natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Recommendation 3 – Clear guidance on the EAFRD’s role for renewable energy support First alinea: The Commission can only partially accept this recommendation, as it is not in a position at this stage to make specific commitments in relation to legislative proposals for the post 2020 period. 
Priporočilo 3 – Jasna navodila o vlogi EKSRP za podporo za energijo iz obnovljivih virov Prva alinea: Komisija lahko le delno sprejme to priporočilo, saj v tej fazi ne more sprejeti posebnih zavez glede zakonodajnih predlogov za obdobje po letu 2020.
The Commission commits to analyse possible ways of strengthening result-orientation of the future CAP, by achieving EU added value whilst reflecting better the needs and aspirations of the territories concerned, as outlined in Commission Communication COM(2017) 713 final. 
Komisija se zavezuje proučiti možne načine krepitve usmerjenosti k rezultatom prihodnje SKP, da bi dosegala dodano vrednost EU, hkrati pa bolje odražala potrebe in želje zadevnih ozemelj, kot je navedeno v Sporočilu Komisije COM(2017) 713 final.
Furthermore Member States/Regions are best placed to decide which funding instruments are most suitable in their specific context and how they should best be combined to achieve renewable energy targets and rural development objectives in the most cost-effective way. 
Poleg tega države članice/regije same najbolje odločijo, kateri instrumenti financiranja so najprimernejši v njihovem posebnem okviru in kako bi jih morali združiti, da bi uresničili cilje glede energije iz obnovljivih virov in razvoja podeželja na najbolj stroškovno učinkovit način.
Second alinea: The Commission accepts this recommendation and considers it has already implemented it. 
Druga alinea: Komisija sprejema to priporočilo in meni, da je bilo že izvedeno.
The website of the European Network for Rural Development includes a database containing good practices, including, inter alia, examples of renewable energy projects supported by the EAFRD and of community based approaches in this field. 
Spletna stran evropske mreže za razvoj podeželja (European Network for Rural Development) vključuje zbirko podatkov z dobrimi praksami, ki med drugim vključujejo primere projektov na področju energije iz obnovljivih virov, ki jih podpira EKSRP, in pristopov na tem področju, ki temeljijo na skupnosti.
Furthermore, under EIP-AGRI, a Focus Group on "enhancing production and use of renewable energy on the farm" has just been launched; the first meeting took place on 21-22 November 2017. 
Poleg tega je bila v okviru evropskega partnerstva za inovacije na področju kmetijske produktivnosti in trajnosti pravkar ustanovljena ciljna skupina za „spodbujanje proizvodnje in uporabe energije iz obnovljivih virov na kmetijah“, ki se je prvič sestala 21. in 22. novembra 2017.
While it is true that no specific output indicators for renewable energy projects existed at the beginning of the period 2007-2013, the CMEF 2007-2013 included an impact indicator covering the increase of production of renewable energy for programme evaluation. 
Čeprav je res, da v začetku obdobja 2007–2013 niso obstajali specifični kazalniki izložkov za projekte na področju energije iz obnovljivih virov, je bil v skupen okvir spremljanja in vrednotenja za obdobje 2007–2013 vključen kazalnik učinka, ki zajema povečanje proizvodnje energije iz obnovljivih virov za vrednotenje programa.
This provided some information depending on the extent to which the programmes addressed this issue. 
To je zagotovilo nekaj informacij, vendar so te odvisne od tega, kako podrobno so programi obravnavali to vprašanje.
Within the framework of shared management the RDP evaluations are the responsibility of Member States. 
V okviru načela deljenega upravljanja so za vrednotenje programa razvoja podeželja odgovorne države članice.
Effectiveness and efficiency of Rural Development Programmes will be assessed through extended evaluations for which CMES indicators only represent a tool and will be complemented by other information. 
Uspešnost in učinkovitost programov razvoja podeželja bosta ocenjeni na podlagi razširjenih vrednotenj, kazalniki sistema CMES pa bodo le orodje, ki ga bodo dopolnile druge informacije.
The definition of common indicators had to be done by taking into account issues of 9 data availability in all Member States, cost-effectiveness of the system and acceptable administrative burden for the Member States. 
Skupni kazalniki so morali biti opredeljeni ob upoštevanju vprašanj razpoložljivosti podatkov v vseh državah članicah, stroškovne učinkovitosti sistema in sprejemljivega upravnega bremena držav članic.
Although additional programme-specific indicators may result in less comparable reporting, the Commission considers this acceptable and considers that it can be helpful to assess the programmes. 
Čeprav je lahko posledica dodatnih kazalnikov za posamezne programe manj primerljivo poročanje, Komisija meni, da je to sprejemljivo in da so lahko v pomoč pri presoji programov.
Commission's guidelines for the enhanced annual implementation reporting of 2019 are currently being prepared. 
Smernice Komisije za razširjeno letno poročanje o izvajanju za leto 2019 so trenutno v pripravi.
As outlined in the reflections on the post 2020 period, the Commission commits to analyse possible ways to improve the performance measurement of the CAP as a whole. 
Kot je navedeno v razmislekih o obdobju po letu 2020, se Komisija zavezuje, da bo proučila možne načine za izboljšanje merjenja uspešnosti SKP kot celote.
An enhanced CAP delivery model focussed on results is envisaged. 
Predviden je izboljšan izvedbeni model SKP, osredotočen na rezultate.
To this end the assurance process would need to be adapted to the requirements of a result-driven policy design including the development and application of solid and measurable indicators and of a credible performance monitoring and reporting. 
V ta namen bi bilo treba postopek zagotovil prilagoditi zahtevam zasnove politike, usmerjene v rezultate, vključno z oblikovanjem in uporabo zanesljivih, merljivih kazalnikov ter verodostojnega spremljanja uspešnosti in poročanja o njej.
Recommendation 4 – A simpler and more meaningful monitoring and evaluation framework The Commission partially accepts this recommendation. 
Priporočilo 4 – Enostavnejši in bolj smiseln okvir spremljanja in vrednotenja Komisija delno sprejema to priporočilo.
The recommendation has already been implemented with respect to data on expenditure on renewable energy and the renewable energy produced from supported projects. 
Priporočilo je že izvedeno glede podatkov o izdatkih za energijo iz obnovljivih virov in energijo iz obnovljivih virov, proizvedeno na podlagi podprtih projektov.
The enhanced annual implementation reports of 2019 will contain this information. 
Te informacije bodo vključene v razširjena letna poročila o izvajanju za leto 2019.
However, the Commission has no mandate to require Member States to provide information in these reports which they have not been asked to collect from the outset of the programming period, such as data on the energy capacity installed. 
Vendar pa Komisija ne more držav članic zahtevati, naj v teh poročilih zagotovijo informacije, kot so na primer podatki o obstoječi energetski zmogljivosti, če se od njih ni zahtevalo, da jih zbirajo od začetka programskega obdobja.
The current programming period applies the so-called N+3 rule at programme level in order to allow full use of EAFRD funding according to the objectives set in the respective rural development programmes. 
V trenutnem programskem obdobju se na ravni programov uporablja tako imenovano pravilo N+3, da se v celoti izkoristi financiranje EKSRP v skladu s cilji iz ustreznih programov razvoja podeželja.
This aims at reducing the risk that EAFRD support will be granted without benefit, while selection procedures can be adapted during the programming period in line with shared management and the partnership principle. 
Cilj je zmanjšanje tveganja, da bi bila podpora EKSRP odobrena brez koristi, izbirni postopki pa se lahko med programskim obdobjem prilagajajo v skladu z načeloma deljenega upravljanja in partnerstva.
Recommendation 5 – Better project selection taking into account value added to rural areas and project viability The Commission considers this recommendation to be addressed to the Member States. 
Priporočilo 5 – Boljše izbiranje projektov ob upoštevanju dodane vrednosti za podeželska območja in izvedljivosti projektov Komisija meni, da je to priporočilo naslovljeno na države članice.
While actual selection procedures and definition of selection criteria remain the competence of the Member States in line with the shared management principle, the Commission will pursue its ongoing efforts to encourage Member States to apply relevant selection procedures. 10 
Čeprav v skladu z načelom deljenega upravljanja dejanski izbirni postopki in opredelitev izbirnih meril ostajajo v pristojnosti držav članic, si bo Komisija še naprej prizadevala spodbujati države članice k uporabi relevantnih izbirnih postopkov.
Using more energy from renewable sources is crucial to reduce the EU greenhouse gas emissions and its dependence on fossil fuels and imported energy and thus contribute to the security of its energy supply. 
Večja uporaba energije iz obnovljivih virov je bistvena za zmanjšanje emisij toplogrednih plinov EU in njene odvisnosti od fosilnih goriv in uvožene energije ter s tem prispevanje k zanesljivosti oskrbe z energijo.
Moreover, renewable energy can play an important role as a driver of sustainable development in rural areas. 
Poleg tega je lahko energija iz obnovljivih virov gonilo trajnostnega razvoja na podeželskih območjih.
In our audit, we found that there are potential synergies between renewable energy policy and funds designated to facilitate sustainable development, but that these synergies remain mostly unrealised. 
Sodišče je na podlagi svoje revizije ugotovilo, da med politiko za energijo iz obnovljivih virov in sredstvi za omogočanje trajnostnega razvoja obstajajo potencialne sinergije, vendar te za zdaj ostajajo večinoma neizkoriščene.
The EU’s renewable energy policy is not explicit enough in establishing the conditions for linking renewable energy to rural development successfully. 
Politika EU za energijo iz obnovljivih virov ni dovolj eksplicitna pri vzpostavljanju pogojev za uspešno povezovanje energije iz obnovljivih virov z razvojem podeželja.
The specific funding available for rural development could play a role in achieving EU and national renewable energy targets, but Member States did not always prioritise renewable energy projects that could make a contribution to sustainable rural development. 
Posebna sredstva, ki so na voljo za razvoj podeželja, bi lahko imela pomembno vlogo pri doseganju ciljev EU in nacionalnih ciljev glede energije iz obnovljivih virov, vendar države članice niso vedno dajale prednosti projektom na področju energije iz obnovljivih virov, ki bi lahko prispevali k trajnostnemu razvoju podeželja.
EN 2018 Special Report NO 08 EU support for productive investments in businesses - greater focus on durability needed (pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU) 
SL 2018 Posebno poročilo št. 08 Podpora EU za produktivne naložbe v podjetja – večji poudarek je treba nameniti trajnosti (v skladu z drugim pododstavkom člena 287(4) PDEU)
This performance audit was carried out by Audit Chamber II Investment for cohesion, growth and inclusion spending areas, headed by ECA Member Iliana Ivanova. 
To revizijo smotrnosti poslovanja je opravil revizijski senat II – Naložbe v kohezijo, rast in vključevanje, ki ga vodi članica Evropskega računskega sodišča Iliana Ivanova.
The audit was led by ECA Member Ladislav Balko, supported by Branislav Urbanič, Head of Private Office and Zuzana Franková, Private Office Attaché and audit team member; Gerhard Ross, Director, Myriam Cazzaniga, Principal Manager; Kurt Bungartz, Head of Task; Alessandra Falcinelli and Jolita Korzunienė, Auditors. 
Revizijo je vodil član Evropskega računskega sodišča Ladislav Balko, pri njej pa so sodelovali vodja njegovega kabineta Branislav Urbanič ter atašejka v njegovem kabinetu in članica revizijske ekipe Zuzana Franková, direktor Gerhard Ross, vodilna upravna uslužbenka Myriam Cazzaniga, vodja naloge Kurt Bungartz ter revizorki Alessandra Falcinelli in Jolita Korzunienė.
From left to right: Branislav Urbanič, Zuzana Franková, Ladislav Balko, Myriam Cazzaniga, and Jolita Korzunienė. 
Od leve proti desni: Branislav Urbanič, Zuzana Franková, Ladislav Balko, Myriam Cazzaniga in Jolita Korzunienė.
ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY 4 (EU) Added value The EU added value is the value that an EU action adds to the value that would otherwise have been created by Member States acting alone. 
Dodana vrednost (EU) Dodana vrednost EU je vrednost, ki jo ukrepi EU dodajo k vrednosti, ki bi bila dosežena samo z ukrepi držav članic.
In the context of this audit, the EU added value are the benefits resulting from the EU co-financed productive investments, such as enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises, better identification of local and regional needs and solutions, long-term employment and greater scope for innovation. 
V okviru te revizije je dodana vrednost EU korist iz naslova produktivnih naložb, ki jih je sofinancirala EU, kot so npr. povečanje konkurenčnosti malih in srednjih podjetij, boljše določanje lokalnih in regionalnih potreb in rešitev, dolgoročna zaposlenost in večje možnosti za inovativnost.
Common provisions regulation (CPR) Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013. This Regulation lays down the common rules applicable to the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF), the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), which operate under a common framework (the 'European Structural and Investment' - 'ESI Funds'). 
Evropski strukturni in investicijski skladi (skladi ESI) Obstaja pet ločenih skladov, ki podpirajo izvedbo strategije Unije za pametno, trajnostno in vključujočo rast v celotni EU ter cilje posameznih skladov, okviri politik pa so določeni za sedemletno proračunsko obdobje večletnega finančnega okvira: Evropski sklad za regionalni razvoj (ESRR), Evropski socialni sklad (ESS), Kohezijski sklad, Evropski kmetijski sklad za razvoj podeželja (EKSRP) in Evropski sklad za pomorstvo in ribištvo (ESPR).
Deadweight loss Deadweight is an effect occurring when funding is provided to support a beneficiary who would have made the same choice in the absence of aid. 
Mrtve izgube Nepotrebne izgube se pojavijo, kadar se financiranje za podporo zagotovi upravičencem, ki bi enako odločitev sprejeli tudi brez pomoči.
In such cases, the outcome cannot be attributed to the policy, and the aid paid to the beneficiary has had no impact. 
V takih primerih izida ni mogoče pripisati politiki, upravičencu izplačana pomoč pa ni imela nobenega učinka.
Thus, the share of expenditure which generates deadweight is ineffective by definition, because it does not contribute to the achievement of objectives. 
Delež odhodkov, ki povzročajo mrtve izgube, je zato že sam po sebi neuspešen, ker ne prispeva k doseganju ciljev.
In the context of this audit, it is a situation where a subsidised project would have been wholly or partly undertaken without the grant aid. 
V okviru te revizije je to v primeru, ko bi bil subvencionirani projekt deloma ali v celoti izveden tudi brez pomoči iz nepovratnih sredstev.
Direct project results Changes experienced by those directly addressed by an intervention resulting from their participation (e.g. increased production, productivity, sales, turnover or exports; enhanced entrepreneurship and competitiveness; new products or services introduced; long-term jobs created or maintained). Durable project results Long-lasting project results. 
MSP mala in srednja podjetja Neposredni rezultati projekta Spremembe pri tistih, ki so s posredovanjem neposredno obravnavani, dosežene z njihovo udeležbo (npr. povečanje proizvodnje, produktivnosti, prodaje, prometa ali izvoza; okrepljeno podjetništvo in konkurenčnost; novi proizvodi ali storitve; ustvarjena ali ohranjena dolgoročna delovna mesta).
Operational programme (OP) An OP sets out a Member State’s or a region’s priorities and specific objectives and describes how funding (both EU and national public funding and private co-financing) will be used during a given period (currently seven years) to finance projects. 
5 Operativni program Operativni program določa prioritete in posebne cilje države članice ali regije ter opisuje, kako bodo sredstva (financiranje EU in nacionalno javno financiranje ter zasebno sofinanciranje) v danem obdobju (trenutno sedem let) uporabljena za financiranje projektov.
The projects within an OP must contribute to a certain number of objectives. 
Projekti v operativnem programu morajo prispevati k določenemu številu ciljev.
The OP is prepared by the Member State and has to be approved by the Commission before any payments can be made from the EU budget. 
Operativni program pripravi država članica, preden je mogoče izvršiti plačila iz proračuna EU, pa ga mora odobriti Komisija.
OPs can only be modified during the programme period if both parties agree. 
Operativne programe je mogoče v programskem obdobju spremeniti le, če se s tem strinjata obe strani.
Programme period The multi-annual framework within which ERDF expenditure is planned and implemented. 
Programsko obdobje Večletni okvir, znotraj katerega se načrtujejo in izvršujejo odhodki ESRR.
6 Project outputs The deliverables of a project. 
Trajni rezultati projekta Dolgoročni rezultati projekta.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ERDF support for productive investments in businesses I. Over 75 billion euro from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) was earmarked for productive investments in enterprises between 2000 and 2013, and more than 68 billion euro is planned for that purpose in the period 2014 to 2020. 
POVZETEK Podpora Evropskega sklada za regionalni razvoj za produktivne naložbe v podjetja I. Iz Evropskega sklada za regionalni razvoj (ESRR) je bilo za produktivne naložbe v podjetja v obdobju med letoma 2000 in 2013 namenjenih več kot 75 milijard EUR, več kot 68 milijard EUR pa je za ta namen predvidenih v obdobju 2014–2020.
The aim of our audit was to assess whether this funding had been managed in a way which ensures durability of outputs and results and to identify the main factors affecting it. 
Cilj revizije je bil oceniti, ali so bila ta sredstva upravljana tako, da je bila zagotovljena trajnost izložkov in rezultatov, ter opredeliti glavne dejavnike, ki vplivajo na to.
We examined 41 completed productive investment projects co-financed by the ERDF between 2000 and 2013 under eight OPs in Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy and Poland. 
Preučili smo 41 zaključenih projektov produktivnih naložb, ki so bili med letoma 2000 in 2013 sofinancirani iz ESRR v okviru osmih operativnih programov v Avstriji, Češki republiki, Nemčiji, Italiji in na Poljskem.
This included reviewing the OPs underlying the projects audited, as well as project selection, monitoring, reporting and evaluation. 
To je obsegalo pregled operativnih programov, povezanih z revidiranimi projekti, ter izbora, spremljanja in ocenjevanja projektov ter poročanja o njih.
Overall, we conclude that a majority of the projects audited had durable results. 
Sodišče je v splošnem zaključilo, da je imela večina revidiranih projektov trajne rezultate.
However, in many of the projects audited the results were not or only partially durable which is mainly due to a lack of emphasis on durability in the management of the ERDF support to productive investments between 2000 and 2013. 
Kljub temu rezultati v mnogih revidiranih projektih niso bili trajni ali so bili trajni le deloma, do česar je prišlo predvsem zaradi pomanjkanja poudarka na trajnosti pri upravljanju podpore ESRR za produktivne naložbe v obdobju med letoma 2000 in 2013.
V. The durability requirements under EU law were met in all regions where the audit took place. 
V. Zahteve glede trajnosti v skladu z zakonodajo EU so bile izpolnjene v vseh regijah, kjer je potekala revizija.
In most cases, the purchased assets and other outputs still existed and were being used at the time of the audit. 
V večini primerov so kupljena sredstva in drugi izložki v času revizije še vedno obstajali in se uporabljali.
At the time of the audit, a majority of the projects audited were still generating the expected direct results, mostly related to job creation, improved access to finance and loans, increased production and productivity. 
V času revizije je večina revidiranih projektov še vedno ustvarjala pričakovane neposredne rezultate, zlasti tiste, povezane z ustvarjanjem delovnih mest, boljšim dostopom do financiranja in posojil, povečano proizvodnjo in produktivnostjo.
But, in one fifth of them, the results achieved by the time they were completed did not last. 
Vendar pri petini projektov rezultati, doseženi do zaključka projektov, niso bili trajni.
Moreover, in nearly half of the projects audited, it was not possible to comprehensively assess the durability at the end of the durability period, as information was not always available, because it had not always been collected (or at 7 
trajnosti, saj informacije niso bile vedno na voljo, ker niso bile vedno zbrane (ali vsaj ne dosledno) in ker ustrezni dokumenti zaradi izteka obdobja arhiviranja niso bili več na voljo.
Where results were not durable, there were various reasons for this. 
Kadar rezultati niso bili trajni, so za to obstajali različni razlogi.
While in a few cases, the reasons were clearly beyond the control of the beneficiaries, due to exogenous factors such as the economic crisis or changes in national legislation; other cases were due to management weaknesses. 
V nekaterih primerih so bili razlogi očitno izven nadzora upravičencev, na primer zunanji dejavniki, kot so gospodarska kriza ali spremembe v nacionalni zakonodaji, v drugih pa so bile to slabosti pri upravljanju.
The main reason was the insufficient focus on durability at different levels in the management of EU funds: OPs did not promote durability effectively; selection procedures did not take sufficient account of conditions for attaining good long-term results; monitoring and reporting of results after project end was weak, and the performance indicators used were poor; corrective measures taken in case of failure to achieve targets or to comply with legal durability requirements were applied inconsistently; and the Commission did not place sufficient emphasis on aspects of durability when approving the OPs. 
Glavni razlog je bil nezadostna osredotočenost na trajnost na različnih ravneh upravljanja sredstev EU: z operativnimi programi se ni uspešno spodbujala trajnost; v izbirnih postopkih niso bili dovolj upoštevani pogoji za doseganje dobrih dolgoročnih rezultatov; spremljanje rezultatov in poročanje o njih po koncu projekta ter uporabljeni kazalniki smotrnosti so bili slabi; sprejeti popravljalni ukrepi v primerih nedoseganja ciljev ali izpolnjevanja zakonodajnih zahtev glede trajnosti so se izvajali nedosledno; in Komisija pri odobritvi operativnih programov ni zadostno poudarjala vidikov trajnosti.
The regulatory framework has brought improvements in this respect for the 2014-2020 period. 
Regulativni okvir je prinesel izboljšave na tem področju za obdobje 2014–2020.
Nevertheless, further action is needed in order to attain durability of results in this programme period and improve the design of the relevant programmes with respect to durability in the post-2020 period. 
Kljub temu pa je potrebno nadaljnje ukrepanje, da bi se dosegla trajnost rezultatov v tem programskem obdobju in izboljšala zasnova ustreznih programov, kar zadeva trajnost, v obdobju po letu 2020.