natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Among the supported young farmers, abandonment rates were significantly lower for holdings above 16 hectares than for smaller holdings (4.6 % vs 9.5 %) and for beneficiaries who set up in legal holdings rather than in individual holdings (3.7 % vs 6.5 %). Limited evidence of facilitating young farmers’ setting-up 76. 
Med mladimi kmeti, ki so prejeli podporo, so bile stopnje opustitve dejavnosti občutno nižje pri kmetijskih gospodarstvih, večjih od 16 hektarjev, kot pri manjših kmetijskih gospodarstvih (4,6 % v primerjavi z 9,5 %) ter pri upravičencih, ki so prevzeli kmetijska gospodarstva, ki so bila organizirana kot pravne osebe in ne kot kmetijska gospodarstva, ki jih vodijo posamezni lastniki (3,7 % v primerjavi s 6,5 %).
In the four audited Member States we found limited evidence that the EU measures had facilitated the setting-up of young farmers by helping to overcome the initial entry barriers, such as access to land, capital, knowledge and sufficient income. 
Sodišče je v štirih revidiranih državah članicah našlo le malo dokazov, da so ukrepi EU olajšali pomoč mladim prevzemnikom kmetij tako, da so pripomogli k premagovanju ovir za vstop na trg, kot so dostop do zemljišč in kapitala, znanje in zadostni dohodki.
The EU measures helped only to a little extent young farmers in accessing land. 
Ukrepi EU so le v manjši meri pomagali mladim kmetom pri dostopu do zemljišč.
In fact, the Pillar 1 payment for young farmers was provided only to young farmers who already had land, while Pillar 2 was only to a little extent prompting young farmers to increase their farm size via eligibility and selection criteria (see paragraphs 60 to 61), although there was no evidence that it prompted an increase in farm viability. 
Dejansko se je plačilo za mlade kmete v okviru 1. stebra dodeljevalo le mladim kmetom, ki so že imeli zemljišča, plačilo iz 2. stebra pa je z merili za upravičenost in izbirnimi merili le v manjši meri spodbudilo mlade kmete, da so povečali velikost svojega kmetijskega gospodarstva. Ni pa bilo dokazov, da je spodbudilo izboljšanje sposobnosti preživetja kmetijskih gospodarstev (glej odstavka 60 in 61).
Only for Italy (Emilia-Romagna) was there some evidence that supported young farmers increased their farm size more than non-beneficiaries (see paragraph 75). 
Samo za Italijo (Emilija-Romanja) je obstajalo nekaj dokazov, da so mladi kmeti, ki so prejeli podporo, povečali svoja kmetijska gospodarstva bolj kot tisti, ki do pomoči niso bili upravičeni (glej odstavek 75).
In general terms, the total number of hectares held by young farmers has remained stable in the 2005-2013 period (see Figure 7). 
V splošnem je skupno število hektarjev v lasti mladih kmetov v obdobju 2005–2013 ostalo nespremenjeno (glej sliko 7).
The reduction in the number of holdings held by young farmers has been offset by an increase in the average farm size. 
Zmanjšanje števila kmetijskih gospodarstev mladih kmetov je bilo uravnoteženo s povečanjem povprečne velikosti kmetij.
53 Figure 7 - Evolution of the number of holdings held by young farmers, the average size of their holdings and the total number of hectares held by young farmers in the 27 EU Member States 5 000 000 4 000 000 3 000 000 2 000 000 1 000 000 25 20 15 10 5 0 Number of holdings held by young farmers Average size of holdings held by young farmers 2005 2007 2010 2013 Source: ECA based on Eurostat, Farm Structure Survey 2005-2013. 
Slika 7 – Spremembe v številu kmetijskih gospodarstev v lasti mladih kmetov, povprečni velikosti njihovih kmetijskih gospodarstev in skupnem številu hektarjev v lasti mladih kmetov v 27 državah članicah EU Število kmetijskih gospodarstev v lasti mladih kmetov Povprečna velikost kmetijskih gospodarstev v lasti mladih kmetov 5 000 000 4 000 000 3 000 000 2 000 000 1 000 000 25 20 15 10 5 0 2005 2007 2010 2013 V milijonih hehtarjev 2005 2007 2010 2013 Skupno število hektarjev v lasti mladih kmetov 57.7 54.8 55.2 51.9 Skupno število hektarjev v lasti kmetov vseh starosti 172.1 172.8 174.5 173.0 Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče na podlagi podatkov Eurostata, raziskava o strukturi kmetijskih gospodarstev 2005–2013.
The EU measures directly helped young farmers access to capital, thanks to the provision of financial aid. 
Ukrepi EU so z zagotavljanjem finančne pomoči neposredno pomagali mladim kmetom pri dostopu do kapitala.
However, there is no evidence – in case of the Pillar 1 payment to young farmers – and little evidence – in case of Pillar 2 measure for the setting up of young farmers – that EU aid has facilitated young farmers’ access to credit from commercial banks: - In France and Italy (Puglia) the aid from Pillar 2 could also be provided also in the form of an interest-subsidy on a loan, however such form of aids had little success. 
Vendar v primeru plačila mladim kmetom v okviru 1. stebra ni dokazov, da so imeli mladi kmetje zaradi pomoči EU olajšan dostop do posojil poslovnih bank, v primeru ukrepa za pomoč mladim prevzemnikom kmetij v okviru 2. stebra pa je takih dokazov malo: - v Franciji in Italiji (Apulija) se je pomoč v okviru 2. stebra lahko zagotovila tudi v obliki subvencionirane obrestne mere, vendar taka oblika pomoči ni imela velikega uspeha.
In France many beneficiaries expressed their dissatisfaction with the fact that the loans they have obtained are non-negotiable and cannot be re-financed, obliging them to pay a fixed interest rate much higher than the current market interest rate. 
V Franciji je mnogo upravičencev izrazilo nezadovoljstvo zaradi dejstva, da se o posojilih, ki so jih prejeli, ni bilo mogoče pogajati in da jih ni bilo mogoče refinancirati, kar je pomenilo, da so morali plačati fiksno obrestno mero, ki je bila precej višja od trenutne tržne obrestne mere.
- In Italy (Emilia-Romagna) and Poland the aid under the Pillar 2 setting-up measure was not provided in the form of an interest-subsidy on a loan, although in Italy (Emilia-Romagna) beneficiaries could receive a higher amount of aid when they obtained a loan for more than 30 000 euro (see Table 4); - only in Spain (Andalucía), where the aid from Pillar 2 was also provided in the form of an interest-subsidy on a loan (to 567 beneficiaries out of the 738 beneficiaries in the 2007-2013 period) and the access to credit is particularly problematic for young farmers46, commercial banks became more prone to provide loans, as shown for seven out of the eight audited beneficiaries. 
V Italiji (Apulija) je v obdobju 2007–2013 tako pomoč zahtevalo samo 37 upravičencev v hektarjih od 2 502, predvsem zato, ker je organ za upravljanje zahteval, da morajo upravičenci pred vložitvijo zahtevka za subvencionirano obrestno mero zaključiti vse naložbe iz poslovnega načrta; - v Italiji (Emilija-Romanja) in na Poljskem se pomoč iz ukrepa za pomoč mladim prevzemnikom kmetij v okviru 2. stebra ni zagotavljala kot subvencionirana obrestna mera za posojilo, vendar so upravičenci v Italiji (Emilija-Romanja) lahko dobili višji znesek pomoči, če so pridobili posojilo, večje od 30 000 EUR (glej tabelo 4); - samo v Španiji (Andaluzija), kjer se je pomoč v okviru 2. stebra zagotavljala tudi v obliki subvencionirane obrestne mere za posojila (za 567 od 738 upravičencev v obdobju 2007– 2013).
80. The EU measures, especially the Pillar 2 measure for the setting-up of young farmers, generally had a positive impact on young farmers’ knowledge levels, thanks to eligibility criteria which favoured the entry of more qualified farmers in the agricultural sector. 
Ukrepi EU, zlasti ukrep za pomoč mladim prevzemnikom kmetij v okviru 2. stebra, so imeli v splošnem pozitiven učinek na raven znanja mladih kmetov, zlasti zaradi meril za upravičenost, na podlagi katerih se je pri vstopu v kmetijski sektor dajala prednost bolj usposobljenim kmetom.
However, this positive impact on young farmers’ knowledge levels was not ensured in Italy and Poland by the Pillar 1 payment to young farmers, as these Member States did not require applicants to have or acquire any particular skills or training. 
Vendar pa pozitivni učinek na stopnjo usposobljenosti mladih kmetov ni bil ugotovljen za plačilo mladim kmetov v okviru 1. stebra v Italiji in na Poljskem, saj ti državi članici nista zahtevali, da morajo vlagatelji zahtevkov imeti ali pridobiti kakršna koli posebna znanja ali imeti opravljena ali opraviti kakršna koli posebna usposabljanja.
No clear relationship between EU aid and generational renewal 81. 
Med pomočjo EU in generacijsko pomladitvijo ni jasne povezave 81.
Generational renewal is a general issue that affects the entire population and labour force in the EU. 
Generacijska pomladitev je splošni problem, ki vpliva na celotno populacijo in delovno silo v EU.
As shown in Figure 8, the share of young people in the total population and in the labour force is decreasing more rapidly than in the farmers’ population. 
Kot je prikazano na sliki 8, se delež mladih v celotni populaciji in v delovni sili zmanjšuje hitreje kot v populaciji kmetov.
54 46 According to the ECORYS, LEI-Wageningen UR, Aequator Groen & Ruimte for Commission: “Young farmers’ needs in Spain”, September 2015, 56 % of young farmers in Spain perceived access to credit as problematic, compared to 33 % of young farmers in the 28 EU Member States. 
46 57 Na podlagi podatkov v študiji ECORYS, LEI-Wageningen UR, Aequator Groen & Ruimte za Komisijo: Young farmers’ needs in Spain, september 2015, je 56 % mladih kmetov v Španiji menilo, da je pridobivanje posojil težavno, v 28 državah članicah EU pa je tako menilo 33 % mladih kmetov.
Figure 8 - Evolution of the share of young people in the total population, in the labour force and in the farmer population in the 27 EU Member States. Source: ECA based on Eurostat data from Population Census (2005-2015), Labour Force Survey (2005-2015) and Farm Structure Survey (2005-2013). 
Slika 8 – Spreminjanje deleža mladih v skupnem številu prebivalstva, v delovni sili in v populaciji kmetov v 27 državah članicah EU Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče na podlagi podatkov Eurostata iz popisa prebivalstva (2005–2015), raziskave o delovni sili (2005–2015) in raziskave o strukturi kmetijskih gospodarstev (2005–2013).
It is generally not possible to establish a clear relationship between the EU aid provided and the evolution of the number of young farmers (see Figure 9). 
V glavnem ni mogoče določiti jasne povezave med zagotovljeno pomočjo EU ter spremembami števila mladih kmetov (glej sliko 9).
It is also difficult to know if and to what extent the EU aid has contributed to the increase in the average farm size (see paragraphs 77 and 78), or if this increase has led to a higher viability of the holdings. 55 
Prav tako je težko ugotoviti, ali in koliko je pomoč EU prispevala k povečanju povprečne velikosti kmetije (glej odstavka 77 in 78) in ali je to povečanje pripomoglo k večji sposobnosti preživetja kmetijskih gospodarstev. 58
Figure 9 - Comparison of share of EAFRD expenditure for setting up of young farmers (measure 112) and variation in the number of farmers up to 44 years old in 2007-2013 56 Share of EAFRD expenditure spent for young farmers (M112) (% of total EAFRD expenditure) 9% 7%7% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Variation 2007-2013 of number of farmers below 44 years 6% 6% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% FR EL BE PT HU SI LT PL ES IT BG RO EE CY FI LU AT CZ LV SE DE DK IE UK HR SK NL (% of 2007 population) 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 0% -20% -40% -60% 8% 6% -21% -25% -26% -19% -24% -22% -26% -47% -48% -41% -43% -45% -10% -9% -32% -37% -27% -33% -32% -33% -35% -38% FR EL BE PT HU SI LT PL ES IT BG RO EE CY FI LU AT CZ LV SE DE DK IE UK HR SK NL Source: ECA based on Eurostat, Farm Structure Survey 2007-2013 and Commission data (at January 2017). 
Slika 9 – Primerjava med deležem odhodkov EKSRP za pomoč mladim prevzemnikom kmetij (ukrep 112) in spremembo števila kmetov, ki so mlajši od 44 let, v obdobju 2007– 2013 Delež odhodkov EKSRP, namenjenih za mlade kmete (M112) (% vseh odhodkov EKSRP) 10% 9% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 7%7% 6% 6% (% populacije leta 2007) 20% 0% -20% -40% -60% 8% 6% -21% -25% -26% -19% -24% -22% -26% -47% -48% -52% -49% -10% -9% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Spremembe števila mladih kmetov, starih do 44 let, v obdobju 2007–2013 -32% -27% -33% -32% -33% -35% -37% -41% -43% -45% -38% Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče na podlagi podatkov Eurostata v raziskavi o strukturi kmetijskih gospodarstev za obdobje 2007–2013 in Komisije (januar 2017).
This is due to various reasons: - the EU aid is generally provided to a small percentage of young farmers: only 7 % of all young farmers existing in 27 EU Member States47 received EU aid for setting up; - there are several national policies supporting young farmers, which are rarely coordinated with the EU measures (see paragraphs 16 and 31 to 32). - the monitoring and evaluation system does not produce adequate information on the achievement of the objectives, mainly because of the low quality of indicators provided by the common monitoring system (see paragraphs 70 to 71) and the limited or unreliable performance information provided by most evaluations (see paragraph 74); -52% -49% 47 Based on average number of farmers in the age group 15-44 years old in the 2007-2013 period. 
Vzroki za to so različni: - pomoč EU navadno prejme majhen odstotek mladih kmetov: samo 7 % vseh mladih kmetov iz 27 držav članic EU je prejelo pomoč mladim prevzemnikom kmetij;47 - obstaja več nacionalnih politik za podporo mladim kmetom, ki so le redko usklajene z ukrepi EU (glej odstavke 16, 31 in 32). - sistem za spremljanje in vrednotenje ne daje ustreznih informacij o doseganju ciljev, v glavnem zaradi slabe kakovosti kazalnikov skupnega sistema spremljanja (glej odstavka 70 in 71) ter zato, ker se z večino vrednotenj pridobijo le neceloviti ali nezanesljivi podatki o smotrnosti (glej odstavek 74); 47 Na podlagi povprečnega števila kmetov v starostni skupini 15–44 let v obdobju 2007–2013. 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 59
- there are general factors other than EU measures influencing this relationship, such as the economic and social situation, the propensity of banks to provide loans, and the employment possibilities in sectors other than agriculture (see paragraph 16). 
- na omenjeno povezavo poleg ukrepov EU vplivajo tudi drugi splošni dejavniki, kot so npr. gospodarske in socialne razmere, pripravljenost bank za kreditiranje, zaposlitvene možnosti v drugih sektorjih kot v kmetijstvu (glej odstavek 16).
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 84. 
ZAKLJUČKI IN PRIPOROČILA 84.
The overall number of farmers in the EU-27 has rapidly decreased in the last decade, falling from 14.5 million farmers in 2005 to 10.7 million farmers in 2013. 
Skupno število kmetov v EU-27 se je v zadnjem desetletju strmo zmanjšalo, in sicer s 14,5 milijona leta 2005 na 10,7 milijona leta 2013.
Young farmers (up to 44 years old) fell from 3.3 million in 2005 to 2.3 million in 2013. 
Število mladih kmetov (starih do 44 let) se je s 3,3 milijona leta 2005 zmanjšalo na 2,3 milijona leta 2013.
As the reduction affected all age groups, the percentage of young farmers in the farming population remained relatively stable, slightly above 20 %. 
Zmanjšanje se je pojavilo v vseh starostnih skupinah, delež mladih kmetov v kmečkem prebivalstvu pa je ostal razmeroma stabilen, tj. nekoliko nad 20 %.
However, significant differences exist between Member States (see Annex II). 
Vendar med državami članicami obstajajo bistvene razlike (glej Prilogo II).
In 2007-2020 the EU allocated 9.6 billion euro in specific support to young farmers to foster the competitiveness of agricultural holdings and generational renewal in agriculture. 
V obdobju 2007–2020 je EU za mlade kmete dodelila posebno podporo v znesku 9,6 milijarde EUR za spodbujanje konkurenčnosti kmetijskih gospodarstev in generacijsko pomladitev v kmetijstvu.
Together with Member States’ co-financing of Pillar 2 setting-up measure, the total public support amounts to 18.3 billion euro. 
Skupaj s sofinanciranjem držav članic za ukrep za pomoč mladim prevzemnikom kmetij v okviru 2. stebra znaša skupna javna podpora 18,3 milijarde EUR.
Almost 200 000 young farmers received the EU aid for setting up in the 2007-2013 period. 
V obdobju 2007–2013 je pomoč EU za pomoč mladim prevzemnikom kmetij prejelo skoraj 200 000 mladih kmetov.
More than 70 % of the EU spending was provided under the Pillar 2 (EAFRD) measure for setting up of young farmers and the remaining 30 % is provided, in 2014-2020, under the Pillar 1 (EAGF) additional direct payment for young farmers. 
Več kot 70 % finančnih sredstev EU je bilo dodeljenih za ukrep za pomoč mladim prevzemnikom kmetij v okviru 2. stebra (EKSRP), preostalih 30 % pa so v obdobju 2014–2020 v okviru 1. stebra (EKJS) prejeli mladi kmetje v obliki neposrednih plačil.
Against this backdrop, we examined the role of the EU in supporting young farmers and fostering generational renewal. 
Sodišče je zato preučilo vlogo EU pri podpiranju mladih kmetov in spodbujanju generacijske pomladitve.
The audit sought to answer the following question: Is the EU support to young farmers well designed to contribute effectively towards improved generational renewal? 
Z revizijo je želelo odgovoriti na naslednje vprašanje: Ali je podpora EU za mlade kmete zasnovana tako, da uspešno prispeva k boljši generacijski pomladitvi?
The overall conclusion is that the EU support to young farmers is based on a poorly defined intervention logic, with no expected result and impact specified. 
Sodišče je v splošnem zaključilo, da podpora EU za mlade kmete temelji na slabo opredeljeni intervencijski logiki, ki nima določenih pričakovanih rezultatov in učinka.
It should be better targeted to foster effective generational renewal. 57 
Da bi spodbujala uspešno generacijsko pomladitev, bi morala bi biti bolje ciljno usmerjena. 60
As regards the intervention logic: For Pillar 1 payment for young farmers we found that: - It is not based on a needs assessment, its objective does not reflect the general objective of encouraging generational renewal, and Member States did not coordinate it with Pillar 2 setting-up measure or national measures (see paragraphs 19 to 33); - In the absence of a needs assessment the aid is provided in a standardized form (annual payment per hectare), in an amount and in a timing where it is unclear which specific needs other than additional income are addressed (see paragraphs 39 to 51). 
Glede intervencijske logike: Sodišče je v zvezi s plačilom za mlade kmete v okviru 1. stebra ugotovilo, da: - ne temelji na oceni potreb, njegov cilj ne odraža splošnega cilja spodbujanja generacijske pomladitve, države članice pa ga niso uskladile z ukrepom za pomoč mladim prevzemnikom kmetij v okviru 2. stebra ali nacionalnimi ukrepi (glej odstavke 19 do 33); - se pomoč, ker ni ocene potreb, zagotavlja v standardizirani obliki (letno plačilo na hektar), glede na njeno višino in čas izplačila pa ni jasno, katere specifične potrebe razen dodatnega dohodka naj bi obravnavala (glej odstavke 39 do 51).
For Pillar 2 measure for setting up of young farmers we found that: - Although it is generally based on a vague needs assessment, its objectives are partially SMART and reflect the general objective of encouraging generational renewal. There is good coordination between the Pillar 2 measures for setting-up and investments. 
Sodišče je v zvezi z ukrepom za pomoč mladim prevzemnikom kmetij v okviru 2. stebra ugotovilo, da: - so cilji ukrepa, kljub temu, da ukrep na splošno temelji na nejasni oceni potreb, deloma skladni z načeli SMART in odražajo splošni cilj spodbujanja generacijske pomladitve.
However, there is little coordination with national financial instruments, such as loans at favourable conditions to buy land (see paragraphs 19 to 37); - The aid is provided in a form addressing directly the young farmers’ needs of access to land, capital and knowledge. 
Zelo malo pa je usklajenosti z nacionalnimi finančnimi instrumenti, kot so posojila pod ugodnimi pogoji za nakup zemljišča (glej odstavke 19 do 37); - se pomoč zagotavlja v obliki, s katero se lahko neposredno obravnavajo potrebe mladih kmetov glede dostopa do zemlje, kapitala in znanja.
The amount of aid is generally linked to the needs and modulated to trigger specific actions, like introducing organic farming, water or saving initiatives, setting up in less favoured areas (see paragraphs 25 and 52 to 53). 
Znesek pomoči je v glavnem odvisen od potreb in prilagojen tako, da spodbuja specifične ukrepe, kot so uvedba ekološkega kmetovanja, pobude za varčevanje vode ali energije, pomoč mladim prevzemnikom kmetij na območjih z omejenimi možnostmi (glej odstavke 25, 52 in 53).
58 Recommendation 1 – Improve the intervention logic by reinforcing needs assessment and defining SMART objectives For the post-2020 CAP, the Commission should indicate (or require Member States to indicate, in line with the shared management provisions) clear intervention logic for the policy instruments addressing generational renewal in agriculture. 
61 Priporočilo 1 – Izboljšanje intervencijske logike s poudarjanjem pomena ocen potreb in opredelitvijo ciljev v skladu z načeli SMART Za SKP po letu 2020 bi morala Komisija opredeliti (ali v skladu z deljenim upravljanjem to zahtevati od držav članic) jasno intervencijsko logiko za instrumente politike, ki so namenjeni obravnavanju generacijske pomladitve v kmetijstvu.
The intervention logic should include: - a sound assessment of young farmers’ needs investigating the underlying reasons why young people willing to become farmers face barriers in their setting up process and the degree of diffusion of such barriers across geographical areas, agricultural sectors or other 
Intervencijska logika bi morala zajemati: - zanesljivo oceno potreb mladih kmetov, s katero bi se preučili temeljni razlogi, zakaj se mladi, ki bi želeli postati kmetje, spopadajo z ovirami v procesu prevzemanja kmetijskih
59 specific holdings’ characteristics; - an assessment of which needs could be addressed by EU policy instruments and which needs can be or are already better addressed by Member States’ policies as well as an analysis of which forms of support (e.g. direct payments, lump sum, financial instruments) are best suited to match the identified needs; - a definition of SMART objectives, making explicit and quantifiable the expected results of the policy instruments in terms of expected generational renewal rate and contribution to the viability of the supported holdings; in particular it should be clear if the policy instruments should aim at supporting as many young farmers as possible or target specific type of young farmers (e.g. the most educated, those setting up in less favoured areas, those introducing energy or water savings technologies in the holdings, those increasing the profitability or productivity of the holdings, those employing more people). 
62 gospodarstev, in stopnjo razširjenosti takšnih ovir glede na geografska območja, kmetijske sektorje ali druge specifične značilnosti kmetijskih gospodarstev; - oceno, katere potrebe je mogoče obravnavati z instrumenti politik EU in katere bi se lahko (ali pa se že) bolje obravnavajo s politikami držav članic, ter analizo, katere oblike pomoči (npr. neposredna plačila, enkratni zneski, finančni instrumenti) so najprimernejše za obravnavanje ugotovljenih potreb; - opredelitev ciljev v skladu z načeli SMART z jasnimi in količinsko opredeljivimi pričakovanimi rezultati instrumentov politike glede pričakovane stopnje generacijske pomladitve in prispevka k sposobnosti preživetja kmetijskih gospodarstev, ki so prejela podporo; zlasti bi moralo biti jasno, ali naj bo cilj instrumentov politike podpora kar največjega številna mladih kmetov ali ciljna usmerjenost na specifično skupino mladih kmetov (npr. najbolj izobraženi; tisti, ki prevzamejo kmetijsko gospodarstvo na območjih z omejenimi možnostmi; tisti, ki na kmetijskih gospodarstvih uvajajo tehnologije za varčevanje energije ali vode; tisti, ki izboljšajo donosnost ali produktivnost svojih kmetijskih gospodarstev; tisti, ki zaposlujejo več ljudi).