natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Others aim at preventing fires and other natural disasters and combating erosion. 
Andra syftar till att frebygga brnder och andra naturkatastrofer samt bekmpa erosion.
Eligibility of public land 59. 
Stdberttigad offentliggd mark 59.
The governing Regulation provides that (1), support for forestry may be granted only for forests and areas owned by private owners or by municipalities. Associations of these two owners may also benefit from aid. 
I huvudfrordningen anges att (1) skogsbruksstd enbart kan beviljas till skog och omrden som gs privat eller av kommuner. ven sammanslutningar av dessa bda typer av gare kan f std.
Land and forest owned by public authorities other than municipalities (e.g. State or region) are not eligible. 
Mark och skog som gs av andra offentliga myndigheter n kommuner (till exempel en stat eller region) r inte stdberttigade.
During the audit several managing authorities criticised this, arguing that actions with a significant ecological value were not encouraged (Italy, Spain). 
Vid granskningen framfrdes kritik mot detta frn ett flertal ansvariga myndigheter som ansg att tgrder av stort ekologiskt vrde inte uppmuntrades (Italien och Spanien).
In one Member State (Ireland) a semi-public body, which prima facie was not eligible, benefited from these subsidies. 
I en medlemsstat (Irland) fick ett halvstatligt organ som bevisligen inte var behrigt ta del av stden.
An amendment (2) of the basic Regulation now allows for investments in public forests with the aim of improving their ecological or social value (Article 30(1), second indent). 
Efter en ndring av grundfrordningen (2) tillts nu investeringar i offentliggda skogar fr att frbttra deras ekologiska och sociala vrde (artikel 30.1 andra strecksatsen).
However the non-eligibility for afforestation of public land (with the exception of municipalities) remains. 
Inga std beviljas dock till beskogning av offentliggd mark (med undantag fr kommungda skogar).
Municipalities claimed that they might not have sufficient finance to ensure that seedlings and young plantations are correctly looked after and maintained. 
Kommuner hvdade att de kanske inte har tillrckliga medel fr att garantera att plantor och nyplanteringar fr rtt sktsel och underhll.
This severely risks that projects which have received considerable EU and national funding will fail in subsequent years. 
Detta medfr en stor risk fr att projekt som ftt betydande EU-std och nationella bidrag slr fel under efterfljande r.
Therefore different approaches exist to deal with the same problem. 
Det finns allts olika stt att hantera samma problem.
Although legal, it is doubtful whether these different approaches to funding windfall damages and implementing the strategy are equally valid in the long term. 
De olika synstten p hur stormskador och strategins genomfrande skall finansieras r visserligen lagenliga, men det r tveksamt om de r lika giltiga p lng sikt.
The Commission should assess which approach better complies with the future needs of EU forests. 
Kommissionen mste utvrdera vilket synstt som bst motsvarar de framtida behoven fr EU:s skogar.
For example, in Denmark after the 1999 windfall a scheme was introduced combining insurance against future windfall with Government support to re-establish private forests. Compliance with tendering procedures 64. 
Efter stormskadorna 1999 infrdes till exempel i Danmark ett system med en kombination av frskringar mot framtida stormskador och statliga std fr terstllande av privat skog. verensstmmelse med anbudsfrfaranden 64.
The audit showed that control procedures for public contract tendering for forestry actions should be improved particularly in view of the low level of competition in this area. 
Granskningen visade att kontrollrutinerna vid den offentliga upphandlingen av skogsbrukstgrder mste frbttras, srskilt med tanke p att konkurrensen r liten p omrdet.
Cases of infringement of the tendering procedure were found in two Member States (Italy and Ireland). 
I tv medlemsstater (Italien och Irland) upptcktes fall av vertrdelser av reglerna fr offentlig upphandling.
For the period 1992 to 1999, afforestation of agricultural land under Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 cost 1,519 billion euro to the EU budget. For the period 2000 to 2006, a further 2,38 billion euro of the EU budget were allocated to afforestation of agricultural land under Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999. 
Mellan 1992 och 1999 gick 1 519 miljoner euro av EU:s budget till kostnaderna fr beskogning av jordbruksmark i enlighet med frordning (EEG) nr 2080/92. Under perioden 2000Đ2006 anslogs ytterligare 2380 miljoner euro frn EU-budgeten till beskogning av jordbruksmark enligt frordning (EG) nr 1257/1999.
In the case of agricultural land owned by a private person (the most common case) the cost of financing is composed of three elements: (a) the establishment costs (for preparation and planting); (b) an annual premium per hectare to cover maintenance costs for a period of five years; and (c) an annual premium per hectare to cover the loss of income resulting from afforestation for a period of 20 years (3). 
Nr det gller privatgd jordbruksmark (den vanligaste garformen) bestr finansieringen av tre delar: a) Etableringskostnader (frberedelser och plantering). b) Ett rligt bidrag per hektar fr att tcka underhllskostnader under en femrsperiod. c) Ett rligt bidrag per hektar under en 20-rsperiod fr att tcka inkomstbortfall till fljd av beskogning (3).
(3) Theruraldevelopmentplanssetouttheamountperhectaretobepaid as loss of income compensation for the following 20 years. 
(3) Det belopp per hektar som betalas fr inkomstbortfallet i 20 r anges i planerna fr landsbygdens utveckling.
The compensation for loss of income varies depending on the previous use of the afforested land, being higher in the case of the more remunerative uses and if the beneficiary qualifies as a farmer. 
Inkomstersttningen varierar beroende p den beskogade markens tidigare anvndning. Nivn kar om den tidigare anvndningen har varit mer lnsam och om stdmottagaren kan klassificeras som lantbrukare.
18.3.2005 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 67/15 67. 
18.3.2005 SV Europeiska unionens officiella tidning C 67/15 67.
For example, the EU financing granted to one afforestation project, audited, totalled 847 487 euro (75 % of the total cost) and was constituted as follows: establishment cost 137 940 euro (16 %), maintenance cost for the five years 101 748 euro (12 %) and the costs for loss of income for 20 years 607 799 euro (72 %). 
EU-stdet till ett av de granskade beskognings-projekten uppgick exempelvis till sammanlagt 847 487 euro (75 % av totalkostnaden), frdelat enligt fljande: 137 940 euro (16 %) till kostnader vid etablering, 101 748 euro (12 %) till underhll i fem r och 607 799 euro (72 %) till ersttningar fr inkomstbortfall i 20 r.
In all projects audited, the compensation for loss of income represented more than half of the total cost. 
I samtliga granskade projekt utgjorde ersttningen fr inkomstbortfall mer n hlften av de totala kostnaderna.
Beneficiaries see this compensation as a guaranteed income and it has become the main factor in attracting applications for the measure. 
Stdmottagarna uppfattar denna ersttning som en garanterad inkomst, och det r framfr allt denna ersttning som lockar flest anskningar till tgrden.
For the period 1992 to 1999 under Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 the afforestation of agricultural land was a CAP accompanying measure aiming to promote an alternative use of agricultural land. 
I enlighet med frordning (EEG) nr 2080/92 var beskogningen av jordbruksmark under perioden 1992Đ1999 en kompletterande GJP-tgrd som syftade till att frmja en alternativ anvndning av jordbruksmark.
Since 2000 the measure became part of the rural development support Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 aiming to promote the extension of woodland areas with due regard to environmental impact. 
Efter 2000 har tgrden blivit en del av frordning (EG) nr 1257/1999 om std till utveckling av landsbygden i syfte att ka skogsarealen med vederbrlig hnsyn till miljkonsekvenserna.
Considering this change in focus, the use of most of the resources to compensate for the loss of income over 20 years in case of private agricultural land does not appear to be the most economic option to achieve the given objective and should be reconsidered (see also following paragraphs). 
Med tanke p denna ndrade inriktning verkar inte detta alternativ Đ att utnyttja merparten av medlen till ersttning av inkomstbortfall i 20 r i frga om privatgd jordbruksmark Đ vara det mest ekonomiska tillvgagngssttet fr att uppn det angivna mlet och br drfr omprvas (se ven fljande punkter).
Degree of afforestation is not very significant (Effectiveness) 70. 
Graden av beskogning r inte srskilt betydande (ndamlsenlighet) 70.
According to the official final evaluation of Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92, afforestation was made at a cost of 1,519 billion euro. 
Enligt den officiella slutliga utvrderingen av frordning (EEG) nr 2080/92 uppgick kostnaderna fr beskogning till 1 519 miljoner euro.
In this evaluation it is indicated that the plantations created represented 0,92 % (1 041 589 hectares) of the European forested area of 1998. 
I utvrderingen anges att de nyplanteringar som gjordes motsvarade 0,92 % (1 041 589 hektar) av Europas skogsmark 1998.
The evaluator concluded that Ôoverall this contribution does not seem to be very significantŐ. 
Utvrderaren kom fram till att detta bidrag som helhet inte verkar vara srskilt betydande.
The consequent impact on reducing agricultural production, which was the objective of this regulation, was considered to be quite limited. 
Effekten i form av minskad jordbruksproduktion, som var mlsttningen med frordningen, ansgs vara tmligen begrnsad.
Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 allocated a further 2,38 billion euro to the afforestation of agricultural land over the period 2000 to 2006. 
Genom frordning (EG) nr 1257/1999 anslogs ytterligare 2 380 miljoner till beskogning av jordbruksmark fr perioden 2000Đ2006.
Therefore it is likely that the contribution to the increase in forestry resources will not be more significant under Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 than that obtained under Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92. 
Det r drfr inte troligt att frordning (EG) nr 1257/1999 ger mer betydande bidrag till kade skogsbruksresurser n vad som uppnddes med frordning (EEG) nr 2080/92.
In 1995, the accession of Finland, Sweden and Austria increased the forested area in the EU by around 57 million hectares, from 79 million to 136 million hectares (+ 72 %). 
Med anslutningen av Finland, Sverige och sterrike 1995 kade EU:s skogsareal med runt 57 miljoner hektar, frn 79 till 136 miljoner hektar (+ 72 %).
Enlargement in 2004 will lead to another increase of the EU forests of around 24 million hectares from 136 million to 160 million hectares. 
Utvidgningen 2004 leder till en ny kning av EU:s skogsomrden p runt 24 miljoner hektar, frn 136 miljoner till 160 miljoner hektar.
Afforestation of agricultural land was discussed during a conference on the future of Rural Development which was held in November 2003 (1). 
Beskogning av jordbruksmark diskuterades i november 2003 vid en konferens om den framtida landbygdsutveck-lingen (1).
However, the changing context and the successive enlargement have affected priorities, which, until now, have been insufficiently taken into account. 
De ndrade frutsttningarna och den gradvisa utvidgningen har dock pverkat prioriteringarna, vilket hittills inte har beaktats i tillrckligt hg grad.
Doubts on the effectiveness of afforestation were already raised in 1997 by the Economic and Social Committee (2) which wrote: Ôanother question which needs to be addressed is whether it would be more effective in the long run to use EU resources for promoting the marketing of timber, including its use as an energy source, rather than provide direct assistance for afforestation. 
Ekonomiska och sociala kommittn (2) var redan 1997 skeptisk till hur effektiv beskogningen var och konstaterade fljande: ÓLikas br det klarlggas om det p lng sikt r mer meningsfullt med en riktad insats av EU:s resurser fr att ka avsttningen fr trprodukter, inklusive tr fr energiproduktion, n med direkt bistnd till beskogning.
In particular, EU funds should be allocated to research, training, information, advice and support for rural areas so as to enable the forestry sector to operate and compete more effectively in the longer term. 
I synnerhet br EU-medel avsttas till forskning och utbildning, information och rdgivning samt till tgrder som frmjar landsbygden och p lng sikt kan frbttra ramvillkoren fr skogssektorn.
EU assistance for afforestation should focus on improving the quality of forests through such measures as erosion prevention, conservation of groundwater, protection from fire damage or the re-afforestation of areas devastated by fire. 
EU:s bistnd till beskogning br framfr allt ges till frbttringar av skogarnas kvalitet, till erosionsskydd, till grundvatten-och stormskadeskydd och till uppodling av skogsomrden efter skogsbrnder.
Funding provided under the UnionŐs structural and regional policy programmes should be used more widely to support the application of economical and environmentally-friendly practices in forestry and the forest industry.Ő Many of the recommendations were taken into account in the Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999, however the core expenditure still relates to afforestation. 
EU:s medel till struktur-och regionalpolitiska tgrder br i hgre grad anvndas p ett stt som frmjar ekonomiska och miljvnliga skogsbruk och skogsindustrier.Ó Mnga av dessa rekommendationer beaktades i frordning (EG) nr 1257/1999, men huvuddelen av utgifterna gller fortfarande beskogning.
Result could be better achieved (Efficiency) 75. 
Resultaten skulle kunna ns p bttre stt (effektivitet) 75.
Regarding the objective of increase of woodland areas (see paragraph 8), there are different kind of land which might be afforested. 
Nr det gller mlet att ka skogsarealerna (se punkt 8) finns det olika sorters mark som kan omvandlas till skog.
The Regulation stipulates that where support is granted for afforestation of agricultural land owned by public authorities, it shall cover only the cost of establishment (3), i.e. no loss of income compensation or maintenance are to be paid which is indeed the case for afforestation of private land. 
Enligt frordningen skall std till beskogning av jordbruksmark som fretas av offentliga myndigheter endast tcka etableringskostna-derna (3), det vill sga inga bidrag skall betalas fr ersttning fr inkomstbortfall eller till underhll, vilket dremot grs nr det gller beskogning av privatgd mark.
Thus theoretically it could be argued that if the aim is to extend woodland, focussing this action on public land would be much more efficient. 
Drfr kan det hvdas att det i teorin vore effektivare att rikta tgrderna mot offentliggd mark om mlet r att ka skogsarealerna.
It would lead to a significant economy (no payment of loss of income compensation), thus, with the same funding, allowing for a considerably bigger area to be afforested. 
Detta skulle innebra en betydande besparing (ingen utbetalning av ersttningar fr inkomstbortfall) och fljaktligen mjliggra beskogning av ett betydligt strre omrde med samma medel.
(1) The Conference concluded on the opportunity of Ôrefocusing of afforestation measures to strengthen multi-functionality and sustainability (e.g. risk management, improve environmental benefits and reduce fire risks)Ő. 
(1) Vid konferensen konstaterades att det gr att ndra inriktning p beskogningstgrderna fr att strka skogens mnga olika funktioner och ka hllbarheten (till exempel riskhantering, kade miljvinster och minskad brandrisk).
(2) Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ÔThe situation and problems of forestry in the European Union and potential for developing forestry policiesŐ. 
(2) Ekonomiska och sociala kommittns yttrande ÓSkogsbrukets situation och problem i Europeiska unionen och mjligheter att utveckla skogs-politikenÓ.
(3) Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999. 
(3) Artikel 31 i frordning (EG) nr 1257/1999.
C 67/16 EN Official Journal of the European Union 18.3.2005 It has a very dispersed impact 76. 
C 67/16 SV Europeiska unionens officiella tidning 18.3.2005 Mycket varierande inverkan 76.
Furthermore, the impact of afforestation has been very dispersed due, in part, to its voluntary nature. 
Beskogningens inverkan varierar dessutom kraftigt, delvis p grund av att den r frivillig.
Some farmers apply the measures, others do not. 
En del lantbrukare tillmpar tgrderna, andra inte.
Various Member States (Denmark, Italy, Portugal and Greece) indicated that the effective implementation of an EU-wide forestry policy was affected by the list of actions included in Articles 30 and 32 which they claim looks more like a framework than targeted actions. 
Flera olika medlemsstater (Danmark, Italien, Portugal och Grekland) angav att ett effektivt genomfrande av EU-politiken p skogsbruksomrdet pverkades av tgrdslistan i artiklarna 30 och 32, som de hvdar mer liknar en ram n riktade tgrder.
Measures under Article 32 focus more on environmental benefits. 
De tgrder som nmns i artikel 32 r mer inriktade p miljvrd.
However, the take-up has been extremely low, apparently due to the fact that the maximum premium allowed is not considered attractive enough by potential beneficiaries (all Member States). 
Utnyttjandet har emellertid varit synnerligen lgt, till synes p grund av att de potentiella stdmottagarna (dvs. samtliga medlemsstater) inte anser att de maximala bidragsbeloppen r tillrckligt lockande.
The Commission should study this phenomenon with a view to ensuring that this aspect of the strategy is operating as intended. 
Kommissionen br underska denna freteelse fr att se till att detta inslag i strategin fungerar som tnkt.
The EU has been supporting forestry action since 1964 although no provision is made for a common forestry policy. 
EU har gett std till skogsbruksverksamhet sedan 1964, ven om det inte finnas ngra bestmmelser om en gemensam skogsbrukspolitik.
Since 2000 financial support is granted as part of the EU rural development regulation but is based on international political commitments. 
Sedan 2000 beviljas ekonomiskt std som en del av frordningen om landsbygdens utveckling, men det bygger p internationella politiska taganden.
It is not helped by the fact that Member States define ÔforestŐ differently (see paragraphs 14 to 18). 
Det underlttas inte heller av det faktum att medlemsstaterna definierar ÓskogÓ p olika stt (se punkterna 14Đ18).
The Commission bases its forestry support on there being national or subnational forestry programmes or equivalent instruments but these programmes are rarely available and, if so, their quality is very varied (see paragraphs 23 to 26). 
Kommissionen baserar skogsbruksstdet p att det finns nationella eller subnationella skogsprogram eller likvrdiga instrument, men dessa program r sllan tillgngliga och r, nr de finns, av hgst skiftande kvalitet (se punkterna 23Đ26).
When using equivalent instruments, usually rural development plans, the qualitative assessment of the forestry measures suffers from time constraints and availability of staff. 
Nr likvrdiga instrument anvnds, vanligtvis planer fr landsbygdens utveckling, frsvras bedmningen av skogsbrukstgrdernas kvalitet av tidspress och personalbrist.
The qualitative assessment also suffers from lack of information in the Commission on forestry action by Member States level (see paragraphs 27 to 36). 
Kvalitetsbe-dmningen frsvras ven av att kommissionen saknar information om medlemsstaternas tgrder p skogsbruksomrdet (se punkterna 27Đ36).
Ń The Commission should simplify and make more coherent the legal basis of EU forestry action and work towards a common understanding and interpretation of ÔforestŐ. 
Ń Kommissionen br frenkla den rttsliga grunden fr EU:s skogsbruksverksamhet och gra den mer konsekvent samt arbeta fr en gemensam frstelse och tolkning av begreppet ÓskogÓ.
80. strategy is not clear. 
80. gin r otydlig.
Due to this lack of clarity neither the Member State nor the Commission feel responsible for assessing whether a forestry project contributed to the achievement of the EU forestry strategy (see paragraphs 19 to 22). 
P grund av denna otydlighet knner sig varken medlemsstaterna eller kommissionen ansvariga fr att bedma huruvida ett skogsbruksprojekt har bidragit till att EU:s skogsbruksstrategi uppns (se punkterna 19Đ22).
Ń Clarity should be sought in attributing responsibilities to the Member States and the Commission for the implementation of the EU forestry strategy when EU-financed forestry measures are used. 
Ń Tydlighet br efterstrvas nr medlemsstaterna och kommissionen tilldelas ansvaret fr att genomfra EU:s skogsbruksstrategi med hjlp av EU-finansierade skogsbrukstgrder.
The Commission should ensure that the qualitative assessment of the forestry part in each rural development plan is appropriate. 
Kommissionen br se till att det grs en lmplig kvalitativ bedmning av skogsbruksavsnittet i samtliga planer fr landsbygdens utveckling.
83. ning for up to 20 years have taken up considerable amounts of funds which had been planned to be used for the implementation of afforestation measures as part of rural development. 
83. strcker sig upp till 20 r har tilldelats avsevrda medel som var avsedda att anvndas till genomfrandet av beskogningstgrder som en del av landsbygdens utveckling.
Furthermore, a seven-year programming period is ill-fitted to the longer planning required for forest actions, of up to 20 years (see paragraphs 37 to 39). 
En sjurig programplaneringsperiod r dessutom inte lmplig vid den lngtidsplanering p upp till 20 r som krvs fr skogstgrder (se punkterna 37Đ39).
The use of varying financing arrangements (a mix of EAGGF Guidance and Guarantee funding) has led to a complex delivery system of rural development policy (see paragraphs 40 to 42). 
Utnyttjandet av olika finansieringsstt (en blandning av medel frn EUGFJ-garanti respektive EUGFJ-utveckling) har gett upphov till ett komplicerat system fr genomfrandet av politiken fr landsbygdens utveckling (se punkterna 40Đ42).
Afforestation contracts established before 2000 and run-85. of weaknesses. 
Beskogningsavtal som upprttats fre 2000 och som 85. brister.
There were varying interpretations in prioritising the land to be afforested. 
Det frekom olika tolkningar av vilken mark som skulle prioriteras fr beskogning.
When project applications exceeded available funds, there were no clear criteria for project selection (ranking). 
Nr antalet projektanskningar verskred de tillgngliga medlen fanns inga tydliga kriterier fr projekturval (rangordning).
There were also instances of weak and insufficient control systems operated by the Member States (see paragraphs 43 to 58 and 62 to 64). 
Det frekom ocks fall dr medlemsstaternas kontrollsystem var bristflliga och otillrckliga (se punkterna 43Đ58 och 62Đ64).
Examination of a selection of projects revealed a number 
Vid granskningen av ett urval projekt upptcktes en rad
18.3.2005 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 67/17 Ń Ń The Commission should, together with the Member States, examine the system of application and approval of projects in order to ensure that the most viable and worthy proposals for assistance within the terms of the EU and national strategies receive aid. 
18.3.2005 SV Europeiska unionens officiella tidning C 67/17 Ń Ń Kommissionen br tillsammans med medlemsstaterna granska systemet fr anskningar och projektgodknnande fr att kunna garantera att de frslag som r mest brkraftiga och mest lmpliga fr std ocks fr det genom EU:s strategier och nationella strategier.