natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Structural Funds strategy (2004–06): Slovakia will channel its resources (EUR 1 041 million) through four operational programmes devoted to: industry and services, human resources, basic infrastructure, agriculture and rural development.
Strategija strukturnih skladov (2004-2006):Slovaška svoja sredstva (1 041 milijonov evrov) usmerja v 4 operativne programe, ki so namenjeni industriji in stroritvam, človeškim virom, osnovni infrastrukturi, kmetijstvu in razvoju podeželja.
For the 2004–06 period, a financial framework for enlargement was agreed under the Danish Presidency in late 2002.
Finančni okvir za obdobje 2004-06 je bil sprejet pod danskim predsedovanjem konec leta 2002.
Designed to ensure that each new Member State is fi nan-cially better placed after accession than before membership,
Zasnovan je tako, da bo vsaka nova članica po vstopu v boljšem finančnem položaju kot prej. Sporazum o širitvi zagotavlja dodatna
Allocations for structural actions in the new Member States: 2004–06 (million EUR in current prices)
Porazdelitev strukturnih ukrepov v novih državah članicah: 2004-2006 (v mio EUR in sedanjih cenah)
Cohesion Fund (*)
Kohezijski sklad* Skupaj
(*) Average.(**) Including the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance.
* Povprečje.** Vključno s Finančnim instrumentom za usmerjanje ribištva (FIFG).
Spotlight on enlargement
Navdušenje ob širitvi odstotka Finančnemu instrumentu za usmerjanje ribištva (FIFG).
61 % of Structural Funds are planned to be spent on the ERDF, 25 % on the ESF, 12 % on the EAGGF and 2.4 % via the FIFG.
finančna sredstva za izpolnjevanje schengenskih zahtev, za zagotavljanje neposrednih izplačil kmetom in predhodne finančne ugodnosti za Poljsko v vrednosti 1 milijarde evrov.
the enlargement agreement included additional money for meeting Schengen requirements and the ability for new Member States to top up direct payments to farmers, as well as an early-release cashflow facility for Poland worth up to EUR 1 billion.
Finančni okvir širitve ostaja znotraj okvira obvez in plačil, ki jih je določila EU leta 1999 v berlinskem sporazumu.
The new Member States face important institutional challenges in implementing EU cohesion policy.
Nove države članice so pred pomembnimi institucionalnimi izzivi pri izvajanju kohezijske politike EU.
Notwithstanding the valuable experience gained in the preaccession period, European Commission reports show that programming capacity for managing and implementing structural instruments is constrained by problems such as inadequate strategic direction, poor inter-ministerial coordination, delays in establishing monitoring systems and, perhaps most of all, an underdeveloped ‘pipeline’ for generating projects, which could endanger the timely absorption of funding.
Kljub neprecenljivim izkušnjam, pridobljenih v predpristopnem obdobju, poročila Evropske komisije kažejo, da programsko sposobnost upravljanja in izvajanja strukturnih instrumentov ovirajo težave, kot so pomanjkanje strategije, slaba koordinacija med ministrstvi, zamude pri vzpostavljanju sistemov monitoringa in predvsem premajhna “cev” za ustvarjanje novih projektov, kar bi vse lahko ogrozilo črpanje sredstev.
Absorption capacity is also limited by a shortage of qualified staff, poor communication between levels of administration and some weaknesses in the Phare-funded preparatory programmes.
Poleg tega se srečujejo še s pomanjkanjem ustrezne delovne sile, slabo komunikacijo med različnimi administrativnimi nivoji in določenimi pomanjkljivostmi pri pripravi programov Phare.
The potential for regional participation in programming varies greatly, while the preparedness of local authorities and NGOs appears to be limited or non-exist-ent.
Velike razlike so v potencialih za regionalno sodelovanje, pripravljenost lokalnih oblasti in nevladnih organizacij za sodelovanje pa je omejena ali je sploh ni.
Lastly, the co-financing requirements may be problematic because of budgetary constraints and a lack of financial resources among potential beneficiaries.
Zahteve za sofinanciranje se srečujejo tudi s težavami, kot so proračunske omejitve in pomanjkanje finančnih sredstev pri potencialnih prejemnikih pomoči.
Nevertheless, the 2004–06 period provides an important opportunity for learning, and the experience of new Member States in the past (Austria, Finland, Sweden) is that practical experience for effective programming can be acquired quickly.
Obdobje 2004-06 je izvrstna priložnost za učenje in praktične izkušnje prejšnjih pristopnic (Avstrija, Finska, Švedska) so pri tem lahko koristne.
With respect to structural actions, there are several points to note.
Glede strukturnih ukrepov pa je potrebno pojasniti nekaj dejstev.
Firstly, Poland is by far the largest single recipient of structural funding, accounting for around 52 % of commitment appropriations.
Prvič, Poljska je največja prejemnica sredstev iz naslova strukturnih ukrepov, kar znaša 52 odstotkov obveznosti.
Secondly, the share assigned to the Cohesion Fund is far more significant than for the current membership: it accounts for over one third of the commitment appropriations compared with 18 % for the current four beneficiaries.
Drugič, kohezijskemu skladu je namenjen delež, ki je precej večji od sedanjega: znaša več kot eno tretjino sredstev v primerjavi z 18 odstotki sedanjih štirih prejemnic.
A third point is the very high share of Objective 1 funding within the Structural Funds appropriations; this accounts for over 93 % of the total compared with just under 70 % in the current allocations for the EU-15.
Tretjič, delež financiranja Cilja 1 znotraj strukturnih skladov je zelo visok in znaša več kot 93 odstotkov, v primerjavi s 70 odstotki v EU-15.
This is an obvious consequence of the fact that some 92 % of the population of the 10 accession countries meet the Objective 1 criteria.
To je posledica dejstva, da 92 odstotkov prebivalstva desetih pristopnic izpolnjuje kriterije za Cilj 1.
Lastly, the per capita allocations for the new Member States are substantially lower than for the poorer members of the EU-15.
Porazdelitev sredstev na prebivalca v novih državah članicah pa je precej manjša, kot v revnejših članicah EU-15.
After application of the cap of 4 % of GDP, the aid per capita for structural expenditure in the new Member States is anticipated as EUR 137 per head in 2006, compared to EUR 231 per head for the existing four cohesion countries.
Za nove države članice je iz strukturnih skladov predvidena pomoč na prebivalca v znesku 137 evrov v letu 2006, v primerjavi z 231 evri v štirih sedanjih prejemnicah iz kohezijskega sklada.
EU cohesion policy: 2007+
Kohezijska politika EU po letu 2007
The future of EU cohesion policy after 2006 is much less clear.
Prihodnost kohezijske politike EU po letu 2006 ni tako jasna.
In the prolonged run-up to the third cohesion report, there has been extensive and open debate among European
Pred sprejetjem tretjega kohezijskega poročila je potekala široka in odprta razprava med evropskimi institucijami, državami članicami ter regionalnimi in sektor-
For the 2004–06 period, therefore, the EU has allocated EUR 40.7 billion for enlargement, EUR 21.8 billion of this for cohesion policy (EUR 14.7 billion for Structural Funds and EUR 7.1 billion for the Cohesion Fund, 1999 prices).
EU je namenila 40,7 milijarde evrov za širitev v obdobju 2004-06. Od tega 21,8 milijard za kohezijsko politiko (14,7 milijarde za strukturne sklade in 7,1 milijarde evrov za kohezijski sklad, številke so iz leta 1999).
All of the new Member States will qualify for EU funding, the spatial coverage of support rising from the current 40 % of the EU-15 population to 49.5 % in the EU-25.
Vse nove države članice bodo lahko zaprosile za sredstva EU. Prostorska prerazporeditev pa bo s sedanjih 40 odstotkov prebivalstva v EU-15 narasla na 49,5 odstotka v EU-25.
Almost all of the Structural Funds assistance will be delivered through Objective 1 programmes, with the exception of some small Objective 2 and 3 programmes for Cyprus and for Prague and Bratislava, and allocations for Interreg and Equal.
Skoraj vsa pomoč strukturnih skladov bo razdeljena v okviru programov Cilja 1, z izjemo nekaterih manjših programov Cilja 2 in 3 za Ciper, Prago in Bratislavo, in sredstev za pobudi Interreg in Equal.
Surface area: 78 866 km²Population: 10 203 000 inhabitants Per capita GDP index (2002): 62 (EU-15 = 100)
Površina: 78 866 km²Št. prebivalcev: 10 203 000Indeks BDP/preb. (2002): 62 (EU-15 = 100)
Structural Funds strategy (2004–06): In the Czech Republic, the Community support framework (CSF) for Objective 1, which covers all of the country except the Prague region, is EUR 1.45 billion.
Strategija strukturnih skladov (2004-2006):Okvir podpore Skupnosti Cilja 1 pokriva vso državo razen praške regije in znaša 1,45 milijarde evrov.
This will be channelled through five operational programmes: industry and enterprise, infrastructure, development of human resources, rural development, multifunctional agriculture.
Razdeljen je na 5 operativnih programov: industrija in podjetja, infrastruktura, razvoj človeških virov, multifunkcijski razvoj podeželja in kmetijstva.
In addition, the Objective 2 single programming document (SPD) for the Prague region (EUR 17 million) will concentrate on improving the urban environment.
Okvir DOCUP Cilja 2 za praško regijo (71 milijonov evrov) predvideva izboljšanje urbanega okolja.
Professionnal integration in the Czech Republic
Poklicna integracija v Češki republiki
Veterinarian inspection in Latvia ceive favourable transitional support, potentially for up to f i five years.
Veterinarski pregled v Latviji skimi interesnimi skupinami.
institutions, Member States and regional and sectoral interest groups, and it is evident that there are wide differences in viewpoints about the budgetary resources to be allocated to EU cohesion policy as well as the preferred models for allocating and governing these resources.
Očitno je, da so razlike v pogledih na proračunska sredstva, ki naj bi jih namenili kohezijski politiki EU, kot tudi na modele za dodeljevanje teh sredstev in glede nadzora porabe.
There is, however, consensus that resources should be concentrated on the least-developed parts of the EU.
Obstaja pa soglasje o tem, da je potrebno sredstva usmeriti predvsem v najmanj razvite dele EU.
An important issue for some of the cohesion countries and other regions is the loss of eligibility associated with the ‘statistical effect’ (rising above the Objective 1 threshold on statistical grounds alone), which would affect some 18.5 million people in an EU-25.
Pomoč za najrevnejše dele EU prihaja tudi iz kohezijskega sklada, ki je deležen široke podpore. Če bi v EU-25 postavili mejo 90 odstotkov bruto narodnega dohodka, bi bile upravičene vse nove države članice razen Cipra.
Such regions are advocating treatment comparable to eligible Objective 1 areas.
Najbolj kočljivo vprašanje je, kot že omenjeno, ali bo in kako bo potekalo financiranje EU izven Cilja 1.
Some Member States would also like phasing-out regions to re-
Evropska komisija predlaga, da bi prihodnje dodeljevanje sredstev v okviru Cilja 2 vezali na rast in konkurenčnost. Sem naj bi
Other assistance for the poorest parts of the EU comes from the Cohesion Fund, for which there is also widespread support.
Za države, ki danes prejemajo pomoč je pomebno vprašanje izguba upravičenosti zaradi t. i. statističnega vpliva (ki je samo zaradi statističnih vzrokov višji od praga Cilja 1).
If a threshold of 90 % of gross national income (GNI) was applied in an EU-25, all of the new Member States except Cyprus would qualify.
To bi prizadelo 18,5 milijona ljudi v EU-25.
Many of the new Member States would like to see a higher proportion of EU funding continue to be provided under the Cohesion Fund, as in the 2004–06 period.
Nekatere države članice želijo, da bi sedanje prejemnice pomoči dobivale nekakšno tranzicijsko podporo, in sicer za največ pet let.
Surface area: 64 589 km²Population: 2 332 000 inhabitants Per capita GDP index (2002): 35 (EU-15 = 100)
Površina: 64 589 km²Št. prebivalcev: 2 332 000Indeks BDP/preb. (2002): 35 (EU-15 = 100)
Surface area: 65 200 km²Population: 3 463 000 inhabitants Per capita GDP index (2002): 39 (EU-15 = 100)
Površina: 65 200 km²Št. prebivalcev: 3 463 000Indeks BDP/preb. (2002): 39 (EU-15 = 100)
Structural Funds strategy (2004–06): The Lithuanian programme (EUR 895 million) is to concentrate on improving infrastructure, developing human resources, business competitiveness, rural development, agriculture and fisheries. fisheries.
Strategija strukturnih skladov (2004-2006):Program za Litvo (895 milijonov evrov) namenja podporo izboljšanju infrastrukture, razvoju človeških virov, konkurenčnosti podjetij, razvoju podeželja, kmetijstva in ribištva.
Structural Funds strategy (2004–06): Latvia will implement a programme (EUR 626 million) based on four priorities: territorial cohesion, innovative enterprises, employment and training, rural development and fisheries. fisheries.
Strategija strukturnih skladov (2004-2006):Latvija bo izvajala program (626 milijonov evrov), ki temelji na štirih izhodiščih: prostorska kohezija, inovacijska podjetja, spodbujanje zaposlenosti in izobraževanja, razvoj podeželja in ribištva.
Whether and how EU cohesion policy continues outside the less-developed countries and regions is much less certain.
Navdušenje ob širitvi na EU naj ukine financiranje izven okvira Cilja 1 in naj z vlaganji v raziskave in razvoj, inovacije, visoko šolstvo, pridobivanje znanj in veščin ter omrežja posveti vso pozornost spodbujanju evropske rasti in konkurenčnosti, kar je zapisano v lizbonski deklaraciji.
A key issue is the relationship between the twin EU objectives of competitiveness and cohesion.
Po drugi strani pa obstaja bojazen pred zmanjševanjem podpore za nadaljevanje strukturnih sprememb v industrijskih in kmetijskih regijah.
This concern is exacerbated by the fact that national regional policies in many richer countries are moving away from their traditional focus on ‘problem areas’ to provide support for all regions within a country.
To skrb povečuje tudi dejstvo, da se nacionalne regionalne politike v nekaterih bogatejših državah odmikajo od tradicionalnega posvečanja «problematičnim regijam».
It is notable that disparities within the Member States have been widening in recent years; new regional policies may well increase national and (in part) regional growth and competitiveness but at the expense of regional inequality within countries.
Neenakosti med državami članicami so se v preteklih letih precej povečale. Nove regionalne politike lahko povečajo nacionalno (in deloma tudi) regionalno rast in konkurenčnost, vendar na račun povečevanja razlik med regijami v državi.
Many regions also want to retain the perceived added value associated with the Structural Funds — partnership, strategic thinking, multiannual programming, exchange of experience — although these features are increasingly becoming part of national regional development policies also.
Veliko regij želi ohraniti posredno dodano vrednost, povezano s strukturnimi skladi – partnerstvo, strateško razmišljanje, večletno načrtovanje, izmenjava izkušenj – čeprav ta izhodišča vedno bolj postajajo tudi del nacionalnih politik razvoja regij.
The most contentious issue as noted above is whether and how EU funding is provided outside Objective 1.
bile vključene tudi regije, ki niso upravičene do pomoči iz Cilja 1.
Other models have also been put forward, notably by the United Kingdom.
Predstavljeni so bili tudi drugi modeli, predvsem s strani Velike Britanije.
Finally, the implications of reforming EU cohesion policy cannot be seen in isolation.
Če poenostavimo, je nadzor nad državno pomočjo glavni dejavnik kohezije.
For many rural areas, receipts under the CAP are more important than Structural Funds, and it is the future funding of rural development policy under the ‘second pillar’ that is the critical issue.
V državah članicah upravičeno zahtevajo več subsidiarnosti in fl eksi-bilnosti pri porabi regionalne pomoči, še posebej v regijah, ki drugače ne bi bile upravičene do pomoči strukturnih skladov niti do regionalne pomoči.
More generally, State aid control is a major contributor to cohesion.
Ne smemo pa izničiti napredka pri zmanjševanju tekmovalnosti v prizadevanju za pridobitev denarne pomoči, ki smo ga dosegli v zadnjih dveh desetletjih.
There are valid concerns among Member States about the need for more subsidiarity and flexibility in using regional aid, especially in regions that would otherwise lose eligibility for both Structural Funds and regional aid.
Širitev predstavlja enega večjih izzivov ekonomske in socialne kohezije EU. Če želimo doseči približevanje med novimi in zdajšnjimi državami članicami, je po splošnem prepričanju potrebna trdna obveza pristopnicam za obdobje naslednjih 30 do 40 let.
At the same time, it is important that the progress made over the past two decades in reducing subsidy competition and ‘levelling the playing field’ for aid is not undermined.
Za učinkovito izkoriščanje te pomoči so pomembni zaključki nedavne ocenjevalne raziskave o različnih vplivih financiranja EU in političnem okolju, v katerem se izvaja.
Enlargement presents major challenges for the economic and social cohesion of the EU.
Če in kako se bo nadaljevala kohezijska politika EU izven manj razvitih držav je bolj ali manj negotovo.
In order to maximise the use of this assistance, there are important lessons to be drawn from recent evaluation research about the differential impact of EU funding, and the policy environment within which it is applied.
Osrednje vprašanje je razmerje med dvema ciljema EU – konkurenčnostjo in kohezijo. Po eni strani gre za jasen pritisk
Surface area: 110 910 km²Population: 7 846 000 inhabitants Per capita GDP index (2002): 26 (EU-15 = 100)
Površina: 110 910 km²Št. prebivalcev: 7 846 000Indeks BDP/preb. (2002): 26 (EU-15 = 100)
Surface area: 20 273 km²Population: 1 995 000 inhabitants Per capita GDP index (2002): 69 (EU-15 = 100)
Površina: 20 273 km²Št. prebivalcev: 1 995 000Indeks BDP/preb. (2002): 69 (EU-15 = 100)
Structural Funds strategy (2004–06): Slovenia (EUR 237.5 million) plans to concentrate on three priorities: promoting a more competitive productive sector, developing human resources and employment, restructuring agriculture, forestry and fisheries. fisheries.
Strategija strukturnih skladov (2004-2006):Slovenija (237,5 milijonov evrov) se je osredotočila na tri področja: spodbujanje konkurenčnosti proizvodnega sektorja, razvoj človeških virov in spodbujanje zaposlenosti, prestrukturiranje kmetijstva, gozdarstva in ribištva.
Spotlight on enlargement
ROMUNIJAČiščenje odpadnih voda v Craiovi
ROMANIAWaste water treatment in Craiova
Ravnanje z gospodinjskimi odpadki v Ventspilsu
LATVIAManaging household waste in Ventspils
Skupni stroški: 70 378 000 EURPrispevek EU: 52 783 500 EUR
Total cost: EUR 6 190 000EU contribution: EUR 3 033 100
Skupni stroški: 6 190 000 EURPrispevek EU: 3 033 100 EUR
Total cost: EUR 70 378 000EU contribution: EUR 52 783 500
Tudi kanalizacijski sistem je nepopoln.
‘Craiova (population 320 000), one of the biggest towns in Romania, has no water purification station and the sewage network is incomplete.
Odpadne vode se neprečiščene stekajo bodisi v kanal, speljan skozi Craiovo, bodisi v jezero v bližini rekreacijskega parka. Od tam se nato izlivajo v reko Jiu, pritok Donave.
The waste water treatment project is divided into three parts: restoration and modernisation of the purification plant, extension of the sewage network, technical assistance and administrative reinforcement.’ ’
Daniela Beuran, enota ISPE za okoljsko infrastrukturo, Ministrstvo za finance Romunije E-pošta: bdana@cfcu.ansit.ro
‘The Ventspils region (population 60 000) on the Baltic coast does not have any landfill sites and the 13 existing dumps operate without reference to any environmental standards.
“Regija Ventspilsa (60 000 preb.) ob obali Baltskega morja nima ustreznih odlagališč, 13 obstoječih odlagališč pa ne obratuje v skladu z okoljskimi standardi.
This ISPA project involves the construction of a landfill and transit warehouse for dangerous waste, improving the access road, purchasing the necessary equipment (containers, vehicles, crusher, etc.), financing a public information campaign, installing a device for monitoring underground and surface water, closing and upgrading present dumps (approximately 31 ha), introducing sorted waste collection and recycling paper, cardboard, glass and metal.’ ’
Projekt ISPA predvideva izgradnjo odlagališča in prehodnega skladišča za nevarne odpadke, izboljšanje dostopnih poti, nakup potrebne opreme (zabojniki, vozila, stiskalnica ...), fi nancira-nje kampanje za obveščanje širše javnosti, postavitev naprave za monitoring podtalnice in površinskih voda, zapiranje in sanacijo obstoječih odlagališč (približno 31 ha), uvedbo ločenega zbiranja odpadkov in reciklažo papirja, kartona, stekla in kovin."
Anita Bisofa, Project Leader, Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Latvia E-mail: anita.bisofa@vidm.gov.lv
Anita Bisofa, vodja projekta, Ministrstvo za okolje Republike Latvije E-pošta: anita.bisofa@vidm.gov.lv
Modernisation of the Ljubljana–Zidani Most–Maribor railway line
Modernizacija železniške proge Ljubljana-Zidani Most-Maribor
Total cost: EUR 27 170 000EU contribution: EUR 20 380 000
Skupni stroški: 27 170 000 EURPrispevek EU: 20 380 000 EUR
Total cost: EUR 25 803 500EU contribution: EUR 10 063 365
Skupni stroški: 25 803 500 EURPrispevek EU: 10 063 365 EUR
‘The Vilnius–Kaunas–Klaipeda (293.3 km) highway, one of Lithuania’s principal roads, did not meet European standards and was deteriorating rapidly under the pressure of increased traffic.
“Državna cesta Vilnius-Kaunas-Klaipeda (293,3 km), ena od najpomembnejših cestnih osi v Litvi, ni ustrezala evropskim predpisom in povečanje prometa jo je hitro uničilo.
This first ISPA road improvement project involved strengthening the road surface and hard shoulder along a 37 km stretch, completely resurfacing 19 km, repairing 27 bridges and viaducts, and improving safety (ramps, signposting, road markings, etc.).
Prvi cestni projekt ISPE je bil sestavljen iz več delov: utrditev zgornje plasti cestišča in bankin na vseh krakih ceste v dolžini 37 km, namestitev nove asfaltne prevleke na 119 km, popravilo 27 mostov in viaduktov, izboljšanje varnosti (ograje, signalizacija, cestne oznake itd.).
The works were completed in December 2002.’ ’
Dela smo zaključili decembra 2002.”
‘The project consists of renovating — by December 2006 — 22.1 km of track at five stations and along two sections of line (Hoce–MB Tezno and MB Tezno–Maribor), thereby providing the appropriate infrastructure for high-speed traffic and favouring intermodal transport.
“Projekt predvideva obnovo – do decembra 2006 - 22,1 km tirov na petih železniških postajah na dveh krakih proge (Hoče-MB Tezno in MB Tezno-Maribor). Gre za postavitev infrastrukture, ki omogoča promet z velikimi hitrostmi in spodbujanje intermodalnosti.
The project will make it possible to abolish speed limits which cause bottlenecks and allow trains to travel at speeds of 160 km/h on modernised sections with 22.5 tonnes axle weight.
Po zaključenem projektu bodo odstranjene omejitve hitrosti, ki povzročajo ozka grla. Vlaki bodo po prenovljenih tirih, ki bodo dopuščali osne obremenitve do 22,5 ton na os, lahko vozili s hitrostjo 160 km/h.
As the works will be carried out on the existing line there is no negative environmental impact.’ ’
Ker bo modernizacija potekala na obstoječi progi, ne bo imela negativnih vplivov na okolje.”
Breda Križnar, Slovenian Ministry of Transport E-mail: breda.kriznar@gov.si
Breda Križnar, Ministrstvo za promet Republike Slovenije E-pošta: breda.kriznar@gov.si
Gintautas Predkelis, Lithuanian Ministry of Transport and Communications E-mail: gintas.tid@transp.t
Gintautas Predkelis, Ministrstvo za transport in komunikacije Litve E-pošta: gintas.tid@transp.lt
European funding at the service of Podlaskie (Poland)
Evropski skladi v Podlašiji (Poljska)