natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
5 According to the Commission’s SFC2014 system, by 29.5.2015 there were 51 programming documents approved by the Commission and 67 programming documents still undergoing approval procedures. 
5 Na podlagi sistema SFC2014, ki ga uporablja Komisija, je ta do 29. maja 2015 odobrila 51 programskih dokumentov, 67 pa jih je bilo še v postopku odobritve.
Total EAFRD and public (EAFRD plus national co-financing) expenditure for NPI 2007-2013 (in euro) Source: European Commission SFC2007 system (May 2015). 
Skupni odhodki EKSRP in javni odhodki (EKSRP in nacionalno sofinanciranje) za neproduktivne naložbe v obdobju 2007–2013 (v EUR) Vir: Sistem SFC2007 Evropske komisije (maj 2015).
Measure Description Paid Programmed EAFRD Public EAFRD Public 216 Non‐productive investments 549 900 632 859 331 286 610 843 250 1 013 996 313 Table 1 
Ukrep Opis Plačano Načrtovano EKSRP Javna sredstva EKSRP Javna sredstva 216 Neproduktivne naložbe 549 900 632 859 331 286 610 843 250 1 013 996 313 Tabela 1
Audit scope and approach 10 The Court conducted an audit of the cost-effectiveness of NPIs in contributing to the EAFRD objective of a sustainable use of agricultural land in the 2007-2013 programming period, with a view to providing recommendations regarding the new programming period. 
Obseg revizije 13 in revizijski pristop 10 Sodišče je opravilo revizijo stroškovne učinkovitosti neproduktivnih naložb pri prispevanju k doseganju cilja EKSRP o trajnostni rabi kmetijskih zemljišč v programskem obdobju 2007–2013, da bi pripravilo priporočila za novo programsko obdobje.
This is so that Member States can take these recommendations into account in developing implementation rules and procedures which will govern their programmes, and so that the Commission can use them as well, in particular to improve its monitoring of the Member States’ management and control systems. 
Tako bodo lahko države članice upoštevale ta priporočila pri pripravi izvedbenih pravil in postopkov, ki se bodo uporabljali za njihove programe, Komisija pa jih bo lahko uporabila zlasti za izboljšanje svojega spremljanja upravljavskih in kontrolnih sistemov držav članic.
11 The audit focused on answering the following question: Have NPIs provided a cost-effective contribution to the sustainable use of agricultural land? 
11 Revizija je bila osredotočena na naslednje vprašanje: Ali so neproduktivne naložbe prispevale k trajnostni rabi kmetijskih zemljišč na stroškovno učinkovit način?
12 With regard to this, the Court’s report provides answers to the following sub-questions: — Have NPIs effectively contributed to the achievement of agri-environmental objectives linked to the sustainable use of agricultural land? 13 6 For the purpose of this report, Member State may be taken to mean the country or a region in that country. — Were the costs of the supported NPIs justified and reasonable? — Have the Commission and the Member States identified and corrected the weaknesses affecting the cost-effectiveness of NPIs in the 2007-2013 period in order to make improvements for the 2014-2020 period? 
12 V zvezi s tem poročilo Sodišča prinaša odgovore na naslednja podvprašanja: – Ali so neproduktivne naložbe uspešno prispevale k doseganju kmetijsko-okoljskih ciljev, povezanih s trajnostno rabo kmetijskih zemljišč? – Ali so bili stroški neproduktivnih naložb, ki so prejele podporo, upravičeni in razumni? – Ali so Komisija in države članice odkrile in popravile slabosti, ki so vplivale na stroškovno učinkovitost neproduktivnih naložb v obdobju 2007–2013, da bi zagotovile izboljšave za obdobje 2014–2020?
13 The audit was carried out between July 2014 and April 2015. 
13 Revizija je potekala med julijem 2014 in aprilom 2015.
The audit focused on the 2007-2013 programming period and covered the Member States’ management and control systems related to NPI support and a sample of 28 projects that reflected the most relevant NPIs in four Member States6: Portugal (Mainland), Denmark, United Kingdom (England) and Italy (Puglia) that represented 80 % of EAFRD expenditure and 60 % of the beneficiaries of measure 216 at the beginning of the audit (see Figure 2). 
Osredotočena je bila na programsko obdobje 2007–2013 ter je obsegala upravljavske in kontrolne sisteme držav članic, povezane s podporo za neproduktivne naložbe, in vzorec 28 projektov, ki so predstavljali najbolj relevantne neproduktivne naložbe v štirih državah članicah6: na Portugalskem (celina), Danskem, v Združenem kraljestvu (Anglija) in Italiji (Apulija), ki so na začetku revizije pomenili 80 % odhodkov EKSRP in 60 % upravičencev ukrepa 216 (glej diagram 2).
Audit scope and approach 14 2007-2013 programming period — Implemented EAFRD expenditure for NPI 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 Rural Development 2007-2013 - Support for NPIs Implemented EARFD funding (in million euro) 0 UK IT PT DK SE NL ES DE FR HU EE LT GR FI BE Source: European Commission SFC2007 system (March 2014). 
Obseg revizije in revizijski pristop 14 Programsko obdobje 2007–2013 – Izvršeni odhodki EKSRP za neproduktivne naložbe 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 Razvoj podeželja 2007–2013 – podpora za neproduktivne naložbe Izvršeno financiranje iz EKSRP (v milijonih EUR) 0 UK IT PT DK SE NL ES DE FR HU EE LT GR FI BE Vir: Sistem SFC2007 Evropske komisije (marec 2014).
14 Audit evidence was collected through documentary reviews and audit visits to Managing Authorities and beneficiaries in the audited Member States. 
14 Sodišče je revizijske dokaze zbralo s pregledi dokumentacije in revizijskimi obiski pri organih upravljanja in upravičencih v revidiranih državah članicah.
For the 28 audited NPI projects, the Court assessed their eligibility and complementarity with other agri-environment measures or objectives, and whether they actually contributed to addressing the identified agri-environmental needs at a reasonable cost. 
Sodišče je pri 28 revidiranih projektih neproduktivnih naložb ocenilo njihovo upravičenost in dopolnjevanje z drugimi kmetijsko-okoljskimi ukrepi ali cilji ter to, ali so dejansko prispevali k obravnavanju ugotovljenih kmetijsko-okoljskih potreb po razumni ceni.
The results of this assessment are presented in Annex II. 
Rezultati te ocene so prikazani v Prilogi II.
Figure 2 
Diagram 2
Observations 15 The Court found indications of effective NPI support, despite weaknesses in the selection procedures and the monitoring tools 15 The Court reviewed the management and control systems of the audited Member States and applied the following criteria in order to assess whether NPI support contributed effectively to the sustainable use of agricultural land: — Member States should clearly identify their specific agri-environment needs as regards the sustainable use of agricultural land and the types of NPI that would contribute to addressing those needs. 
Opažanja 15 Sodišče je ugotovilo, da je bila podpora za neproduktivne naložbe kljub slabostim v izbirnih postopkih in orodjih za spremljanje uspešna 15 Sodišče je pregledalo upravljavske in kontrolne sisteme revidiranih držav članic in za oceno, ali je podpora za neproduktivne naložbe uspešno prispevala k trajnostni rabi kmetijskih zemljišč, uporabilo naslednja merila: – države članice bi morale jasno opredeliti svoje posebne kmetijsko-okoljske potrebe v zvezi s trajnostno rabo kmetijskih zemljišč in vrste neproduktivnih naložb, ki bi prispevale k obravnavanju teh potreb.
Given that NPIs should complement other relevant agri-environment measures and/or objectives, Member States should ensure this complementarity by explicitly linking NPI support to those measures and/or objectives. — Member States should effectively apply project selection criteria to direct the available funding to the identified types of NPI, while ensuring transparency and compliance with the applicable legislation. — Member States should monitor project implementation and assess whether the supported NPIs contributed to achieving the defined environmental objectives. 
Glede na to, da bi morale neproduktivne naložbe dopolnjevati druge zadevne kmetijsko-okoljske ukrepe in/ali cilje, bi morale države članice to dopolnjevanje zagotoviti tako, da bi podporo za neproduktivne naložbe izrecno vezale na te ukrepe in/ali cilje, – države članice bi morale uspešno uporabljati merila za izbiro projektov, da bi razpoložljivo financiranje usmerile v opredeljene vrste neproduktivnih naložb, hkrati pa zagotovile preglednost in skladnost z veljavno zakonodajo, – države članice bi morale spremljati izvajanje projektov in oceniti, ali so neproduktivne naložbe, ki so prejele podporo, prispevale k doseganju opredeljenih okoljskih ciljev.
An intervention logic illustrating these criteria is presented in Figure 3. 
Obrazložitev intervencije, ki ponazarja ta merila, je prikazana na diagramu 3.
16 In addition to this assessment of the management systems, the Court reviewed a sample of 28 NPI projects (see paragraph 13), the Member States’ RDPs and relevant monitoring data and evaluation reports. 
16 Poleg te ocene upravljavskih sistemov je Sodišče pregledalo vzorec 28 projektov neproduktivnih naložb (glej odstavek 13), programe razvoja podeželja držav članic ter zadevne podatke o spremljanju in poročila o vrednotenju.
Intervention logic of NPI within the scope of the 2007-2013 programming period Identification of types Identification of needs of investments that are and definition of objectives coherent and linked to needs and objectives Assessment of the contribution and synergistic role of NPIs in complementing other measures and objectives Figure 3 
Obrazložitev neproduktivne naložbe kot intervencije v okviru področja uporabe programskega obdobja 2007–2013 Ugotovitev potreb in opredelitev ciljev Ugotovitev vrst naložb, ki so skladne in povezane s potrebami in cilji Ocena prispevka in sinergijske vloge neproduktivnih naložb pri dopolnjevanju drugih ukrepov in ciljev Diagram 3
Observations 16 Despite the broad definition of agri-environment needs, Member States targeted the aid by restricting the types of NPI eligible for funding 17 In order to be effective, NPI support must be targeted to address specific agri-environment needs related to the sustainable use of agricultural land. 
Opažanja 16 Države članice so kljub široki opredelitvi kmetijsko-okoljskih potreb usmerile pomoč tako, da so omejile vrste neproduktivnih naložb, upravičenih do financiranja 17 Da bi bila podpora za neproduktivne naložbe uspešna, mora biti usmerjena tako, da obravnava posebne kmetijsko-okoljske potrebe, povezane s trajnostno rabo kmetijskih zemljišč.
The Court found that, although all Member States defined their agri-environment needs in broad terms, they mitigated the risk of untargeted support by restricting the NPI types eligible for funding. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da so vse države članice opredelile svoje kmetijsko-okoljske potrebe na splošno, vendar so zmanjšale tveganje za neusmerjeno podporo tako, da so omejile vrste neproduktivnih naložb, ki so upravičene do financiranja.
A summary of agri-environment needs and objectives, and types of NPI observed in each audited Member State, are presented in Annex III. 
Povzetek kmetijsko-okoljskih potreb in ciljev ter vrst neproduktivnih naložb, ki so bili ugotovljene v revidiranih državah članicah, je v Prilogi III.
It shows that there is indeed overall consistency between the type of NPIs selected by Member States and the agri-environment needs described in their RDPs. 
Iz njega je razvidno, da dejansko obstaja splošna skladnost med vrstami neproduktivnih naložb, ki so jih izbrale države članice, in kmetijsko-okoljskimi potrebami, ki so jih navedle v svojih programih razvoja podeželja.
18 When considering the financial allocation of public support, two Member States have targeted the aid further, mainly to projects related to landscape maintenance and protection. 
18 Pri finančni dodelitvi javne podpore sta dve državi članici pomoč še dodatno usmerili, zlasti v projekte, povezane z ohranjanjem in varstvom krajine.
In the case of Portugal, 89 % of NPI support regarded the restoration of traditional dry-stone walls supporting terraced vineyards in the Douro valley. 
V primeru Portugalske se je 89 % podpore za neproduktivne naložbe nanašalo na obnovo tradicionalnih suhih zidov, ki podpirajo terasaste vinograde v dolini reke Douro.
In the case of Italy (Puglia), 97 % of public support to NPIs concerned the restoration of traditional dry-stone walls that constitute a characteristic of the regional farming systems and of the landscape. 
V Italiji (Apulija) je bilo 97 % javne podpore za neproduktivne naložbe namenjeno obnovi tradicionalnih suhih zidov, ki so značilni za regionalne kmetijske sisteme in krajino.
These are examples of a clear choice of concentrating NPI support to address an agri-environment need. 
To sta primera jasne odločitve o osredotočanju podpore za neproduktivne naložbe na obravnavanje kmetijsko-okoljskih potreb.
All four audited Member States referred to the complementarity of NPI support, but only two applied it at operational level to foster synergies with other support schemes 19 The EAFRD regulation provided NPIs with a complementary role (see paragraphs 3 and 4), but granted Member States the discretion to choose the level at which this complementarity should occur. 
Vse štiri revidirane države članice so omenile dopolnjevanje podpore za neproduktivne naložbe, vendar sta ga le dve izvajali na operativni ravni, da bi spodbudili sinergije z drugimi shemami podpore 19 Z uredbo EKSRP je bila neproduktiv-nim naložbam zagotovljena dopolnilna vloga (glej odstavka 3 in 4), vendar so države članice dobile diskrecijsko pravico, da same izberejo, na kateri stopnji bodo izvajale dopolnjevanje.
The audit found references to complementarity in all Member States audited, but only in two — Portugal (Mainland) and UK (England) — was this complementarity defined at an operational level to actually foster synergies between different environmental support schemes. 
Pri reviziji je bilo ugotovljeno, da so vse revidirane države članice omenile dopolnjevanje, toda le dve – Portugalska (celina) in Združeno kraljestvo (Anglija) – sta to dopolnjevanje določili na operativni ravni, da bi dejansko spodbudili sinergije med različnimi okoljskimi shemami podpore.
In particular, these latter Member States had integrated NPI support with the EAFRD measure 214, ‘Agri-environment payments’, to the extent that the access to NPI support required the existence of an agri-environment commitment linked to rural development measure 214. 
Podporo za neproduktivne naložbe sta vezali na ukrep 214 EKSRP „kmetijsko-okoljska plačila“, in sicer do te mere, da je bil dostop do podpore za neproduktivne naložbe mogoč le ob kmetijsko-okoljski zavezi, povezani z ukrepom 214 za razvoj podeželja.
20 On the other hand, Denmark and Italy (Puglia) defined complementarity in less practical and vaguer terms, since NPI support was linked to general agri-environment objectives defined in their RDPs (e.g. landscape preservation and natural resource protection) that were shared by other EAFRD measures of Axis 2 (see Figure 1). 
20 Po drugi strani pa sta Danska in Italija (Apulija) določili dopolnjevanje v manj praktičnem in ohlapnejšem smislu, saj sta podporo za neproduktivne naložbe vezali na splošne kmetijsko-okoljske cilje, opredeljene v njunih programih razvoja podeželja (npr. ohranjanje krajine in varstvo naravnih virov), ki so bili skupni tudi drugim ukrepom EKSRP iz osi 2 (glej sliko 1).
However, cross measure complementarity was not developed. 
Vendar pa navzkrižno dopolnjevanje med ukrepi ni bilo razvito.
Box 2 shows examples of synergies and vague complementarity of NPI support. 
Okvir 2 prikazuje primere sinergij in ohlapnega dopolnjevanja podpore za neproduktivne naložbe.
Observations 17 Examples of complementarity with other measures/objectives In Portugal (Mainland), NPI schemes supporting the restoration of dry-stone walls in the Douro Valley require applicants to be beneficiaries of measure 214 agri-environment payments. 
Opažanja 17 Primeri dopolnjevanja z drugimi ukrepi/cilji Na Portugalskem (celina) so sheme za neproduktivne naložbe, ki podpirajo obnovo suhih zidov v dolini reke Douro, zahtevale, da so prosilci hkrati tudi upravičenci do ukrepa 214 „kmetijsko-okoljska plačila“.
Under measure 214, beneficiaries receive financial support for undertaking a number of agri-environmental commitments. 
V okviru ukrepa 214 upravičenci prejmejo finančno podporo za izvedbo številnih kmetijsko-okoljskih zavez.
One of these commitments is to maintain the existing dry-stone walls of their agricultural holding in good condition for a minimum period of 5 years. 
Ena od teh zavez je, da bodo obstoječe suhe zidove na svojih kmetijskih gospodarstvih vzdrževali v dobrem stanju še vsaj pet let.
In such cases, NPI support for the restoration of dry-stone walls complements the commitment requiring their maintenance, and both measures combined contribute to the objective of keeping an important landscape feature in that region in good condition. 
V takih primerih pomoč za neproduktivne naložbe za obnovo suhih zidov dopolnjuje zavezo v zvezi z njihovim vzdrževanjem, oba ukrepa skupaj pa prispevata k cilju ohranjanja pomembne značilnosti krajine v tej regiji v dobrem stanju.
In the case of the United Kingdom (England), Environmental Stewardship is a voluntary scheme that offers payments (financed under rural development measure 214) to land managers who commit to manage their land for the benefit of agri-environment objectives. 
Združeno kraljestvo (Anglija) je uvedlo prostovoljno shemo, imenovano okoljsko upravljanje (Environmental Stewardship), ki ponuja plačila (financirana v okviru ukrepa 214 za razvoj podeželja) upravljavcem zemljišč, ki se zavežejo, da bodo svoja zemljišča upravljali v korist kmetijsko-okoljskih ciljev.
This scheme is composed of different tiers with increasing requirements; one of those tiers, High-Level Stewardship (HLS) includes the possibility of financing certain types of capital works (e.g. restoration of landscapes and features or traditional boundaries) to be undertaken by beneficiaries. 
Ena teh stopenj, napredno okoljsko upravljanje (High-Level Stewardship), vključuje možnost financiranja nekaterih vrst kapitalskih naložb (npr. obnova krajine in značilnosti ali tradicionalnih mej), ki naj bi jih izvedli upravičenci.
NPI support provides the financing of these capital works. 
Podpora za neproduktivne naložbe zagotavlja financiranje za te kapitalske naložbe.
In the case of Italy (Puglia) and Denmark, NPI support was linked to the achievement of general agri-environment objectives that were defined for the whole of Axis 2, such as protection of rural landscapes and maintaining biodiversity and was not limited to specific areas identified as having particular environmental value. 
V Italija (Apulija) in na Danskem je bila podpora za neproduktivne naložbe vezana na doseganje splošnih kmetijsko-okoljskih ciljev, ki so bili določeni za celotno os 2, kot sta varstvo podeželske krajine in ohranjanje biotske raznovrstnosti, in ni bila omejena na posebna področja, opredeljena kot območja posebnega okoljskega pomena.
In the case of Italy (Puglia), the beneficiaries for the support are only required to develop a farming activity, whilst in the case of Denmark any private or public legal persons, including owners or tenants of agricultural land, may be a beneficiary except for the sub-measure for the acquisition of land for the creation of wetlands, for which the Danish state was the beneficiary. 
V Italiji (Apulija) morajo upravičenci za podporo le razviti kmetijsko dejavnost, na Danskem pa je lahko upravičenec za podporo vsaka zasebna ali javna pravna oseba, vključno z lastniki ali najemniki kmetijskih zemljišč, razen v primeru podukrepa za pridobitev zemljišč za ustvarjanje mokrišč, za katerega je upravičenka država Danska.
21 The Court considers that the choice of integrating NPI support with other rural development measures, such as measure 214, provided for a potentially stronger link with already existing agri-environment commitments and therefore encourages a stronger synergy effect for the achievement of agri-environment objectives. 
21 Sodišče meni, da je odločitev, da se podpora za neproduktivne naložbe poveže z drugimi ukrepi za razvoj podeželja, kot je ukrep 214, omogočila potencialno močnejšo povezavo z že obstoječimi kmetijsko-okoljskimi zavezami, zato spodbuja močnejši učinek sinergije za doseganje kmetijsko-okoljskih ciljev.
22 However, this integration of measures also causes a risk of overlapping support if the activities to be funded under each measure are not clearly demarcated. 
22 Vendar pa to povezovanje ukrepov povzroča tudi tveganje prekrivanja podpore, če dejavnosti, ki se financirajo v okviru posameznega ukrepa, niso jasno ločene.
This was the case in Portugal (Mainland), where the support under measure 214 Agri-environment payments included amounts for the maintenance/restoration of portions of dry-stone walls that were in need of restoration (bad condition). 
To se je zgodilo na Portugalskem (celina), kjer je podpora v okviru ukrepa 214 „kmetijsko-okoljska plačila“ vključevala zneske za vzdrževanje/obnovo delov suhih zidov, ki so bili potrebni obnove (ki so bili v slabem stanju).
As a consequence, payments under measure 214 related to the maintenance commitment could include both, walls which had to be maintained, and restored. 
Zaradi tega so plačila v okviru ukrepa 214, ki so se nanašala na obvezo vzdrževanja, lahko vključevala oboje, tj. zidove, ki jih je bilo treba vzdrževati, in tiste, ki jih je bilo treba obnoviti.
This means that the aid intensity of support for the reconstruction of some dry-stone walls could objectively exceed 100 %. 
To pomeni, da je intenzivnost pomoči pri podpori za obnovo nekaterih suhih zidov objektivno lahko presegala 100 %.
The Court found four such cases in the six projects visited in Portugal. 
Sodišče je pri šestih projektih, ki jih je obiskalo na Portugalskem, odkrilo štiri take primere.
Box 2 Observations 18 23 Overall, the choice made by the Member States to implement NPI support was reflected in the sample of projects visited by the Court, where 16 of the 28 visited projects were implemented in synergy with other rural development measures, and a majority of projects (21 of 28) was considered to be complementary to other agri-environment objectives. 
Opažanja 18 23 Na splošno se je odločitev držav članic o izvajanju podpore za neproduktivne naložbe odražala v vzorcu projektov, ki jih je obiskalo Sodišče, saj je bilo 16 od 28 obiskanih projektov izvedenih v sinergiji z drugimi ukrepi za razvoj podeželja, večina (21 od 28) projektov pa je štela kot dopolnjevanje drugih kmetijsko-okoljskih ciljev.
See Annex II for details. 
Za podrobnosti glej Prilogo II.
Weaknesses in the audited Member States’ selection procedures led to NPIs being supported that were ineligible, or whose selection was insufficiently justified 24 Member States must direct scarce public money to those project proposals that best meet national or regional needs, while respecting the applicable regulations and the principles of equal access and transparency. 
Zaradi slabosti v izbirnih postopkih revidiranih držav članic so podporo prejele neproduktivne naložbe, ki do nje niso bile upravičene ali katerih izbira ni bila dovolj utemeljena 24 Države članice morajo omejena javna sredstva usmeriti v tiste projektne predloge, ki najbolje obravnavajo nacionalne ali regionalne potrebe, hkrati pa izpolnjujejo veljavne predpise in načela enakega dostopa in preglednosti.
The Court reviewed the selection procedures in place in the audited Member States and found, in all but one, weaknesses concerning these aspects. 
Sodišče je v revidiranih državah članicah pregledalo vzpostavljene izbirne postopke in v vseh razen v eni ugotovilo slabosti v zvezi s temi vidiki.
Examples are provided in Box 3. 
Primeri so navedeni v okviru 3.