natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Article 10 of the same Regulation sets out that Member States should send to the Commission an annual report on the implementation of the plan on their territory, also specifying the verification measures applied to ensure that the goods have achieved their intended objective and have reached the final recipients.
Člen 10 iste uredbe določa, da morajo države članice poslati Komisiji letno poročilo o izvajanju načrta na svojem ozemlju, pri čemer morajo navesti tudi kontrolne ukrepe, ki se uporabljajo, da se zagotovi, da blago doseže načrtovani cilj in končne prejemnike.
Rice vaporised ricewhite ricerice with milkrice biscuits
Riž predkuhan rižbeli rižriž z mlekomriževi piškoti
No 3149/92.
Člen 5a Uredbe (EGS) št. 3149/92.
The food aid is channelled to deprived persons mainly through charitable organisations, designated by the Member State concerned, to whom theproductsare madeavailablefreeofcharge.Thesecharitable organisationsareoftenstructuredaroundthreelevels —national, regional and local — and present different administrative structures (see Box 4).
Pomoč v hrani se k ogroženim osebam usmerja predvsem prek dobrodelnih organizacij,kijihvta namenimenujejozadevne državečlanice inimajo proizvode na voljo brezplačno. Te dobrodelne organizacije sopogostostrukturiranenatrehravneh–nacionalni,regionalniin lokalni –inimajorazlične upravnestrukture(glej okvir 4).
Several thousands of charitableorganisations at all levelscurrently participateinthereceptionand distributionofthe foodstuffstodeprivedpersons,for which purpose the Regulation stipulatesthatthecharitableorganisationsdirectlylookingafter thebeneficiariesshallbedeemedtobethefinalrecipientsofthis distribution11.
Prispre-jemanjuinrazdeljevanjuživil ogroženim osebamtrenutnosodeluje večtisoč dobrodelnih organizacij navsehravneh, pričemer uredba zatanamendoloča,dasezakončneprejemnikevdistribucijski verigištejejodobrodelneorganizacije,kineposrednoskrbijoza upravičence11.
THE ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPATINGIN THE EU PROGRAMME
ORGANIZACIJE, KI SODELUJEJO V PROGRAMU EU
The structure and responsibilities of the charitable organisations in the Member States audited are as follows:
V revidiranih državah članicah imajo dobrodelne organizacije naslednjo strukturo in odgovornosti:
1st level: ‘Designated’ by the national authorities organisations (e.g. Red Cross, Caritas, Federation of Food Banks, etc.).
Prvaraven: organizacije, ki sojih„imenovali“ državni organi(npr. Rdeči križ, Karitas, združenje bank hraneitd.).
They act at nationallevel as headquarters oflowerlevel organisationsfor matters related to representation, contacts with the national authorities, coordination and supervision of the activities.
Na nacionalniravni delujejo kot sedeži podrejenih organizacij,in sicer skrbijo za zadeve v zvezi z zastopanjem, stike z nacionalnimi organi, usklajevanje in nadzor nad dejavnostmi.
They do not distribute aid to final recipients.
Ne razdeljujejo hrane končnim prejemnikom.
2ndlevel: Charitable organisations acting atregional/locallevel(e.g. dioceses Caritas,food banks, etc.).
Drugaraven: dobrodelne organizacije, ki delujejo naregionalni/lokalniravni(npr.škofijske Karitas, banke hraneitd.).
The majority ofthem belongtothe network ofthe main organisations. They havethestorage capacities and receive the foodstuffs and distribute them to lower level organisations and/or to final beneficiaries.
Večinoma so vključene v mrežo glavnih organizacij.Imajo skladiščne zmogljivosti, sprejemajo živila ter jih razdeljujejo organizacijam na nižji ravni in/ali končnim upravičencem.
3rd level: Organisations operating locally and distributing the aid directly to the beneficiaries.
Tretja raven: organizacije, ki delujejo lokalno in neposredno razdeljujejo pomoč upravičencem.
There are up to several thousands in each Member State and their missions are wide and multiple.
V vsaki državi članicijihje do večtisoč, njihovo poslanstvo paje širokoinraznoliko.
Very often these organisations belong to a network of the main charitable organisations, but also include independent organisations created at the initiative of local communities.
Te organizacije so zelo pogosto del mreže glavnih dobrodelnih organizacij, vključujejo pa tudi neodvisne organizacije, ki so nastale na pobudo lokalnih skupnosti.
The Commission does not dispose of data onthe number ofthe designatedand othercharitable organisations which participate in the EU programme.
Komisija nima na voljo podatkov o številu imenovanih in drugih dobrodelnih organizacij, ki sodelujejo v programu EU.
In the Member States audited they numbered around 40 000.
V revidiranih državah članicah jih je bilo okrog 40 000.
Details are shown below:
Podrobnejši podatki so navedeni spodaj:
Type of charitable organisation
Vrsta dobrodelne organizacije
Designated organisations (1st level)
Imenovane organizacije (prva raven)
Organisations at regional/departmental level (2nd level) approx.
Organizacije na regionalni/pokrajinski ravni (druga raven) pribl. 6 000 pribl. 9 000
Organisations of lower level distributing food to final recipients (3rd level)
Organizacije na nižji ravni, ki razdeljujejo hrano končnim prejemnikom (tretja raven)
Hence, charitable organisations play a key role in the implementation oftheprogramme.
Dobrodelne organizacije zato igrajo ključno vlogo pri izvajanju programa.
Whiletheprogrammecontributestowardstheir administrative costs to a limited extent (1 % of the value of the products madeavailable)12,thedesignatedorganisationsbear mostof theirownadministrativeandoperationalcostsforthereception, storage and distribution ofthe goodstothefinal beneficiaries.
, morajoimenovane organizacije same pokriti večino svojih upravnih in operativnih stro-škovzasprejemanje,skladiščenjeinrazdeljevanjeblagakončnim upravičencem.
12Charitable organisations also stressed that it would be necessary to increase the administration and logistics infrastructure (storage and distribution capacities and related manpower) for meeting the need to distribute increased quantities of products.
tudi poudarile, da bi bilo treba povečati upravno in logistično infrastrukturo (zmogljivosti skladiščenja in razdeljevanja ter s tem povezano delovno silo), če hočejo zadostiti potrebi po razdeljevanju povečanih količin proizvodov.
The Commission does not dispose of complete data for all Member States.
Komisija nima popolnih podatkov za vse države članice.
By their nature, the charitable organisations involved in the scheme are difficulttobeheldaccountableinnormaladministrativetermsas they are mainly staffed by volunteers and deal with an unstable and noteasily monitoredtargetpopulation.Thesecircumstancespose particular challengesforthe administration ofthescheme.
Od dobrodelnih organizacij, vključenih v program, je že zaradi njihove naravetežkozahtevatiodgovornostvobičajnemupravnemsmislu, sajvnjihvečinomadelajoprostovoljci,polegtegapaseukvarjajo znestabilnociljnopopulacijo,kijenilahkospremljati.Zaraditeh okoliščinje upravljanje programaše posebno zahtevno.
The quantities of food provided by the EU programme generally represent only one element of the totality of the food products distributed for freebythecharitableorganisationsinvolved.
Količina hrane, ki jo zagotavlja program EU, na splošno predstavlja samo en del vseh živil, kijih sodelujoče dobrodelne organizacije razdeljujejo brezplačno.
However,forcertain charitable organisations operating atlocallevel,the EU programme istheonlysourceoffoodfordistributiontodeprivedpersons.For the Member States and charitable organisations auditedthefollow-ingfigures were given13(see Box 5).
Todaza nekatere dobrodelne organizacije,ki delujejo nalokalni ravni,je program EU edini vir hrane, kijo razdeljujejo ogroženim osebam. Za države članice in revidirane dobrodelne orga-nizacijeso bile navedene naslednje vrednosti13(glej okvir 5).
PARTICIPATION OF THE EU PROGRAMME TO THE TOTAL QUANTITIES DISTRIBUTED
PRISPEVEK PROGRAMA EU K VSEM RAZDELJENIM KOLIČINAM
France: Thereis a national programme supplementarytothe EU one.
Francija: Vtej državi obstaja nacionalni program, ki dopolnjuje program EU.
Thereis no exact data butitis estimated that the national programme represents about 6 % and the EU programme 30 % of the total quantities distributed.
Natančnih podatkov ni, vendar se ocenjuje, da nacionalni program zagotavlja približno 6 %, program EU pa približno 30 % vseh razdeljenih količin.
Italy: There is no data on country level.
Italija: Podatkov na ravni države ni.
For two organisations audited the EU programme covers almost 100 % of the quantities distributed.
V dveh organizacijah, kjer je bila opravljena revizija, program EU pokriva skoraj 100 % razdeljenih količin.
For another organisation the EU participation is about 60 %.
Udeležba EU v neki drugi organizaciji znaša približno 60 %.
Poland: There are no concrete globalfigures.
Poljska: Ni konkretnih skupnih podatkov.
EU programme covers approximately 60–70 % offood distributed by the two organisations audited (estimation).
Program EU pokriva približno 60–70 % hrane, ki jo razdelita revidirani organizaciji (ocena).
The audit objective was to assess the programme ‘European Union food aid for deprived persons’ with reference to the relationship between objectives, meansand methodsemployed.Inparticular,theaudit examined whether the intended aims of the programme are still valid in the context of an evolving market and social situation.
Cilj revizije je bil oceniti program „Pomoč Evropske unije v hrani za ogro-ženeosebe“gledenarazmerje medciljiteruporabljenimisredstvi in metodami. Z revizijoje bilo zlasti preučeno, ali so predvideni cilji programaševednoveljavnigledenarazvijajočisetrgindružbene razmere.
Furthermore the adequacy of the means made available and of the systems applied for measuring the programme’s impact on the beneficiaries was also assessed in terms of value, quantity and variety of products provided anddistributed.Finallytheauditexaminedtheadministrativeand management procedures usedfortheimplementation ofthe annual plans.
Ocenjenajebilatudiustreznostsredstev,kisobiladana navoljo,insistemov, uporabljenihza merjenje učinka programa na upravičence, glede na vrednost, količino in raznovrstnost zagotovljenih in razdeljenih proizvodov. Nazadnje so bili med revizijo preučeni upravni in upravljavski postopki, ki se uporabljajo pri izvajanju letnih načrtov.
The main questions addressedinthisreport arethefollowing:
Vtem poročiluso obravnavana naslednja glavna vprašanja:
(a)Dotheobjectivesoftheprogrammeremainvalidandisthe approach appropriate?
(a)Aliso cilji programaše vedno veljavniin alije pristop ustrezen?
(b)Arethe meanscommensuratewiththeobjectivessoughtand adequatelyimplemented?
(b)Alisredstvaustrezajozastavljenimciljeminaliseustrezno izvajajo?
(c)Arethe procedures being applied asintended?
(c)Se postopki uporabljajo, kakorje bilo predvideno?
To answer these questions the audit work covered the data for meas-uringtheprogramme’simpactinrelationtoeachoftheobjectives set,the selection and eligibility criteriafor charitable organisations participating in the scheme and for the final beneficiaries, the implementation oftheannual plans byallstakeholdersinvolvedandthe mechanismsusedforthedistributionofthefoodstuffsintermsof quantity, quality and variety.
Za odgovore na ta vprašanja je revizijsko delo zajelo podatke za merjenje učinka programa na vsakega od zastavljenih ciljev, merila za izbiro in upravičenostza dobrodelne organizacije,kisodelujejov programu, in za končne upravičence, uresničevanjeletnih načrtov s strani vseh sodelujočihzainteresiranihstraniter mehanizme,kiseuporabljajo zarazdeljevanje,zvidikakoličine,kakovostiinraznovrstnostiživil.
Finallythe systemfor establishingthe needs, the allocation of the financial resources to the Member States and the procurement procedures for the final products to be supplied to charitable organisationsfor distribution were examined.
Nazadnjeso bili pregledanisistemzaopredeljevanje potreb, dode-ljevanjefinančnihsredstevdržavamčlanicamterpostopkijavnega naročanja za končne proizvode, kijihjetreba dobaviti dobrodelnim organizacijam zarazdeljevanje.
The audit covered the management and monitoring of the programme at both the Commission and in selected Member States. The audit work focused on the analysis, documentation and testing of the procedures andsystemsappliedforthe managementoftheprogrammebythe Commission, bythe competent national authorities, and by some of thedesignatedcharitableorganisationsatnational,regionaland locallevelparticipatingintheactualdistributionoffoodstuffsto deprived persons.
Revizijaje zajela upravljanjeinspremljanje programa na Komisijiin vizbranihdržavahčlanicah.Revizijskodelojebilousmerjenona analizo, dokumentiranjein preskušanje postopkovin sistemov, ki so jih za upravljanje programa uporabljali Komisija, pristojni nacionalni organi in nekatere imenovane dobrodelne organizacije na nacionalni, regionalni in lokalni ravni, ki sodelujejo pri dejanskem razdeljevanju živil ogroženim osebam.
Theaudit wascarriedoutinfour Member States —Spain,France, Italy and Poland —accountingfor morethan72 %oftheannual budgetaryappropriations.Theauditfocusedontheplansforthe years 2006–2008.
Revizija je bila izvedena v štirih državah članicah – v Španiji, Franciji, Italiji in na Poljskem – ki predstavljajo več kot 72 % letnih odobrenih proračunskihsredstev.Revizijajebilausmerjenananačrtezaleta 2006–2008.
THE PROGRAMME’S OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH: DO THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAMME REMAIN VALID ANDIS THE APPROACH APPROPRIATE?
CILJI PROGRAMAIN PRISTOP: ALI SO CILJI PROGRAMA ŠE VEDNO VELJAVNIIN ALI JE PRISTOP USTREZEN?
THE DICHOTOMY OF THE PROGRAMME’S OBJECTIVES
DIHOTOMIJA CILJEV PROGRAMA
Regulation (EEC) No 3730/87 laying down general rules as incorporated in Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.
Uredba (EGS) št. 3730/87 prispeva k blaginji najbolj ogroženih državljanov in da z odstranitvijo delaintervencijskih zalogstabilizira kmetijsketrge(glej okvir 6).
The legal provisions14 set for the measure the twin objectives of making a significant contribution towards the wellbeing of the most deprived citizensandthestabilisationofagricultural marketsthroughthe disposal of part oftheinterventionstocks(see Box 6).
o določitvi splošnih pravil, kakor je bila vključena v Uredbo (ES) št. 1234/2007.
The programme’s implementation responsibility has been given to the actors generally involved in the management of agricultural expenditure, namely the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development within the Commission and, in the Member States, the paying agency dealing with agricultural payments, and responsible for man-agingtheinterventionstocks.
Odgovornost za izvajanje programa je bila dodeljena akterjem, ki so na splošno vključeni v upravljanje kmetijskih odhodkov, in sicer Generalnemu direktoratu za kmetijstvoin razvoj podeželja znotraj Komisije, vdržavahčlanicahpaplačilniagenciji,kiseukvarjaskmetijskimi plačiliinje odgovorna za upravljanjeintervencijskih zalog.
‘The Community has through its intervention stocks of various agricultural products the potential means to make asignificant contributiontowardsthe wellbeing ofits most deprived citizens;itisinthe Community interest, and in line with the objectives of the common agricultural policy, to exploit this potential on a durable basis until the stocks have been run down to a normal level […].’
„Skupnost ima prek svojih intervencijskih zalog različnih kmetijskih proizvodov možnost, da bistveno prispeva k blaginji svojih najbolj ogroženih državljanov; v interesu Skupnosti in v skladu s cilji skupne kmetijske politikeje, da seta možnostizkoristi dolgotrajno, dokler se zaloge ne znižajo na običajno raven […].“
WHENINTERVENTION STOCKS ARE LOW THE LINK WITH AGRICULTURAL EXPENDITUREIS TENUOUS
KADAR SOINTERVENCIJSKE ZALOGE MAJHNE, JE POVEZAVA S KMETIJSKIMI ODHODKI OHLAPNA
See Box 6.
Glej okvir 6.
For the annual plan 2008 only
Za letni načrt za leto 2008 je bil
The current programme has been in application since 1987.
Sedanji program se uporablja od leta 1987.
The initial provisions favoured the financing of the programme usinginterven-tionstocksinline withtheobjectivesofthecommonagricultural policy‘torundownthestockstoanormallevel’15.However,the reform of the CAP in recent years, whereby intervention measures for certain products are being phased out, andthe decrease of existing interventionstockstozero,haveconsiderablyaffectedtheimple-mentation of the programme: the majority of the products now have to be purchased directly onthe market16.
Začetne določbe so dajale prednost financiranju programa z intervencijskimi zalogami v skladu sciljiskupnekmetijskepolitike,„dasezalogeznižajonaobičajno raven“15. Vendar sta reforma skupne kmetijske politike v zadnjih letih, v skladu s katero se intervencijski ukrepi za določene proizvode postopoma ukinjajo,in dejstvo, daintervencijskih zalog praktično ni več, občutno vplivala na izvajanje programa: zdaj je treba večino proizvodov kupiti neposredno natrgu16.
Nevertheless, a tenuous link is still maintained with agricultural expendi-tureinsofar asthe products made availableto deprived persons are stillthosederivedfromagriculturalproductseligibleforinterven-tionstorage.
Kljub temu se še vedno vzdržuje ohlapna povezava s kmetijskimi odhodki, saj se za ogrožene osebe še vedno dajejo na voljo proizvodi, ki izhajajo iz kmetijskih proizvodov, upravičenih dointervencijskega skladišče-nja.Tozapletaupravljanjeukrepainomejujeizbiroproizvodovza razdeljevanje.
Thiscomplicatesthe management ofthe measure and restricts the choice of products to be distributed. Finally, the nature of the aid, i.e. a contribution to alleviate poverty, is difficult to reconcile with the general nature of EU agricultural expenditure, whereby the support is targeted at farmers and/or the farming industry and eligible beneficiaries are entitledtoreceive aspecific amount of aid.
Kot zadnjeje naravo pomoči,tj. prispevek zalajšanje revščine,težkouskladitissplošnonaravokmetijskihodhodkov,pri katerijepodporanamenjenakmetomin/alikmetijskipanogiinso upravičenci, ki izpolnjujejo pogoje, upravičeni do prejema določenega zneska pomoči.
sugar was available in intervention and the rest of the products had to be mobilised on the market.
v intervencijskih zalogah na voljo samo sladkor, druge proizvode pa je bilo treba dobiti na trgu.
A forecast published by DG AGRI in July 2007, ‘The Prospects For Agricultural Markets and Income in the European Union’, for the period 2007–2014, is that:—for cereals ‘public stocks would largely disappear in the early projection period’,—sugar is ‘expected to reach balance as from 2010’,—for butter ‘emptied intervention stocks in the first semester of 2007 will remain empty until the end of 2014’ and—for skimmed milk powder (SMP) ‘the market is expected to remain balanced throughout the projection period with no necessity to offer products for intervention buying-in’.
Napoved, ki jo je julija 2007 objavil GD AGRI, „Možnosti za kmetijske trge in prihodek v Evropski uniji“, za obdobje 2007–2014, je:–za žitarice: „javne zaloge bodo v zgodnjem obdobju, ki ga zajema napoved, večinoma izginile“,–za sladkor: „pričakuje se, da bo po letu 2010 dosegel ravnovesje“,–za maslo: „izpraznjene intervencijske zaloge v prvi polovici leta 2007 bodo ostale prazne do konca leta 2014“ in–za posneto mleko v prahu: „pričakuje se, da bo trg ostal uravnovešen celotno obdobje, ki ga zajema napoved, tako ne bo treba ponujati proizvodov za intervencijske odkupe“.
Certain Member States who do not participate in the EU food programme have voted against the approval of the annual plansin the recent years considering this aid incompatible withthe CAP’sfocus andtype offinancing17.
Nekatere države članice, ki ne sodelujejo v programu EU za hrano, so v zadnjih letih glasovale proti odobritvi letnih načrtov, saj ta pomoč po njihovem mnenju ni združljiva z usmeritvijo skupne kmetijske politikein njeno vrstofinanciranja17.
the Management Committee for Cereals (adoption of the annual plan 2008):‘DE: finds that there is no longer any consistency between the Council Regulation and the Implementing Regulation;NL, SE, UK: do not want a social measure to be financed by the CAP budget;NL: likewise because they do not want a social measure to be financed by the Community budget.’
17Zapisniki sestankov upravljalnega odbora za žita (sprejetje načrta za leto 2008):„DE: ugotavlja, da Uredba Sveta in izvedbena uredba nista več skladni;NL, SE, UK: ne želijo, da se socialni ukrep financira iz proračuna SKP;NL: poleg tega noče, da bi bil socialni ukrep financiran iz proračuna Skupnosti.“
THE SOCIAL OBJECTIVE OF THE MEASUREIS PREDOMINANT
PREVLADUJE SOCIALNI CILJ UKREPA
Although the contribution towards the wellbeing of the most deprived citizens was linked to the stabilisation of agricultural markets through the disposal ofinterventionstocks,recent developments meanthat the social aim ofthe measure has become much more predominant.
Čeprav je bil prispevek za blaginjo najbolj ogroženih državljanov povezan sstabilizacijo kmetijskihtrgovz odstranitvijointervencijskihzalog, nedavno dogajanje kaže, dajesocialni cilj ukrepa močno prevladal.
As early as 1998, the Commission published an evaluation of the European Community Food Programmes which concluded that the social aspects of the measure were regarded as a more important objective than that as aninstrument of market regulation(see Box 7).Indeed, theevaluationconsideredthattheeffectivenessofthe measurein termsof marketregulation wasdoubtfulsince,ontheonehandin some cases a proportion of the products withdrawn from Community stocks returned indirectly back to intervention and, on the other hand, the measure wasconsiderably moreexpensivethanexportrefunds as a method ofreducingthestructuralsurplus.
Komisija je že leta 1998 objavila oceno programov Evropske unije zapomočvhrani,vkaterijeugotovila,dasosocialnividikiukrepa veljalizapomembnejšiciljkotuporabaukrepakotinstrumentaza uravnavanje trga (glej okvir 7). V oceni je bilo tako dejansko izraženo mnenje, da je uspešnost ukrepa v smislu tržne regulacije vprašljiva, saj se je po eni strani v nekaterih primerih delež proizvodov, umaknjenih iz zalog Skupnosti, vrnil naravnost vintervencijo, po drugi strani pa jebilukrepobčutnodražjiodizvoznihnadomestilkot metodeza zmanjšanjestrukturnih presežkov.
COMMISSION’S 1998 EVALUATIONMAIN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCENA KOMISIJEIZ LETA 1998GLAVNI ZAKLJUČKIIN PRIPOROČILA
‘The social purpose of the measure is clearly set out in the regulations. […] its usefulness in the context of persistent widespread povertyin Europeis attested bythe charities[…].
„Uredbe jasno določajo socialni namen ukrepa. […] njegovo koristnost glede na vztrajno in razširjeno revščino v Evropi potrjujejo dobrodelne organizacije […].
Whenthe measure was introduced another, admittedly secondary, purpose was to help run down the Community’s huge and costly intervention stocks […].
Ukrep je imel ob uvedbi še en, čeprav drugoten, namen pomagati pri zmanjšanju ogromnih in dragih intervencijskih zalog Skupnosti […].
The measure can therefore still be regarded as a market regulation instrument’.
Ukrep lahko torej še vedno velja za instrument tržnega uravnavanja.“
‘The Member States […] are well able to make effective use of the resources […]. On the other hand, there is some doubt about the effectiveness of the measure in terms of market regulation. […] in some cases, possibly a large proportion of the products withdrawn from Community stocks returns indirectly to intervention’.
„Države članice […] so sposobne učinkovito uporabiti sredstva […].Po drugi strani pa se pojavljajo dvomi o uspešnosti ukrepa pri uravnavanju trga. […] v nekaterih primerih se morda velik delež proizvodov, ki se umaknejo iz zalog Skupnosti, posredno vrne v intervencijo.“
‘While there is no doubt that it [the aid] is an efficient instrument of social aid, it is considerably more expensive than export refunds as a method of reducing the structural surplus […]’.
„Čeprav je (pomoč) nedvomno učinkovit instrument socialne pomoči, je precej dražja od izvoznih nadomestil kot metode za zniževanje strukturnih presežkov […].“