natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
86 As regards the result indicator used for measures 321, 322 and 323, ‘population in rural areas benefiting from improved services’, the Commission accepted the reported figures, despite the risk of over-estimating the number of users. 
86 Nr det gller den resultatindikator som anvnds fr tgrderna 321, 322 och 323, Ólandsbygdsbefolkning som fr ta del av frbttrade tjnsterÓ godtog kommissionen de rapporterade uppgifterna trots risken fr att antalet anvndare verskattades.
For the 2014-2020 period, a similar result indicator will be used for these measures (‘Percentage of rural population benefiting from improved services/infrastructures’). 
Fr programperioden 2014Đ2020 kommer en liknande resultatindikator att anvndas fr dessa tgrder (Óprocentandel av landsbygdsbefolkningen som fr ta del av frbttrade tjnster/infrastruktu-rerÓ).
The Commission will not accept the same population being reported several times (for each project implemented in the area) for the new result indicator; however, such a reporting method is explicitly allowed for the new output indicator, ‘Population benefiting from improved services/infrastructures’. 
Kommissionen kommer inte att acceptera att samma befolkning rapporteras flera gnger (fr varje projekt som genomfrs i omrdet) fr den nya resultatindikatorn; den rapporteringsmetoden r dock uttryckligen tillten nr det gller den nya outputindikatorn Óprocentandel av landsbygdsbefolkningen som fr ta del av frbttrade tjnster/infrastrukturerÓ.
87 The Court could not assess at the time of the audit to what extent the new indicators will remedy the weaknesses of the previous ones. 
87 Nr revisionen genomfrdes kunde vi inte bedma i vilken utstrckning de nya indikatorerna kommer att tgrda bristerna i de frra indikatorerna.
However, assessing the effectiveness of the measures only on the basis of the change in agricultural output, percentage of land switching to a more efficient irrigation system and the population benefiting from the new infrastructure will not provide a complete picture on the success or otherwise of the funds allocated to the measures, given the great diversity of projects financed. 
Men att bedma tgrdernas ndamlsenlighet enbart utifrn frndring i jordbruksproduktionen, procentandel bevattnad mark som stlls om till effektivare bevattningssystem och procentandel av landsbygdsbefolkningen som fr ta del av frbttrade infrastrukturer ger ingen fullstndig bild av om de medel som frdelats till tgrderna har varit framgngsrika eller inte med hnsyn till den stora mngfalden av finansierade projekt.
37 Article 79 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. 
37 Artikel 79 i rdets frordning (EG) nr 1698/2005.
Observations 43 88 In the 2007-2013 programming period, due to the significant delays in the implementation of infrastructure measures, there was a mismatch between the spending cycle and the timing of the reporting requirements. 
Iakttagelser 43 88 Under programperioden 2007Đ2013 var det p grund av de stora frseningarna i infrastrukturtgrderna en obalans mellan utgiftscykeln och tidpunkten fr rapporteringskraven.
This led to a lack of pertinent data for mid-term evaluations and, most likely, even the ex post evaluations will come too early to be able to use reliable data. 
Det ledde till att det saknades aktuella uppgifter till halvtidsutvrderingarna, och det r hgst troligt att ven efterhandsutvrderingarna kommer att komma fr tidigt fr att man ska kunna anvnda tillfrlitliga uppgifter.
If monitoring and evaluation information is not available at key reporting moments, Member States and the Commission cannot use it to improve the implementation of the measures. 
Om vervaknings- och utvrderingsinformationen inte finns tillgnglig vid viktiga rappor-teringstillfllen kan medlemsstaterna och kommissionen inte anvnda den till att frbttra genomfrandet av tgrderna.
89 This situation is likely to persist in the 2014-2020 programming period, as Member States are required to prepare the first ‘enhanced annual implementation report’ including evaluation findings, in 2017, even though spending started quite late due to delays in the RDP approval process38. 
89 Den hr situationen kommer troligtvis att kvarst under programperioden 2014Đ2020 eftersom medlemsstaterna ska utarbeta den frsta utkade rliga genomfranderapporten, inbegripet utvrderingsresultat, 2017, ven om hanteringen av utgifter brjade ganska sent p grund av frseningar i processen fr att godknna landsbygdspro-grammen38.
The absence of timely, reliable and pertinent information on the results of the use of the public funds invested in infrastructure makes the result-based management of future funds difficult to achieve. 
Avsaknaden av tillfrlitlig och relevant information i tid om resultatet av anvndningen av de offentliga medel som investerats i infrastruktur gr det svrt att uppn en resultatbaserad frvaltning av framtida medel.
38 Only 79 of the 118 RDPs had been approved by the Commission by September 2015. 
38 Endast 79 av de 118 landsbygdsutvecklingsprogram- men hade godknts av kommissionen i september 2015.
Conclusions and 44 recommendations 90 In 2007-2013 the EU provided 13 billion euro for rural infrastructure projects aimed at boosting the competitiveness of agricultural and forestry holdings and improving the quality of life in the countryside. 
Slutsatser och 44 rekommendationer 90 Under perioden 2007Đ2013 frdelade EU 13 miljarder euro till infrastrukturprojekt p landsbygden som ska ka jordbruks-och skogsbruksfretags konkurrenskraft och frbttra livskvaliteten p landsbygden.
Together with Member States’ co-financing, the total support channelled through four rural development measures reached 19 billion euro. 
Tillsammans med medlemsstaternas medfinansiering uppgick det totala belopp som kanaliseras via fyra landsbygdsutvecklingstgrder till 19 miljarder euro.
91 Infrastructure measures were implemented under shared management, whereby the Commission approved the RDPs submitted by Member States, which then selected the projects to be funded. 
91 Infrastrukturtgrderna genomfrdes med delad frvaltning som innebar att kommissionen godknde de landsbygdsprogram som lmnades in av medlemsstaterna, som sedan valde ut vilka projekt som skulle finansieras.
92 The Court’s audit sought to answer the following question: Have the Member States and the Commission achieved value for money with the support for rural infrastructure investments? 
92 Vid revisionen frskte vi besvara fljande frga: Har medlemsstaterna och kommissionen ftt valuta fr pengarna med stdet till infrastrukturinvesteringar p landsbygden?
93 Even though the individual audited projects delivered their expected physical outputs and, in some cases, made a clear positive contribution to the rural areas, the Court found that the Member States and the Commission, acting through shared management, had achieved only limited value for money, as aid was not systematically directed towards the most cost-effective projects addressing the objectives set in the RDPs and there was insufficient information to demonstrate the success or otherwise of the measures. 
93 Enskilda granskade projekt levererade visserligen frvntad fysisk output och gav i vissa fall ett tydligt positivt bidrag till landsbygdsomrdena, men vi konstaterade att medlemsstaterna och kommissionen, som delade p frvaltningen, endast fick begrnsad valuta fr pengarna eftersom stdet inte systematiskt frdelades till de kostnadseffektivaste projekt som arbetade fr de ml som faststllts i landsbygdsprogrammen och eftersom det inte fanns tillrckligt med information som visade om tgrderna hade varit framgngsrika eller inte.
94 The Commission and the Member States share the responsibility for the implementation of a huge number of infrastructure projects, not only related to rural development but across the spectrum of structural funds. 
94 Kommissionen och medlemsstaterna delar p ansvaret fr att genomfra ett mycket stort antal infrastrukturprojekt, som inte bara gller landsbygdsutveckling utan hela spektrumet av strukturmedel.
Despite this, there was little evidence of effective coordination or sharing of best practice in order to improve the management of the funds and achieve greater value for money through, for example, project selection procedures, checks on the reasonableness of costs and sustainability-related checks. 
Trots det fanns det f bevis p att de hade en ndamlsenlig samordning eller utbyte av bsta praxis fr att frbttra frvaltningen av medlen och f mer valuta fr pengarna, t.ex. genom projekturvalsfr-faranden, kontroller av kostnadernas rimlighet och hllbarhetskontroller.
There remains scope for greater cooperation, which would allow for far more to be achieved with the existing level of funding. 
Det finns fortfarande utrymme fr nrmare samarbete, vilket borde gra det mjligt att uppn betydligt mer med den finansiering som finns.
95 The weaknesses identified and the Court’s related recommendations are further developed below. 
95 De konstaterade bristerna och vra rekommendationer beskrivs nrmare nedan.
Conclusions and recommendations 45 96 The audit found that the Member States lacked a coordinated approach for quantifying rural infrastructure needs (e.g. the number of roads needing repairs and the corresponding budget needed) and identifying sources of financing. 
Slutsatser och rekommendationer 45 96 Vid revisionen konstaterade vi att medlemsstaterna saknade en samordnad metod fr att kvantifiera infrastrukturbehoven p landsbygden (t.ex. antalet vgar som behver upprustas och den budget som krvs fr det) och fr att hitta finansieringskllor.
None of the audited RDPs considered the existing national, regional, local public or private funds that could address — or were already addressing — the same needs as the RDPs. 
Inte i ngot av de granskade landsbygdsprogrammen beaktade man de befintliga nationella, regionala eller lokala offentliga eller privata medel som skulle kunna tillgodose Đ eller redan tillgodosg Đ samma behov som landsbygdsprogrammen.
Therefore, there was no attempt to quantify the remaining funding gap — which would justify the EAFRD intervention — for such investments (see paragraphs 20 to 22). 
Drfr gjordes inga frsk att kvantifiera det terstende likviditetsgapet Đ vilket skulle motivera Ejflu-interventio-nen Đ fr sdana investeringar (se punkterna 20Đ22).
97 In the absence of a coordinated approach encompassing all financing possibilities, substitution of funds may occur, leading to an inefficient use of scarce resources. 
97 D det saknas en samordnad metod som omfattar alla finansieringsmjligheter kan ersttning av fonder frekomma, vilket leder till ineffektivt utnyttjande av knappa medel.
In two of the audited Member States, there were indications that substitution had occurred, as the national or regional funds available for rural roads were cancelled or decreased precisely when similar projects started to be supported under the RDP (see paragraphs 23 to 24). 
I tv av de granskade medlemsstaterna fanns det tecken p att ersttning av medel hade frekommit eftersom de nationella eller regionala medel som fanns tillgngliga fr landsvgar drogs tillbaka eller minskades just nr liknande projekt brjade f std inom landsbygdsprogrammet (se punkterna 23Đ24).
98 Although some good practices were identified, Member States did not systematically channel the RDP funding to projects for which there was a demonstrable need for public support. 
98 Vi fann en del exempel p god praxis, men medlemsstaterna kanaliserade inte systematiskt landsbygdsprogrammens finansiering till projekt dr det fanns pvisbart behov av offentligt std.
As a consequence, there is a risk of deadweight and the results achieved by projects cannot necessarily be attributed to the grant (see paragraphs 25 to 30). 
Det betyder att det finns risk fr ddviktseffekt, och det r inte ndvndigtvis s att projektresultaten kan tillskrivas bidraget (se punkterna 25Đ30).
99 The lack of clear demarcation lines led in some cases to the alternate use of different funds for the same types of infrastructure, with the inherent risk of needlessly duplicating management structures (see paragraphs 31 to 32). 
99 Avsaknaden av tydliga avgrnsningar ledde i vissa fall till att olika medel anvndes omvxlande fr samma typer av infrastruktur med den inneboende risken fr att det i ondan skapas dubbla frvaltningsstrukturer (se punkterna 31Đ32).
100 Whilst four of the five Member States audited had set up coordination structures, they did not actively promote complementarity between funds. 
100 Fyra av de fem granskade medlemsstaterna hade inrttat samordningsstrukturer, men de verkade inte aktivt fr komplementaritet mellan medlen.
There were cases where the lack of complementarity with national and local funds jeopardised the efficiency and effectiveness of the projects (see paragraphs 33 to 36). 
Det fanns fall dr bristen p komplementaritet med nationella och lokala medel undergrvde projektens effektivitet och ndamlsenlighet (se punkterna 33Đ36).
101 The Commission took steps to improve coordination between EU funds in the 2014-2020 programming period, but the Member States’ programming documents do not yet provide sufficient assurance that the new approaches will lead to better coordination (see paragraphs 37 to 41). 
101 Kommissionen vidtog tgrder fr att samordningen av EU-medel skulle bli bttre under programperioden 2014Đ2020, men medlemsstaternas planeringsdokument ger nnu inte tillrckliga garantier fr att de nya metoderna kommer att leda till bttre samordning (se punkterna 37Đ41).
Conclusions and recommendations 46 Recommendation 1 — Analysis of needs and coordination between funding sources (a) The Member States should have a coordinated approach for supporting rural infrastructure, which quantifies needs and funding gaps and justifies the use of the RDP measures. 
Slutsatser och rekommendationer 46 Rekommendation 1 Đ Behovsanalys och samordning mellan finansieringskllor a) Medlemsstaterna br ha en samordnad metod fr att stdja infrastruktur p landsbygden, dr de kvantifierar behov och likviditetsgap och motiverar anvndningen av landsbygdsutvecklingstgrder.
This approach should consider the EU, national, regional and local public funds and the private funds that could address — or are already addressing — the same needs as the RDP. 
Med den metoden br man vervga vilka EU-medel, nationella, regionala eller lokala och privata medel som skulle kunna tillgodose Đ eller som redan tillgodoser Đ samma behov som de i landsbygdsprogrammen.
Member States should ensure that RDP funds do not merely replace other public funds dedicated to the same policy area and select projects for which there is a demonstrable need for public support and which deliver added value. (b) In fulfilling its role in shared management, the Commission should promote the adoption of best practices in mitigating the risk of deadweight and encourage Member States to avoid simple substitution of other funds by the RDP resources, thereby achieving greater added value for the EU funds employed. (c) Member States should make better use of the existing coordination structures such as coordination bodies and joint management, control and monitoring arrangements to implement effective mechanisms aimed at minimising gaps and overlaps in funding, in line with the guiding principles of the common strategic framework. 
Medlemsstaterna br se till att landsbygdsutvecklingsmedlen inte bara erstter andra offentliga medel som r mnade fr samma politikomrde och vlja ut projekt dr det finns ett pvisbart behov av offentligt std och som ger ett mervrde. b) Vid delad frvaltning br kommissionen verka fr att bsta praxis tillmpas s att risken fr ddviktseffekt minskar och uppmuntra medlemsstaterna att inte bara byta ut andra medel mot landsbygdsutvecklingsmedel och p s stt uppn strre mervrde hos de anvnda EU-medlen. c) Medlemsstaterna br bttre utnyttja de samordningsstrukturer som finns, t.ex. samordningsorgan och gemensamma frvaltnings-, kontroll-och vervakningsrutiner och infra ndamlsenliga mekanismer som minskar luckor och verlappningar i finansieringen i enlighet med de vgledande principerna i den gemensamma strategiska ramen.
For example, Member States could prioritise projects that best fit with national, regional or local plans for the integrated development of infrastructure. (d) The Commission should build upon the first steps taken to ensure effective coordination between the different EU funds and carry out a thorough assessment of the complementarity between the different EU funds to be used by Member States in the 2014-2020 programming period. 
Till exempel skulle medlemsstaterna kunna prioritera de projekt som passar bst ihop med de nationella, regionala eller lokala planerna fr integrerad utveckling av infrastrukturen. Kommissionen br bygga vidare p de frsta tgrder som vidtagits och se till att samordningen av de olika EU-medlen r ndamlsenlig samt gra en ingende bedmning av komplementariteten mellan de olika EU-medel som medlemsstaterna ska anvnda under programperioden 2014Đ2020.
The Commission should be proactive in encouraging Member States to draw on the experience gained with other funds supporting infrastructure (such as the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund) to improve the efficiency of the management of the measures. 
Kommissionen br vara frutseende och uppmuntra medlemsstaterna att lra av erfarenheterna frn andra fonder som ger std till infrastruktur (t.ex. Eruf och Sammanhllningsfonden) och gra frvaltningen av tgrder effektivare.
It should take the opportunity provided by the enhanced annual implementation report to be submitted by Member States in 2019 to assess the effectiveness of the coordination mechanisms and suggest improvements where necessary. 
Kommissionen br ta det tillflle i akt som den utkade rliga genomfranderapport som medlemsstaterna ska lmna in 2019 ger och bedma ndamlsenligheten i samordningsmekanismerna och vid behov fresl hur de kan bli bttre. d)
Conclusions and recommendations 47 102 EU legislation requires Member States to establish selection criteria; these should allow the most effective and efficient eligible projects to be prioritised, and provide a basis for rejecting those that do not represent value for money. 
Slutsatser och rekommendationer 47 102 Enligt EU-lagstiftningen ska medlemsstaterna faststlla urvalskriterier som gr att de ndamlsenligaste och effektivaste stdberttigande projekten prioriteras och ger underlag fr att avsl dem som inte ger valuta fr pengarna.
In the Member States audited, selection criteria were either not set out or they did not always lead to actual prioritisation of the most cost-effective projects in relation to the RDP objectives (see paragraphs 43 to 49). 
I de granskade medlemsstaterna faststllde man antingen inga urvalskriterier eller s ledde de inte alltid till att de kostnadseffektivaste projekten med avseende p mlen i landsbygdsprogrammet verkligen valdes ut (se punkterna 43Đ49).
103 The Court identified weaknesses in the systems put in place by the Member States to assess the reasonableness of project costs. 
103 Vi konstaterade brister i de system som medlemsstaterna har infrt fr att bedma projektkostnadernas rimlighet.
These weaknesses increase the risk of public funds not being spent in the most economical way. 
Bristerna kar risken fr att offentliga medel inte anvnds p det sparsammaste sttet.
The Member States audited mainly relied on the use of reference prices and public procurement procedures to ensure the reasonableness of costs. 
De granskade medlemsstaterna frlitade sig frmst p referenspriser och frfaranden fr offentlig upphandling fr att garantera att kostnaderna var rimliga.
However, these tools were not adequately applied to ensure reasonableness of costs, as the Court has noted in its previous reports. 
Men de verktygen tillmpades inte p lmpligt stt fr att kostnadernas rimlighet skulle kunna garanteras, vilket vi har konstaterat i tidigare rapporter.
Although widely used, the systems based on reference price lists showed serious limitations, as reference prices were often set above the real market prices at which transactions happen (for example when competitive tenders are organised). 
De system som grundas p referensprislis-tor hade stora begrnsningar, ven om de anvndes flitigt, eftersom referenspriser ofta ligger ver de verkliga marknadspriser till vilka transaktioner grs (t.ex. nr konkurrensutsatta anbudsomgngar anordnas).
In several cases, public procurement processes hindered fair competition and reasonableness of costs (see paragraphs 50 to 54). 
I flera fall hindrade den offentliga upphandlingen rttvis konkurrens och rimliga kostnader (se punkterna 50Đ54).
104 To ensure the sustainability of investments, the audited Member States generally applied the standard 5-year commitment period requirement — which in practice was reduced to much less for most of the projects. 
104 Fr att garantera investeringarnas hllbarhet tillmpade de granskade medlemsstaterna i allmnhet stan-dardkravet p en femrig tagande-period Đ som i praktiken blev mycket kortare fr merparten av projekten.
For certain projects, three of the audited Member States applied longer commitment periods, which were more in line with the useful life of the investments. 
Nr det gller vissa projekt tillmpade tre av de granskade medlemsstaterna lngre tagandeperioder, som stmde bttre verens med investeringarnas livslngd.
However, none of the audited Member States asked beneficiaries to provide a detailed maintenance plan and to set aside some budget for maintenance (see paragraphs 55 to 60). 
Men ingen av de granskade medlemsstaterna bad stdmottagarna att lmna in en underhllsplan eller att avstta en del av budgeten till underhll (se punkterna 55Đ60).
105 To make EAFRD funding attractive to potential beneficiaries and to allow projects to generate timely benefits for rural areas, administrative procedures should not be excessively long and burdensome. 
105 Fr att Ejflu-finansiering ska bli attraktiv fr potentiella stdmottagare och projekt ska kunna generera frdelar fr landsbygdomrden i rimlig tid br de administrativa frfarandena inte vara fr lngdragna och krngliga.
Two of the audited Member States/regions did not set deadlines for processing grant and payment applications, whereas the other three largely exceeded the deadlines they had set, especially for grant applications (see paragraphs 61 to 65). 
Tv av de granskade medlemsstaterna/ regionerna satte inga tidsfrister fr behandlingen av bidrags-och betalningsanskningar, medan de andra tre kraftigt verskred de satta tidsfristerna, srskilt fr bidragsanskningar (se punkterna 61Đ65).
106 In the first part of the 2007-2013 programming period, the Commission did not sufficiently encourage Member States to follow the value-for-money principles (economy, efficiency and effectiveness), for example by setting selection criteria prioritising the most cost-effective projects, applying sound reference prices and ensuring fair and competitive public procurement procedures. 
106 Under den frsta delen av programperioden 2007Đ2013 uppmanade kommissionen inte medlemsstaterna tillrckligt att flja principerna om att man ska f valuta fr pengarna (sparsamhet, effektivitet och ndaml-senlighet), t.ex. genom att faststlla urvalskriterier som prioriterar de kostnadseffektivaste projekten, anvnda rimliga referenspriser och garantera rttvisa och konkurrensutsatta frfaranden fr offentlig upphandling.
The Commission has, however, proposed some improvements for the 2014-2020 programming period (see paragraphs 66 to 72). 
Kommissionen har dock freslagit en del frbttringar till programperioden 2014Đ2020 (se punkterna 66Đ72).