natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
BoX 18 sElECTIoN of laGs By THE MaNaGING aUTHorITy IN fraNCE According to the terms of the call for applications, the selection committee would select between 10 and 12 LAGs, each with an average financial allocation of 1,5 million euro. Eighteen applications were received, of which the managing authority classed two as good quality, eight as intermediate quality and eight as insufficient quality. All 18 LAGs were selected and the average financial allocation reduced in consequence to 1,1 million euro. 
OkvIr 18 kakO je OrGan UPravljanja v francIjI IzbIral las v pogojih razpisa je bilo navedeno, da bo izbirna komisija izbrala od 10 do 12 Las, vsaki od katerih bo v povprečju dodeljenih 1,5 milijona eur finančnih sredstev. prejetih je bilo 18 vlog, od katerih je organ upravljanja za 2 ocenil, da sta dobre kakovosti, za 8, da so srednje kakovosti, in za 8, da niso dovolj dobre kakovosti. Izbranih je bilo vseh 18 Las, ki so jim bila dodeljena finančna sredstva v povprečju posledično znižana na 1,1 milijona eur. posebno poročilo št.
90. In particular, the audit found that LAGs had poorly developed Axis 4 strategies, with non-specific objectives, a lack of clear intervention logic, and poor or non-existent provision for monitoring and evaluation. 
90. revizija je zlasti pokazala, da bile strategije Las za 4. os slabo pripravljene, brez specifičnih ciljev, brez jasne intervencijske logike in s slabimi ali neobstoječimi ureditvami za spremljanje in vrednotenje. po oceni strategij Las je nekaj držav članic zahtevalo izboljšanje ugotovljenih slabosti. tako so bili Las za sedemletno obdobje odobreni znatni zneski iz proračuna eu za izvajanje slabih strategij. kako je komisija odobriLa Programe razvoja PodežeLja za obdobje 2007–2013 91.
The key point at which the Commission could determine how Member States implemented Axis 4 was with the approval of the national and regional rural development programmes. 
Ključni trenutek, v katerem bi Komisija lahko ugotovila, kako države članice izvajajo 4. os, je bila odobritev nacionalnih in regionalnih programov razvoja podeželja.
The Commission should ensure that programmes establish the conditions necessary and safeguard against the known risks to the added value of the Leader approach. 
Komisija bi morala poskrbeti, da so v programih določeni potrebni pogoji za ustvarjanje dodane vrednosti pristopa Leader in za preprečevanje znanih tveganj za njeno doseganje.
Most contained few concrete details about how the Leader approach would be implemented. Member States developed many of the arrangements for Leader only after the programmes had been approved. 47 Special Report No 5/2010 — Implementation of the Leader approach for rural development 
Komisija pri odobritvi programov razvoja podeželja ni bila zahtevna 92. programi razvoja podeželja so dokumenti na visoki ravni in le majhen del je namenjen 4. osi. večina jih je vsebovala malo konkretnih podrobnosti o predvidenem izvajanju pristopa Leader. države članice so številne ureditve za Leader sprejele šele potem, ko so bili programi že odobreni. 47 posebno poročilo št.
The Commission was undemanding in approving the rural development programmes, which led to the situation described in paragraphs 80 to 90. 
Komisija pri odobritvi programov razvoja podeželja ni bila zahtevna, kar je privedlo do stanja, opisanega v odstavkih 80 do 90.
The Commission accepted programmes that did not provide for competitive selection of LAGs (despite the requirement in the regulation); that restricted LAGs to implementing nationally-defined measures (despite the Commission’s guidance that LAGs should not follow a fixed set of measures); that had no specific plans for achieving innovation or interaction between sectors (despite instructions for the Commission assessments that innovation should be a priority); nor for monitoring and evaluation (despite the Leader+ mid-term evaluation conclusions that these have to be built into programmes from the outset). 
Komisija je sprejela programe, ki niso predvidevali konkurenčnega izbiranja Las (kljub zahtevi iz uredbe), ki so omejevali Las na izvajanje nacionalno opredeljenih ukrepov (kljub smernicam Komisije, da Las ne bi smele slediti določenemu nizu ukrepov), ki niso vsebovali nobenih specifičnih načrtov za inovativnost ali sodelovanje med sektorji (kljub navodilom za ocene Komisije, da bi morala imeti inovativnost prednost) in ki niso imeli nobenih načrtov za spremljanje in vrednotenje (kljub zaključkom vmesnega vrednotenja Leader+, da morajo biti ti že od začetka del programov).
The Commission did not assess key elements for the added value of the Leader approach, such as Member State requirements for the composition and openness of LAGs. 
Komisija ni ocenila ključnih elementov za dodano vrednost pristopa Leader, kot so zahteve držav članic za sestavo in odprtost Las. sPremljanje In vrednOtenje, kI sO jU Izvajale kOmIsIja In države članIce kOmIsIja In države članIce ne mOrejO POkazatI dOdane vrednOstI, Ustvarjene z Izvajanjem PrIstOPa leader, In Še nIsO OvrednOtIle s tem POvezanIh dOdatnIh strOŠkOv In tveGanj sPremLjanje in vrednotenje UsPešnosti PristoPa Leader 94.
The Commission and Member States should use the management systems, the checks on LAGs, monitoring indicators and annual reports to monitor the implementation, results and impacts of the Leader programmes. This should be done not only to be able to take timely corrective action, but also to provide sufficient, reliable and relevant evidence for evaluations and to give assurance on the effectiveness and added value of the Leader approach. 
Komisija in države članice bi morale uporabljati upravljavske sisteme, preglede Las, kazalnike spremljanja in letna poročila, da bi spremljale izvajanje, rezultate in učinke programov Leader. to bi bilo treba storiti ne samo zaradi izvajanja pravočasnih popravnih ukrepov, ampak tudi zaradi zagotavljanja zadostnih, zanesljivih in relevantnih dokazov za vrednotenja in za podajo zagotovila o uspešnosti in dodani vrednosti pristopa Leader.
48 Special Report No 5/2010 — Implementation of the Leader approach for rural development 
48 posebno poročilo št. 5/2010 – Izvajanje pristopa Leader pri razvoju podeželja
49 The LAGs, Member States and Commission monitored the implementation of Leader programmes 95. 
49 Las, države članice in Komisija so spremljale izvajanje programov Leader, ...
There was extensive activity in monitoring the implementation of Leader+ programmes. 
95. Izvajanje programov Leader+ se je zelo dejavno spremljalo.
96. All managing authorities produced a ‘mid-term’ evaluation of Leader+ in 2003 with an update in 2005. 
96. vsi organi upravljanja so leta 2003 pripravili vmesno vrednotenje programa Leader+, ki so ga posodobili leta 2005.
The Commission engaged a contractor to make a synthesis report. ...but there is little evidence on the effectiveness of Leader programmes in achieving rural development objectives or the added value of the Leader approach 97. 
Komisija je za pripravo sinteznega poročila najela zunanjega izvajalca. ... vendar ni veliko dokazov o uspešnosti programov Leader pri doseganju ciljev razvoja podeželja ali ustvarjanju dodane vrednosti pristopa Leader 97.
99. The 2003 evaluations were before most LAGs had started implementing the Leader programmes and the updates were made before significant expenditure had been incurred. 
99. vrednotenja leta 2003 so bila izvedena, preden je večina Las začela izvajati programe Leader, posodobitve pa, preden so nastali pomembnejši odhodki. na številna vprašanja vrednotenja ni bilo odgovorov ali pa so odgovori temeljili na mnenjih tistih, ki jim je program koristil.
The absence (or unreliability) of data makes it difficult to establish the effectiveness of the Leader programmes in delivering rural development outcomes, either in absolute terms, or in relation to the effectiveness of other delivery methods (notably, the mainstream programmes). 
Ker ni bilo podatkov (oziroma so bili nezanesljivi), je težko opredeliti, kako uspešni so bili programi Leader pri doseganju rezultatov na področju razvoja podeželja, tako v absolutnem smislu kot v povezavi z uspešnostjo drugih metod (predvsem glavnih programov).
102. The potential for the Leader approach to achieve such impacts is indicated by examples in the contact point’s best-practice publications, the evaluations and various studies. However, there has been no systematic monitoring or reporting of the LAGs’ achievements in these areas, so the examples remain isolated cases. 
102. potencial pristopa Leader za doseganje takšnih učinkov kažejo primeri najboljše prakse v publikacijah informacijske točke, vrednotenjih in različnih študijah. vendar ni bilo nobenega sistematičnega spremljanja dosežkov Las na teh področjih ali poročanja o njih, tako da to ostajajo osamljeni primeri.
In the absence of reliable and relevant evidence, evaluations have not been able to demonstrate the frequency and extent of such impacts. monitoring and evaLuation of the costs and risks 103. The monitoring and evaluation should also provide reliable evidence and assessments of the costs and risks of the Leader approach. 
Ker ni zanesljivih in relevantnih dokazov, vrednotenja niso mogla pokazati, kako pogosti in obsežni so takšni učinki. sPremLjanje in vrednotenje stroškov in tveganj 103. spremljanje in vrednotenje bi morala zagotoviti tudi zanesljive dokaze in ocene o stroških in tveganjih pristopa Leader.
50 Special Report No 5/2010 — Implementation of the Leader approach for rural development 
50 posebno poročilo št. 5/2010 – Izvajanje pristopa Leader pri razvoju podeželja
51 The Commission and Member States have not monitored or evaluated the additional costs and risks involved 104. 
51 Komisija in države članice niso spremljale ali vrednotile dodatnih s tem povezanih dodatnih stroškov in tveganj 104.
In respect to the weaknesses identified in the Court’s 2000 Annual Report, the Commission replied that most corresponded to risks that are inherent in a decentralised programme such as Leader and that ‘the Commission and Member States are aware of these risks when monitoring the programmes and checking that their implementation follows the principle of sound financial management’. 
Komisija je v zvezi s slabostmi, navedenimi v letnem poročilu sodišča za leto 2000, odgovorila, da jih je večina značilnih za tveganja, tipična za decentralizirane programe, kot je Leader, ter da se jih Komisija in države članice zavedajo, ko spremljajo programe in preverjajo, ali se pri njihovem izvajanju upošteva načelo dobrega finančnega poslovodenja.
The Commission checks compliance with the regulations and can propose financial corrections. Checks made during the Leader+ period included the programmes of Portugal and France in 2005. The Commission services found that there were no formal project selection criteria; that conflict of interest procedures were inadequate and LAGs took decisions without a ‘double quorum’; and that LAGs did not have procedures to check the reasonableness of proposed project costs. 
Komisija preverja skladnost z uredbami in lahko predlaga finančne popravke. pregledi, izvedeni v obdobju programa Leader+, so zajemali portugalski in francoski program za leto 2005. službe Komisije so ugotovile, da ni bilo nobenih uradnih meril za izbiro projektov, da so bili postopki za preprečevanje navzkrižja interesov neustrezni, da so Las sprejemale odločitve brez upoštevanja „dvojne sklepčnosti“ ter da niso imele postopkov za preverjanje razumnosti predlaganih stroškov projektov. službe Komisije so izdale priporočila za zadevni državi članici, vendar so menile, da ni primerno predlagati finančnih popravkov 31. preverile so tudi skladnost donacij, dodeljenih za nazaj, in stopenj donacij z uredbami, vendar niso načele vprašanja mrtvih izgub ali učinkovitosti.
106. while the Commission’s checks confirmed the risks identified in the Annual Report 2000 (and in this audit), they do not form a basis for establishing the extent and impact of those risks in the Member States concerned or EU-wide32. 
106. Čeprav so pregledi Komisije potrdili tveganja, navedena v letnem poročilu za leto 2000 (in ugotovljena med to revizijo), niso podlaga za ugotavljanje obsega ali učinka teh tveganj v zadevnih državah članicah ali v vsej eu 32.
Member States’ inspections of the LAG operations (which covered at least 5 % of the expenditure in Leader+) provided an opportunity to check and report on the incidence of the risks to sound financial management. However, with a few exceptions in certain Member States, they have not covered the fairness and transparency of the LAGs’ project selection procedures, soundness and documentation of the assessment of project proposals, voting records, or the correct operation of conflict of interest policies. 
Inšpekcijski pregledi dejavnosti Las, ki so jih izvedle države članice (in so zajeli vsaj 5 % odhodkov za Leader+), so bili priložnost za preverjanje pojavljanja tveganj za dobro finančno poslovodenje in za poročanje o njih. vendar razen nekaterih izjem v določenih državah članicah niso zajeli poštenosti in preglednosti postopkov Las za izbiro projektov, kakovosti in dokumentiranja ocenjevanja predlogov projektov, zapisnikov glasovanja ali pravilnega izvajanja politik za preprečevanje navzkrižja interesov.
31 The effectiveness of such recommendations is brought into question by the results of the Court’s observations in these Member States, which show that the weaknesses continued to exist in 2009. 
31 uspešnost takšnih priporočil je vprašljiva zaradi rezultatov opažanj sodišča v teh državah članicah, ki kažejo, da slabosti v letu 2009 še vedno obstajajo.
32 It should be noted that this is not an objective of the Commission’s checks. 
32 treba je opozoriti, da to ni cilj Komisijinih pregledov. posebno poročilo št.
108. Member States have not used their management systems or the LAGs’ annual implementation reports to monitor the fairness and transparency of the LAGs’ decision-making process, the proportion of grants awarded to LAGs’ members, the efficiency of the grants awarded or the efficiency of the LAGs’ processes and operating costs. 
108. države članice niso uporabile svojih upravljavskih sistemov ali poročil Las o izvajanju za spremljanje poštenosti in preglednosti procesa odločanja v Las, deleža donacij, dodeljenih članom Las, učinkovitosti dodeljenih donacij ali učinkovitosti postopkov in stroškov Las za projekte. v Franciji je organ upravljanja spremljal dejavnosti Las z opazovanjem njihovih sestankov, vendar je očitno dopuščal prakse, kot so, da člani Las predstavljajo svoje projekte, da se donacije dodeljujejo projektom za nazaj in da se zvišajo stopnje donacij, da se porabi proračun (glej na primer odstavek 55).
109. where individual LAGs have questioned project promoters, the information available indicates that deadweight is an important risk33. The EU-level evaluations gave no information on deadweight or the extent of retrospective grants34. 110. 
109. v primerih, ko so posamezne Las postavljale vprašanja nosilcem projektov, razpoložljive informacije kažejo, da so mrtve izgube pomembno tveganje 33. vrednotenja na ravni eu ne vsebujejo nobenih informacij o teh izgubah ali o obsegu donacij, dodeljenih za nazaj 34.
Similarly, for the fairness and transparency of LAG procedures, the evaluations indicate that problems exist with the objectivity of project selection, for example, but provide no information on the extent or impact of such weaknesses (see Box 19). 
110. podobno vrednotenja glede poštenosti in preglednosti postopkov Las na primer kažejo, da obstajajo težave v zvezi z objek-tivnostjo pri izbiranju projektov, vendar ne nudijo nobenih informacij o obsegu ali učinku takšnih slabosti (glej okvir 19).
33 For example, a survey of project promoters by the LAG in France (Pays de la Loire) found that 71 % would have undertaken the project without the Leader grant. 
33 anketa med nosilci projektov, ki jo je izvedla Las v Franciji (regija Loire), je na primer pokazala, da bi jih 71 % projekt izvedlo tudi brez donacije Leader.
34 The Commission has asked the contractor for the Leader+ final evaluation to assess the incidence of deadweight, but there was no monitoring or data collection during the Leader+ period for this. 
34 Komisija je zaprosila zunanjega izvajalca za končno vrednotenje programa Leader+, da oceni pogostost mrtvih izgub, vendar v obdobju tega programa ni bilo nobenega spremljanja ali zbiranja podatkov o tem.
52 BoX 19 EXTraCT froM THE syNTHEsIs of THE lEaDEr+ MID-TErM EValUaTIoN rEPorTs ‘Unbalanced partnership or unbalanced power relations in the LAG can lead to an inappropriate set of projects selected, often at the advantage of the institution belonging to the public sector. The composition of LAGs is often unbalanced and the institutional sector dominates.’ 
52 OkvIr 19 OdlOmek Iz sInteze POrOčIl O vmesnem vrednOtenjU leader+ neuravnoteženo partnerstvo ali neuravnotežena razmerja moči v Las lahko privedejo do neustreznega niza izbranih projektov, pogosto v korist ustanove iz javnega sektorja. sestava Las je pogosto neuravnotežena, v njej pa prevladuje institucionalni sektor.
‘The information in the [evaluation] reports and in the case studies has tended to concentrate on issues such as bureaucracy, relationships between managing authorities and LAGs, financing, and insufficient autonomy at LAG level. More fundamental management issues such as structures, management systems, planning and control at LAG level were not highlighted in the reports. Responses to the question also do not refer at all to the role of the [decision-making committees] in programme management.’ 
Informacije v poročilih (o vrednotenju) in študijah primerov so se večinoma nanašale na vprašanja, kot so birokracija, odnosi med organi upravljanja in Las, financiranje in premajhna avtonomnost na ravni Las. temeljnejša upravljavska vprašanja, kot so strukture, upravljavski sistemi, načrtovanje in nadzor na ravni Las, v poročilih niso bila omenjena. odgovori na vprašanja pri vrednotenju se prav tako ne sklicujejo na vlogo [organov odločanja] pri upravljanju programa. posebno poročilo št.
As already indicated in paragraphs 64 to 71, information on Leader operating costs was not comparable, not reliable and above all not complete as many functions were performed by the managing authorities in some Member States. The evaluations reported on the ‘excessive bureaucracy’ of Leader+35 but have not assessed the costs. Consequently, the efficiency of the Leader approach cannot be determined. monitoring and evaLuation in the 2007–13 period 112. 
Kot je bilo že navedeno v odstavkih 64 do 71, informacije o stroških poslovanja za program Leader niso bile primerljive ali zanesljive, predvsem pa niso bile celovite, saj so v nekaterih državah članicah številne funkcije opravljali organi upravljanja. poročila o vrednotenjih omenjajo „pretirano birokracijo“ programa Leader+ 35, vendar stroški niso ocenjeni. zato ni mogoče ugotoviti, kako uspešen je pristop Leader. sPremLjanje in vrednotenje v obdobjU 2007–2013 112.
The Commission and Member States should learn the lessons from the three previous Leader programming periods to ensure that efficient and effective monitoring and evaluation of the Leader approach is in place for the 2007–13 period. 
Komisija in države članice bi se morale iz izkušenj v prejšnjih treh programskih obdobjih Leader naučiti, kako zagotoviti učinkovito in uspešno spremljanje in vrednotenje pristopa Leader za obdobje 2007–2013.
Implementation of Axis 4 has started without key elements of the monitoring and evaluation systems being in place 113. The Leader+ mid-term evaluation synthesis report strongly recommended that monitoring and evaluation systems should be improved and needed to be in place from the start of the 2007–13 programming period36. 
4. os se je začela izvajati, ne da bi bili vzpostavljeni ključni elementi sistemov za spremljanje in vrednotenje 113. v sinteznem poročilu o vmesnem vrednotenju programa Leader+ je bilo izrecno priporočilo, da je treba sisteme za spremljanje in vrednotenje izboljšati in poskrbeti, da bodo vzpostavljeni že od začetka programskega obdobja 2007–201336.
The Commission established a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF) for the rural development programmes. This set some specific evaluation questions on Leader added value, improvement in governance and effectiveness, but reduced the monitoring indicators specific to Leader to the number of LAGs and the population in Leader areas, which the Commission considers as the baseline indicator for measuring the governance objective. 
Komisija je vzpostavila skupni okvir za spremljanje in vrednotenje programov razvoja podeželja, ki postavlja nekaj specifičnih vprašanj vrednotenja v zvezi z dodano vrednostjo programa Leader ter izboljšanjem vodenja in uspešnosti, vendar je omejil kazalnike spremljanja, značilne za program Leader, na število Las in prebivalstvo na območjih, kjer se izvaja program Leader.
35 Leader+ evaluation synthesis: ‘the mid-term evaluation reports repeatedly list: (i) excessive bureaucracy; (ii) difficult relationships between managing and other involved authorities on one side and LAGs and project promoters on the other; (iii) problems with raising co-funding; (iv) delays in financing; and (v) insufficient autonomy of the LAG. The consequence of these deficiencies has been a loss of management efficiency. 
35 sinteza vrednotenj Leader+: v poročilih o vmesnem vrednotenju so vedno znova navedeni: (i) pretirana birokracija; (ii) težavni odnosi med organi upravljanja in drugimi udeleženimi organi na eni strani ter Las in nosilci projektov na drugi; (iii) težave pri zagotavljanju sofinanciranja; (iv) zamude pri financiranju in (v) premajhna avtonomija Las. zaradi teh pomanjkljivosti je bilo upravljanje neučinkovito. pretirana birokracija, ki povzroča zamude pri financiranju projektov, se razume kot glavna težava pri upravljanju, ki zmanjšuje učinek in dejansko odvrača od nekaterih drugih zanimivih značilnosti programa Leader+.
36 ‘[InLeader+,]programme evaluation was not integrated at the design stage and essential evaluation features e.g. baseline data, were not sufficiently considered’. Recommendation: ‘The accompaniment of local action groups with a mix of external evaluation and assisted self-evaluation should be designed and put down in the programme’. 53 Special Report No 5/2010 — Implementation of the Leader approach for rural development 
36 pri Leader+ vrednotenje programa ni bilo ni bilo integrirano v fazi načrtovanja, bistvenih delov vrednotenja, npr. osnovnih podatkov, pa se ni dovolj upoštevalo. priporočilo: treba bi bilo načrtovati in vnesti v program, da lokalne akcijske skupine spremlja zmes zunanjega vrednotenja in samoocenjevanja ob pomoči. 53 posebno poročilo št.