natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The agreements with the farmers included verifiable objectives (‘indicators of success’) such as to sow plots with seed mixes that provide sustained supply for wild birds throughout the winter until 15 February. 
Sporazumi s kmeti so zajemali cilje, ki jih je bilo mogoče preveriti („kazalnike uspeha“), kot je na primer sejanje mešanice semen po zemljiščih za zagotavljanje neprekinjene oskrbe divjih ptic v času zime, do 15. februarja.
The authorities monitored the achievement of these objectives by visiting a sample of farms each year. 
Organi so doseganje teh ciljev spremljali tako, da so vsako leto obiskali vzorec kmetij.
Evaluation of the results led the authorities to change the prioritisation to improve the targeting and to identify the most cost-effective activities to support in the future. 
Zaradi vrednotenja rezultatov so organi spremenili prednostno razvrščanje vlog, da bi izboljšali ciljno usmerjanje in ugotovili stroškovno najbolj učinkovite dejavnosti, ki bi jih podprli v prihodnosti.
The managing authority set a target for the ‘cost of public support per job created’ and used this as one of the criteria for assessing grant applications for the diversification measures and for monitoring progress. 
Organ za upravljanje je določil ciljno vrednost za „strošek javne podpore za ustvarjeno delovno mesto“ in jo uporabil kot eno izmed meril pri ocenjevanju zahtevkov za dodelitev nepovratnih sredstev za ukrepe za diverzifikacijo ter pri spremljanju napredka.
The mid-term evaluation then analysed the actual results to identify which measures and types of projects were most efficient. 
Pri vmesnem vrednotenju so bili nato analizirani dejanski rezultati, da bi se ugotovilo, kateri ukrepi in vrste projektov so bili najbolj učinkoviti.
For example, projects under the microenterprises measure were considerably more efficient at creating jobs than farm diversification projects. 
Na primer projekti v okviru ukrepa za mikropodjetja so bili pri ustvarjanju delovnih mest znatno bolj učinkoviti kot projekti diverzifikacije kmetij.
Following a review, support for the farm diversification measure has been reduced. Special Report No 12/2013 – Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent? 
Po pregledu je bila podpora ukrepu za diverzifikacijo kmetij zmanjšana. Posebno poročilo št. 12/2013 – Ali lahko Komisija in države članice dokažejo, da so bila proračunska sredstva EU, dodeljena za politiko razvoja podeželja, dobro porabljena?
All 12 of the selected RDPs had been amended at least once and in some cases nine or ten times. 
Vseh 12 izbranih programov razvoja podeželja je bilo spremenjenih najmanj enkrat, nekateri celo devetkrat ali desetkrat.
The Court searched for examples where the Member State justified the changes by reference to the CMEF results data. 
Sodišče je skušalo najti primere, kjer so države članice spremembe utemeljile s sklicevanjem na podatke o rezultatih, pridobljene s CMEF.
Thus, the Court searched for justifications such as ‘farmers have not created enough new products to meet the RDP objective’ or ‘changes to the RDP are needed to achieve the jobs target’. 
Tako je skušalo najti utemeljitve, kot so na primer „kmetje niso ustvarili dovolj novih izdelkov, da bi dosegli cilj programa razvoja podeželja“ ali „program razvoja podeželja je treba spremeniti, da se dosežejo ciljne vrednosti za delovna mesta“.
No such cases were identified. 
Takih primerov ni našlo.
The justifications given were primarily budgetary: the amendments were made because expenditure was higher or lower than forecast rather than because the results achieved differed from those intended. 
Navedene utemeljitve so se večinoma nanašale na proračunska sredstva: programi so bili spremenjeni zato, ker so bili odhodki večji ali manjši od predvidenih, in ne zato, ker bi se doseženi rezultati razlikovali od načrtovanih.
If the RDP expenditure is lower than the Member States planned, after 2 years the EU allocation to the programme is reduced accordingly in a procedure known as ‘decommitment’. 
Če so odhodki za program razvoja podeželja manjši, kot so načrtovale države članice, se po dveh letih dodelitev sredstev EU programu ustrezno zmanjša, v skladu s postopkom, ki se imenuje „prenehanje prevzetih obveznosti“.
This tends to be seen by Member States as ‘losing’ the EU funds. 
Države članice to običajno dojemajo kot „izgubo“ sredstev EU.
To avoid this, Member States amended RDPs to reallocate funds from measures with low take-up towards measures with higher demand. 
Da bi se temu izognile, so spremenile programe razvoja podeželja, da bi sredstva z ukrepov z nizko sprejetostjo prerazporedile k ukrepom z večjim povpraševanjem.
For example, the justification put forward for changes to the Andalucía RDP included ‘the need to take corrective actions at this moment in order to avoid possible decommitments in the future’. 
Na primer utemeljitev sprememb programa razvoja podeželja v Andaluziji je zajemala potrebo po sprejetju takojšnjih popravljalnih ukrepov v izogib možnosti prenehanja prevzetih obveznosti v prihodnosti.
In many cases, the approved changes had the effect of reducing rather than increasing the planned efficiency of the measures. 
Odobrene spremembe so v mnogih primerih namesto povečanja povzročile zmanjšanje načrtovane učinkovitosti ukrepov.
Andalucía increased the budget for the ‘microenterprises’ measure by 194 % but decreased the targets for the outputs (number of microenterprises supported) by 82 % and job creation results by 96 %. 
Andaluzija je proračunska sredstva za ukrep za mikropodjetja sicer povečala za 194 %, vendar je zmanjšala ciljne vrednosti za izložke (število podprtih mikropodjetij) za 82 %, rezultat ustvarjenih delovnih mest pa za 96 %.
Campania amended the RDP to increase the aid rate to 100 % for two of the diversification measures in a bid to increase take-up: applicants were reimbursed the full costs of their investment projects without any additional obligations to achieve results and without having to contribute. 
Kampanija je v želji, da bi okrepila sprejetost, program razvoja podeželja spremenila tako, da je pri dveh ukrepih za diverzifikacijo povečala stopnjo pomoči na 100 %. Vlagateljem zahtevkov so bili povrnjeni celotni stroški njihovih naložbenih projektov, brez kakršnih koli dodatnih obveznosti glede doseganja rezultatov in brez lastnega prispevka.
The job creation target for the farm diversification measure was reduced from 250 in the initial RDP to 95. Special Report No 12/2013 – Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent? 
Ciljna vrednost za ustvarjena delovna mesta pri ukrepu diverzifikacije kmetij je bila z 250, kot je bila določena v prvotnem programu razvoja podeželja, znižana na 95. Posebno poročilo št. 12/2013 – Ali lahko Komisija in države članice dokažejo, da so bila proračunska sredstva EU, dodeljena za politiko razvoja podeželja, dobro porabljena?
32 THE COMMISSION FOCUSED ON OUTPUTS AND FINANCIAL IMPLEMENTATION RATHER THAN ON ACHIEVING RESULTS 69. 
32 KOMISIJA SE JE BOLJ KOT NA DOSEGANJE REZULTATOV OSREDOTOČALA NA IZLOŽKE IN FINANČNO IZVAJANJE 69.
Even where results indicator data showed that targets would not be met, the Commission’s comments on proposed RDP amendments and the annual meetings with the Member States focused on outputs and spending the budget rather than on how to achieve the intended results. 
Tudi v primerih, ko so podatki o kazalnikih rezultatov kazali, da ciljne vrednosti ne bodo dosežene, so se komentarji Komisije o predlaganih spremembah programov razvoja podeželja in letni sestanki z državami članicami bolj kot na načine za doseganje načrtovanih rezultatov osredotočali na izložke in porabo proračuna.
The annual meetings did not achieve their purpose according to the regulation, which is to examine the main results of the previous year. 
Letni sestanki niso izpolnili svojega namena, ki naj bi bil v skladu z uredbo pregledati glavne rezultate preteklega leta.
This same focus on spending the budget and disregard for information on the results achieved can be seen in the Commission reports. 
Enako osredotočenost na porabo proračuna in neupoštevanje informacij o doseženih rezultatih je opaziti tudi v poročilih Komisije.
In the Summary Report to the European Parliament and Council on the implementation of the national strategies16, the Commission commented on the measure for modernising agricultural holdings that in some Member States ‘the implementation rate seems to be faster than expected, requiring the need to increase the estimated budget’. 
V zbirnem poročilu Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu o izvajanju nacionalnih strategij16 je Komisija o ukrepu za posodabljanje kmetijskih gospodarstev navedla, da je bilo v nekaterih državah članicah „izvajanje očitno hitrejše od pričakovanega, zato je treba povečati ocenjeni proračun“.
The Commission did not explain why ‘faster implementation’ should justify an increase in the budget. 
Komisija ni pojasnila, zakaj bi hitrejše izvajanje utemeljevalo povečanje proračuna.
Results data presented in the same report — such as the results for the same measure showing only 10 % of the target for new products/techniques being achieved — was not analysed or commented on in the report by the Commission. 
Prav tako ni analizirala ali komentirala podatkov o rezultatih, ki so bili predstavljeni v tem poročilu, na primer rezultatov za isti ukrep, ki so pokazali, da je bilo doseženih le 10 % ciljne vrednosti za nove proizvode/tehnike.
In DG Agriculture and Rural Development’s Annual Activity Report for 2011, the cumulative results data presented in an annex shows that four years into the programming period only 4 % of the target for creating jobs had been achieved. 
Skupni podatki o rezultatih, navedeni v eni izmed prilog letnega poročila o dejavnostih GD za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja za leto 2011, kažejo, da so bili v prvih štirih letih programskega obdobja doseženi le 4 % ciljne vrednosti za ustvarjanje delovnih mest.
There is no mention in the document or in the following DG’s Management Plan of any planned activity by the Commission to improve this situation, despite the importance given in the EU’s strategy to the priority of creating jobs. 
Kljub pomenu, ki ga prednostni nalogi ustvarjanja delovnih mest pripisuje strategija EU, ni ne v tem dokumentu ne v naslednjem letnem načrtu upravljanja GD omenjena nobena dejavnost, ki bi jo Komisija načrtovala za izboljšanje tega položaja.
16 COM(2011) 450 final of 20 July 2011. 
16 COM(2011) 450 final z dne 20. julija 2011.
Special Report No 12/2013 – Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent? 33 THE COMMISSION DID NOT USE CMEF RESULTS INFORMATION TO SUPPORT ITS PROPOSALS FOR THE 2014–20 PROGRAMMING PERIOD 72. 
12/2013 – Ali lahko Komisija in države članice dokažejo, da so bila proračunska sredstva EU, dodeljena za politiko razvoja podeželja, dobro porabljena? 33 KOMISIJA NI UPORABILA INFORMACIJ O REZULTATIH IZ CMEF ZA PODKREPITEV SVOJIH PREDLOGOV ZA PROGRAMSKO OBDOBJE 2014–2020 72.
In October 2011, the Commission issued the proposals for the 2014–20 programming period17. 
Oktobra 2011 je Komisija objavila predloge za programsko obdobje 2014– 202017.
The explanatory memorandum presents the results of the impact assessment, which is intended to give the European Parliament and Council information relevant to their decisions. 
V obrazložitvenem memorandumu so navedeni rezultati ocene vpliva, ki naj bi Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu zagotovili informacije, pomembne za njune odločitve.
It describes the needs that the rural development policy should address, but does not show that the proposed measures are effective and efficient means of meeting those needs. 
Opisane so potrebe, ki bi jih morala obravnavati politika razvoja podeželja, vendar ni prikazano, da so predlagani ukrepi uspešna in učinkovita sredstva za izpolnitev teh potreb.
Annex 4 of the impact assessment gives an ‘assessment of the current policy framework’ in which the Commission presents results targets for just seven of the 40 RDP measures. 
Priloga 4 k oceni vpliva vsebuje oceno sedanjega okvira politike, v kateri Komisija predstavlja ciljne vrednosti rezultatov za samo sedem od 40 ukrepov programov razvoja podeželja.
No data is shown on what has been achieved in relation to the targets. 
Podatki o dosežkih v zvezi s ciljnimi vrednostmi niso navedeni.
In Annex 4a, the Commission gives a brief account of the strengths and weaknesses of the measures for modernising agricultural holdings, agri-environment, forestry measures, microenterprises, and Leader but gives no information on the other measures proposed for the 2014–20 period, including financially important measures, such as that for ‘adding value to agricultural products’ (5,6 billion euros EU allocation in 2007–13). 
V Prilogi 4a Komisija na kratko pojasni prednosti in slabosti ukrepov za posodobitev kmetijskih gospodarstev, kmetijsko-okoljskih in gozdarskih ukrepov, ukrepov za mikropodjetja in ukrepov Leader, vendar ne navede informacij o drugih ukrepih, predlaganih za obdobje 2014–2020, vključno s finančno pomembnimi ukrepi, kot je ukrep za „dodajanje vrednosti kmetijskim proizvodom” (5,6 milijarde EUR dodeljenih sredstev v obdobju 2007–2013).
This annex presents financial and output data for all the measures but no information on the results achieved. 
Ta priloga vsebuje finančne podatke in podatke o izložkih za vse ukrepe, vendar nobenih informacij o doseženih rezultatih.
Annex 11 has an overview of evaluation findings, which shows that the impact assessment is based largely on the ex ante evaluations of the 2007–13 RDPs, of which the synthesis was published in 200818. 
V Prilogi 11 je pregled ugotovitev vrednotenj, ki kaže, da temelji ocena vpliva v veliki meri na predhodnih ocenah programov razvoja podeželja za obdobje 2007–2013, katerih sinteza je bila objavljena leta 200818.
This illustrates the weaknesses in the timing and availability of monitoring and evaluation information. 
To kaže na slabosti pri pravočasnosti in razpoložljivosti informacij o spremljanju in vrednotenju.
The Commission made its proposals before the mid-term and ex post evaluation syntheses were available, so the proposals were made not only without information on the effectiveness and efficiency of the measures in the 2007–13 period, but also without the ex post evaluation of the 2000–06 period. 
Komisija je objavila svoje predloge, preden so bile objavljene sinteze vmesnega in naknadnega vrednotenja, tako da so bili predlogi oblikovani ne le brez informacij o uspešnosti in učinkovitosti ukrepov v obdobju 2007–2013, temveč tudi brez naknadnega vrednotenja za obdobje 2000–2006.
Although these evaluations have weaknesses, they nevertheless should be taken into account when deciding on the 2014–20 policy. 
Čeprav imajo ta vrednotenja slabosti, bi jih bilo vseeno treba upoštevati pri sprejemanju odločitev o politiki za obdobje 2014–2020.
For example, the ex post evaluation concludes that the effects of the measure ‘adding value to agricultural products’ on the competitiveness of agriculture seemed to be ‘generally rather marginal’. 
Na primer v zaključkih naknadnega vrednotenja je navedeno, da so se zdeli učinki ukrepa dodajanja vrednosti kmetijskim proizvodom na konkurenčnost kmetijstva na splošno neznatni.
The mid-term evaluations reported a high incidence of deadweight (see paragraph 56). 
Vmesna vrednotenja so pokazala veliko pogostost mrtvih izgub (glej odstavek 56).
Yet the Commission proposed this measure for the 2014–20 period without providing information to the European Parliament and Council on the deadweight issue or what conditions should be established for the measure to ensure that deadweight can be minimised. 
Kljub temu je Komisija ta ukrep predlagala za obdobje 2014–2020, ne da bi Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu predložila informacije o težavi z mrtvimi izgubami ali navedla pogoje, ki bi jih bilo treba določiti, da bi ukrep zagotovil kar največje možno zmanjšanje mrtvih izgub.
17 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), COM(2011) 627 final/2 of 19 October 2011. 
17 Predlog uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o podpori za razvoj podeželja iz Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja (EKSRP), COM(2011) 627 final z dne 19. oktobra 2011.
18 Synthesis of Ex ante Evaluations of Rural Development Programmes 2007–13, Final Report, DG Agriculture and Rural Development, 11.12.2008. 
18 Sinteza predhodne ocene programov razvoja podeželja za obdobje 2007–2013, končno poročilo, GD za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja, 11.
When making choices on future policy at EU level, and for programming at national and regional level, information should be available to answer basic but important questions such as ‘has this measure proved effective at achieving the objectives in the past?’; ‘is this measure the most efficient means of achieving the objective?’ and ‘what lessons can be drawn from the past implementation of this measure to improve its effectiveness in the future?’. 
Pri odločanju o prihodnji politiki na ravni EU in pri programskem načrtovanju na nacionalni in regionalni ravni bi morale biti na voljo informacije, ki bi nudile odgovore na osnovna, a pomembna vprašanja, kot so „Ali se je ta ukrep v preteklosti izkazal za uspešnega pri doseganju ciljev?“, „Je ta ukrep najbolj učinkovito sredstvo za doseganje cilja?“ in „Kaj se lahko naučimo iz izvajanja tega ukrepa v preteklosti, da bi izboljšali njegovo uspešnost v prihodnosti?“.
Yet the results data that should show the effectiveness and efficiency of the measures was not available in time for the impact assessment; information subsequently published, in annexes to DG Agriculture and Rural Development’s Annual Activity Report, for example, is not sufficiently relevant, reliable or complete. 
Vendar podatki o rezultatih, ki bi pokazali uspešnost in učinkovitost ukrepov, niso bili pravočasno na voljo za oceno vpliva, informacije, ki so bile objavljene naknadno, na primer v prilogah k letnemu poročilu o dejavnostih GD za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja, pa niso dovolj relevantne, zanesljive ali popolne.
Ultimately, the Commission has failed to provide the information needed to inform decisions on the most effective and efficient measures for the 2014–20 period. 34 Special Report No 12/2013 – Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent? 
Komisija tako ni zagotovila informacij, ki so bile potrebne za pomoč pri odločitvah o najbolj uspešnih in učinkovitih ukrepih v obdobju 2014–2020. 34 Posebno poročilo št. 12/2013 – Ali lahko Komisija in države članice dokažejo, da so bila proračunska sredstva EU, dodeljena za politiko razvoja podeželja, dobro porabljena?
35 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 76. 
35 ZAKLJUČKI IN PRIPOROČILA 76.
The Treaty and the EU’s Financial Regulation require Member States to cooperate with the Commission so that EU funds are used in accordance with the principles of Sound Financial Management, which are effectiveness, efficiency and economy. 
Pogodba in finančna uredba EU določata, da morajo države članice sodelovati s Komisijo, da bi zagotovile porabo sredstev EU v skladu z načelom dobrega finančnega poslovodenja, ki zajema načela uspešnosti, učinkovitosti in gospodarnosti.
To do this in the context of the rural development policy, the Commission and Member States need timely information on whether the rural development measures are achieving the policy objectives in an efficient way. 
V ta namen potrebujejo Komisija in države članice v okviru politike razvoja podeželja pravočasne informacije o tem, ali so ukrepi za razvoj podeželja učinkoviti pri doseganju ciljev politike.
They should account for their performance by reporting this information to the European Parliament, Council and to the EU public. 
Poleg tega morajo poročati o svoji smotrnosti poslovanja, tako da s temi informacijami seznanijo Evropski parlament, Svet in javnost EU.
The Court concludes that the Commission and Member States have not sufficiently shown what has been achieved in relation to the rural development policy objectives and there is a lack of assurance that the EU’s budget for rural development has been spent well. 
Sodišče je prišlo do zaključka, da Komisija in države članice niso v zadostni meri dokazale dosežkov v zvezi s cilji politike razvoja podeželja, zagotovilo, da je bil proračun EU za razvoj podeželja dobro porabljen, pa ni zadostno.
The Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF) is the main instrument put in place for providing the necessary information and assurance. 
Skupni okvir spremljanja in vrednotenja (CMEF) je glavni instrument, ki je bil vzpostavljen za zagotavljanje potrebnih informacij in zagotovila.
Its weaknesses contributed to the lack of assurance described above. 
Njegove slabosti so prispevale k omenjenemu nezadostnemu zagotovilu.
The CMEF is a set of tools, whose design can (and should) be improved. 
CMEF je vrsta orodij, katerih zasnova se lahko (in bi se morala) izboljšati.
But better tools will not solve the problem unless they are properly used. 
Vendar boljša orodja ne bodo rešila težave, če se ne bodo ustrezno uporabljala.
The Court found that the present lack of accountability is attributable to a more fundamental weakness: programmes that have focused too much on spending the budget and not enough on efficiently achieving results. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da trenutno pomanjkanje odgovornosti izvira iz bolj temeljne slabosti: programi so bili prekomerno osredotočeni na porabo proračuna in premalo na učinkovito doseganje rezultatov.
This has led to a lack of attention to the monitoring and evaluation of results and impacts and consequently a lack of consideration for the quality of the information. 
Zato se spremljanju in vrednotenju rezultatov in vplivov ni posvečalo dovolj pozornosti, posledično pa je bila nezadostna tudi skrb za kakovost informacij.
The Court found that with general, open-ended objectives and insufficient quantification of the intended results in relation to those objectives, the RDPs drawn up by the Member States did not provide a sound basis for allocating the EU’s budget in an effective and efficient way. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da programi razvoja podeželja držav članic zaradi ne-določnih ciljev in nezadostne količinske opredelitve načrtovanih rezultatov v zvezi s temi cilji niso zagotavljali trdne podlage za uspešno in učinkovito dodeljevanje proračunskih sredstev EU.
Nor did they target the spending to where it would have the most effect, or provide a standard against which achievements could be measured (paragraphs 19 to 34). Special Report No 12/2013 – Can the Commission and Member States show that the EU budget allocated to the rural development policy is well spent? 
Prav tako niso ciljno usmerjali porabe na področja, kjer bi imela največji učinek, ali določali standarda, ki bi služil kot referenca za merjenje dosežkov (odstavki od 19 do 34). Posebno poročilo št. 12/2013 – Ali lahko Komisija in države članice dokažejo, da so bila proračunska sredstva EU, dodeljena za politiko razvoja podeželja, dobro porabljena?
Secondly, there is an information deficit: despite support from the Commission, Member States have not produced monitoring and evaluation information that is reliable, consistent and relevant enough to show the results achieved in relation to the objectives set. 
Poleg tega je bilo informacij premalo: kljub podpori Komisije države članice s pomočjo spremljanja in vrednotenja niso pridobile informacij, ki bi bile dovolj zanesljive, dosledne in relevantne, da bi dokazale rezultate, ki so bili doseženi v zvezi z zastavljenimi cilji.
The Member States and the Commission reported the common indicator data that was available but did not interpret the data in relation to the RDP or the EU’s objectives. 
Države članice in Komisija so poročale o podatkih o skupnih kazalnikih, ki so bili na voljo, vendar jih niso tolmačile glede na programe razvoja podeželja in cilje EU.