natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
FIGURE 6 The Court excluded other RDPs from the scope of this audit where it had audited only one RDP measure (Ireland, Greece, Lithuania and Portugal) or where the Court had audited several RDPs in the same Member State. 
DIAGRAM 6 Sodišče v to revizijo ni zajelo programov razvoja podeželja, pri katerih je revidiralo samo en ukrep programa (Irska, Grčija, Litva in Portugalska) ali več programov razvoja podeželja v isti državi članici.
Czech Republic Germany - Baden - Württemberg Spain - Andalucía France - Mainland (Hexagone) Italy - Campania Luxembourg Hungary Austria Poland 15 SELECTED RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES: ALLOCATED BUDGET AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL (2007–13) Other Rural Development Programmes (not selected) Romania Sweden Source: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. United Kingdom - England Special Report No 12/2013 – Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent? 
IZBRANI PROGRAMI RAZVOJA PODEŽELJA: DODELJENA PRORAČUNSKA SREDSTVA KOT ODSTOTNI DELEŽ SKUPNEGA PRORAČUNA (2007–2013) Nemčija – Baden-Württemberg Češka Španija – Andaluzija Francija – celinska Italija – Kampanija Luksemburg Madžarska Avstrija Poljska 15 Drugi programi razvoja podeželja (ki niso bili izbrani) Romunija Švedska Vir: Generalni direktorat za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja. Združeno kraljestvo – Anglija Posebno poročilo št. 12/2013 – Ali lahko Komisija in države članice dokažejo, da so bila proračunska sredstva EU, dodeljena za politiko razvoja podeželja, dobro porabljena?
Objectives communicate what the policy and programmes intend to achieve, allowing choices to be made about allocating budgets and allowing measures to be designed and implemented with an appropriate balance between the expected results and the costs. 
V ciljih je določeno, kaj naj bi politika in programi dosegli, kar omogoča sprejemanje odločitev glede dodelitve proračunskih sredstev ter zasnovo in izvajanje ukrepov v primernem ravnovesju med pričakovanimi rezultati in stroški.
Objectives also provide a reference point against which the results obtained can be compared. 
Cilji so tudi referenčna točka, s katero se lahko primerjajo doseženi rezultati.
Subsequently, they provide a basis for assessing performance — for accountability: for holding the managers of EU funds responsible for the effective and efficient use of the EU’s budget. 
Cilji prav tako zagotavljajo osnovo za oceno smotrnosti poslovanja in dokazovanje odgovornosti, saj morajo upravljavci sredstev EU prevzeti odgovornost za uspešno in učinkovito porabo proračunskih sredstev EU.
For these purposes, objectives should be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Timed), as defined by the EU’s financial regulation7. 
Iz teh razlogov morajo biti cilji specifični, merljivi, dosegljivi, relevantni in časovno opredeljeni (SMART), kot je določeno v finančni uredbi EU7.
In particular, the objectives should describe a future situation — the change or outcome that the policy or programme intends to achieve. 
Cilji bi morali zlasti opisati stanje v prihodnosti – spremembo ali izid, ki naj bi ga politika ali program dosegla.
They must be expressed in terms that make it possible to check if they have been achieved. 
Ubesedeni morajo biti tako, da je mogoče preveriti, ali so bili doseženi.
And they must be quantified, or have relevant indicators with targets, to provide a basis for ensuring that the programmes represent good value for money and for managing the measures (se-lecting operations for funding) in a way that achieves the objectives efficiently. 
Biti morajo tudi količinsko opredeljeni ali opremljeni z relevantnimi kazalniki s ciljnimi vrednostmi, da dajejo osnovo za zagotavljanje stroškovne učinkovitosti programov in upravljanje ukrepov (izbor dejavnosti za financiranje), ki zagotavlja učinkovito doseganje ciljev.
In all of its performance audits of rural development, the Court has assessed whether the objectives set in the legislation and the RDPs were specific and measurable. 
Sodišče je pri vseh svojih revizijah smotrnosti poslovanja na področju razvoja podeželja ocenjevalo, ali so bili cilji, določeni v zakonodaji in programih razvoja podeželja, specifični in merljivi.
The Court has reviewed the Commission and Member States’ responses to the previous findings and has examined the amendments subsequently made to the 12 selected RDPs. 
Sodišče je pregledalo odgovore Komisije in držav članic na prejšnje ugotovitve ter preučilo naknadne spremembe 12 izbranih programov razvoja podeželja.
THE EU’S RURAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY DOES NOT QUANTIFY OBJECTIVES OR SET TARGETS: THIS SHOULD BE DONE BY THE MEMBER STATES IN THE RDPS ... 
V POLITIKI RAZVOJA PODEŽELJA EU NISO KOLIČINSKO OPREDELJENI CILJI ALI DOLOČENE CILJNE VREDNOSTI – TO BI MORALE STORITI DRŽAVE ČLANICE V SVOJIH PROGRAMIH RAZVOJA PODEŽELJA ...
The EU’s priorities for rural development are set out in the Community Strategic Guidelines, and the rural development regulation sets three objectives for the policy (see paragraphs 7 to 8). 
Prednostne naloge EU za razvoj podeželja so opredeljene v strateških smernicah Skupnosti, uredba o razvoju podeželja pa za to politiko določa tri cilje (glej odstavka 7 in 8).
The regulation describes a number of measures that Member States may implement in order to achieve these objectives but does not give more specific objectives per measure. 
Uredba navaja več ukrepov, ki jih lahko države članice izvedejo za doseganje teh ciljev, vendar za posamezen ukrep ne določa natančnejših ciljev.
7 Part I, Title II, Chapter 7 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ L 248, 16.9.2002 p. 
1605/2002 z dne 25. junija 2002 o finančni uredbi, ki se uporablja za splošni proračun Evropskih skupnosti (UL L 248, 16.9.2002, str.
The objectives for rural development are not quantified at EU level. 
Cilji razvoja podeželja na ravni EU niso količinsko opredeljeni.
The objectives are phrased in terms of improving competitiveness and encouraging diversification. How much improvement or how much diversification the EU intends to be achieved with the EU budget is not stated8. 
Ubesedeni so kot izboljšanje konkurenčnosti in spodbujanje diverzifikacije, ni pa navedeno, kolikšno stopnjo izboljšanja ali diverzifikacije namerava EU doseči s svojimi proračunski sredstvi8.
The legislation requires Member States to set ‘specific verifiable objectives and indicators’ in their RDPs that ‘allow the programme’s progress, efficiency and effectiveness to be measured’. 
V skladu z zakonodajo morajo države članice v svojih programih razvoja podeželja določiti „preverljiv[e] posebn[e] cilj[e] in kazalnik[e]“, „ki programu zagotavljajo izmerljiv napredek, učinkovitost in uspešnost“.
Before approving RDPs, the Commission is required to ensure that they are ‘consistent’ with the Community Strategic Guidelines (the EU’s priorities) and the regulation. 
Preden Komisija odobri programe razvoja podeželja, mora zagotoviti, da se ujemajo s strateškimi smernicami Skupnosti (prednostne naloge EU) in uredbo.
Several measures contribute to each EU objective: 16 different measures aim at improving the competitiveness of agriculture and forestry, the objective of Axis 1. 
K posameznemu cilju EU prispeva več ukrepov: 16 različnih ukrepov je namenjenih izboljšanju konkurenčnosti kmetijstva in gozdarstva, kar je cilj osi 1.
A measure may also contribute to more than one objective: equipment financed under the measure ‘modernising agricultural holdings’ (Axis 1), for example, may also reduce the environmental impact of farming (objective of Axis 2). 
Ukrep lahko prispeva tudi k več kot enemu cilju: oprema, ki se na primer financira v okviru ukrepa „posodabljanje kmetijskih gospodarstev“ (os 1), lahko tudi zmanjša vplive kmetijstva na okolje (cilj osi 2).
A clear plan for the results that each measure is intended to achieve is therefore needed if RDPs are to provide a reasoned basis for allocating resources in the first place, for managing the measure to ensure that it is achieving what is intended, and finally for reporting on how effective and efficient the measure has been. ... 
Zato je potreben jasen načrt rezultatov, ki naj bi jih posamezni ukrepi dosegli, če se želi zagotoviti, da bodo programi razvoja podeželja najprej predstavljali premišljeno osnovo za dodelitev sredstev, za upravljanje ukrepa, da se zagotovi njegovo doseganje načrtovanih ciljev, in na koncu za poročanje o uspešnosti in učinkovitosti ukrepa. ...
BUT THE RDPS DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY SET SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES WITH TARGETS FOR THE RESULTS 26. 
VENDAR V PROGRAMIH RAZVOJA PODEŽELJA SPECIFIČNI CILJI S CILJNIMI VREDNOSTMI REZULTATOV NISO BILI ZADOSTNO DOLOČENI 26.
As described above, the EU regulation requires Member States to set specific objectives according to their different needs established in the programming phase. 
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, morajo v skladu s uredbo EU države članice določiti specifične cilje glede na svoje različne potrebe, opredeljene na stopnji programskega načrtovanja.
However, with few exceptions, the RDP objectives are phrased in general, open-ended terms (to support, to improve, to contribute to, to promote, etc.). 
Kljub temu so cilji programov razvoja podeželja, z redkimi izjemami, ubesedeni splošno in nedoločno (pod-pirati, izboljšati, prispevati, spodbujati itd.).
These describe what the programmes aim to do, but leave it uncertain as to what future situation they intend to achieve. 
Tako je opisano, kaj naj bi se v okviru programov naredilo, ostaja pa nedorečeno, kakšno prihodnje stanje naj bi se doseglo.
With such non-specific objectives, it is not possible to ascertain whether they have been sufficiently met or not. 
Na podlagi takšnih nespecifičnih ciljev ni mogoče z gotovostjo ugotoviti, ali so bili doseženi v zadostni meri ali ne.
This lack of specific objectives in RDPs not only makes monitoring and evaluation more difficult, it also contributes to an insufficient focus on effectiveness and efficiency by the Member States when implementing the measures, as the Court found in its previous audits (see Table 1). 
Takšno pomanjkanje specifičnih ciljev v programih razvoja podeželja otežuje spremljanje in vrednotenje in tudi prispeva k nezadostnemu osredotočanju držav članic na uspešnost in učinkovitost pri izvajanju ukrepov, kot je Sodišče ugotovilo v svojih prejšnjih revizijah (glej tabelo 1).
8 This also applies to the Commission’s proposals for the 2014–20 regulations. 
8 To velja tudi za predloge uredb Komisije za obdobje 2014–2020.
In its Opinion No 1/2012 on certain proposals for regulations relating to the common agricultural policy for the period 2014–20, the Court found that the proposals presented ‘a disparate and very wide ranging set of objectives ... 
V svojem Mnenju št. 1/2012 o nekaterih predlogih uredb o skupni kmetijski politiki za obdobje 2014–2020 je Sodišče ugotovilo, da predlogi predstavljajo „zelo raznolik in obširen sklop ciljev [...] ni razvidno, [...] kaj naj bi se z njimi doseglo na ravni EU.
The Court considers that the rural development policy would benefit from a less complex and a more precise set of objectives including clear targets (expected results and impacts as well as indicators). 
Po mnenju Sodišča bi bil za politiko razvoja podeželja koristen manj zapleten in natančnejši sklop ciljev vključno z jasnimi ožjimi cilji (pričakovanimi rezultati in učinki ter kazalniki).
This would help to focus the policy on delivering results on key EU priorities’. 17 Special Report No 12/2013 – Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent? 
To bi pomagalo usmeriti politiko v zagotavljanje rezultatov pri ključnih prednostnih nalogah EU.“ 17 Posebno poročilo št. 12/2013 – Ali lahko Komisija in države članice dokažejo, da so bila proračunska sredstva EU, dodeljena za politiko razvoja podeželja, dobro porabljena?
However, as illustrated in the following paragraphs: • the RDPs did not all set targets for the indicators; • the targets set were estimates of expected results rather than quantified objectives; • the indicators (and hence the targets) were not always relevant to the RDP objectives. 
Kot je prikazano v naslednjih odstavkih, pa: • ciljne vrednosti za kazalnike niso bile določene v vseh programih razvoja podeželja; • so bile določene ciljne vrednosti ocene pričakovanih rezultatov in ne količinsko opredeljivi cilji; • kazalniki (in posledično ciljne vrednosti) niso bili vedno relevantni za cilje programov razvoja podeželja.
Romania was the only one of the 12 Member States that set targets in their initial RDP for all result indicators for the selected measures according to the CMEF requirements. 
Romunija je bila edina od 12 držav članic, ki je v svojem prvotnem programu razvoja podeželja določila ciljne vrednosti za vse kazalnike rezultatov za izbrane ukrepe, kot zahteva CMEF.
The Commission approved the other RDPs despite the missing targets. 
Komisija je ostale programe razvoja podeželja odobrila kljub manjkajočim ciljnim vrednostim.
The initial RDP for Austria, for example, had no output or result indicator targets for the agri-environment measure, although this represented 45 % of the total programmed expenditure. 
Na primer prvotni program razvoja podeželja Avstrije ni vseboval ciljnih vrednosti kazalnikov izložkov in rezultatov za kmetijsko-okoljski ukrep, čeprav je ta predstavljal 45 % vseh načrtovanih odhodkov.
Member States calculated the results targets required for the CMEF by estimating what they expected the measure to produce with the budget allocated. 
Države članice so ciljne vrednosti rezultatov, ki se zahtevajo za CMEF, izračunale tako, da so ocenile, kaj bo po njihovih pričakovanjih ukrep z dodeljenimi proračunskimi sredstvi dosegel.
A more logical approach would have been to first identify the results required to fulfil a need or achieve an objective, and subsequently to design the measure and identify the extent to which the need or objective could be met with the available funding. 
Bolj logičen pristop bi bil, da bi najprej opredelile rezultate, ki so potrebni za izpolnitev potrebe ali cilja, nato pa bi oblikovale ukrepe ter opredelile, v kolikšnem obsegu je mogoče to potrebo ali cilj izpolniti z razpoložljivim financiranjem.
Some of the RDP targets appear to be over-optimistic estimates of the expected results, such as the target in the Romanian RDP of 7,65 million additional tourist visits to be achieved by the small-scale investments in tourism activities, which was 10 times more than any of the other RDPs reviewed. 
Takšen primer je ciljna vrednost programa razvoja podeželja Romunije, ki naj bi jo dosegli z manjšimi naložbami v turistične dejavnosti: znašala je 7,65 milijona dodatnih turističnih obiskov, kar je bilo desetkrat več kot v katerem koli od drugih pregledanih programov razvoja podeželja.
This target was subsequently cut by 5 million. 18 Special Report No 12/2013 – Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent? 
Ta ciljna vrednost je bila naknadno znižana za 5 milijonov. 18 Posebno poročilo št. 12/2013 – Ali lahko Komisija in države članice dokažejo, da so bila proračunska sredstva EU, dodeljena za politiko razvoja podeželja, dobro porabljena?
The common result indicators are not always relevant to the Member States’ RDP objectives, so they do not have the effect of quantifying what the programmes intend to achieve. 
Skupni kazalniki rezultatov niso vedno relevantni za cilje programov razvoja podeželja držav članic, zato z njimi količinsko ni opredeljeno, kaj naj bi programi dosegli.
For example, in Baden-Württemberg, the indicator ‘number of holdings introducing new products or new techniques’ is of only limited relevance to the RDP objectives as it has a target of just seven of the 3 000 holdings supported by the measure for modernising agricultural holdings. 
V Baden-Württembergu na primer ima kazalnik „število gospodarstev, ki uvajajo nove proizvode ali nove tehnike“ zanemarljiv pomen za cilje programa razvoja podeželja, saj znaša njegova ciljna vrednost samo sedem od 3 000 gospodarstev, podprtih v okviru ukrepa za posodobitev kmetijskih gospodarstev.
In this case, the RDP established additional indicators with targets for the measure that were relevant to its objectives, such as a target for the number of farms introducing enhanced-welfare pig stalls. 
V tem primeru so bili v programu razvoja podeželja za ukrep določeni dodatni kazalniki s ciljnimi vrednostmi, ki so bile relevantne za njegove cilje, kot je na primer ciljna vrednost števila kmetij, ki bodo uvedle prašičje hleve zaradi izboljšanja dobrega počutja živali.
However, many RDPs did not use additional indicators in this way. 
V mnogih programih razvoja podeželja pa dodatni kazalniki niso uporabljeni na ta način.
This is illustrated by the Czech Republic RDP, in which the indicator for ‘new products or techniques’ is not considered relevant for the measures ‘modernising agricultural holdings’ and ‘adding value to agricultural products’. 
To kaže program razvoja podeželja Češke, pri katerem kazalnik „novi proizvodi ali tehnike“ ne šteje kot relevanten za ukrepa „posodabljanje kmetijskih gospodarstev“ in „dodajanje vrednosti kmetijskim proizvodom“.
No alternative indicators have been established for these measures. 
Za ta ukrepa niso bili določeni nadomestni kazalniki.
The weaknesses in the indicator targets, combined with the lack of specific objectives described above, have the consequence that the RDPs do not clearly set out what they intend to achieve. 
Zaradi slabosti pri ciljnih vrednostih kazalnikov in pomanjkanja specifičnih ciljev, opisanih zgoraj, v programih razvoja podeželja ni jasno določeno, kaj nameravajo doseči.
With common indicator targets for outputs and results, the Commission should be able to compare the planned efficiency of different RDPs (see paragraph 61 for more on this) and should be able to aggregate the targets at EU level to show the intended results of the rural development policy. 
Ciljne vrednosti skupnih kazalnikov izložkov in rezultatov bi morale Komisiji omogočiti, da primerja načrtovano učinkovitost različnih programov razvoja podeželja (za podrobnosti glej odstavek 61), ciljne vrednosti pa združi na ravni EU in tako prikaže načrtovane rezultate politike razvoja podeželja.
However, some Member States presented targets in a different way, such as ‘an increase of X %’ or with a different definition to that in the CMEF guidance, which prevents their comparison or aggregation. 
Vendar so nekatere države članice ciljne vrednosti predstavile na drugačen način, na primer„povečanje za x %“, ali z drugačnimi opredelitvami, kot so določene v napotkih za CMEF, kar preprečuje njihovo primerjavo in združevanje.
Similarly, where RDP targets are missing, implausible or not comparable, the value of the consolidated targets at EU level is limited. 
Prav tako, če ciljne vrednosti v programih razvoja podeželja niso določene ali so nerealne ali neprimerljive, je pomen konsolidiranih ciljnih vrednosti na ravni EU zanemarljiv.
The Annex shows the targets that were missing or did not correspond to the CMEF requirements. 19 Special Report No 12/2013 – Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent? 
V Prilogi so prikazane ciljne vrednosti, ki niso bile določene ali niso ustrezale zahtevam CMEF. 19 Posebno poročilo št. 12/2013 – Ali lahko Komisija in države članice dokažejo, da so bila proračunska sredstva EU, dodeljena za politiko razvoja podeželja, dobro porabljena?
The key monitoring and evaluation information for demonstrating effectiveness and efficiency is that related to results, as it shows the direct effects of the expenditure. 
Informacije o spremljanju in vrednotenju, ki so ključne za dokazovanje uspešnosti in učinkovitosti, so tiste, ki so povezane z rezultati, saj prikazujejo neposredne učinke odhodkov.
It must be accurate, consistent to allow ag-gregation, and should show the effects of the expenditure in relation to the EU and RDP objectives. 
Biti morajo točne, dosledne, da se jih lahko združi, prikazovati pa morajo učinke odhodkov v povezavi s cilji EU in programov razvoja podeželja.
The information should be reported to the budgetary authorities and public in a way that allows the success or otherwise of the measures financed to be demonstrated and accounts for the effective and efficient use of the EU budget. 
Proračunska organa in javnost je treba z informacijami seznaniti tako, da je razviden uspeh ali neuspeh financiranih ukrepov ter dokazana uspešna in učinkovita poraba proračuna EU.
The Court has examined the quality of monitoring and evaluation information in all its recent audits of rural development. 
Sodišče je preučilo kakovost informacij o spremljanju in vrednotenju pri vseh svojih nedavnih revizijah razvoja podeželja.
Where relevant, findings have been updated for the 12 selected RDPs. 
Če je bilo ustrezno, so bile ugotovitve za 12 izbranih programov razvoja podeželja posodobljene.
The Court reviewed the Member States’ Annual Progress Reports and ‘Summary reports’9 and the Commission’s work in checking the quality of the information provided. 
Sodišče je pregledalo letna poročila o napredku in „zbirna poročila“9 držav članic ter delo Komisije pri preverjanju kakovosti predloženih informacij.
The Court also reviewed the reports issued by the Commission (see paragraph 51). 
Pregledalo je tudi poročila, ki jih je izdala Komisija (glej odstavek 51).
The CMEF is a valuable tool-set, which is necessary to obtain consistent, comparable information at EU level. 
CMEF je koristen sklop orodij, ki je nujen za pridobivanje doslednih, primerljivih informacij na ravni EU.
However, it soon became apparent that the CMEF — newly introduced in 2007 — had not been sufficiently well prepared. 
Vendar je kmalu postalo jasno, da CMEF, ki je bil uveden leta 2007, ni bil dovolj dobro pripravljen.
Member States had not all planned in advance how to collect data for the common indicators. 
Vse države članice niso vnaprej načrtovale, kako bodo zbirale podatke za skupne kazalnike.
Many made ad hoc arrangements in parallel with their administrative systems (the systems for assessing, approving, checking and paying aid applications), leading to additional work for the national and regional authorities as well as the beneficiaries. 
Mnoge so sprejele ad hoc ureditve vzporedno s svojimi upravnimi sistemi (sistemi za ocenjevanje, odobritve, preverjanje in plačevanje zahtevkov za pomoč), kar je nacionalnim in regionalnim organom ter upravičencem povzročilo dodatno delo.
This also led to a situation where monitoring information was compiled separately, with risks for data integrity. 
Prav tako je privedlo do tega, da so se informacije o spremljanju zbirale posebej, kar je tvegano za celovitost podatkov.
9 Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. 
9 Člen 13 Uredbe (ES) št. 1698/2005.
Most commonly, Member States took results data from the beneficiaries’ forecasts of the expected results, which formed part of their aid applications, or in some cases, the payment claim. 
Najbolj pogosto so države članice uporabile podatke o rezultatih iz napovedi upravičencev o pričakovanih rezultatih, ki so bile del njihovih zahtevkov za pomoč ali, v nekaterih primerih, zahtevkov za plačilo.
In England and Sweden, the authorities checked the plausibility of this data and adjusted it where necessary. 
V Angliji in na Švedskem so organi preverili verjetnost teh podatkov in jih prilagodili, če je bilo potrebno.
This allowed them to assess causality: that the job created, the increase in ‘gross value added’, the new product or the increase in tourism really was an effect of the aid and not just coincidental. 
Tako so lahko ocenili vzročnost: dejstvo, da je bilo ustvarjeno delovno mesto, zvišanje „bruto dodane vrednosti“, nov proizvod ali krepitev turizma dejansko posledica pomoči in ne le naključje.
Few other Member States had such arrangements in place to check the data quality. 
Le malo drugih držav članic je vzpostavilo takšne ureditve za preverjanje kakovosti podatkov.