natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Introduction 09 The importance of rural infrastructure investments in the European Union Rural development support for infrastructure investments 02 Some 13 billion euro, amounting to 13.5 % of the total EAFRD funding, were allocated to infrastructure investments in the 2007-2013 programming period (see Annex I). 
Inledning 09 Betydelsen av investeringar i infrastruktur p landsbygden i Europeiska unionen Landsbygdsutvecklingsstd till investeringar i infrastruktur 02 Omkring 13 miljarder euro, vilket motsvarar 13,5 % av den totala Ejflu-finansieringen, frdelades till infrastrukturinvesteringar under programperioden 2007Đ2013 (se bilaga I).
The total public expenditure programmed by Member States in their RDPs, including national co-financing, was 19 billion euro, of which almost 12 billion euro had been spent by the end of 2013. Although 2013 corresponds to the end of the programming period, this is not the end of its implementation, which extends until 31 December 20156. 
De totala offentliga utgifter som medlemsstaterna planerade i sina landsbygdsprogram, inbegripet den nationella medfinansieringen, uppgick till 19 miljarder euro, varav nra 12 miljarder euro hade anvnts vid utgngen av 2013. ven om 2013 markerar slutet p programperioden r det inte slutet p genomfrandet, som fortstter till och med den 31 december 20156.
Taking into account the beneficiaries’ own contributions, the total volume of investment is expected to reach nearly 29 billion euro. 
Om man tar med stdmottagarnas egna bidrag i berkningen frvntas den totala investeringsvolymen uppg till nrmare 29 miljarder euro.
03 The main measures chosen by the Member States to support infrastructure under their RDPs in the 2007-2013 programming period were the following: — measure 125: ‘Infrastructure related to the development and adaptation of agriculture and forestry’; — measure 321: ‘Basic services for the economy and rural population’; — measure 322: ‘Village renewal and development’; — measure 323: ‘Conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage’. The abovementioned measures will be referred to in this report as ‘infrastructure measures’. 
03 Medlemsstaterna valde frmst ut fljande tgrder fr std till infrastruktur inom sina landsbygdsprogram under programperioden 2007Đ2013: Ń tgrd 125: ÓInfrastruktur som r av betydelse fr utveckling och anpassning inom jordbruket och skogsbruket.Ó Ń tgrd 321: ÓGrundlggande tjnster fr ekonomin och befolkningen p landsbygden.Ó Ń tgrd 322: ÓFrnyelse och utveckling av byar.Ó Ń tgrd 323: ÓBevarande och uppgradering av natur-och kulturarvet p landsbygden.Ó I fortsttningen kallar vi dessa tgrder infrastrukturtgrder i rapporten.
5 Council Decision 2006/144/EC of 20 February 2006 on Community strategic guidelines for rural development (programming period 2007 to 2013) (OJ L 55, 25.2.2006, p. 
5 I rdets beslut av den 20 februari 2006 om gemenskapens strategiska riktlinjer fr landsbygdsutvecklingen (programperiod 2007Đ2013) (EUT L 55, 25.2.2006, s.
20) sets out the Community priorities for rural development, as required by Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p.1). 
20) faststlls gemenskapens prioriteringar fr landsbygdsutvecklingen, ssom krvs i artikel 9 i rdets frordning (EG) nr 1698/2005 av den 20 september 2005 om std frn Europeiska jordbruksfonden fr landsbygdsutveckling (Ejflu) till utveckling av landsbygden (EUT L 277, 21.10.2005, s. 1).
6 Under the ‘N+ 2 rule’, the Member States can incur expenditure for the 2007-2013 programmes until the end of 2015. 
6 Enligt n + 2-regeln fr medlemsstaterna ha utgifter inom programmen 2007Đ2013 fram till slutet av 2015.
Good infrastructure (roads, water supply, sewerage systems, flood prevention systems, irrigation pipes, etc.) helps to boost economic growth and to increase the attractiveness of rural areas. 
God infrastruktur (vgar, vattenfrsrjning, avloppssystem, anordningar fr att frebygga versvmningar, bevattningsrr m.m.) bidrar till att ka den ekonomiska tillvxten och gra landsbygdsomrdena attraktivare.
The Community strategic guidelines, adopted by the Council in 20065, identify the European Union’s priorities under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). 
I gemenskapens strategiska riktlinjer, som antogs av rdet 20065, faststlls Europeiska unionens prioriteringar inom Europeiska jordbruksfonden fr landsbygdsutveckling (Ejflu).
The guidelines emphasised the importance to be attached to the upgrading of local infrastructure in the 2007-2013 programming period: ‘Significant investment will be undertaken in major telecommunications, transport, energy and water infrastructure over the coming years. 
I riktlinjerna betonas hur viktigt det r att den lokala infrastrukturen uppgraderas under programperioden 2007Đ2013: ÓUnder de nrmaste ren kommer det att gras betydande investeringar i strre infrastrukturer fr telekommunikation, transport, energi och vatten.
Considerable support will be available from the Structural Funds, ranging from trans-European networks to the development of connections to business or science parks. 
Strukturfonderna kommer att erbjuda betydande std, alltifrn std till transeuropeiska nt till utvecklingen av samarbete med fretag eller vetenskaps-parker (science parks).
For the multiplier effect to be fully realised in terms of jobs and growth, small-scale local infrastructure, supported within rural development programmes, can play a vital role in connecting these major investments to local strategies for the diversification and development of agricultural and food-sector potential.’ 
Fr att multiplikatoreffekten skall kunna omsttas helt och hllet i arbetstillfllen och tillvxt, kan smskalig lokal infrastruktur som fr std via program fr landsbygdsutveckling spela en betydande roll nr det gller att slussa dessa stora investeringar till lokala strategier fr diversifiering och utveckling av den potential som finns inom jordbruks-och livsmedelssektorn.Ó
Introduction 10 04 The EU rural development regulation applicable to the 2007-2013 programming period sets neither the maximum eligible amount nor the maximum aid rate for projects under these measures. 
Inledning 10 04 I EU:s landsbygdsutvecklingsfrord-ning fr programperioden 2007Đ2013 faststlls varken ett hgsta stdberttigande belopp eller en hgsta stdsats fr projekt inom dessa tgrder.
Member States determine these elements in their RDPs, in accordance with EU state aid rules. 
Medlemsstaterna avgr det i sina landsbygdsprogram i enlighet med EU:s regler fr statligt std.
The standard aid rates are usually high, and ranged from 70 % to 100 % in the RDPs audited. 
Standardstdssatserna r i regel hga och lg mellan 70 och 100 % i de landsbygdsprogram som vi granskade.
Box 1 gives typical examples of the projects funded under each of these measures, which were mainly used by public beneficiaries, but were also open to private beneficiaries. Examples of projects funded by the rural infrastructure measures Farm roads in Italy (Sicily) (measure 125, private beneficiary) Eligible cost: 1 330 000 euro Aid rate: 80 % Extension of a day care centre in Germany (Saxony) (measure 321, public beneficiary) Eligible cost: 145 000 euro Aid rate: 100 % Box 1 
I ruta 1 finns exempel p typiska projekt som finansierades inom var och en av dessa tgrder, som frmst utnyttjats av offentliga stdmottagare men ven var ppna fr privata stdmottagare. Exempel p projekt som finansierades av infrastrukturtgrder p landsbygden Landsvgar i Italien (Sicilien) (tgrd 125, privat stdmottagare). Stdberttigande kostnad: 1 330 000 euro.
05 Depending on the measure under which they are supported, infrastructure projects should contribute either to the objective of improving the competitiveness of the agriculture and forestry sector (measure 125) or to the objective of improving the quality of life in rural areas (measures 321, 322 and 323). 
05 Beroende p inom vilken tgrd infrastrukturprojekten fr std br de antingen bidra till mlet att ka konkurrensen i jordbruks-och skogsbrukssektorn (tgrd 125) eller till mlet att frbttra livskvaliteten p landsbygden (tgrderna 321, 322 och 323).
Infrastructure projects contributing to the same objectives could also be implemented following a bottom-up (‘LEADER’) approach7. 
Infrastrukturprojekt som bidrar till samma ml kan ocks genomfras med en metod som innebr att man har ett underifrnperspektiv (Leadermodellen)7.
06 The regulatory framework for allocating EAFRD funding to infrastructure projects is based on shared management. 
06 Regelverket fr frdelning av Ejflu-finansiering till infrastrukturprojekt grundas p delad frvaltning.
Under this system, the Member States submit their RDPs for the Commission’s approval. 
Enligt det systemet lmnar medlemsstaterna in sina landsbygdsprogram till kommissionen som godknner dem.
The Commission’s role is to supervise the proper functioning of the management and control systems in Member States and ensure the respect of the principles of sound financial management8. 
Kommissionens uppgift r att vervaka att medlemsstaternas vervaknings-och kontrollsystem fungerar korrekt och se till att principerna fr sund ekonomisk frvaltning fljs8.
Based on the approved RDPs, Member States select the projects to be funded. 
Medlemsstaterna vljer ut vilka projekt som ska finansieras med utgngspunkt i de godknda landsbygdsprogrammen.
7 A method to achieve the objectives of the EU’s rural development policy through bottom-up implementation rather than the traditional top-down approach. 
7 En metod fr att uppn mlen med EU:s landsbygdsutvecklingspolitik som innebr att man har ett underifrnperspektiv i stllet fr att anvnda en traditionell toppstyrd metod.
8 See Article 73 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. 
8 Se artikel 73 i rdets frordning (EG) nr 1698/2005.
Introduction 12 07 Figure 1 shows how funding is allocated to infrastructure projects. 
Inledning 12 07 Figur 1 visar hur finansieringen frdelas till infrastrukturprojekt.
The different steps are intended to ensure that funding is directed to the projects that best match the overall policy objectives while meeting the needs and priorities established at Member State or regional level. 
Syftet med de olika stegen r att ge garantier fr att finansieringen riktas till de projekt som bst motsvarar de vergripande politiska mlen samtidigt som de behov och prioriteringar som faststlls p medlemsstatsniv och regional niv tillgodoses och fljs.
08 The EU regulation for the 2014-2020 programming period9 broadly retains the legal requirements set for the 2007-2013 programming period with regard to the audited measures and operations. 
08 I EU:s frordning fr programperioden 2014Đ20209 finns de rttsliga krav som faststlldes fr programperioden 2007Đ2013 i stort sett kvar nr det gller de granskade tgrderna och insatserna.
Member States have earmarked more than 14.65 billion euro for infrastructure measures in the 2014-2020 programming period. 
Medlemsstaterna har ronmrkt mer n 14,65 miljarder euro till infrastrukturtgrder under programperioden 2014Đ2020.
Thus, the findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are also relevant for the 2014-2020 programming period. 
De granskningsresultat, slutsatser och rekommendationer som vi presenterar i rapporten r drfr ven relevanta fr programperioden 2014Đ2020.
9 Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 
9 Europaparlamentets och rdets frordning (EU) nr 1305/2013 av den 17 december 2013 om std fr landsbygdsutveckling frn Europeiska jordbruksfonden fr landsbygdsutveckling (Ejflu) och om upphvande av rdets frordning (EG) nr 1698/2005 (EUT L 347, 20.12.2013, s.
Regulatory framework for allocating EAFRD funding to projects Rural development policy established at EU level (Community strategic guidelines, Council regulation) Proposed by the Commission and approved by the Council Strategic programming at Member State level (National strategy plan, rural development programme) Proposed by the Member States and approved by the Commission Detailed rules and procedures at Member State level (National or regional legislation, procedures, guides) Project selection Funding allocated to rural infrastructure projects Source: European Court of Auditors. 
Regelverk fr frdelning av Ejflu-finansiering till projekt Landsbygdsutvecklingspolitik p EU-niv (Gemenskapens strategiska riktlinjer och rdets frordning) Fresls av kommissionen och godknns av rdet Strategisk planering p medlemsstatsniv (Nationell strategisk plan och landsbygdsprogram) Fresls av medlemsstaten och godknns av kommissionen Detaljerade regler och frfaranden p medlemsstatsniv (Nationell eller regional lagstiftning, frfaranden och riktlinjer) Projekturval Finansiering tilldelas infrastrukturprojekt p landsbygden Klla: Europeiska revisionsrtten.
Audit scope and approach 13 09 The 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? 
Revisionens inriktning och 13 omfattning samt revisionsmetod 09 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?
10 The Court assessed the justification of the need for EU funds for rural infrastructure and the coordination with other funds (Part I of the report). 
10 Vi bedmde hur behovet av EU-medel till infrastruktur p landsbygden motiverades och hur de samordnades med andra medel (del I av rapporten).
Several key aspects related to the Member States’ implementation of the measures were further analysed: the application of selection criteria, the checks on the reasonableness of costs, the sustainability-related requirements and the timeliness of the administrative processes (Part II). 
Flera centrala aspekter av medlemsstaternas genomfrande av tgrderna analyserades vidare: tillmpningen av urvalskriterier, kontrollerna av kostnadernas rimlighet, hllbarhetskraven och de administrativa frfarandenas tidstgng (del II).
The Court also assessed whether the results of the measures had been monitored and evaluated in such a way as to allow the Member States and the Commission to identify and respond to any problems which may have arisen, and to provide objective information on the results of the measures financed (Part III). 
Vi bedmde ven om tgrdernas resultat vervakades och utvrderades p ett sdant stt att medlemsstaterna och kommissionen kunde identifiera och tgrda eventuella problem som uppkommit och ge objektiv information om de finansierade tgrdernas resultat (del III).
11 The audit, which was carried out between November 2014 and June 2015, concerns the design and implementation of the infrastructure measures in the 2007-2013 programming period. 
11 Revisionen genomfrdes mellan november 2014 och juni 2015 och gller utformningen och genomfrandet av infrastrukturprojekt under programperioden 2007Đ2013.
Audit visits were made to the Commission and to five Member States, selected on the basis of the significance of the amounts allocated to rural infrastructure10. 
Vi gjorde granskningsbesk vid kommissionen och i fem medlemsstater, som valdes ut utifrn storleken p de belopp som frdelats till infrastruktur p landsbyg-den10.
These Member States were: Germany (Saxony), Spain (Extremadura), Italy (Sicily), Poland and Romania. 
Medlemsstaterna var Tyskland (Sachsen), Spanien (Extremadura), Italien (Sicilien), Polen och Rumnien.
12 The audit focused on infrastructure investments financed under measures 125, 321, 322 and 323. 
12 Revisionen inriktades p infrastrukturinvesteringar som finansierades inom tgrderna 125, 321, 322 och 323.
Projects financed using the LEADER approach were audited in Germany (Saxony) and Spain (Extremadura), as these two regions used this approach for significant infrastructure investments. 
Vi granskade projekt som finansierats med hjlp av Leadermodellen i Tyskland (Sachsen) och Spanien (Extremadura) eftersom de tv regionerna anvnde den modellen till stora infrastrukturinvesteringar.
13 In terms of project types, the audit concentrated on rural roads, water management infrastructure and social and cultural infrastructure, as these are the main project categories supported under the relevant measures. 
13 I frga om projekttyper koncentrerade vi revisionen p landsvgar, vatten-frvaltningsinfrastruktur och social och kulturell infrastruktur eftersom de tre r de huvudsakliga projektkategorier som fr std inom de respektive tgrderna.
14 The audit analysed the systems used by managing authorities and/or paying agencies to implement support for infrastructure projects, as well as the key management information derived from Member States’ control and monitoring activities. 
14 Vi analyserade de system som frvaltningsmyndigheter och/eller utbetalande organ anvnder fr att genomfra std till infrastrukturprojekt och ven den centrala frvaltningsinformationen frn medlemsstaternas kontroll-och vervakningsverksamhet.
This entailed the examination of 48 project files, selected as a sample of infrastructure projects typical of those financed in the Member State concerned. 
Det innebar att vi granskade 48 projekthandlingar, som valdes ut som ett stickprov av typiska infrastrukturprojekt som fick finansiering i den berrda medlemsstaten.
Site visits, involving interviews with the beneficiaries, were made to 32 of these projects, while the remaining 16 project files were checked through a documentary review. 
Vi gjorde besk p plats dr vi intervjuade stdmottagarna vid 32 av dessa projekt medan handlingarna fr de terstende 16 projekten kontrollerades vid en dokumentgranskning.
More information about the projects visited can be found in Annex II. 
Nrmare information om de beskta projekten finns i bilaga II.
10 See Annex I for detailed financial figures on programmed and realised expenditure per Member State. 
10 I bilaga I finns detaljerade finansiella uppgifter om planerade och verkstllda utgifter per medlemsstat.
Observations 14 Part I — Insufficient justification for using EU rural development funds and weak coordination with other funds 15 Infrastructure investments in rural areas can receive funding from several sources. 
Iakttagelser 14 Del I Đ Otillrcklig motivering till att EU:s landsbygdsutvecklingsmedel anvndes och bristfllig samordning med andra medel 15 Infrastrukturinvesteringar i landsbygdsomrden kan finansieras frn flera kllor.
The Member States often finance such projects from their own national, regional or local budgets, either through dedicated programmes (organised in a similar way to the RDP measures) or through the direct allocation of funds, for example through a specific budget line for road maintenance. 
Medlemsstaterna finansierar ofta sdana projekt frn sina egna nationella, regionala eller lokala budgetar, antingen via srskilda program (som utformas p ett liknande stt som landsbygdsutvecklingst-grderna) eller via en direkt tilldelning av medel, t.ex. genom en srskild budgetpost fr vgunderhll.
16 Furthermore, private beneficiaries may be able to cover at least part of the costs of some infrastructure projects, as they are the main users of investments such as rural roads and irrigation systems that are likely to improve their economic performance. 
16 Vidare kan privata stdmottagare eventuellt st fr tminstone en del av kostnaderna fr en del infrastrukturprojekt, eftersom det r frmst de som anvnder investeringar som landsvgar och bevattningssystem, vilka sannolikt frbttrar deras ekonomiska resultat.
For water supply and sewerage systems, some investment costs are normally recovered from the fees paid by users. 
Nr det gller vattenfrsrjnings- och avloppssystem tervinns i regel en del investeringskostnader genom avgifter som anvndarna betalar.
17 In order to achieve optimum value for money, Member States should identify the rural development needs and, from among these, the main priorities. 
17 Fr att f strsta mjliga valuta fr pengarna br medlemsstaterna kartlgga landsbygdsutvecklingsbehoven och bland dem vlja ut de frmsta prioriteringarna.
After considering all possible interventions that could be financed by the various funds, Member States should decide strategically which funds are best suited to addressing needs and coordinate their use. 
Medlemsstaterna br efter att ha beaktat alla mjliga interventioner som skulle kunna finansieras av de olika medlen strategiskt besluta vilka medel som bst kan tillgodose behoven och samordna anvndningen av dem.
18 Funds can be coordinated effectively by setting demarcation lines (minimising funding overlaps) and ensuring complementarity (minimising funding gaps and encouraging synergies). 
18 Medlen kan samordnas p ett ndamlsenligt stt genom att man gr avgrnsningar (och minimierar finan-sieringsverlappningar) och garanterar komplementaritet (och minimierar likviditetsgap och uppmuntrar syner-gier).
Potential funding gaps in rural areas are particularly detrimental when they occur with infrastructure projects, given that infrastructure generally operates as a network of interconnected elements (e.g. roads, irrigation networks, water supply and sewerage, power grids), in which each element is important for the effective operation of the entire network. 
Potentiella likviditetsgap i landsbygdsomrden r srskilt skadliga nr de uppkommer vid infrastrukturprojekt, med tanke p att infrastrukturen i allmnhet fungerar som ett nt av sammanbundna delar (t.ex. vgar, bevattningsnt, vattenfrsrjnings-och avloppsystem, kraftnt m.m.), dr varje del r viktig fr att hela ntet ska fungera p ett ndamlsenligt stt.
Figure 2 shows a simplified example of how better coordination in a given sector or territory can lead to improved results. 
I figur 2 finns ett frenklat exempel p hur bttre samordning i en bestmd sektor eller ett bestmt omrde kan leda till bttre resultat.
19 The implementing rules for the 2007-2013 EU rural development regulation required Member States to include demarcation criteria and information about complementarity with other EU funds in their RDPs11, but there was no similar requirement with regard to the Member States’ own funds and support programmes. 
19 Enligt tillmpningsfreskrifterna fr programperioden 2007Đ2013 fr EU:s landsbygdsutvecklingsfrord-ning skulle medlemsstaterna ha med avgrnsningskriterier och information om komplementaritet med andra EU-medel i sina landsbygdsprogram11, men det fanns inget liknande krav nr det gllde medlemsstaternas egna medel och stdprogram.
Member States did not always clearly justify the need for the EU rural development funds 20 A first step in justifying the need for EU rural development funds (RDP intervention) is to identify and quantify the need for investments in rural infrastructure. 
Medlemsstaterna gav inte alltid en tydlig motivering till behovet av EU:s landsbygdsutvecklingsmedel 20 Ett frsta steg nr behovet av EU-medel fr landsbygdsutveckling (landsbygdsutvecklingsintervention) ska motiveras r att man kartlgger och kvantifierar behovet av investeringar i infrastruktur p landsbygden.
The audited RDPs explained why support was needed for infrastructure in rural areas. 
I de granskade landsbygdsprogrammen frklarade man varfr stdet behvdes till infrastruktur i landsbygdsomrden.