natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Of these 218 projects, 148 were completed at the time of the study and could deliver documentation on outputs and outcomes.
Od teh 218 projektov jih je bilo v ┘asu ùtudije dokon┘anih 148, ki so lahko priskrbeli dokumentacijo o rezultatih in u┘inkih.
Each type of end-bene«ciaryreferstooneormoresubcategoriesasfollows:
Vsak tip konｲnih prejemnikov se nanaþa na eno ali veｲ kategorij:
H o m o s e x u a l s
Istospolno usmerjeni
Tra/cked people
2 3 çrtve trgovine z ljudmi
People with disabilities
Invalidne osebe
People in prostitution
Osebe v prostituciji
People in prison or in custody
Osebe v zaporu
People in shelters/institutions
Osebe v zavetiþｲih/ustanovah
Note: `Other' refers to soldiers and their family, isolated women, unaccompanied minors, torture survivors and people with a mentally ill parent.
Kategorija ¶drugiƒ se uporablja za vojake in njihove dru™ine, ™enske v izolaciji, mladoletne osebe brez odraslih, pre-™ivele ™rtve muｲenja in osebe z duþevno bolnim starþem.
(b) 21 % of the projects are multiannual (two or three years), which improves their sustainabil-ity.
b) 21 % projektov se izvaja veｲ let (dve ali tri leta), kar izboljþuje njihovo ohranljivost.
But these projects weigh heavily on the budget; this is why their number was limited.
Vendar ti projekti zelo obremenjujejo proraｲun, zato je bilo njihovo þtevilo omejeno.
(c) All 15 Member States are involved (as coordinator or partner) and organisations in the EFTA/EEA and central and east European countries represent 6 % of the total number of partners.
c) Sodeluje vseh 15 dr™av ｲlanic (v vlogi koordinatorja ali partnerja), organizacije dr™av EFTA/EGP in SVE predstavljajo 6 % skupnega þtevila partnerjev.
(d) The average number of partners per projects is six, but 3 % of the projects have 10 or more partners (mainly local partners in these cases).
d) Povpreｲno þtevilo partnerjev na projekt je 6, vendar imajo 3 % projektov 10 ali veｲ partner-jev (v teh primerih v glavnem domaｲih).
It appears from the monitoring visit and from the ex-post evaluations that there are usually too many partners for each to be ad-equately involved.
Iz spremljanja z obiski in vrednotenja po zakljuｲku delovanja projektov je mogoｲe sklepati, da je partnerjev ponavadi preveｲ, da bi se lahko ustrezno vkljuｲevali.
In addition, it adds to the management burden of the coordinator to the detriment of mainstreaming of the project activity.
To poveｲuje tudi koordinatorjevo obremenjenost z upravljanjem na þkodo ｲim boljþega izkoristka dejavnosti projekta.
(e) Organisations participating in projects are of the following categories (see next page):
e) Organizacije, ki sodelujejo v projektih, spadajo v te kategorije (glej naslednjo stran).
NGOs have always been the focus of Daphne.
Srediþｲe programa Daphne so bile vedno nevladne organizacije (NVO).
They represent 56 % of the partners and 65 % of the project coordinators.
Predstavljajo 56 % partnerjev in 65 % koordinatorjev projektov.
Nevertheless, in 2002 and 2003 the proportion of NGOs as co-ordinators decreased from 65 % to 54 % compared with previous years.
Ne glede na to je v primerjavi s prejþnjimi leti dele™ nevladnih organizacij v vlogi koordinatorjev v letih 2002 in 2003 padel s 65 % na 54 %.
Research centres, universities and public institutions increased their presence as coordinators: they each rep-resent about 13 %.
V vlogi koordinatorjev se je okrepilo delovanje raziskovalnih srediþｲ, univerz in javnih usta-nov, pri katerih vsaka od kategorij dosega pribli™no 13 %.
This evolution is probably due to two factors: «rst,since2000,publicinstitutions have been allowed to apply; second, as stated by several stakeholders, some NGOs might have been discouraged by the increasing requirements and procedures of the EU funding schemes over the years.
Tak razvoj je verjetno rezultat dveh dejavnikov: prvi je, da se od leta 2000 na razpis lahko prijavijo tudi javne ustanove; drugi, kot je potrdilo veｲ strani, da so nekatere nevladne organizacije z leti morda odvrnile vse veｲje zahteve in postopki za sheme « n a n c i r a nj a E v r o p s k e uffn i j e .
In fact, among 41 projects funded in 2000 or 2001 and coordinated by an NGO, 71 % were not satis«edwiththepromptnessofthepaymentpro-cedures compared with 32 % for 19 projects funded in the same years and not coordinated by an NGO (see also point 4.5 on implementation and delivery mechanisms).
V 4 1 p r oj e k t i h , « n a n c i - r a n i h v letu 2000 ali 2001, ki so jih koordinirale nevladne organizacije, kar 71 % nevladnih organizacij ni bilo zadovoljnih z urnostjo postopkov izplaｲil v primerjavi z 32 % za 19 pro-jektov, ki so bili «nanciranivistemｲasu,vendarjihnisokoordiniralenevladneorganizacije(glej tudi toｲko 4.5 o izvajanju in mehanizmih dostave).
The analysis shows that, among the 25 «nishedprojects with close contacts with e n d - b e n e « c i a r i e s , 2 2 w e r e cffo o r d i n a t e d b y a n N G O . T h i s
Analiza ka™e, da so kar 22 projektov od 25 dokonｲanih, ki so vzpostavili tesne stike s konｲnimi prejemniki, koordini-
Research centres
Raziskovalna srediþｲa
Charitable institutions
Javne ustanove
The results of the Daphne experience
Rezultati izkuþenj, pridobljenih v programu Daphne g) Podroｲja nasilja, ki so se jih lotevali izbrani projekti, so razdeljena tako:
(N = 216 projects with experience)
(N = 216 projektov z izkuþnjami)
29 % i > 0 and < = 5 yearsi > 5 and < = 10i > 10 and < = 20i > 20 40 %
29 % i > 0 in < = 5 leti > 5 in < = 10i > 10 in < = 20i > 20 40 % h) Velika veｲina partnerjev ima bogate izkuþnje v prepreｲevanju nasilja in varovanju pred njim
7 % i Areas of the project are in the `core activities' of the coordinator
7 % i Podroｲja projekta so zajeta v ¶osnovne dejavnostiƒ koordinatorja i"Eno podroｲje projekta je zajeto v ¶osnovne dejavnostiƒ koordinatorja
54 % i"Areas of the project are out of the `core activities' of the coordinator
54 % i"Podroｲja projekta niso zajeta v ¶osnovne dejavnostiƒ koordinatorja
(i) A link with past projects and synergies with running projects were developed: as sug-gested in the priorities of the calls for proposals, a number of projects have built upon the experience of others or have developed synergies with other running projects as follows:
„ in je te izkuþnje uporabila v projektih: njihovo strokovno znanje in podroｲja, ki so se jih lotevali projekti, se zelo ujemajo, kar lahko vidimo iz naslednjega diagrama: i) Razvile so se povezava med minulimi projekti in sinergije s tekoｲimi projekti: kot je bilo predlagano za prednostne naloge ob predlo™itvi predlogov, je bilo na izkuþnjah drugih zgrajenih veｲ projektov oziroma so se razvile sinergije z drugimi tekoｲimi projekti:
104 (50 %) of projects have a link with a previous project:
104 (50 %) projekti imajo povezavo z ™e izvedenim projektom:
‡ for 80 of these, this was with a Daphne project.
‡ pri 80-ih od teh projektov je bil to projekt v okviru programa Daphne.
One of them also has a link with a local project and one with a project funded by the Education and Culture Directorate- General;
Eden od projektov ima tudi povezavo z lokalnim projektom, drugi pa povezavo s projektom, ki ga je podprl Generalni direktorat za izobra™evanje in usposabljanje;
‡ nine projects were funded by local/regional/national authorities/organisations;
‡ 9 projektov so podprle lokalne/regionalne/nacionalne oblasti/organizacije;
‡ eight projects were funded by other EC programmes (`Injury protection' from the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General, `Jeunesse pour l'Europe', Information, Communication, Culture and Audiovisual Directorate-General, Employment and Social A . a i r s D i r e c t o r a t e - G e n e r a l , ` E u r op e a g a i n s t A I D S ' , E d u c a t i o n a n d C u l tffu r e D i r e c t o r a t e - G e n - e r a l , Internal Market Directorate General, `Leonardo da Vinci') (one project each);
‡ 8 projektov je imelo podporo drugih programov Evropske komisije (¶Injury protectionƒ od Generalnega direktorata za zdravje in varstvo potroþnikov, ¶Jeunesse pour l⁄Europeƒ, ¶DG information, Communication, Culture and Audiovisualƒ, ¶Generalni direktorat za zaposlovanje in socialne zadeveƒ, ¶Europe against AIDSƒ, ¶Generalni direktorat za izob-ra™evanje in kulturoƒ, ¶Generalni direktorat za notranji trgƒ, ¶Leonardoƒ) (1 projekt vsak);
‡ one project was funded by the National Council of Researchers.
‡ 1 projekt je podprl Nacionalni svet raziskovalcev.
Type of link with previous project
Vrsta povezave s prejþnjim projektom
Project uses results of previous project
Projekt uporablja dose™ke prejþnjega
Project reinforces/extends results of previous project
Projekt krepi/razþirja dose™ke prejþnjega projekta
Project disseminates results of previous project
Projekt razþirja dose™ke prejþnjega projekta
Project replicates results to other target groups/bene«ciaries
Projekt replicira dose™ke v drugi ciljni skupini/pri prejemnikih
Project replicates results to another location
Projekt replicira dose™ke na drugi lokaciji
Projects developing synergies with other running projects
Projekti razvijajo sinergije z drugimi tekoｲimi projekti
‡ seven projects were Daphne projects, including one that also developed synergies with national projects;
‡ 7 projektov je potekalo v okviru Daphne, eden od teh je razvil sinergije tudi z nacionalnimi projekti;
‡ 29 projects were funded by local/regional/national authorities/organisations;
‡ 29 projektov so podprle lokalne/regionalne/nacionalne oblasti/organizacije;
‡ two projects were funded by Employment and Social A . a i r s D i r e c t o r a t e - G e n e r a l ;
‡ 2 projekta sta prejela sredstva Generalnega direktorata za zaposlovanje in socialne zade-ve;
‡ three projects were funded by other EC programmes (RURIS, Prisma, STOP) (one project each);
‡ 3 projekte so podprli drugi programi Evropske komisije (RURIS, PRISMA, STOP) (1 projekt vsak);
Type of links with the other running project
Vrsta povezave z drugim tekoｲim projektom
Project uses the results of other project
Projekt uporablja dose™ke drugega projekta
Exchange of information/experience between both projects
Izmenjava informacij/izkuþenj med obema projektoma
Other project learns from/builds on the Daphne project
Drugi projekt se uｲi od projekta Daphne/gradi na njem
(N = 218 projects, up to three choices per project)
Vzgojno-izobra™evalni delavci
(k) If we consider the Daphne objectives (as de«nedinthedecisionandrecalledinthetextsof the calls for proposals), the following split and evolution were detected:
A brief history of Daphne k) Pe upoþtevamo cilje programa Daphne (kot so doloｲeni v Odloｲbi in navedeni v razpisih za vlo™itev predlogov), so bile ugotovljene naslednje razlike in razvojno gibanje:
Exchange of good practices
Izmenjava dobre prakse
Studies, research or data collection
Þtudije, raziskave, zbiranje podatkov
Information sources
Informacijski viri
The objective of 65 % (on average) of the projects is the exchange of good practices and this is increasingly so when looking at the evolution of the projects' generations.
Cilj 65 % projektov (v povpreｲju) je izmenjava dobre prakse, kar se vse bolj uresniｲuje, ｲe po-gledamo razvojni napredek generacij projektov.
This illustrates the true added value of Daphne, i.e. the transfer of good practices within and between transnational partnerships.
To ka™e resniｲno dodano vrednost programa Daphne, torej prenos dobre prakse v nacionalnih in nadnacionalnih partnerstvih.
On the contrary, the building of information sources is still not greatly tackled.
Na drugi strani pa izgrajevanje informacijskih virov ni kaj prida napredovalo.
An interesting evolution that emerges from the diagram is the decrease of the `informa-tion campaigns' and of the `recognition and reporting of violence' categories, in favour of more `studies, research or data collection' and `exchange of good practices'.
Zanimiv razvoj, razviden iz diagrama, je upadanje kampanj za informiranje in kategorij prepo-znavanja ter prijavljanja nasilja v korist veｲjega þtevila þtudij in izmenjav dobre prakse.
Obviously, after the «rstfewyearswhentheneedforsuchcampaignswasobvious,theorganisationsinvolved in the «ghtagainstviolencestartedtorelylessonthisapproachandtofocusmore on other objectives.
Oｲitno je, da so se organizacije, ki delujejo na podroｲju boja proti nasilju, po prvih nekaj letih, ko so bile take kampanje brez dvoma nujne, zaｲele manj zanaþati na ta pristop in so se zaｲele usmer-jati na druge cilje.
When analysing in more detail the nature of the projects' objec-tives, the following categories appear:
Podrobnejþa analiza narave ciljev teh projektov poka™e te kategorije:
Improved understanding of violence
Boljþe razumevanje
Detection of violence
Odkrivanje nasilja
Protection from violence
Zaþｲita pred nasiljem
Treatment of o.enders
Zakonodajni ukrepi
Reintegration of o.enders
Reintegracija storilcev
For the purpose of this report, an evaluation of the seven years of Daphne activities (1997›2003) was carried out.
Za namen tega poroｲila je bilo opravljeno sedemletno vrednotenje dejavnosti programa Daphne (1997›2003).
The main characteristic of this study is that it is exhaustive: all projects (303) from the initiative (1997›99) and the programme (2000›03) have been analysed.
Glavna znaｲilnost te þtudije je izｲrpnost: analizirani so bili vsi projekti (303) iz Pobude (1997›1999) in Programa (2000›2003).
The conclusions were as follows:
Konｲne ugotovitve so:
`The initiative and programme objectives were and remain relevant to the needs at their origin i.e. protecting children, young people and women from violence and preventing it.
¶Cilji Pobude in Programa so bili in ostajajo skladni s potrebami, iz katerih so izþli, torej zaþｲita otrok, mladine in ™ensk pred nasiljem in njegovo prepreｲevanje.
Both the outputs and the impacts contribute to achieving each objective of the Daphne programme, so con«rmingits e.ectiveness.Thee/ciencyof theprogrammeis evidencedby theimpressiveoutputsandim-pacts, compared with the modest resources allocated.
Rezultati in vplivi prispevajo k doseganju vsakega od ciljev v programu Daphne in potrjujejo njegovo uｲinkovitost. Uspeþnost programa je oｲitna tudi v prepriｲljivem þtevilu dose™enih ciljev, ｲe jih primerjamo s skromnostjo dodeljenih sred-stev.
Their sustainability once the projects have ended is rather weak, because of insu/cientlyplannedandtargeteddisseminationanddi/cultieswith post-project funding.'
Njihova ohranljivost, ko so dokonｲani, je precej þibka zaradi nezadostnega naｲrtovanja in ciljne þiritve projektov ter te™av s pridobivanjem sredstev, ko se projekti izteｲejo.ƒ
The «ndingscanbesummarisedasfollows:
Ugotovitve lahko povzamemo takole:
O b j e c t i v e s "
C i lj i
E/ciency: excellent value for money
Uspeþnost: odliｲna stroþkovna uｲinkovitost
Sustainability: weak
Ohranljivost: þibka
The relevance of the Daphne programme is evaluated by the extent to which the objectives are and remain appropriate to the context, i.e. to the social needs the programme is meant to satisfy.
Ustreznost programa Daphne je vrednotena po tem, v kolikþnem obsegu so oziroma ostajajo cilji ustrezni vsebini, torej dru™benim potrebam programa, ki naj bi jih zapolnil ta program.
Relevance of the Daphne objectives to the social needs
Ustreznost ciljev programa Daphne glede na dru™bene potrebe
The «ghtagainstviolencecombinesalargenumberofinitiativesandactions.Daphnedoesnot aim to directly reduce the number of victims of violence.
Boj proti nasilju zdru™uje veliko pobud in akcij. Program Daphne si ne prizadeva neposredno zmanjþati þtevila ™rtev nasilja.
Instead, the programme aims to support organisations whose actions contribute to protecting against violence, preventing it and assisting victims.
Namesto tega podpira organizacije, katerih delovanje prispeva k varovanju pred nasiljem, njegovemu prepreｲevanju in zagotavljanju pomoｲi ™rtvam.
This explains the key role played by NGOs in Daphne since its origin.
To pojas-njuje kljuｲni pomen nevladnih organizacij ™e od samega zaｲetka delovanja programa Daph-ne.
The Daphne objectives were d e « n e d i n g e n e r a l t e r m s s o t h a t t h e y w o u l d b e v a l i d f o r m a n y d i . e r e n t tffy p e s o f v i o l e n c e .
Cilji programa Daphne so bili doloｲeni na sploþno, zato da lahko veljajo za þtevilne razliｲne oblike nasilja. Teh ciljev je þest:
‡ studies, research and data collection;‡ information campaigns;‡ information sources;‡ recognition and reporting of violence.
‡ þtudije, raziskave in zbiranje podatkov;‡ kampanje za informiranje;‡ informacijski viri;‡ prepoznavanje in prijavljanje nasilja.
By being independent from the areas of violence covered, these objectives are not in‹uencedby priorities set annually on aspects of violence.
Ker so ti cilji neodvisni od obravnavanih podroｲij nasilja, nanje ne vplivajo prednostne naloge, ki so vsako leto doloｲene glede vidikov nasilja.
In addition, these objectives are instruments rather than objectives, stricto sensu.
Poleg tega so ti cilji prej instrumenti kot cilji v ozkem pomenu besede.
In fact, they contribute to the more general meta-objec-tives that implicitly underpin the programme, i.e. European response to violence through networking and exchange of best practice, prevention and protection of victims, increased awareness (see Graph 2 below).
Pravzaprav prispevajo k sploþnejþim metaciljem, ki implicitno podpi-rajo program, torej k evropskemu odzivu na nasilje z mre™nim povezovanjem in izmenjavo dobre prakse, prepreｲevanjem nasilja in varovanjem pred njim, krepitvijo ozaveþｲanja (glej graf 2 spodaj).
Continuing relevance
Pomembnost nadaljevanja
The fact that these objectives remained relevant over the years is evident to a majority of stakeholders interviewed.
Dejstvo, da z leti ostaja pomembnost teh ciljev enaka, je oｲitno veｲini vpraþanih zainteresira-nih.
For some of them, the programme represented an improvement on the initiative in this respect, as the objectives partly moved from awareness-raising through informing, to changing behaviours, which is the most crucial impact.
Nekaterim med njimi je Program v tem pogledu pomenil izboljþavo Pobude, saj so se cilji deloma pomaknili od osveþｲanja k seznanjanju, spreminjanju obnaþanja, kar je najpo-membnejþi vpliv.
In fact, raising awareness does not `naturally' provoke changes in behaviour; those changes require time, resources, organisational variation, etc.
Krepitev ozaveþｲanja pravzaprav ne izzove ¶samodejnihƒ sprememb vede-nja; take spremembe terjajo ｲas, sredstva, organizacijsko prilagajanje itd.
Some stakeholders also envisage that, in the medium term, prevention should increase in importance relative to the protection of victims.
Nekateri zainteresirani si predstavljajo tudi, da bi morali srednjeroｲno okrepiti pomembnost prepreｲevanja v primerjavi z zaþｲito ™rtev.
Several stakeholders point to the critical im-portance of the treatment of o.endersasameansofpreventingfurtherviolence.
Nekateri zainteresirani poudarjajo odloｲilno po-membnost obravnavanja krþilcev kot sredstva za prepreｲevanje novega nasilja.
The relevance of the Daphne objectives and their permanence are also evidenced by the growth of the funds requested by proposers between 1997 and 2002, indicating how impor-tant the demand and the needs are and remain.
Ustreznost ciljev programa Daphne in njihovo trajnost dokazuje tudi rast denarnih sredstev, za katera so predlagatelji prosili v letih od 1997 do 2002, kar ka™e, kako pomembni so ti cilji in da povpraþevanje in potrebe ostajajo nespremenjeni.
The e . e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e D a p h n e p r o g r a m mffe i s a s s e s s e d b y t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e o u tp uijt s a n d impacts contribute to the achievement of the Daphne objectives.
Uｲinkovitost programa Daphne je ocenjena v obsegu, v katerem njegovi dose™ki in vplivi pri-spevajo k uresniｲevanju zastavljenih ciljev.
For each project, a link was made between its outputs and the Daphne objectives they support.
Za vsak projekt je bila narejena povezava med rezultati in cilji programa, ki jih projekt pod-pira.
Out of 699 outputs, 601 strongly or very strongly support the Daphne objectives as follows:
Od skupaj 699 rezultatov jih 601 moｲno ali zelo moｲno podpira cilje programa Daph-ne:
Support to
" zbiranje podatkov
Information campaigns"""
Informacijske """kampanje
N = 601 outputs with high or very high contribution: iconferences, seminars, workshops; istudies, reports and books; i"information materials; i"guidelines, training packages, manuals; iwebsites, CDs and CD-ROMs
N = 601 rezultatov z visokim ali zelo visokim prispevanjem: Konference, seminarji, delavnice i; þtudije, poroｲila in knjige i; gradiva za informiranje i ; smernice, kompleti za usposabljanje, priroｲniki i ; spletna mesta, ploþｲe CD in CD-ROM i
Graph 1 should be interpreted as follows: 15 % of the outputs contribute to the objective `sup-port to multi-disciplinary networks', and they are composed of 38 % of `conferences, seminars and workshops', 16 % of `studies, reports and books' and 11 % of `information materials'.
Zgornji graf je treba razumeti tako: 15 % rezultatov prispeva k cilju ¶podpora veｲdisciplinarnim omre™jemƒ, tvori pa jih 38 % ¶konferenc, seminarjev in delavnicƒ, 16 % ¶þtudij, poroｲil in knjigƒ ter 11 % ¶gradiv za informiranjeƒ.
Main impacts
Glavni vplivi
Adoption of good practices66 %
Sprejetje dobre prakse66 %
European response to issues of violence through networking, exchange of good practices and studies
Þtudije, raziskave alizbiranje podatkov
Improved expertise64 %
Boliþe strokovno znanje 64 %
Studies, research or data collection
Prepreｲevanje/zaþｲita pred nasiljem
Improved means and/oraccess to assistance 57 %
Izboljþanje sredstva ozdostop do pomoｲi57 %
Improved awareness of issues of violence and of end bene«ciaries' situation: 76 %
Boljþa ozvaveþｲenost za problematiko nasilja in polozaj konｲnih prejemnikov 76 %
Increased awareness of issues of violence
Boljþa ozaveþｲenosto nasilju
Visibility / discussion of violence 67 %
Vidnost/razpravljanje o nasilju 67 %
Openness to experiencefrom other countries: 52 %
Odprtost za izkuþnje iz drugihdr™av 53 %
Graph 2: Contribution of impacts to programme's objectives
Graf 2: Kako prispevajo vplivi k ciljem programa
Note: Percentages in the `Main impacts' boxes are the frequencies of projects having recorded such an impact.
(Odstotki v okvirｲkih ¶Glavni vpliviƒ ka™ejo pogostost bele™enja takih vplivov v projektih.)
Only the most important impacts (above 45 % of frequencies) are displayed and only the main relations with objectives are shown, in the interests of readability.
Zaradi veｲje pregledno-sti so prikazani samo najpomembnejþi vplivi (s pogostostjo nad 45 %) in samo glavne povezave s cilji.
It is no surprise that the proportion of outputs supporting a given objective is commensurate with the number of projects tackling that objective.
Ne preseneｲa, da je dele™ rezultatov, ki podpirajo dani cilj, sorazmeren s þtevilom projektov, ki se lotevajo uresniｲevanja tega cilja.
The striking «gurehereisthattheobjective`exchangeofgoodpractice'issupportedbymorethan a third of the outputs.
Pozornost zbuja, da podpira cilj ¶izmenjava dobre prakseƒ veｲ kot tretjina rezultatov.
This shows (a) the importance of that objective for the participants and (b) the real added value of the Daphne programme in transferring knowledge from coun-try to country and from organisation to organisation throughout Europe.
To ka™e na a) pomembnost tega cilja za sodelujoｲe in b) pravo dodano vrednost programa Daphne pri prenaþanju znanja iz dr™ave v dr™avo in iz organizacije v organizacijo po vsej Evropi.
On the other hand, the objective `information sources' is more neglected.
Po drugi strani ostaja cilj ¶informacijski viriƒ nekako prezrt.
Special attention should therefore be devoted to this aspect in Daphne II.
Temu vidiku je zato treba posveti-ti posebno pozornost v programu Daphne II.
Looking at the diagram the other way round, it appears that encouraging people to work together (by `Conference, seminars and workshops') is the output that contributes most to the objectives and promotes all of them.
Pe si diagram ogledamo z druge plati, se zdi, da je spodbujanje k skupnemu delu (s ¶konfe-rencami, seminarji in delavnicamiƒ) rezultat, ki najbolj prispeva k ciljem in pospeþuje vse.