natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
1) and Articles 14 and 15 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1346/2005 (OJ L 212, 17.8.2005, p.
1) ter 14 in 15 Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 1346/2005 (UL L 212, 17.8.2005, str.
16) provide for the preparation by beneficiaries of reports containing inter alia ‘a summary of the work carried out and an evaluation of the results obtained […]’.
16) določajo, da morajo upravičenci pripraviti poročila, ki med drugim vsebujejo „povzetek opravljenega dela in […] oceno doseženih rezultatov […]“.
This examination showed that the Commission does not have a formal procedure for analysing these reports.
Ta preučitev je pokazala, da Komisija dejansko nima formalnega postopka za analizo teh poročil.
The cases examined did not always show signs of such analysis and some of them did not contain allthereports or otherrequisiteitems.
Pri preučenih primerih ni bilo vedno sledi takšneanalizeinnekateri med njimi niso vsebovali vseh poročil ali drugih predpisanih elementov.
EXTRACTS FROM EVALUATION REPORTS ON THE LIMITS OF COORDINATION AND SYNERGIES
IZVLEČKIIZ OCENJEVALNIH POROČIL O OMEJITVAH PRI USKLAJEVANJUIN SINERGIJAH
• ‘The regulations do not provide clear and explicit incentives for promoting synergies between cofinanced programmes, whether within a single country or between countries.
• Uredbe ne spodbujajo jasno in izrecno sinergij medsofinanciranimi programi bodisi znotraj ene države bodisi med državami.
The same was observed of synergies between cofinanced programmes and MS or private sector programmes.’
Enako je bilo ugotovljeno za sinergije med sofinanciranimi programi in programi držav članic ali zasebnega sektorja.
• ‘The regulations and programme documents do not refer to how synergies can be brought about andthereis no evidencethat any ofthe campaigns have promoted cooperation at EUlevel.[…] No synergies or specific coordination mechanisms have been identified between cofinanced programmes […].’
• V uredbahin programskih dokumentih ni navedeno, kakoje mogoče vzpostaviti sinergije, poleg tega pa tudi ni dokazov o tem, da bi katera koli kampanja dejansko spodbujala sodelovanje na ravni EU. […] Med sofinanciranimi programi niso bile ugotovljene nobene sinergije ali posebni mehanizmi sodelovanja […].
• ‘Onlythe national authorities and proposing organisations are ableto ensure complementarity between European, national and private promotion initiatives.
• Dopolnjevanje evropskih, nacionalnih in zasebnih promocijskih pobud lahko zagotovijo le nacionalne oblasti in organizacije predlagateljice.
Whilst redundant aspects and contradictions had been avoided, few synergies could be identified […] The diversity of the programmes being supported does not promote complementarity between European programmes.’
Čeprav so bili odvečni vidiki in nasprotja preprečeni, je bilo mogoče ugotoviti le malo sinergij […] Raznovrstnost podprtih programov ne spodbuja dopolnjevanja evropskih programov.
Six examples were found in the sample that was examined where the auditors considered that this was not the case.
V preučenem vzorcu je bilo kljub temu odkritih šest primerov, kjer so revizorji menili, da ni bilo tako.
In mostcases7the‘summaryofthe workcarriedout’issufficiently detailedtounderstandthe wayin whichthe money wasspentand what measures were carried out, andto ensurethatthese were consistent with the promotion objective.
V večini primerov7 „povzetek opravljenega dela“ vsebuje dovolj podrob-nihinformacij,daje mogoče razumeti, kako se je denar porabil in kateri ukrepi so bili izvedeni ter se prepričati, ali so bili ti ukrepi skladni s cilji promocije.
By contrast, although the auditors couldsee animprovement,the quality of availableinformation on ‘the evaluation of the results obtained’ is still less than satisfactory (see Box 5):
Nasprotno palahko navedemo, da kakovost razpoložljivihinformacij o„oceni doseženihrezultatov“še vedno ni zadovoljiva(glej okvir 5), čepravje bilo opaženoizboljšanje:
(a) Almost all the reports contain a qualitative assessment of the impact but,in most cases,itis not documented or even properly argued and therefore it is not actually possible to evaluate the impact ofthe measures.
(a) Skoraj vsa poročila vsebujejo kvalitativno oceno učinka, ki pa v večini primerov ni dokumentirana, včasih niti ni utemeljena, zato ni mogočeizmeriti učinka ukrepov.
EXAMPLE OF A NON-DOCUMENTED QUALITATIVE APPRAISAL IN ONE OF THE ACTIVITY REPORTS EXAMINED
PRIMER NEDOKUMENTIRANE KVALITATIVNE OCENE V ENEM OD PREUČENIH POROČIL O DEJAVNOSTIH
The ‘Evaluation of the project’s impact’ section of one report that was examined stated ‘Even though we do not have completely exactindicators, we can assure you with absolute confidence andin all conscience that the three-year campaign conducted by the XX company has achieved excellent results, which are on a par with or even better than those forecast in the approved programme […]’.
V oddelku Ocena učinka projekta enega od preučenih poročilje bilo navedeno naslednje:„Čeprav nimamo povsem natančnih kazalnikov, vam lahko s popolno gotovostjo in zaupanjem zatrdimo, da so bili v triletni kampanji, ki jo je vodilo podjetje XX, doseženi odlični rezultati, ki so vsaj tako dobri kot tisti, predvideni v odobrenem programu, če ne celo boljši […]“.
EXAMPLE OF AN INDICATOR NOT DIRECTLY CORRESPONDING TO THE AIMS SET BY THE PROGRAMME
PRIMER KAZALNIKA, KI NE USTREZA POVSEM CILJEM, DOLOČENIM V PROGRAMU
One programme had asits objectivetoinform consumers aboutthespecific qualities of PDO dairy products.
Cilj enega od programov je bil informiranje potrošnikov o posebnih lastnostih mlečnih izdelkov z zaščiteno označbo porekla.
Although the implementation report states the number of contacts achieved by the various measures, it does not contain any analysis of the impact of these contacts on the level of information to consumers.
Čeprav je v poročilu o izvajanju navedeno, koliko odnosov je bilo vzpostavljenih v okviru raznih ukrepov, poročilo ne vsebuje nobene analize učinka teh odnosov na stopnjo informiranja potrošnikov.
Conversely, an analysis ofthis kind didform part oftheimplementationreportfor a‘Poultrymeat’ programme that was examined.
Je bila patakšna analiza del poročila oizvajanju programa vzvezis perutninskim mesom, kije bil preučen.
EXAMPLE OF INDICATORS ANNOUNCED BY THE PROGRAMMES BUT NOT FOLLOWED UP
PRIMER KAZALNIKOV, KI SI BILI NAPOVEDANI V PROGRAMIH, VENDAR SE NISO SPREMLJALI
One ‘Fruit and vegetables’ programme set specific objectives (‘to achieve average fruit and vegetable consumption of 6,2 portions per day and per person’; ‘to achieve an average level of consumption of four apples per week per person’; ‘kiwis: to achieve a 60 % market penetration rate’) and even stated ‘The progress made in achieving these objectives will be monitored annually’.
V enem programu o sadju in zelenjavi so bili določeni jasni številčno opredeljeni cilji (doseči povprečno porabo 6,2 kosa sadja in zelenjave na dan in na osebo; doseči povprečno tedensko stopnjo porabe štirih jabolk na osebo; kivi: doseči 60-odstotni tržni delež), v njem pa je bilo celo navedeno, da se bo napredek pri doseganju teh ciljev spremljal na letni osnovi.
Butthereportsthat wereexamined did not contain any indicator corresponding to this planned monitoring.
Vendar v preučenih poročilih ni bilo nobenega kazalnika, ki bi ustrezal temu načrtovanemu spremljanju.
One‘Wine’ programme wasforecasting 10 million contacts, butthe correspondingreports did not contain any monitoring of this indicator.
Pri enem programu o vinu je bila predvidena vzpostavitev 10 milijonov odnosov, vendar v pripadajočih poročilih ni bilo nobenega spremljanja tega kazalnika.
Three examples were found in the sample that was examined.
V preučenem vzorcu so bili odkriti trije takšni primeri.
(b)Most reports contain quantitative indicators but these are mostly of the type ‘number of contacts generated’.
(b)Večina poročil vsebuje kvantitativne kazalnike, ki pa so večinoma podobni kazalnikom, kot je „število vzpostavljenih odnosov“.
Althoughthistype of indicator can contribute to the evaluation of the impact of the measures,itisofteninsufficient whenitcomestothereal objectives of programmes designedtoincrease sales orimprove consumer knowledge.
Čeprav tovrstni kazalnik lahko prispeva k vrednotenju učinka ukrepov, pogosto ni zadosten glede na dejanske cilje programov, zasnovane za povečanje prodaje ali ozaveščenosti potrošnikov.
(c)Certain reports8 do not contain the impact indicators which were announced whenthe programme was approved.
(c)Določena poročila8 ne vsebujejo kazalnikov učinka, ki so bili napovedani ob odobritvi programa.
The Court’s observation concerning the difficulty of evaluating the impact of the various programmes on the basis of theinformation available is in part borne out by the various evaluations that have already been mentioned.
Opažanje Sodišča o težavnosti ocenjevanja učinka različnih programov na podlagi razpoložljivih informacij je delno podprto z raznimi ocenami, kiso bile že omenjene.
The fact is that, whilst most of the evaluations conclude that the various measures do have a positive impact (see paragraph 29), they emphasise that effectiveness is in general not measuredorishard to measure andthatitis,for example, difficultto establish a direct link between the programmes and any changes in sales or demand that maybeobserved.Thedifficultyof measuringtheefficiencyof programmes(cost–impactratio)is also pointed out(see Box 6).
Čeprav večina ocen potrjuje pozitiven učinek različnih ukrepov (glej odstavek 29), je v njih poudarjeno, da uspešnost na splošno ni izmerjena oziroma jo je težko izmeriti in da je, na primer, težko določiti neposrednopovezavo med programi in spremembami v prodaji in povpraševanju,kijihje mogoče zaslediti. Prav tako omenjajo (glej okvir 6)težavnost merjenja učinkovitosti programov(razmerje med stroškiin učinkom).
EXTRACTS FROM EVALUATION REPORTSILLUSTRATING LIMITATIONS ON MEASURING EFFECTIVENESS
IZVLEČKIIZ OCENJEVALNIH POROČIL, KI PONAZARJAJO OMEJITVE PRI MERJENJU USPEŠNOSTI
• ‘Currently no conclusion is possible on cost versus impacts of measures or actions for the majority of programmes. [...] no causality link between I & P programmes and evolution of Community demand for F & V can be provided, and it is not easy to establish the link with demand for F & V in general, owing to the influence on demand of many external factors.’ • ‘The methods used for assessing the cost–output ratio are often subjective (unreliable and probably biased) and lack rigour […] the absence of detailed quantitative data during implementation impedes sound judgment on the efficiency of specific actions or of the cost versus impact relationship of the programmes […] no in-depth evaluations providing information on the TGs reached, the results or the impact of the programmes.’
• Metode, ki se uporabljajo za ocenjevanje razmerja med stroški in učinkom, so pogosto subjektivne (nezanesljivein verjetno pristranske)in niso stroge[…], dobra presoja učinkovitosti posameznih akcij alirazmerja med stroškiin učinkom programov ni možna, ker medizvajanjem ni podrobnih kvantitativnih podatkov […]. Izvedena ni bila nobena poglobljena ocena rezultatov ali učinka programov, ki bi zagotovila informacije o ciljnih skupinah.
• ‘There is an overall lack of measurement of the effectiveness of the measures in terms of improvement of the image of the Community products and themes and of the demand for organic products.
• Na splošno ni merjenja uspešnosti ukrepov za izboljševanje podobe proizvodov in tem Skupnosti ter povpraševanje po ekološko pridelani hrani.
Moreover, there is a lack of norms against which the trends in these respects could be benchmarked.’
Poleg tega tudi ni standardov, s katerimi bi bilo mogoče oceniti razvoj dogodkov.
Nevertheless, despite these difficulties, these evaluations conclude that thevarious measuresdohavea positiveimpact,chieflyintermsof image or the development of professional contacts for third countries.
Vendar te ocene kljub tem težavam zaključujejo, da je učinek različnih ukrepov pozitiven predvsem v smislu podobe ali razvoja poklicnih stikov v tretjih državah.
In general, the cost-effectiveness ratio of the various measures is even favourably viewed in comparison withthestandardsofthe sector,in particular asregardstheinternal market.
Razmerje med stroški in učinkovitostjo raznih ukrepov glede na standarde sektorjaje prav tako ocenjeno kot pozitivno, zlasti kar zadeva notranjitrg.
THE DEGREE OF RIGOUR AND SELECTIVITY IN THE APPROVAL OF PROPOSALS FOR PROGRAMMES HAS BEENIMPROVED BUT STILL NEEDS TO BE CONSOLIDATED
STROGOST PRIIZBIRIIN ODOBRITVI PREDLOGOV PROGRAMOV SE JEIZBOLJŠALA, VENDAR JO JE TREBA ŠE KONSOLIDIRATI
Where there are no objectives and indicators enabling the impact of the policytobeascertainedand measured, the scheme’s effectiveness depends to a large extent on relevant programmes being selected for co-financing.
Ker ni ciljev in kazalnikov, ki bi omogočali potrditev in merjenje učinka politike, je uspešnost sistema v veliki meriodvisnaodustreznosti programov,izbranih zasofinanciranje.
PRESELECTION BY MEMBER STATES OF PROPOSALS FOR PROGRAMMES
PREDIZBOR PREDLOGOV PROGRAMOV S STRANI DRŽAV ČLANIC
Undertheregulation,the Member States evaluatethe proposalsfor programmes for their conformity with the rules, their suitability and their‘value for money’ and forward to the Commission the proposals thatthey agreeto co-finance.
Države članice v skladu z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 3/2008 ocenijo primernost predlogov programov, njihovo skladnost s pravili in „razmerje med kakovostjo in ceno programa“ ter Komisiji posredujejo predloge, ki sojih pripravljenesofinancirati.
PROPORTION OF PROPOSALS VALIDATED BY THE MEMBER STATES THAT WERE CONSIDEREDINELIGIBLE BY THE COMMISSION
DELEŽ PREDLOGOV, KI SOJIH DRŽAVE ČLANICE POTRDILE, VENDAR PO MNENJU KOMISIJE NISOIZPOLNJEVALI POGOJEV
Out of the sample of 30 proposals forwarded by the Member States in 2007 examined at the Commission, 10 had been rejected by the Commission on the grounds of ineligibility.
V vzorcu 30 preučenih predlogov v Komisiji, ki so ji jih države članice posredovale v letu 2007, je Komisija zaradi neizpolnjevanja pogojev zavrnila 10 predlogov.
Until recently, however, many Member States were forwarding the bulk of the proposals they had received after having carried out only limited preselection work.
Vendar so številne države članice, potem ko so opravile le omejeno predizbirno delo, do nedavnega Komisiji posredovale večino predlogov, ki so jih prejele.
This lack of selectivity was reflected, for example, in very few proposals not being forwarded to the Commission, or again in the large number of proposals forwarded by the Member States that were in the end rejected by the Commission because they wereineligible(see Box 7).Furthermore,in makingtheirappraisal, the Member States sometimes use the data supplied by the proposing organisations withoutthese data having been adequately verified.
To pomanjkanje selektivnosti ponazarjajo maloštevilni predlogi,ki niso bili posredovani Komisiji,ter dejstvo, daso države članice posredovale številne predloge, ki jih je Komisija na koncu zavrnila, ker niso izpolnjevali pogojev (glej okvir 7). Poleg tega države članice pri pripravi svojih ocen včasih uporabijo podatke, ki jih zagotovijo organizacije predlagateljice, ne da bijih ustrezno preverile.
To encourage the Member States to be more selective, the Commission has gradually been laying down criteria to be applied when evaluating proposals for programmes.
Komisija je želela države članice spodbuditi k večji selektivnosti, zato je postopoma določala merila, kijihjetreba uporabiti pri ocenjevanju predlogov programov.
These specify the level of detail expected inthe proposalsandthetype ofchecksto becarried out,andindi-cate a number of successfactorsthat have been culledin particular fromthe conclusions ofthe various evaluation exercises mentioned above.Thisprocessisstillunder way,however,andthereforeonly time willtell how effectiveit actuallyis.
Vteh merilihso podrobno določeni pričakovana stopnja podrobnosti v predlogih, vrsta pregledov, ki jih je treba opraviti, in več dejavnikov uspeha, ki izhajajo predvsem iz zaključkov različnihžeomenjenih postopkovocenjevanja. Vendarta procesše vedno poteka, kar pomeni, da bo njegovo dejansko uspešnost možno ocenitišele čez čas.
Of the 81 programmes closed during the 2006–07 period (approved between 2003 and 2006), there were 17 for which the rate of implementation was less than 70 % of the original budget, including 11 where the rate was less than 40 %.
Pri 17 od 81 programov, ki so bili zaključeni v obdobju 2006–2007 (odobreni med letoma 2003 in 2006), je bila stopnja izvajanja manjša od 70 % prvotnega proračuna, pri 11 od teh programov pa je bila stopnja izvajanja manjša od 40 %.
In Italy one programme had been discontinued after one year, with less than 20 % of the budget having been spent, because from the very outset the planned measures had come up against legal problems in the target third countries.
V Italiji je bil nek program po enem letu ustavljen, porabljenih pa je bilo manj kot 20 % proračuna, saj so pri načrtovanih ukrepih že od samega začetka nastajali pravni problemi v ciljnih tretjih državah.
In Spain, the implementation rate for the largest programme ever approved had been only 34 % of theinitial budget becausethe association,forlack ofthe necessaryresources,suffered afinancing problem.
V Španiji je stopnja izvajanja za največji program, ki je bil kadar koli odobren, znašala le 34 % začetnega proračuna, ker je združenje zaradi pomanjkanja potrebnih sredstev zašlo v finančne težave.
An ex post review by the auditors shows that a significant number of the programmes approved by the Commission during the period 2003–05 were not carried through to the end, calling into question whether it was appropriate to have selected them.
Naknadni pregled, ki so ga opravili revizorji, kaže, da pomembno število programov,kijihje Komisija odobrila v obdobju 2003–2005, ni bilo izvedenih do konca, kar vzbuja dvom o ustreznosti njihove izbire.
The audit in the Member Statesbroughttolightseveralcases wherethereasonsforthese failures could most probably have been anticipatedfromthe outset if the Member States or the Commission had been more thoroughin theirscrutiny ofthe proposals(see Box 8).
Pri reviziji v državah članicah je bilo odkritih več primerov, kjer bi bilo vzroke za te neuspehe skoraj zagotovo mogoče predvideti že na začetku, če bi države članice ali Komisije predloge temeljiteje pregledale (okvir 8).
The Court nevertheless finds that the Commission’s level of selectivity inapproving proposals hasimproved markedlysincetheearly days of this scheme: the rate of approval has thus fallen from 100 %in 2001–02tolessthan 50 %inthe period 2006–08, whilstthe number of proposalsreceived hasincreased(see Graph 3).
Vendar Sodišče ugotavlja, da je Komisija veliko bolj selektivna pri odobritvi predlogov, kot je bila na začetku izvajanja tega sistema. Stopnja odobritevjetakopadlas100 %vobdobju2001–2002na manjkot 50 % v obdobju 2006–2008, medtem ko seje število prejetih predlogov povečalo(glej diagram 3).
NUMBER OF PROGRAMMES APPROVED/REJECTED BY THE COMMISSION
ŠTEVILO PROGRAMOV, KIJIHJE KOMISIJA ODOBRILA/ZAVRNILA
One or the other of these two points was thus found in three cases in the sample that was examined.
V treh primerih iz preučenega vzorca je bila tako odkrita ena od teh dveh točk.
Further to this analysis, the Court’s auditors selected a sample of 30 proposals approved (15) or rejected (15) over the period 2006–07 in order to review the available documentation on the choices that were made.
Da bi pregledali razpoložljivo dokumentacijo o izvršenih izbirah, so revizorji Sodišča poleg te analizeizbrali vzorec 30 predlogov, od katerih jihje bilo 15 v obdobju 2006–2007 odobrenih, 15 pa zavrnjenih.
The auditors’ examination of this sample first of all showed that, since 2006, the selection process had been carried out by means of a proper, formalprocedurethatonthe whole was welldocumented.Certain improvementsstill needto be made, however:
Revizorski pregled tega vzorca je najprej pokazal, da se predlogi od leta 2006 naprej izbirajo po resnem uradnem postopku, ki je na splošno dobro dokumentiran. Vendar so kljub temu potrebne določene izboljšave:
(a) The procedure being used does not enable all the proposals receivedto be compared one with another onthe basis of a uniform set of objective criteria.
(a)Vzpostavljeni postopek ne omogoča, da bilahko vse prejete predloge med seboj primerjali na podlagi enotnega niza objektivnih meril.
The Commission thus does not itself applyaprinciple whichitrequiresthe Member States to follow when makingtheir preselection.
Komisija tako sama ne uporablja načela, ki ga zahteva od držav članic pri njihovem predizboru.
(b) The examination also showed that, when case files are being appraised, there is not always a sufficiently formal approach to following up the problems that are identified and any replies that are received.
(b) Pregled je tudi pokazal, da pri ocenjevanju dosjejev nadaljnje spremljanje ugotovljenih problemovin vseh prejetih odgovorov ni dovolj formalizirano.
Some proposals may thus be rejected without a suf-ficientlyformalrecordbeing madeoftheunsatisfactorynature of the replies received, and other proposals maybeapproved without the replies received being documented9, thuslaying the final choice open to risk. New instructions directly addressing this point were, however,issuedinthe course ofthe audit.
Nekateri predlogi so zato lahko zavrnjeni, ne da bi bila nezadovoljiva narava prejetih odgovorov ustrezno dokumentirana, drugi predlogi pa so lahko odobreni, ne da bi bili prejeti odgovori dokumentirani9 , zaradi česar je končna izbira izpostavljenatveganju.Vendarso bila medrevizijoizdananova navodila za odpravotehtežav.
EXTRACTS OF OBJECTIVES FROM THE PROGRAMMES EXAMINED
IZVLEČKI CILJEVIZ PREUČENIH PROGRAMOV
An ‘Organic farming’ programme set out the following general objectives:
Za program ekološko kmetijstvo so bili določeni naslednji splošni cilji:
‘[…] to inform and interest the general public and, above all, the casual consumer.
[…]informirati širšojavnostin predvsem občasne potrošniketer pri njih vzbuditi zanimanje.
The main objectives are: to increase the level of knowledge about the specific characteristics and benefits; to help increase consumption of organic products; to make the logos better known.’
Glavni cilji so: povečati stopnjo poznavanja posebnih značilnosti in koristi; prispevati k večji porabi ekološko pridelane hrane; izboljšati prepoznavnost logotipov.
A ‘Dairy products’ programme set objectives such as ‘to change eating habits’ and ‘to introduce more dairy products into young people’s diets’.
Pri programu mlečni izdelki so bili določeni cilji, kot so spremeniti prehranjevalne navade in uvesti več mlečnih izdelkov v prehranjevanje mladih.
In both cases, no quantitative objectives were specified nor was there any stocktaking of the situation at the outset.
V nobenem od obeh primerov niso bili določeni nobeni kvantitativni cilji, prav tako pa ni bilo nobenega opisa začetnega stanja.
At the same time, the Commission became considerably more demanding concerningthe detailsthat hadto be providedinthe proposals for programmes.
Komisija je hkrati postala veliko zahtevnejša glede podrobnosti, ki jih jetreba navesti v predlogih programov.
Nevertheless,there are still weaknesses asregards theinformationthatisrequired onthe expectedimpact ofthe programmes and the mannerin whichit will be measured.Indeed, most of the approved proposals that were examined did not lay down satisfactory objectives and/or indicators for measuringprogramme impact (see Box 9).
Kljubtemu so še vedno prisotne slabosti glede zahtevanih informacij o pričakovanem učinku programov in načinu njegovega merjenja. Dejansko večina preučenih odobrenih predlogov ni vsebovala zadovoljivih ciljev in/ali kazalnikov za merjenje učinka programov (glej okvir 9).
This observation on the programmes is closely akintotheobservationalready madeasregardspolicy,for which it was found (see paragraphs 16 to 18) that there werenospecific objectives orsuitableindicators.
To opažanje na ravni programov je povezano z že podanim opažanjem na ravni politike, za kateroje bilo ugotovljeno(glej odstavke 16 do 18), da nima konkretnih ciljev ali primernih kazalnikov.