natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For example, the Polish RDP stated that ‘some flood protection facilities only fulfil their tasks to a limited extent, and restoring their full technical capacity may require modernisation or rebuilding’ and listed the facilities concerned (such as water tanks with a total capacity of 35 000 m3 and 180 pumping stations). However, in general, the audited Member States did not attempt to quantify these needs in terms of the financial resources required to address them. 11 Article 5(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 of 15 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ L 368, 23.12.2006, p. 
I det polska landsbygdsprogrammet t.ex. angav man att vissa versvmningsskydd endast fyllde sin funktion i begrnsad omfattning, och att terstlla deras fulla tekniska kapacitet skulle kanske krva modernisering eller teruppbyggnad, och rknade upp de aktuella anlggningarna (t.ex. vattenbehllare med en total kapacitet p 35 000 m3 och 11 Artikel 5.1. i kommissionens frordning (EG) nr 1974/2006 av den 15 december 2006 om tillmpningsfreskrifter fr rdets frordning (EG) nr 1698/2005 om std fr landsbygdsutveckling frn Europeiska jordbruksfonden fr landsbygdsutveckling (Ejflu) (EUT L 368, 23.12.2006, s.15).
Observations 16 21 After assessing their investment needs, Member States should identify the resources available to address those needs (the existing EU funds, national, regional and local public funds, as well as private funds) and quantify the funding gap to be covered by EU rural development funds. 
21 Nr medlemsstaterna har bedmt sina investeringsbehov ska de faststlla vilka resurser som finns tillgngliga fr att tillgodose de behoven (de befintliga EU-medlen, nationella, regionala och lokala offentliga medel och ven privata medel) och kvantifiera det likviditetsgap som EU:s landsbygdsutvecklingsmedel ska tcka.
22 The RDPs of all the audited Member States referred to other EU funds supporting similar projects. 
22 I alla de granskade medlemsstaternas landsbygdsprogram hnvisade man till andra EU-medel som stder liknande projekt.
This is a legal requirement, checked by the Commission before approving the RDPs. 
Det r ett rttsligt krav som kommissionen kontrollerar innan den godknner landsbygdsprogrammen.
Other Member State or private funding sources addressing the same needs were, however, not mentioned or quantified. 
Men andra finansieringskllor frn medlemsstaten eller privata finansieringskllor som tillgodoser samma behov varken nmndes eller kvantifierades.
Only one RDP (Romania) referred to a national programme funding cultural establishments. 
Endast i ett landsbygdsprogram (Rumnien) hnvisade man till ett nationellt program som finansierar kul-turinrttningar.
Despite neglecting to mention them in the RDP, the audit found that the Member States actually had many public programmes and funds dedicated to rural infrastructure. 
Trots att medlemsstaterna frsummade att nmna offentliga program och medel till frmn fr infrastruktur p landsbygden i landsbygdsprogrammet konstaterade vi vid revisionen att de i sjlva verket hade mnga sdana program.
23 In the absence of a strategy which coordinates all the potential funding sources and quantifies needs and the resulting funding gap, the justification for RDP intervention is weak. 
23 Nr det saknas en strategi som samordnar alla potentiella finansieringskllor och kvantifierar behoven och det likviditetsgap som blir fljden r motiveringen till landsbygdsut-vecklingsinterventionen svag.
In this instance, substitution of funds is more likely to occur, whereby Member State funds earmarked for infrastructure projects are replaced by RDP funds, thus entailing the risk of compromising the added value of the EU intervention. 
I det fallet r det troligare att det sker en ersttning av medel, som innebr att medlemsstatens ronmrkta medel till infrastrukturprojekt erstts med landsbygdsutvecklingsmedel, vilket medfr en risk fr att EU-interventio-nens mervrde minskar.
24 In two of the Member States audited, there were indications that substitution of public funds had occurred (see Box 2). 
24 I tv av de granskade medlemsstaterna fanns det tecken p att ersttning av offentliga medel hade skett (se ruta 2).
Observations 17 Indications of the substitution of national and regional funds with RDP funds Italy (Sicily) In 2000, when EU funds became available for road projects in rural areas, Italy (Sicily) cancelled its own budget for financing the maintenance of local and farm roads. 
Iakttagelser 17 Tecken p att nationella och regionala medel ersatts med landsbygdsutvecklingsmedel Italien (Sicilien) Nr EU-medel blev tillgngliga fr vgprojekt i landsbygdsomrden 2000 drog Italien (Sicilien) tillbaka sin egen budget fr finansiering av underhllet av lokala vgar och traktorvgar.
Germany (Saxony) Since 2007, when RDP funds became available for rural road projects, the provision of national and regional funds for such projects has decreased substantially. 
Tyskland (Sachsen) Sedan 2007 d EU:s landsbygdsutvecklingsmedel blev tillgngliga fr landsvgsprojekt har de nationella och regionala medlen fr sdana projekt minskat markant.
As shown in the graph below, while the total funding allocated to rural roads has remained relatively stable at between 140 and 160 million euro per year, the decrease in the national and regional funds has been offset by an increase in RDP funding (see Figure 3). 
Av diagrammet nedan framgr att den totala finansieringen till landsvgar har legat relativt stabilt p mellan 140 och 160 miljoner euro per r medan minskningen av de nationella och regionala medlen har kompenserats av kad landsbygdsutvecklingsfinansiering (se figur 3).
Figure 3 — Allocation of funds for rural roads in Germany (Saxony) 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Sum of national, regional and RDP funds National and regional funds RDP funds Source: European Court of Auditors 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 The risk of deadweight was not effectively mitigated, though some good practices were identified 25 Just as entire budget lines can be replaced with the RDP measures, substitution of funds can occur at project level, without any additional effect on the outcome achieved. 
Figur 3 Đ Frdelning av medel till landsvgar i Tyskland (Sachsen) 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Summa av nationella och regionala medel och landsbygdsutvecklingsmedel Nationella och regionala medel Landsbygdsutvecklingsmedel Klla: Europeiska revisionsrtten. 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Risken fr ddviktseffekt minskades inte p ett ndamlsenligt stt ven om vi fann ngra exempel p god praxis 25 Precis som hela budgetposter kan ersttas med landsbygdsutvecklingstgrder kan ersttning av medel frekomma p projektniv utan att det har ngon ytterligare effekt p utfallet.
The risk of deadweight refers to the likelihood that a beneficiary would have undertaken the investment even without the grant funding. 
Risken fr ddviktseffekt handlar om sannolikheten fr att en stdmottagare skulle ha gjort investeringen ocks utan bidragsfinansieringen.
The primary means of reducing the risk of deadweight is to design the measures in such a way as to direct RDP support to where there is a funding gap, for example to sectors or types of projects providing public goods but for which the financial returns are insufficient to justify the full costs of the investment. 
Man kan minska risken fr ddviktseffekt frmst genom att utforma tgrderna p ett sdant stt att landsbygdsutvecklingsstdet riktas dit dr det finns ett likviditetsgap, t.ex. till sektorer eller typer av projekt som tillhandahller kollektiva nyttigheter men dr den ekonomiska avkastningen inte r tillrcklig fr att motivera hela investeringskostnaden.
26 The high aid rates set for infrastructure measures by the audited Member States were not backed by an analysis assessing the appropriate level of public funding needed to encourage investments while, at the same time, mitigating the risk of deadweight. million euro Box 2 
26 De granskade medlemsstaternas hga stdsatser fr infrastrukturtgrder underbyggdes inte av en analys dr man bedmde hur stor offentlig finansiering som behvdes fr att uppmuntra investeringar och samtidigt minska risken fr ddviktseffekt. miljoner euro Ruta 2
Observations 18 27 Only in Germany (Saxony), for the 2014-2020 programming period, did the Court find an economic rationale behind the setting of aid rates for measure 125. 
Iakttagelser 18 27 Det var bara i Tyskland (Sachsen), nr det gllde programperioden 2014Đ 2020, som vi hittade en ekonomisk grund till de faststllda stdsatserna fr tgrd 125.
Following the recommendation arising from the 2010 mid-term evaluation to differentiate the aid rates under this measure on the basis of the profitability of the forest holdings, the managing authority decided to revise the aid rates from a standard 80 % for all holdings to a differentiated aid rate based on the size of the holdings, as a proxy for their profitability. 
I enlighet med rekommendationen frn halvtidsutvrderingen 2010 om att stdsatserna inom denna tgrd ska differentieras utifrn skogsbruksfretagens lnsamhet beslutade frvaltningsmyndigheten att se ver stdsatserna p standardmssiga 80 % fr alla fretag och faststlla en differentierad stdsats som grundades p fretagens storlek, som ett mtt p deras lnsamhet.
Larger holdings (above 200 ha) would receive an aid rate of 75 %, while smaller holdings (up to 200 ha) would receive 90 %. 
Strre fretag (p mer n 200 ha) skulle f en stdsats p 75 % medan mindre fretag (p hgst 200 ha) skulle f 90 %.
28 Still, the audit identified an example of good practice in directing RDP support to where it is most needed. 
28 Vid revisionen hittade vi nd ett exempel p god praxis nr det gllde att rikta landsbygdsutvecklingsstdet dit dr det fanns strst behov.
Romania (under measure 322), Poland (under measures 321 and 322/323) and Italy (Sicily) (under measure 125) used selection criteria to prioritise projects submitted by communities with high poverty rates and/or located in remote areas (Box 3 shows an example of this). 
Rumnien (inom tgrd 322), Polen (inom tgrderna 321 och 322/323) och Italien (Sicilien) (inom tgrd 125) anvnde urvalskriterier fr att prioritera de projekt som lmnades in av lokalsamhllen med hga fattigdomsniver och eller som lg i avlgsna omrden (i ruta 3 finns ett exempel p det).
Directing RDP support to poor areas Romania One of the selection criteria used under measure 322 assigned 10 out of a maximum of 100 scoring points to communes with high poverty rates (i.e., rates between 60 % and 89.6 %). 
Landsbygdsutvecklingsstd som riktades till fattiga omrden Rumnien Ett av urvalskriterierna inom tgrd 322 gav tio av maximalt 100 pong till kommuner med hga fattigdomsniver (dvs. p mellan 60 och 89,6 %).
Communes with a medium poverty rate (between 40 % and 59.9 %) obtained 7 scoring points, and those with a low poverty rate (< 40 %) obtained 5 points. 
Kommuner med medelhg fattigdomsniv (mellan 40 och 59,9 %) fick sju pong och de med lg fattigdomsniv (<40 %) fick fem pong.
Poverty was defined and calculated according to a methodology provided by the World Bank and the national authorities, based on the welfare of a household. 
Fattigdom definierades och berknades enligt en metod frn Vrldsbanken och de nationella myndigheterna som grundas p ett hushlls vlfrd.
29 Member States can also mitigate the risk of deadweight through the project selection process, by checking, where appropriate before approving applications for support, whether the applicant had sufficient capital or access to capital to finance all or part of the project. 
29 Medlemsstaterna kan ocks minska risken fr ddviktseffekt via projekturvalet genom att vid behov kontrollera om den skande har tillrckligt med kapital eller tillgng till kapital fr att finansiera hela eller delar av projektet innan de godknner stdanskningar.
The audit found that four out of the five Member States audited did not check the applicants’ capacity to finance the projects from their own funds or other public programmes (see Box 4). 
Vid revisionen konstaterade vi att fyra av de fem granskade medlemsstaterna inte kontrollerade de skandes frmga att finansiera projekten med egna medel eller andra offentliga program (se ruta 4).
Observations 19 Granting RDP funding to projects that had access to other funds In Italy (Sicily), one of the audited projects concerning public water infrastructure had already been included in the beneficiary’s investment plan before the submission of the application for RDP support and was to be funded from the beneficiary’s own resources. 
Iakttagelser 19 Landsbygdsutvecklingsstd beviljades projekt som hade tillgng till andra medel I Italien (Sicilien) hade ett av de granskade projekten som gllde offentlig vatteninfrastuktur redan tagits med i stdmottagarens investeringsplan innan anskan om landsbygdsutvecklingsstd lmnades in och skulle finansieras med stdmottagarens egna resurser.
Similarly, another water infrastructure project had already been approved for funding under the national irrigation plan at the time of its approval under the RDP. 
P ett liknade stt hade ett annat vatteninfrastrukturprojekt redan godknts fr finansiering inom den nationella bevattningsplanen nr det godkndes fr landsbygdsutvecklingsstd.
The RDP approval was subsequently withdrawn; nonetheless, these examples show that funds are used interchangeably and some of the projects would probably have been implemented even in the absence of the RDP funds. 
Det godknnandet drogs senare tillbaka, men vra exempel visar nd att medel anvnds utan tskillnad och att en del projekt troligen skulle ha genomfrts ocks utan landsbygdsutvecklingsstdet.
In Spain (Extremadura), an audited project with an estimated cost of 11 million euro involved the creation of a 145 km road network to improve the access to 1 629 agricultural holdings. 
I Spanien (Extremadura) gllde ett granskat projekt med en uppskattad kostnad p 11 miljoner euro anlggning av ett vgnt p 145 km som skulle frbttra tilltrdet till 1 629 jordbruksfretag.
Although the roads were likely to increase the value of the private land and the farms’ economic performance, the authorities approved the project, granting a 100 % public aid rate, without checking whether the private beneficiaries could have borne part of the project costs. 
Trots att vgarna troligen skulle ka vrdet p den privata marken och grdarnas ekonomiska resultat godknde myndigheterna projektet och beviljade en offentlig stdsats p 100 % utan att kontrollera om de privata stdmottagarna kunde ha sttt fr en del av projektkostnaderna.
Similarly, an audited project of 1 million euro, involving the upgrade of an irrigation network to reduce water losses, received a 90 % aid rate without requiring the beneficiary (irrigation community) to demonstrate its need for such a grant with reference to its financial capacity and the profitability of the investment. 
P ett liknande stt fick ett granskat projekt p en miljon euro som gllde uppgradering av ett bevattningsnt fr att minska vattenfrluster en stdsats p 90 % utan ngot krav p att stdmottagaren (bevattningsfrening) skulle pvisa behovet av ett sdant bidrag med hnvisning till sin ekonomiska kapacitet och investeringens lnsamhet.
The beneficiary might, for example, have been able to finance a greater part of the investment by increasing the tariffs paid by farmers for the water irrigation service12 or through a loan. 
Stdmottagaren kunde t.ex. ha finanserat en strre del av investeringen genom att hja de avgifter som jordbrukarna betalade fr bevattningstjnsten12 eller med ett ln.
These examples show that the managing authority not only set very high aid rates of the measures without an economic justification but also did not verify at project level the actual need for such high aid rates. 
Dessa exempel visar att frvaltningsmyndigheten inte bara faststllde mycket hga stdsatser fr tgrderna utan ngon ekonomisk grund utan ocks underlt att kontrollera det faktiska behovet av sdana hga stdsatser p projektniv.
12 For similar findings, see Special Report No 9/2010 ‘Is EU structural measures spending on the supply of water for domestic consumption used to best effect?’, in particular paragraphs 64 to 67, which state that ‘Member States tend to maximise EU financial assistance by keeping tariff levels low’. 
12 Liknande granskningsresultat finns i srskild rapport nr 9/2010 Anvnds de utgifter inom EU:s strukturtgrder som avser vattenfrsrjning till hushllen p bsta mjliga stt?, srskilt punkterna 64Đ67 dr vi konstaterar att Ómedlemsstaterna tenderar att maximera det ekonomiska stdet frn EU genom att hlla nere avgifternaÓ.
30 In Romania, an eligibility check was carried out to ensure that the RDP grant was needed. The check was applied in the case of revenue-generating operations, such as the provision of water supply and sewage services, supported under measure 322. 
30 I Rumnien gjordes en kontroll av stdberttigandet fr att man skulle frskra sig om att det fanns behov av landsbygdsutvecklingsstdet. Kontrollen gjordes nr det gllde inkomstbringande insatser, som vattenfrsrjning och avloppstjnster som fick std inom tgrd 322.
However, in practice, the check had limited relevance, as it was based on unreliable assumptions regarding the future revenues and expenditure associated with the operation of the infrastructure. 
Men i praktiken hade kontrollen begrnsad relevans eftersom den byggde p oskra antaganden om framtida inkomster frn och utgifter sedan in-frastrukturinsatsen hade tagits i bruk.
For two of the three water infrastructure projects audited, the Court found that the actual tariffs paid by users were respectively seven times and nine times higher than the beneficiary’s estimates indicated in the project documentation, which had been used to justify the need for support and received the approval of the authorities. 
Nr det gllde tv av de tre granskade vatteninfrastrukturprojekten konstaterade vi att de faktiska avgifter som betalades av anvndarna var sju respektive nio gnger hgre n stdmottagarens uppskattningar i den projektdokumentation som hade anvnts fr att motivera behovet av std och som hade godknts av myndigheterna.
Observations 20 Effective coordination of funds was often affected by weak demarcation lines and insufficient mechanisms to ensure complementarity The demarcation criteria set by Member States allowed overlapping of public funds for certain types of projects 31 As regards demarcation between the different EU funds, the audit showed that, although the Member States’ national strategy plans and RDPs for 2007-2013 generally set out clear demarcation criteria, these were not always consistent with criteria from other programming documents and overlaps of funds were explicitly allowed in some cases: — In Germany (Saxony), according to the RDP, the demarcation between the EAFRD and ERDF funds for school modernisation projects was based on the number of pupils: the EAFRD only financed schools of less than 350 pupils. 
Iakttagelser 20 Bristflliga avgrnsningar och otillrckliga mekanismer fr att garantera komplementaritet gjorde ofta att samordningen blev mindre ndamlsenlig Medlemsstaternas avgrnsningskriterier gjorde att offentliga medel ver-lappade varandra nr det gller vissa typer av projekt 31 Nr det gller avgrnsningen mellan olika EU-medel visade revisionen att trots att tydliga avgrnsningskriterier i allmnhet faststlldes i medlemsstaternas nationella strategiska planer och landsbygdsprogram fr 2007Đ2013 stmde de inte alltid verens med kriterierna i andra planeringsdokument, och i vissa fall var verlappningar av medel uttryckligen tilltet: Ń I Tyskland (Sachsen) grundades avgrnsningen mellan Ejflu-och Eruf-medel fr skolmodernise-ringsprojekt enligt landsbygdsprogrammet p antalet elever: Ejflu finansierade enbart skolor med frre n 350 elever.
However, the ERDF operational programme does not set a pupil threshold for eligible projects. — In Italy (Sicily), while the RDP stated that the ERDF could only fund infrastructure projects in villages with more than 500 inhabitants, the ERDF operational programme itself did not mention this demarcation criterion. 
Men i Erufs operativa program faststlls ingen grns fr antalet elever fr stdberttigande projekt. Ń I Italien (Sicilien) uppgav man i landsbygdsprogrammet att Eruf endast kunde finansiera infrastrukturprojekt i byar med mer n 500 invnare, medan detta avgrnsningskriterium inte nmndes i Erufs operativa program.
When visiting one of the audited projects, the auditors found that an ERDF-funded project had been carried out in a village of less than 500 inhabitants. — In Poland, both the EAFRD and the ERDF allowed for the financing of infrastructure projects in rural areas. 
Nr revisorerna beskte ett av de granskade projekten konstaterade de att ett Eruf-finansierat projekt hade genomfrts i en by med frre n 500 invnare. Ń I Polen mjliggjorde bde Ejflu och Eruf finansiering av infrastrukturprojekt i landsbygdsomrden.
Smaller projects were primarily financed under the EAFRD, but could also be financed under the ERDF if applicants had reached their grant limit under the EAFRD (which varied, depending on the measure). 
Mindre projekt finansierades frmst inom Ejflu men kunde ven finansieras inom Eruf om de skande hade ntt sitt bidragstak inom Ejflu (som varierade beroende p tgrden).
72 % of the sewerage infrastructure projects approved under the ERDF operational programme were implemented by the same beneficiaries that had used EAFRD funds for the same type of projects. 
Av de avloppsinfrastrukturprojekt som godkndes inom Erufs operativa program genomfrdes 72 % av samma bidragstagare som hade anvnt Ejflu-medel fr samma typ av projekt.
32 Moreover, there was no demarcation between EU rural development funds and Member State funds for rural infrastructure. 
32 Vidare fanns det ingen avgrnsning mellan EU:s landsbygdsutvecklingsmedel och medlemsstaternas medel fr infrastruktur p landsbygden.
There was no critical assessment of the arguments in favour of having several funds acting independently to provide support for similar projects, despite the fact that this led to a duplication of management structures and required a greater effort to ensure coordination between funds and avoid double funding. 
Det gjordes ingen kritisk bedmning av argumenten som talar fr att man kan ha flera fonder som verkar oberoende av varandra fr att stdja liknande projekt, trots att det ledde till dubbla frvaltningsstrukturer och krvde strre insatser fr att garantera samordningen mellan fonderna och undvika dubbelfinansiering.
Observations 21 Complementary actions were not actively promoted 33 Four out of the five audited Member States set up coordination bodies to supervise the spending of EU funds and in two Member States representatives of the managing authorities of other EU funds participated in the rural development monitoring committees. 
Iakttagelser 21 Komplementerande tgrder frmjades inte aktivt 33 Fyra av de fem granskade medlemsstaterna inrttade samordningsorgan som skulle vervaka hur EU-medel anvndes, och i tv medlemsstater deltog fretrdare fr frvaltningsmyndigheterna fr andra EU-fonder i vervakningskommitterna fr landsbygdsutveckling.
However, no evidence was available to show how this helped ensure better complementarity between funds, i.e. by filling funding gaps and operating in synergy in order to achieve common objectives. 
Det fanns dock ingenting som visade hur detta bidrog till bttre komplementaritet mellan fonderna, det vill sga att man fyllde igen likviditetsgap och samverkade fr att uppn gemensamma ml.