natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The encouragement of forage maize production by high levels of Community support, and the lowering of feed prices due to lower cereal prices since 1992, has provided an advantage for intensive raising of livestock indoors, compared to feeding livestock on pasture. 
I och med att det hga EU-stdet har uppmuntrat till odling av fodermajs, och foder har varit relativt billigt p grund av de lgre spannmlspriserna sedan 1992, har de ekonomiska frutsttningarna fr intensiv boskapsuppfdning inomhus frbttrats i frhllande till uppfdning p bete.
The Commission and Eurostat, the European Communities’ statistical office, have acknowledged that some ‘ele-ments of the 1992 reform had a negative effect on the environ-ment.... 
Kommissionen och Eurostat (Europeiska gemenskapernas statistikkontor) har medgivit att vissa delar av 1992 rs reform har haft en negativ inverkan p miljn.
A good example ... was the extension of cereal aid to silage maize ... . 
Ett bra exempel var att spannmlsstdet utkades till att omfatta ven majsensilage.
Furthermore, it is a major weakness of post-reform Community policy that it has not addressed the serious environmental problems arising from intensive livestock production in Europe. 
Vidare r det en stor brist hos EU-politiken efter GJP-reformen att den inte har innehllit tgrder mot de allvarliga miljproblem som skapas av den intensiva boskapsuppfdningen i Europa.
It has been estimated that ‘a modern (relatively small) farm of 40 hectares with a dairy herd of 50 cows and a 50-sow-pig herd has a potential pollution load equivalent to that of a village of 1 000 inhabitants’ (2). 
Uppskattningar har gjorts som visar att ett modernt (relativt litet) jordbruksfretag p 40 hektar med en besttning p 50 mjlkkor och en besttning p 50 svin medfr en potentiell frore-ningsbelastning som motsvarar den frn ett samhlle p 1 000 invnare (2).
The Community taxpayer meets the cost of the ‘export refund’ (export subsidy) regime, which in its present form indirectly encourages intensive pig production in large-scale indoor confinement operations containing thousands of animals (3). 
EU:s skattebetalare str fr kostnaden fr ordningen med exportbidrag, som i sin nuvarande form indirekt uppmuntrar till intensiv svinuppfdning i storskaliga inomhusanlggningar med tusentals djur (3).
These production methods can generate serious problems of nitrate pollution from animal waste (4) and can have serious animal health implications — the ‘potential for effective disease control is likely to get worse unless the whole question is addressed’ (5). 
Dessa produktionsmetoder kan vlla allvarliga problem med nitratfrorening frn animaliskt avfall (4) och kan f allvarliga konsekvenser fr djurens hlsa Đ mjligheterna till verkningsfull sjukdomsbekmpning lr frsmras om inte heltckande tgrder vidtas (5).
Such pollution is particularly problematic throughout the Netherlands and Belgium, and in France (Brittany), Germany (North Rhine-Westphalia), and Italy (Lombardy) (6). 
Sdana froreningar r ett srskilt stort problem i hela Nederlnderna och Belgien samt i delar av Frankrike (Bretagne), Tyskland (Nordrhein-Westfalen) och Italien (Lombardiet) (6).
COMs unreformed by ‘Mac Sharry’ 27. 
Gemensamma marknadsorganisationer som inte reformerades under Mac Sharry 27.
Tobacco production, concentrated in southern Europe, is damaging due to its high demand for pesticides and fertilisers. 
Tobaksproduktionen, som r koncentrerad till sdra EU, vllar skador p grund av sitt stora behov av bekmpnings-och gdningsmedel.
Environmental considerations are integrated in neither the milk regime where intensive production contributes substantially to nitrate and other farm waste pollution problems, nor in the sugar regime, where production of sugar beet requires high amounts of water and herbicides. 
Det finns inga miljhnsyn inarbetade i vare sig ordningen fr mjlkprodukter (dr den intensiva produktionen i hg grad bidrar till froreningsproblem med nitrater och annat jordbruksavfall) eller ordningen fr socker (fr sockerbetsodling krvs stora mngder vatten och ogrsbekmpningsmedel).
Pesticide use is high in areas of intensive horticulture, and also in some wine growing regions (7). 
Anvndningen av bekmpningsmedel r stor i regioner med intensiv trdgrdsodling liksom i vissa vinodlingsregioner (7).
The Court previously noted cases of groundwater pollution resulting from the destruction by burial of large volumes of fruit, withdrawn from the market and paid for by Community support (8). 28. Even recent developments in some COMs have failed to take adequate account of environmental concerns. 
Revisionsrtten har tidigare noterat fall dr grundvatten hade frorenats p grund av att man fr destruktion hade grvt ned stora mngder frukt som hade dragits tillbaka frn marknaden mot ersttning i form av EU-std (8). 28. ven i senare tids utveckling av vissa gemensamma organisationer av marknaden har man misslyckats med att ta tillrcklig hnsyn till miljn.
For example, Community support paid for the uprooting of vines, a measure designed to eliminate overproduction of wine, is conditional on environmental considerations only if the Member State so chooses. 
Ett exempel p detta r att EU:s std till rjning av vinrankor, som r avsett att stta stopp fr verproduktionen av vin, innehller miljvillkor endast om medlemsstaterna vljer det.
In Greece, 80 % of uprooted vineyards concern traditional vine regions on Crete, and the Peloponnese, which as a result, are affected by erosion, land abandonment and fires’ (9). 
Om inga sdana villkor infrs r det en allvarlig brist eftersom rjning leder till Ókad knslighet fr markerosion. I Grekland finns 80 % av de nedlagda vinodlingarna i traditionella vinregio-ner p Kreta och Peloponnesos.
Grubbing-up has had negative impact in Spain, and in Sicily (Italy), where since 1992 over 15 000 hectares of vines have been uprooted at a cost to the Community of ECU 111 million. 
Negativa effekter har observerats ven i Spanien och p Sicilien (i Italien), dr sedan 1992 ver 15 000 hektar vinrankor har rjts till en kostnad fr EU p 111 miljoner ecu.
The COM pays aid on an area basis; but unlike arable aid, Community support is paid even if the land was not previously used to grow fibre flax. 
Stdet betalas ut i frhllande till arealen, men till skillnad frn stdet fr jordbruksgrdor ges EU-std hr ven fr mark dr spnadslin inte tidigare har odlats.
Farmers can therefore qualify for aid by planting flax even on agronomically-poor but environmentally-rich land, such as meadows and extensive pasture land. 
Detta betyder att jordbrukarna kan bli berttigade till std till och med genom att s lin p mark som r dligt lmpad fr odling men vrdefull ur miljsynpunkt, exempelvis ngar och extensivt betad mark.
In the United Kingdom, several officially-designated sites of special scientific interest have been damaged or destroyed by farmers growing fibre flax. 
I Frenade kungariket har flera officiellt utsedda omrden med srskilt vetenskapligt intresse skadats eller frstrts genom att jordbrukare har odlat spnadslin dr.
The limited extent to which environmental considerations have been integrated into parts of the CAP can perhaps best be illustrated by reference to the unreformed regime which supports 7 () See Brouwer, Terluin and Godeschal, ‘Pesticides in the EC’, 1994, pp.15 8 and 16. () The Court of Auditors’ Annual Report concerning the financial year 9 1994, paragraphs 2.118 to 120 (OJ C 303, 14.11.1995). () Louloudis and Beopoulous, ‘Agriculture, environment and the European Common Market’, Nea Ecologia, 1995, in D. Papaioannou, ‘Environment and Agriculture: Assessment of the Environmental Impact of the CAP in southern European Member States’, Athens 1996, p. 
Inom 7 () Se Brouwer, Terluin och Godeschal, ÓPesticides in the ECÓ (bekmp-8 ningsmedel i EG), 1994, s. 15Đ16. () Revisionsrttens rsrapport fr budgetret 1994, punkt 2.118Đ2.120, 9 s. 79, EGT C 303, 14.11.1995. () Louloudis och Beopoulous, ÓAgriculture, environment and the European Common MarketÓ, Nea Ecologia, 1995, i D. Papaioannou, ÓEnvironment and Agriculture: Assessment of the Environmental Impact of the CAP in southern European Member StatesÓ, Aten 1996 s.
29 (unpublished). 
29 (ej publicerad).
8.12.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 353/13 the production of dried fodder. The scheme provides for two rates of aid: a low rate for fodder dried naturally by the sun and a high rate for machine-dried fodder, to compensate for the extra fuel costs. 
EP/5. 8.12.2000 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning C 353/13 ordningen finns tv stdsatser: en lgre sats fr naturligt soltorkat foder och en hgre sats fr maskintorkat foder Đ detta som kompensation fr brnslekostnaderna.
Such energy subsidies are inconsistent with Community energy policy (1). 
Detta energistd r ofrenligt med EU:s energipolitik (1).
The differentiation in aid rates has had a big impact on how fodder is dried. 
De differentierade stdsatserna har i hg grad inverkat p hur fodret torkas.
At the time of Spain’s accession to the Community in 1986, only 61 000 tonnes of fodder was dried artificially each year: in 1996/1997, 1 414 000 tonnes was dried in this way as producers found the higher rate of aid more profitable. 
Nr Spanien 1986 anslt sig till dvarande EG torkades rligen bara 61 000 ton foder p konstgjord vg, men 1996/97 var mngden uppe i 1,414 miljoner ton eftersom producenterna hade funnit att den hgre stdsatsen var mer lnsam.
The annual energy consumption of this regime in Spain alone is sufficient to meet the annual electricity needs of a town the size of Alicante (285 000 citizens). 
Den rliga energifrbrukningen enbart i Spanien fr fodertorkning inom ramen fr stdordningen skulle tcka ett helt rs elbehov fr en stad av Alicantes storlek (285 000 invnare).
More than 200 000 hectares of forest are needed to absorb the additional carbon dioxide produced by the drying process. 31. 
Fr att ta upp den merproduktion av koldioxid som tork-ningsprocessen genererar krvs ver 200 000 hektar skog. 31.
As a report has summed up, ‘despite the frequent claims that the CAP has been “reformed”, the whole edifice of European agriculture is still based on a high-price/high-subsidy foundation which positively encourages maximum output... . The 1992 reform of the CAP, to only a modest extent, took into account environmental concerns. 
I en rapport sammanfattas situationen som fljer: ÓTrots de tta pstendena att GJP har reformerats, baseras hela EU:s jordbruk fortfarande p en grund av hga priser/hga bidrag som frmjar strsta mjliga avkastning... GJP-reformen 1992 tog endast i liten utstrckning hnsyn till miljaspekten.
The reduction of prices for some major products is claimed by the European Commission to have diminished the pressure of agricultural activities on the environment. 
Prissnkningen fr vissa stora produkter har enligt Europeiska kommissionen minskat jordbrukets belastning p miljn.
In particular, it was expected to have led to a less intensive use of pesticides and nutrients in the crop sector, and a reduction of emissions (methane, ammonia, nitrates) especially from animal farming. 
Det frvntades i synnerhet att den skulle leda till minskad anvndning av bekmpningsmedel och nringsmnen i sektor fr vegetabilieproduktion, och minskade utslpp (metan, ammoniak, nitrater) framfr allt frn djuruppfdning.
In the event, it made little difference’ (2). 
I sjlva verket gjorde den ingen strre skillnadÓ (2).
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE ACCOMPANYING MEASURES 32. 
DE KOMPLETTERANDE TGRDERNAS MILJ INVERKAN 32.
The accompanying measures, i.e. Council Regulations (EEC) No 2078/92, (EEC) No 2079/92 and (EEC) No 2080/92 of 30 June 1992, introduced aid for ‘adoption of environment-friendly farming practices’, ‘early retirement of farmers’ and ‘afforestation of agricultural land’ respectively (3). 
Genom de kompletterande tgrderna Đ dvs. rdets frordningar (EEG) nr 2078/92, (EEG) nr 2079/92 och (EEG) nr 2080/ 92 av den 30 juni 1992 Đ infrdes mjlighet till std fr anvndning av miljvnliga jordbruksmetoder, frtidspensionering av jordbrukare respektive beskogning av jordbruksmark (3).
In practice, the ‘early retirement’ measure has had insignificant environmental impact — although Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2079/92 permits Member States to establish ‘ecological reserves’ with land withdrawn from production, to date only Ireland has made use of this possibility, reserving a total of 54 hectares for ecological purposes at an annual cost to the EU budget of ECU 54 000. 
I praktiken har den tgrd som avser frtidspensionering ftt en obetydlig inverkan p miljn Đ medlemsstaterna ges frvisso i artikel 2 i frordning (EEG) nr2079/92 mjlighet att skapa naturreservat av mark som tagits ur produktion, men hittills har endast Irland utnyttjat denna mjlighet och avsatt 54 hektar mark fr miljndaml till en rlig kostnad av 54 000 ecu.
Given its very limited environmental impact the ‘early retirement’ measure will not be analysed further in this Report. (1) See 5EAP, p. 33. 
Mot bakgrund av den mycket begrnsade miljinverkan av frtidspensio-neringstgrden kommer den inte att analyseras ytterligare i denna rapport. (1) Se det femte tgrdsprogrammet fr miljn, s. 33.
(2) Agra Europe, ‘Agriculture and the Environment: Development of European Union Agri-Environment policy’ prepared by Brian Gard-3 ner of EPA Associates, Brussels, 1999, pp. 24 and 49. () OJ L 215, 30.7.1992, pp. 85, 91 and 96 respectively. 
(2) Agra Europe, ÓAgriculture and the Environment: Development of EU Agri-Environment PolicyÓ, av B. Gardner, EPA Associates, Bryssel, 3 1999, s. 24 och 49. () EGT L 215, 30.7.1992, s. 85, 91 respektive 96.
The comprehensive aims of Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92, commonly referred to as the ‘agri-environmental’ Regulation, are: to accompany the changes to be introduced under the market organisation rules; to contribute to the achievement of the Community’s policy objectives regarding agriculture and the environment; to contribute to providing an appropriate income for farmers. 
De vergripande syftena med frordning (EEG) nr 2078/92, frordningen om miljprogrammen fr jordbruket, r att tflja de ndringar som skall genomfras inom den gemensamma organisationen av marknaderna, bidra till att gemenskapens ml fr milj-och jordbrukspolitik frverkligas samt bidra till att ge jordbrukarna en rimlig inkomst.
The aims of the ‘afforestation’ Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 are: to accompany the changes to be introduced under the market organisation rules; to contribute towards an eventual improvement in forest resources; to contribute towards forms of countryside management more compatible with environmental balance; to combat the greenhouse effect and absorb carbon dioxide (4). 
Syftena med frordningen (EEG) nr 2080/92 som avser beskogningsprogram r att komplettera de frndringar som skall infras enligt den gemensamma organisationen av marknaderna, att bidra till en lngsiktig frbttring av skogsresurserna, att bidra till mer miljanpassade driftsformer p landsbygden samt att bekmpa vxthuseffekten och absorbera koldioxid (4).
These measures were innovative within the EAGGF-Guarantee Fund, in giving a significant role for Member States in Community policy development as well as implementation, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, as established in the Treaty of Maastricht. 
Dessa tgrder var nydanande inom EUGFJ:s garantifond, p s stt att de gav medlemsstaterna en viktig roll bde i utvecklingen och genomfrandet av gemenskapens politik i enlighet med subsidiaritetsprincipen och Maastrichtfrdraget.
The ‘agri-environmental’ Regulation requires Member States to draft concrete programmes which are tailored to suit their specific agricultural and environmental situations. 
Enligt frordningen om miljprogrammen fr jordbruket skall medlemsstaterna utarbeta frslag till konkreta program avpassade efter deras srskilda frhllanden i frga om jordbruk och milj.
These drafts are then submitted to the Commission, for examination and eventual approval in the form of a Decision. 
Frslagen skall drefter frelggas kommissionen, som skall bedma dem och eventuellt godknna dem genom beslut.
A unit within the Commission’s Directorate-General for Agriculture is responsible for detailed examination; other DGs, including DG-Environment and DG-Financial Control are also consulted during the approval process. 
En enhet inom kommissionens generaldirektorat fr jordbruk ansvarar fr detalj-bedmningen, men samrder ocks med andra generaldirektorat, inbegripet generaldirektoratet fr milj och generaldirektoratet fr ekonomistyrning.
Programmes are then submitted to a vote in the ‘STAR-Committee’ (5), prior to formal approval by the Commissioner for Agriculture. 
Programmen verlmnas drefter till STAR-kommittn (5) fr omrstning, innan de formellt godknns av den ledamot av kommissionen som ansvarar fr jordbruk.
Farmers adhere to the programmes by concluding five-year contracts with national administrations for all or part of their holdings. 
Jordbrukarna ansluter sig till programmen genom att ing femriga avtal med nationella myndigheter avseende hela eller delar av sina jord-bruksenheter.
Farmers commit themselves to adopting the farm practices defined in the contracts. 
De tar sig att anvnda de jordbruksmetoder som beskrivs i avtalen.
However, while Member States have a large role in developing and implementing programmes, nevertheless, in accordance with the Community’s Financial Regulation, ultimate responsibility for the sound financial management of Community funds remains with the Commission. 
Medlemsstaterna spelar visserligen en viktig roll i att utveckla och genomfra programmen, men enligt gemenskapens budgetfrordning vilar nd det yttersta ansvaret fr en sund ekonomisk frvaltning av gemenskapsmedel p kommissionen.
Aid is provided in the form of premiums calculated either per hectare (ha) or per livestock unit (LU). 
Std ges i form av bidrag som berknas antingen per hektar eller per djurenhet.
The aid is designed to compensate farmers for extra costs incurred in consequence of programme participation, and/or for yield lost. 
Stdet r avsett att kompensera jordbrukarna fr extra kostnader p grund av medverkan i programmet, och fr mindre skrdar.
Aid expenditure is co-financed by the Community and Member States, in proportions of 75 %/25 % respectively in poor regions of the European Union (Objective 1 regions), and 50 %/50 % in more prosperous regions. 
Programmen administreras och kontrolleras av nationella myndigheter. Fr finansieringen str EU och medlemsstaterna gemensamt, i proportionerna 75:25 fr fattigare regioner (ml 1-regioner) och 50:50 fr rikare regioner.
By October 1998, 158 AE programmes had been approved, on the basis of which, contracts were signed covering around 23 million ha, representing 17 % of total EU farmland. 
I oktober 1998 hade 158 miljprogram fr jordbruket godknts. Inom ramen fr dessa hade avtal tecknats avseende omkring 23 miljoner hektar, dvs. 17 procent av EU:s totala jordbruksareal.
The participation target set by 5EAP, i.e. that 15 % of European farmland should be covered by AE measures by 2000, has therefore been achieved ahead of schedule. 
Det ml fr medverkan som stllts upp inom det femte tgrdsprogrammet fr miljn Đ dvs. att 15 procent av den europeiska jordbruksmarken r 2000 skulle omfattas av miljprogrammen Đ har drmed uppntts tidigare n planerat.
However, high participation rates may be considered as a first step towards (4) Article 1of Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92, Article 1 of Regulation 5 ( ) (EEC) No 2080/92. 
Ett hgt deltagande kan visserligen (4) 5 ( ) Artikel 1 i frordning (EEG) nr 2078/92, artikel 1 i frordning (EEG) nr 2080/92.
A body comprised of Member State representatives chaired by an official of the Commission. 
Ett organ som bestr av representanter fr medlemsstaterna och fr vilket en tjnsteman frn kommissionen r ordfrande.
C 353/14 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 8.12.2000 programme success; they are not a guarantee, in themselves, of significant environmental impact. Even if one hectare in seven is being farmed ‘sustainably’, if the remaining six hectares are farmed using unsustainable practices, then it will not be possible to achieve the other targets set by 5EAP. 
C 353/14 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning 8.12.2000 betraktas som ett frsta steg mot ett framgngsrikt program, men det utgr i sig ingen garanti fr en betydande inverkan p miljn. ven om en av sju hektar odlas p ett hllbart stt r det inte mjligt att uppn vriga ml i tgrdsprogrammet om de vriga sex hektaren odlas med ohllbara metoder.
Forestry policy as such falls within the Member State policy domain. 
Skogsbrukspolitiken som sdan ligger inom medlemsstaternas politik.
However, the afforestation of agricultural land falls within the Community policy domain and the AF Regulation works on a similar basis as the AE Regulation. 
Beskogning av jordbruksmark ligger emellertid inom gemenskapspolitiken och beskogningsfrordningen fungerar p liknande stt som frordningen fr miljprogrammen fr jordbruket.
Currently there are 43 programmes in operation across the European Union. 
Fr nrvarande pgr 43 program i EU.
On the basis of these programmes 700 000 hectares have been afforested. 
Inom ramen fr dem har 700 000 hektar mark beskogats.
Planning Commission planning 37. 
Planering Kommissionens planering 37.
Targeting of scarce resources is essential to apply them with greatest impact. However, the Commission did not carry out a comprehensive analysis on EU level of where and how EU funds could best be spent to maximise environmental impact. 
Fr att maximera verkan av begrnsade resurser r det av yttersta vikt att de mlinriktas. Kommissionen har emellertid inte gjort ngon heltckande analys av var och hur EU-medlen skulle kunna f strsta mjliga inverkan p miljn.
In consequence, the main factor determining the absorption of EU funds has been the willingness of Member States to provide co-financing. 
Fljaktligen har anvndningen av EU-medel i frmsta rummet bestmts av de olika medlemsstaternas vilja att satsa pengar p medfinansiering.
In regions where environmental concerns are prioritised and local funding is available, EU expenditure has been relatively high; in poorer regions, and/or where AE and AF concerns are perceived as less important, EU expenditure has been low. 
I regioner dr man prioriterar miljfrgor och dr lokal finansiering finns att tillg har EU:s utgifter varit relativt stora, medan utgifterna dremot har varit mindre i fattigare regioner och i regioner dr milj-och beskogningsfrgor upplevs som mindre viktiga.
The result was a heavily askew distribution of EU funds, as shown in Tables 7 and 8. 
Resultatet r en mycket sned frdelning av EU-anslag, vilket framgr av tabellerna 7 och 8.
When analysing the differences between Austria and Greece or Germany and Spain, for example, it becomes evident that both sets of countries have approximately the same agricultural surface but receive significantly different amounts for environmental programmes. 
Om man studerar skillnaderna mellan sterrike och Grekland eller mellan Tyskland och Spanien, r det uppenbart att bda paren av lnder har ungefr samma jordbruksareal men anslagen till miljprogram skiljer sig avsevrt.
While Spain and Greece have well evidenced and pressing problems such as water pollution, overgrazing and soil erosion, a lot more money is spent in Germany and Austria mainly on measures applied on a large scale which do not require big changes in established agricultural practices. 
Spanien och Grekland har vldokumenterade och allvarliga problem med bland annat vattenfrorening, verbetning och markerosion, men betydligt mer pengar har satsats i Tyskland och sterrike i huvudsak p tgrder som genomfrts i stor skala och som inte krver ngra strre ndringar av de etablerade jordbruksmetoderna.