natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the US, the difference is only 2.5 times and in Japan just two times.
V ZDA je razlika samo 2,5-kratna in na Japonskem samo 2-kratna.
All US states have a GDP per head that is above the EU average.
Vse zvezne države v ZDA imajo BDP na prebivalca višji od povprečja v EU. To na Japonskem velja za 40 od 47 regij.
Clearly, the challenge of reducing regional disparities and ensuring economic and social cohesion across the EU is far greater than in the US or Japan.
Zmanjševanje regionalnih razlik in zagotavljanje ekonomske in socialne kohezije je v EU nedvomno veliko večji izziv kot v ZDA ali na Japonskem.
The variation in rates of GDP per head growth across regions in the EU is also much greater than in the US.
Razlike v stopnjah BDP na prebivalca med regijami so v EU veliko večje kot v ZDA.
Over the period 1997–2004, growth at regional level in the EU varied from below zero to over 8.6%, while in the US it varied from zero to 3.6%.
V obdobju 1997–2004 se je na regionalni ravni v EU rast gibala od negativne vrednosti do več kot 8,6 %, medtem ko se je v ZDA gibala med nič in 3,6 %.
This wider variation in growth rates, however, is in some degree a positive feature given the much greater need for low income regions to catch up.
Ta širši razpon stopenj rasti je lahko do neke mere tudi spodbuden, glede na to, da morajo regije z nižjim prihodkom več nadoknaditi.
In China, GDP per head, again in PPS terms, is only one-fifth of the EU average, while in India, it is one-eighth.
Na Kitajskem dosega raven BDP na prebivalca, spet po kupni moči, komaj petino povprečja EU, v Indiji pa osmino.
In Romania and Bulgaria, which have the lowest GDP per head in the EU, the level is still over twice as high as in India and 50% higher than in China.These two countries, however, are catching up rapidly with the EU.
Celo v Romuniji in Bolgariji, ki imata najnižji BDP na prebivalca v EU, je ta še vedno dvakrat višji kot v Indiji in 50 % višji kot na Kitajskem. Vendar pa ti državi hitro dohitevata EU.
Growth of GDP per head in India has been double that in the EU over the past decade and the growth rate in China was three times the one in the EU.
V Indiji je bila rast BDP v zadnjem desetletju dvakrat tolikšna kot v EU, na Kitajskem trikrat tolikšna.
Nevertheless, even if such high growth rates can be sustained, it would take over 40 years for GDP per head in China to come close to the current level in the EU.
Četudi bi se tako visoka stopnja rasti na Kitajskem nadaljevala, bi se BDP na prebivalca šele v več kot 40 letih približal sedanji ravni v EU.
Despite the vast difference in GDP per head, the size of regional disparities in India and China are similar to that in the EU.
Kljub velikim razlikam pri BDP na prebivalca so regionalne razlike v Indiji in na Kitajskem podobne kot v EU.
The region with the highest GDP per head in both China and India has a level seven times greater than in the lowest regions against eight times in the EU.
Na Kitajskem in v Indiji je BDP na prebivalca sedemkrat višji v regijah z najvišjo stopnjo kot v regijah z najnižjo stopnjo, v EU pa je osemkrat višji.
Differences in regional GDP growth rates in India between 2000 and 2004 were very similar to those in the EU, varying between 1% and 13% while, in China, they varied by much less - by between 6% and 11%.
Med letoma 2000 in 2004 so bile v Indiji razlike med regionalnimi stopnjami rasti BDP na prebivalca zelo podobne razlikam v EU, saj so stopnje rasti znašale med 1 % in 13 %, medtem ko so bile razlike na Kitajskem veliko manjše, med 6 in 11 %.
Source: European Commission, Fourth Report on Social and Economic Cohesion, 2007
Vir: Evropska komisija, Četrto poročilo o ekonomski in socialni koheziji, 2007.
This historic enlargement brought a 20% increase in the EU’s population, but only a 5% increase in Union’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
Zgodovinska širitev je pomenila 20-odstotno povečanje prebivalstva v EU, toda le 5-odstotno povečanje BDP Evropske unije.
With enlargement came increased disparities in income and employment as the average GDP per head in these new member countries was under half the EU average and only 56% of their population were in active employment, compared to 64% in the EU-15.
S širitvijo so se pokazale povečane razlike v prihodkih in zaposlenosti, saj je bil v novih državah članicah povprečni BDP na prebivalca nižji od polovice povprečnega BDP v EU, aktivno zaposlenih prebivalcev pa je bilo samo 56 %, medtem ko jih je bilo v EU-15 64 %.
The new Member States’ territory almost completely fell under Objective 1, eligible for the highest possible level of support from the Structural and Cohesion Funds.
Ozemlje novih držav članic je skoraj v celoti sodilo pod cilj 1 ter je bilo upravičeno do najvišjih možnih ravni podpore strukturnih skladov in Kohezijskega sklada.
However, work began before enlargement including making pre-accession instruments available to help the then candidate countries prepare for Cohesion Policy.
Največja osredotočenost sredstev na najrevnejše države članice in regije, vključitev vseh regij in sprememba prednostnih nalog
Following a decision taken by the European Council of Berlin in March 1999, the 2000-2006 budget for Cohesion Policy totalled EUR 213 billion for the fifteen Member States. An additional allocation of EUR 22 billion was provided for the new Member States for the period 2004-2006.
13 prednostno infrastrukturo, proizvodne zmogljivosti podjetij in potencial človeškega kapitala povečuje kratkoročno notranje povpraševanje ob ohranjanju osredotočenja na srednjeročni trajnostni okvir.Tako ima lahko pomembno vlogo pri obnavljanju zaupanja v realno gospodarstvo.
More recently, the economic and financial crisis has put the spotlight on Cohesion policy and its means in speeding up EU economic recovery. Cohesion policy invests in the real economy.
Kohezijska politika tako dokazuje, da močno vpliva na stabilnost, saj nudi varne vire financiranja in vlaga v srednjeročne in dolgoročne strategije, na katere se lahko zanesejo partnerji na regionalni in lokalni ravni.
Cohesion policy thus proves to be a powerful instrument of stability as it provides secure sources of financing and invests into mid and long term strategies upon which the regional and local partners can rely.
s ciljem spodbujanja rasti, zaposlenosti in inovacij: to so na kratko največje spremembe pri kohezijski politiki EU v tem zakonodajnem obdobju.
In the EU of 27 Member States, one in three EU citizens - 170 million in total – now live in the poorest regions which receive assistance under the “Conver-gence” objective.
V 27 državah članicah EU vsak tretji državljan – skupno kar 170 milijonov ljudi – živi v najrevnejših regijah, ki prejemajo pomoč v skladu s konvergenčnim ciljem.
Economic and social disparities have signifi -cantly deepened with recent enlargements.
Z zadnjima širitvama so se občutno povečale gospodarske in socialne razlike.
In terms of percapita income, Luxembourg is now seven times richer than Romania.
Če primerjamo dohodke na prebivalca, je Luksemburg sedaj sedemkrat bogatejši kot Romunija.
At the regional level, the difference is even bigger: the richest region is Inner London with 290% of the EU-27’s percapita income, while the poorest region is Nord-Est in Romania with 23% of the EU average.
Na regionalni ravni so razlike še večje: najbogatejša regija je ožje območje Londona z 290 % povprečnega prihodka na prebivalca v EU-27, medtem ko je najrevnejši del severovzhodna Romunija s 23 % povprečja EU.
The European Council agreed in December 2005 on the budget for the period 2007-2013 period and allocated EUR 347 billion on Structural and Cohesion Funds of which 81.5% are planned to be spent in the “Convergence” regions.
Evropski svet je decembra 2005 sprejel proračun za obdobje 2007–2013 in strukturnim skladom in Kohezijskemu skladu namenil 374 milijard EUR, od tega je 81,5 % namenjenih „kon-vergenčnim“ regijam.
Based on simplified procedures, nearly all of the 436 programmes covering all EU regions and Member States were agreed before the end of 2007.
Na podlagi poenostavljenih postopkov so bili do konca leta 2007 sprejeti skoraj vsi od 436 programov, ki zajemajo vse regije in države članice.
The radical shift in their priorities means that a quarter of resources is now earmarked for research and in-
Korenita preusmeritev prednosti je pomenila, da je bila četrtina sredstev namenjena raziskavam in inovacijam, približno 30 % pa okoljski infrastrukturi in ukrepom za boj proti podnebnim spremembam.
PARLIAMENTARY ACTIVITIES he European Parliament’s legislative powers in the Structural Funds decision-making process have gradually increased over time:
PARLAMENTARNE DEJAVNOSTI akonodajne pristojnosti Evropskega parlamenta v postopku odločanja o strukturnih skladih so se postopoma povečevale:
Single Act:cooperation with the Council for the vote on the General Regulation on the Structural Funds;
Enotni akt: sodelovanje s Svetom pri glasovanju o splošni uredbi o strukturnih skladih;
Maastricht Treaty: assent procedure for the vote on the General Regulation;
Maastrichtska pogodba: postopek privolitve za glasovanje o splošni uredbi;
Amsterdam Treaty: co-decision with the Council for the vote on the implementing measures applicable to the General Regulation;
Amsterdamska pogodba: postopek soodločanja s Svetom za glasovanje o izvedbenih ukrepih, ki se uporabljajo za splošno uredbo;
Lisbon Treaty: co-decision with the Council for the vote on the General Regulation.
Lizbonska pogodba: postopek soodločanja s Svetom za glasovanje o splošni uredbi.
Today, the European Parliament is a major actor in the Structural Funds decision-making, implementation and monitoring.
Sedaj ima Evropski parlament glavno vlogo pri sprejemanju odločitev o strukturnih skladih, njihovem izvajanju in spremljanju.
A list of the most prominent initiatives of the Committee on Regional Development during this Parliamentary term is set out below.
Spodaj je seznam najpomembnejših pobud Odbora za regionalni razvoj v tem parlamentarnem obdobju.
PARLIAMENTARY ACTIVITIES
PARLAMENTARNE DEJAVNOSTI
Competencies of the Committee on Regional Development
Pristojnosti Odbora za regionalni razvoj
The Committee on Regional Development plays an important role in informing the European Parliament’s approach to the development of the regions of the EU-27.
Odbor za regionalni razvoj ima pomembno vlogo pri obveščanju o pristopu Evropskega parlamenta k razvoju regij v EU-27.
It is in charge of overseeing and advising the Parliament about the implementation of the key EU regional development funding instruments.
Njegova naloga je nadzorovati izvrševanje najpomembnejših instrumentov za financiranje regionalnega razvoja EU in o tem svetovati Parlamentu.
The Committee’s responsibilities include in particular:
Pristojnosti odbora vključujejo zlasti:
• the ERDF, the Cohesion Fund and the other instruments of the Union’s regional policy,
• ESRR, Kohezijski sklad in druge instrumente regionalne politike Unije,
• assessing the impact of other Union policies on economic and social cohesion,
• ocenjevanje učinka drugih politik Unije za ekonomsko in socialno kohezijo,
• coordination of the Union’s structural instruments,
• usklajevanje strukturnih instrumentov Unije,
• outermost regions and islands as well as trans-frontier and inter-regional cooperation,
• najbolj oddaljene regije in otoke ter čezmejno ter medregionalno sodelovanje,
• relations with the Committee of the Regions, inter-regional cooperation organisations and local and regional authorities;
• odnose z Odborom regij, organizacijami za medregionalno sodelovanje ter lokalnimi in regionalnimi oblastmi,
• the urban dimension of regional policy.
• urbano razsežnost regionalne politike.
In addition to its role in bringing forward reports such as those listed in the next section, the Committee has been tasked with coordinating the European Parliament’s relations with other important actors in the area of regional development.
Poleg vloge, ki jo ima pri predstavljanju poročil, kot so na koncu našteta, ima odbor tudi nalogo, da usklajuje odnose med Evropskim parlamentom in drugimi pomembnimi akterji na področju regionalnega razvoja.
The Committee therefore seeks to have an active dialogue with the key organisations, and to ensure that its work is widely accessible to, and understood by, citizens and actors with related activities.
Zato si prizadeva za aktiven dialog z glavnimi organizacijami in skuša zagotoviti, da je njegovo delo široko dostopno in razumljivo vsem, ki opravljajo podobne dejavnosti.
The Committee receives the European Commissioner responsible for Regional Development on a regular basis.
Odbor redno sprejema evropskega komisarja, pristojnega za regionalni razvoj.
It also maintains links on behalf of the Parliament with the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee.
V imenu Parlamenta vzdržuje tudi stike z Odborom regij in Ekonomsko-socialnim odborom.
Their members are regularly invited to give evidence during public hearings organised by the Committee on Regional Development.
Njuni člani so redno vabljeni, da nastopajo na javnih predstavitvah, ki jih organizira Odbor za regionalni razvoj.
EU Funding for Better Housing
Sredstva EU za boljša stanovanja
Regional Solidarity Support: European Parliament Approves EUR 308 billion for Regional Development
Podpora regionalni solidarnosti: Evropski parlament je odobril 308 milijard evrov za regionalni razvoj
Decent and affordable housing for EU citizens has been given a boost by the ERDF, which allows new Member States to apply for EU support for certain housing renovation projects.
Parlament je julija 2006 dal svojo privolitev k svežnju pomoči za regionalni razvoj, imenovanemu strukturni skladi (1).
This aid is destined to help people save energy in their homes thus reducing energy bills while also safeguarding the environment. In May 2007, the European Parliament voted strongly in favour of proposals to extend this availability to older Member States too, from 20092.
O svežnju so se dogovorili na pogajanjih, ki so bila občasno dokaj vroča, saj je Evropski parlament posebej močno nasprotoval nekaterim državam članicam, ki so želele skrčen sveženj strukturnih skladov in tudi zmanjšan skupni proračun EU.
The European Parliament based its vote on the pressing need for EU citizens in all Member States to have access to adequate housing in urban areas, many of which are currently threatened by physical deterioration and the effects of social exclusion.
Evropski parlament je uspešno zagovarjal spremembe, ki se nanašajo na okolje in trajnostni razvoj, boljšo dostopnost za invalide in okrepljene mehanizme posvetovanja na lokalni ravni, s čimer je zagotovil največji možni vložek v razpravo o regionalnem razvoju.
In July 2006, Parliament gave its assent to the package of regional development assistance known as the Structural Funds1.
Namen sredstev je pomagati ljudem varčevati z energijo v njihovih domovih in tako zmanjševati stroške za energijo in hkrati varovati okolje.
The package was agreed after at times heated negotiations, with the European Parliament taking a particularly strong line in view of the wish of some Member States for a slimmed-down Structural Funds package, and indeed for a reduced overall EU budget.
Maja 2007 je Evropski parlament glasoval močno v podporo predlogom, da se ta sredstva od leta 2009 naprej dajo na razpolago tudi starejšim državam članicam (2).
The European Parliament was successful in securing changes regarding the environment and sustainable development; improved accessibility for people with disabilities; and strengthened consultation arrangements at the local level, ensuring the widest possible input into the regional development debate.
Evropski parlament je to glasovanje utemeljil s potrebo državljanov vseh držav članic EU po dostopu do primernih stanovanj v urbanih območjih, od katerih so številna že ogrožena zaradi fizičnega poslabšanja in vplivov socialne izključenosti.
Rapporteur: A. ANDRIA (ALDE, IT)
Poročevalec: A. ANDRIA (ALDE, IT).
EU Solidarity: Money to be Available to Combat Acts of Terrorism and Public Health Threats
Solidarnost EU: sredstva, ki bodo na voljo za boj proti teroriZMU in grožnjam javnemu zdravju
In May 2006, the European Parliament voted for a widening of the scope of the EU Solidarity Fund to include the consequences of terrorist attacks, major public health emergencies, and industrial disasters3.
Evropski parlament je maja 2006 glasoval za razširitev področja uporabe Solidarnostnega sklada Evropske unije tako, da bi vključil posledice terorističnih napadov, resnejše krizne raz- mere na področju javnega zdravja in industrijske nesreče (3).
The Solidarity Fund was created in 2002 in response to the major flooding in Central Europe.
Solidarnostni sklad je bil ustanovljen leta 2002 kot odziv na velike poplave v Srednji Evropi.
It can grant up to EUR 1 billion a year to a Member State to help speed up their response to such contingencies, examples of which include floods, fires, or drought.
Vsako leto lahko dodeli 1 milijardo EUR državi članici kot pomoč za pospešitev njenega odziva pri nepredvidenih izdatkih, kot jih na primer povzročijo poplave, požari ali suša.
Without in any way allowing those responsible to walk away from their liability, in instances, for example, where an industrial or technological accident caused an environmental disaster (i.e. «the Polluter Pays» principle), the European Parliament voted for measures to make financial assistance available as rapidly as possible, for instance for the provision of immediate medical assistance and measures to protect the public.
Evropski parlament je glasoval za ukrepe, s katerimi bi dali finančno pomoč na voljo čim prej, na primer za zagotavljanje takojšnje zdravniške pomoči in za ukrepe za varovanje ljudi, pri tem pa nikakor ne želi dovoliti odgovornim, da bi ubežali svoji odgovornosti, na primer takrat, ko je okoljsko katastrofo povzročila industrijska ali tehnološka nesreča (načelo„onesnaževalec plača“).
The dynamic and interactive process of developing the EU’s innovative capacity was the subject of an own-initiative report adopted by the European Parliament in May 20074.
Dinamičen in interaktiven proces razvoja zmogljivosti EU za inovacije je bil predmet samoiniciativnega poročila, ki ga je Evropski parlament sprejel maja 2007 (4).
Among the recommendations in the report were the principles of low-cost or free access to broadband and of support for crossborder cooperation among regional academic and business stakeholders.
V poročilu so bila med priporočili tudi načela za nizkocenoven ali brezplačen širokopasovni dostop in za podporo čezmejnemu sodelovanju med regionalnimi akademskimi in poslovnimi interesnimi skupinami.
Another means of promoting improved crosssectoral collaboration would be support for the development of «clusters» of research and business units.
Podpora za razvoj skupin raziskovalnih in poslovnih enot bi lahko predstavljala še eno možnost za spodbujanje boljšega medsektorskega sodelovanja.
The Commission and Member States were called on to provide equal access for all the EU’s citizens to education, at every level.
Komisija in države članice so bile pozvane, naj vsem državljanom EU zagotovijo enak dostop do izobraževanja na vseh stopnjah.
Greater access to information-based working should be supported and appropriate financial and risk-management mechanisms should be created, possibly for use alongside the existing European Investment Bank/European Investment Fund instruments, JASPERS, JEREMIE and JESSICA.
Podpreti bi bilo treba večji dostop do dela, ki temelji na informacijah, ter ustvariti primerne finančne mehanizme in mehanizme obvladovanja tveganj, po možnosti za sočasno uporabo z obstoječimi instrumenti Evropske investicijske banke/Evropskega investicijskega sklada, kot so Jaspers, Jeremie in Jessica.
Supporting the Northern Irish Peace Process
Poslanci nasprotujejo neutemeljeni selitvI podjetij
The European Parliament has consistently supported Northern Ireland in the process of achieving peace and reconciliation.
Evropski parlament dosledno podpira Severno Irsko v procesu doseganja miru in stabilnosti.
In 2006, the European Parliament extended its funding for the International Fund for Ireland until it is wound up in 2010, in view of the Fund’s contribution to economic and social progress and its work to promote dialogue between nationalists and unionists across Ireland.
Leta 2006 je podaljšal fi nan-ciranje Mednarodnega sklada za Irsko, dokler se leta 2010 ne zaključi, upoštevajoč prispevek sklada h gospodarskemu in socialnemu napredku in njegovo prizadevanje za pospešitev dialoga med nacionalisti in unionisti na Irskem.
In 2008, the European Parliament adopted a report which endorsed the positive results and best practice achieved by the PEACE programmes to date6.
Leta 2008 je Evropski parlament sprejel poročilo, ki je podprlo pozitivne rezultate in zglede najboljše prakse, ki jih je do sedaj dosegel program PEACE (6).
Since 1995, three generations of PEACE programme have seen total allocations of over EUR 2 billion to a wide range of sectors and groups, enabling different sections of the community to work together to build bridges.
Od leta 1995 sta bili v treh generacijah programa PEACE dodeljeni skupaj več kakor 2 milijardi EUR za različne sektorje in skupine, kar je različnim delom skupnosti omogočilo sodelovanje pri gradnji mostov.
In the context of its oversight of regional development policies destined to bring about economic and social cohesion in the EU, the European Parliament adopted a report in March 2006, calling on the European Commission to impose penalties on companies indulging in unjustified relocations5.
V okviru nadzorovanja regionalnih razvojnih politik, katerih cilj je ekonomska in socialna kohezija v EU, so poslanci Evropskega parlamenta marca 2006 sprejeli poročilo, s katerim so pozvali Evropsko komisijo, naj določi kazni za podjetja, ki se neutemeljeno preselijo (5).
The companies in question are those who, having received EU regional development support for their business, awarded as part of an overall package of aid to the region in which the company locates, then relocate within 7 years of receiving that aid.
To so tista podjetja, ki se preselijo v sedmih letih potem, ko v okviru skupnega paketa pomoči regiji, v kateri je podjetje, prejmejo regionalno razvojno pomoč EU za svoje poslovanje.
A key objection by the European Parliament to this practice is the threat of job losses in regions already badly affected by economic decline - precisely the type of regions that EU rules should be seeking to help.
Parlament takemu ravnanju nasprotuje zlasti zato, ker zaradi tega grozi izguba delovnih mest v regijah, ki jih je že tako precej prizadelo gospodarsko nazadovanje in ki bi jim morala pravila EU najbolj pomagati.
Members backed a call for the Commission to require repayment of regional state aid given to any company that subsequently takes an early decision to relocate.
Poslanci so podprli poziv, naj Komisija zahteva povračilo regionalne pomoči, izplačane podjetju, ki se nato prezgodaj preseli.
Rapporteur: A. HUTCHINSON (PES, BE)
Poročevalec: A. HUTCHINSON (PES, BE).
Turning Territorial Diversity into Strength should also focus on the territorial dimension of other sectoral Community policies with a strong territorial impact.
Pretvorba ozemeljske raznolikostiv prednost sektorskih politik Skupnosti z močnim ozemeljskim vplivom.
The document called also for special attention to the territories with specific geographical traits, so as to stimulate development and guarantee an equitable access to the services of general interest for all citizens of the EU.
Dokument vsebuje tudi poziv k namenitvi posebne pozornosti ozemljem s specifičnimi geografskimi značilnostmi, da bi spodbudili razvoj in zagotovili pravičen dostop do storitev splošnega pomena za vse državljane EU.