natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
ANNEX II NUMBER OF PROJECTS INCLUDED IN THE SURVEY AND VISITED ON THE SPOT 35 9 Member States 26 operational programmes Number of projects Surveyed Visited 1999IT161PO011 Sicilia 1999IT161PO007 Campania 26 Italy 1999IT161PO010 Sardinia 14 7 6 6 2000IT162DO007 Piemonte 7 2000IT162DO001 Toscana 7 Germany 2000DE162DO010 Niedersachsen 7 5 1999DE161PO004 Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 7 1999DE161PO005 Brandenburg 7 1999DE161PO003 Sachsen-Anhalt 7 6 2000DE162DO005 Hessen 6 2000ES161PO007 Castilla y León 8 8 Spain 2000ES161PO010 Extremadura 8 7 2000ES161PO009 Communidad Valenciana 8 1 2000ES161PO016 Local 3 2000FR162DO020 Rhône-Alpes 7 7 France 2000FR162DO006 Poitou-Charentes 6 2000FR162DO014 Bretagne 9 6 2000GR161PO016 Competitiveness 7 Greece 2000GR161PO014 Central Macedonia 7 2000GR161PO005 Continental Greece 7 Portugal 1999PT161PO016 Madeira 6 1999PT161PO012 Algarve 6 United Kingdom 1999GB161DO004 West Wales and the Valleys 7 2000GB162DO008 South East England 9 Belgium 2000BE162DO008 Meuse-Vesdre 6 Lithuania 2003LT161DO001 Lithuania 7 Total number of projects 206 52 Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective? 
PRILOGA II ŠTEVILO PROJEKTOV, VKLJUČENIH V ANKETO, KI SO SI JIH REVIZORJI OGLEDALI NA KRAJU SAMEM 35 9 držav članic 26 operativnih programov Število projektov vključenih v anketo ki so si jih revizorji ogledali 26 Italija 1999IT161PO011 Sicilia 1999IT161PO007 Campania 1999IT161PO010 Sardinia 14 7 6 6 2000IT162DO007 Piemonte 7 2000IT162DO001 Toscana 7 2000DE162DO010 Niedersachsen 7 5 Nemčija 1999DE161PO004 Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 1999DE161PO005 Brandenburg 7 7 1999DE161PO003 Sachsen-Anhalt 7 6 2000DE162DO005 Hessen 6 8 Španija 2000ES161PO007 Castilla y León 2000ES161PO010 Extremadura 8 8 7 2000ES161PO009 Communidad Valenciana 8 1 2000ES161PO016 lokalni razvoj 3 2000FR162DO020 Rhône-Alpes 7 7 Francija 2000FR162DO006 Poitou-Charentes 6 2000FR162DO014 Bretagne 9 6 2000GR161PO016 konkurenčnost 7 Grčija 2000GR161PO014 Osrednja Makedonija 7 2000GR161PO005 celinska Grčija 7 Portugalska 1999PT161PO016 Madeira 2000GB162DO008 Jugovzhodna Anglija 6 1999PT161PO012 Algarve 6 Združeno kraljestvo 1999GB161DO004 Zahodni Wales in The Valleys 7 9 Belgija 2000BE162DO008 Meuse-Vesdre 6 Litva 2003LT161DO001 Litva 7 Skupno število projektov 206 52 Posebno poročilo št. 6/2011 – Ali so bili turistični projekti, sofinancirani iz ESRR, uspešni?
36 Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective? 
36 Posebno poročilo št. 6/2011 – Ali so bili turistični projekti, sofinancirani iz ESRR, uspešni?
REPLY OF THE COMMISSION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY II. 
ODGOVORI KOMISIJE POVZETEK II.
Cohesion policy, and the ERDF as the biggest Structural Fund, is the EU’s main instrument for pursuing harmonious development across the Union. 
Kohezijska politika – in ESRR kot največji strukturni sklad – je glavni instrument EU v prizadevanjih za skladen razvoj po vsej Uniji.
This is reflected in the variety of programmes, projects and partners that are supported under the policy. 
Na to kaže že raznolikost programov, projektov in partnerjev, ki jih ta politika podpira.
For the programming period 2000–06, 3,5 % of the ERDF funding was allocated to investments in tourism. 
Za programsko obdobje 2000– 2006 je bilo za naložbe v turizem dodeljenega 3,5 % sredstev ESRR.
V. (a) The Commission welcomes the Court’s findings. 
V. (a) Komisija je zadovoljna z ugotovitvijo Sodišča.
The results show that the ERDF support has contributed to job creation in the area of tourism and also to local and regional economic growth. 
Rezultati kažejo, da je podpora ESRR prispevala k ustvarjanju delovnih mest v turizmu ter k lokalni in regionalni gospodarski rasti.
V. (b) The Commission welcomes the Court’s findings that the majority of the projects had the objective of creating jobs and that a large number of the jobs targeted have in fact been created. 
V. (b) Komisija je zadovoljna z ugotovitvijo Sodišča, da je imela večina projektov za cilj ustvarjanje delovnih mest in da je bilo veliko načrtovanih delovnih mest dejansko ustvarjenih.
V. (d) The Commission finds it encouraging that nearly all the projects had reached such a degree of maturity that they were still operational at the time of the audit. 
V. (d) Po mnenju Komisije je spodbudno, da so skoraj vsi projekti dosegli tako stopnjo zrelosti, da so se v času revizije še vedno nadaljevali.
V. (e) The Commission notes that nearly three quarters of the audited projects would not have been carried out without the public assistance. 
V. (e) Komisija poudarja, da skoraj tri četrtine revidiranih projektov ne bi bile izvedene brez javne pomoči.
37 V. (f) The Commission takes note of these results. 
37 V. (f) Komisija bo upoštevala te rezultate.
The Commission points out that for the 2007–13 programming period, rules on implementation of the funds were simplified in the Structural Funds regulations and there were further revisions in 2008– 10. 
Opozarja, da so bila za programsko obdobje 2007–2013 pravila za črpanje sredstev poenostavljena v uredbah o strukturnih skladih in da so bila v obdobju 2008–2010 še nadalje izboljšana.
The Commission also notes that there must be a balance between simplification and sound management of funds. 
Prav tako poudarja, da je potrebno ravnotežje med poenostavitvijo in dobrim upravljanjem sredstev.
VI. (a) The Commission will continue to promote the use of suitable objectives, targets and indicators with the managing authorities. 
VI. (a) Komisija bo še naprej spodbujala organe upravljanja k uporabi primernih smotrov, ciljev in kazalnikov.
VI. (b) The Commission will continue to encourage managing authorities to ensure that the EU co-financing goes to those projects that really need public financing for their implementation. 
VI. (b) Komisija bo še naprej spodbujala organe upravljanja k zagotavljanju, da se sofinanciranje EU nameni projektom, za izvedbo katerih je resnično potrebno javno financiranje.
VI. (c) The Commission has already carried out an ex post evaluation of 2000–06 ERDF programmes covering the main issues of policy relevance and most of the expenditure co-financed by the ERDF. 
VI. (c) Komisija je že izvedla naknadno oceno programov ESRR za obdobje 2000–2006, ki je zajemala glavna vprašanja, relevantna za posamezne politike, in večino odhodkov, ki jih je sofinanciral ESRR.
Tourism actions were covered under enterprise support and physical/natural environment evaluations. 
Ukrepi v turizmu so bili obravnavani v okviru ocene podpore podjetništvu in fizičnega/ naravnega okolja.
The Commission points out that tourism is strongly interconnected with many policy areas, such as regional policy, transport, rural development, etc. 
Komisija opozarja, da je turizem tesno povezan z mnogimi politikami, kot so regionalna politika, promet, razvoj podeželja ipd.
Regional policy supports tourism as part of integrated regional development programmes. 
Regionalna politika, na primer, podpira turizem v okviru celovitih programov za regionalni razvoj.
Cohesion policy is implemented under shared management: Member States are primarily responsible for setting up the management and control systems and for implementing programmes. 
Kohezijska politika se izvaja v okviru deljenega upravljanja: za vzpostavitev upravljavskih in kontrolnih sistemov ter za izvajanje programov so v prvi vrsti odgovorne države članice.
The Commission negotiates the programmes with them and supervises their work during the implementation period. 
Komisija se na pogajanjih dogovori z njimi o programih in nadzoruje njihovo delo v obdobju izvajanja.
A huge number of national and regional authorities are involved, along with hundreds of thousands of project promoters. 
Pri tem sodelujejo številni nacionalni in regionalni organi ter na stotine tisočev predlagateljev projektov.
For the Structural Funds, Regulation (EC) No1260/1999 stipulates that projects are selected and managed by the Member States’ authorities (with the exception of large projects, in which case the Commission has to approve them and confirm or amend the level of Community assistance). 
Za strukturne sklade je v Uredbi št. 1260/1999 določeno, da projekte izberejo in upravljajo organi držav članic (razen velikih projektov, ki jih mora Komisija odobriti ter potrditi ali spremeniti višino pomoči Skupnosti).
The Commission’s role is to supervise and monitor the financial and, to a lesser extent, physical implementation (impact/performance) of the operational programmes. 
Vloga Komisije je, da nadzoruje in spremlja finančno – nekoliko manj pa tudi fizično – plat izvajanja (učinek/uspešnost) operativnih programov.
Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999 points out the job creation dimension of investments in tourism and culture. 
V členu 2(2) Uredbe št. 1783/1999 je poudarjena razsežnost ustvarjanja delovnih mest pri naložbah v turizem in kulturo.
However, the list of priorities provided is not exclusive. Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective? 
Vendar navedeni seznam prednostnih nalog ne izključuje možnosti drugih nalog. Posebno poročilo št. 6/2011 – Ali so bili turistični projekti, sofinancirani iz ESRR, uspešni?
38 OBSERVATIONS 19. 
38 OPAŽANJA 19.
The Commission welcomes the Court’s findings. 
Komisija izraža zadovoljstvo nad ugotovitvami Sodišča.
The Commission welcomes the Court’s findings that a majority of the projects achieved their set objectives and contributed to an increase in tourism activity. 
Komisija izraža zadovoljstvo nad ugotovitvami Sodišča, da je večina projektov dosegla zastavljene cilje in prispevala k povečanju turistične dejavnosti.
The Commission considers it equally encouraging that the Court found that a substantial number of projects achieved this result even without it having been set as a specific objective of the project. 
Po njenem mnenju je enako spodbudno, da je po ugotovitvah Sodišča znatno število projektov doseglo ta rezultat, tudi če ni bil izrecno določen kot cilj projekta.
The Commission welcomes the Court’s findings that nearly all the projects achieved their objectives and contributed to increasing tourism capacity. 
Komisija je zadovoljna z ugotovitvijo Sodišča, da so skoraj vsi projekti dosegli svoje cilje in prispevali k povečanju turistične zmogljivosti.
The Commission welcomes the Court’s findings that the majority of projects had the objective of creating jobs and that a large number of the jobs targeted have in fact been created. 
Komisija je zadovoljna z ugotovitvijo Sodišča, da je imela večina projektov za cilj ustvarjanje delovnih mest in da je bilo veliko načrtovanih delovnih mest dejansko ustvarjenih.
In the 2000–06 programming period, managing authorities could monitor achievement of some results, such as job creation, increasing tourism activity or capacity, by means of indicators set at measure, priority or programme level. 
V programskem obdobju 2000–2006 so organi upravljanja lahko spremljali doseganje nekaterih rezultatov, kot so nova delovna mesta, povečanje turistične dejavnosti ali zmogljivosti, s kazalniki, določenimi na ravni ukrepov, prednostnih nalog ali programov.
In the 2007–13 programming period project selection is conditional on quantified indicators at project level. 
V programskem obdobju 2007–2013 so za izbor projekta pogoj količinsko opredeljeni kazalniki na ravni projektov.
REPLY OF THE COMMISSION 46. 
ODGOVORI KOMISIJE 46.
The Commission notes that most of the projects did have meaningful, quantifiable and measurable result indicators established at the outset, as indicated by the Court in paragraphs 21, 27 and 34. 
Komisija poudarja, da so za večino projektov bili že na začetku določeni smiselni, količinsko opredeljivi in merljivi kazalniki za rezultate, kot je navedlo Sodišče v odstavkih 21, 27 in 34.
Even when such data is available, it would be difficult to assess effectiveness and European added value, without carrying out a counterfactual analysis. 
Vendar bi bilo tudi za projekte, pri katerih so taki podatki na voljo, težko oceniti njihovo uspešnost in evropsko dodano vrednost brez analize nasprotnih dejstev.
The Commission considers this finding very encouraging, especially at a time of economic downturn. 
Komisija meni, da je ta ugotovitev zelo spodbudna, zlasti ob trenutnem upadu gospodarske rasti.
The Commission recalls that 76 % of the projects in the Court’s sample were promoted by public bodies. 
Opozarja, da so 76 % projektov iz vzorca Sodišča predlagali javni organi.
In this context, the fact that running costs of a third of the projects are being sustained by public grants is to be expected. 
Zato je razumljivo, da se stroški poslovanja tretjine teh projektov financirajo iz javnih donacij.
The Commission finds it encouraging that nearly all ERDF co-funded tourism projects contributed to sustainable creation of tourism capacity and tourism activities and that nearly all projects reached a degree of maturity so that they were still operational at the time of the audit. 
Po mnenju Komisije je spodbudno, da so skoraj vsi turistični projekti, sofinancirani iz ESRR, prispevali k ustvarjanju trajne turistične zmogljivosti in turističnih dejavnosti ter da so skoraj vsi projekti dosegli tako stopnjo zrelosti, da so se v času revizije še vedno nadaljevali.
The Commission notes that nearly three quarters of the audited projects would not have been carried out without the public assistance. 
Komisija poudarja, da skoraj tri četrtine revidiranih projektov ne bi bile izvedene brez javne pomoči.
Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective? 
Posebno poročilo št. 6/2011 – Ali so bili turistični projekti, sofinancirani iz ESRR, uspešni?
The Commission notes that more than half of the project promoters considered that the ERDF funding did not increase their administrative burden considerably. 
Komisija poudarja, da se po mnenju več kot polovice predlagateljev projektov zaradi sredstev ESRR njihova upravna obremenitev ni bistveno povečala.
Administrative burdens can arise in the course of management of Structural Funds programmes, for different reasons. 
Upravne obremenitve lahko nastanejo med upravljanjem programov strukturnih skladov iz različnih razlogov.
These can include eligibility and control rules laid down by the Member States that are stricter than those provided for in the Structural Funds regulations. 
To lahko vključuje pravila o upravičenosti in kontrolah, ki jih določijo države članice in so strožja od tistih v uredbah o strukturnih skladih.
For the current (2007–13) programming period, rules on implementation of the funds have been simplified in the Structural Funds regulations. 
Za trenutno programsko obdobje (2007– 2013) so bila pravila za črpanje sredstev poenostavljena v uredbah o strukturnih skladih.
Furthermore, in 2008–10 the Commission introduced significant simplifications, especially by creating the possibility to declare costs on the basis of flat rates, lump sums and standard scales of unit costs, including in the area of tourism. 
Poleg tega jih je Komisija v obdobju 2008–2010 še nadalje znatno poenos-tavila, zlasti z uvedbo možnosti prijave stroškov na podlagi pavšalnih stopenj, povprečnin in standardnih lestvic stroškov na enoto, tudi v turizmu.
REPLY OF THE COMMISSION CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 59. 
ODGOVORI KOMISIJE ZAKLJUČKI IN PRIPOROČILA 59.
The Commission welcomes the Court’s findings that all the projects were successful in achieving results such as direct job creation, an increase in tourism capacity and annual volume. 
Komisija je zadovoljna z ugotovitvijo Sodišča, da so bili vsi projekti uspešni pri doseganju rezultatov, kot so ustvarjanje neposrednih delovnih mest ter povečanje turistične zmogljivosti in letnega obsega turizma.
The Commission welcomes the Court’s findings that the majority of the projects had the objective of creating jobs and that a large number of the jobs targeted have in fact been created. 
Komisija je zadovoljna z ugotovitvijo Sodišča, da je imela večina projektov za cilj ustvarjanje delovnih mest in da je bilo veliko načrtovanih delovnih mest dejansko ustvarjenih.
The Commission considers it equally encouraging that the Court found that a number of projects achieved this result even without it having been set as a specific objective of the project. 
Po njenem mnenju je enako spodbudno, da je po ugotovitvah Sodišča več projektov doseglo ta rezultat, tudi če ni bil izrecno določen kot cilj projekta.
Even when such data is available it would be difficult to assess effectiveness and European added value, without carrying out a counterfactual analysis. 
Vendar bi bilo tudi za projekte, pri katerih so taki podatki na voljo, težko oceniti njihovo uspešnost in evropsko dodano vrednost brez analize nasprotnih dejstev.
40 Recommendation 1 Sound selection criteria are key prerequisites for selecting the projects that contribute the most to priorities, objectives and targets and for selecting the most effective and efficient ones. 
40 Priporočilo 1 Premišljena izbirna merila so ključni osnovni pogoj za izbiro projektov, ki bodo najbolj prispevali k uresničevanju prednostnih nalog, smotrov in ciljev ter bodo najuspešnejši in najučinkovitejši.
The setting up of suitable objectives, targets and indicators helps with evaluation of the project results. 
Oblikovanje primernih smotrov, ciljev in kazalnikov pa pomaga pri vrednotenju rezultatov projektov.
The Commission will continue to promote the use of suitable objectives, targets and indicators with the managing authorities. 
Komisija bo zato še naprej spodbujala organe upravljanja k uporabi primernih smotrov, ciljev in kazalnikov.
The Commission welcomes the Court’s findings and finds it encouraging that nearly all the projects had achieved such a degree of sustainability that they were still operational at the time of the audit. 
Komisija je zadovoljna z ugotovitvijo Sodišča in po njenem mnenju je spodbudno, da so skoraj vsi projekti dosegli tako stopnjo trajnosti, da so se v času revizije še vedno nadaljevali.
The Commission takes note of these results. 
Komisija bo upoštevala te rezultate.
REPLY OF THE COMMISSION Recommendation 2 The Commission understands from the Court’s results that the selection process for tourism projects is, in general, effective. 
ODGOVORI KOMISIJE Priporočilo 2 Po mnenju Komisije iz rezultatov Sodišča izhaja, da je postopek izbora turističnih projektov na splošno uspešen.
The Commission will continue to encourage managing authorities to ensure that the EU co-financing goes to those projects that really need public financing for their implementation. 
Komisija bo še naprej spodbujala organe upravljanja k zagotavljanju, da se sofinanciranje EU nameni projektom, za izvedbo katerih je resnično potrebno javno financiranje.
Recommendation 3 The Commission recalls that Structural Funds do not support tourism as sectoral policy but tourism interventions in the framework of integrated regional development programmes. 
Priporočilo 3 Komisija opozarja, da strukturni skladi ne podpirajo turizma kot sektorske politike, ampak v obliki posegov v turizmu v okviru celovitih programov za regionalni razvoj.
Furthermore the Commission recalls that it approves programmes and their priorities but neither measures nor projects (except large projects) on specific sectors such as tourism. 
Poleg tega opozarja, da sicer odobri programe in njihove prednostne naloge, ne pa tudi ukrepov ali projektov (razen v primeru velikih projektov) v posameznih sektorjih, kot je turizem.
The Commission has already carried out an ex post evaluation of 2000–06 ERDF programmes covering the main issues of policy relevance and most of the expenditure co-financed by the ERDF. 
Komisija je že izvedla naknadno oceno programov ESRR za obdobje 2000–2006, ki je zajemala glavna vprašanja, relevantna za posamezne politike, in večino odhodkov, ki jih je sofinanciral ESRR.
Tourism actions were covered under enterprise support and physical/natural environment evaluations. 
Ukrepi v turizmu so bili vključeni pri oceni podpore podjetništvu in fizičnega/naravnega okolja.
The outcome of this evaluation can be found on the Directorate-General for Regional Policy's ‘Inforegio’ website (at http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/ sources/docgener/evaluation/rado2_ en.htm). 
Rezultati te ocene so na razpolago na spletišču Generalnega direktorata za regionalno politiko – INFOREGIO: http:// ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/ docgener/evaluation/rado2_en.htm.
European Court of Auditors Special Report No 6/2011 Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective? 
Evropsko računsko sodišče Posebno poročilo št. 6/2011 Ali so bili turistični projekti, sofinancirani iz ESRR, uspešni?
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 2011 — 40 pp. — 21 × 29,7 cm ISBN 978-92-9237-179-1 doi:10.2865/32601 41 
Luxembourg: Urad za publikacije Evropske unije 2011 – 40 str. – 21 × 29,7 cm ISBN 978-92-9237-194-4 doi:10.2865/38009 41
THIS REPORT EXAMINES THE PERFORMANCE OF ERDF CO-FINANCED TOURISM PROJECTS IN PROMOTING ECONOMIC GROWTH AND CREATING EMPLOYMENT. 
V TEM POROČILU SE PREVERJA USPEŠNOST TURISTIČNIH PROJEKTOV, SOFINANCIRANIH IZ ESRR, PRI SPODBUJANJU GOSPODARSKE RASTI IN USTVARJANJU DELOVNIH MEST.
TO GIVE A REPRESENTATIVE VIEW OF THE SITUATION, INFORMATION WAS COLLECTED FROM 206 PROJECT PROMOTERS CHOSEN RANDOMLY ACROSS THE EU. 
ZA ZAGOTOVITEV REPREZENTATIVNEGA PREGLEDA STANJA SO SE INFORMACIJE ZBRALE OD 206 NAKLJUČNO IZBRANIH PREDLAGATELJEV PROJEKTOV IZ VSE EU.
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS QJ-AB-11-004-EN-C 
EVROPSKO RAČUNSKO SODIŠČE QJ-AB-11-004-SL-C
Special Report No 7 2011 ISSN 1831-0834 
Posebno poročilo št.
Special Report No 7 2011 IS AGRI-ENVIRONMENT SUPPORT WELL DESIGNED AND MANAGED? (pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU) EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS 
Posebno poročilo št. 7 2011 ALI JE PODPORA ZA KMETIJSKO-OKOLJSKE UKREPE DOBRO PRIPRAVLJENA IN UPRAVLJANA? (v skladu z drugim pododstavkom člena 287(4) PDEU) EVROPSKO RAČUNSKO SODIŠČE
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi 1615 Luxembourg LUXEMBOURG Tel. +352 4398-1 Fax +352 4398-46410 E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu Internet: http://www.eca.europa.eu Special Report No 7 2011 A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. 
EVROPSKO RAČUNSKO SODIŠČE 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi 1615 Luxembourg LUKSEMBURG Tel. +352 4398-1 Faks +352 4398-46410 E-naslov: euraud@eca.europa.eu Internet: http://www.eca.europa.eu Posebno poročilo št.
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2011 ISBN 978-92-9237-201-9 doi:10.2865/41418 © European Union, 2011 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 
Kataloški podatki so navedeni na koncu te publikacije. Luxembourg: Urad za publikacije Evropske unije, 2011 ISBN 978-92-9237-216-3 doi:10.2865/49154 © Evropska unija, 2011 Reprodukcija je dovoljena z navedbo vira.
3 CONTENTS Paragraph GLOSSARY I–V 1–12 1–2 3–11 12 13–16 17–94 17–51 20–27 28–34 35–39 40–51 52–69 54–57 58–69 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT — AN AMBIVALENT PARTNERSHIP EU SUPPORT FOR AGRI-ENVIRONMENT PAYMENTS PREVIOUS AUDITS OF THE COURT AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH OBSERVATIONS IS AGRI-ENVIRONMENT POLICY DESIGNED AND MONITORED SO AS TO DELIVER TANGIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS? 
3 KAZALO Odstavek GLOSAR I–V 1–12 1–2 3–11 12 13–16 17–94 17–51 20–27 28–34 35–39 40–51 52–69 54–57 58–69 POVZETEK UVOD KMETIJSTVO IN OKOLJE – PROTISLOVNO PARTNERSTVO PODPORA EU ZA KMETIJSKO-OKOLJSKA PLAČILA PREJŠNJE REVIZIJE SODIŠČA OBSEG REVIZIJE IN REVIZIJSKI PRISTOP OPAŽANJA ALI JE KMETIJSKO-OKOLJSKA POLITIKA ZASNOVANA IN SE SPREMLJA TAKO, DA PRINAŠA OPRIJEMLJIVE KORISTI ZA OKOLJE?