natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, the FAS, which are an essential instrument to ensure implementation of IPM will continue in the future CAP addressing all the general IPM principles. 
Sistem kmetijskega svetovanja, ki je poglavitni instrument za zagotavljanje, da se izvaja integrirano varstvo rastlin pred škodljivimi organizmi, pa se bo v prihodnji SKP nadaljeval in obravnaval vsa splošna načela integriranega varstva rastlin pred škodljivimi organizmi.
The Commission has set up a working group to assess the data requirements and assessment principles with a view to updating them to facilitate the approval of such active substances. 
Komisija je ustanovila delovno skupino za oceno zahtev glede podatkov in načel ocenjevanja, da bi jih posodobila in s tem olajšala odobritev takih aktivnih snovi.
A further reason is that such PPPs include co-formulants that meet the definition of a substance of concern, which excludes the PPP from being considered low-risk. 
Drugi razlog je, da taka fitofarmacevtska sredstva vsebujejo dodatke, ki ustrezajo opredelitvi problematične snovi, zaradi česar se fitofarmacevtsko sredstvo ne šteje za fitofarmacevtsko sredstvo z majhnim tveganjem.
The Commission notes that figure 7 indicates that in the Netherlands and France the deadlines specified in the PPP Regulation are not respected. 
Komisija ugotavlja, da je s slike 7 razvidno, da se na Nizozemskem in v Franciji niso upoštevali roki iz uredbe o fitofarmacevtskih sredstvih.
There are significant differences between the Member States and the Commission has actually delivered on all actions attributed to it in the Implementation Plan. 
Med državami članicami so velike razlike, Komisija pa je dejansko realizirala vse ukrepe, ki so ji bili dodeljeni v izvedbenem načrtu.
This is demonstrated in the progress report presented to the AGRIFISH Council in July 2019. 
To je razvidno iz poročila o napredku, ki je bilo julija 2019 predloženo Svetu za kmetijstvo in ribištvo.
Several of the substances no longer approved for use in PPPs that are still monitored in surface waters have only recently been disallowed and/or are still found there because of their persistence, illegal use, deposition from the atmosphere or leaching from landfills/dumps. 
Številne snovi, ki niso več odobrene za uporabo v fitofarmacevtskih sredstvih in se še vedno spremljajo v površinskih vodah, so bile prepovedane šele nedavno in/ali so še vedno v površinskih vodah zaradi obstojnosti, nezakonite uporabe, odlaganja iz ozračja ali izpiranja z odlagališč.
A few are still produced in, or used for, other, e.g. industrial, processes. 
Nekaj se jih še vedno proizvaja in uporablja v drugih, npr. industrijskih, procesih.
In groundwater, Member States are obliged to monitor all relevant active substances in pesticides, including their metabolites, degradation and reaction products, and the concentrations have to be compared with quality standards for individual and total pesticides. 
Države članice morajo v podzemni vodi spremljati vse ustrezne aktivne snovi v pesticidih, vključno z njihovimi metaboliti, razkrojem in reakcijskimi produkti, koncentracije pa je treba primerjati s standardi kakovosti za posamezne in skupne pesticide.
The individual and total pesticide quality standards in the Groundwater Directive are also found in the Drinking Water Directive. 
Standardi kakovosti za posamezne in skupne pesticide iz direktive o podzemni vodi so navedeni tudi v direktivi o pitni vodi.
Monitoring under that Directive can also provide information on the environmental impact of PPP use. 
S spremljanjem v skladu z navedeno direktivo se lahko zagotovijo tudi informacije o vplivu uporabe fitofarmacevtskih sredstev na okolje.
The Commission is constrained by the statistical legislation in force concerning data confidentiality and aggregation. 
Komisijo omejuje veljavna statistična zakonodaja o zaupnosti in združevanju podatkov.
The Commission communicated the weaknesses linked the availability of statistics in its report to the European Parliament and the Council6 in 2017. 
Leta 2017 je v svojem poročilu Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu6 sporočila slabosti, povezane z razpoložljivostjo statističnih podatkov.
Immediately after the adoption of the Directive in 2009, efforts were undertaken to develop different indicators. 
Takoj po sprejetju direktive leta 2009 so se začela prizadevanja za razvoj raznih kazalnikov.
For example, EU-funded projects such as the project on harmonised environmental indicators for pesticide risk (HAIR) aimed at developing EU-wide indicators to measure the risk and impact of PPP use. 
Na primer projekti, ki jih je financirala EU, kot je projekt o usklajenih okoljskih kazalnikih za tveganje zaradi pesticidov (HAIR), so bili namenjeni razvoju kazalnikov na ravni EU za merjenje tveganja in vpliva uporabe fitofarmacevtskih sredstev.
However, these efforts were unsuccessful due to the lack of availability of the required data. 
Vendar ta prizadevanja zaradi pomanjkanja dostopnosti potrebnih podatkov niso bila uspešna.
At the early stages of the consultations with the Member States (in a specific Working Group and in the SUD Working Group) some Member States raised concerns regarding the weightings. 
V zgodnji fazi posvetovanj z državami članicami (v posebni delovni skupini in delovni skupini o direktivi o trajnostni rabi pesticidov) so nekatere države članice izrazile pomisleke glede ponderjev.
However, during the broader consultation through the feedback mechanism no substantive objections were raised and at the moment of voting there was a clear qualified majority for the proposed weightings, with only two Member States voting against. 
Vendar med širšim posvetovanjem prek mehanizma povratnih informacij ni bilo vsebinskih ugovorov, med glasovanjem pa je bila dosežena jasna kvalificirana večina za predlagane ponderje, pri čemer sta le dve državi članici glasovali proti.
In the subsequent scrutiny period Council and Parliament did not submit any objections to the proposed weightings. 
Svet in Evropski parlament v naslednjem obdobju podrobnega pregleda predlaganim ponderjem nista ugovarjala.
Substances are no longer approved due to risks to health and/or the environment as identified in a scientific assessment (Member States and EFSA). 
Snovi niso več odobrene zaradi tveganj za zdravje in/ali okolje, opredeljenih v znanstveni oceni (države članice in Evropska agencija za varnost hrane).
The non-approval and subsequent discontinuation of their use contributes objectively to a reduction in risks. 
Neodobritev in posledično prenehanje njihove uporabe objektivno prispevata k zmanjšanju tveganj.
Therefore, a conscious policy decision was made to attribute a high weighting to these substances. 
Zato je bila sprejeta zavestna odločitev politike, da se tem snovem pripiše visok ponder.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 64. 
ZAKLJUČKI IN PRIPOROČILA 64.
The Commission has also calculated a 20 % reduction between 2011 and 2017 in the Harmonised Risk Indicator I. 66. 
Komisija je izračunala tudi, da se je usklajeni kazalnik tveganja I med letoma 2011 in 2017 zmanjšal za 20 %. 66.
Member State authorities shall ensure that professional users comply with this requirement. 
Organi držav članic zagotovijo, da poklicni uporabniki izpolnjujejo to zahtevo.
In order to decide on compliance or non-compliance, Member State authorities should have clear assessment criteria. 
Organi držav članic bi morali imeti jasna ocenjevalna merila za sprejemanje odločitev o skladnosti ali neskladnosti.
In line with the subsidiarity principle, converting general principles of IPM into practical criteria is the responsibility of Member States, and the Commission will continue to support Member States in this regard. 
V skladu z načelom subsidiarnosti so za preoblikovanje splošnih načel integriranega varstva rastlin pred škodljivimi organizmi v praktična merila odgovorne države članice, Komisija pa jim bo pri tem še naprej zagotavljala podporo.
The current CAP contributes to the implementation of the Directive. 
Sedanja SKP prispeva k izvajanju direktive.
Cross-compliance, farm advisory systems, greening of direct payments, operational programmes for fruits and vegetables, organic production, agri-environmental and climate measures, investments, support to research, knowledge exchanges and advice, all of which can help in this respect. 
Pri tem lahko pomagajo navzkrižna skladnost, sistemi kmetijskega svetovanja, ekologizacija neposrednih plačil, operativni programi za sadje in zelenjavo, ekološka pridelava, kmetijsko-okoljsko-podnebni ukrepi, naložbe, podpora raziskavam, izmenjave znanja in svetovanje.
As proposed by the Commission, the future CAP will further strengthen this contribution. 
V skladu s predlogom Komisije se bo s prihodnjo SKP ta prispevek še dodatno okrepil.
The future conditionality will newly cover the relevant provisions of the Directive, including the general principles of IPM, which were identified as fit for this instrument. 
Prihodnja pogojenost bo na novo zajemala ustrezne določbe direktive, vključno s splošnimi načeli integriranega varstva rastlin pred škodljivimi organizmi, ki so bila opredeljena kot primerna za ta instrument.
Conditionality will raise awareness of farmers to adopt these practices through a risk of reduction of CAP payments. 
S pogojenostjo se bo okrepila ozaveščenost kmetov, da bodo sprejeli te prakse, in sicer s tveganjem zmanjšanja plačil iz SKP.
This will be complemented by supported interventions voluntary for farmers (e.g. eco-schemes, management commitments, etc.), which will be developed by Member States in a consistent way in CAP Plans that will be approved by the Commission. 
To bo dopolnjeno s podporo ukrepom, ki so za kmete prostovoljni (npr. ekosheme, obveznosti upravljanja itd.), države članice pa jih bodo dosledno pripravile v načrtih SKP, ki jih bo odobrila Komisija.
This has the potential to, where Member States see the need , develop CAP schemes supporting sustainable use of pesticides going beyond the mere legal framework. 
Če države članice menijo, da je to potrebno, se lahko razvijejo sheme SKP, ki podpirajo trajnostno rabo pesticidov, ki presegajo pravni okvir.
Recommendation 1 - Enable IPM enforcement The Commission accepts recommendation 1 (a). 
5 Komisija sprejema priporočilo 1(a).
The Commission partially accepts recommendation 1 (b). 
Komisija delno sprejema priporočilo 1(b).
The Commission’s legal proposal for a future CAP includes those general IPM principles corresponding to requirements that are measurable and which can be checked at farm level (see reply to paragraph 34). 
Zakonodajni predlog Komisije za prihodnjo SKP vključuje tista splošna načela integriranega varstva rastlin pred škodljivimi organizmi, ki ustrezajo zahtevam, ki jih je mogoče meriti in preveriti na ravni kmetij (glej odgovor na odstavek 34).
The extent to which the Commission will verify the implementation by farmers of these criteria will be further specified in the context of the future CAP. 
Obseg, v katerem bo Komisija preverila, kako kmetje izvajajo ta merila, bo podrobneje opredeljen v okviru prihodnje SKP.
Recommendation 2 – Improve access to PPP statistics The Commission accepts recommendations 2a and 2b. EN EN 5 
Priporočilo 2 – Izboljšati dostop do statističnih podatkov o fitofarmacevtskih sredstvih Komisija sprejema priporočili 2(a) in 2(b).
EN EN The Commission is exploring the possibilities of improving legislation in this respect. However, whether legislation will be proposed is not known at the time of this report. 
Komisija proučuje možnosti za izboljšanje zakonodaje v zvezi s tem, vendar v času priprave tega poročila ni znano, ali bo zakonodajni predlog vložen.
The published Harmonised Risk Indicator I shows a 20 % reduction between 2011 and 2017. 
Iz objavljenega usklajenega kazalnika tveganja I je razvidno 20-odstotno zmanjšanje med letoma 2011 in 2017.
The Commission considers that other relevant data than statistics are needed in order to take into account detailed information about “how, when and where” pesticides are used. 
Komisija meni, da so poleg statističnih podatkov potrebni še drugi ustrezni podatki, da bi se upoštevale podrobne informacije o tem, kako, kdaj in kje se pesticidi uporabljajo.
Only data from more targeted monitoring, or research studies, can give these kind of details. 
Tovrstne podrobnosti se lahko zagotovijo le s podatki iz bolj usmerjenega spremljanja ali raziskovalnih študij.
Recommendation 3 – Develop better risk indicators The Commission partially accepts recommendation3. 
Priporočilo 3 – Razviti boljše kazalnike tveganja Komisija delno sprejema priporočilo 3.
The audit was led by ECA Member Samo Jereb, supported by Kathrine Henderson, Head of Private Office; Robert Markus, Principal Manager; Charlotta Törneling, Head of Task; Päivi Piki, Deputy Head of Task; Greta Kapustaitė, Antonella Stasia, Paulo Oliveira and Dainora Venckevičienė, Auditors. 
Revizijo je vodil član Evropskega računskega sodišča Samo Jereb, pri njej pa so sodelovali vodja njegovega kabineta Kathrine Henderson, vodilni upravni uslužbenec Robert Markus, vodja naloge Charlotta Törneling, namestnica vodje naloge Päivi Piki ter revizorji Greta Kapustaitė, Antonella Stasia, Paulo Oliveira in Dainora Venckevičienė.
From left to right: Antonella Stasia, Michael Pyper, Kathrine Henderson, Samo Jereb, Charlotta Törneling, Paulo Oliveira, Päivi Piki, Dainora Venckevičienė. 
Od leve proti desni: Antonella Stasia, Michael Pyper, Kathrine Henderson, Samo Jereb, Charlotta Törneling, Paulo Oliveira, Päivi Piki, Dainora Venckevičienė.
Timeline Event Date Adoption of Audit Planning Memorandum (APM) / Start of audit 23.1.2019 Official sending of draft report to Commission (or other auditee) 11.10.2019 Adoption of the final report after the adversarial procedure 4.12.2019 Commission’s (or other auditee’s) official replies received in all languages 21.1.2020 
Časovnica Dogodek Datum Sprejetje revizijskega memoranduma/začetek revizije 23. januar 2019 Uradno posredovanje osnutka poročila Komisiji (ali drugemu revidirancu) 11. oktober 2019 Sprejetje končnega poročila po razčiščevalnem postopku 4. december 2019 Prejeti uradni odgovori Komisije (ali drugih revidirancev) v vseh jezikih 21. januar 2020
COPYRIGHT © European Union, 2020. 
AVTORSKE PRAVICE © Evropska unija, 2020.
The reuse policy of the European Court of Auditors (ECA) is implemented by the Decision of the European Court of Auditors No 6-2019 on the open data policy and the reuse of documents. 
Politika Evropskega računskega sodišča (Sodišča) glede ponovne uporabe se izvaja s sklepom Decision of the European Court of Auditors No 6-2019 o politiki odprtih podatkov in ponovni uporabi dokumentov.
Unless otherwise indicated (e.g. in individual copyright notices), the ECA’s content owned by the EU is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. This means that reuse is allowed, provided appropriate credit is given and changes are indicated. 
Če ni drugače navedeno (npr. v posameznih obvestilih o avtorskih pravicah), so vsebine Sodišča, ki so v lasti EU, pod licenco Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) To pomeni, da je ponovna uporaba dovoljena, če se ustrezno navede vir in označijo spremembe.
The reuser must not distort the original meaning or message of the documents. 
Oseba, ki dokumente ponovno uporabi, ne sme potvoriti njihovega prvotnega pomena ali sporočila.
The ECA shall not be liable for any consequences of reuse. 
Sodišče ni odgovorno za morebitne posledice ponovne uporabe.
Where permission is obtained, such permission shall cancel the above-mentioned general permission and shall clearly indicate any restrictions on use. To use or reproduce content that is not owned by the EU, you may need to seek permission directly from the copyright holders: Figure 1: © Agriculture and Agri Food Canada (AAFC), Open Government Licence-Canada (OGL-Canada). 
Za uporabo in prikazovanje vsebin, katerih lastnica ni EU, je morda treba pridobiti dovoljenje neposredno od imetnikov avtorskih pravic: Slika 1: © Agriculture and Agri Food Canada (ministrstvo za kmetijstvo in kmetijska živila Kanade), licenca Open Government Licence-Canada (OGL-Canada) Programska oprema ali dokumenti, za katere veljajo pravice industrijske lastnine, kot so patenti, blagovne znamke, registrirani modeli, logotipi in imena, niso vključeno v politiko Sodišča glede ponovne uporabe in zanje nimate licence.
The European Union’s family of institutional Web Sites, within the europa.eu domain, provides links to third-party sites. 
Na spletiščih institucij Evropske unije znotraj domene europa.eu so povezave do spletišč tretjih oseb.
Use of European Court of Auditors’ logo The European Court of Auditors logo must not be used without the European Court of Auditors’ prior consent. 
Uporaba logotipa Evropskega računskega sodišča Logotip Sodišča se ne sme uporabiti brez njegove predhodne privolitve.
PDF ISBN: 978-92-847-4206-6 ISSN:1977-5679 doi:10.2865/349084 QJ-AB-19-026-EN-N HTML ISBN: 978-92-847-4210-3 ISSN:1977-5679 doi:10.2865/35945 QJ-AB-19-026-EN-Q 
PDF ISBN: 978-92-847-4205-9 ISSN:1977-5784 doi:10.2865/172406 QJ-AB-19-026-SL-N HTML ISBN: 978-92-847-4202-8 ISSN:1977-5784 doi:10.2865/737881 QJ-AB-19-026-SL-Q
Plant protection products (PPPs) are pesticides used to protect crops. 
Fitofarmacevtska sredstva so pesticidi, ki se uporabljajo za zaščito pridelkov.
The EU framework aims to achieve sustainable use of PPPs by reducing risks and impacts on human health and environment and promoting integrated pest management. 
Cilj okvira EU je doseganje trajnostne rabe fitofarmacevtskih sredstev z zmanjševanjem tveganj in vplivov na zdravje ljudi in okolje ter spodbujanjem integriranega varstva rastlin pred škodljivimi organizmi.
We found that the Commission and Member States have taken action to promote the sustainable use of PPPs but there has been limited progress in measuring and reducing the associated risks. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da so Komisija in države članice sprejele ukrepe za spodbujanje trajnostne rabe fitofarmacevtskih sredstev, vendar je napredek pri merjenju in zmanjševanju s tem povezanih tveganj omejen.
Applying integrated pest management is compulsory for farmers, but not a requirement for receiving payments under the common agricultural policy and enforcement is weak. 
Uporaba integriranega varstva rastlin pred škodljivimi organizmi je za kmete obvezna, vendar to ni zahteva, ki jo je treba izpolnjevati za prejemanje plačil v okviru skupne kmetijske politike, izvrševanje pa je šibko.
Available EU statistics and new risk indicators do not show how successful the policy has been in achieving a sustainable use of PPPs. 
Iz razpoložljivih statističnih podatkov EU in novih kazalnikov tveganja ni razvidno, kako uspešna je politika pri doseganju trajnostne rabe fitofarmacevtskih sredstev.
EN 2020 06 Sustainable Urban Mobility in the EU: No substantial improvement is possible without Member States’ commitment Special Report 
SL 2020 06 Trajnostna mobilnost v mestih v EU: bistvenega izboljšanja ni mogoče doseči brez zavezanosti držav članic Posebno poročilo
Contents Executive summary Introduction Sustainable urban mobility and its importance The role of the Commission Available funds for urban mobility Audit scope and approach Observations The step change in sustainable urban mobility has not materialised Paragraph I-X 01-12 01-06 07-08 09-12 13-16 17-69 17-30 18-20 21-23 24-26 27-30 31-56 32-35 36-40 41-56 57-69 58-59 60-69 There is no evidence of a clear trend towards more sustainable modes of transport Air quality has improved in urban nodes, but pollution still exceeds safe levels Urban mobility is deteriorating for road users due to congestion The coverage and accessibility of public transport within cities has been improving The Commission intensified its support but a range of factors limited progress towards sustainable urban mobility The Commission developed policies and issued guidelines, although these have not always been followed by Member States More EU funds were allocated to sustainable urban mobility in 2014-2020, but a SUMP is not usually a condition for funding Several factors affect the effectiveness of the Commission’s support for more sustainable urban mobility Some projects we examined were not fully effective and some were not based on sound strategies Some projects were not as effective as intended Projects were not always based on sound urban mobility strategies 2 
Vsebina Povzetek Uvod Trajnostna mobilnost v mestih in njen pomen Vloga Komisije Sredstva, ki so na voljo za mobilnost v mestih Obseg revizije in revizijski pristop Opažanja Korenita sprememba trajnostne mobilnosti v mestih se ni uresničila Ni dokazov o očitnem trendu uporabe bolj trajnostnih načinov prevoza Kakovost zraka se je v urbanih vozliščih izboljšala, vendar onesnaženost še vedno presega varne ravni Zaradi zastojev se mobilnost v mestih za uporabnike cest slabša Pokritost in dostopnost javnega prevoza v mestih se izboljšujeta Komisija je okrepila svojo podporo, vendar je bil napredek pri trajnostni mobilnosti v mestih zaradi vrste dejavnikov omejen Komisija je razvila politike in izdala smernice, vendar jih države članice niso vedno upoštevale V obdobju 2014–2020 je bilo za trajnostno mobilnost v mestih dodeljenih več sredstev EU, vendar načrti za trajnostno mobilnost v mestih običajno niso pogoj za financiranje Na uspešnost podpore Komisije za bolj trajnostno mobilnost v mestih vpliva več dejavnikov Nekateri projekti, ki jih je Sodišče preučilo, niso bili v celoti uspešni in nekateri niso temeljili na dobrih strategijah Nekateri projekti niso bili tako uspešni, kot je bilo načrtovano Projekti niso vedno temeljili na dobrih strategijah za mobilnost v mestih Zaključki in priporočila Odstavek I–X 01–12 01–06 07–08 09–12 13–16 17–69 17–30 18–20 21–23 24–26 27–30 31–56 32–35 36–40 41–56 57–69 58–59 60–69 70–75 2
Conclusions and recommendations Annexes Annex I List of projects assessed Annex II Maps of the visited cities Annex III ESIF Allocations 2014-20 by field of intervention Annex IV Average age of buses in the visited cities Glossary, acronyms and abbreviations Replies of the Commission Audit team Timeline 70-75 3 
Priloge Priloga I – Seznam projektov, ki jih je Sodišče ocenilo Priloga II – Zemljevidi obiskanih mest Priloga III – Dodeljena sredstva iz skladov ESI za obdobje 2014– 2020 po področjih posredovanja Priloga IV – Povprečna starost avtobusov v obiskanih mestih Glosar, kratice in okrajšave Odgovori Komisije Revizijska ekipa Časovnica 3
Executive summary I Sustainable urban mobility is one of the main challenges facing cities in the EU and a matter of concern for many EU citizens. 
Povzetek I Trajnostna mobilnost v mestih je eden glavnih izzivov, s katerimi se spopadajo mesta v EU, in razlog za skrb številnih njenih državljanov.
There are strong links between more sustainable urban mobility and both economic growth and reduced environmental pollution. 
Med bolj trajnostno mobilnostjo v mestih ter gospodarsko rastjo in manjšim onesnaževanjem okolja obstaja tesna povezava.
II The main source of EU funding for urban mobility is the European structural and investment fund (ESIF), €16.3 billion in 2014-2020. 
II Glavni vir financiranja EU za mobilnost v mestih so evropski strukturni in investicijski skladi (skladi ESI) s 16,3 milijarde EUR v obdobju 2014–2020.
In addition, the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) for transport has provided over €200 million to a number of larger EU cities. 
Poleg tega je bilo številnim večjim mestom v EU za prevoz zagotovljenih več kot 200 milijonov EUR v okviru Instrumenta za povezovanje Evrope (IPE).
III Urban mobility is a topic that affects many EU citizens, who are sensitive to the time and money spent on travelling. 
III Mobilnost v mestih je tema, ki vpliva na številne državljane EU, ki jim je pomembno, koliko časa in denarja porabijo za potovanje.
The EU is investing substantial amounts to help cities improve their mobility and make it more sustainable. 
EU vlaga znatna sredstva, da bi pripomogla k boljši in bolj trajnostni mobilnosti v mestih.