natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
20 In the field of cohesion policy, the regional programmes for Saxony and North Rhine Westphalia in Germany and for Silesia in Poland were chosen for further scrutiny. 
20 Na področju kohezijske politike so bili za dodatni pregled izbrani regionalni programi za Saško in Severno Porenje-Vestfalijo v Nemčiji ter za Šlezijo na Poljskem.
In the field of rural development policy, the regional programmes for Rhône-Alpes in France and Andalusia in Spain were examined. 
Na področju politike razvoja podeželja so bili preučeni regionalni programi za Rono-Alpe v Franciji in za Andaluzijo v Španiji.
Audit scope and approach 17 20 We collected and examined audit evidence against the audit criteria by means of written questionnaires, interviews with Member State and Commission officials, and documentary and data analyses. 
Obseg revizije in revizijski pristop 17 20 Sodišče je s pisnimi vprašalniki, pogovori z uradniki držav članic in Komisije ter dokumentarno analizo in analizo podatkov zbralo in preučilo revizijske dokaze glede na revizijska merila.
21 This report also addresses the suggestion that the European Parliament made in 2015 and 2016 that we audit how the agreed target of 20 % climate mainstreaming was being achieved. 
21 V tem poročilu je obravnavan tudi predlog Evropskega parlamenta iz let 2015 in 2016, naj Sodišče revidira, kako poteka doseganje dogovorjenega cilja 20-odstotnega vključevanja podnebnih ukrepov.
22 With spending in the 2014-2020 period still at an early stage, this report focuses on planned expenditure, and not on actual expenditure at project level. 
22 Ker je poraba za obdobje 2014–2020 še vedno v zgodnji fazi, se to poročilo osredotoča na načrtovane odhodke in ne na dejanske odhodke na ravni projektov.
We did not analyse non-climate-related spending, nor did we examine the potential adverse environmental effects generated by EU support21. 
Sodišče ni analiziralo porabe, ki ni povezana s podnebnimi ukrepi, poleg tega pa ni preučilo morebitnih negativnih učinkov podpore EU na okolje21.
Similarly, other climate-related spending outside the EU budget was also beyond the audit scope. 
Tudi poraba sredstev za podnebne ukrepe zunaj proračuna EU ni bila vključena v obseg revizije.
Therefore, this report does not include an assessment of the general effects of EU policies on climate, the performance of the EU against its 2020 and 2030 climate and energy targets, or the optimum level of EU climate funding. 
Zato to poročilo ne vključuje ocene splošnih učinkov politik EU na podnebje, uspešnosti EU pri doseganju njenih podnebnih in energijskih ciljev za leti 2020 in 2030 ali optimalne ravni financiranja EU za podnebne cilje.
23 We also identified, where possible, examples illustrating good practices or practical case studies. 
23 Kadar je bilo mogoče, je Sodišče opredelilo tudi primere, ki ponazarjajo dobro prakso, ali praktične študije primerov.
21 For example, the funding provided to roads or aviation resulting in an increase of greenhouse gases emissions. 
21 Na primer financiranje cest in letalstva, ki privede do povečanja emisij toplogrednih plinov.
Observations 18 Overall progress has been made but there is a serious risk that the 20 % target will not be met 24 This section assesses the general approach adopted by the Commission to incorporate the climate action target into the EU budget, and the progress made to date. 
Opažanja 18 Dosežen je bil splošen napredek, vendar obstaja resno tveganje, da 20-odstotni cilj ne bo dosežen 24 V tem delu poročila sta ocenjena splošen pristop, ki ga je Komisija uporabila pri vključevanju cilja v zvezi s podnebnimi ukrepi v proračun EU, in dosedanji napredek.
We analysed whether: — there was a plan on how the overall target will be achieved; — an appropriate tracking method built on internationally established methodologies has been set up (see for example paragraphs 34 to 36); — progress had been reported based on reliable and relevant information. 
Sodišče je analiziralo, ali: – je obstajal načrt, kako doseči skupen cilj, – je bila določena ustrezna metodologija spremljanja na podlagi mednarodno priznanih metodologij (glej na primer odstavke 34 do 36); – se je o napredku poročalo na podlagi zanesljivih in relevantnih informacij.
A collective commitment, with some funding instruments expected to contribute more than 20 % 25 We examined whether the Commission had set up a plan outlining which areas of the budget should contribute and to what extent. 
Kolektivna zaveza, pri kateri se je pričakovalo, da bodo nekateri instrumenti financiranja prispevali več kot 20 % 25 Sodišče je preučilo, ali je Komisija pripravila načrt, v katerem je določeno, katera proračunska področja naj bi prispevala k podnebnim ukrepom in koliko.
Such individual targets ought to have been laid down for specific budget areas based on a sound assessment of potential and investment needs in the area to ensure that investment is supported where most needed. 
Ti posamezni cilji bi morali biti določeni za posamezna proračunska področja na podlagi tehtnih ocen potenciala in potreb po naložbah na teh področjih, da bi se zagotovilo, da so naložbe podprte tam, kjer je to najbolj potrebno.
At the same time, the actual potential of policies to deliver a contribution by implementing climate-related measures would need to be taken into account, for example, their principal aims and set up. 
Hkrati bi bilo treba upoštevati, koliko lahko politike dejansko prispevajo z izvajanjem ukrepov v zvezi s podnebjem, na primer njihove glavne cilje in strukturo.
The calculation used to measure climate action expenditure should be based on a transparent system. 
Izračun, s katerim se izmerijo odhodki za podnebne ukrepe, mora temeljiti na preglednem sistemu.
26 The target of ‘at least 20 %’ of EU expenditure was a political choice (see paragraph 8). 
26 Cilj „vsaj 20 %” odhodkov EU je bil politična izbira (glej odstavek 8).
The Commission justified climate mainstreaming, including the level of the target, by citing its aim of responding to the challenge posed by climate change and the substantial investment needs for climate action, in particular those associated with implementing the 2020 climate and energy targets. 
Komisija je utemeljila vključevanje podnebnih ukrepov v obstoječe politike, vključno z višino cilja, z navedbo, da se želi tako odzvati na izzive, ki jih pomenijo podnebne spremembe in velike potrebe po naložbah v podnebne ukrepe, zlasti tiste, ki so povezani z izvajanjem podnebnih in energetskih ciljev za leto 2020.
However, we could not find clear evidence quantifying these investment needs. 
Toda Sodišče ni našlo jasnih dokazov, s katerimi bi bile te potrebe po naložbah količinsko opredeljene.
Observations 19 27 The Commission has estimated that 6 to 7 % of the EU budget for 2007-2013 was spent on climate action (see paragraph 8). 
Opažanja 19 27 Komisija je ocenila, da je bilo od 6 do 7 % proračuna EU za obdobje 2007–2013 porabljenega za podnebne ukrepe (glej odstavek 8).
Since no procedure for monitoring climate action spending had been in place in the 2007-2013 period, we were unable to determine whether and to what extent the 20 % would call for an additional effort for 2014-2020. 
Ker v obdobju 2007–2013 ni bilo postopka za spremljanje porabe sredstev za podnebne ukrepe, Sodišče ni moglo določiti, ali so za doseganje 20-odstotnega cilja v obdobju 2014–2020 potrebna dodatna prizadevanja in kolikšna bi morala biti.
28 The 20 % target applies to the whole of the EU budget over the whole of the 2014-2020 period; it is therefore not an annual target. 
28 20-odstotni cilj velja za celoten proračun EU v celotnem obdobju 2014–2020, zato to ni letni cilj.
Table 1 shows the main budget areas which are contributing to achieving the 20 % target. 
V tabeli 1 so prikazana glavna proračunska področja, ki prispevajo k doseganju 20-odstotnega cilja.
Audited budget areas in 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework and the Commission’s associated climate funding forecasts Audited budget area Planned expenditure 2014-2020 (billion euro) Planned target of climate funding 2014-2020 (%) Planned climate funding 2014-2020 (billion euro) Heading 1 a - Research (Horizon 2020) 74.9 ≥ 35.0 16.6 Heading 1 b - Cohesion Fund 63.3 28.4 18.0 Heading 1 b - European Social Fund 91.4 1.2 1.1 Heading 1 b - European Regional Development Fund 200.3 18.5 37.0 Heading 2 - European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (agricultural direct payments) 288.0 16.3 47.0 Heading 2 - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 99.5 57.5 57.2 Heading 2 - European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 6.4 15.6 1.0 Heading 2 - LIFE 3.5 49.3 1.6 EU BUDGET 1 062.6 ≥ 20.0 212.5 Share of budget areas audited in EU budget 77.9 % 84.5 % Source: European Court of Auditors’ estimates based on Commission programme statements, programming documents, Commission data, regulations and 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework. 
Revidirana proračunska področja v večletnem finančnem okviru za obdobje 2014– 2020 in s tem povezane napovedi Komisije glede financiranja za podnebne cilje Revidirano proračunsko področje Načrtovani odhodki 2014–2020 (v milijardah EUR) Načrtovana ciljna vrednost financiranja za podnebne cilje 2014–2020 (%) Načrtovano financiranje za podnebne cilje 2014–2020 (v milijardah EUR) Razdelek 1a – Raziskave (Obzorje 2020) 74,9 ≥ 35,0 16,6 Razdelek 1b – Kohezijski sklad 63,3 28,4 18,0 Razdelek 1b – Evropski socialni sklad 91,4 1,2 1,1 Razdelek 1b – Evropski sklad za regionalni razvoj 200,3 18,5 37,0 Razdelek 2 Evropski kmetijski jamstveni sklad (neposredna kmetijska plačila) 288,0 16,3 47,0 Razdelek 2 Evropski kmetijski sklad za razvoj podeželja 99,5 57,5 57,2 Razdelek 2 Evropski sklad za pomorstvo in ribištvo 6,4 15,6 1,0 Razdelek 2 LIFE 3,5 49,3 1,6 PRORAČUN EU 1 062,6 ≥ 20,0 212,5 Delež revidiranih proračunskih področij v proračunu EU 77,9 % 84,5 % Vir: Ocene Evropskega računskega sodišča na podlagi programskih izjav Komisije, programskih dokumentov, podatkov Komisije, uredb in večletnega finančnega okvira za obdobje 2014–2020.
Observations 20 29 We found that the co-legislators, i.e. the European Parliament and the Council, had set targets in several main budget areas by introducing them in the legislation governing the respective funding instruments (see Figure 4). 
Opažanja 20 29 Sodišče je ugotovilo, da sta sozakonodajalca, tj. Evropski parlament in Svet, na več glavnih proračunskih področjih cilje določila tako, da sta jih vključila v zakonodajo, ki ureja ustrezne instrumente financiranja (glej sliko 4).
These are either presented in the preamble of the legal texts, or as legally binding targets underpin the planned targets shown in Table 1, in the latter case they represent a mandatory minimum threshold. 
Ti so bodisi predstavljeni v preambuli pravnih besedil bodisi kot pravno zavezujoči cilji podpirajo načrtovane cilje, ki so prikazani v tabeli 1. Zadnji predstavljajo obvezen najnižji prag.
2 Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 
1305/2013 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 17. decembra 2013 o podpori za razvoj podeželja iz Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja (EKSRP) in razveljavitvi Uredbe Sveta (ES) št.
3 Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the establishment of a Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 614/2007 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 
1293/2013 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 11. decembra 2013 o vzpostavitvi programa za okolje in podnebne ukrepe (LIFE) in razveljavitvi Uredbe (ES) št. 614/2007 (UL L 347, 20.
4 Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Regional Development Fund and on specific provisions concerning the Investment for growth and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 
1301/2013 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 17. decembra 2013 o Evropskem skladu za regionalni razvoj in o posebnih določbah glede cilja „naložbe za rast in delovna mesta” ter o razveljavitvi Uredbe (ES) št. 1080/2006 (UL L 347, 20.
Source: European Court of Auditors, based on the respective regulations. 
Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče na podlagi zadevnih uredb.
Observations 21 30 We found that the resources generated in enforcing the targets introduced in the legislation were intended to make a significant contribution to the achievement of the climate action goal. 
Opažanja 21 30 Sodišče je ugotovilo, da naj bi viri, ki so bili ustvarjeni pri uveljavljanju ciljev iz zakonodaje, znatno prispevali k doseganju cilja podnebnih ukrepov.
We estimated this expected contribution to be 38 % of the amount needed to meet the overall target of spending at least 20 % of the EU budget on climate action in the 2014-2020 period. 
Ocenilo je, da so prispevala 38 % zneska, ki bi bil potreben za doseganje skupnega cilja porabe vsaj 20 % sredstev iz proračuna EU za podnebne ukrepe v obdobju 2014–2020.
31 The absence of specific targets in other substantial parts of the EU budget makes it more difficult for the Commission to meet the 20 % target. 
31 Ker ni specifičnih ciljev v drugih znatnih delih proračuna EU, Komisija težje dosega 20-odstotni cilj.
For example, in the budget area of Competitiveness for Growth and Jobs, there are three financially significant programmes22 which, unlike the Horizon 2020 programme in this budget area, have no set targets for climate funding. 
Na proračunskem področju konkurenčnosti za rast in zaposlovanje na primer obstajajo trije finančno pomembni programi22, ki za razliko od programa Obzorje 2020 na tem proračunskem področju nimajo določenih nobenih ciljnih vrednosti za financiranje podnebnih ciljev.
32 However, no overall plan outlining which funding instruments could contribute and to what extent was ever devised (see paragraph 26 and Table 1). 
32 Nikoli ni bil oblikovan noben splošen načrt, v katerem bi bilo določeno, kateri instrumenti financiranja bi lahko prispevali in koliko (glej odstavek 26 in tabelo 1).
This is likely to prove to be a sub-optimal way to determine the climate action contribution to be made by spending programmes which differ in nature. 
To se bo verjetno izkazalo kot neoptimalen način za določanje prispevka k podnebnim ukrepom, ki naj bi jih zagotovili različni programi za porabo sredstev.
33 Since 2014, the biggest contributors on climate action have been the common agricultural policy and cohesion policy (see Figure 5). 
33 Od leta 2014 k podnebnim ukrepom največ prispevata skupna kmetijska politika in kohezijska politika (glej sliko 5).
Agricultural and rural development funds, namely the EAGF and EAFRD, are playing a key role in the efforts to achieve the target. 
Sklada za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja, EKJS in EKSRP, imata ključno vlogo pri prizadevanjih za doseganje cilja.
The Commission has forecast that they will contribute 47 billion euros and 57.2 billion euros in climate funding respectively. 
Komisija je napovedala, da bosta k finančnim sredstvom za podnebne cilje prispevala 47 milijard EUR oz. 57,2 milijarde EUR.
The Commission estimated that 51.9 % of the climate funding planned under the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework would come from agricultural funds, which is more than their 37.7 % share of the EU budget. 
Ocenila je, da naj bi 51,9 % finančnih sredstev za podnebne cilje, ki so načrtovani v večletnem finančnem okviru za obdobje 2014–2020, prišlo iz kmetijskih skladov, kar presega njihov 37,7-odstotni delež v proračunu EU.
22 The European Earth Observation Programme (known as Copernicus), the Connecting Europe Facility, and the Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises. 
22 Evropski program za opazovanje Zemlje (Copernicus), instrument za povezovanje Evrope ter program za konkurenčnost podjetij ter mala in srednja podjetja.
The Commission expects these three programmes to provide 43 % of the climate funding in this budget area. 
Komisija pričakuje, da bodo ti trije programi na tem proračunskem področju zagotovili 43 % financiranja za podnebne cilje.
Observations 22 Climate funding in 2014-2016 by EU budget area Other funds in natural resources (EMFF + LIFE): 1 % Horizon 2020: 8 % Cohesion policy (ERDF + CF): 27 % Source: Commission’s programmes statements of draft budgets of 2014, 2015 and 2016. 
Opažanja 22 Financiranje za podnebne cilje v obdobju 2014–2016 po proračunskih področjih EU Druga sredstva na področju naravnih virov (ESPR + LIFE): 1 % Obzorje 2020: 8 % Kohezijska politika (ESRR + KS): 27 % Vir: Programske izjave Komisije za predloge proračuna za leta 2014, 2015 in 2016.
The Commission’s tracking method builds on international methodologies yet has weaknesses 34 Other areas: 9 % (EAGF + EAFRD): 55 % Common agricultural policy Some measures contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation more than others. 
Druga področja: 9 % Skupna kmetijska politika (EKJS + EKSRP): 55 % Metodologija, ki jo Komisija uporablja za spremljanje, temelji na mednarodnih metodologijah, a ima vseeno slabosti 34 Nekateri ukrepi bolj prispevajo k blažitvi podnebnih sprememb in prilagajanju nanje kot drugi.
A system therefore had to be devised to identify what action could be counted towards the 20 % target. 
Zato je bilo treba vzpostaviti sistem za določanje, kateri ukrepi bi lahko pripomogli k doseganju 20-odstotnega cilja.
The Commission built on an internationally established methodology, namely the OECD’s ‘Rio markers’, which assign categories to expenditure according to the rules mentioned in Table 2. 
Komisija je pri tem upoštevala mednarodno priznano metodologijo, tj. kazalnike OECD iz Ria, pri katerih se odhodkom v skladu s pravili iz tabele 2 dodelijo kategorije.
The EU’s tracking methodology is a system for gauging the contribution from different funding instruments and policy areas to climate action by establishing three categories of expenditure. 
Metodologija spremljanja EU je sistem za merjenje prispevka različnih instrumentov financiranja in področij k podnebnim ukrepom z določitvijo treh kategorij odhodkov.
In order to transform these ‘Rio markers’ into financial data, the EU climate coefficients of 0 %, 40 %, and 100 % were applied to the EU expenditure, following rules specific to the various spending areas. 
Za preoblikovanje teh kazalnikov iz Ria v finančne podatke so bili za odhodke EU v skladu s pravili za različna področja porabe sredstev uporabljeni podnebni koeficienti v višini 0 %, 40 % in 100 %.
Observations 23 OECD categories and EU climate coefficients OECD EU Applicable category Categories of activity EU climate coefficients Example: Criteria used in European Structural and Investment Funds 2 Expenditure for activities for which climate is the principal (primary) objective. 
Opažanja 23 Kategorije OECD in podnebni koeficienti EU OECD EU Veljavna kategorija Kategorija dejavnosti Podnebni koeficienti EU Primer: Merila, ki se uporabljajo za evropske strukturne in investicijske sklade 2 Odhodki za dejavnosti, pri katerih je podnebje glavni (primarni) cilj.
100 % The support makes a significant contribution towards climate change objectives. 
100 % Podpora bistveno prispeva k ciljem na področju podnebnih sprememb.
1 Expenditure for activities for which climate is a significant, but not the principal, objective. 
1 Odhodki za dejavnosti, pri katerih je podnebje pomemben, vendar ne glavni cilj.
40 % The support makes a moderate contribution to climate change. 
40 % Podpora zmerno prispeva k ciljem na področju podnebnih sprememb.
0 Expenditure not targeted at climate objectives. 
0 Odhodki niso usmerjeni v podnebne cilje.
0% The support does not contribute towards those objectives or the contribution is insignificant. 
0% Podpora ne prispeva k doseganju teh ciljev oziroma je njen prispevek neznaten.
Source: Handbook on the OECD-DAC Climate Markers, http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/48785310.pdf; Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Structural and Investment Funds (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 
Vir: Priročnik za podnebne kazalnike OECD-DAC, http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/48 785 310.pdf; Člen 8 Uredbe (ES) št. 1303/2013 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 17. decembra 2013 o skupnih določbah o evropskih strukturnih in investicijskih skladih (UL L 347, 20.
35 The audited Commission directorate-generals and Member States found the use of these three climate coefficients to be a pragmatic approach for tracking climate expenditure. 
35 Po mnenju revidiranih generalnih direktoratov Komisije in držav članic uporaba teh treh podnebnih koeficientov pomeni pragmatičen pristop k spremljanju odhodkov za podnebne ukrepe.
However, we found two main weaknesses in the tracking system: — The EU climate coefficients applied in certain areas failed to respect systematically the conservativeness principle (see paragraphs 51 to 59), developed by the World Bank in order to avoid overestimates in climate funding (see Box 2). 
Sodišče pa je našlo dve glavni slabosti tega sistema spremljanja: – pri podnebnih koeficientih EU, ki so se uporabljali na nekaterih področjih, ni bilo sistematično upoštevano načelo konzervativnosti (glej odstavke 51 do 59), ki ga je uvedla Svetovna banka, da bi preprečila previsoke ocene financiranja za podnebne cilje (glej okvir 2).
This failure resulted in over-estimates of the amounts allocated on climate action. — The European Structural and Investment Funds Regulation adopts an approach which deviates from the OECD categories; the 100 % coefficient is applied to support making a significant contribution to climate change, while the 40 % coefficient is a marker of a moderate contribution. 
Posledično so bili zneski, namenjeni podnebnim ukrepom, previsoko ocenjeni, – uredba o evropskih strukturnih in investicijskih skladih uporablja pristop, ki odstopa od kategorij OECD; 100-odstotni koeficient se uporablja za podporo z bistvenim prispevkom za ukrepe v zvezi s podnebnimi spremembami, 40-odstotni koeficient pa označuje zmeren prispevek.
Assigning the top weighting to contributions which are merely ‘significant’, rather than only to those where climate change is the primary objective, increases the number of cases in which the maximum coefficient can be used. 
Uporaba največjega ponderja za prispevke, ki so zgolj „znatni”, in ne le za prispevke, pri katerih so ukrepi v zvezi s podnebnimi spremembami primarni cilj, povečuje število primerov, pri katerih se lahko uporabi najvišji koeficient.
Observations 24 36 We found weaknesses in the reporting arrangements. 
Opažanja 24 36 Sodišče je slabosti odkrilo tudi pri ureditvah poročanja.
Unlike other international systems (see Box 2), the EU’s tracking system provides no information on how much is spent on climate change mitigation and adaptation23. 
Za razliko od drugih mednarodnih sistemov (glej okvir 2) sistem spremljanja EU ne zagotavlja informacij o tem, koliko sredstev se porabi za blažitev podnebnih sprememb in prilagajanje nanje23.
23 According to the Commission, the only exception is the climate tracking applied for external instruments, as reported by the Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development to the OECD. 
23 Po navedbah Komisije je edina izjema spremljanje podnebnih ukrepov, ki se uporablja za zunanje instrumente, kot je Generalni direktorat za mednarodno sodelovanje in razvoj sporočil OECD.
We audited this area in Special Report No 17/2013, ‘EU climate finance in the context of external aid’ (http://eca. europa.eu). 
To področje je bilo revidirano v Posebnem poročilu št. 17/2013 – Podnebno financiranje EU v okviru zunanje pomoči (http://eca. europa.eu).