natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, following the interinstitutional agreement of 17 May 2006 on the 2007–13 financial framework, neither the merger of the health and consumer protection programmes nor the increased budget was accepted by the European Parliament and the Council. 
Efter det interinstitutionella avtalet av den 17 maj 2006 om budgetramen fr 2007Đ2013 godkndes dock inte vare sig sammanslagningen av folkhlso-och konsumentskyddsprogrammen eller den kade budgeten av Europaparlamentet och rdet.
The outcome of the legislative process was a second health programme with similar objectives and activities to the PHP, but a reduced budget of 322 million euro, about 9 % per annum less than that of the predecessor programme (see Box 2). 
Resultatet av lagstiftningsprocessen blev ett andra folkhlsoprogram med liknande ml och verksamheter som det frsta folkhlsoprogrammet, men med en minskad budget p 322 miljoner euro, cirka 9 % mindre per r n det fregende programmet (se textruta 2).
5 Decision No 1350/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 301, 20.11.2007, p. 
5 Europaparlamentets och rdets beslut nr 1350/2007/EG (EUT L 301, 20.11.2007, s.
6 COM(2005) 115 final. 
6 KOM(2005) 115 slutlig.
(Impact assessment SEC(2005) 0425, p. 
(Konsekvensbedmning SEK(2005) 0425, s.
11 BOX 2 Legal basis Decision No 1786/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 adopting a programme of Community action in the field of public health (2003–08) Decision No 1350/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 establishing a second programme of Community action in the field of health (2008–13) Objectives • to improve information and knowledge for the development of public health • to enhance the capability of responding rapidly and in a coordinated fashion to threats to health • to promote health and prevent disease through addressing health determinants across all policies and activities • to generate and disseminate health information and knowledge • to improve citizens’ health security • to promote health, including the reduction of health inequalities Budget according to programme decision 354 million euro (for 2003–08)8 322 million euro (for 2008–13) i.e. 59 million euro p.a. over 6 years i.e. 53,7 million euro p.a. over 6 years Funding mechanisms Grants for actions Grants for actions Tenders (service contracts)9 Operating grants Conferences Joint actions Tenders (service contracts) Programme implementation DG SANCO10 Fully managed by the PHEA11 Impact assessment Not done Extended impact assessment (2005)12 COMPARISON PHP (2003–07) VS PHP2 (2008–13) PHP (2003–07) PHP2 (2008–13) 8 There are two main reasons for the difference between the indicative PHP budget given in the programme decision and the figure of 231,7 million euro mentioned in paragraph 5 as committed for projects in 2003–07: the indicative budget included about 58 million euro for 2008 (which was then covered by PHP2), and it also covered expenditure for the Executive Agency. 
11 TEXTRUTA 2 Rttslig grund Europaparlamentets och rdets beslut 1786/2002/EG av den 23 september 2002 om antagande av ett program fr gemenskapstgrder p folkhlsoomrdet (2003Đ2008) Europaparlamentets och rdets beslut nr 1350/2007/EG av den 23 oktober 2007 om inrttande av ett andra gemenskapsprogram fr tgrder p hlsoomrdet (2008Đ2013) Ml Ľ Att frbttra informationen och kunskaperna i syfte att frmja folkhlsan.
9 A ceiling of 10 % of the operational budget was set in the AWPs for calls for tenders. 
9 Ett tak fr anbudsinfordran faststlldes i de rliga arbetsplanerna till 10 % av driftsbudgeten.
This ceiling was increased to 20 % in PHP2. 
Detta tak kade till 20 % i det andra folkhlsoprogrammet.
10 From 2005, grant management and the organisation of calls for proposals were gradually transferred to the Public Health Executive Agency (PHEA) (fully operational since 1 January 2007). 
10 Frn 2005 och framt gjordes en gradvis verfring av bidragsfrvaltningen och anordnandet av inbjudan att lmna frslag till genomfrandeorganet fr folkhlsoprogrammet (EAHC) (som har varit fullt operativ sedan den 1 januari 2007).
11 Commission Decision 2004/858/EC (OJ L 369, 16.12.2004, p. 
11 Kommissionens beslut 2004/858/EG (EUT L 369, 16.12.2004, s.
73). In 2008 the PHEA was renamed the Executive Agency for Health and Consumers (EAHC). 
73) (EAHC dptes 2008 om till genomfrandeorganet fr hlso-och konsumentfrgor (EAHC)).
12 SEC(2005) 0425, annex to the health and consumer protection strategy and programme proposal (COM(2005) 115 final). Special Report No 2/2009 — The European Union’s Public Health Programme (2003–07): an effective way to improve health? 
12 SEK(2005) 0425, bilaga till frslaget till strategi och program nr det gller hlsa och konsumentskydd (KOM(2005) 115 slutlig). Srskild rapport nr 2/2009 Đ Europeiska unionens folkhlsoprogram (2003Đ2007): Ett ndamlsenligt stt att frbttra hlsan?
11. Health promotion actions can be defined as ‘actions which support people to adopt and maintain healthy lifestyles, and which create supportive living conditions (environments) for health’13. 
Hlsofrmjande tgrder kan definieras som tgrder som hjlper mnniskor att anta och behlla en hlsosam livsstil och som skapar gyn-samma levnadsvillkor (miljer) nr det gller hlsa13. tgrder av den typen omfattades till stor del av komponenten Óbestmningsfaktorer fr hlsanÓ i folkhlsoprogrammet.
The audit analysed whether the right conditions were set by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission when designing the programme, and by the Commission and the project coordinators when implementing it, for projects to contribute effectively to the capacity of European citizens to improve their health. 
Revisionsrtten analyserade huruvida lmpliga villkor hade stllts av Europaparlamentet, rdet och kommissionen nr programmet utformades och av kommissionen och projektsamordnarna nr det genomfrdes, fr att projekten p ett ndamlsenligt stt skulle bidra till de europiska medborgarnas frmga att frbttra sin hlsa.
The Court examined whether: (a) the design of the PHP provided a suitable framework for the effective implementation and monitoring of Community-funded health promotion actions complementing measures taken by Member States; (b) the Commission ensured, at the programme implementation and project selection stage, that projects under the ‘health determinants’ strand of the PHP were likely to achieve sustainable results, were complementary and provided EU added value; and (c) the Commission and project coordinators ensured that projects were managed effectively. 
Revisionsrtten underskte huruvida a) utformningen av folkhlsoprogrammet bildade en lmplig ram fr att gemenskapsfinansierade hlsofrmjande tgrder som kompletterar de tgrder som medlemsstaterna vidtar skulle kunna genomfras och vervakas p ett ndamlsenligt stt, b) kommissionen, vid programgenomfrandet och i projekturvalsprocessen, sg till att projekt inom folkhlsoprogrammets komponent Óbestmningsfaktorer fr hlsanÓ sannolikt skulle uppn hllbara resultat, att de kompletterade varandra och tillfrde ett europeiskt mervrde, c) kommissionen och projektsamordnarna sg till att projekten frvaltades p ett ndamlsenligt stt.
The audit involved: (a) an analysis of the programme’s legal base and a review of programme evaluations and other relevant documentation; (b) an analysis of Community actions and policy development in selected areas of the ‘health determinants’ strand: drugs, alcohol, tobacco, sexual and reproductive health, mental health, and nutrition and physical activity14. 
Revisionen omfattade fljande: a) En analys av programmets rttsliga grund och en genomgng av programutvrderingar och annan relevant dokumentation. b) En analys av gemenskapstgrder och utvecklingen av politiken inom utvalda delar av komponenten Óbestmningsfaktorer fr hlsanÓ: narkotika, alkohol, tobak, sexuell och reproduktiv hlsa, psykisk hlsa, kost och motion14.
The analysis included a review of Commission policy papers, WHO policy papers, initiatives and programmes in the Member States and third countries, and academic and scientific literature; (c) an assessment of a sample of 36 (out of a total of 149) projects funded from the ‘health determinants’ strand, i.e. one of the three strands of the PHP (2003–07). 
Analysen omfattade en genomgng av kommissionens policydokument, WHO:s policydokument, initiativ och program i medlemsstaterna och tredjelnder samt akademisk och vetenskaplig litteratur, c) En bedmning av ett urval av 36 (av totalt 149) projekt som finansierades genom folkhlsoprogrammets komponent Óbestmningsfaktorer fr hlsanÓ, det vill sga en av de tre komponenterna i folkhlsoprogrammet (2003Đ2007).
The sample covered all projects in the six selected areas which had reached a sufficient level of project maturity at the time of the audit15. 
Urvalet omfattade samtliga projekt inom de sex utvalda omrden som hade ntt en tillrcklig mognad nr revisionen genomfrdes15.
The assessment included a review of the project documentation, interviews with all the project coordinators and an online survey of project partners16; 13 Don Nutbeam et al., The Evidence of Health Promotion Effectiveness — Shaping Public Health in a New Europe, International Union for Health Promotion and Education (IUHPE), 1999, p. 
I bedmningen ingick en genomgng av projektdokumentationen, intervjuer med samtliga projektsamordnare och en webbenkt bland projektpartnerna16. 13 Don Nutbeam et al, The Evidence of Health Promotion Effectiveness Đ Shaping Public Health in a New Europe, International Union for Health Promotion and Education (IUHPE), 1999. s.
14 The selected policy areas comprised all six lifestyle-related priority areas of the ‘health determinants’ strand. 
14 De utvalda politikomrdena omfattade samtliga sex livsstilsrelaterade prioriterade omrden av folkhlsoprogrammets komponent fr bestmningsfaktorer fr hlsan.
In all these areas projects were selected for funding in each of the years 2003 to 2007 (see Annex I). 
P alla dessa omrden valdes projekt ut fr finansiering varje r frn 2003 till 2007 (se bilaga I).
15 The sample included all projects which were either completed or had submitted at least a first interim technical report in the six ‘lifestyle health determinants’ policy areas: alcohol, tobacco, drugs, nutrition and physical activity, sexual and reproductive health and mental health. 
15 Urvalet omfattade alla projekt som antingen hade avslutats eller tminstone hade lmnat in en frsta teknisk delrapport p de sex politikomrdena avseende livsstilsrelaterade bestmningsfaktorer: alkohol, tobak, narkotika, kost och motion, sexuell och reproduktiv hlsa och psykisk hlsa.
16 The survey was conducted to obtain the other project participants’ views on the partnerships and the management of health promotion projects, and ran from 11 March to 4 April 2008. 
16 En webbenkt genomfrdes fr att man skulle inhmta andra projektdeltagares synpunkter p partnerskapen och frvaltningen av hlsofrmjande projekt. Enkten genomfrdes mellan den 11 mars och 4 april 2008.
The questionnaire used by the Court was based on previous surveys in this field (see El Ansari W., ‘Educational Partnerships for Health: Do Stakeholders Perceive Similar Outcomes?’ in Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, Vol. 
Den enkt som revisionsrtten anvnde grundade sig p tidigare enkter inom detta omrde (se El Ansari W., Educational Partnerships for Health: Do Stakeholders Perceive Similar Outcomes? i Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, vol.
9(2), 2003, pp. 136–156). 
9(2), 2003, ss. 136Đ156).
Some 505 participants in the sampled projects were surveyed, 242 of whom completed the questionnaire in full — a response rate of 47,9 %. 
Cirka 505 deltagare i de utvalda projekten fick enkten, av vilka 242 fyllde i hela frgeformulret, vilket ger en svarsfrekvens p 47,9 %.
A further 19 participants responded to some but not all of the survey questions. 
Ytterligare 19 deltagare svarade p en del men inte alla frgor i enkten.
(d) interviews with staff from DG SANCO and the PHEA; (e) a quantitative analysis of proposals submitted, projects funded and project budgets; (f) consultation of stakeholders at national ministries of health and public health institutes, Member States’ representatives on the Programme Committee and national focal points in eight Member States (Belgium, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Latvia, Sweden, United Kingdom); and (g) a discussion of relevant issues with a group of experts in the field of health promotion and disease prevention at several stages during the audit. 
d) Intervjuer med personal frn GD Hlso-och konsumentfrgor och Genomfrandeorganet fr hlso-och konsumentfrgor. e) En kvantitativ analys av inlmnade frslag, finansierade projekt och projektbudgetar. f) Samrd med berrda parter vid nationella hlsoministerier och folkhlsoinstitut, medlemsstaternas fretrdare i programkommittn och nationella kontaktpunkter i tta medlemsstater (Belgien, Estland, Finland, Frankrike, Tyskland, Lettland, Sverige och Frenade kungariket). g) En diskussion om relevanta frgor med en grupp experter p omrdet fr frmjande av hlsa och frebyggande av sjukdomar vid flera tillfllen under revisionen.
The experts’ main input was to contribute to the Court’s analysis, for example by suggesting the RDI cycle as a framework for analysis (see Box 10), and to endorse the audit observations set out in this report. 
Experterna bidrog srskilt till revisionsrttens analys, till exempel genom att fresl att kedjan fr forskning, utveckling och genomfrande skulle anvndas som ram fr analysen (se textruta 10) och genom att stlla sig bakom granskningsiakttagelserna i denna rapport.
13 Special Report No 2/2009 — The European Union’s Public Health Programme (2003–07): an effective way to improve health? 
13 Srskild rapport nr 2/2009 Đ Europeiska unionens folkhlsoprogram (2003Đ2007): Ett ndamlsenligt stt att frbttra hlsan?
14 AUDIT OBSERVATIONS PROGRAMME DESIGN 13. 
14 GRANSKNINGSIAKTTAGELSER PROGRAMUTFORMNING 13.
Programmes are more effective if they are properly designed and the intended results are clearly set out. 
Program blir mer ndamlsenliga om de utformas riktigt och om frvntade resultat faststlls tydligt och klart.
This is more likely to be the case if: (a) the underlying logic of the intervention is made explicit in the programme decision (or its accompanying documentation); (b) programme objectives are defined which are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-dependent (SMART); (c) priorities are set in accordance with the organisation’s strategy; and (d) performance and achievements can be monitored based on robust and meaningful indicators. 
Det r sannolikare att detta blir fallet om a) den underliggande interventionslogiken tydliggrs i programbeslutet (eller i den tillhrande dokumentationen), b) de faststllda programmlen r specifika, mtbara, uppnbara, relevanta och tidsbundna (SMART), c) prioriteringar faststlls i enlighet med organisationens strategi, d) vervakningen av insatser och resultat bygger p solida och meningsfulla indikatorer.
INTERVENTION LOGIC NOT MADE EXPLICIT 14. 
INTERVENTIONSLOGIKEN VAR INTE TYDLIG 14.
A key element of programme design is defining the intervention logic — the hypothetical cause and effect linkages that describe how an intervention is expected to attain its global objectives. 
En central del av programutformning r att faststlla interventionslogiken Đ de hypotetiska orsakssamband som beskriver hur en intervention frvntas uppn sina allmnna ml.
Intervention logic provides the conceptual link from an intervention’s inputs to the production of its outputs and, subsequently, to its impacts on society in terms of results and outcomes17. 
Interventionslogiken ger en begreppsmssig koppling mellan en interventions input och produktionen av output och drmed dess inverkan p samhllet i form av resultat och utfall17.
Making explicit the logic of a planned intervention allows the construction of a hierarchy of objectives and the identification of key indicators for monitoring and evaluation. 
Om logiken i en planerad intervention tydliggrs blir det mjligt att rangordna mlen och identifiera nyckelindikatorer fr vervakning och utvrdering.
Logic models showing how inputs into the various activities will lead to the expected results are the most appropriate way of showing the intervention logic. 
Logiska modeller som visar hur inputen i de olika verksamheterna kommer att leda till frvntade resultat r det lmpligaste sttet att illustrera interventionslogiken.
Neither the Commission’s legislative proposal for the programme18 nor the legal basis for the PHP or any other relevant documents (such as impact assessments19 or AWPs) explicitly described the programme’s intervention logic in this way. 
Varken kommissionens lagstiftningsfrslag till programmet18 eller folkhlsoprogrammets rttsliga grund eller andra relevanta handlingar (till exempel konsekvensbedmningar19 eller rliga arbetsplaner) hade en sdan tydlig beskrivning av programmets interventionslogik.
Logic models are used in other areas of EU policy, such as external actions, and are common practice in the public health field in other parts of the world (United States, Canada). 
Logiska modeller anvnds p andra omrden av EU-politiken, till exempel bistnd till tredjeland, och r allmn praxis p folkhlsoomrdet i andra delar av vrlden (Frenta staterna, Kanada).
For example, logic models were used for programme planning, implementation and evaluation in the Southern Arizona Border Health Careers Opportunity Program20, the Health Improvement Initiative funded by the California Wellness Foundation21 and the Calgary Cross-Cultural Mental Health Consultation Project22. 
Logiska modeller har till exempel anvnts till planering, genomfrande och utvrdering av program i Southern Arizona Border Health Careers Opportunity Pro-gram20, Health Improvement Initiative som finansieras av Kaliforniens Wellness Foundation21 och Calgary Cross-Cultural Mental Health Consultation Project22.
17 European Commission, DG Budget, ‘Evaluating EU activities: a practical guide for the Commission services’, July 2004, p. 
17 Europeiska kommissionen, Generaldirektoratet fr budget, Evaluating EU activities: a practical guide for the Commission services, juli 2004, s.
18 COM(2000) 285 final. 
18 KOM(2000) 285 slutlig.
19 The Commission’s proposal for the PHP predated the introduction, in 2002, of mandatory impact assessments and consequently was only subject to a limited cost-effectiveness analysis. 
19 Kommissionens frslag till folkhlsoprogram kom innan de obligatoriska konsekvensbedmningarna infrdes 2002 och var drfr endast freml fr en begrnsad kostnadsnyttoanalys.
By contrast, there has been an extended impact assessment for PHP2 (see European Commission, SEC(2005) 0425; IA for the proposed combined health and consumer protection strategy and programme). 
Dremot har en utvidgad konsekvensbedmning gjorts fr folkhlsoprogrammet 2 (se Europeiska kommissionen, SEK(2005) 0425; Konsekvensbedmning om frslaget till en ny strategi och ett nytt program fr hlso-och konsumentskyddstgrder).
20 ‘How Using a Logic Model Refined Our Program to Ensure Success’, M. Page, S. H. Parker and R. Renger, in: Health Promotion Practice OnlineFirst, published on 28 August 2007. 
20 ÓHow Using a Logic Model Refined Our Program to Ensure SuccessÓ, M. Page, S. H. Parker och R. Renger, in: Health Promotion Practice OnlineFirst, som publicerades den 28 augusti 2007.
21 ‘Evaluating the California Wellness Foundation’s Health Improvement Initiative: A Logic Model Approach’, A. Cheadle, W. L. Beery, H. P. Greenwald, G. D. Nelson, D. Pearson and S. Senter, in: Health Promotion Practice, April 2003; vol. 
21 ÓEvaluating the California Wellness FoundationŐs Health Improvement Initiative: A Logic Model ApproachÓ, A. Cheadle, W. L. Beery, H. P. Greenwald, G. D. Nelson, D. Pearson, and S. Senter in: Health Promotion Practice, april 2003; vol.
4: pp. 146–156. 
4: ss. 146Đ156.
22 ‘Evaluability Assessment: A Catalyst for Program Change and Improvement’, W. E. Thurston, J. Graham and J. Hatfield, in: Evaluation and the Health Professions, June 2003; vol. 
22 ÓEvaluability Assessment: A Catalyst for Program Change and ImprovementÓ, W. E. Thurston, J. Graham and J. Hatfield, in: Evaluation & the Health Professions, juni 2003; vol.
26: pp. 206–221. Special Report No 2/2009 — The European Union’s Public Health Programme (2003–07): an effective way to improve health? 
26: ss. 206Đ221. Srskild rapport nr 2/2009 Đ Europeiska unionens folkhlsoprogram (2003Đ2007): Ett ndamlsenligt stt att frbttra hlsan?
In their report on the mid-term evaluation of the PHP23, the external evaluators recommended developing such a systematic and reasoned evidence-based description of the links between inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes (see Box 3). 
I rapporten om halvtidsutvrderingen av folkhlsoprogrammet23 rekommenderade de externa utvrderarna att man gjorde en sdan systematisk och motiverad bevisbaserad beskrivning av kopplingarna mellan input, verksamhet, ouput och utfall (se textruta 3).
The Court has recommended the use of intervention logic for programme design, objective-setting and performance measurement for other budgetary areas24. 
Revisionsrtten har rekommenderat att man anvnder en tydlig interventionslogik till programutformning, faststllande av ml och till mtning av resultat nr det gller andra budgetomrden24.
In the Court’s view, the definition of SMART programme objectives ( see paragraphs 19 to 21) and the setting of robust indicators for an effective monitoring of the programme implementation (see paragraphs 70 to 73) is more difficult to achieve in the absence of a conceptual framework. 
Enligt revisionsrttens uppfattning r det svrare att definiera programml som r SMART (se punkterna 19Đ21) och faststlla solida indikatorer fr en ndamlsenlig vervakning av programgenomfrandet (se punkterna 70Đ73) om det inte finns ngon begreppsmssig ram.
Final Report, RAND Europe technical report, 2007, p. 
Slutrapport, RAND Europe technical report, 2007, s.
24 See Special Report No 9/2007, ‘Evaluating the RTD framework programmes — could the Commission approach be improved?’(OJ C 26, 30.1.2008), paragraphs 34 to 36, and Special Report No 7/2008, ‘Intelligent energy (2003–06)’ (OJ C 279, 1.11.2008), paragraphs 18 and 21. 
24 Se punkterna 34Đ36 i srskild rapport nr 9/2007 om utvrderingen av EU:s ramprogram fr forskning, teknisk utveckling och demonstration (FoTU) Đ skulle kommissionens tillvgagngsstt kunna frbttras? (EUT C 26, 30.1.2008) och punkterna 18 och 21 i srskild rapport nr 7/2008 om intelligent energi (2003Đ2006) (EUT C 279, 1.11.2008).
15 BOX 3 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INTERIM EVALUATION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH PROGRAMME 2003–08 ‘[The PHP] is, at this interim stage, delivering the programme of work identified in its annual work plans. 
15 TEXTRUTA 3 REKOMMENDATIONER I HALVTIDSUTVRDERINGEN AV FOLKHLSOPROGRAMMET 2003Đ2008 [Folkhlsoprogrammet] r i detta mellanskede p vg att genomfra det arbetsprogram som faststllts i de rliga arbetsplanerna.