natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
22 THE ASSESSmEnT OF THE EFFECTIVEnESS OF THE SUppORT wAS nOT SATISFACTORY IndICATORS nOT AdEqUATELY mEASURInG THE ACHIEVEmEnT OF OpERATIOnAL ObjECTIVES 42. in accordance with the legislation46, a ‘common Monitoring and Evaluation framework’ (cMEf) has been drawn up in cooperation between the commission and the Member states. the regulation sets out that the progress, efficiency and effectiveness of rural development programmes in relation to their objectives shall be measured by means of indicators relating to the baseline situation as well as to the financial execution, outputs, results and impact of the programmes47. 
22 UsPešnost PodPore se nI zadovoljIvo ocenjevala kazalnIkI ne merIjo Ustrezno doseGanja oPeratIvnIh cIljev 42. V skladu z zakonodajo46 so Komisija in države članice skupaj pripravile „okvir skupnega spremljanja in vrednotenja“ (CMEF). V uredbi je določeno, da se napredek, učinkovitost in uspešnost programov razvoja podeželja glede na njihove cilje merijo s kazalniki, ki se nanašajo na izhodiščno stanje ter na finančno izvajanje, izložke, rezultate in učinek programov47.
43. concerning measure 122, the commission issued guidelines setting as output indicators the ‘number of forest holdings that received investment support’ and the ‘total volume of investment’, and as result indicators the ‘number of holdings introducing new products and/or techniques’ and the ‘increase in gross value added (GVa) in supported holdings’. 
43. Komisija je za ukrep 122 izdala smernice, v katerih je kot kazalnika izložkov določila „število gozdarskih gospodarstev, ki so prejela naložbeno pomoč“ in „celotni obseg naložb“, kot kazalnika rezultatov pa „število gospodarstev [...], ki vpeljujejo nove proizvode in/ali nove tehnologije“ ter„zvišanje bruto dodane vrednosti pri podprtih gospodarstvih“.
44. the court notes that these output indicators do not measure the achievement of any operational objective, which is an inevitable consequence of the fact that the objectives had not been clearly defined for this measure. qUESTIOnS TO ASSESS THE ImpROVEmEnT OF THE ECOnOmIC VALUE OF FORESTS SHOULd HAVE bEEn bETTER TARGETEd 45. the cMEf also provides for a mid‐term evaluation to be carried out in 2010 by independent evaluators. for measure 122 the evaluation questions relate to diversification of production48, enhancement of market access and market share, sustainable management of forests and competitiveness of forest holdings. 
44. Sodišče opaža, da ti kazalniki izložkov ne merijo doseganja nobenega operativnega cilja, kar je neizogibna posledica dejstva, da cilji za ta ukrep niso bili jasno opredeljeni. vPrašanja za ocenjevanje Povečanja GosPodarske vrednostI Gozdov bI morala bItI bolje Usmerjena 45.
46 article 80 of regulation (Ec) no 1698/2005. 
46 Člen 80 Uredbe (ES) št. 1698/2005.
47 article 81 of regulation (Ec) no 1698/2005. 
47 Člen 81 Uredbe (ES) št. 1698/2005.
48 one of the aims of measure 122 is to contribute to diversification (see recital 22 of regulation (Ec) no 1698/2005). diversification in forestry means the creation of new sources of income from forestry activity, including, in particular, production of non-wood goods, such as fruits, mushrooms, seeds, honey and so on, and delivery of marketed services such as hunting licences. the production of fuelwood may also be considered as a diversification in forests traditionally exploited for the production of industrial roundwood and vice versa. 
48 Med cilji ukrepa 122 je tudi prispevati k diverzifikaciji (glej uvodno izjavo 22 Uredbe (ES) št. 1698/2005). Diverzifikacija v gozdarstvu pomeni ustvarjanje novih virov prihodkov iz gozdarskih dejavnosti, vključno zlasti s pridobivanjem nelesnih dobrin, kot so sadeži, gobe, semena, med in podobno, ter zagotavljanje tržnih storitev, kot so lovske izkaznice.
Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development EFFECTIVEnESS In A LARGE nUmbER OF pROjECTS AUdITEd IS pOOR 48. the court assessed for 50 projects audited during the audit visits whether they achieved the objectives set by the measure (to improve the economic value of forests). 
Posebno poročilo št. 8/2013 – Podpora Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja za povečanje gospodarske vrednosti gozdov Sodišče je pri 50 projektih, revidiranih med revizijskimi obiski, ocenilo, ali so dosegli cilje ukrepa (povečanje gospodarske vrednosti gozdov).
51. in the proposal once again no indication is given why the provision addresses private owners in general, and not specific categories of owners or specific situations of certain private owners. 
51. Tudi v tem predlogu ni navedeno, zakaj so v določbi omenjeni zasebni lastniki na splošno, ne pa posamezne kategorije lastnikov ali specifične razmere posameznih zasebnih lastnikov.
52. in its opinion no 1/2012, the court noted that although in the draft regulation a single measure should cover all types of support for forestry investments, and all relevant sub-measures are mentioned in one single article52, each of them remains governed by specific requirements and provisions. 
52. Sodišče v svojem mnenju št. 1/2012 ugotavlja, da kljub temu, da mora v skladu s predlogom uredbe en ukrep urejati vse vrste podpore za gozdarske naložbe in so vsi ustrezni podukrepi navedeni samo v enem členu52, vsak podukrep še naprej urejajo posebne zahteve in določbe.
53. the court considers that if the commission proposal is adopted without any change, the problems noted in this report are likely to persist in the next programming period. 
53. Sodišče meni, da bodo težave, izpostavljene v tem poročilu, prisotne tudi v naslednjem programskem obdobju, če bo predlog Komisije sprejet brez vsakih sprememb.
49 see paragraph 38. 
49 Glej odstavek 38.
50 coM(2011) 627 final/2 of 19 october 2011. 
50 COM(2011) 627 final/2 z dne 19. oktobra 2011.
51 article 27 of coM(2011) 627 final of 12 october 2011, p. 
51 Člen 27 COM(2011) 627 final z dne 12. oktobra 2011, str.
52 article 22. 
52 Člen 22.
25 CoNCluSIoNS aNd rECommENdatIoNS 54. the specific measure 122 ‘improvement of the economic value of forests’ was introduced in the programming period 2007–13. the court’s audit revealed deficiencies in terms of the design, implementation and monitoring of the measure. consequently, the court concludes that the commission and the Member states did not manage the audited aspects of the support for the improvement of the economic value of forests efficiently and effectively. With particular regard to the fact that such a support is proposed to be maintained for the next programming period 2014–20, the court makes the recommendations set out below. 
Sodišče je med revizijo odkrilo pomanjkljivosti v zasnovi, izvajanju in spremljanju ukrepa. Zato je prišlo do zaključka, da Komisija in države članice niso učinkovito in uspešno upravljale revidiranih vidikov podpore za povečanje gospodarske vrednosti gozdov. Sodišče zlasti ob upoštevanju predloga, da se takšna podpora v naslednjem programskem obdobju 2014–2020 ohrani, podaja v nadaljevanju navedena priporočila. velIke slabostI v zasnovI UkrePa 55.
SIGnIFICAnT wEAknESSES In THE dESIGn OF THE mEASURE 55. the audit identified weaknesses in the design of the measure which significantly hinders its successful implementation, as explained hereunder. 
Sodišče je med revizijo odkrilo slabosti v zasnovi ukrepa, ki močno ovirajo njegovo uspešno izvajanje, kot je pojasnjeno v nadaljevanju. 56.
56. the commission did not specifically analyse the situation in the forestry sector at Eu level so as to justify the proposal of specific financial support for improving the economic value of forests of private owners and municipalities or defining the public interest to which such a support should respond (paragraphs 18 to 22). 
Komisija ni izrecno analizirala razmer v gozdarskem sektorju na ravni EU, da bi utemeljila predlog za posebno finančno podporo za povečanje gospodarske vrednosti gozdov v zasebni lasti in v lasti občin, niti ni opredelila javnega interesa, na katerega naj bi se odzvala takšna podpora (odstavki 18–22).
Key features of the measure were not defined in the legal provisions, namely the meaning of ‘economic value of forests’ and what is a ‘forestry holding’. 
V pravnih določbah niso bile opredeljene ključne značilnosti ukrepa, namreč pojma„gospodarska vrednost gozdov“ in„gozdna posest“.
Moreover, there were no particular conditions concerning the size, main economic activity or legal status of potential beneficiaries to avoid risks of potential distortion of competition (paragraphs 23 to 25). 
Poleg tega ni bilo nobenih posebnih pogojev v zvezi z velikostjo, glavno gospodarsko dejavnostjo ali pravnim statusom potencialnih upravičencev, da bi se preprečila tveganja potencialnega izkrivljanja konkurence (odstavki 23 do 25).
Member states set very different sizes of forest holdings above which a forest management plan was required, ranging from a minimum size set so as to increase the forest areas under management plan to such a high threshold that in practice in a Member state (austria) 99 % of private forest owners were exonerated from that obligation (paragraph 26). Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development 
Države članice so zelo različno določile, nad katero velikostjo gozdnih posesti je zanje treba pripraviti načrt za gospodarjenje, in sicer od minimalne velikosti, določene za povečanje gozdnih površin, za katere veljajo načrti za gospodarjenje z gozdovi, do tako visokega praga, da je v praksi v eni državi članici (Avstrija) to pomenilo, da je bilo 99 % lastnikov zasebnih gozdov oproščenih te obveznosti (odstavek 26). Posebno poročilo št. 8/2013 – Podpora Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja za povečanje gospodarske vrednosti gozdov
59. also the needs were not adequately described in the rdps by the Member states. the audit found several instances of inadequate initial analysis of the specific needs regarding the measure or that the measure did not respond to any specific or urgent needs in Member states (paragraphs 28 to 31). several Member states discontinued the measure or reallocated most of the allocated amounts in favour of other measures (paragraph 32). 
59. Tudi države članice v svojih PRP niso ustrezno opisale potreb. Med revizijo je bilo ugotovljenih več primerov neustrezne prvotne analize specifičnih potreb v zvezi z ukrepom ali pa se ta ukrep ni odzival na nobene specifične ali nujne potrebe v državah članicah (odstavki 28 do 31).
26 RECOmmEndATIOn 1 the Commission should: — define and assess the Eu needs for improving the economic value of the forests; — clearly define the key features that would ensure that the Eu support is targeted to address those needs, and thus create Eu added value. 
26 PrIPoročIlo 1 komisija naj: — opredeli in oceni potrebe EU glede povečanja gospodarske vrednosti gozdov; — jasno opredeli ključne značilnosti, ki bi zagotovile, da je podpora EU ciljno usmerjena v reševanje teh potreb in tako ustvarja dodano vrednost EU.
RECOmmEndATIOn 2 member States should: — adequately describe in their rdps the specific economic needs and opportunities of the different types of forest areas and beneficiaries; — enhance forest management by providing for the elaboration of forest management plans for the bulk of forest holdings and the promotion of certification of forest areas. Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development 
PrIPoročIlo 2 države članice naj: — v svojih PrP ustrezno opišejo specifične gospodarske potrebe in priložnosti za različne vrste gozdnih površin in upravičencev; — izboljšajo gospodarjenje z gozdovi z zagotavljanjem priprave načrtov za gospodarjenje z gozdovi za večino gozdnih posesti in spodbujanjem certificiranja gozdnih površin. Posebno poročilo št. 8/2013 – Podpora Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja za povečanje gospodarske vrednosti gozdov
SIGnIFICAnT wEAknESSES In THE ImpLEmEnTATIOn HAVInG REGARd TO THE ObjECTIVES SET 60. the audit found numerous weaknesses in the implementation of the measure (paragraphs 33 to 41). 
velIke slabostI v IzvajanjU Glede na zastavljene cIlje 60. Med revizijo so bile ugotovljene številne slabosti v izvajanju ukrepa (odstavki 33 do 41).
Hence the court concludes that, in certain respects, the implementation process was not appropriate. 
Zato je Sodišče prišlo do zaključka, da izvajanje v določenih vidikih ni bilo ustrezno. 61.
61. in particular, the court found cases of public support which were disproportionately high compared to the real needs (paragraphs 33 to 34). depending on the Member state approach, many of the projects subsequently funded are not in line with the measure’s provisions, for instance cases were found of support granted for non-durable goods and operating production costs and of aid de facto supporting felling (paragraphs 35 to 36). furthermore, Member states supported under measure 122 operations which do not correspond to the objectives of the measure and which would be more appropriately financed by other measures with different eligibility requirements and aid financing rates, usually lower (paragraphs 37 to 39). 
Zlasti je odkrilo primere, kjer je bila javna podpora nesorazmerno visoka v primerjavi z dejanskimi potrebami (odstavki 33 do 34). Odvisno od pristopa države članice, veliko pozneje financiranih projektov ni skladnih z določbami ukrepa, tako so bili na primer ugotovljeni primeri, ko je bila podpora dodeljena za potrošni material in poslovne stroške ter ko se je s podporo dejansko podpirala sečnja (odstavki 35 do 36). Poleg tega so države članice z ukrepom 122 podpirale operacije, ki ne ustrezajo ciljem ukrepa in bi jih bilo primerneje financirati z drugimi ukrepi z drugačnimi zahtevami za upravičenost in drugačnimi, običajno nižjimi, stopnjami financiranja (odstavki 37 do 39).
62. not all the investments per se increase the economic value of forests. the inherent link between the aid granted and a possible improvement of the economic value of a forest varied depending on the typology of investment (paragraphs 40 to 41). 
62. Vse naložbe same po sebi ne povečujejo gospodarske vrednosti gozdov. Pripadajoča povezava med dodeljeno pomočjo in možnim izboljšanjem gospodarske vrednosti gozda je bila različna glede na vrsto naložbe (odstavki 40 do 41).
27 RECOmmEndATIOn 3 member States should: — set adequate requirements to ensure that forestry support within the rural development policy is consistent, in line with state aid provisions and maximises its effectiveness, — put in place adequate procedures to ensure that support is effective so as to actually increase the economic value of the forest areas where the investments take place. Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development 
27 PrIPoročIlo 3 države članice naj: — določijo ustrezne zahteve, da zagotovijo doslednost podpore gozdarstvu v okviru politike razvoja podeželja in njeno skladnost z določbami o državni pomoči ter njeno čim večjo uspešnost; — uvedejo ustrezne postopke, da zagotovijo uspešnost podpore v smislu, da dejansko povečuje gospodarsko vrednost gozdnih površin, na katerih so bile izvedene naložbe. Posebno poročilo št. 8/2013 – Podpora Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja za povečanje gospodarske vrednosti gozdov
THE ASSESSmEnT OF THE EFFECTIVEnESS OF THE SUppORT wAS nOT SATISFACTORY 63. as a result of the audit, the court considers that important shortcomings hindered the assessment of the effectiveness of the support. 
UsPešnost PodPore se nI zadovoljIvo ocenjevala 63. Sodišče po reviziji meni, da so ocenjevanje uspešnosti podpore ovirale pomembne pomanjkljivosti.
64. the cMEf is inadequate to appraise the impact of the financial support under measure 122 because the performance indicators and evaluation questions included in the cMEf do not allow determining whether the funded investments resulted in an improvement of the economic value of the forests where they were carried out (paragraphs 42 to 46). 
64. CMEF ni ustrezen za ocenjevanje učinka finančne podpore iz ukrepa 122, ker kazalniki smotrnosti in vprašanja pri vrednotenju, ki se uporabljajo pri CMEF, ne omogočajo ugotoviti, ali so financirane naložbe povečale gospodarsko vrednost gozdov, v katerih so bile izvedene (odstavki 42 do 46).
Member states did not determine or require beneficiaries to determine the value of the forest areas prior to and after the investments. the lack of assessments at Member state or regional level on the effective increase of the value of the forests where actions were supported hinders the assessment regarding the achievement of the main objective of the measure, and therefore also the assessment of the effectiveness of the support (paragraph 47). 
Države članice niso ugotovile vrednosti gozdnih zemljišč pred naložbami in po njih, niti niso tega zahtevale od upravičencev. Pomanjkanje ocen na ravni držav članic ali regionalni ravni o uspešnem povečanju vrednosti gozdov, v katerih so bile izvedene podprte dejavnosti, ovira oceno doseganja glavnega cilja projekta in zato tudi oceno uspešnosti podpore (odstavek 47).
66. the court found that only a few of the audited projects improved the economic value of the forests, either by improving the value of the land (building of forest tracks and roads) or the value of the stands (silvicultural operations like pruning or thinning). 
66. Sodišče je ugotovilo, da je le nekaj revidiranih projektov povečalo gospodarsko vrednost gozdov, in sicer bodisi s povečanjem vrednosti zemljišča (gradnja gozdnih vlak in cest) ali vrednosti sestojev (gozdnogojitvene dejavnosti, kot je obrezovanje ali redčenje).
28 RECOmmEndATIOn 4 the Commission should improve its monitoring of the measure to ensure that the member States implement it in line with the specific objectives set. In concrete terms, member States should require beneficiaries to provide details of the value of their forest areas both prior to and after the aided investments and managing bodies should be required to validate these values. Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development 
28 PrIPoročIlo 4 komisija naj izboljša svoje spremljanje ukrepa, da zagotovi, da ga države članice izvajajo v skladu s specifičnimi zastavljenimi cilji. konkretno naj države članice od upravičencev zahtevajo, naj pred izvedbo podprtih naložb in po njej predložijo podrobne podatke o vrednosti njihovih gozdnih površin, od organov upravljanja pa, da te vrednosti potrdijo. Posebno poročilo št. 8/2013 – Podpora Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja za povečanje gospodarske vrednosti gozdov
this report was adopted by chamber i, headed by Mr ioannis sarMas, Member of the court of auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 12 June 2013. 
To poročilo je sprejel senat I, ki ga vodi g. Ioannis SARMAS, član Evropskega računskega sodišča, v Luxembourgu na svojem zasedanju 12. junija 2013.
For the Court of Auditors Vítor Manuel da siLVa caLdEira President 29 Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development 
8/2013 – Podpora Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja za povečanje gospodarske vrednosti gozdov
125 100 75 50 25 0 30 AnnEX I ALLOCATIOn OF FInAnCIAL RESOURCES FOR mEASURE 122 VS EXTEnSIOn OF FOREST AREAS In pRIVATE OwnERSHIp bY mEmbER STATE Programmed EAFRD contribution under measure 122 vs forests in private ownership per Member State EAFRD contribution under measure 122 (million euro) Forests in private ownership (million ha) Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development Romania Italy Portugal Spain France Slovakia Latvia Austria Slovenia Hungary Bulgaria Czech Republic United Kingdom Estonia Lithuania Germany Luxembourg 
8/2013 – Podpora Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja za povečanje gospodarske vrednosti gozdov Posebno poročilo št.
Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development 
8/2013 – Podpora Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja za povečanje gospodarske vrednosti gozdov Posebno poročilo št.
39 rEply of thE CommISSIoN eXecutive suMMary vi. although some aspects of the measure could have been explained more clearly, implementation could have been improved and challenges needed to be overcome in monitoring and evaluation, implementation and results were stronger in some cases. 
39 odgovori komisijE pOvzetek vi. Čeprav bi bilo mogoče bolje pojasniti nekatere vidike ukrepa in izboljšati izvajanje ter kljub oviram, ki jih je bilo treba premostiti pri spremljanju in vrednotenju, so bili izvajanje in rezultati v nekaterih primerih boljši.
Moreover, lessons have been learned which will be applied for the coming period — especially through guidance and within the programming process. vii. the commission analysed the situation of the forest sector in the 2005 commission staff Working document, which formed an annex to the communication on the implementation of the Eu forestry strategy (document reference sEc(2005) 333). the term ‘economic value’ was indeed not defined in the legal provisions. 
Poleg tega so bile pridobljene izkušnje, ki bodo uporabljene v naslednjem obdobju, zlasti v okviru navodil in programskega postopka. vii. Komisija je proučila razmere v gozdarskem sektorju v delovnem dokumentu služb Komisije iz leta 2005, ki je priložen sporočilu o izvajanju gozdarske strategije EU (referenčni dokument SEC(2005) 333).
1 sWot-analysis: analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. 
1 Analiza SWOT: analiza prednosti, slabosti, priložnosti in nevarnosti.
Every rdp must contain a sWot analysis as part of the basis for planning spending through the rdp. Special report No 8/2013 – Support for the improvement of the economic value of forests from the European agricultural fund for rural development 
Vsak PRP mora vključevati analizo SWOT kot del podlage za načrtovanje porabe v okviru PRP. Posebno poročilo št. 8/2013 – Podpora Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja za povečanje gospodarske vrednosti gozdov
41 Xii. the commission considers that where measure 122 was the correct measure to use, the economic value of forests was indeed increased. 
41 Xii. Komisija meni, da se je v primerih, ko je bil ukrep 122 pravilen ukrep, ki ga je bilo treba uporabiti, gospodarska vrednost gozdov dejansko povečala.
When assessing the contribution to improving the economic value of forests different factors such as multifunctionality and sustainability must also be taken into account. 
Pri oceni prispevka k povečanju gospodarske vrednosti gozdov je treba upoštevati tudi različne dejavnike, kot sta večfunkcionalnost in trajnost.