natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Zanimivo bo preučiti, kako bo predlagani niz instrumentov na področju zunanjepolitičnega delovanja vplival na poglavje SZVP v tem smislu.
It will also be interesting to explore how the proposed set of new External Action Instruments will work in relation to the CFSP chapter in this respect.
Postavlja se tudi vprašanje dobrega upravljanja proračuna in učinkovite porabe sredstev.
It is also a question of sound budgetary management and achieving value-for-money.
Evropsko računsko sodišče je že leta 2001 odločno obsodilo dejstvo, da so bili podobni ukrepi SZVP financirani iz različnih proračunskih vrstic in pododdelkov, in je hkrati pozvalo k preglednejšemu financiranju ukrepov SZVP.
In fact, already in 2001, the European Court of Auditors clearly criticised the fact that similar CFSP actions were funded from different budget lines and subsections and recommended that the financing of CFSP actions should be managed in a more transparent manner .
Poročevalec izraža iskreno upanje, da bo novi večletni finančni okvir lahko ponudil možnosti za "nov začetek" na tem področju, in poudarja, da bo to ključen element, ki mu je treba posvetiti pozornost v prihodnjih letih, tudi z ozirom na prihodnji pregled večletnega finančnega okvira v letih 2008 in 2009.
The rapporteur sincerely hopes that the new multi-annual financial framework (MFF) can serve as a "new beginning" in this respect and emphasises that this will be a crucial element to be taken into account in the next few years and in view of the 2008-2009 review of the MFF.
Vprašanje posebnih predstavnikov EU
The case of EU Special representatives
Na začetku leta 2006 se je Svet odločil podaljšati mandat osmim posebnim predstavnikom EU do 28. februarja 2007 (predstavnikom za Bosno in Hercegovino, osrednjo Azijo, mirovni proces na Bližnjem vzhodu, Moldavijo, južni Kavkaz, regijo Velikih jezer, Nekdanjo jugoslovansko republiko Makedonijo in Afganistan).
At the beginning of 2006 the Council decided to extend until 28 February 2007 the mandate of eight EUSRs (Bosnia Herzegovina, Central Asia, Middle East Peace Process, Moldova, South Caucasus, Great Lakes, FYROM, and Afghanistan).
V skladu z obstoječim medinstitucionalnim sporazumom z dne 6. maja 1999 je Evropski parlament prejel izvod finančnih izkazov o skupnih ukrepih Sveta v zvezi s podaljšanjem teh mandatov.
In accordance with the current IIA of 6 May 1999, the European Parliament received copy of the financial statements for the Council Joint Actions extending these mandates.
Na zadnji skupni seji s Svetom so poslanci Evropskega parlamenta podali jasno stališče o tem, da omenjeni dokumenti niso vsebovali nikakršne ocene dejavnosti posebnih predstavnikov EU.
At the last joint meeting with Council Parliament members clearly considered that these texts did not provide any evaluation of the activities carried out by the EUSRs.
Obstaja potreba po nadaljnji razpravi o merilih za imenovanje posebnih predstavnikov EU, o opredelitvi njihovih nalog, trajanju njihovih mandatov ter dopolnjevanju in usklajevanju z delegacijami Komisije in dejavnostmi/instrumenti, ki sodijo v prvi steber.
There is a need to discuss further the criteria for the appointment EUSRs, the definition of their tasks, lengths of their mandates and the complementarity and coordination with the Commission delegations and work/instruments under the first pillar.
Med proračunskim postopkom za leto 2006 je Odbor za zunanje zadeve zahteval, da Svet izoblikuje jasne smernice za odprtje delovnih mest za posebne predstavnike EU.
During the 2006 budgetary procedure the Committee on Foreign Affairs requested that Council establishes clear guidelines for the establishment of EUSR posts.
Takšne smernice bi zagotovile merila za ocenjevanje dodane vrednosti posebnih predstavnikov.
Such guidelines should provide criteria for assessing the added value of Special Representatives.
Kaj pravzaprav opredeljuje potrebo po dodelitvi mandata in njegov uspeh?
What actually defines the need and the success of a mandate?
Na omenjeni skupni seji je predsedstvo Sveta pojasnilo, da:
At the joint meeting in question the Council presidency indicated that:
(a) so bili posebni predstavniki EU odraz prednostnih političnih nalog ter pomemben instrument SZVP, ki zagotavlja politično doslednost na določenem geografskem območju;
(a) EUSRs were an expression of the EU political priorities and an important CFSP instrument for ensuring political consistency towards a particular geographical area;
(b) so k misijam SZVP/EVOP prispevali predvsem na področju političnega usmerjanja;
(b) They provided political steering to CFSP/ESDP missions;
(c) so v primeru odsotnosti misij SZVP/EVOP prispevali k prepoznavnosti Unije ter spodbujali usklajen regionalni pristop (npr. v osrednji Aziji).
(c) (Where there was no CFSP/ESDP mission) they provided visibility to the Union and promoted a coordinated regional approach (e.g. in Central Asia)
Na vprašanje poslanca Evropskega parlamenta, zakaj teh nalog niso opravile delegacije Komisije, je predsedstvo odgovorilo, da:
On a specific question by MEPs why the Commission's Delegations could not carry out the same work the presidency indicated that:
(a) pri svojem delu na področju celotne regije so posebni predstavniki EU morali veliko potovati (kar bi veleposlaniki ES težko uskladili s svojimi dolžnostmi, ki so že vključevale pomoč Skupnosti in njeno sodelovanje z določeno državo);
(a) When they were dealing with an entire region, EUSRs were often called upon to travel frequently (something which would hardly be compatible with the duties of EC Ambassadors, who were in charge of Community Assistance and Cooperation in relation to a given country).
Navedbe Sveta ne zmanjšujejo potrebe po nepristranskih sredstvih za ocenjevanje priporočljivosti zaposlovanja posebnih predstavnikov EU ter temeljitejši/bolj nepristranski oceni njihovega delovanja in zahtevanega financiranja iz proračuna.
These indications on the Council's part do not lessen the need for objective means to assess the advisability of creating EUSRs and a more thorough/objective assessment of their work and the financing requested from the budget.
Kar zadeva stroške financiranja posebnih predstavnikov EU, je bilo v letu 2004 pet predstavnikov financiranih iz proračuna EU v višini 3,1 milijona EUR.
As for the costs of the EUSRs, in 2004 five of them were financed from the EU budget to the tune of EUR 3, 1 million.
V letu 2006 je za osem predstavnikov namenjenih 7,5 milijona EUR.
In 2006, the amount is EUR 7, 5 million for eight of them.
Povprečni strošek za proračun se je tako zvišal z 0,6 milijona EUR letno na odposlanca na 0,9 milijona, torej za skoraj 50 %.
The average cost to the EU budget has therefore increased from EUR 0, 6 million/year/envoy to 0, 9 million, an increase in costs of 50%.
Ali je to v celoti le posledica prenosa nekaterih stroškov financiranja od držav članic na proračun EU?
Can this be fully accounted for by a shift from MS financing to EU budget financing for some costs?
V okviru PPP za leto 2007 je znova predlagana podvojitev odobrenih sredstev za posebne predstavnike EU.
The 2007 PDB again proposes a doubling of appropriations for EUSRs.
Predlagan je znesek 14 milijonov EUR, tj. zvišanje za 448 % v dveh letih.
The proposed figure is EUR 14 million, i.e. an increase of + 448 % in two years.
Nekaj vprašanj za obravnavo
Some questions for the hearing
· Obseg dejavnosti SZVP/EVOP se hitro povečuje, ob upoštevanju več kot dvakratnega povečanja predvidenega financiranja (v povprečju okrog 250 milijonov na leto v obdobju 2007–2013) bodo te dejavnosti postale veliko bolj politično pomembne in prepoznavne.
· CFSP/ESDP operations are evolving at quite a quick pace and, also, considering the more than doubling of financing foreseen (average level of about 250 million/year over 2007-2013) these will become politically more significant and much more visible .
Je mogoče domnevati, da bo Svet vse bolj iskal in potreboval podporo Parlamenta ne le za to, da bi občasno zagotovil kak milijon več, ampak tudi za zagotovitev podpore na politični ravni?
Is it likely that the Council will increasingly seek and need the support of Parliament not only for another million here or there, but, also at the political level?
· Obstaja trend povečanja števila mešanih misij, tj. skupnih civilnih in vojaških operacij.
· There is a trend to carry out more and more mixed missions, i.e . combined civil and military operations .
Mar ni pomembno nadaljevati z razvojem naše strukture za demokratični nadzor teh ukrepov in njihovega financiranja?
Is it not essential to continue to develop our structures for democratic scrutiny of such measures and their financing?
Bi sem morali vključiti tudi financiranje iz proračuna držav članic?
Should these also encompass funding from Member States budgets?
· Kako se lahko okvir posvetovanja/obveščanja med Parlamentom in Svetom (ki temelji na določbah novega medinstitucionalnega sporazuma) kar najbolje uporabi za spodbujanje "novega začetka" pri graditvi vzajemnega zaupanja med institucijama o vprašanjih SZVP?
· How can the framework of consultation/information between Parliament and Council (built around the provisions of the new IIA) best be used to promote a "new beginning" of confidence-building between the Institutions on CFSP matters?
· Kako bi lahko sočasno nadaljevali z razvojem demokratičnega nadzora na politični ravni?
· In the same vein, how could we continue to develop democratic scrutiny at the policy level?
Na kakšen način lahko to dosežemo znotraj obstoječega okvira?
How can this best be achieved within the current framework?
Bi lahko Svet in Komisija navsezadnje preučila možnosti za predstavitev dejanske "presoje potreb" v zvezi s predlaganimi ukrepi?
Could the Council and the Commission eventually consider presenting real "needs assessments" for proposed actions?
· Izražena je bila potreba po novem in bolj strukturiranem pristopu do vprašanja posebnih predstavnikov EU .
· The need for a new and more structured approach to the EUSRs has been called for.
Predlagano povečanje proračunskih sredstev v preteklih dveh letih je bilo izjemno visoko.
The proposed budget increases in the last two years have been dramatic.
Kako je mogoče Parlamentu zagotoviti boljše možnosti za nepristransko ocenjevanje smiselnosti ter imenovanja na tem področju?
What can be done to allow the Parliament better opportunities to objectively assess the rationale and appointments in this field?
Na kakšen način je mogoče združiti prizadevanja za zagotovitev usklajenega in doslednega razvoja instrumentov Skupnosti in tistih s področja SZVP/EVOP, z namenom spodbujanja njihove vzajemne usklajenosti in zagotavljanja doslednosti na področju strategij zunanjepolitičnih ukrepov?
How could efforts be focussed to ensure a coordinated and consistent development of Community instruments and the instruments available under the CFSP/ESDP, in order to promote consistency between them and ensure coherence within overall external action strategies?
o razvojnih vprašanjih
on development issues
"Revščina je mati revolucije in zločina"
"Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime"
Aristotel (384 - 322 pr. n. š.)
Aristotle (384 - 322 B.C.)
Ta delovni dokument opredeljuje cilje razvojne pomoči ES in sredstev, ki so za to namenjena, glede na novi večletni finančni okvir, ki bo predvidoma sprejet na majskem plenarnem zasedanju Evropskega parlamenta.
This working document sets out the objectives of EC development assistance and the funds available to that end, notably in light of the new multi-annual financial framework (MFF) that is due to be adopted at the May Plenary session of the European Parliament.
Delovni dokument obravnava, kako je bila razvojna pomoč ES ponavadi razdeljena in nekatere teme za nadaljnjo analizo na tem področju.
The working document considers how EC development assistance has traditionally been allocated and considers some themes for further analysis in this area.
O teh temah se lahko razpravlja 29. maja na predstavitvi zunanjih vidikov proračunskega postopka 2007.
These topics may be discussed at the 29 May hearing on external aspects of the 2007 budget procedure.
Kateri so cilji večstranske razvojne pomoči?
What are the objectives of multilateral development assistance?
Razvojni cilji novega tisočletja, o katerih so se sporazumele članice ZN v Deklaraciji tisočletja ZN iz leta 2000 tvori krovni nabor ciljev za večstransko razvojno politiko.
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) agreed among UN members in the UN Millennium Declaration of 2000 form an over-arching set of objectives for the multilateral development policy.
Razvojni cilji novega tisočletja so:
The MDGs are:
(a) Cilj 1: odpraviti skrajno revščino in lakoto
(a) Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
(b) Cilj 2: zagotoviti osnovno izobraževanje za vse
(b) Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education
(c) Cilj 3: spodbuditi enakost med spoloma in neodvisnost žensk
(c) Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women
(d) Cilj 4: zmanjšati smrtnost otrok
(d) Goal 4: Reduce child mortality
(e) Cilj 5: izboljšati zdravje mater
(e) Goal 5: Improve maternal health
(f) Cilj 6: bojevati se proti HIV/AIDS, malariji in drugim boleznim
(f) Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
(g) Cilj 7: zagotoviti trajnostni razvoj okolja
(g) Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability
(h) Cilj 8: uvesti svetovno partnerstvo za razvoj
(h) Goal 8: Develop a global partnership for development
Kateri so cilji razvojne pomoči ES?
What are the objectives of EC development assistance?
Člen 177 Pogodbe Evropske skupnosti (ES) določa tri cilje razvojne politike ES:
Article 177 of the Treaty of the European Community (EC) sets three objectives for EC development policy:
· trajnostni gospodarski in socialni razvoj držav v razvoju, zlasti tistih, ki so v najbolj neugodnem položaju;
· the sustainable economic and social development of the developing countries, and more particularly the most disadvantaged among them;
· enakomerno in postopno vključevanje držav v razvoju v svetovno gospodarstvo;
· the smooth and gradual integration of the developing countries into the world economy;
· boj proti revščini v državah v razvoju.
· and the campaign against poverty in the developing countries.
EU se je prav tako večkrat zavezala spoštovati zgoraj omenjene razvojne cilje novega tisočletja.
The EU has also signed up to the above-mentioned MDGs on a number of occasions.
Katera sredstva so na voljo za razvojno pomoč ES?
What funds are available for EC development assistance?
EU kot celota – Skupnost in države članice – zagotavlja več kot polovico vse uradne svetovne razvojne pomoči: več kot 34,5 milijard EUR v letu 2004, kar predstavlja 0,36 % BND.
The EU as a whole – Community and Member States – provides more than half of all global official development assistance: over €34.5 billion in 2004, representing 0.36% of GNI.
S petino proračunskih sredstev EU za pomoč – 6,9 milijard EUR v letu 2004 – upravlja Evropska komisija v imenu Skupnosti.
One-fifth of the EU’s current aid budget – €6.9 billion in 2004 – is managed by the European Commission on behalf of the Community.
V to je vključen evropski razvojni sklad, ki ne spada v proračun Skupnosti.
This includes the European Development Fund (EDF), which accounted for outside of the Community Budget.
9. evropski razvojni sklad zagotavlja 13,5 milijard EUR za afriške, karibske in pacifiške partnerske države.
The 9th EDF provides EUR 13.5 billion for African, Caribbean and Pacific partner countries.
Geografski razpon programa pomoči Skupnosti je globalen, od neposrednih sosed EU do držav v razvoju v vseh regijah po svetu.
The geographical span of the Community’s assistance programmes is global, from the EU’s immediate neighbours to developing countries in all regions of the world.
Kako so razvojna sredstva ES porazdeljena geografsko?
How is EC development spending distributed geographically?
Ni mogoče povsem natančno določiti, koliko razvojne pomoči je zagotovljene za posamezno geografsko regijo, vendar pa je približna razdelitev vključena v letnem poročilu Komisije iz leta 2005 o "razvojni politiki Evropske skupnosti in izvajanju zunanje pomoči leta 2004".
It is not straightforward to measure precisely how much development assistance is provided per geographical region, but an approximate breakdown is provided for in the Commission's Annual Report 2005 on "The European Community's development policy and the implementation of external assistance in 2004".
V tem poročilu je navedeno, da bila razdelitev sredstev na osnovi plačil iz proračuna v letu 2004 takšna:
This report states that in 2004, on the basis of budget payments, the breakdown was as follows:
Plačila (v milijonih EUR)
Payments (EUR million)
Delež plačil
Share of payments
Nove neodvisne države
Newly-independent States
Latinska Amerika
Latin America
Stopnje plačil so se v zadnjih letih približale stopnjam obveznosti za posamezne programe kot rezultat programa "dekoncentracije" načina, na katerega ES izplačuje razvojno pomoč, z dodelitvijo večje vloge delegacijam ES v tretjih državah.
Payment levels have trended closer to commitment levels in recent years for specific programmes as a result of a programme of "deconcentrating" the way in which EC development aid is disbursed, by giving a greater role to EC Delegations in third countries.
Seveda je pri plačilih, ki so bližje zgornjim mejam obveznosti, manj prostora za prerazporejanje sredstev med regijami in programi.
Of course, payments that are closer to commitment ceilings leaves less scope for re-distributing funds between regions and programmes.
Tretja vrstica v tabeli je dodeljena "tematskim" izdatkom.
The third row in the table is allocated to "thematic" spending.
Ta se seveda ne nanaša na določeno geografsko regijo, ampak na razvojno pomoč, porabljeno za tematske programe, ki se osredotočajo na različna skupna vprašanja, kot so človekove pravice, ohranjanje naravnih virov in odgovorno vodenje.
This clearly does not refer to any specific geographical region, but rather to development assistance spent on thematic programmes that focus on cross-cutting issues such as human rights, preservation of natural resources and good governance.
Pomoč za trgovino – obveza za milijardo EUR
Aid for Trade - the EUR 1 billion pledge
V sklopu vrha G8 leta 2005 se je predsednik Evropske komisije Baroso obvezal, da bo Komisija do leta 2010 iz razvojne pomoči ES zagotovila milijardo EUR pomoči za trgovinska plačila.
In the context of the 2005 G8 Summit, European Commission President Barroso pledged that the Commission would provide EUR 1 billion in aid for trade payments by 2010 from EC development assistance.
V zvezi s tem bi lahko zagovarjali stališče, da bi morali za natančno evidenco te obveze ustvariti novo tematsko proračunsko vrstico za pomoč, povezano s trgovino.
It can be argued in this context that in order for this commitment to be accounted for accurately, a thematic budget line for trade-related assistance should be created.
Ker takšne tematske proračunske vrstice ni, bo skupna številka za letno pomoč ES, povezano s trgovino, dobljena s seštevkom, ki temelji na izdatkih za trgovinsko pomoč v nacionalnih državnih programih.
In the absence of such a thematic budget line, the overall figure for annual EC trade-related assistance will be produced through an aggregation derived from spending on trade assistance in national country programmes.
Obveza za pomoč za trgovino sproža zanimivi vprašanji.
The aid for trade pledge raises two interesting issues.
Prvič, razprava o nujnosti tematske proračunske vrstice za natančno evidenco pomoči za trgovino izpostavlja kompromis med preglednostjo političnih zavez in širitvijo tematskih proračunskih vrstic za različne horizontalne cilje razvojne politike.
First, the debate about the need for a thematic budget line to account accurately for aid for trade spending raises a trade-off between, on the one hand, transparency of political commitments and, on the other, a proliferation of thematic budget lines for the various horizontal objectives of development policy.
Drugič, obstaja vprašanje usklajenosti med porabo Skupnosti v primerjavi s porabo ostalih dvostranskih in večstranskih donatorjev.
Second, there is the issue of the coherence between Community spending relative to spending by other bilateral and multilateral donors.
Poudarek Svetovne banke na strateških programih zmanjševanja revščine, o katerih je sklenjen dogovor na nacionalni ravni s partnerskimi državami v razvoju, je v tem pogledu še posebej pomemben.
The World Bank's emphasis on Poverty Reduction Strategy Programmes (PRSPs) agreed at a national level with developing partner countries are particularly relevant in this regard.
Kako bo nov večletni finančni okvir vplival na razvojno porabo ES?
How will EC development spending be affected by the new MFF?
Zaradi reorganizacije razdelkov za novo finančno perspektivo je težko neposredno primerjati bodočo porabo razvojne pomoči v večletnem finančnem okviru 2007–2013, s finančno perspektivo 2000–2006.
The reorganisation of the headings for the new financial perspective make it somewhat difficult to make direct comparisons between future spending on development assistance in the 2007 - 2013 MFF relative the 2000 - 2006 Financial Perspective (FP).
Okvirni podatek je, da je v obdobju 2007–2013 za razdelek 4 "EU kot globalni partner" predvidenih 50 milijard EUR.
As an overall guide, EUR 50 billion is foreseen for Heading 4 "The EU as a global partner" over the period 2007 - 2013.
Treba pa je opozoriti, da evropski razvojni sklad in rezerva za nujno pomoč nista v večletnem finančnem okviru 2007–2013.
One must note, however, that the EDF and the Emergency Aid Reserve are outside of the 2007 - 2013 MFF.
Nadalje, evropski sosedski in partnerski instrument, za katerega je v večletnem finančnem okviru dodeljeno več kot 10 milijard EUR, zagotavlja pomoč revnejšim državam na zunanjih mejah EU ali tistim, ki so blizu zunanjih meja EU.
Further the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI), to which over EUR 10 billion is allocated over the MFF, provides assistance to poorer countries on, or close to, the EU's external borders.
Prihodnost gospodarskih instrumentov in instrumentov sodelovanja ES
The future of EC economic and cooperation instruments
Med Parlamentom, Svetom in Komisijo potekajo pogajanja glede novih zunanjih instrumentov za predpristop, sosedstvo in partnerstvo ter razvojno in gospodarsko sodelovanje.
Negotiations are ongoing between Parliament, Council and Commission regarding the new external instruments for pre-accession (IPA), neighbourhood and partnership (ENPI) and development and economic co-operation (DCEC).
Eno od ključnih vprašanj je pravna podlaga za instrument za razvojno in gospodarsko sodelovanje.
One of the key issues is the legal base for the DCEC.
Parlament namerava spremeniti ta program, da bi vključeval vse države v razvoju (po definiciji OECD/DAC so "države v razvoju" tudi Kitajska, Indija, Brazilija), ki niso vključene v sosedski ali predpristopni instrument.
The Parliament intends to amend this programme so that it would cover all developing countries (by OECD/ DAC definition "developing countries" would include China, India, Brazil) that are not covered by the ENPI (Neighbourhood) or IPA (Pre-accession) instruments.
Ključno vprašanje je, ali pravna podlaga zajema le razvojno sodelovanje (člen 179 Pogodbe) ali tudi gospodarsko, finančno in tehnično sodelovanje (člen 181 Pogodbe).
A key question is whether the legal base for will cover only development cooperation (Art 179 of the Treaty) or also economic, financial and technical cooperation (Art 181 of the Treaty).
Dvojna pravna podlaga bi Komisiji pustila več možnosti, da denar za podporo porabi za gospodarsko, finančno in tehnično sodelovanje z (npr.)
A dual legal base would give the Commission a freer hand to spend assistance money on economic, financial and technical cooperation with (e.g.)
Kitajsko, vendar pa bi to lahko imelo za posledico manj denarja, ki bo na voljo za razvojno pomoč.
China, but could, as a consequence, reduce money available for development assistance.
Ključne teme
Key themes