natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Proračunska podpora in prevzem lastne odgovornosti za razvojno agendo
Budget support and ownership of the development agenda
Pariška deklaracija je lastno odgovornost postavila za temelj novega sistema mednarodne pomoči.
The Paris Declaration established ownership as the cornerstone of the new system of international aid.
Vendar vzpostavljanje vodenja in potrebne odgovornosti ne pomeni nujno, da države, izvoljeni politiki in civilna družba postanejo avtonomni.
However, implementing ‘leadership’ and the necessary accountability is not necessarily synonymous with making states, elected representatives and civil society self-reliant.
V praksi je več različnih ravni odgovornosti glede na posebne značilnosti proračunske podpore in glede na zrelost demokratičnega sistema ter upravljanja financ v partnerski državi.
Differing degrees of ownership may be observed in practice, depending on the specific nature of the budget support provided and the maturity of the partner country’s democratic system and financial management.
Zdi se tudi, da je za donatorje lastna odgovornost omejena zgolj na odgovorne v politiki in upravi, ki morajo izkazovati odločno in trajno prizadevanje za proračunske reforme ter prevzemanje finančnih odgovornosti, ki jih propagirajo mednarodne finančne institucije (zlasti Mednarodni denarni sklad).
Moreover, it appears that, to donors, ownership simply means that politicians and civil servants in recipient countries demonstrate a strong, long-term commitment to the budget reforms and financial accountability advocated by international financial institutions, in particular the IMF.
Donatorji tudi niso spoštovali obveznosti do civilne družbe, da v svoj dialog z vladami držav v razvoju sistematično vključijo poslance in predstavnike organizacij civilne družbe.
As regards civil society, donors have not fulfilled their undertakings systematically to include MPs and representatives of civil society organisations in their dialogue with the governments of developing countries.
S takšnim pristopom bi lahko vzpostavili „razvite“ države, ki bodo imele tehnično učinkovito birokracijo.
Such an approach could bring about the establishment of ‘developed’ states with technically effective bureaucracy.
Jasno je, da je osrednje vprašanje še vedno „kako“ se izvaja lastna odgovornost (vodstvo, izkazana pripravljenost, vložena energija itd.), ne pa kaj lastna odgovornost prinaša, kaj je njena vsebina.
The central issue is clearly still one of ‘how’ a sense ownership is acquired (through leadership, stated desire, deployment of energy, etc.), rather than ‘what’ such ownership entails in terms of its scope and content.
Proračunska podpora Evropske komisije: mešani rezultati
Budget support granted by the Commission: mixed results
V dokumentu o proračunski podpori, ki je bil izdan leta 2008
In a 2008 paper on budget support
„Proračunska podpora: vprašanje medsebojnega zaupanja?“, Evropska skupnost, 2008 , Komisija ugotavlja, da pogoje iz člena 61(2) sporazuma iz Cotonouja
‘Budget support: A question of mutual trust’, European Commission, 2008. , the Commission says it interprets the conditions set out in Article 61(2) of the Cotonou Agreement
Ta člen krepi odgovornost na nacionalni ravni in parlamentarni nadzor nad upravljanjem javnih financ. razlaga na "dinamičen način".
According to this paper, budget support increases national accountability and parliamentary supervision of public finance management. ‘in a dynamic manner’.
Meni, da pomanjkljivosti v zvezi z upravljanjem javnih financ, prisotne v trenutku sprejemanja odločitve o financiranju, ne izključujejo zagona programa proračunske pomoči, če so želja po reformah in reforme same ocenjene kot zadovoljive.
In its view, weaknesses in public finance management at the time of the financing decision do not preclude the launch of a budget aid programme, provided that the will for reform exists and that the reforms planned are deemed satisfactory.
Ključni pojem za Komisijo je „usmeritev države“.
To the Commission, the key concept is the ‘direction being taken by the country’.
Takšna dinamična razlaga pogojev upravičenosti, zlasti upravičenosti glede upravljanja javnih financ, bi lahko povečala kratkoročno tveganje.
This dynamic interpretation of the eligibility criteria, in particular as regards public finance management, is liable to increase the short-term risk.
To je mnenje ne le Komisije, ampak tudi Računskega sodišča, ki v svojem posebnem poročilu št. 2/2005 ter v svojem letnem poročilu za leto 2009 ocenjuje, da bi Komisija morala na bolj jasen, formalen in strukturiran način dokazati upravičenost in uspešnost na področju upravljanja javnih financ.
That is a view shared by both the Commission and the Court of Auditors, which states in its Special Report No 2/2005 and its 2009 Annual Report that the Commission should demonstrate recipient countries’ eligibility and performance in a more explicit, formalised and structured manner.
Prav tako člen 25.1(b) instrumenta za financiranje razvojnega sodelovanja (DCI) določa, da bo proračunska podpora odobrena, „če je upravljanje javne porabe v partnerski državi dovolj pregledno, zanesljivo in učinkovito“ in da mora pristop temeljiti „na rezultatih in kazalnikih učinkovitosti“.
At the same time, Article 25(1)(b) of the Regulation establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation (DCI) provides that budget support shall be granted ‘if the partner country’s management of public spending is sufficiently transparent, reliable and effective’, and that the approach adopted must be ‘based on results and performance indicators’.
Proračunska podpora in učinkovitost pomoči
Budget support and aid effectiveness
Odbor za razvojno pomoč je v svoji zadnji oceni pomoči Evropske skupnosti leta 2007 sprejel vrsto ugotovitev v zvezi z vlogo proračunske podpore za spodbujanje ciljev agende o učinkovitosti pomoči.
In its latest (2007) review of European Community aid, the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) made a series of observations concerning the role of budget support in promoting the objectives of the aid effectiveness agenda outlined in the Paris Declaration.
Če povzamemo, Odbor za razvojno pomoč poudarja naslednje:
In short, the DAC maintains that:
a) Komisija mora paziti, da ne uporablja proračunske podpore za pospešitev prenosa sredstev v okviru povečanja pomoči ali za uresničitev cilja 50 %.
(a) the Commission should guard against using budget support to move funds more quickly in order to scale up its aid effort or to achieve the 50% target;
b) Komisija bo morala preučiti načine za vključevanje organizacij lokalne civilne družbe v spremljanje izdatkov in učinkov proračunske podpore.
(b) it should explore ways of involving local civil society organisations in monitoring the spending and impact of budget support;
c) Evropski parlament zahteva, da je s političnega vidika nujno odobriti pomoč le državam, ki izpolnjujejo minimalne standarde na področju upravljanja in spoštovanja človekovih pravic.
(c) owing to pressure from the European Parliament, it is a political necessity to grant aid only to countries meeting minimum standards as regards governance and respect for human rights.
Na drugi strani v nekaterih primerih donatorji delujejo v nasprotju z načelom koristi proračunske podpore za projekte pomoči.
Moreover, in some cases donors counteract the advantages of budget support over traditional aid projects.
Iz nedavne ocene
A recent review
ODI/ Mokoro, Sektorska proračunska podpora v praksi, zbirno poročilo, februar 2010 je razvidno, da je na sektorski ravni šibkost politik, institucij in sistemov zagotavljanja storitev spodbudila donatorje, da so izvedli projekte preko lastnih sistemov in delovali dvostransko ter neusklajeno.
ODI and Mokoro, ‘Sector Budget Support in Practice: Literature Review’, February 2010. shows that, at the sectoral level, weak policies, institutions and service delivery systems have prompted donors to use their own systems to implement projects, and to act bilaterally rather than in a coordinated manner.
Takšen način postopka močno slabi politike, institucije in sisteme zagotavljanja storitev v sektorjih, kar krepi prvotni odziv donatorjev na razmere.
This seriously undermines sectoral policies, institutions and service delivery systems, in turn reinforcing the donors’ initial response to the situation.
S tem v zvezi bi lahko bilo posebej težko povezati ta pričakovanja z doseganjem cilja, ki si ga je zastavila EU, povečati proračunsko podporo in izboljšati predvidljivost svoje pomoči.
Against this backdrop, it may be very difficult to reconcile such expectations with the EU’s objective of increasing its budget support and making its aid more predictable.
Spremljevalni ukrepi za okrepitev političnega dialoga
Accompanying measures aimed at strengthening political dialogue
Ena od smeri posvetovanja Komisije se osredotoča na „vlogo sektorskega dialoga, vlogo pogojevanja in povezave z izvajanjem in rezultati“.
One focus of the Commission’s consultation is the ‘role of policy dialogue, role of conditionality and links to performance and results’.
S tem v zvezi je Komisija oblikovala tri temeljne ideje:
In this context, the Commission has outlined three basic ideas:
a) Odgovornost vlade partnerske države do svojih državljanov je ključno gonilo pri doseganju rezultatov na področju razvoja in proračunska podpora je načeloma predmet pregleda s strani nacionalnega parlamenta in računskega sodišča.
(a) the accountability of a partner government to its citizens is a key driver in achieving development outcomes, and budget support is in principle subject to domestic parliamentary and audit scrutiny;
b) Vendar pa je bil do zdaj dosežen le majhen napredek glede nacionalne odgovornosti, zlasti ker so v številnih državah zmogljivosti civilne družbe in parlamentov, da se zavzamejo za politične odločitve v preglednem proračunskem postopku in jih spremljajo, še vedno nezadostne.
(b) however, to date there have been only modest improvements in domestic accountability, partly because the capacity of civil society and parliaments to advocate and monitor policy choices as part of a transparent budget process is still weak in many countries;
c) Za donatorje, ki sodelujejo pri proračunski podpori, je podpirati nacionalne institucije in sisteme pomemben izziv.
(c) supporting national accountability institutions and systems is a major challenge for donors of budget support.
S tem v zvezi je Evropski parlament že opozoril na pomen vzpostavitve sistema, ki sistematično vključuje parlamente in civilno družbo v politični dialog boja proti revščini in letne preglede proračunske podpore.
In this connection, the EP has already highlighted the need to introduce the systematic involvement of parliaments and civil society in political dialogue on poverty reduction and in annual reviews of budget support.
Ta sistem bi moral tudi omogočiti kroženje informacij med civilno družbo in javnim mnenjem na splošno, da bi lahko civilna družba, univerze in zasebne organizacije podale svoje mnenje v okviru posvetovanj v tematskih skupinah, ustanovljenih za spremljanje proračunske podpore.
Such a system should also facilitate the flow of information between civil society and the general public, so as to enable civil society, universities and private organisations to express their views as part of the consultation conducted by the thematic groups set up to monitor budget support.
Odbor za razvoj bi želel, preden izoblikuje svoje dokončno stališče, da Komisija pojasni naslednja vprašanja:
Before drawing up its final position, the Committee on Development would like the Commission to clarify the following points:
§ Ob upoštevanju, da je EU največji donator sredstev za razvojno pomoč, ali lahko vpliva na druge donatorje, zlasti Mednarodni razvojni sklad in Svetovno banko, da bi dosegli skladno skupno stališče o merilih za dodelitev proračunske podpore?
§ given that the EU is the leading donor of development aid, is it in a position to influence other donors – including the IMF and the World Bank – with a view to arriving at a coherent common position on the criteria for granting budget support?
§ Kakšno nadomestilo je na voljo državam, ki niso upravičene do proračunske podpore?
§ what compensation is there for countries not eligible for budget support?
§ Če se ukine proračunska podpora v državi, ali Komisija upošteva vpliv te odločitve na regionalno povezovanje?
§ when a country’s budget support is suspended, does the Commission take into account the impact of such a decision on regional integration?
§ Ali je proračunska podpora najboljša spodbuda za endogeni razvoj?
§ is budget support the best stimulus to development from within? 
Seznam prejemnic razvojne pomoči v letu 2009 v obliki proračunske podpore, glede na finančni instrument
List of countries having received development aid in the form of budget support in 2009, broken down by funding instrument
ERS AKP Instrument za financiranje razvojnega sodelovanja
EDF ACP DCI
Benin €51.400.000 ERS Kongo (Dem. rep.) €26.000.000 DCI - Thema
Benin €51.400.000 EDF Congo (Democratic Republic of the) €26.000.000 DCI – Thema
Bocvana €60.000.000 ERS Bolivija €7.750.000 DCI - Thema
Botswana €60.000.000 EDF Bolivia €7.750.000 DCI – Thema
Burkina Faso €55.420.000 ERS Ekvador €26.400.000 DCI - Geo
Burkina Faso €55.420.000 EDF Ecuador €26.400.000 DCI – Geo
Burundi €14.330.000 ERS Salvador €37.100.000 DCI - Geo
Burundi €14.330.000 EDF El Salvador €37.100.000 DCI – Geo
Zelenortski otoki €11.500.000 ERS Gruzija €2.000.000 DCI - Thema
Cape Verde €11.500.000 EDF Georgia €2.000.000 DCI – Thema
Srednjeafriška rep. €12.210.000 ERS Gana €15.000.000 DCI - Thema
Central African Republic €12.210.000 EDF Ghana €15.000.000 DCI – Thema
Komori €7.270.000 ERS Gvatemala €33.800.000 DCI - Geo
Comoros €7.270.000 EDF Guatemala €33.800.000 DCI – Geo
Kongo (Dem. rep.) €22.620.000 ERS Gvajana €22.292.000 DCI - Thema
Congo (Democratic Republic of the) €22.620.000 EDF Guyana €22.292.000 DCI – Thema
Gana €49.020.000 ERS Haiti €5.800.000 DCI - Thema
Ghana €49.020.000 EDF Haiti €5.800.000 DCI – Thema
Grenada €5.290.000 ERS Indonezija €145.000.000 DCI - Geo
Grenada €5.290.000 EDF Indonesia €145.000.000 DCI – Geo
Gvineja Bissau €14.950.000 ERS Jamajka €16.816.000 DCI - Thema
Guinea-Bissau €14.950.000 EDF Jamaica €16.816.000 DCI – Thema
Haiti €37.580.000 ERS Kirgiška republika €9.000.000 DCI - Geo
Haiti €37.580.000 EDF Kyrgyzstan €9.000.000 DCI – Geo
Jamajka €1.900.000 ERS Malavi €15.900.000 DCI - Thema
Jamaica €1.900.000 EDF Malawi €15.900.000 DCI – Thema
Liberija €20.200.000 ERS Mavricij €61.984.000 DCI - Thema
Liberia €20.200.000 EDF Mauritius €61.984.000 DCI – Thema
Malavi €33.890.000 ERS Nepal €13.000.000 DCI - Geo
Malawi €33.890.000 EDF Nepal €13.000.000 DCI – Geo
Mali €81.700.000 ERS Peru €60.800.000 DCI - Geo
Mali €81.700.000 EDF Peru €60.800.000 DCI – Geo
Mavricij €44.990.000 ERS Filipini €36.000.000 DCI - Geo
Mauritius €44.990.000 EDF Philippines €36.000.000 DCI – Geo
Mozambik €12.110.000 ERS Ruanda €20.155.000 DCI - Thema
Mozambique €12.110.000 EDF Rwanda €20.155.000 DCI – Thema
Niger €6.900.000 ERS Saint Kitts in Nevis €10.425.000 DCI - Thema
Niger €6.900.000 EDF Saint Kitts and Nevis €10.425.000 DCI – Thema
Ruanda €41.440.000 ERS Sejšeli €2.000.000 DCI - Thema
Rwanda €41.440.000 EDF Seychelles €2.000.000 DCI – Thema
Samoa €15.300.000 ERS Južna Afrika €122.680.000 DCI - Geo
Samoa €15.300.000 EDF South Africa €122.680.000 DCI – Geo
Sejšeli €16.500.000 ERS Tadžikistan €7.750.000 DCI - Thema
Seychelles €16.500.000 EDF Tajikistan €7.750.000 DCI – Thema
Sierra Leone €18.420.000 ERS Trinidad in Tobago €10.764.000 DCI - Thema
Sierra Leone €18.420.000 EDF Trinidad and Tobago €10.764.000 DCI – Thema
Tanzanija €389.840.000 ERS
Tanzania €389.840.000 EDF
Togo €15.000.000 ERS
Togo €15.000.000 EDF
Zambija €30.000.000 ERS
Zambia €30.000.000 EDF
Vir: AIDCO 2009.
Source: AIDCO 2009.
Zneski vključujejo proračunsko in sektorsko podporo.
Amounts include sectoral budget support.
o prihodnosti proračunske podpore EU za države v razvoju
on the future of EU budget support to developing countries
2. opozarja, da je v skladu z Lizbonsko pogodbo zmanjšanje in izkoreninjenje revščine glavni cilj razvojne politike EU; poudarja, da je revščina večplastna, saj zajema človeški, gospodarski, družbeno-kulturni, spolni, okoljski in politični vidik, ki jih je treba obravnavati v okviru razvojne politike EU;
Recalls that, according to the Lisbon Treaty, poverty reduction and eradication is the EU’s primary development policy objective; emphasises that poverty has multiple dimensions such as human, economic, socio-cultural, gender, environmental, and political, which all need to be tackled by the EU development policy;
6. poudarja, da je pomembno, da je razvojna pomoč EU učinkovita; poziva, naj se na ravni EU razvijejo neodvisni sistemi ocenjevanja in sistemi za pritožbe za vse, ki jih zadeva pomoč EU, ter k podpiranju mehanizmov odgovornosti v državah samih;
Emphasises the importance of the effectiveness of EU development aid; calls on developing EU-level independent evaluation systems and a complaints mechanism open to those affected by EU aid, as well as supporting in-country accountability mechanisms;
10. meni, da bi moral Evropski parlament glede na načelo odgovornosti v pariški deklaraciji vedno spodbujati dostop do osnovnega izobraževanja in osnovne zdravstvene oskrbe ter spoštovanje človekovih pravic;
Is of the opinion that, within the context of the ownership principle of the Paris Declaration, the European Parliament should always try to promote the access to basic education, basic health services and respect for human rights;
12. poziva Komisijo in države članice, naj vzpostavijo javni register, v katerem bodo pregledno navedeni sporazumi o proračunski podpori, postopki in razvojni kazalniki, s čimer bi okrepili domače demokratične institucije in poskusili zagotoviti vzajemno odgovornost;
Calls on the Commission and the Member States to create a public register in which budget support agreements, procedures and development indicators are transparently listed, with a view to reinforcing the domestic democratic institutions and to ensuring mutual accountability;
14. poziva države članice, naj izpolnijo svojo zavezo, da postopno dosežejo dogovorjeni cilj in namenijo 0,7 % BDP razvojnemu sodelovanju.
Calls on the Member States to comply with their commitment to gradually reach the agreed target of spending 0.7% of GDP on development cooperation.
Gabriele Albertini, Dominique Baudis, Bastiaan Belder, Elmar Brok, Arnaud Danjean, Ana Gomes, Andrzej Grzyb, Anna Ibrisagic, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Jelko Kacin, Ioanis Kasulidis (Ioannis Kasoulides), Tunne Kelam, Nicole Kiil-Nielsen, Maria Eleni Koppa, Andrej Kovačev (Andrey Kovatchev), Paweł Robert Kowal, Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler, Eduard Kukan, Krzysztof Lisek, Sabine Lösing, Ulrike Lunacek, Barry Madlener, Mario Mauro, Kiriakos Mavronikolas (Kyriakos Mavronikolas), Willy Meyer, Francisco José Millán Mon, Alexander Mirsky, María Muñiz De Urquiza, Norica Nicolai, Raimon Obiols, Ria Oomen-Ruijten, Justas Vincas Paleckis, Ioan Mircea Paşcu, Vincent Peillon, Hans-Gert Pöttering, Libor Rouček, José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, Werner Schulz, Charles Tannock, Inese Vaidere, Kristian Vigenin
Gabriele Albertini, Dominique Baudis, Bastiaan Belder, Elmar Brok, Arnaud Danjean, Ana Gomes, Andrzej Grzyb, Anna Ibrisagic, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Jelko Kacin, Ioannis Kasoulides, Tunne Kelam, Nicole Kiil-Nielsen, Maria Eleni Koppa, Andrey Kovatchev, Paweł Robert Kowal, Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler, Eduard Kukan, Krzysztof Lisek, Sabine Lösing, Ulrike Lunacek, Barry Madlener, Mario Mauro, Kyriakos Mavronikolas, Willy Meyer, Francisco José Millán Mon, Alexander Mirsky, María Muñiz De Urquiza, Norica Nicolai, Raimon Obiols, Ria Oomen-Ruijten, Justas Vincas Paleckis, Ioan Mircea Paşcu, Vincent Peillon, Hans-Gert Pöttering, Libor Rouček, José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, Werner Schulz, Charles Tannock, Inese Vaidere, Kristian Vigenin
6. meni, da je predvidljivost tokov pomoči eden najpomembnejših dejavnikov za zagotavljanje kakovostne porabe, saj partnerskim državam omogoča, da dolgoročno načrtujejo porabo in podprejo izboljšave sektorskih politik; se zavzema za to, da bi bilo treba tak pristop okrepiti s fiskalnimi politikami partnerskih držav in uporabo domačih prihodkov, s čimer bi se morala dolgoročno zmanjšati odvisnost od pomoči;
Considers the predictability of aid flows to be one of the most important factors for ensuring the quality of spending, as it enables the partner countries to undertake long-term expenditure planning and to sustain improvements in sectoral policies; advocates that such an approach be reinforced by partner countries’ fiscal policies and mobilisation of domestic revenue which, in the long term, should reduce aid dependency;
9. poudarja pomembnost boja proti goljufijam in korupciji, saj meni, da ta dejavnika še posebej močno ogrožata razvojne cilje in učinkovitost proračunske podpore, kar bi lahko spodkopalo legitimnost njene uporabe;
Emphasis the need to tackle fraud and corruption, considering these factors as a particularly serious threat to development targets and to the effectiveness of budget support, with the potential to undermine the legitimacy of recourse to it;
11. poudarja, da ima EU na mednarodni ravni večjo težo kot vse posamezne države članice skupaj; poziva države članice, Komisijo in Evropsko službo za zunanje delovanje, naj v skladu z ustaljeno prakso z drugih področij politik bolj uskladijo svojo proračunsko podporo za tretje države, da bi preprečile in/ali odpravile podvajanja, nedoslednost in neskladja; obžaluje, da pregledi kažejo, da donatorji zaradi šibkih politik, institucij in sistemov izvajanja storitev na sektorski ravni uporabljajo lastne sisteme za izvajanje projektov in raje kot na podlagi usklajevanja delujejo na dvostranski ravni, kar je ob skromnih finančnih sredstvih še manj sprejemljivo in zaradi česar tudi EU zelo težko izpolni svoje obljube o večji predvidljivosti pomoči; vztraja, da se je treba v vseh fazah priprave in zagotavljanja proračunske podpore EU osredotočiti na posebna področja, ki ponujajo največjo dodano vrednost;
Points out that the EU carries more weight at international level than the sum of its individual Member States; calls on the Member States, the Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS), in line with the practice established in other policy fields, to improve the coordination of their respective budget support to third countries in order to avoid and/or eliminate overlap, inconsistencies and incoherencies; deplores the reviews showing that, at sectoral level, weak policies, institutions and service delivery systems have prompted donors to use their own systems to implement projects, and to act bilaterally rather than in a coordinated manner, a situation which is all the more unacceptable in a context of scarce funding and which also makes it very hard for the EU to live up to its promises on making aid more predictable; maintains that a focus on specific areas offering the greatest added value should drive EU budget support throughout all phases of preparation and delivery;
Srednjeafriška republika
Central African Republic
Zelenortski otoki
Cape Verde
Falklandski otoki
Falkland Islands
Saint Pierre in Miquelon
Saint Pierre and Miquelon
São Tomé in Príncipe
São Tomé and Principe
Otočji Turks in Caicos
Turks and Caicos Islands
Trinidad in Tobago
Trinidad and Tobago
Vir: European Court of Auditors Special Report No 11/2010.
Source: European Court of Auditors Special Report No 11/2010.
Vir: European Court of Auditors Special Report No 11/2010
Source: European Court of Auditors Special Report No 11/2010
v mio EUR
million EUR
Vir: DEVCO, European Commission
Source: DEVCO, European Commission