natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This interaction between the two activities clearly could represent the basis of an article in its own right, however this is not the purpose here.
Ta medsebojni vpliv teh dveh dejavnosti je lahko podlaga za samostojni članek, vendar to ni avtorjev namen.
In this case each topic will largely be considered on its own merits as it was discussed.
V tem prispevku se bo vsaka tema večinoma obravnavala posa-mezno, tako kot v razpravah na seminarju.
Participants were asked to consider: what Leader+ had achieved with regard to these two themes?; what strengths and weaknesses were evident from the way in which this activity had been implemented?; and what lessons for future improvements could be identified from consideration of the experiences presented?
Struktura tega članka odraža strukturo dveh skupin na manjših plenarnih zasedanjih, na katerih so morali udeleženci razmisliti o naslednjih vprašanjih: kaj se je doseglo v okviru programa Leader+ v zvezi s tema dvema temama, katere so prednosti in pomanjkljivosti načina, na katerega so bile izvedene te dejavnosti, in katere lekcije, ki bi omogočile izboljšave v prihodnosti, je mogoče izluščiti iz obravnave predstavljenih izkušenj?
The approach adopted in conducting these miniplenary sessions reflected elements of networking and cooperation in action, through learning from the experience of others in active consideration and discussion.
Način izvajanja teh manjših plenarnih zasedanj je prek učenja iz izkušenj drugih v okviru aktivne obravnave in razprave odražal elemente mreženja in sodelovanja v praksi.
The focus of this article is ‘how applying the Leader method has contributed to network building and cooperation in the context of rural development at the territorial level’.
Cilj tega članka je razložiti, kako je uporaba metode Leader prispevala k mreženju in sodelovanju v okviru razvoja podeželja na ravni ozemlja.
Some of the presentations reflected more on operational issues and experience within Leader rather than the intended wider rural perspective.
V nekaterih predstavitvah so bila izražena bolj operativna vprašanja in izkušnje v okviru programa Leader, ne pa načrtovana splošna perspektiva podeželja.
This was rather more evident in relation to networking where there are elements of politicisation which are more evident in some Member States than in others.
Bolj izrazito se je to pokazalo v zvezi z mreženjem, ki vključuje tudi elemente politizacije, kar je za nekatera države članice bolj značilno kot za druge.
Whilst acknowledging these factors this article will concentrate on drawing out the given focus rather than explore these tensions.
Čeprav avtor priznava te dejavnike, bo v tem članku poudarek na drugih zadevah in ne na raziskovanju razlogov za omenjene napetosti.
(1) Evaluator of the Leader II programme in England and Wales (ex post), Leader+ programme in Scotland (ex ante and midterm update) and Leader+ programme in England (mid-term update and mainstreaming evidence base), and thematic expert for the Leader+ Contact Point.
(1) Ocenjevalec programa Leader II v Angliji in Walesu (naknadno), programa Leader+ na Škotskem (predhodna in srednjeročna posodobitev) in programa Leader+ v Angliji (srednjeročna posodobitev in uveljavljanje dokazov) ter tematski strokovnjak za Leader+ Contact Point.
It seemed entirely appropriate that of all the miniplenary sessions those which focused on networking involved the largest number of case studies and the broadest representation from rural territories.
Razumljivo je, da so tista manjša plenarna zasedanja, ki so se osredotočala na mreženje, vključevala največje število študij primerov, na njih pa je sodelovalo tudi največ predstavnikov podeželskih ozemelj.
In addition to the Irish and Swedish moderators the two miniplenary sessions on ‘The added value and benefit of networking’ involved case studies from a total of seven Member States, involving partners from Finland, Portugal, Denmark, Ireland, Latvia, Poland and Belgium.
Na dveh manjših plenarnih zasedanjih s temo „dodana vrednost in prednosti mreženja“, ki so vključevale študije primerov iz skupno sedmih držav članic, so poleg irskega in švedskega voditelja razprave sodelovali še predstavniki lokalnih akcijskih skupin iz Belgije, Danske, Irske, Latvije, Poljske, Portugalske in Finske.
Whilst the two moderators’ presentations both addressed these issues of diversity and complexity together with a range of common points, they also clearly demonstrated the clearest differentiating points in networking activity in Leader.
skupaj z različnimi skupnimi lastnosti, sta jasno predstavili tudi najbolj izstopajoče razlike v zvezi z mreženjem v okviru programa Leader.
There are two main functions identified for Leader networking activity: one in providing support to participating LAGs, and the other in lobbying activity.
Glavni nalogi mreženja v okviru programa Leader sta zagotavljanje podpore udeleženim lokalnim akcijskim skupinam in lobiranje.
Similarly, there are two main types of network identified, the formal and the informal, and operating within this frame of variables are the o cial national network units (NNUs).
Podobno obstajata dve glavni vrsti mrež; formalne in neformalne, v takih razmerah delujejo uradne nacionalne omrežne enote.
The balance between these factors in the different Member States or Leader programmes varies considerably, and the case study presentations and associated discussion demonstrated this and drew on it.
Ravnovesje med temi dejavniki v različnih državah članicah ali programih Leader se znatno razlikuje, kar so ponazorile in vključile predstavitve študije primerov in razprave, povezane z njimi.
The variation here was very evident and working towards achieving a common understanding of this activity necessitated consideration of what constitutes a network: what are the objectives, the roles and types, the results which have been achieved, and the strengths, weaknesses and lessons which have emerged from the Leader networking experience.
V razpravi je bilo predstavljenih več različnih mnenj, pri čemer je bil potreben za doseganje splošnega razumevanja te dejavnosti razmislek o tem, katere so glavne značilnosti mreže: kakšni so cilji, vloge in vrste, doseženi rezultati, prednosti in pomanjkljivosti ter spoznanja iz izkušenj v zvezi z mreženjem v okviru programa Leader.
The first conclusion or lesson we arrive at is therefore that there is a clear need to establish more of a common understanding of the words ‘network’ and ‘networking’.
Prvi sklep ali spoznanje je, da je treba uveljaviti bolj splošno razumevanje izrazov mreža in mreženje.
What constitutes a network?
Določanje vsebinskega okvira
It was established that in order to be able to consider what a network is there is first a need to establish a degree of common understanding of the words ‘network’ or ‘networking’ themselves.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da je treba za razmislek o značilnostih mreže najprej zagotoviti določeno raven strinjanja glede pomena samih izrazov mreža in mreženje.
Firstly, it is important to differentiate between the actual networking activity itself, i.e. the voluntary gathering of members, notably LAGs, and the facility which supports this, the networking support units, through which the technical support is provided.
Zato je treba najprej razlikovati dejansko mreženje, tj. prostovoljno dru-ženje članov, zlasti lokalnih akcijskih skupin, od orodja, ki to podpira, tj. omrežnih enot za podporo, prek katerih se zagotavlja tehnična podpora. V nadaljevanju besedila je na kratko predstavljena vloga slednjih.
The two thesis papers scoped out the topic and provided a contextual basis for a wide reaching consideration of the nature of the rural networks, and the networking activity which has been implemented as a result of Leader.
Oba dokumenta s tezami sta pregledali temo in zagotovili vsebinsko podlago za daljnosežno proučitev značilnosti podeželskih mrež in dejavnosti mreženja, ki jo je spodbudil program Leader.
Much of the focus of these papers was on the variety and complexity of the networking situation with which Leader is associated and the diverse range of experience.
Velik poudarek teh dokumentov je bil na različnosti in zapletenosti položaja v zvezi z mreženjem, s katerim je povezan program Leader, ter na različnih izkušnjah.
In highlighting this, the moderators very effectively demonstrated some of the considerable complexity which is associated with this activity; this included:
Pri poudarjanju tega vidika sta voditelja razprav zelo učinkovito predstavila del velike zapletenosti, povezane s to dejavnostjo, med drugim:
In its simplest form it is suggested that networking is that activity which brings people (and their organisations) together around a common interest to undertake activities which are mutually beneficial to them.
Iz tega razloga je bil predstavljen zapleteni okvir mreženja na podeželju, pri čemer se je pokazalo, da je dejansko za-pleten in diferenciran zaradi več dejavnikov. Obstaja veliko različnih mrež ter oblik in vrst mrež, ki odražajo zelo veliko raznolikost okoliščin in prav tako raznolik niz različnih rešitev.
The analogy of ‘a flock of geese in flight’ is sometimes usefully used to highlight the added value of networking, where by working together for mutual benefit these groups of birds can travel further and faster than any of them could if alone.
Pri predstavitvi navedenega okvira sta se oba voditelja razprave zelo potrudila, da sta predstavila strukturiran pre-gled, ki bi lahko bil podlaga za obdelavo posameznih študij primerov in za ugotovitev, kaj se je mogoče iz njih naučiti.
Networks have varying degrees of formality and commitment.
Čeprav sta predstavitvi, ki sta ju pripravila voditelja razprave, obravnavali vprašanja raznolikosti in zapletenosti
Generally they tend to be non- bureaucratic and depend on the members’ mutual trust and common understanding.
Na splošno poskušajo biti nebirokratske ter so odvisne od medsebojnega zaupanja in splošnega razumevanja članov.
Ultimately all networks depend on active participation and commitment from their members, and it is this involvement which legitimises the organisation and the activity which it undertakes, and which provides its strength.
Končno so vse mreže odvisne od dejavnega sodelovanja in zavezanosti njihovih članov, pri čemer prav to sodelovanje upravičuje obstoj organizacije in dejavnosti, ki jo ta izvaja, ter zagotavlja njeno moč.
The complex context of rural networking was therefore demonstrated and indeed shown to be complex and differentiated by many factors.
Mreža je močna zaradi skupne moči njenih članov, pri čemer je slednja lahko večja od vsote posameznih moči članov.
There is a multiplicity of networks and of network forms and types reflecting the very considerable diversity of circumstances, and the equally diverse and varied range of different solutions.
Tako je za uspešno delovanje mreže potrebno sodelovanje, čeprav so mreže zelo neformalne.
In setting this out, both moderators went to considerable trouble to provide some form of structured overview within which the case study examples could be considered and lessons drawn.
Dejansko ne morete biti član mreže, če se ne povezujete dejavno ali če se dejansko izključite iz nje in prenehate sodelovati, v slednjem primeru dejansko prenehate biti njen član.
What does this say about network members, and what characteristics dene them?
Kaj lahko na podlagi tega sklepamo o članih mreže in katere so njihove lastnosti?
An overview of the moderators’ papers and the other papers presented during the mini-plenaries reveals a tendency to look at how networking contributes to Leader not vice versa. This is somewhat at odds with the intended context of these miniplenary sessions and of this article.
Po izkušnjah lokalnih akcijskih skupin, ki so sodelovale na teh zasedanjih, so v resnične mreže vključeni ljudje, ki v njih dejavno sodelujejo, taki ljudje pa jih tudi vzpostavijo.
That is to say, there is a wider consideration of the networking activity which has arisen directly as a result of Leader+.
To so člani, ki: da obstaja širša obravnava mreženja, nastalega neposredno kot rezultat programa Leader+.
In considering networking objectives we therefore need to include two types: the explicit Leader network objectives, and those objectives which can be achieved through networking.
V obravnavo ciljev mreženja je treba zato vključiti dve vrsti ciljev: jasne cilje v okviru mreže programa Leader in cilje, ki se lahko dosežejo z mreženjem.
Leader network objectives tend to be those most closely associated with network units and these are generally prescribed and relatively narrow, and relate to providing support for or facilitating the processes of networking.
Cilji mreže programa Leader so zelo tesno povezani z omre-žnimi enotami ter so na splošno določeni in sorazmerno omejeni ter zadevajo zagotavljanje podpore za procese mreženja in njihovo spodbujanje.
® have something in common;are volunteers;recognise the benet in sharing experience and learning from one another;work together on a non-hierarchical or directive basis;can establish mechanisms and structures to work towards common goals;accept the responsibilities of membership as well as the benets;actively participate.
® imajo nekaj skupnega;so prostovoljci;se zavedajo koristi, ki jih prinaša izmenjava izkušenj in učenje drug od drugega;sodelujejo v nehierarhični strukturi in brez prisile;lahko oblikujejo mehanizme in strukture za doseganje skupnih ciljev;sprejemajo odgovornosti in koristi, ki so povezane s član-stvom;dejavno sodelujejo.
It provides the basis for partnership and linkages within the LAG territory, linking the local to the regional, the national and thus ultimately draws the programme together at the European level.
Tako povezovanje je podlaga za partnerstvo in sodelovanje znotraj ozemlja lokalne akcijske skupine, pri čemer povezuje lokalno z regionalnim in nacionalnim ter tako končno povezuje program na evropski ravni.
The building of links through networking clearly reects the core Leader concept, and contributes further to the processes of innovation, sharing and transferring experience.
Jasno je, da je izpostavljanje sodelovanja z mreženjem osnovni koncept programa Leader in dodatno prispeva k procesu uvajanja inovacij, izmenjave in prenosa izkušenj.
One of the contributors referred to the importance of having the ‘networking frame of mind’.
Eden od predavateljev se je skliceval na pomembnost misel-ne naravnanosti mreženja.
This phrase was explained as a means of describing those who contribute to and benet from networking activity by thinking in a way which seeks to strengthen the network.
To je bilo razloženo kot sredstvo za opisovanje tistih, ki prispevajo k mreženju in imajo koristi od njega, in sicer s prizadevanjem za krepitev mreže.
What is this frame of mind?
Kakšen je ta način razmišljanja?
How can it be dened?
Kako ga lahko opredelimo?
Can anyone have it?
Ali lahko tako razmišlja vsak?
In reality, it just means recognising that we are all involved as part of a wider rural development community and approaching your activity from an open-minded perspective which reects this, and that we are all part of a wider initiative.
Dejansko to pomeni le, da priznamo, da smo vsi vključeni kot del širše skupnosti za razvoj podeželja, in da pristopamo k svoji dejavnosti s široko odprtostjo, ki to odraža, ter da smo vsi del širše pobude.
Put simply, this suggests asking yourself the following set of pivotal questions.
Preprosto poveda-no to pomeni, da si moramo zastaviti naslednji niz ključnih vprašanj:
In looking at these objectives it is important to recognise that we cannot think of any one network in isolation: networks do not exist in isolation.
Pri preučevanju teh ciljev je pomembno priznati, da mrež, ki so izolirane, ne moremo upoštevati, ker take mreže dejansko ne obstajajo.
If we are networking eec-tively, then we are all actors in multiple networks, and this interconnectedness and interaction is the very essence of real networking and the source of much of the added value which participation brings.
Če se v mrežo povezujemo učinkovito, sodelujemo v več mrežah, pri čemer sta ta medsebojna povezanost in vplivanje bistvo pravega mreženja in vir večine dodane vrednosti zaradi sodelovanja.
Through this interaction, the Leader method may become more widely understood and implemented, which is a key contributor to the process of mainstreaming.
Prek medsebojnega vplivanja lahko metoda programa Leader postane splošno poznana in izvajana, kar je ključno za prispevanje k procesu uveljavljanja.
Who is in a similar situation to me who I can work with?Who else should be told about what I have just learned about?Who can do it?Who should be told about the results?Who can help?
Kdo je v podobnem položaju kot jaz in s kom lahko so-delujem?Koga še bi bilo treba obvestiti o tem, kar sem se pravkar naučil?Kdo lahko to stori?Koga je treba obvestiti o rezultatih? Kdo lahko pomaga?
Obviously the next question which flows from this is why should we do it, why should we network, what are the objectives?
Jasno je, da je naslednje vprašanje, ki se porodi na podlagi navedenih, naslednje: zakaj moramo to napraviti, zakaj se moramo povezovati v mrežo in kakšni so cilji?
This is mainly to bring people (and their organisations) together around a common interest, and to undertake activities which are mutually benecial to them.
Pregled pisnih osnutkov voditeljev razprav in drugih osnut-kov, ki so bili predstavljeni na manjših zasedanjih, odkriva njihovo prizadevanje po preučitvi, kako lahko mreženje prispeva k programu Leader in ne obratno.
The following examples were brought forward through the case studies:
Njihov cilj je jasen, tj. razložiti, kako je metoda Leader+ prispevala k vzpostavljanju mrež ter tako k dodajanju vrednosti in zagotavljanju koristi.
® uniting people around themes, actions or issues;lobbying for or influencing change;forming of cooperative or collaborative groups;building and building-on inter-personal relationships;developing individual and collective abilitiesand cap abilities;Developing individual and collective con dence;sharing resources including specialist competencies;facilitating the flow of information; and ultimately;achieving things which individuals or individual LAGs could not.
Naslednji študiji primerov, ki temeljita na predstavitvah na manjših plenarnih zasedanjih, vsebujeta dva različna prime-ra, kako lahko različne oblike mreženja na različne načine okrepijo sodelovanje.
The following two case studies drawn from the miniplenary presentations provide two different examples of how di er-ent forms of networking activity can broaden involvement in different ways.
® povezovanje ljudi v skupine;vzpostavljanje mehanizmov za izmenjavo informacij;sredstvo za vzajemno učenje.
This Latvian case study looks at how support for cooperation through the network has helped to support the formation of local groups and involvement in these.
V latvijski študiji primera je obravnavan način, na katerega je podpora za sodelovanje prek mreže pripomogla k podpira-nju oblikovanja lokalnih skupin in sodelovanja v njih.
Networking thus becomes an effective tool for extending the influence of Leader throughout rural Europe, and contributes to the efficiency, effectiveness and impact of Leader throughout the EU and at an EU level.
Mreženje postane tako učinkovito orodje za večji vpliv programa Leader na evropskem podeželju ter prispeva k uspešnosti, učinkovitosti in vplivu programa Leader v Evropski uniji in na ravni Evropske unije.
What are the networking roles carried out?
Katere so vloge mreženja?
Case study:Latvia building LAGs through cooperation Latvian Rural Forum
Študija primera: vzpostavljanje lokalnih akcijskih skupin v Latviji s sodelovanjem Foruma za podeželje v Latviji
The Latvian Rural Forum is a new network formed in December 2004, it acts as an informal LAG network.
Forum za podeželje v Latviji je nova mreža, ki se je oblikovala decembra 2004 in deluje kot neformalna mreža lokalnih akcijskih skupin.
It has a membership which comprises 14 of the 28 Latvian LAGs as full members, with the other 14 participating as observers.
V forumu sodeluje 14 od 28 latvijskih lokalnih akcijskih skupin, ki so polnopravne članice, in še 14 skupin, ki sodelujejo kot opazovalke. Cilji foruma so:
The range of case studies and associated discussion demonstrated the variation in the way in that these objectives are pursued between the various networks.
Vrsta različnih študij primerov in z njimi povezane razprave so pokazale razlike v načinu, na katerega se cilji dosegajo v različnih skupinah.
It was also clear that the different objectives and roles cannot be considered wholly in isolation and that there is considerable interaction and complementarity between them.
Prav tako je bilo jasno, da se različni cilji in vloge ne morejo obravnavati popolnoma ločeno ter da se med seboj zelo povezujejo in dopolnjujejo.
From the examples which were considered it is possible to highlight significant common ground around the main roles which networks undertake, although they may do these things differently.
Iz obravnavanih primerov je mogoče poudariti pomembne skupne značilnosti na podlagi glavnih vlog, ki jih imajo mreže, čeprav jih lahko izvedejo na drugačen način.
The various NNUs support and help to coordinate these roles to a greater or lesser extent.
Različne nacionalne omrežne enote podpirajo in pomagajo usklajevati te vloge v večji ali manjši meri.
The following common network roles are suggested by the experience of those involved here:
Na podlagi izkušenj, ki jih imajo udeleženci iz obravnavanih primerov, so skupne vloge mrež:
® to promote sustainable development of Latvia’s rural areas;to strengthen development of civil society in rural areas by promoting development and cooperation with local initiative groups;to advocate the interests of rural inhabitants in national and international institutions;to build partnerships with governmental organisations, NGOs, business and other organisations.
®spodbujanje trajnostnega razvoja na podeželskih območjih v Latviji;®krepitev razvoja civilne družbe na podeželju s spodbujanjem razvoja in sodelovanjem z lokalnimi skupinami za pobude;®zagovarjanje interesov podeželskega prebivalstva v nacionalnih in mednarodnih institucijah;®vzpostavljanje partnerstev z vladnimi organizacijami, nevladnimi organizacijami, podjetji in drugimi organizacijami.
Cooperation is a key element of the Latvian approach and success in this area has been a key consideration in the selection of Latvian local action groups now and in the past.
Sodelovanje je ključni element latvijskega pristopa, v zvezi z izbiranjem latvijskih lokalnih akcijskih skupin pa je bila in je še vedno najpomembnejša uspešnost na tem področju.
In cooperating, LAGs are pursuing objectives of:
Lokalne akcijske skupine uresničujejo s sodelovanjem naslednje cilje:
®provide support for partner search, establishing common ground, joint working and cooperation;®actively engage the wider range of rural stakeholders;®collect, collate and disseminate information;®promote exchange of best practice and of results;®engage with LAGs through a variety of means tofacilitate the exchange of information, experienceand knowledge;®provide advice, training and technical assistance based on this experience;
®oblikovanje socialnega kapitala;®uveljavljanje usmerjenosti na posebna področja ali sektorje; ®zagotavljanja finančnih sredstev ter strokovnega znanja in izkušenj;®prek sodelovanja krepitev identitete območja lokalne akcijske skupine in izboljšanje dostopa do sredstev.
This has produced results in terms of increased involvement and improved participation, results that have been aided by an enhanced socioeconomic environment — new social and economic activity, new skills, the commitment of new cooperation partners, as well as improvements to the environment and cultural heritage.
Z uresničevanjem teh ciljev so bili doseženi rezultati v smislu večjega vključevanja in boljšega sodelovanja, na podlagi česar so se uveljavile nove družbene in gospodarske dejavnosti, pridobilo novo znanje, hkrati pa so se v sodelovanje vključili novi partnerji ter je bil dosežen napredek na področju okolja in kulturne dediščine, kar vse skupaj prispeva k boljšemu družbeno-gospodarskemu okolju.