natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For the next programming period, the Commission should consider whether: Ū expenditure should be more precisely targeted to specific environmental needs; Ū the Commission and the Member States should be more proactive in their management of agri-environment payments, for example by: o requiring Member States to better justify cases when the objective is to maintain environmentally friendly farming practices; o assessing the potential benefits created by improved geographical targeting of agri-environment expenditure versus the increased administrative costs incurred; o setting quantified targets for participation levels based on the required environmental effects and then determining the level of financial resources needed; o examining further the usefulness of farm environmental plans, outcome based measures, calls for tenders and collective contracts; Ū the EU contribution rate for agri-environment sub-measures should be differentiated so that those sub-measures with a higher potential to achieve lasting positive environmental effects receive a higher rate of EU contribution. 
Za naslednje programsko obdobje bi morala Komisija razmisliti, ali: Ū bi bilo treba odhodke bolj ciljno usmerjati v posamezne okoljske potrebe; Ū bi morale biti Komisija in države članice pri upravljanju kmetijsko-okoljskih plačil bolj proaktivne, tako da bi npr.: o od držav članic zahtevale, da bolje utemeljijo primere, kadar je cilj ohranjanje okolju prijaznih načinov kmetovanja; o ocenile morebitne koristi, ki bi jih dalo boljše ciljno usmerjanje kmetijsko-okoljskih odhodkov po zemljepisnih območjih, v primerjavi z večjimi administrativnimi stroški, do katerih bi pri tem prišlo; o določale količinsko opredeljene ciljne vrednosti za ravni sodelovanja na podlagi zahtevanih vplivov na okolje ter nato določile raven potrebnih finančnih sredstev; o temeljiteje preverile koristnost okoljskih načrtov kmetij, izhodno usmerjenih ukrepov, razpisov in kolektivnih pogodb; Ū bi morala biti prispevna stopnja EU za kmetijsko-okoljske podukrepe diferencirana tako, da bi podukrepi z večjim potencialom za doseganje trajnih pozitivnih vplivov na okolje prejemali višjo stopnjo prispevka EU.
The large amounts of money spent on entry-level schemes, in contrast to the small amounts spent on higher-level schemes, were insufficiently justified in the rural development programmes concerning their environmental effects. 
Veliki zneski, porabljeni za sheme na začetni ravni, v primerjavi z majhnimi zneski, porabljenimi za sheme na višji ravni, v programih razvoja podeželja niso bili dovolj utemeljeni glede na vplive na okolje.
This distinction is subject of discussions in the context of the Commission’s proposal for the CAP after 2013, that simple, generalised actions could be part of direct payments 28. 
O tej razliki se razpravlja v okviru predloga Komisije za skupno kmetijsko politiko po letu 2013, in sicer naj bi bili enostavni, splošni ukrepi del neposrednih plačil28.
28 Option2ofthe communication from the Commission ‘The CAP towards 2020: Meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges of the future’. Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed? 
28 Možnost2vsporočilu Komisije Skupna kmetijska politika proti letu 2020: odziv na prihodnje izzive, povezane s hrano, naravnimi viri in ozemljem. Posebno poročilo št. 7/2011 – Ali je podpora za kmetijsko-okoljske ukrepe dobro pripravljena in upravljana?
50 RECOMMENDATION 4 For the next programming period, the Commission should consider whether agri-environment payments should be split into simple, generalised agri-environmental actions with a relatively low rate of aid and more demanding actions attracting a higher rate of aid and targeted to EU-level priorities areas. 
50 PRIPOROČILO 4 Komisija bi za naslednje programsko obdobje morala preučiti, ali naj bi bila kmetijsko okoljska plačila razdeljena med enostavne, splošne kmetijsko-okoljske ukrepe z razmeroma nizko stopnjo pomoči ter zahtevnejše ukrepe, za katere bi se zagotavljala višja stopnja pomoči in ki bi bili usmerjeni v prednostna področja na ravni EU.
Support for organic farming would constitute a third measure. 
Podpora za ekološko kmetovanje bi bil tretji ukrep.
Notwithstanding progress achieved to date, there remains considerable scope for increasing the effectiveness of EU agri-environment policy. 
Ne glede na doslej dosežen napredek je še veliko prostora za povečanje uspešnosti kmetijsko-okoljske politike EU.
There is still room for further improving the design of this EU rural development policy, and more information is necessary on the effects obtained. 
Še vedno je mogoče dodatno izboljšati zasnovo te politike EU za razvoj podeželja, potrebnih pa je tudi več informacij o doseženih učinkih.
Although the audit identified good practices, the weaknesses found by the Court have hampered optimal achievement of the main objectives of agri-environment, namely contributing to EU-level priority areas (biodiversity, water, climate change) and improving the environment and the countryside. 
Čeprav so bile z revizijo najdene dobre prakse, pa slabosti, ki jih je ugotovilo Sodišče, ovirajo optimalno doseganje glavnih ciljev na kmetijsko-okoljskem področju, in sicer prispevanje k prednostnim področjem na ravni EU (biotska raznovrstnost, vode, podnebne spremembe) ter izboljšanje okolja in podeželja.
This report was adopted by Chamber I, headed by Mr Olavi ALA-NISSILÄ, Member of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 24 May 2011. 
To poročilo je sprejel senat I, ki ga vodi g. Olavi ALA-NISSILÄ, član Evropskega računskega sodišča, v Luxembourgu na svojem zasedanju 24. maja 2011.
For the Court of Auditors Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA President Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed? 
Za Računsko sodišče Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA Predsednik Posebno poročilo št. 7/2011 – Ali je podpora za kmetijsko-okoljske ukrepe dobro pripravljena in upravljana?
51 ANNEX I MAIN FINDINGS FROM PREVIOUS COURT REPORTS ON AGRI-ENVIRONMENT The report on ‘Greening the CAP’ 1 contained the following findings: agri-environment payments benefited the environment by helping maintain existing extensive practices but they failed to encourage converting environmentally damaging intensive agriculture to environmentally sound farming methods; the targeting of EU funds according to pre-established environmental priorities was limited, resulting in less environmental value for money than should have been achieved; in some cases, aid rates were too low to attract farmers to apply environmentally friendly farming techniques, whereas, in other cases, farmers received aid rates that were significantly in excess of their actual costs; finally the absence of quantitative objectives and environmental baselines made it difficult to monitor progress in achieving environmental goals. 
51 PRILOGA I GLAVNE UGOTOVITVE IZ PREJŠNJIH POROČIL SODIŠČA O KMETIJSKO-OKOLJSKEM PODROČJU V poročilu o okoljsko ozaveščeni skupni kmetijski politiki1 so naslednje ugotovitve: kmetijsko-okoljska plačila so koristila okolju, ker so pripomogla k ohranjanju obstoječih ekstenzivnih načinov kmetovanja, vendar niso spodbujala prehoda od okolju škodljivega intenzivnega kmetijstva k okolju prijaznim metodam kmetovanja; ciljnega usmerjanja sredstev EU v skladu z vnaprej določenimi okoljskimi prioritetami je bilo malo in je bilo manj stroškovno učinkovito za okolje, kot bi moralo biti; v nekaterih primerih so bile stopnje pomoči prenizke, da bi kmete pritegnile k uporabi okolju prijaznih načinov kmetovanja, v drugih primerih pa so kmetje prejemali pomoč po stopnjah, ki so močno presegale njihove resnične stroške; končno, brez količinsko opredeljenih ciljev in osnovnih okoljskih vrednosti je bilo težko spremljati napredek pri doseganju okoljskih ciljev.
The report on ‘The Verification of Agri-Environment expenditure’ 2 found that the Commission had only partially ensured verifiability before approving rural development programmes and had not sufficiently verified the correct functioning of agri-environment control systems in the Member States. 
Poročilo o preverjanju kmetijsko-okoljskih odhodkov2 je ugotovilo, da je Komisija pred potrjevanjem programov razvoja podeželja le delno zagotovila preverljivost in ni dovolj preverila pravilnosti delovanja kmetijsko-okoljskih kontrolnih sistemov v državah članicah.
The audit findings in the Member States concerned the timing of on-the-spot checks and the verifiability of certain key sub-measures. 
Ugotovitve revizije v državah članicah so se nanašale na časovno razporeditev pregledov na kraju samem in preverljivost nekaterih ključnih podukrepov.
The audit concluded that the verification of the agri-environment measure posed particular problems and could rarely lead to even reasonable assurance at a reasonable cost. 
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da je preverjanje kmetijsko-okoljskih ukrepov povzročalo posebne probleme in je le redko privedlo do celo samo razumnega zagotovila po razumnih stroških.
In this context, it was recommended that the Commission, Council and Parliament should consider how to take into account the principle whereby if a measure cannot be adequately checked, it should not receive public funds. 
V okviru tega je bilo priporočeno, naj Komisija, Svet in Parlament preučijo, kako bi se upoštevalo načelo, po katerem naj ukrep ne bi bil financiran iz javnih sredstev, če ga ni mogoče ustrezno preveriti.
1 Special Report No 14/2000. 
1 Posebno poročilo št. 14/2000.
2 Special Report No 3/2005. 
2 Posebno poročilo št. 3/2005.
ANNEX II DESCRIPTION AND INDICATION OF THE ORIGIN OF THE AUDIT CRITERIA USED TO ANSWER THE AUDIT QUESTIONS 52 Audit question (see paragraph 13) Audit criterion Explanation of the audit criterion Is agri-environment policy designed and monitored so as to deliver tangible environmental benefits? 
PRILOGA II OPIS IN NAVEDBA IZVORA REVIZIJSKIH MERIL, UPORABLJENIH PRI ODGOVORIH NA REVIZIJSKA VPRAŠANJA 52 Revizijsko vprašanje (glej odstavek 13) Revizijsko merilo Razlaga revizijskega merila Ali je kmetijsko-okoljska politika zasnovana in se spremlja tako, da prinaša oprijemljive koristi za okolje?
The agri-environment measures have precise (SMART) objectives, closely oriented to identified environmental benefits. 
Kmetijsko-okoljski ukrepi imajo natančne cilje (SMART), dobro usmerjene v opredeljene koristi za okolje.
The nature of the environmental pressures in the territories is clearly identified, justified and prioritised. 
Narava pritiskov na okolje na ozemljih je jasno opredeljena, utemeljena in razvrščena po prioritetah.
The location of the environmental pressures in the territories is clearly identified, justified and prioritised. 
Lokacija pritiskov na okolje na ozemljih je jasno opredeljena, utemeljena in razvrščena po prioritetah.
Member States are able to justify the need for the agri-environment measures in relation to the environmental pressure. 
Države članice lahko upravičijo potrebo po kmetijsko-okoljskih ukrepih glede na pritiske na okolje.
Baseline levels and planned targets have been established which are quantified in line with the needs and within the budget. 
Določene so bile osnovne ravni in načrtovane ciljne vrednosti, ki so količinsko opredeljene glede na potrebe in v skladu s proračunom.
The Member State implementation of the common monitoring and evaluation framework makes it possible to assess the environmental effects of the agri-environment schemes. 
Okvir skupnega spremljanja in vrednotenja, ki ga uporabljajo države članice, omogoča oceno vplivov kmetijsko-okoljskih shem na okolje.
Additional indicators are implemented when necessary. 
Po potrebi se uporabljajo dodatni kazalniki.
Information from the control and monitoring systems is used to identify improvements in the design, implementation and monitoring of the agri-environment measures. 
Informacije, pridobljene s kontrolnimi sistemi in sistemi spremljanja, se uporabljajo za ugotavljanje izboljšav pri zasnovi, izvajanju in spremljanju kmetijsko-okoljskih ukrepov.
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 states that each rural development programme must include information on the specific verifiable objectives of the measures and that their progress, efficiency and effectiveness must be measured in relation to these objectives (Articles 16(c), 81(1)). 
1698/2005 določa, da mora vsak program razvoja podeželja vključevati informacije o specifičnih in preverljivih ciljih ukrepov, napredek, učinkovitost in uspešnost teh programov pa je treba meriti glede na te cilje (člena 16(c) in 81(1)).
2. and 3. 
2. in 3.
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 and Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 state that each rural development programme must describe the current situation of the environment and land management in the geographical area using quantified data, highlighting strengths and weaknesses, disparities, needs and gaps and the potential for rural development (Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, Article 16(a) and Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006, Annex II). 
Uredba (ES) št. 1698/2005 in Uredba (ES) št. 1974/2006 določata, da mora vsak program razvoja podeželja opisovati trenutno stanje okolja in upravljanja zemljišč na zemljepisnem območju, za kar je treba uporabljati številčne podatke, poudariti prednosti in pomanjkljivosti, neskladja, potrebe in vrzeli ter možnosti za razvoj podeželja (Uredba (ES) št.
Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 states that each rural development programme must include a description of and justification for the different types of commitment of agri-environment payments based on their expected environmental impact in relation to environmental needs and priorities (Annex II). 
1974/2006 določa, da mora vsak program razvoja podeželja vključevati opis in utemeljitev različnih vrst zavez iz kmetijsko-okoljskih plačil, ki temeljijo na njihovih pričakovanih vplivih na okolje glede na okoljske potrebe in prioritete (Priloga II).
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 states that the progress, efficiency and effectiveness of rural development programmes in relation to their objectives should be measured by means of indicators relating to the baseline situation (Article 81(1)). 
Uredba (ES) št. 1698/2005 določa, da je treba napredek, učinkovitost in uspešnost programov razvoja podeželja glede na njihove cilje meriti s kazalniki, ki se nanašajo na izhodiščno stanje.
Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 states that, to measure progress in meeting the objectives of the rural development programme, indicative targets for output, result and impact indicators must be set for the period of implementation of the programme (Article 62(2)). 
1974/2006 določa, da je treba za merjenje napredka pri doseganju ciljev programa razvoja podeželja za obdobje izvajanja programa določiti okvirne ciljne vrednosti kazalnikov učinkov, rezultatov in vplivov (člen 62(2)).
The CMEF, implemented according to Article 80 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, is drawn up in cooperation between the Commission and the Member States. 
Okvir skupnega spremljanja in vrednotenja, ki se izvaja v skladu s členom 80 Uredbe (ES) št. 1698/2005, je pripravljen v sodelovanju Komisije z državami članicami.
One of the key objectives of this monitoring system is to measure the results of the programmes: the CMEF handbook states that ‘indicators are used as tools to assess how far the expected objectives have been achieved by measures or whole programmes’. 
Eden od ključnih ciljev tega sistema spremljanja je merjenje rezultatov programov. Priročnik za okvir določa, da se kazalniki uporabljajo„kot orodje za oceno, koliko so z ukrepi ali celotnimi programi doseženi pričakovani cilji“.
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 states that each rural development programme must specify a limited number of additional indicators specific to that programme (Article 81(2)). 
1698/2005 določa, da mora vsak program razvoja podeželja opredeljevati manjše število dodatnih kazalnikov, ki so značilni za ta program (člen 81(2)).
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 states that the Monitoring Committee may propose to the Managing Authority any adjustment or review of the programme aimed at achieving the objectives of the EAFRD or improving its management (Article 78(e)). 
1698/2005 določa, da lahko nadzorni odbor organu upravljanja predlaga kakršno koli prilagoditev ali revizijo programa, ki bi lahko pripomogla k doseganju ciljev EKSRP ali izboljšanju njegovega upravljanja (člen 78(e)).
ANNEX II 53 Audit question (see paragraph 13) Audit criterion Explanation of the audit criterion Are farmers well supported through appropriate guidance and correct aid amounts? 
PRILOGA II 53 Revizijsko vprašanje (glej odstavek 13) Revizijsko merilo Razlaga revizijskega merila Ali so ustrezno usmerjanje in pravi zneski pomoči dobra podpora za kmete?
The Member State can demonstrate progress in the simplification of the system used to manage the agri-environment measures. 
Država članica lahko dokaže napredek pri poenostavljanju sistemov, uporabljenih za upravljanje kmetijsko-okoljskih ukrepov.
The nature, timing and extent of the commitments and checks are clearly identified. 
Narava, časovna opredelitev in obseg zavez in kontrol so jasno opredeljeni.
The aid amounts are fully justified by data and studies from reliable sources. 
Podatki in študije iz zanesljivih virov v celoti upravičujejo zneske pomoči.
The aid amounts are correctly calculated and the calculation has been checked by an independent body from the Managing Authority. 
Zneski pomoči so pravilno izračunani, izračune pa je preveril organ, neodvisen od organa upravljanja.
The aid amounts are differentiated according to regional or local site conditions. 
Zneski pomoči so diferencirani glede na regionalne ali lokalne krajevne razmere.
Because agri-environment payments are voluntary for farmers, the latter need to be aware of environmental issues and how to apply the requirements of sub-measures they can implement. 
Ker kmetje pri kmetijsko-okoljskih plačilih sodelujejo prostovoljno, morajo poznati okoljske probleme in način za uresničevanje zahtev iz podukrepov, ki jih lahko izvajajo.
Upon signing a contract, farmers need to understand what is expected of them. 
Ob podpisu pogodbe morajo razumeti, kaj se od njih pričakuje.
Such awareness and understanding can be achieved by guidance, training and the dissemination of results. 
To poznavanje in razumevanje je mogoče doseči z usmerjanjem, usposabljanjem in razširjanjem rezultatov.
This criterion is based on a sound financial management principle. 
To merilo temelji na načelu dobrega finančnega poslovodenja.
In view of simplification, there is a need to assess whether there is actually evidence of unnecessary complexity. 
Zaradi poenostavitve je treba oceniti, ali resnično obstajajo dokazi o nepotrebni kompleksnosti.
This criterion considers complexity with regard to the management system rather than at the level of the content of the agri-environment schemes themselves, since complex commitments may result in high environmental benefits. 
To merilo upošteva kompleksnost v zvezi s sistemom upravljanja in ne na ravni vsebine samih kmetijsko-okoljskih shem, saj kompleksne zaveze lahko prinašajo velike koristi za okolje.
This criterion is based on a sound financial management principle. 
Merilo temelji na načelu dobrega finančnega poslovodenja.
Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 (OJ L 368, 23.12.2006, p. 
1975/2006 (UL L 368, 23.12.2006, str.
74) states that the Member States must establish suitable methods and means for verifying the conditions for granting support for each support measure (Article 10(2)). 
74) določa, da morajo države članice uvesti ustrezne metode in sredstva, namenjena preverjanju pogojev za dodelitev podpore za vsak ukrep podpore (člen 10(2)).
On-the-spot checks must be spread over the year and must cover all the beneficiary commitments and obligations that can be checked at the time of the visit (Article 14). 
Pregledi na kraju samem se morajo porazdeliti skozi obdobje enega leta in morajo zajemati vse zaveze in obveznosti upravičenca, ki jih je mogoče preveriti ob obisku (člen 14).
Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 states that Member States must ensure that the calculations and the corresponding support (a) contain only elements that are verifiable, (b) are based on figures established by appropriate expertise and (c) indicate clearly the source of the figures (Article 53(2)). 
1974/2006 določa, da morajo države članice zagotoviti, da izračuni in ustrezna podpora (a) vsebujejo samo elemente, ki so preverljivi, (b) temeljijo na številčnih podatkih, ki so ustrezno strokovno določeni, in (c) da je jasno razviden vir številčnih podatkov (člen 53(2)).
Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 states that, in order to substantiate and confirm the adequacy and accuracy of the calculations of payments, Member States must ensure that appropriate expertise is provided by bodies or services functionally independent from those responsible for those calculations. 
1974/2006 določa, da morajo države članice za utemeljitev in potrditev primernosti in natančnosti izračunov plačil zagotoviti, da ustrezno strokovno znanje dobijo od organov ali služb, ki so funkcijsko neodvisni od tistih, ki so odgovorni za te izračune.
The provision of such expertise must be evidenced in the rural development programme (Article 48(2)). 
Zagotavljanje takšnega strokovnega znanja mora biti dokazano v programu razvoja podeželja (člen 48(2)).
Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 states that Member States must ensure that the calculations and the corresponding support are differentiated to take into account regional or local site conditions and actual land use as appropriate (Article 53(2)(d)). 
1974/2006 določa, da morajo države članice zagotoviti, da so izračuni in ustrezna podpora diferencirani tako, da upoštevajo regionalne ali lokalne pogoje ter dejansko rabo zemljišča, kot je ustrezno (člen 53(2)(d)).
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 states that the payments must cover additional costs and income foregone resulting from the commitment made (Article 39(4)). 
1698/2005 določa, da morajo plačila kriti dodatne stroške in izgubo dohodka, ki so posledica sprejetih zavez (člen 39(4)).
Aid amounts are also a key element for the participation of farmers in the measure. 
Poleg tega so zneski pomoči ključni element za sodelovanje kmetov pri ukrepih.
According to the principles of sound financial management, aid amounts should be set at an appropriate level to attract the required number of farmers while avoiding overcompensation. Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed? 
V skladu z načeli dobrega finančnega poslovodenja bi morali biti zneski pomoči določeni v višini, ki pritegne potrebno število kmetov, obenem pa ne zagotavlja previsokih nadomestil. Posebno poročilo št. 7/2011 – Ali je podpora za kmetijsko-okoljske ukrepe dobro pripravljena in upravljana?
ANNEX II 54 Audit question (see paragraph 13) Audit criterion Explanation of the audit criterion Does the management of agri-environment policy take account of specific environmental needs? 
PRILOGA II 54 Revizijsko vprašanje (glej odstavek 13) Revizijsko merilo Razlaga revizijskega merila Ali se pri vodenju kmetijsko-okoljske politike upoštevajo posebne okoljske potrebe?
The measures are targeted to the needs of the regions; and in particular to the needs located in specific areas. 
Ukrepi so usmerjeni v potrebe regij in zlasti potrebe na posameznih območjih.
The selection procedures provide assurance that the budgets available are used to fund the projects with more environmental value. 
Izbirni postopki zagotavljajo uporabo razpoložljivih proračunov za financiranje projektov, ki imajo večjo vrednost za okolje.
The Member States can demonstrate that the measures change or maintain beneficial farming practices (i.e. avoid deadweight). 
Države članice lahko dokažejo, da ukrepi spreminjajo ali ohranjajo načine kmetovanja, ki prinašajo koristi (npr. preprečujejo presežke nadomestil, torej nadomestila za načine kmetovanja, ki se že izvajajo).
The Member States can demonstrate the validity of the cause-and-effect relationship between the farming practices envisaged and the environmental benefits expected. 
Države članice lahko dokažejo nespornost vzročno-posledičnega odnosa med predvidenimi načini kmetovanja in pričakovanimi koristmi za okolje.