavlja le majhno spodbudo za večjo usmerjenost v rezultate, saj njeno vrednotenje večinoma temelji na porabi in izložkih.
However, we noted that appropriate conditionality and a longer monitoring period increase the likelihood of projects being useful. 
Vendar Sodišče ugotavlja, da se z ustreznim pogojevanjem in daljšim obdobjem spremljanja poveča verjetnost uporabnosti projektov.
Policy should be monitored and – when necessary – adjusted 48. 
Politiko bi bilo treba spremljati in po potrebi prilagajati 48.
For the 2014-2020 period we recommended that the Commission and the Member States should collect timely, relevant and reliable data that provide useful information on the achievements of the projects and measures financed. 
Sodišče je za obdobje 2014–2020 Komisiji in državam članicam priporočilo, naj zbirajo pravočasne, ustrezne in zanesljive podatke, ki zagotavljajo uporabne informacije o dosežkih financiranih projektov in ukrepov.
This information should allow conclusions to be drawn on the efficiency and effectiveness of the funds spent, identify the measures and types of projects delivering the greatest contribution to the EU objectives and provide a sound basis for improving the management of the measures. 
Te informacije bi morale omogočati oblikovanje zaključkov o učinkovitosti in uspešnosti porabljenih sredstev ter opredelitev ukrepov in vrste projektov, ki največ prispevajo k ciljem EU, ter dajati trdno podlago za izboljšanje upravljanja ukrepov.
24 26 27 COM(2017) 497 final – IAS 2016 Annual Report. 
26 26 27 COM(2017) 497 final – Letno poročilo Službe za notranjo revizijo za leto 2016.
OECD: Budgeting and performance in the European Union: A review by the OECD in the context of EU budget focused on results. 
OECD, Budgeting and performance in the European Union: A review by the OECD in the context of EU budget focused on results.
Accountability for the CAP 25 What the Commission’s Communication says on accountability: The assurance process would need to be adapted to the requirements of a results-driven policy design including the development and application of solid and measurable indicators and of credible performance monitoring and reporting. 
Odgovornost za SKP 27 Kaj je v sporočilu Komisije navedeno o odgovornosti Postopek dajanja zagotovil bi bilo treba prilagoditi zahtevam snovanja politike, usmerjene v rezultate, vključno s pripravo in uporabo zanesljivih, merljivih kazalnikov ter verodostojnega spremljanja smotrnosti in poročanja o njej.
Our Landscape Review on EU accountability and public audit arrangements identified six key elements for a strong accountability, transparency and audit chain: • clear definition of roles and responsibilities; • management assurance about the achievement of policy objectives and the use of funds; • full democratic oversight; • feedback loops to allow for corrective action/improvements; • a strong mandate for independent external audit to verify accounts, compliance and performance; • implementation and follow-up of audit recommendations. 
V panoramskem pregledu Sodišča o ureditvah odgovornosti in javnega revidiranja v EU je opredeljenih šest ključnih elementov trdne verige odgovornosti, preglednosti in revidiranja: • jasna opredelitev nalog in pristojnosti, • zagotovilo poslovodstva o doseganju ciljev politike in porabi sredstev, • popoln demokratični nadzor, • povratne zanke, ki bi omogočale popravljalne ukrepe/izboljšave, • široka pooblastila za neodvisno zunanjo revizijo za preverjanje računovodskih izkazov, skladnosti s predpisi in smotrnosti ter • izvajanje revizijskih priporočil in porevizijsko spremljanje.
CRITERIA AND IMPLICATIONS FOR ASSESSING FUTURE POLICY 50. 
MERILA ZA OCENJEVANJE PRIHODNJIH POLITIK IN NJIHOVE POSLEDICE 50.
If well implemented, such a model may improve the CAP’s efficiency and effectiveness. 
Če bi se tak model dobro izvajal, bi lahko izboljšal učinkovitost in uspešnost SKP.
On the basis of our review, we formulate a set of criteria for assessing the future CAP (per stage of the programme logic model) and highlight some of the key challenges ahead. 
Sodišče je na podlagi svojega pregleda oblikovalo sklop meril za ocenjevanje prihodnje SKP (po fazah v modelu logike programa) in poudarilo nekatere ključne prihodnje izzive.
Assessing CAP needs 26 CRITERIA: 1.1. 
Ocenjevanje potreb na področju SKP 28 MERILA: 1.1.
Needs are identified on the basis of solid evidence. 
Potrebe se opredelijo na podlagi trdnih dokazov.
Value added in addressing these needs at EU level is demonstrated. 
Dokaže se dodana vrednost obravnavanja teh potreb na ravni EU.
CAP proposals take account of long-term trends. 
V predlogih SKP se upoštevajo dolgoročni trendi.
CAP proposals are clear about their distributional impacts. 
V predlogih SKP so jasno navedeni njihovi distribucijski vplivi.
To ensure the success of the next CAP, a key challenge will be to identify the needs to be addressed using relevant and reliable data. 
Da se zagotovi uspeh naslednje SKP, bo ključni izziv opredeliti potrebe, ki jih je treba obravnavati z uporabo ustreznih in zanesljivih podatkov.
The decision on which needs to address should be based on an assessment of potential EU value added. 
Odločitev o tem, katere potrebe je treba obravnavati, bi morala temeljiti na oceni potencialne dodane vrednosti EU.
Since some CAP payments will continue until 12 years after the policy proposals have been presented, these proposals will need to take account of long-term trends. 
Ker se bodo nekatera plačila iz sredstev SKP nadaljevala še do 12 let po predstavitvi predlogov politike, je treba pri teh predlogih upoštevati dolgoročne trende.
Lastly, a functioning agricultural single market is an important achievement of the CAP. 
Pomemben dosežek SKP je delujoč enotni kmetijski trg.
Therefore, and for the sake of equity, CAP proposals should spell out their distributional effects. 
Zato in zaradi pravičnosti bi morali biti v predlogih SKP opredeljeni distribucijski učinki.
Assessing CAP objectives CRITERIA 2.1. EU CAP objectives are clearly defined and reflect the needs identified and the long-term vision for the CAP. 
Ocenjevanje ciljev SKP MERILA: 2.1 Cilji SKP EU so jasno opredeljeni ter odražajo opredeljene potrebe in dolgoročno vizijo SKP.
2.2. EU CAP objectives are translated into quantified targets at the level of impacts and results. 
2.2 Cilji SKP EU so pretvorjeni v količinsko opredeljene ciljne vrednosti na ravni učinkov in rezultatov.
2.3. EU CAP objectives are consistent with other general and sectoral EU policy objectives and international commitments28. 
2.3 Cilji SKP EU so skladni z drugimi cilji splošnih in sektorskih politik EU ter mednarodnimi zavezami28.
Defining the specific results and impacts expected of the policy will become an even bigger challenge in the future, in the context of a performance-based delivery model. 
Opredelitev specifičnih rezultatov in učinkov, ki se pričakujejo od politike, bo zaradi izvedbenega modela, ki temelji na smotrnosti, v prihodnosti postala še večji izziv.
The EU For example under Conference of the Parties 21, Sustainable Development Goals and the World Trade Organisation. 28 
EU bo Na primer v okviru 21. konference pogodbenic, ciljev trajnostnega razvoja in Svetovne trgovinske organizacije. 28
will only be able to achieve its objectives, if the Member States, in their strategic plans, commit to sufficiently ambitious and relevant performance targets. 
lahko svoje cilje dosegla le, če se bodo države članice v svojih strateških načrtih zavezale k doseganju dovolj velikopoteznih in ustreznih ciljev v zvezi s smotrnostjo.
Assessing CAP inputs 54. 
Ocenjevanje vložkov pri SKP 54.
A key challenge is to couple a performance-based delivery model with performance budgeting, with funding reflecting identified needs and expected results. 
Glavni izziv je združitev izvedbenega modela, ki temelji na smotrnosti, s pripravo proračuna na podlagi smotrnosti, pri čemer financiranje odraža opredeljene potrebe in pričakovane rezultate.
There should be a clear requirement to apply these principles in delivering the CAP strategic plans. 
Obstajati bi morala jasna zahteva za uporabo teh načel pri izvajanju strateških načrtov SKP.
The Communication does not address co-financing. 
Sporočilo ne obravnava sofinanciranja.
The new delivery model would combine the two pillars under one strategic plan. 
Nov izvedbeni model bi ta dva stebra združil v enem strateškem načrtu.
The existence or not of co-financing has a strong influence on the balance of incentives operating in the implementation of the CAP. 
Na ravnovesje spodbud, ki se uporabljajo pri izvajanju SKP, močno vpliva to, ali je sofinanciranje na voljo ali ne.
The new delivery model cannot be assessed without clarity on the mechanisms for co-financing. 
Novega izvedbenega modela ni mogoče oceniti brez jasne slike o mehanizmih sofinanciranja.
EU co-financing rates should reflect the EU value added of the different types and areas of intervention. 
Ravni sofinanciranja EU bi morale odražati dodano vrednost EU različnih vrst in področij intervencij.
Assessing CAP processes 27 CRITERIA: 3.1. Funds are allocated on the basis of a needs assessment and expected results. 
Ocenjevanje procesov pri SKP 29 MERILA: 3.1 Sredstva se dodelijo na podlagi ocene potreb in pričakovanih rezultatov.
3.2. Funds are spent where they can achieve significant EU value added. 
3.2 Sredstva se porabijo na področjih, na katerih lahko dosežejo znatno dodano vrednost EU.
CRITERIA: 4.1. Policy is implemented by means of cost-effective instruments based on solid evidence. 
MERILA: 4.1 Politika se izvaja s stroškovno učinkovitimi instrumenti, ki temeljijo na trdnih dokazih.
4.2. There is consistency between the CAP and other EU policies and between different CAP instruments. 
4.2 Obstaja skladnost med SKP in drugimi politikami EU ter med različnimi instrumenti SKP.
Implementation rules are simple and do not compromise cost-effectiveness. 
4.3 Izvedbena pravila so enostavna in ne ogrožajo stroškovne učinkovitosti.
Adequate arrangements are proposed for the transition to the new delivery model. 
4.4 Za prehod na nov izvedbeni model se predlagajo ustrezne ureditve.
The Communication advocates continuing direct payments to farmers and many of the objectives it mentions are already addressed by existing measures. 
Komisija se v sporočilu zavzema za nadaljevanje neposrednih plačil kmetom, številne cilje, ki jih omenja, pa že obravnavajo obstoječi ukrepi.
It is therefore likely that the measures that Member States will roll out after 2020 will be similar to current measures. 
Zato bodo ukrepi, ki jih bodo države članice uvedle po letu 2020, verjetno podobni sedanjim ukrepom.
The clarity and wider quality of CAP strategic plans will be the key to the success of the post-2020 CAP. 
Jasnost in večja kakovost strateških načrtov SKP bosta ključni za uspeh SKP po letu 2020.
The cost-effectiveness of instruments that Member States will select and/or design will need to be demonstrated in these plans, on the basis of solid evidence, including scientific sources and stock taking of existing measures. 
Stroškovno učinkovitost instrumentov, ki jih bodo države članice izbrale in/ali zasnovale, bo treba v teh načrtih dokazati s tehtnimi dokazi, vključno s strokovnimi viri in pregledom stanja obstoječih ukrepov.
CAP strategic plans will have to set out how different CAP instruments will complement each other and how they will be coordinated with other policies affecting rural areas. 
V strateških načrtih SKP bo treba določiti, kako se bodo različni instrumenti SKP medsebojno dopolnjevali in kako bodo usklajeni z drugimi politikami, ki vplivajo na podeželska območja.
The Commission and Member States should aim to simplify rules, focussing on what is essential for performance. 
Komisija in države članice bi si morale prizadevati za poenostavitev pravil in se pri tem osredotočiti na tisto, kar je bistveno za smotrnost.
There will be a continued need for some basic rules at EU level. 
Še naprej bodo potrebna nekatera osnovna pravila na ravni EU.
If direct payments are retained, basic requirements will need to be defined in EU law. 
Če se bodo neposredna plačila ohranila, bo treba v zakonodaji EU opredeliti osnovne zahteve.
EU rules should ensure fairness and a level-playing field (including rules on state aid and WTO requirements). 
Pravila EU bi morala zagotoviti pravičnost in enake pogoje (vključno s pravili o državni pomoči in zahtevami STO).
It is also crucial to allow sufficient time and to put adequate arrangements in place for the transition to the new delivery model. 
Bistveno je tudi, da se zagotovi dovolj časa in vzpostavijo ustrezne ureditve za prehod na nov izvedbeni model.
Assessing CAP outputs, outcomes and external factors 28 CRITERIA: 5.1. An effective performance system links the objectives of the policy and its outputs, results and impacts. 
Ocenjevanje izložkov, izidov in zunanjih dejavnikov pri SKP 30 MERILA: 5.1 Uspešen sistem smotrnosti povezuje cilje politike z njenimi izložki, rezultati in učinki.
5.2. There is a clear link between money paid from the EU budget and the achievement of agreed performance targets. 
5.2 Vzpostavljena je jasna povezava med plačili iz proračuna EU in doseganjem dogovorjenih ciljev v zvezi s smotrnostjo.
5.3. Policy performance and relevant external factors are monitored and the policy is adjusted when necessary. 
5.3 Spremljajo se smotrnost politike in ustrezni zunanji dejavniki, politika pa se po potrebi prilagodi.
A key challenge for the performance-based delivery mechanism for the post-2020 CAP is ensuring that the EU pays for outputs which are relevant to EU objectives and have been delivered. 
Eden od glavnih izzivov za SKP po letu 2020 v zvezi z izvedbenim mehanizmom, ki temelji na smotrnosti, je zagotoviti, da EU plača za izložke, ki so ustrezni glede na cilje EU in so bili ustvarjeni.
The link between Member State performance targets to EU objectives should be demonstrated in CAP strategic plans. Assurance about the actual achievement of outputs and results should stem from two sources: 
Povezavo med cilji držav članic v zvezi s smotrnostjo in cilji EU v zvezi s smotrnostjo bi bilo treba dokazati v strateških načrtih SKP.
• solid management and control systems underlying management performance reporting, which makes greater use of modern technologies for real-time checks. • independent external audit. 
Zagotavljanje dejanskega doseganja izložkov in rezultatov bi moralo temeljiti na: • sistemih upravljanja in kontrole, ki so podlaga za poročanje o smotrnosti upravljanja in ki bolje izkoriščajo sodobne tehnologije za kontrole v realnem času;
If the post-2020 CAP is to be a performance-based policy, there should be a clear link between the results achieved and the financial support received. 
Da bi bila SKP po letu 2020 politika, ki temelji na smotrnosti, bi morala biti vzpostavljena jasna povezava med doseženimi rezultati in prejeto finančno podporo.
Such arrangements could be applied both to the relation between the Commission and Member States and, where feasible, to the relation between Member States and individual farms or projects. 
Take ureditve bi se lahko uporabile tako za odnos med Komisijo in državami članicami kot za odnos med državami članicami in posameznimi kmetijami ali projekti, če je to izvedljivo.
In order to ensure sound financial management, the Commission and Member States need timely information as to whether measures achieve policy objectives in an efficient way. 
Da se zagotovi dobro finančno poslovodenje, potrebujejo Komisija in države članice pravočasne informacije o tem, ali se z ukrepi učinkovito dosegajo cilji politike.
This information should be used to adjust policy and spending when necessary. 
Te informacije bi bilo treba po potrebi uporabiti za prilagoditev politike in porabe.
Ensuring accountability 64. 
Zagotavljanje odgovornosti 64.
The nature of the change in role of Member States and the Commission is not made clear in the Communication and will need to be clarified in the legislative proposal. 
Narava spremembe vloge držav članic in Komisije v sporočilu ni jasna, zato jo bo treba pojasniti v zakonodajnem predlogu.
While the document talks of a larger role for Member States, it gives the Commission a key role in approval of Member States’ CAP strategic plans “with a view to maximising the contribution of the CAP towards the EU priorities and objectives, and the achievement of Member States’ climate and energy targets”. 
Čeprav dokument omenja večjo vlogo držav članic, daje Komisiji ključno vlogo pri odobravanju strateških načrtov SKP držav članic, da bi SKP čim več prispevala k prednostnim nalogam in ciljem EU ter pripomogla k temu, da bi države članice dosegle ciljne vrednosti na področju podnebja in energije.
The introduction of a new delivery model should build on the stronger elements of the current governance structures, including control systems (such as the LPIS). 
Uvedba novega izvedbenega modela bi morala temeljiti na trdnejših elementih sedanjih struktur upravljanja, vključno s sistemi kontrole (kot je LPIS).
Assurance on the performance of EU action will become central in the new delivery model. 
Zagotavljanje smotrnosti ukrepanja EU bo bistvo novega izvedbenega modela.
In order to ensure sound financial management, assurance will be needed not only on the effectiveness, but also on the efficiency and economy of EU spending. 
Za zagotovitev dobrega finančnega poslovodenja bo potrebno ne samo zagotovilo o uspešnosti, ampak tudi o učinkovitosti in gospodarnosti porabe EU.
At the same time, the legality and regularity of EU spending should be ensured. 
Hkrati bi bilo treba zagotoviti zakonitost in pravilnost porabe EU.
29 CRITERIA: 6.1. There is a strong accountability and audit chain. 
31 MERILA: 6.1 Vzpostavljena je trdna veriga odgovornosti in revidiranja.
2 
št.
2 
št. št.
2 
št. 7/2011 – Ali je podpora za kmetijsko-okoljske ukrepe dobro pripravljena in upravljana?
2 
Drugi dokumenti Kratko poročilo Sodišča – Future of EU finances: reforming how the EU budget operates (2018) Panoramski pregled – Ukrepanje EU na področju energetike in podnebnih sprememb (2017) Kratko poročilo Sodišča – EU Budget: time to reform?
2 
A briefing paper on the mid-term review of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 (2016) Panoramski pregled – Kako najbolje porabiti sredstva EU: panoramski pregled tveganj za finančno upravljanje proračuna EU (2014) Panoramski pregled – Vrzeli, prekrivanja in izzivi: panoramski pregled ureditev odgovornosti in javnega revidiranja v EU (2014) 3
2 
PRILOGA II: CILJI ZA SKP V POGODBI Ustrezni horizontalni cilji v Cilji SKP v Pogodbi (člen 39 PDEU): Pogodbi: 4 • povečati kmetijsko produktivnost s pospeševanjem tehničnega napredka in zagotavljanjem racionalnega razvoja kmetijske proizvodnje ter z optimalno uporabo proizvodnih dejavnikov, zlasti delovne sile, • s tem zagotoviti primerno življenjsko raven kmetijske skupnosti, zlasti s povečanjem individualnega zaslužka oseb, ki se ukvarjajo s kmetijstvom, • stabilizirati trge, • zagotoviti redno preskrbo, • zagotoviti, da je preskrba potrošnikom dostopna po primernih cenah. • spodbujanje visoke stopnje zaposlenosti (člen 9), • varstvo okolja zaradi spodbujanja trajnostnega razvoja (člen 11), • zahteve po varstvu potrošnikov (člen 12) in zahteve po dobrobiti živali (člen 13), • javno zdravje (člen 168 (1) PDEU) ter • ekonomska, socialna in teritorialna kohezija (členi 174–178). Cilji SKP za obdobje 2014–2020 (člen 110(2) Uredbe (EU) št.