natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
THE OBJECTIVES OF AGRI-ENVIRONMENT PAYMENTS ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC TO ASSESS WHETHER THEY HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED THE ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES CITED DO NOT PROVIDE A CLEAR JUSTIFICATION OF AGRI-ENVIRONMENT PAYMENTS EXAMPLES OF PRACTICES DESIGNED TO DELIVER TANGIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS ACHIEVEMENTS OF AGRI-ENVIRONMENT POLICY CANNOT BE EASILY MONITORED ARE FARMERS WELL SUPPORTED THROUGH APPROPRIATE GUIDANCE AND CORRECT AID AMOUNTS? 
CILJI KMETIJSKO-OKOLJSKIH PLAČIL NISO DOVOLJ SPECIFIČNI, DA BI BILO MOGOČE OCENITI, ALI SO BILI DOSEŽENI NAŠTETI PRITISKI NA OKOLJE NISO JASNA UTEMELJITEV ZA KMETIJSKO-OKOLJSKA PLAČILA PRIMERI PRAKS, ZASNOVANIH ZA DOSEGANJE OPRIJEMLJIVIH KORISTI ZA OKOLJE DOSEŽKOV KMETIJSKO-OKOLJSKE POLITIKE NI LAHKO SPREMLJATI ALI SO USTREZNO USMERJANJE IN PRAVI ZNESKI POMOČI DOBRA PODPORA ZA KMETE?
70–94 DOES THE MANAGEMENT OF AGRI-ENVIRONMENT POLICY TAKE ACCOUNT OF SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL NEEDS? 72–83 LIMITED USE OF TARGETING AND SELECTION PROCEDURES 84–94 ALLOCATION OF FUNDS DOES NOT OPTIMISE VALUE FOR MONEY 95–100 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ANNEX I ANNEX II — MAIN FINDINGS FROM PREVIOUS COURT REPORTS ON AGRI-ENVIRONMENT — DESCRIPTION AND INDICATION OF THE ORIGIN OF THE AUDIT CRITERIA USED TO ANSWER THE AUDIT QUESTIONS ANNEX III REPLY OF THE COMMISSION — OUTPUT AND RESULT INDICATORS REPORTED BY THE EIGHT MEMBER STATES AUDITED 4 Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed? 
70–94 ALI SE PRI VODENJU KMETIJSKO-OKOLJSKE POLITIKE UPOŠTEVAJO POSEBNE OKOLJSKE POTREBE? 72–83 OMEJENA UPORABA POSTOPKOV CILJNEGA USMERJANJA IN IZBIRNIH POSTOPKOV 84–94 DODELJEVANJE SREDSTEV NE ZAGOTAVLJA OPTIMALNE STROŠKOVNE UČINKOVITOSTI 95–100 ZAKLJUČKI IN PRIPOROČILA PRILOGA I - PRILOGA II - PRILOGA III - ODGOVORI KOMISIJE GLAVNE UGOTOVITVE IZ PREJŠNJIH POROČIL SODIŠČA NA KMETIJSKO-OKOLJSKEM PODROČJU OPIS IN NAVEDBA IZVORA REVIZIJSKIH MERIL, UPORABLJENIH PRI ODGOVORIH NA REVIZIJSKA VPRAŠANJA KAZALNIKI UČINKA IN REZULTATOV, O KATERIH JE POROČALO OSEM REVIDIRANIH DRŽAV ČLANIC 4 Posebno poročilo št.
Member State: In the context of this audit, the authorities in charge of the management of agri-environment payments. 
5 GLOSAR Država članica: v okviru te revizije so to organi, zadolženi za upravljanje kmetijsko-okoljskih plačil.
Member States designate a Managing Authority for this. 
Države članice zanj imenujejo organ upravljanja.
In regionalised Member States like Germany, Spain and Italy, each region has a separate programme and a separate Managing Authority. 
V državah članicah, ki so razdeljene na regije, kot so Nemčija, Španija in Italija, ima vsaka regija poseben program in poseben organ upravljanja.
Organic farming: A method for producing food products designed to minimise human impact on the environment. 
Ekološko kmetovanje: metoda pridelave prehrambnih izdelkov, s katero se dosega kar najmanjši vpliv ljudi na okolje.
Since 1991, requirements have been set at EU level, including for production methods and inspection. 
Od leta 1991 so zahteve določene na ravni EU in veljajo tudi za načine pridelave in nadzor.
Currently governed by Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. 
Trenutno ga ureja Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 834/2007.
Physical area supported: Utilised agricultural area of farmers and other land managers which is subject to agri-environment commitments. 
Fizično območje, za katero se prejema podpora: kmetijska površina, ki jo obdelujejo kmetje in drugi upravljavci zemljišč in za katero veljajo kmetijsko-okoljske zaveze.
If several commitments apply to the same area, the total area under commitments can only be counted once for this indicator. 
Če za neko območje velja več zavez, se pri tem kazalniku celotna površina, za katero veljajo zaveze, lahko upošteva samo enkrat.
Result indicators: Used to measure the direct changes brought about by programme interventions — for axis 2 measures including agri-environment, the area (number of hectares) under successful land management contributing to a specific objective (e.g. improvement of water quality). 
Pri ukrepih v okviru 2. osi, vključno s kmetijsko-okoljskimi ukrepi, je to površina (število hektarjev) zemljišča, s katerim se uspešno gospodari in prispeva k posameznemu cilju (npr. izboljšanje kakovosti voda).
River basin: The area of land from which all surface run-off flows through a sequence of streams, rivers and, possibly, lakes into the sea at a single river mouth, estuary or delta (Article 2 of Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy). 
Povodje: območje kopnega, s katerega vse površinske vode tečejo kot zaporedje potokov, rek in lahko tudi jezer stekajo v morje skozi eno samo rečno ustje, estuarij ali delto (člen 2 Direktive 2000/60/ES o določitvi okvira za ukrepe Skupnosti na področju vodne politike).
Rural development programme: Key programming document prepared by a Member State and approved by the Commission for the planning and implementation of the EU’s rural development policy. 
Program razvoja podeželja: ključni programski dokument za načrtovanje in izvajanje politike EU za razvoj podeželja, ki ga pripravi država članica in potrdi Komisija.
It covers the period between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2013 and may contain up to 40 measures, one of which is agri-environment payments. 
Vključuje obdobje od 1. januarja 2007 do 31. decembra 2013 ter ga lahko sestavlja do 40 ukrepov, eden od katerih so kmetijsko-okoljska plačila.
7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. Agri-environment is a key EU policy; it involves around 2,5 billion euro of EU funds per year and aims to respond to society’s increasing demand for environmental services. 
7 POVZETEK I. Varstvo okolja v kmetijstvu je ena od ključnih politik EU. Zanj je namenjenih približno 2,5 milijarde EUR letno iz sredstev EU, njegov namen pa je zagotavljanje odziva na naraščajoče zahteve družbe po okoljskih storitvah.
Management of this policy is shared by the Commission and the Member States. 
To politiko skupaj vodijo Komisija in države članice.
Agri-environment payments are characterised by a wide diversity of farming practices in the Member States and by the fact that farmer participation is voluntary. 
Za kmetijsko-okoljska plačila je značilna velika raznolikost načinov kmetovanja v državah članicah in prostovoljno sodelovanje kmetov.
Against this background, the Court’s audit assessed whether this rural development measure is well designed and managed. 
V okviru tega je Sodišče z revizijo ocenilo, ali je ta ukrep za razvoj podeželja dobro zasnovan in upravljan.
The Court found that the objectives determined by the Member States are numerous and not specific enough for assessing whether or not they have been achieved. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da so države članice določile veliko ciljev, ki so premalo specifični, da bi bilo mogoče oceniti, ali so bili doseženi.
Although the environmental pressures are identified in rural development programmes, they cannot be easily used to provide a clear justification of agri-environment payments. 
Čeprav so pritiski na okolje opredeljeni v programih razvoja podeželja, jih je težko uporabljati kot jasno utemeljitev za kmetijsko-okoljska plačila.
The implementation of a common monitoring and evaluation framework represents progress in terms of monitoring systems, and pockets of good practice outside this framework were also identified. 
Uporaba okvira skupnega spremljanja in vrednotenja pomeni napredek pri sistemih spremljanja, primeri dobre prakse pa so bili najdeni tudi zunaj tega okvira.
Nevertheless, considerable problems existed as regards the relevance and reliability of management information. 
Kljub temu obstajajo precejšnji problemi v zvezi s primernostjo in zanesljivostjo informacij za upravljanje.
In particular, very little information was available on the environmental benefits of agri-environment payments. 
Zelo malo je bilo informacij zlasti o okoljskih koristih kmetijsko-okoljskih plačil.
Farmers are crucial for the implementation of agri-environment payments, and it is important that they are well supported through guidance and that aid amounts provide them with the right incentive. 
Za izvajanje kmetijsko-okoljskih plačil so bistveni kmetje. Pomembno je, da se jim zagotovi dobra podpora z usmerjanjem in da so zneski pomoči zanje prava spodbuda.
The systems for providing guidance to farmers were generally well implemented. 
Sistemi usmerjanja kmetov so se na splošno dobro izvajali.
However, considerable problems were identified concerning the aid amounts, ranging from shortcomings in their calculation to a lack of differentiation according to regional or local site conditions. 
Odkriti pa so bili precejšnji problemi v zvezi z zneski pomoči, ki so segali od pomanjkljivosti pri njihovem izračunu do pomanjkanja diferenciacije glede na regionalne ali lokalne krajevne razmere.
Member States are required by EU law to make support available in accordance with specific needs. 
Zakonodaja EU od držav članic zahteva, da se podpora dodeljuje glede na posebne potrebe.
However, the audit found that most expenditure was made on horizontal sub-measures, without applying selection procedures. This was not supported by decisions about the desirable degree of targeting, on the basis of the costs involved. In addition, management decisions were not sufficiently evidence-based and did not focus payments at specific environmental problems. 
Pri reviziji pa je bilo ugotovljeno, da je bila večina odhodkov namenjena horizontalnim podukrepom brez uporabe izbirnih postopkov, česar sklepi o želeni stopnji ciljnega usmerjanja na podlagi stroškov ne zagovarjajo. Poleg tega upravljavci sklepov niso sprejemali na podlagi zadostnih podatkov in plačil niso usmerjeno namenjali za posebne okoljske probleme.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY V. The Court recommends that: Ū the Commission and the Member States should better clarify, justify and report on agri-environment sub-measures; Ū the Commission should assess more rigorously key elements in rural development programmes before approving them; Ū for the next programming period the Commission should consider whether: Ū agri-environment expenditure should be more precisely targeted; Ū there should be a higher rate of EU contribution for sub-measures with a higher environmental potential; Ū there should be a clear distinction between simple and more demanding agri-environment sub-measures; and Ū the Member States should be more proactive in managing agri-environment payments. 8 Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed? 
POVZETEK V. Sodišče priporoča, naj: Ū Komisija in države članice za kmetijsko-okoljske podukrepe zagotovijo boljša pojasnila, utemeljitve in poročila; Ū Komisija pred potrditvijo programov razvoja podeželja natančneje oceni njihove ključne elemente; Ū Komisija za naslednje programsko obdobje razmisli, ali: Ū bi bilo treba kmetijsko-okoljske odhodke natančneje ciljno usmerjati, Ū naj bi bila stopnja prispevka EU za podukrepe z večjim okoljskim potencialom višja, Ū bi bilo treba jasno razločevati med enostavnimi in zahtevnejšimi kmetijsko-okoljskimi podukrepi ter Ū bi morale biti države članice pri upravljanju kmetijsko-okoljskih plačil bolj proaktivne. 8 Posebno poročilo št. 7/2011 – Ali je podpora za kmetijsko-okoljske ukrepe dobro pripravljena in upravljana?
9 INTRODUCTION AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT — AN AMBIVALENT PARTNERSHIP 1. 
9 UVOD KMETIJSTVO IN OKOLJE – PROTISLOVNO PARTNERSTVO 1.
Since the 1970s and 1980s there has been rising concern about the adverse effects of agriculture on the environment. 
Od sedemdesetih in osemdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja je vse bolj naraščala zaskrbljenost zaradi negativnih vplivov kmetijstva na okolje.
These concern, inter alia, the increasing specialisation of farms, the use of fertilisers and pesticides, high stocking densities and, in particular in the southern Member States, the extension of irrigated areas. 
Med drugim je to veljalo za vse večjo specializacijo kmetij, uporabo gnojil in pesticidov, veliko gostoto živali in zlasti v južnih državah članicah za povečevanje namakanih površin.
Price guarantees for agricultural products previously offered under the common agricultural policy have encouraged these intensive farming practices. 
Cenovne garancije za kmetijske proizvode, ki jih je prej zagotavljala skupna kmetijska politika, so spodbujale te intenzivne načine kmetovanja.
Certain types of extensive farming, on the other hand, can preserve the environmental assets of the countryside. 
Po drugi strani pa nekatere oblike ekstenzivnega kmetovanja lahko ohranijo okoljsko bogastvo podeželja.
The abandonment of extensive farms and their land is becoming an increasing problem in some regions of the European Union (EU), with negative impacts on biodiversity and landscape diversity, also leading to a higher risk of forest fires. 
Opuščanje ekstenzivnih kmetij in njihovih zemljišč postaja vse večji problem v nekaterih regijah Evropske unije, ki negativno vpliva na biotsko in krajinsko raznovrstnost ter povzroča tudi večjo nevarnost gozdnih požarov.
EU SUPPORT FOR AGRI-ENVIRONMENT PAYMENTS 3. 
PODPORA EU ZA KMETIJSKO-OKOLJSKA PLAČILA 3.
Since 1987, the EU has co-financed the Member States’ agri-environment payments in order to address the dual challenge of reducing the negative effects of intensive agriculture and maintaining the positive effects of extensive agriculture. 
EU od leta 1987 sofinancira kmetijsko-okoljska plačila držav članic in se tako loteva obeh izzivov, in sicer zmanjševanja negativnih učinkov intenzivnega kmetijstva ter ohranjanja pozitivnih učinkov ekstenzivnega kmetijstva.
The purpose of these payments is to ‘further encourage farmers and other land managers to serve society as a whole by introducing or continuing to apply agricultural production methods compatible with the protection and improvement of the environment, the landscape and its features, natural resources, the soil and genetic diversity’ 1. 
Namen teh plačil je še naprej „spodbujati kmete in druge upravljavce zemljišč, da služijo družbi kot celoti z uvajanjem oziroma nadaljnjo uporabo metod kmetijske proizvodnje, ki so združljive z varstvom in izboljšanjem okolja, krajine in njenih značilnosti, naravnih virov, tal in genetske raznovrstnosti“1.
1 Recital 35 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p. 
1698/2005 z dne 20. septembra 2005 o podpori za razvoj podeželja iz Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja (EKSRP) (UL L 277, 21.10.2005, str.
EU funds allocated to agri-environment payments for 2007–13: 22,2 billion euro Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed? 
Sredstva EU, namenjena kmetijsko-okoljskim plačilom v obdobju 2007–13: 22,2 milijarde EUR Posebno poročilo št. 7/2011 – Ali je podpora za kmetijsko-okoljske ukrepe dobro pripravljena in upravljana?
Since 2000, agri-environment payments have been part of the EU’s rural development policy, which is implemented through rural development programmes prepared by the Member States for a period of seven years. 
Od leta 2000 so kmetijsko-okoljska plačila del politike EU za razvoj podeželja.
Figure 1 shows allocations by Member State. 
Slika 1 prikazuje dodeljena sredstva po državah članicah.
Actual EU expenditure for the financial year 2009 amounted to 2,5 billion euro, and to 7,7 billion euro for the first half of the programming period (1 January 2007–1 July 2010) 2. 
Dejanski odhodki EU za proračunsko leto 2009 so znašali 2,5 milijarde EUR, od tega 7,7 milijarde EUR za prvo polovico programskega obdobja (1. januar 2007 – 1. julij 2010)2.
2 The amounts of 2,5 and 7,7 billion euro represent a normal expenditure pattern. 
2 Zneska 2,5 milijarde EUR in 7,7 milijarde EUR pomenita običajni vzorec odhodkov.
The initial allocation for agri-environment in 2007 (20,2 billion euro) was increased by 2 billion euro following the review of the CAP (in the context of the health check and the recovery package). 
Prvotna dodelitev sredstev za kmetijsko-okoljska plačila leta 2007 (20,2 milijarde EUR) se je po pregledu skupne kmetijske politike (v okviru sistematskega pregleda in paketa za oživitev gospodarstva) povečala za 2 milijardi EUR.
In addition, expenditure in 2007 and 2008 was relatively low because the programmes were still being approved. 
Poleg tega so bili odhodki leta 2007 in 2008 razmeroma nizki, ker so bili programi še vedno v postopku potrjevanja.
10 FIGURE 1 EU FUNDS ALLOCATED TO AGRI-ENVIRONMENT PAYMENTS (2007–13) (AS APPROVED IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES BY DECEMBER 2009) 2 500 2 000 1 500 1 000 500 0 Source: Agriculture and Rural Development DG: Rural Development in the European Union — Statistical and Economic Information — Report 2009, December 2009 (Section 4.1.1 EAFRD Overview of the Financial Plans). Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed? 
10 SLIKA 1 SREDSTVA EU, DODELJENA ZA KMETIJSKO-OKOLJSKA PLAČILA (2007–2013) (ODOBRENA V PROGRAMIH ZA RAZVOJ PODEŽELJA DO DECEMBRA 2009) 2 500 2 000 1 500 1 000 500 0 Vir: GD za kmetijstvo: Razvoj podeželja v Evropski uniji – statistične in ekonomske informacije – poročilo 2009, december 2009. Posebno poročilo št. 7/2011 – Ali je podpora za kmetijsko-okoljske ukrepe dobro pripravljena in upravljana?
Belgium Bulgaria Czech Republic Denmark Germany Estonia Ireland Greece Spain France Italy Cyprus Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Hungary Malta Netherlands Austria Poland Portugal Romania Slovenia Slovakia Finland Sweden United Kingdom Million euro 
Belgija Bolgarija Češka Danska Nemčija Estonija Irska Grčija Španija Francija Italija Ciper Latvija Litva Luksemburg Mažarska Malta Nizozemska Avstrija Poljska Portugalska Romunija Slovenija Slovaška Finska Švedska Združeno kraljestvo v milijonih EUR
Agri-environment payments are generally implemented through contracts between a public body in the Member States and a beneficiary (farmer or land manager). 
Kmetijsko-okoljska plačila se običajno izvajajo s pogodbami med javnim organom v državi članici in upravičencem (kmetom ali upravljavcem zemljišča).
These contracts, which normally cover five to seven years, detail the commitments that the beneficiary is required to enter into. 
Te pogodbe običajno zajemajo pet do sedem let in podrobno določajo zaveze, ki jih mora prevzeti upravičenec in ki vključujejo celo vrsto načinov kmetovanja.
These commitments cover a wide range of farming practices which can be grouped as set out below. 
Te je mogoče razvrstiti v skupine, kot je prikazano v nadaljevanju.
11 Main groups of farming practices for agri-environment payments o Organic farming (see glossary) o Integrated production (see glossary) o Other extensification of farming systems: fertiliser reduction, pesticide reduction and extensification of livestock farming o Crop rotation, maintenance of set-aside areas o Action to prevent or reduce soil erosion o Genetic resources (local breeds in danger of being lost to farming, plants under threat of genetic erosion) o Biodiversity conservation and enhancement actions o Upkeep of the landscape including the conservation of historical features on agricultural land o Water-related actions (apart from nutrient management) such as buffer strips, field margins, wetland management. 
11 Glavne skupine načinov kmetovanja za kmetijsko-okoljska plačila o Ekološko kmetovanje (glej glosar) o Integrirana pridelava (glej glosar) o Drugi sistemi za ekstenziviranje kmetovanja: zmanjševanje uporabe gnojil, zmanjševanje uporabe pesticidov in bolj ekstenzivna živinoreja o Kolobarjenje, ohranjanje zemljišč v prahi o Ukrepi za preprečevanje ali zmanjševanje erozije tal o Genski viri (lokalne pasme, ki jim grozi opuščanje reje, rastline, ki jih ogroža genska erozija) o Ohranjanje biotske raznovrstnosti in ukrepi za njeno spodbujanje o Ohranjanje krajine, vključno z ohranjanjem zgodovinskih posebnosti na kmetijskih zemljiščih o Ukrepi za varstvo voda (razen ravnanja z gnojili), kot so varovalni pasovi, ozare in upravljanje mokrišč 6.
A fundamental principle for agri-environment payments is that the decision to apply for and conclude a contract is voluntary for farmers. This means that the level of payments must be sufficiently attractive in relation to the commitments to be fulfilled and associated costs. 
Temeljno načelo pri kmetijsko-okoljskih plačilih je, da se kmetje prostovoljno odločajo za vloge za pogodbe in njihovo sklenitev, kar pomeni, da mora biti višina plačil dovolj privlačna glede na zaveze, ki jih je treba izpolniti, in s tem povezane stroške.
Support paid to the beneficiaries must be based solely on additional costs and income foregone as the result of agri-environmental commitments; there is also the possibility to include transaction costs. 
Podpora za upravičence mora temeljiti samo na dodatnih stroških in izgubljenem dohodku, ki so posledica kmetijsko-okoljskih zavez. Možno pa je vključiti tudi transakcijske stroške.
Agri-environment payments cannot compensate farmers for practices that have been made compulsory by law. 
Kmetijsko-okoljska plačila ne morejo biti nadomestilo kmetom za načine kmetovanja, ki jih predpisuje zakon.
The situation against which additional commitments are measured entails a ‘baseline’ or ‘reference level’. 
Stanje, s katerim se primerjajo dodatne zaveze, se šteje za „osnovno“ ali „referenčno raven“.
The expected environmental benefits above this level can vary significantly, and depend principally on how demanding the farming practices concerned are. 
Pričakovane koristi za okolje nad to ravnijo se lahko močno razlikujejo in so odvisne predvsem od zahtevnosti načinov kmetovanja.
See Figure 2 for further details. Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed? 
Dodatne podrobnosti so na sliki 2. Posebno poročilo št. 7/2011 – Ali je podpora za kmetijsko-okoljske ukrepe dobro pripravljena in upravljana?
Such a distinction is based on the concept that the two approaches have a fundamentally different logic to implement agri-environment payments: the areas on which the sub-measures apply are different as are the number of beneficiaries concerned, the budgetary and administrative costs incurred, the applicable management rules and the expected effects. 
Razlikovanje temelji na prepričanju, da za ta pristopa velja popolnoma različna logika izvajanja kmetijsko-okoljskih plačil: območja, za katera veljajo podukrepi, so različna, prav tako pa so različni tudi upravičenci, proračunski in administrativni stroški, veljavna pravila upravljanja ter pričakovani učinki.
These well-established ways of analysing agri-environment sub-measures do not appear in the legislation, leaving the choice of which approach to use, depending on the context and the nature of the problems, to the responsible authorities. 
Ta trdno uveljavljena načina za analizo kmetijsko-okoljskih podukrepov nista določena v zakonodaji, tako da se lahko odgovorni organi sami odločijo, kateri pristop bodo uporabili glede na okoliščine in naravo problemov.
The Communication from the Commission 4 launching the debate for the period post-2013 proposes as an option that simple, generalised agri-environmental actions will be part of direct payments. 
Sporočilo Komisije4, s katerim se začenja ta razprava o obdobju po letu 2013, predlaga možnost, da bi se za enostavne, splošne kmetijsko-okoljske dejavnosti uporabljala neposredna plačila.
Picture 1: Example of agri-environment in England showing, from left to right, a parcel with wheat, a strip of untreated ‘headland’ and a strip sown with a ‘wild bird seed mix’. 
Fotografija 1: Primer kmetijskega okolja v Angliji, ki od leve prosti desni prikazuje parcelo s pšenico, pas neobdelane ozare in pas, posejan z „mešanico semen za prostoživeče ptice“. © Evropska unija.