natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Odhajanje prebivalcev še slabša gospodarske težave, saj se regionalna kupna moč manjša, predvsem pa regije izgubljajo kvalificirano delavno silo.
Depopulation accentuates economic problems, since regional purchasing power goes down and the qualified workforce emigrates from these regions in large numbers.
Kohezijska politika mora najti odgovor na ta pomemben izziv in tako prispevati k demografskemu in ozemeljskemu ravnotežju Unije.
Cohesion policy must respond to this major challenge so that the demographic and territorial balance of the EU is maintained.
Poročilo navaja tudi zanimivo primerjavo z glavnimi svetovnimi konkurenti.
The report also carries out an interesting comparison with the EU’s main global competitors.
Kaže, da so razlike med regijami, merjene v BDP na prebivalca, veliko izrazitejše v EU-27 kot v ZDA ali na Japonskem: vse zvezne države ZDA in 40 od 47 japonskih regij imajo višji BDP od povprečja v EU.
From this it emerges that regional disparities, measured in terms of per-capita GDP, are much more marked within the EU-27 than in the United States or Japan: all the states of the USA, and 40 of the 47 regions of Japan, have a per-capita GDP that is higher than the EU average.
To si lahko delno razložimo s posebnimi značilnostmi ozemlja Unije, ki na omejenem prostoru beleži veliko zemljepisno in kulturno raznolikost, pa tudi z zgodovinskimi značilnostmi zaradi ločitve celine po obeh svetovnih vojnah.
This is partially explained by the specificity of the EU’s territory, which presents great geographical and cultural diversity within a restricted area, and a historical specificity which is linked to the division of the continent following the two world wars.
Nasprotno pa BDP na prebivalca na Kitajskem dosega komaj petino povprečja Skupnosti, v Indiji pa le osmino.
In China, on the other hand, per-capita GDP barely reaches one fifth of the Community average, and in India one eighth.
Usmerjanje skladov 2007–2013 za doseganje ciljev lizbonske strategije
Steering 2007-2013 funds towards the Lisbon Strategy
Novo programsko obdobje 2007–2013 za strukturne sklade je v razširjeni Evropi 27 uradno steklo 1. januarja 2007.
The new programming of the structural funds for 2007-2013 was officially launched in a Europe enlarged to include 27 Member States on 1 January 2007.
Čeprav so finančna sredstva precejšnja (308 milijard evrov za vso Unijo), pa so potrebe novih držav članic takšne, da bodo zahtevale velike naložbe, kar pomeni, da bo morale stare države članice zaradi omejenih sredstev pri financiranju ponovno opredeliti prednostne naloge.
While the budget is still substantial (308 billion euros for the whole Union), the needs of the new Member States call for major investment, which means, for the old Member States, a refocusing of funding priorities to cope with reduced budgets.
Poleg cilja integracije je pri programiranju skladov za 2007–2013 jasno poudarjena promocija politike za spodbujanje inovacij in konkurenčnosti, saj je Evropska unija izrazila željo po tem, da dohiti druge velike sile (ZDA in Japonsko) in za raziskave in razvoj nameni 3 % BDP.
Above and beyond integration objectives, the 2007-2013 programming is firmly centred around the promotion of innovation and competitiveness policies, the European Union having declared its desire to catch up with the other great powers (the United States and Japan) and to devote 3% of its GDP to research and development.
Iz četrtega kohezijskega poročila je razvidno, da so neskladja pri investicijah v raziskave in razvoj velikanske: barcelonski cilj, po katerem naj bi regije za raziskave in razvoj namenjale nad 3 % BDP, presega 27 regij, v več kot 100 regijah pa izdatki za raziskave in razvoj ne dosegajo niti 1 %.
The 4 th cohesion report shows up enormous disparities in research and development investment: while 27 regions exceeded the Barcelona objective of spending more than 3% of GDP on research and development, in more than 100 regions expenditure on research and development did not even reach the level of 1%.
Zanimivo je tudi dejstvo, da se dejavnosti v zvezi z raziskavami in razvojem prvenstveno izvajajo v metropolah in da nasprotno določene uspešne regije brez večjih mestnih središč dokazujejo, da visok delež naložb in delovnih mest na področju raziskav in razvoja ni nujno pogojen z večjo koncentracijo prebivalstva v mestih.
We also note that research and development activities are concentrated mainly in the metropolises, although some high‑performing regions without major cities show that a high level of investment and employment in research and development does not necessarily go hand in hand with a major urban population concentration.
V okviru pregledane lizbonske strategije je bil tako uveden sistem zagotavljanja sredstev za odhodke za tovrstne ukrepe.
In the framework of the revised Lisbon Strategy, an earmarking system has therefore been introduced in order to steer appropriations towards expenditure in this area.
Iz poročila je na podlagi že prejetih operativnih programov razvidno, da je približno 64 % sredstev za konvergenco in 80 % sredstev za konkurenčnost namenjenih za naložbe v zvezi z izpolnjevanjem lizbonskih ciljev, kar ustreza približno 210 milijardam evrov oziroma 55 milijardam evrov več kot v prejšnjem obdobju.
On the basis of the operational programmes already received, the report indicates that on average 64% of convergence objective resources and 80% of competitiveness objective resources will be allocated to investment in Lisbon objectives, which corresponds to some 210 billion euros, representing 55 billion euros more than in the previous period.
Brez dvoma lahko rečemo, da kohezijska politika resnično pozitivno vpliva na konkurenčnost in rast določenega območja, še zlasti z razvojem javno-zasebnih partnerstev in medregionalnim sodelovanjem pri zaposlovanju, inovativnosti in raziskavah, saj lahko mala in srednja podjetja brez težav sodelujejo z univerzami in lokalnimi razvojnimi strukturami.
There is no doubt that the cohesion policy has a real leverage effect on the competitiveness and growth of an area, with, inter alia, the development of public-private partnerships and territorial synergies in favour of employment, innovation and research, within which SMEs can easily cooperate with universities and local development structures.
A če mora kohezijska politika prispevati svoj delež k financiranju inovacij in raziskav v okviru lizbonske strategije, potem je potreben tudi prožen pristop k usmerjanju sredstev za uravnotežen razvoj regij.
But, while cohesion policy must make its contribution to innovation and research in the framework of the Lisbon Strategy, a flexible approach to earmarking funds is needed in order to ensure balanced development of territories.
Gre za ločeno politiko Skupnosti z visoko evropsko dodano vrednostjo, katere bistvo je kohezija.
Cohesion policy cannot be seen as a mere tool for achieving the objectives of other sectoral policies; rather, it is a Community policy of high European added value with its own raison d’être – cohesion.
Kot odgovor na slabe rezultate, ki jih je razkrila vmesna ocena, pa tudi zato, ker je ta politika močno omejena zaradi evropskega proračuna v Evropi 27, je treba reči, da glavni cilj kohezijske politike ni postati najkonkurenčnejše, na znanju temelječe gospodarstvo na svetu.
Given the weak results brought to light by the mid-term review, but also because it is subjected to serious constraints under the European budget in a Europe of 27, the cohesion policy does not have as its first objective the goal of making Europe the most competitive knowledge-based economy in the world.
To je eden od razlogov, zakaj se strukturne politike ne smejo obravnavati ločeno in po posameznih temah, pač pa celovito, skupaj z drugimi politikami Unije in javnimi politikami posameznih držav članic.
This is one of the reasons why structural policies must not be situated within a perspective that is compartmentalised by topic, but rather within an approach that is integrated with the other policies of the Union and the public policies pursued by the Member States.
Teritorialna agenda in leipziška listina, sprejeti na ministrskem srečanju 24. in 25. maja 2007 v Leipzigu, pomenita pomemben korak k promociji celovitega pristopa.
The adoption of the European Territorial Agenda (ETA) and the Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities at the ministerial meeting in Leipzig on 24 and 25 May 2007 was an important step in promoting the integrated approach.
Dobro bi bilo, da bi njuni cilji s posebnim akcijskim načrtom dobili konkretno obliko in bi se na ta način ozemeljska dimenzija v večji meri vključila v vse javne politike, tako Skupnosti kot držav članic.
Their objectives should be achieved through the adoption of a programme of concrete action and implementation, such that the territorial dimension will be better integrated into all public policies, both Community and national.
Nadaljnje prizadevanje za doseganje ozemeljske kohezije
Continuing to steer towards territorial cohesion
Kohezijska politika se mora osredotočiti na temeljni cilj, tj. ozemeljsko kohezijo, in zato ne sme v središče postaviti regij z boljšim potencialom za višjo produktivnost in več delovnih mest (v kar lahko privede strogo namensko usmerjanje proračunskih sredstev), saj bi to pomenilo, da bodo regije z omejenim potencialom rasti, a hkrati neupravičene do sredstev iz naslova cilja konvergence, potisnjene na rob.
Cohesion policy must concentrate on the fundamental objective of territorial cohesion, and cannot be centred (as it would be if appropriations were strictly earmarked) on the regions with the greatest potential for rising productivity and employment, which would risk marginalising regions with a limited potential for growth but not, on the other hand, eligible for the convergence objective.
Četrto poročilo obravnava stanje ozemeljske kohezije v EU-27 in ugotavlja, da se gospodarska dejavnost močno koncentrira v glavnih mestih.
The fourth report gives a snapshot of territorial cohesion in the EU of 27, and notes a strong concentration of economic activity in the capitals.
Leta 2004 so denimo regije z glavnimi mesti v povprečju proizvedle 32 % BDP njihovih držav, čeprav predstavljajo le 22 % prebivalstva.
In 2004, for example, the capital-city regions generated an average of 32% of their countries’ GDP, while representing 22% of the population.
Pojav je najbolj očiten in se najbolj razvija v novih državah članicah.
This is a very noticeable phenomenon, and is most marked in the new Member States.
Poročilo analizira ozemeljske spremembe na lokalni ravni, kjer je zaradi pospešene urbanizacije povsem razmajano demografsko ravnotežje; evropska mesta zaznamuje pojav suburbanizacije, medtem ko se podeželje prazni.
The report analyses territorial developments at local level, where the acceleration of urbanisation is upsetting demographic balances, with a strong tendency to suburbanisation in Europe’s cities and to depopulation of rural areas.
Če se javne politike ne bodo spremenile, se ozemeljska neskladja v prihodnosti lahko še povečajo.
If public policies remain unchanged, these territorial disparities can only become still more marked in the future.
Študija omrežja za spremljanje EPSON
The ESPON report ‘Scenarios on the Territorial Future of Europe (Territorial Futures)’
Teritorialni scenarij za Evropo“, EPSON, 2006. „Prihodnost ozemlja“ je v tem oziru zelo umestna.
‘Scenarios on the Territorial Future of Europe (Territorial Futures)’, ESPON 2006. is highly relevant in this connection.
Omogoča namreč primerjavo dveh scenarijev dolgoročnega razvoja ozemlja.
It compares two long-term territorial development scenarios.
Prvi scenarij, strogo usmerjen v konkurenčnost, bi spodbudil gospodarsko rast in nastanek novih tehnologij, bi pa negativno vplival na okolje in družbo, kar bi dolgoročno lahko privedlo do nasprotnih gospodarskih in družbenih učinkov.
One of the scenarios, which is geared to competitiveness alone, would be likely to engender stronger economic growth and the emergence of new technologies, but would bring with it higher environmental and social costs that would, in the long term, have unfavourable economic and social effects.
Nasprotno scenarij, usmerjen v kohezijo, predstavlja bolj raznolik model, kar zadeva privlačnost in polarizacijo metropol.
On the other hand, a scenario geared towards cohesion gives rise to a more diffuse model as far as the attraction and polarisation potentials of metropolitan areas are concerned.
Uspešna območja lahko nastanejo tako v središču Evrope kot v več ali manj obrobnih predelih.
Several high-performing zones of integration could emerge, both in the heart of Europe and in the more outlying regions.
Model policentričnega razvoja v primerjavi s prvim scenarijem resda spremlja šibkejša gospodarska rast, a je zato zemljepisno bolj porazdeljena in torej odpravlja možnost polarizacije na majhnem prostoru, konfliktov med prebivalstvom ter družbenih in okoljskih pritiskov.
This polycentric-development model, while yielding weaker economic growth than the first scenario, is better distributed geographically, thus avoiding a polarisation within a restricted area of population conflicts and social and environmental pressures.
Zato je zelo pomembno, da se odhodki še učinkoviteje usmerijo v projekte za večjo privlačnost celotnega ozemlja.
It is for this reason that expenditure needs to be steered even more effectively towards projects geared towards enhancing the attractiveness of all territories.
Ne smemo pozabiti, da ima Evropa pri konkurenčnosti veliko prednost: raznolikost.
We must not forget that one of Europe’s great advantages in terms of competitiveness is its diversity.
Uravnotežen in trajen razvoj, ki bo upošteval ustrezno ugotovljene potrebe posameznih regij, tega dejstva ne more prezreti.
Balanced, sustainable development which takes account of properly identified territorial needs must not ignore this fact.
Regionalna politika Unije se mora torej izvajati v tesnem partnerstvu z drugimi regionalnimi akterji in se usklajevati z drugimi nacionalnimi in evropskimi politikami.
The Union’s regional policy must therefore be pursued in close partnership with the regional players and in coordination with other national and European policies.
Zaradi tega bo treba pregledati, če je podlaga, ki jo je pripravila Komisija, tj. strateške smernice Skupnosti – nacionalni strateški referenčni okvir – operativni programi – najboljša za vzpostavitev resničnega upravljanja na več ravneh in za učinkovito opredelitev ozemeljskih potreb.
In this context, it would be useful to see whether the architecture put in place by the Commission: Community strategic guidelines – national strategic framework of reference – operational programmes – represents the best possible way to achieve genuinely multi-level governance and proper identification of territorial needs.
Novi ozemeljski izzivi in proračun EU
New territorial challenges and the EU budget
Četrto poročilo jasno navaja: regionalne in medregionalne razlike so veliko izrazitejše v EU kot v ZDA ali na Japonskem.
The fourth report demonstrates that regional and interregional disparities are much more marked in the EU than in the United States or Japan.
Ne glede na to, da je skoraj sočasni pristop 12 novih držav članic v statistiko vnesel kar nekaj sprememb, pa ozemeljski izzivi, ki so pred nami, ostajajo velikanski, tako kar zadeva gospodarski in tehnološki razvoj, dostopnost ali kakovost življenja.
Even though the virtually simultaneous arrival of 12 new Member States caused some turmoil in the statistics, there is no doubt that the territorial challenges to be met are formidable, whether in terms of economic and technological development, accessibility or quality of life.
Temu je treba prišteti nove izzive, ki se bodo z leti še povečali: koncentracija prebivalstva v mestih s prometno obremenitvijo in vprašanji družbeno-kulturnega vključevanja v mestih; demografske spremembe, katerih najbolj očiten pokazatelj bo staranje prebivalstva; migracije; nadaljnja globalizacija in povečanje povpraševanja po kmetijskih proizvodih; podnebne spremembe, katerih očiten znak je vse večja verjetnost naravnih nesreč na določenih predelih in višje cene energije.
Into this situation have come new factors, which will loom larger still in the years to come: urban concentration, bringing problems of congestion and issues of sociocultural integration in the cities; changing demographics, taking the form above all of an ageing population; migratory movements; continuing globalisation and increasing demand for agricultural products; climate change, leading to greater vulnerability to natural disasters for some regions, as well as rising energy prices.
Ti novi izzivi v ozemeljski razvoj vnašajo novo razsežnost, zaradi česar je strukturne politike nujno treba ohraniti tudi po letu 2013.
These new challenges bring a new dimension to territorial development, making it essential that structural policies are maintained after 2013.
Nujno je torej, da se ne osredotočimo zgolj na nove države članice, kajti našteti izzivi so enako pomembni za EU-15 in zahtevajo širšo obravnavno kot zgolj z lizbonsko strategijo.
It is necessary, therefore, not to focus exclusively on the new Member States, since these challenges are also very important for the EU of 15 and call for a broader approach than that of the Lisbon Strategy.
Poleg tega je iz ugotovitev četrtega poročila o prihodnjih izzivih kohezijske politike očitno, da moramo ob BDP na prebivalca pripraviti nove kazalnike, s pomočjo katerih bomo lahko bolje opisali resnično stanje vsake regije in že doseženo stopnjo kohezije.
Furthermore, the fourth report’s conclusions on future challenges to be faced by cohesion policy prove that new indicators supplementing per-capita GDP must be devised, which will be better able to depict the territorial realities of each region and the degree of cohesion already in existence on the ground.
Bistvenega pomena je, da se ti novi izzivi vključijo v strukturne politike in da se za njih namenijo potrebna sredstva, kajti raven ozemeljske kohezije bo vedno bolj odvisna od njihovega dejanskega učinka in od tega, kako se bo ta učinek upošteval v javnih politikah.
It is essential that the structural policies should incorporate the new factors and allocate the necessary resources to them, since the level of territorial cohesion will depend increasingly on their territorial impact and on the way in which they are taken into account by public policy.
Zanimivo je, da države, kot sta Kitajska in Rusija, pozorno in vse očitneje spremljajo kohezijsko politiko EU kot sredstvo za uravnotežen regionalni razvoj.
It is interesting to note the new and growing attention being shown by countries such as China and Russia to the EU’s cohesion policy as a means of achieving balanced regional development.
Kohezijska politika trenutno predstavlja tretjino izdatkov iz proračuna EU, z letom 2008 pa bo postala prva postavka proračunskih izdatkov.
The cohesion policy currently accounts for about one third of expenditure within the EU budget and, in 2008, it will become the largest item of budgetary expenditure.
Kljub temu se obseg sredstev v primerjavi z BDP Unije zmanjšuje in to ne glede na širitev in nove ozemeljske izzive.
Nonetheless, despite enlargement and the new territorial challenges, the volume of funds is decreasing in relation to the EU’s GDP.
Po ocenah Komisije bodo leta 2013 izdatki za kohezijo predstavljali le še 0,35% BDP, kar ustreza ravni iz začetka devetdesetih.
According to the Commission’s estimates, by 2013 the expenditure linked to cohesion will represent only 0.35% of GDP, which would correspond to the level at the beginning of the 1990s.
Vemo, da kohezijsko politiko ogrožajo poskusi ponovne nacionalizacije, za katere so nekatere države članice še posebej dojemljive, ker pač na politike Skupnosti gledajo samo skozi številke.
We know, of course, that cohesion policy is exposed to the temptations of renationalisation, to which some Member States seem particularly susceptible, in direct ratio to an attitude which views Community policies primarily in accounting terms.
A četrto kohezijsko poročilo je jasno: dodana vrednost strukturnih programov presega zgolj ta vidik.
And yet, as the fourth report on cohesion shows, the added value of the structural programmes cannot be seen in terms of figures alone.
V ta namen poročevalec izraža zadovoljstvo nad tem, da je bila maja letos sprejeta teritorialna agenda, ki predstavlja obvezen načrt za to, da se ozemeljska kohezija na ravni Sveta in vsakega predsedovanja Uniji zapiše kot prednostna politika.
Against this background, the rapporteur welcomes the adoption in May 2007 of the European Territorial Agenda, which provides an indispensable road-map for the emergence of a realisation, at the level of the Council and of every EU Presidency, of territorial cohesion as a political priority.
Evropska unija v prihodnosti, pred in predvsem po letu 2013, potrebuje trajno in dinamično regionalno politiko:
For the future, before and, above all, after 2013, a durable, dynamic regional policy is needed in the European Union:
– da se nove države članice uspešno približajo starim, pa tudi, da se zagotovi ozemeljsko ravnotežje vse Evrope,
– in order to achieve convergence of the new Member States, while guaranteeing territorial balance throughout Europe
– da se učinkovito dopolni lizbonska (in göteborška) agenda, pa tudi, da se oblikuje protiutež pretirani „lizbonizaciji“, ki bi vodila v nova neskladja,
– in order to accompany the Lisbon (and Göteborg) Strategy effectively, but also to counterbalance any excessive ‘lisbonisation’, which would be a factor of new disparities
– da se podprejo sektorske politike, ampak da se v prvi vrsti zagotovi celovit pristop k politikam Unije,
– in order to support sectoral policies, but, first and foremost, guarantee an integrated approach in the Union’s policies
– da se spodbudi pozitivni odnos Evropejcev do izgradnje Evropske unije, pa tudi, da se prepreči krizne razmere oziroma prispeva k njihovem reševanju,
– in order to encourage Europeans to stand behind the construction of the European Union and also to enable Europe to prevent, or help deal with, crisis situations
– da se ublažijo najhujše strukturne slabosti v Uniji (najbolj oddaljene regije, otoki, gorska območja, skrajno severne regije, itd.), pa tudi, da se pravilno odzove na nove pomembne izzive: podnebje, energija, trajnostni razvoj, demografija, razvoj mestnih naselij, itd.,
– in order to remedy the most serious structural handicaps within the Union (very remote regions, mountainous areas, most northerly regions, etc.) and to meet major new challenges: climate change, energy and sustainable development, demography, urban development, etc.
– pa tudi, da se spodbudi upravljanje Evrope in regij na več ravneh in razvije medregionalno, večdržavno in čezmejno sodelovanje ter se ozemeljska kohezija opredeli kot prednostni cilj Skupnosti.
– in order to promote multi-level governance, of Europe and the regions, and to develop interregional, transnational and cross-border forms of cooperation, and make territorial cohesion a high-priority Community objective.
o četrtem poročilu o gospodarski in socialni koheziji
on the 4th report on Economic and Social Cohesion
3. poudarja pomen zamud pri plačilih za politike v okviru razdelka 1b (kohezija), saj naj bi to bila politična prednostna naloga Evropske unije v finančnem okviru za obdobje 2007–2013;
Stresses the extent of the delays in payments for policies under heading 1b (Cohesion), given that this is supposed to be a political priority of the European Union under the financial framework for 2007-2013;
8. opozarja, da so zamude pri izvajanju strukturne politike, nastale med drugim zaradi prestrogih postopkov, in bi zato bilo treba razmisliti o njihovi poenostavitvi ter o jasni razdelitvi odgovornosti in pristojnosti med Evropsko unijo in državami članicami;
Points out that the delays in implementing structural policy are due in part to the procedures being too rigid and that, consequently, consideration should be given to simplifying those procedures and clearly dividing responsibilities and competences between the EU and the Member States;