natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
3 The Commission’s ‘Impact Assessment of rural development programmes in view of post-2006 rural development policy’ (Agriculture and Rural Development DG, Final Report submitted by EPEC, November 2004) mentions on page 85 that ‘this ‘narrow and deep’ or ‘broad and shallow’ debate has been prominent since the introduction of agri-environment policy, and both approaches are evident among current agri-environment programmes’.Thisdistinction is included in various other evaluation reports for the European Commission, as early as 1998 (evaluation of Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 (document Agriculture and Rural Development DG VI/7655/98). 
Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče. 3 Ocena učinka programov razvoja podeželja glede na politiko razvoja podeželja po letu 2006, ki jo je pripravila Komisija (GD za kmetijstvo, končno poročilo, ki ga je pripravil EPEC novembra 2004) na strani 85 omenja, da ta razprava o „poglobljenem in ozkem“ ali „širokem in plitvem“ pristopu poteka že od uvedbe kmetijsko-okoljske politike, med zdajšnjimi kmetijsko-okoljskimi programi pa je najti oba pristopa.
4 ‘The CAP towards 2020: Meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges of the future’, COM(2010) 672 final of 18 November 2010. 
4 „Skupna kmetijska politika proti letu 2000: odziv na prihodnje izzive, povezane s hrano, naravnimi viri in ozemljem“, COM(2010) 672 konč. z dne 18. novembra 2010.
9. Basic agri-environment sub-measures can be a cost-effective way of implementing agri-environment payments when it is necessary to take action over a wide area. 
9. Osnovni kmetijsko-okoljski ukrepi so lahko stroškovno učinkovit način za izvajanje kmetijsko-okoljskih plačil, kadar je treba ukrepati na velikem območju.
These sub-measures are characterised by simple and generalised actions (e.g. maintenance of grassland, green cover of agricultural land) and a high number of beneficiaries. 
Za te podukrepe so značilne enostavne in splošne dejavnosti (npr. ohranjanje travinja, oze-lenitev njivskih površin) in veliko število upravičencev.
Because demands on farmers are limited the aid amounts are relatively low. 
Ker so zahteve za kmete majhne, so zneski pomoči razmeroma nizki.
13 FIGURE 2 Environmental benefits for the most demanding requirements Reference level Around 7,3 million farmers (on 160 million hectares) who must fulfil mandatory requirements INTERVENTION LOGIC OF AGRI-ENVIRONMENT PAYMENTS Level of effort Around 600 000 farmers receiving agri-environment payments (on 17,5 million hectares) who have to fulfil requirements going beyond the mandatory ones Number of beneficiaries, land area Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed? 10. 
13 SLIKA 2 Prínosy najnáročnejších požiadaviek pre životné prostredie Referenčná úroveň Približne 7,3 milióna poľnohospodárov (na 160 miliónoch hektárov), ktorí musia dodržiavať záväzné požiadavky LOGIKA IZVAJANJA KMETIJSKO-OKOLJSKIH PLAČIL Stupeň úsilia Približne 600 000 poľnohospodárov dostáva agroenvironmentálne platby (na 17,5 milióna hektárov) a musí dodržiavať požiadavky nad rámec záväzných požiadaviek Počet príjemcov, plocha Posebno poročilo št. 7/2011 – Ali je podpora za kmetijsko-okoljske ukrepe dobro pripravljena in upravljana?
More demanding sub-measures, on the contrary, can be tailored to local circumstances and require more complex and demanding types of farm management. 
Nasprotno pa se zahtevnejši podukrepi lahko prilagodijo lokalnim razmeram in so zanje potrebni zapletenejši in zahtevnejši načini upravljanja kmetij.
Member States generally implement these schemes in more limited geographical areas 5, involving smaller numbers of beneficiaries. 
Države članice te sheme običajno izvajajo na manjših zemljepisnih območjih5, vanje pa je vključenih manj upravičencev.
Because more substantial demands are made of the farmers, causing higher costs and/or loss of income, the aid amounts are relatively high. 
Ker so zahteve za kmete večje, kar povzroča višje stroške in/ali izgube dohodka, so zneski pomoči razmeroma veliki.
Because of the higher requirements, tailored to specific areas, more demanding sub-measures have the potential to deliver greater environmental benefits per hectare supported, but at a higher cost. 
Zaradi višjih zahtev, prilagojenih posameznim območjem, zahtevnejši podukrepi lahko prinašajo večje koristi za okolje na subvencionirani hektar, vendar z višjimi stroški.
The Commission and Member States share the management of the agri-environment payments. 
Komisija in države članice si delijo upravljanje kmetijsko-okoljskih plačil.
The Commission appraises and approves the rural development programmes prepared and submitted by Member States. 
Komisija oceni in potrdi programe razvoja podeželja, ki jih pripravijo in predložijo države članice.
The Member States adopt all the legislative, statutory and administrative provisions required to ensure that funds are spent correctly. 
Te tudi sprejmejo vse zakonodajne, zakonske in administrativne predpise, potrebne za pravilno porabo sredstev.
The farmers (or land managers) enter into a contract with the relevant Member State Managing Body and are responsible for actually applying the farming practices in accordance with the terms of this contract. 
Kmetje (ali upravljavci zemljišč) sklenejo pogodbo z ustreznim organom upravljanja države članice in so odgovorni za dejansko uporabo načinov kmetovanja v skladu z določbami te pogodbe.
5 An exception is organic farming, which is one of the most demanding types of farm management, but is implemented over a large geographical area. 
5 Izjema je ekološko kmetovanje, ki je eden od najzahtevnejših načinov upravljanja kmetij, vendar se izvaja na velikem geografskem območju.
14 Agri-environment payments in brief o Encourage farmers to apply agricultural production methods compatible with the protection of the environment. o Key EU policy on which around 2,5 billion euro of EU funds per year is spent. o Mandatory for the Member States but voluntary for farmers. o Commitments must exceed a reference level. o Payments are based on additional costs and income foregone, with the possibility of including transaction costs. 
14 Kmetijsko-okoljska plačila na kratko o Spodbujajo kmete k uporabi metod kmetijske proizvodnje, skladne z varstvom okolja. o Ključna politika EU, za katero se porabi približno 2,5 milijarde EUR sredstev EU na leto. o Obvezna za države članice, vendar prostovoljna za kmete. o Zaveze morajo biti nad referenčno ravnijo. o Plačila temeljijo na dodatnih stroških in izgubljenem dohodku, možno pa je vključiti tudi transakcijske stroške.
Incentives are forbidden. o Management responsibilities are shared between the Commission and the Member States. 
Spodbude so prepovedane. o Odgovornost za upravljanje si delijo Komisija in države članice.
PREVIOUS AUDITS OF THE COURT 12. 
PREJŠNJE REVIZIJE SODIŠČA 12.
The Court has previously audited agri-environment payments and identified a number of weaknesses. 
Sodišče je že v preteklosti revidiralo kmetijsko-okoljska plačila in ugotovilo več slabosti.
The main ones are mentioned in Annex I. Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed? 
Najpomembnejše so omenjene v Prilogi I. Posebno poročilo št. 7/2011 – Ali je podpora za kmetijsko-okoljske ukrepe dobro pripravljena in upravljana?
15 AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH 13. 
15 OBSEG REVIZIJE IN REVIZIJSKI PRISTOP 13.
The purpose of this audit is to determine whether agri-environment schemes are well designed and managed. 
Namen te revizije je ugotoviti, ali so kmetijsko-okoljske sheme dobro zasnovane in upravljane.
More specifically, the audit aims to answer the following questions: Ū is agri-environment policy designed and monitored so as to deliver tangible environmental benefits? 
Natančneje, revizija si prizadeva najti odgovore na ta vprašanja: Ū Ali je kmetijsko-okoljska politika zasnovana in se spremlja tako, da prinaša oprijemljive koristi za okolje?
Ū are farmers well supported through appropriate guidance and correct aid amounts? 
Ū Ali so ustrezno usmerjanje in pravi zneski pomoči dobra podpora za kmete?
Ū does the management of agri-environment policy take account of specific environmental needs? 
Ū Ali se pri vodenju kmetijsko-okoljske politike upoštevajo posebne okoljske potrebe?
The Court established audit criteria concerning the design, implementation and monitoring/evaluation of agri-environment payments. 
Sodišče je določilo revizijska merila v zvezi z zasnovo, izvajanjem in spremljanjem/vrednotenjem kmetijsko-okoljskih plačil.
These criteria were developed from legislation, Commission documents and publications and scientific studies (see Annex II). 
Ta merila so bila razvita na podlagi zakonodaje, dokumentov Komisije ter objav in znanstvenih študij (glej Prilogo II).
The Court consulted a panel of agri-environment experts 6 on the validity and feasibility of these audit criteria. 
Sodišče se je o veljavnosti in uporabnosti teh meril posvetovalo s skupino strokovnjakov6 za kmetijsko-okoljska vprašanja.
It also identified, through a documentary review and after consultation of the panel of experts, a short list of best practices 7 considered in the scientific literature as being particularly suitable for contributing towards improving the effectiveness of agri-environment sub-measures. 
Poleg tega je po pregledu dokumentacije in posvetovanju s skupino strokovnjakov opredelilo ožji seznam najboljših praks7, ki v strokovni literaturi veljajo kot zlasti primerne za prispevanje k večji uspešnosti kmetijsko-okoljskih podukrepov.
The Court carried out visits to England, the Rhineland-Palatinate in Germany, and the French ‘Centre’ region where examples of such practices could be observed. 
Sodišče je obiskalo Anglijo, Porenje - Pfalz v Nemčiji ter osrednjo Francijo, kjer je mogoče najti primere take prakse.
The audit started with a documentary review of 203 agri-environment contracts selected randomly from the expenditure declared by the Member States to the Commission for the year 2008. 
Revizija se je začela z dokumentacijskim pregledom 203 kmetijsko-okoljskih pogodb, naključno izbranih na podlagi odhodkov, ki so jih države članice prijavile Komisiji za leto 2008.
The sample covered 48 rural development programmes in 21 Member States. 
Vzorec je vključeval 48 programov razvoja podeželja v 21 državah članicah.
The Court then selected eight programmes for further detailed testing. 
Nato je Sodišče osem programov izbralo za nadaljnje podrobno preizkušanje.
The Member States (Regions) selected were Spain (Andalusia), Italy (Piedmont), Germany (Berlin and Brandenburg), Sweden, Austria, Hungary, Poland and France. 
Izbrane države članice (regije) so bile Španija (Andaluzija), Italija (Piemont), Nemčija (Berlin in Branden-burg), Švedska, Avstrija, Madžarska, Poljska in Francija.
In each Member State, audit evidence was collected for a number of agri-environmental sub-measures and examined by means of interviews and the analysis of documents and data. 
V vsaki državi članici so bili zbrani revizijski dokazi za več kmetijsko-okoljskih podukrepov, ki so jih preverili z razgovori ter analizo dokumentov in podatkov.
A number of farms were also visited in order to review the implementation of agri-environment payments at farm level with the farmers and the inspectors responsible for on-the-spot checks. 
Obiskanih je bilo tudi več kmetij, da se je pri kmetih in inšpektorjih, odgovornih za kontrolo na terenu, preverilo izvajanje kmetijsko-okoljskih plačil na ravni kmetij.
6 This panel consisted of nine experts: three from public research institutes (the French ‘National Agronomic Research Institute’, the German ‘von Thünen Institute’ and the Irish ‘Teagasc Research Centre’), two from universities (of Copenhagen and Gloucestershire), two from European organisations (the European Environment Agency and the Joint Research Centre), one from an environmental NGO and one from an organisation representing farmers at EU level. 
6 Skupino je sestavljalo devet strokovnjakov: trije iz javnih raziskovalnih zavodov (francoski nacionalni institut za kmetijske raziskave, nemški institut von Thünen in irsko raziskovalno središče Teagasc), dva z univerz (univerza v Københavnu in univerza v Gloucestershiru), dva iz evropskih organizacij (Evropska agencija za okolje in Skupni raziskovalni center), eden iz okoljske NVO ter eden iz predstavniške organizacije kmetov na ravni EU.
7 Such practices are, for instance, guidance provided to beneficiaries to help them implement the sub-measures, the design and monitoring of outcome-based sub-measures and the targeting of sub-measures to precisely identified needs. Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed? 
7 Take prakse so, na primer, svetovanje za upravičence kot pomoč pri izvajanju podukrepov, zasnova in spremljanje podukrepov, ki temeljijo na izidih, ter namenjanje podukrepov za natančno opredeljene potrebe. Posebno poročilo št. 7/2011 – Ali je podpora za kmetijsko-okoljske ukrepe dobro pripravljena in upravljana?
The legal basis contains several elements intended to ensure that agri-environment payments indeed yield environmental benefits. 
Pravna podlaga vsebuje več elementov, ki naj bi zagotavljali, da kmetijsko-okoljska plačila v resnici prinašajo koristi za okolje.
Member States must describe the current situation of the environment in their rural development programmes. 
Države članice morajo v svojih programih razvoja podeželja opisati trenutno stanje.
They must also include a description and justification of the various types of commitment for agri-environment payments based on their expected environmental impact in relation to environmental needs and priorities 8. 
Vključiti morajo tudi opis in utemeljitev različnih vrst zavez za kmetijsko-okoljska plačila na podlagi njihovih pričakovanih vplivov na okolje glede na okoljske potrebe in prioritete8.
The principles of sound financial management set out in Article 27 of the Financial Regulation 9 require that policy objectives be formulated in a specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timed manner. 
Načela dobrega finančnega poslovodenja, določena v členu 27 finančne uredbe9, zahtevajo, da so cilji politike določeni tako, da so specifični, merljivi, dosegljivi, ustrezni in časovno opredeljeni.
Each rural development programme must include information on the specific verifiable objectives of the measures and their progress and efficiency and effectiveness must be measured in relation to these objectives 8. 
Vsak program razvoja podeželja mora vključevati informacije o specifičnih in preverljivih ciljih ukrepov, napredek, učinkovitost in uspešnost teh programov pa je treba meriti glede na te cilje8.
The Court examined whether the objectives included in the rural development programmes for agri-environment payments were precise enough (specific, measurable and timed) to provide a sound basis for assessing whether they had been achieved. 
Sodišče je preučilo, ali so bili cilji za kmetijsko-okoljska plačila v programih razvoja podeželja dovolj natančni (specifični, merljivi in časovno opredeljeni), da so dajali trdno podlago za oceno njihovega doseganja.
The Court also examined whether the rural development programmes provided a sound basis for justifying agri-environment payments in relation to the environmental pressures identified. 
Poleg tega je Sodišče preučilo, ali so programi razvoja podeželja dajali trdno podlago za upravičenost kmetijsko-okoljskih plačil glede na ugotovljene pritiske na okolje.
As the availability of good quality data is a prerequisite for judging whether policies achieve their results, the Court assessed whether the monitoring systems produced reliable data which were relevant for assessing the environmental effects of agri-environment payments. 
Ker je razpoložljivost kakovostnih podatkov osnovni pogoj za ocenjevanje, ali politike prinašajo rezultate, je Sodišče ocenilo, ali so sistemi spremljanja dajali zanesljive podatke, primerne za ocenjevanje vplivov kmetijsko-okoljskih plačil na okolje.
8 See in particular Articles 16(a),16(c), 81(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 and annex II of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 (OJ L 368, 23.12.2006, p. 
8 Glej zlasti člene 16(a),16(c), 81(1) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1698/2005 in Prilogo II k Uredbi Komisije (ES) št. 1974/2006 (UL L 368, 23.12.2006, str.
9 Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 
1605/2002 z dne 25. junija 2002 o finančni uredbi, ki se uporablja za splošni proračun Evropskih skupnosti (UL L 248, 16.9.2002, str.
Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed? 17 THE OBJECTIVES OF AGRI-ENVIRONMENT PAYMENTS ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC TO ASSESS WHETHER THEY HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED Agri-environment objectives Are determined As pArt of the overAll frAmework for rurAl development 20. 
7/2011 – Ali je podpora za kmetijsko-okoljske ukrepe dobro pripravljena in upravljana? 17 CILJI KMETIJSKO-OKOLJSKIH PLAČIL NISO DOVOLJ SPECIFIČNI, DA BI BILO MOGOČE OCENITI, ALI SO BILI DOSEŽENI KmetijsKo-oKoljsKi cilji so določeni Kot del splošnega oKvira za razvoj podeželja 20.
High-level legislation determines the legal framework for rural development in general, of which agri-environment payments are one element. 
Zakonodaja na visoki ravni določa pravni okvir za razvoj podeželja nasploh, kmetijsko-okoljska plačila pa so eden od njegovih elementov.
The Council set out the EU’s rural development priorities for the 2007–13 period in the Community strategic guidelines (see glossary). 
Svet je opredelil prioritete EU za razvoj podeželja za obdobje 2007–2013 v strateških smernicah Skupnosti (glej glosar).
Agri-environment payments, together with other rural development measures, are expected to contribute towards three EU-level priority areas: biodiversity and the preservation and development of high nature value farming and forestry systems and traditional agricultural landscapes; water; and climate change. 
Kmetijsko-okoljska plačila naj bi skupaj z drugimi ukrepi za razvoj podeželja prispevala k trem prednostnim področjem na ravni EU: biotska raznovrstnost ter ohranjanje in razvoj kmetijskih in gozdnih sistemov visoke naravne vrednosti in tradicionalne kmetijske pokrajine; vode; podnebne spremembe.
EU objectives, as set out in Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, are fairly generic as befits the wording of high-level legislation. 
Cilji EU, opredeljeni v Uredbi (ES) št. 1698/2005, so precej splošni, kot je ustrezno za zakonodajna besedila na visoki ravni.
The Council regulation lays down the rural development policy objectives for coherent groups of measures (called ‘axes’). 
Uredba Sveta določa cilje politike razvoja podeželja za povezane skupine ukrepov (imenovane osi).
The objective of the axis of which agri-environment payments are part, is to improve the environment and countryside by supporting land management. numerous And complex objectives 22. 
Cilj osi, h kateri spadajo kmetijsko-okoljska plačila, je izboljšati okolje in pokrajino s podporo za upravljanje zemljišč. številni in KompleKsni cilji 22.
Each Member State must submit a national strategy plan indicating the priorities of the action of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the Member State concerned, taking into account the Community strategic guidelines, specific objectives for rural development and the financial resources available. 
Vsaka država članica mora predložiti nacionalni strateški načrt, v katerem so prikazane prioritete za ukrepanje Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja in posamezne države članice in upoštevane strateške smernice Skupnosti, specifični cilji razvoja podeželja ter razpoložljivi finančni viri.
Rural development programmes must ensure that EU support for rural development contributes towards achieving priorities and objectives defined in the Community strategic guidelines and the national strategy plans. 
Programi razvoja podeželja morajo zagotavljati, da podpora EU za razvoj podeželja prispeva k uresničevanju prioritet in ciljev, opredeljenih v strateških usmeritvah Skupnosti in nacionalnih strateških načrtih.
They should include information on the axes and measures proposed for each axis, in particular the specific verifiable objectives that allow the programme’s progress, efficiency and effectiveness to be measured. Special Report No 7/2011 – Is agri-environment support well designed and managed? 
Vključevati bi morali podatke o oseh in ukrepih, predlaganih za posamezno os, zlasti specifične in preverljive cilje, ki omogočajo merjenje napredka, učinkovitosti in uspešnosti programa. Posebno poročilo št. 7/2011 – Ali je podpora za kmetijsko-okoljske ukrepe dobro pripravljena in upravljana?
18 The agri-environment measure for the Andalusian programme contains a very high number of objectives, making it difficult to measure the results 23. 
18 Kmetijsko-okoljski ukrep za andaluzijski program vključuje zelo veliko ciljev, zaradi česar je težko meriti rezultate.
The objectives assigned to agri-environment payments that are set out in the various programming documents often result in an overly complicated framework. 
23. Cilji za kmetijsko-okoljska plačila, opredeljeni v različnih programskih dokumentih, pogosto sestavljajo prezapleten okvir.
This is illustrated by the example of Andalusia. 
To kaže primer Andaluzije.
The national strategy plan provides 20 environmental objectives. 
V nacionalnem strateškem načrtu je 20 okoljskih ciljev.
The rural development programme implements this structure by describing the agri-environment payments in a general section containing eight objectives, which are different from the 20 objectives laid out previously or have been rephrased in a more general manner. 
Za izvajanje te strukture program razvoja podeželja vključuje kmetijsko-okoljska plačila, opisana v splošnem delu, ki vsebuje osem ciljev, ki se razlikujejo od prejšnjih 20 ciljev ali pa so opisani bolj na splošno.
In addition, the rural development programme contains objectives for each of the 15 agri-environment sub-measures (in total 51), which are again sometimes partly or entirely different from the objectives set out in the general part. 
Poleg tega program razvoja podeželja vsebuje cilje za vsakega od 15 kmetijsko-okoljskih podukrepov (skupaj 51), ki so prav tako delno ali povsem drugačni od ciljev, opredeljenih v splošnem delu.
Taking the overall framework into account, including the strategic environmental assessment 10 and the ex ante evaluation 11, the very high number of objectives makes it difficult to measure results. 
Če upoštevamo celoten okvir vključno s strateško okoljsko presojo10 in predhodnim vrednotenjem11, zelo veliko število ciljev otežuje merjenje rezultatov.
The Court found that the objectives included in rural development programmes were not set out in a specific, measurable and timed manner. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da cilji v programih razvoja podeželja niso bili opredeljeni tako, da bi bili specifični, merljivi in časovno opredeljeni.
For example, objectives used in Poland for agri-environment sub-measures such as ‘adequate soil use and water protection’ are not verifiable. 
Na primer, cilji, uporabljeni za kmetijsko-okoljske podukrepe na Poljskem, kot je „primerna uporaba tal in varstvo voda“, niso preverljivi.
In addition, the objectives do not include baseline levels describing what the situation was before the agri-environment payments were implemented and there are no time frames for their achievement. 
Poleg tega cilji ne vključujejo osnovnih ravni, ki bi opisovale, kakšno je bilo stanje pred izvedbo kmetijsko-okoljskih plačil, niti niso določeni časovni okviri za njihovo doseganje.
Such weaknesses, which were found in all Member States audited, make it difficult to judge whether or not objectives are achieved. 
Zaradi teh slabosti, ugotovljenih v vseh revidiranih državah članicah, je težko presoditi, ali so bili cilji doseženi ali ne.