natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
13 Under this proposal, there will be two ESF + specific objectives relating to the fight against material deprivation: (i) a specific objective on the promotion of the social integration of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion, including the most deprived and children and (ii) a specific objective on addressing material deprivation through food and/or basic material assistance to the most deprived, including accompanying measures. 
13 Enligt frslaget ska Europeiska socialfonden+ ha fljande tv srskilda ml nr det gller kampen mot materiell fattigdom: i) Ett srskilt ml om att frmja social integrering av mnniskor som befinner sig i riskzonen fr fattigdom eller social utestngning, inklusive de som har det smst stllt och barn, och ii) ett srskilt ml om att motarbeta materiell fattigdom genom livsmedel och/eller materiellt bistnd till dem som har det smst stllt, samt kompletterande tgrder.
It is also proposed that those accompanying measures will no longer be compulsory, unlike under the current FEAD. 13 
Det fresls ocks att de kompletterande tgrderna inte lngre ska vara obligatoriska, till skillnad frn vad som nu r fallet inom Fead. 13
Audit scope and approach 14 The Court decided to carry out this audit in time for the discussions on the regulation which will replace the current FEAD by the proposed ESF + regulation and will be in place for the 2021-2027 programme period. 
Revisionens inriktning och omfattning samt revisionsmetod 14 Revisionsrtten beslutade att utfra denna revision i tid till diskussionerna om den freslagna ESF+-frordning som ska erstta den nuvarande Fead-frordningen och som kommer att vara p plats till programperioden 2021Đ2027.
15 We assessed whether FEAD was designed to be an effective tool for alleviating poverty and contributing towards social inclusion of the most deprived. 
15 Vi bedmde om Fead har utformats som ett ndamlsenligt verktyg fr att lindra fattigdomen och bidra till social delaktighet fr dem som har det smst stllt.
To answer this overall audit question, we examined whether: o FEAD design was substantially different to the former MDP in terms of alleviating poverty and contributing to the social inclusion of the most deprived; o FEAD programming in Member States targeted the aid to make it an effective tool; o the contribution of social inclusion measures, the innovative element of FEAD, could be measured. 
Fr att besvara den vergripande revisionsfrgan underskte vi om o utformningen av Fead skilde sig avsevrt frn den tidigare ordningen fr utdelning av livsmedel till de smst stllda i unionen nr det gller att lindra fattigdomen och bidra till social delaktighet fr dem som har det smst stllt, o programplaneringen av Fead i medlemsstaterna innebar att bistndet riktades s att Fead blev ett ndamlsenligt verktyg, o bidraget frn tgrder fr social delaktighet, Feads innovativa del, kunde mtas.
16 The audit approach covered the analysis of policy and programming documentation at both the Commission and Member State levels. 
16 Revisionsmetoden omfattade en analys av policy-och programplaneringsdokumentation p svl kommissions-som medlemsstatsniv.
For Member States, we reviewed nine FEAD operational programmes4 and supporting documentation. 
I medlemsstaterna granskade vi nio operativa program inom Fead4 och verifierande underlag.
We selected Member States based on the financial allocations, on having operational programmes of both types I and II and on striking a balance in terms of geographical coverage across the EU (see Figure 3). 
Vi valde ut medlemsstater baserat p finansiella anslag samt i syfte att f med operativa program av bde typ I och II och uppn en balanserad geografisk tckning av hela EU (se figur 3).
We did not audit the fundŐs implementation in the Member States. 
Vi granskade inte genomfrandet av fonden i medlemsstaterna.
17 We assessed the monitoring and evaluation framework in place at the Commission through a desk review of the relevant documentation, and drew upon the Mid-term evaluation on the implementation of the Fund (MTE)5. 
17 Vi bedmde den vervaknings-och utvrderingsram som har infrts vid kommissionen genom en skrivbordsgranskning av relevant dokumentation och stdde oss ven p halvtidsutvrderingen av genomfrandet av fonden5.
For OP I: Belgium, the Czech Republic, Spain, France, Italy, Poland, Romania, Slovakia; for OP II: Germany. 
Operativa program av typ I: Belgien, Tjeckien, Spanien, Frankrike, Italien, Polen, Rumnien och Slovakien. Operativt program av typ II: Tyskland.
At the time of drafting this report, the Mid-term evaluation on the implementation of FEAD was due to be published by the Commission. 
Vid tidpunkten fr utarbetandet av denna rapport skulle halvtidsutvrderingen av genomfrandet av fonden offentliggras av kommissionen.
Figure 3 Đ Member States covered by our review Source: ECA, created with mapchart.net. 
Figur 3 Đ Medlemsstater som ingick i revisionen Klla: Europeiska revisionsrtten, skapad med mapchart.net.
18 We carried out a survey of the 28 managing authorities in charge of FEAD, to which 27 replied6. 
18 Bland de 28 frvaltande myndigheterna med ansvar fr Fead gjorde vi en enkt som 27 besvarade6.
The survey sought information regarding: the choice of operational programme; the approach to targeting of the population addressed through the OP; the number, type and selection process of partner organisations; and the monitoring arrangements established for the OP (for the detailed results of the survey, see Annex I). 
Enkten gllde information om valet av operativt program, instllningen till riktade tgrder till den grupp som det operativa programmet vnder sig till, partnerorganisationernas antal och typ samt processer fr att vlja ut dem och vervakningsarrangemang fr det operativa programmet (se bilaga I fr de detaljerade resultaten av enkten).
15 6 The United-Kingdom, which has not implemented its original FEAD programme, did not reply. 
15 6 Frenade kungariket, som inte har genomfrt sitt ursprungliga Fead-program, svarade inte.
Observations FEAD - a welcome policy instrument to tackle poverty Like the former MDP, FEAD funds mainly food support 19 Of the 24 Member States that chose the type I form of OP, ten solely provide food aid and one provides material support only. The other Member States provide both food and material assistance. 
Iakttagelser Fead Đ ett vlkommet politiskt instrument fr att bekmpa fattigdom Liksom den tidigare ordningen fr utdelning av livsmedel till de smst stllda i unionen finansierar Fead framfr allt livsmedelsstd 19 Av de 24 medlemsstater som valde operativa program av typ I, ger tio enbart livsmedelsbistnd och en enbart materiellt bistnd.
20 Overall, type I OPs represent 97.5 % of the total FEAD budget. 
20 Sammantaget str operativa program av typ I fr 97,5 % av den totala Fead-budgeten.
Food support only accounts for 83.5 % of the total FEAD budget and 90 % of that food aid was distributed in five Member States: France, Italy, Poland, Romania and Spain (see Figure 4). 
Livsmedelsstd utgr endast 83,5 % av den totala Fead-budgeten, och 90 % av det delades ut i fem medlemsstater: Frankrike, Italien, Polen, Rumnien och Spanien (se figur 4).
Figure 4 Đ Quantity of FEAD food supported distributed in 2016 16 Food support distributed in 2016 - breakdown by Member States Other 11 % PL 15 % RO 19 % ES FR RO PL IT Other IT 9% ES 25 % FR 21 % Source: ECA, based on the Mid-term Evaluation (MTE). 
Figur 4 Đ Mngd livsmedelsstd frn Fead som delades ut 2016 16 Utdelat livsmedelsbistnd 2016 Đ frdelning per medlemsstat vriga 11 % PL 15 % RO 19 % ES 25 % FR 21 % ES FR RO PL IT vriga IT 9% Klla: Europeiska revisionsrtten, p grundval av halvtidsutvrderingen.
21 Support in the form of material aid accounts for 14 % of the total FEAD budget. 
21 Std i form av materiellt bistnd utgr 14 % av den totala budgeten fr Fead.
This is mainly used in Greece, Cyprus, Luxembourg and Austria. 
Det anvnds huvudsakligen i Grekland, Cypern, Luxemburg och sterrike.
Such material assistance is mainly directed at households with dependent children in poverty and includes items such as baby clothes and personal hygiene products. 
lever i fattigdom och inbegriper artiklar som babyklder och personliga hygienprodukter.
22 Our survey confirmed the continued emphasis on food support. When we asked Member States on which basis their budgets were established in the FEAD Regulation, 13 responded that their budgets were directly based on the volume of spending within the former MDP. 
Nr vi frgade medlemsstaterna p vilken grund i Fead-frordningen deras budgetar upprttades, svarade 13 att budgetarna var direkt baserade p utgiftsvolymen inom den tidigare ordningen fr utdelning av livsmedel till de smst stllda i unionen.
For a further 11 their budgets were based on the number of (expected) end recipients, and 12 Member States relied on consultations with partner organisations. 
Elva medlemsstater uppgav att de upprttade sin budget p grundval av antalet (frvntade) slutmottagare och tolv att de anvnde sig av samrd med partnerorganisationer.
No Member State replied that they had budgeted FEAD with a view to complementing ESF programmes, the EUŐs most important driver for social inclusion (see Figure 5). 
Ingen medlemsstat svarade att den hade budgeterat Fead med syftet att komplettera ESF-program, EU:s viktigaste drivkraft fr social delaktighet (se figur 5).
Figure 5 Đ Rationale of FEAD budgeting (multiple answers were possible) 17 Source: Replies to question 6 of ECA survey addressed to managing authorities. 
Figur 5 Đ Logisk grund till budgeteringen av Fead (flera svar mjliga) 17 Vad baserades det totala budgetanslaget fr det nationella Fead-programmet p?
FEAD addressed a previous Court recommendation regarding social policy 23 Since 2014, DG EMPL has been responsible for implementing FEAD. 
Fead fljde en tidigare rekommendation om socialpolitiken frn revisionsrtten 23 Sedan 2014 har GD Sysselsttning, socialpolitik och inkludering ansvarat fr genomfrandet av Fead.
Only one FEAD managing authority had been responsible for implementing the former MDP programme, whereas 17 managing authorities out of 27 are institutions which also implement the ESF (see Figure 6). The shift towards social inclusion bodies addressed a recommendation the Court made following its audit of the MDP in 2008. 
Endast en frvaltande myndighet fr Fead hade tidigare varit ansvarig fr genomfrandet av ordningen fr utdelning av livsmedel till de smst stllda i unionen, medan 17 av de 27 frvaltande myndigheterna r institutioner som ocks genomfr ESF (se figur 6). vergngen till organ med ansvar fr social delaktighet fljde en av revisionsrttens rekommendationer efter revisionen av ordningen fr utdelning av livsmedel till de smst stllda i unionen 2008.
Figure 6 - The governance of FEAD in Member States; a clear move towards social inclusion actors Source: Replies to question 1 of ECA survey addressed to managing authorities. 
Figur 6 Đ Frvaltningen av Fead i medlemsstaterna: en tydlig vergng till aktrer p omrdet social delaktighet Klla: Svar p frga 1 i revisionsrttens enkt till frvaltande myndigheter.
FEAD is welcomed by those dealing with the most deprived 24 In reply to our survey, 11 managing authorities stated that the aim of their operational programme was the continuation of MDP operations and 16 managing authorities see FEAD as a tool to give a new approach in supporting deprived people. 
Fead vlkomnas av dem som arbetar med de smst stllda 24 I svaren p vr enkt uppgav elva frvaltande myndigheter att syftet med deras operativa program var att fortstta insatserna inom ordningen fr utdelning av livsmedel till de smst stllda i unionen, och 16 frvaltande myndigheter ser Fead som ett verktyg fr ett nytt tillvgagngsstt nr det gller att stdja dem som har det smst stllt.
Two thirds responded that the FEAD programme aimed at reaching populations not covered by national or regional programmes, nor by other EU funds (see Figure 7). 
Tv tredjedelar svarade att Fead-programmet syftade till att n grupper som varken omfattades av nationella eller regionala program eller av andra EU-fonder (se figur 7).
Figure 7 - Rationale for programming FEAD 18 Other EU Fund(s) FEAD MDP Source: Replies to question 3 of ECA survey addressed to managing authorities. 
Figur 7 Đ Logisk grund till programplaneringen av Fead 18 En/flera andra EU-fonder Fead MDP Vad var syftet med det operativa programmet inom Fead?
25 In addition, our survey confirmed that 23 of 27 managing authorities consider that FEAD was either very important or important in assisting the most deprived people compared to other national programmes or private initiatives existing in their countries. 
25 Vr enkt bekrftade ocks att 23 av de 27 frvaltande myndigheterna anser att Fead-insatserna antingen r mycket viktiga eller viktiga fr att hjlpa dem som har det smst stllt jmfrt med nationella program eller privata initiativ i deras lnder.
Only two authorities consider FEAD as not being important (see Figure 8). 
Endast tv myndigheter anser att Fead inte r viktig (se figur 8).
FEADŐs relative importance is not known 26 The Commission does not have data which demonstrates the relative importance of FEAD in overall support to deprived people in the EU. 
Feads relativa betydelse r inte knd 26 Kommissionen har inga uppgifter som visar Feads relativa betydelse fr det samlade stdet till dem som har det smst stllt i EU.
Cross country comparable data on overall support for deprived people do not exist at EU level. 
Uppgifter om det samlade stdet till dem som har det smst stllt som r jmfrbara mellan lnderna finns inte p EU-niv.
Most Member States we surveyed were not able to provide the share that FEAD funding represents of total support, which includes donations of funds and materials and the financial equivalent of volunteer work input. 
Merparten av de medlemsstater som besvarade vr enkt kunde inte ange Feads andel av det totala stdet, som inkluderar ekonomiska och materiella gvor och den ekonomiska ekvivalenten fr frivilliga arbetsinsatser.
Table 1 shows data from the six Member States which were able to provide an indication of FEADŐs relative importance. 
Tabell 1 visar uppgifter frn de sex medlemsstater som kunde ange Feads relativa betydelse.
Table 1 Đ FEAD share of the total social support activities for the deprived Source: Replies to question 36 of ECA survey addressed to managing authorities. 
Tabell 1 Đ Feads andel av de totala sociala stdtgrderna fr de smst stllda Klla: Svar p frga 36 i revisionsrttens enkt till frvaltande myndigheter.
27 To provide an indication of its relative importance, we asked the European Food Banks Federation (FEBA). 
27 Fr att f en uppfattning om Feads relativa betydelse stllde vi frgan till den europeiska sammanslutningen av livsmedelsbanker (Feba).
In 12 Member States, FEBA members provide food to charities also with FEAD financing. 
I tolv medlemsstater delar Feba-medlemmar ut livsmedel till vlgrenhetsorganisationer ocks med Fead-finansering.
Based on figures received, we estimate that FEAD finances a third of the food provided by those food banks. 
P grundval av de uppgifter som vi ftt uppskattar vi att Fead finansierar en tredjedel av de livsmedel som dessa livsmedelsbanker delar ut.
The FEBA pointed out that FEAD allows them to plan the redistribution of specific foods, such as baby milk. 
Feba ppekade att Fead gr det mjligt fr dem att planera omfrdelning av specifika livsmedel, till exempel mjlkersttning.
In this way, they are less dependent on the irregular flow of donations (for more data on FEBA in FEAD, please refer to Annex II). 
P s vis r de mindre beroende av det oregelbundna fldet av gvor (fler uppgifter om Feba i Fead finns i bilaga II).
Targeting of FEAD support is essential but not always set at programme level The FEAD framework provides flexibility to Member States in defining the Ňmost deprivedÓ 28 The basic FEAD Regulation states that Member States or partner organisations may define who is considered as being Ňmost deprivedÓ (see Box 2). 
Att Fead-stdet riktas r ndvndigt, men det sker inte alltid p programniv Fead-ramen ger medlemsstaterna flexibilitet nr det gller definitionen av Ódem som har det smst stlltÓ 28 Grundfrordningen om Fead anger att medlemsstaterna eller partnerorganisationer fr definiera vem som anses tillhra Ódem som har det smst stlltÓ (se ruta 2).
20 Box 2 ŇMost deprivedÓ defined by Member States Most deprived are: Ňnatural persons, whether individuals, families or households or groups composed of such persons, whose need for assistance has been established according to objective criteria set by the national competent authorities in consultation with the relevant stakeholders, while avoiding conflict of interests, or defined by the partner organisations and which are approved by those national authorities and which may include elements that allow the targeting of the most deprived persons in certain geographical areasŇ. 
21 Ruta 2 ÓDe som har det smst stlltÓ definieras av medlemsstaterna De som har det smst stllt r Ófysiska personer, antingen enskilda, familjer, hushll eller grupper bestende av sdana personer, vars behov av bistnd har faststllts p grundval av objektiva kriterier som angetts av behriga nationella myndigheter i samrd med relevanta aktrer, med undvikande av intressekonflikter, eller som definierats av partnerorganisationer och som godknts av dessa nationella behriga myndigheter och som kan innehlla sdana element som gr det mjligt att rikta in sig p de personer som har det smst stllt i vissa geografiska omrdenÓ.
Source: Basic FEAD Regulation, Article 2.2. 
Klla: Artikel 2.2 i grundfrordningen om Fead.
Targeting is essential given the limited budgetary resources 29 If FEAD was the only source of funds addressing poverty in the EU, the resources would be very limited (see Box 3). 
Att stdet riktas r ndvndigt med hnsyn till de begrnsade budgetresurserna 29 Om Fead var den enda kllan till medel fr att minska fattigdomen i EU skulle resurserna vara mycket knappa (se ruta 3).
30 However, FEAD is not expected to eliminate EU poverty on its own. 
30 Men Fead frvntas inte utrota fattigdomen i EU p egen hand.
It should complement national and regional support schemes, private initiatives and other EU funds, such as the ESF. 
Den ska komplettera nationella och regionala stdsystem, privata initiativ och andra EU-fonder, till exempel ESF.
If FEAD is to provide more added value alongside the other support schemes, it needs to be targeted to the people most in need, or the most extreme forms of poverty. 
Om Fead ska ge ett strre mervrde vid sidan av de vriga stdprogrammen, mste den riktas till de mest behvande eller mot de mest extrema formerna av fattigdom.
Ensuring this can be difficult given the large number of organisations involved. 
Att skerstlla detta kan vara svrt eftersom s mnga organisationer r inblandade.
While the existence of large networks of partner organisations may ensure better responses to local needs, it is also making coordination more challenging. 
Med hjlp av stora ntverk av partnerorganisationer kan lokala behov tillgodoses bttre, men det blir ocks svrare att samordna stdet.
Data from our survey indicates that some 5 700 partner organisations are involved in organising the aid and a further 14 000 beneficiaries deliver the aid (see Annex I). 
Enligt uppgifter i vr enkt r omkring 5 700 partnerorganisationer inblandade i organiseringen av bistndet, och ytterligare 14 000 stdmottagare tillhandahller bistndet (se bilaga I).
Facing such a situation, Member States can either target at the level of the operational programmes, or leave targeting of those most in need to the discretion of the partner organisations. 
Infr en sdan situation kan medlemsstaterna antingen rikta stdet p operativ programniv eller lta partnerorganisationerna avgra hur stdet ska riktas till de mest behvande.
In both, ensuring targeting to those most in need is essential to ensure the fundŐs effectiveness. 
I bda fallen r det ndvndigt att stdet riktas till de mest behvande fr att fondens ndamlsenlighet ska skerstllas.
Only half of Member States examined target the aid at operational programme level 32 We have identified through our review of eight type I operational programmes, that four do target specific populations. 
Endast hlften av de granskade medlemsstaterna riktar stdet p operativ programniv 32 Vi konstaterade vid vr granskning av tta operativa program av typ I att fyra r inriktade p specifika grupper.
population (see Box 4). This approach supports good use of the limited funding from FEAD and ensures delivering the aid to those most in need. 
En medlemsstat faststllde inte bara en mlgrupp utan ocks vilka tgrder och typer av livsmedelsstd som skulle riktas till den (se ruta 4). Ett sdant tillvgagngsstt innebr att den begrnsade finansieringen frn Fead anvnds vl och skerstller att bistndet ges till de mest behvande.
33 From our survey, we also see that more than half of Member States link the receipt of FEAD aid to being eligible for various forms of social assistance (see Figure 9). 
33 Av vr enkt framgr ocks att mer n hlften av medlemsstaterna knyter Fead-bistndet till berttigande till olika former av socialt bistnd (se figur 9).
This implies that the funding from FEAD will be concentrated on defined groups of people, therefore a form of targeting which potentially increases its impact and makes monitoring easier. 
Det innebr att finansieringen frn Fead koncentreras till definierade grupper av personer, vilket r en form av riktat std som potentiellt kar dess effekter och underlttar vervakning.
Source: Replies to question 21 of ECA survey addressed to managing authorities. 
NEJ 46 % JA 54 % JA NEJ Klla: Svar p frga 21 i revisionsrttens enkt till frvaltande myndigheter.
34 Where Member States define stricter access rules, eligibility lists are mostly defined by public bodies (national, regional or local bodies), and to a lesser extent by partner organisations and beneficiaries (see Figure 10). 
34 Om medlemsstaterna faststller strngare regler fr tillgng till fonden faststlls stdberttigandelistorna fr det mesta av offentliga (nationella, regionala eller lokala) organ och i mindre omfattning av partnerorganisationer och stdmottagare (se figur 10).
Figure 10 Đ Who defines eligibility criteria? 
Figur 10 Đ Vem faststller stdkriterier?
23 Source: Replies to question 22 of ECA survey addressed to managing authorities. 
Offentligaorgan 69 % Klla: Svar p frga 22 i revisionsrttens enkt till frvaltande myndigheter.
35 We also found that some Member States define the most deprived in very broad terms in their operational programmes. 
35 Vi konstaterade ocks att vissa medlemsstater definierar Óde som har det smst stlltÓ i mycket allmnna ordalag i sina operativa program.
As a result, FEAD support becomes accessible to a wide range of end recipients. 
Det leder till att Fead-stdet blir tillgngligt fr en mngd olika slutmottagare.
This is most prevalent in Member States which address food support through FEAD as a continuation of the MDP (Belgium, Spain, France and Poland). 
Detta r vanligast i medlemsstater som ser livsmedelsstd genom Fead som en fortsttning av ordningen fr utdelning av livsmedel till de smst stllda i unionen (Belgien, Spanien, Frankrike och Polen).
36 These four Member States do not target specific population groups in their operational programmes, even though their programmes contain a good analysis of the national poverty situation. 
36 Dessa fyra medlemsstater riktar inte in sig p specifika befolkningsgrupper i sina operativa program, trots att deras program innehller en god analys av den nationella fattigdomssituationen.