natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In order to answer this question, we examined whether the Commission identified the priority needs of refugees and addressed them in a swift and coordinated manner. (b) Have the humanitarian projects funded by the Facility achieved their expected results? 
Fr att f svar p denna frga underskte vi huruvida kommissionen faststllt flyktingarnas frmsta behov och tillgodosett dessa p ett snabbt och samordnat stt. b) Har de humanitra projekt som finansierats via faciliteten gett de frvntade resultaten?
In order to answer this question, we examined the implementation, monitoring and results achieved by a sample of projects supported by the Facility. 
Fr att f svar p denna frga underskte vi hur ett urval av projekt som finansierats via faciliteten hade genomfrts och vervakats och vilka resultat dessa projekt lett till.
Because most non-humanitarian projects were not yet at a sufficiently advanced stage of implementation at the time of the audit16, we focused this part of our analysis on humanitarian projects. 
Eftersom de flesta icke-humanitra projekt nnu inte hade kommit tillrckligt lngt i genomfrandet vid tidpunkten fr vr revision16 fokuserade vi frmst p humanitra projekt i den hr delen av vr analys.
We audited a sample of 10 humanitarian projects amounting to Ű458 million (see Annex III A). 
Vi granskade tio humanitra projekt som hade kostat 458 miljoner euro (se bilaga III A).
We selected the sample to have a balanced coverage of projects in terms of financial significance, sectors (basic needs, protection, health, education) and types of implementing partner (UN agencies, INGOs). 
Nr vi valde ut projekt att granska strvade vi efter att f en bra blandning av projekt nr det gllde sdant som ekonomisk betydelse, sektorer (grundlggande behov, skydd, hlso-och sjukvrd, utbildning) och typ av organisation som stod fr genomfrandet (FN-organ eller internationella icke-statliga organisationer).
The sample was selected from a total of 45 humanitarian contracts, and represents 33 % of the total amount of contracted humanitarian assistance. 
Projekten valdes ut bland sammanlagt 45 kontrakt gllande humanitrt bistnd och motsvarade 33 % av det sammanlagda kontrakterade beloppet fr humanitrt bistnd.
The audit included desk reviews and interviews with various Commission departments, the EU Delegation and ECHO offices in Turkey, some EU Member StatesŐ representatives to the Steering Committee of the Facility, the Turkish authorities, international bodies and non-governmental organisations and final beneficiaries17. 
Revisionen genomfrdes genom skrivbordsgranskningar och intervjuer med olika kommissionsavdelningar, EU:s delegation och Echos kontor i Turkiet, vissa EU-medlemsstaters fretrdare i facilitetens styrkommitt, de turkiska myndigheterna, Icke-humanitrt bistnd avser frmst mer lngsiktigt utvecklingsbistnd med inriktning p utbildning, hlso-och sjukvrd, migrationshantering och socioekonomiskt std.
We visited eight out of the ten projects in our sample during a visit to Turkey in January 201818. 
Vi beskte tta av de tio projekten i vrt urval under vrt besk i Turkiet i januari 201818.
The Turkish Ministry of Family and Social Policies (MoFSP) did not grant us access to its database of eligible beneficiaries of the audited cash-transfer projects (the Emergency Social Non-humanitarian assistance mainly relates to longer-term development aid with a focus on education, health, migration management and socio-economic support. 
Det turkiska ministeriet fr familje-och socialpolitik gav oss inte tilltrde till sin databas ver bidragsberttigade mottagare i de kontantverfringsprojekt som vi granskade (det sociala ndskyddsntet (ESSN) och villkorade kontantverfringar fr utbildning (CCTE)).
As a result, we could not track final beneficiaries from their registration to payment. 
Drmed kunde vi inte flja de slutliga bidragsmottagarna frn registrering till utbetalning.
Further details are provided in paragraph 53. 
Nrmare information finns i punkt 53.
OBSERVATIONS The Facility rapidly mobilised relevant support, but was not fully effective as a coordination mechanism We assessed the following: (a) Whether the Facility identified and addressed the main needs of refugees by means of a comprehensive and rigorous needs assessment; (b) Whether the FacilityŐs administrative arrangements allowed the Ű3 billion assistance to be contracted swiftly, i.e. during the period 2016-2017, as laid down in the CommissionŐs decision establishing the Facility; and (c) Whether the Facility effectively coordinated the assistance. 
IAKTTAGELSER Faciliteten mobiliserade snabbt relevant std, men var inte helt ndamlsenlig som samordningsmekanism Vi bedmde fljande: a) Huruvida man i faciliteten tog reda p vilka flyktingarnas frmsta behov var och tog hnsyn till dessa genom en vergripande och noggrann behovsbedmning. b) Huruvida den administrativa organisationen i faciliteten gjorde att man snabbt kunde ing kontrakt med utfrare fr de tre miljarderna, det vill sga under perioden 2016Đ 2017, i enlighet med kommissionens beslut om facilitetens inrttande. c) Huruvida bistndet samordnades p ett ndamlsenligt stt i faciliteten.
In particular, we examined whether the procedures in place for selecting and approving actions streamlined the assistance and ensured complementarity between: i) the different EU spending instruments used and, ii) humanitarian and non-humanitarian support. 
I synnerhet underskte vi om frfarandena fr att vlja ut och godknna insatser effektiviserade bistndet och skerstllde komplementaritet mellan i) de olika EU-finansieringsinstrument som anvndes och ii) humanitrt och icke-humanitrt std.
The Facility appropriately addressed the main needs of the refugees, except those needs related to municipal infrastructure and socio-economic support The allocation of Ű3 billion in funding was the result of a political decision agreed between EU Member States and Turkey. 
Faciliteten tillgodosg flyktingarnas frmsta behov, frutom i frga om kommunal infrastruktur och socioekonomiskt std Anslaget p tre miljarder euro var ett resultat av ett politiskt beslut som EU:s medlemsstater och Turkiet enats om.
This amount represented a significant increase in the overall amount of assistance being made available by the EU in Turkey. 
Detta belopp utgjorde en vsentlig kning av det sammanlagda std som EU ger till Turkiet.
However, it did not aim to cover the whole cost of support for refugees19. 
Det var dock inte meningen att detta belopp skulle tcka hela kostnaden fr hjlp till flyktingarna19.
A needs assessment with some limitations The EU Turkey Joint Action Plan (see paragraph 4) required the EU institutions and Turkey to proceed with a comprehensive joint needs assessment before disbursing the Ű3 billion budget20. 
En behovsbedmning med vissa begrnsningar Enligt EU:s och Turkiets gemensamma handlingsplan (se punkt 4) skulle EU-institutionerna och Turkiet genomfra en genomgripande gemensam behovsbedmning innan de tre miljarderna betalades ut20.
Even though the Turkish authorities were involved in the needs assessment, they did not officially endorse the exercise. 
Trots att de turkiska myndigheterna deltog i behovsbedmningen stllde de sig inte officiellt bakom den.
The needs assessment was finalised in June 2016. 
Behovsbedmningen var frdig i juni 2016.
It was comprehensive, as it included an assessment of both humanitarian and development needs and provided relevant information on the situation of Syrian refugees, identifying gaps to be addressed taking into account past, ongoing and planned assistance to Syrian people under temporary protection (SuTP) in Turkey. 
Den var omfattande i och med att den inbegrep en bedmning av bde humanitra behov och utvecklingsbehov, gav bra information om de syriska flyktingarnas situation och redogjorde fr brister som mste tgrdas, med beaktande av tidigare, pgende och planerat bistnd till syrier med tillflligt skydd i Turkiet.
However, it was not sufficiently rigorous: (a) Most of the numerical data (e.g. sector statistics) in the needs assessment was provided by the Turkish authorities. 
Behovsbedmningen var dock inte tillrckligt noggrann: a) De flesta sifferuppgifter (till exempel sektorsstatistik) i behovsbedmningen kom frn de turkiska myndigheterna.
They could therefore not validate the estimated cost of the measures needed to address the needs of refugees and host communities. (b) There was a lack of up-to-date demographic information broken down by gender, age group and location and a lack of information on vulnerabilities (female-headed households, children, elderly people, etc.). 
De kunde drfr inte kontrollera riktigheten i de berknade kostnaderna fr de tgrder som behvdes fr att tillgodose flyktingarnas och vrdsamhllenas behov. b) Det fanns inte tillrckliga aktuella demografiska uppgifter uppdelade efter kn, lder och vistelseort och inte tillrckligt med uppgifter om utsatta grupper (hushll med kvinnor som huvudfrsrjare, barn, ldre och s vidare).
The consultants described this as Őa serious hindrance to assessing needs and designing programmes and interventionsŐ. 
Konsulterna beskrev detta som I de inledande behovsbedmningar som de turkiska myndigheterna genomfrde berknades det sammanlagda behovet uppg till 14 454 miljoner euro fr perioden 2016Đ2018.
15 20 Paragraph 3, part 1 of the EU Turkey JAP. 
16 19 20 Punkt 3, del 1 i den gemensamma handlingsplanen fr EU och Turkiet.
The priority areas of the Facility (see paragraph 8) were largely aligned with the needs assessment. 
De prioriterade omrdena i faciliteten (se punkt 8) verensstmde till strsta delen med behovsbedmningen.
The only exception was Ômigration managementŐ which the Steering Committee selected as a priority area although it was not included in the scope of the needs assessment. 
Det enda undantaget r det man kallar ÓmigrationshanteringÓ, som styrkommittn valde ut som ett prioriterat omrde trots att det inte ingick i behovsbedmningen.
Considering that the main objective of the Facility was to support refugees and host communities, and that migration management in Turkey had already been allocated about Ű350 million in support under the IPA (outside the Facility), the grounds for identifying it as a priority area are questionable. 
Med tanke p att huvudsyftet med faciliteten var att hjlpa flyktingar och vrdsamhllen och att 350 miljoner euro redan hade anslagits fr std till migrationshantering i Turkiet genom instrumentet fr std infr anslutningen (utanfr faciliteten) kan motiven fr att ta med det som ett prioriterat omrde ifrgasttas.
In fact, after having funded two migration-management projects, the Steering Committee decided not to allocate any more money to this area. 
Faktum r att styrkommittn efter att ha finansierat tv migrationshanteringsprojekt beslutade att det inte skulle ansls mer medel till detta omrde.
The priority areas were broadly defined to ensure the necessary flexibility in a difficult and rapidly changing context. 
De prioriterade omrdena var vagt definierade fr att tillta ndvndig flexibilitet under svra och snabbt frnderliga omstndigheter.
The individual projects were aimed at addressing the specific needs of refugees. 
De enskilda projekten skulle tillgodose flyktingarnas specifika behov.
We reviewed the rationale for the selection of the 10 audited projects and found that this was indeed the case for all of them (See Annex III B) for details). 
Vi underskte syftesbeskrivningen till de tio projekt som vi hade valt ut fr granskning och fann att detta faktiskt gllde alla projekt (se bilaga III B).
When submitting a proposal for funding, the implementing partner of humanitarian projects must describe the problems, needs and risks identified and how the proposed response is adequate and consistent with the CommissionŐs overall humanitarian strategy in Turkey. 
Nr organisationerna som utfr de humanitra projekten ansker om finansiering mste de beskriva de aktuella problemen, behoven och riskerna och p vilket stt den freslagna insatsen r lmplig och verensstmmer med kommissionen vergripande humanitra strategi i Turkiet.
Box 1 shows how the EUŐs largest humanitarian project funded by the Facility addressed the needs of refugees. 
I ruta 1 beskrivs hur EU:s strsta humanitra projekt som finansieras via faciliteten tillgodosg flyktingarnas behov.
16 Box 1 Đ The ESSN: an innovative project design to address the needs of refugees The Emergency Social Safety Net (ESSN) is the largest-ever humanitarian project funded by the EU, aimed at providing assistance to 1.3 million refugees. 
18 Ruta 1 Đ ESSN: ett nyskapande stt att utforma projekt fr att hjlpa flyktingar Det sociala ndskyddsntet (ESSN) r det strsta humanitra projektet som EU ngonsin finansierat och meningen r att det ska ge std till 1,3 miljoner flyktingar.
The project is being implemented in two phases covering the periods from 2016-2018 and from 2018-2019, with a budget of Ű348 million and Ű650 million respectively. 
Projektet genomfrs i tv faser: den frsta 2016Đ2018 och den andra 2018Đ2019, med en budget p 348 respektive 650 miljoner euro.
The ESSN addresses basic needs (food, non-food items and services) by providing cash assistance. 
Genom ESSN tillgodoses grundlggande behov (mat, andra artiklar och tjnster) genom att flyktingarna fr kontantstd.
The project is implemented across Turkey by a UN Agency in collaboration with a local implementing partner and the Turkish authorities. 
Projektet genomfrs i hela Turkiet av ett FN-organ i samarbete med en lokal genomfrandepartner och de turkiska myndigheterna.
It is innovative because it is a hybrid humanitarian aid project embedded in the national social-protection system. 
Det r nyskapande eftersom det r ett hybridprojekt fr humanitrt bistnd som infrlivats i det nationella trygghetssystemet.
This was reflected at the World Humanitarian summit in June 2016, where cash transfers were promoted, when appropriate. 
Detta kunde ses p vrldstoppmtet om humanitra frgor i juni 2016, d kontantverfringar fresprkades i vissa fall.
The project targets refugees living outside the camps, whose opportunities to enter the national labour market are limited. 
Projektet riktar sig till flyktingar som inte bor i flyktinglger, vilkas mjligheter att komma in p den nationella arbetsmarknaden r begrnsade.
It provides a stable and predictable source of income to cover their basic needs, mainly accommodation and food. 
Det ger dem en regelbunden och frutsgbar inkomst som rcker fr att tillgodose deras grundlggande behov (frmst mat och husrum).
In practice, refugees receive a monthly fixed amount (about Ű30 per person). 
I praktiken fr flyktingarna ett fast belopp varje mnad (cirka 30 euro per person).
They use a debit card to withdraw cash at ATMs or to pay in shops. 
De fr ett debetkort med vilket de kan ta ut pengar i bankomater eller betala i affrer.
See for instance: https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/grand-bargain-hosted-iasc and https://www.devex.com/news/for-humanitarian-response-a-cash-based-payment-consensus-88238. 
21 Se till exempel https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/grand-bargain-hosted-iasc och https://www.devex.com/news/for-humanitarian-response-a-cash-based-payment-consensus-88238.
It is difficult to assess whether this distribution of funding is proportionate to the scale of the needs in the priority areas, because the Steering Committee did not set indicative upfront allocations for each priority area. 
Det r svrt att avgra om frdelningen av medlen str i proportion till behoven inom de prioriterade omrdena eftersom styrkommittn inte i frvg hade angett ngon vgledande anslagsfrdelning mellan de olika omrdena.
Although this increases flexibility in the allocation of funds, it does not allow an assessment to be made of the differences between planned and actual expenditure for each priority area. 
Detta kar frsts flexibiliteten i frdelningen av medel, men det gr ocks att det inte gr att bedma skillnaden mellan planerade och faktiska utgifter fr vart och ett av de prioriterade omrdena.
As shown in Box 2, the main reason was that the Commission and the Turkish authorities disagreed on how to address them. 
S som beskrivs i ruta 2 berodde detta frmst p att kommissionen och de turkiska myndigheterna inte kunde enas om hur dessa omrden skulle hanteras.
18 Box 2 Đ Difficulties in the programming of the priority areas Ômunicipal infrastructureŐ and Ôsocio-economic supportŐ Municipal infrastructure In July 2016, the Commission allocated Ű200 million to address needs associated with municipal infrastructure. 
20 Ruta 2 Đ Svrigheter i planeringen fr de prioriterade omrdena Ókommunal infrastrukturÓ och Ósocioekonomiskt stdÓ Kommunal infrastruktur I juli 2016 anslog kommissionen 200 miljoner euro till uppbyggnad av kommunal infrastruktur.
Two partners, the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), were selected to implement related actions on the ground. 
Man valde ut tv samarbetspartner, Europeiska investeringsbanken (EIB) och Europeiska banken fr teruppbyggnad och utveckling (EBRD), som skulle genomfra de aktuella tgrderna p plats.
The EBRD wished to make its intervention contingent on the inclusion of a loan component in the support it provided; this condition was not accepted by the Turkish authorities. 
EBRD ville frst endast medverka om en del av stdet skulle ges i form av ln, men detta villkor godtogs inte av de turkiska myndigheterna.
Following extensive negotiations, EBRD had to be replaced by the Kreditanstalt fr Wiederaufbau (KfW). 
Efter lnga frhandlingar fick EBRD ersttas av den tyska utvecklingsbanken Kreditanstalt fr Wiederaufbau (KfW).
Ultimately, both the EIB and the KfW were forced to cancel their projects due to the lack of adequate and sufficiently mature projects put forward by the local institutions and municipalities. 
I slutndan var bde EIB och KfW tvungna att stlla in sina projekt eftersom de lokala institutionerna och kommunerna inte kunde lgga fram frslag p ngra lmpliga och tillrckligt genomplanerade projekt.
As a result, the priority area Ômunicipal infrastructureŐ was not addressed by the Facility22. 
Detta ledde till att faciliteten inte gav ngot std till det prioriterade omrdet Ókommunal infrastrukturÓ22.
The funds allocated to this priority area were transferred to the priority area ÔeducationŐ at the end of 2017. 
De medel som anslagits fr detta prioriterade omrde frdes ver till det prioriterade omrdet ÓutbildningÓ i slutet av 2017.
19 Socio-economic support (access to the labour market, vocational training, and social inclusion) The Commission concluded contracts to a total value of Ű215 million under the priority area Ôsocio-economic supportŐ, most of it (68 %) in December 2017, at the end of the contracting period. 
Socioekonomiskt std (tilltrde till arbetsmarknaden, yrkesutbildning och integration) Kommissionen har ingtt kontrakt till ett sammanlagt vrde av 215 miljoner euro inom det prioriterade omrdet Ósocioekonomiskt stdÓ, varav de flesta (68 %) ingicks i december 2017, i slutet av kontraktsperioden.
The conclusion of contracts in this area was delayed because it was initially not a priority for the Turkish authorities and due to disagreements on credit components included in the projects. 
Ingendet av kontrakt p detta omrde frsenades eftersom detta i brjan inte var ett prioriterat omrde fr de turkiska myndigheterna och p grund av oenighet om hur stor del av projekten som skulle finansieras som ln.
However, given the increasingly protracted nature of the crisis, most stakeholders we met felt that more funding should be allocated to this area to develop the resilience of refugees, and enhance their participation in the economy and in society. 
Eftersom krisen verkar bli lngvarig ansg dock de flesta inblandade aktrer som vi trffade att mer medel br ansls till detta omrde fr att frbttra flyktingarnas sjlvfrsrjningsmjligheter och deltagande i ekonomi och samhlle.
The Facility achieved its objective of contracting three billion euros in two years The decision to set-up a ÔFacilityŐ reflected the need to mobilise additional funds. 
Faciliteten uppndde sitt ml om att ing kontrakt fr tre miljarder euro p tv r Beslutet om att inrtta en facilitet franleddes av behovet av att mobilisera ytterligare medel.
A key benefit of the Facility was that the Member States agreed23 on their Ű2 billion contribution in February 2016 immediately after the establishment of the Facility. 
En av de strsta frdelarna med faciliteten var att medlemsstaterna gick med p23 att bidra med sina tv miljarder euro i februari 2016 direkt efter att faciliteten inrttats.
The Commission and the EU Member States agreed the rules of procedure of the Facility during the first Steering Committee meeting on 17 February 2016. 
Kommissionen och medlemsstaterna enades om facilitetens arbetsordning under styrkommittns frsta sammantrde den 17 februari 2016.
This meant that the Facility became operational less than three months after the EU-Turkey summit of 29 November 2015. 
Detta innebar att faciliteten var igng mindre n tre mnader efter toppmtet mellan EU och Turkiet den 29 november 2015.
Annex V presents the key dates and events associated with the set-up and governance of the Facility. 
I bilaga V finns en versikt ver viktiga datum och hndelser som rr inrttandet och styrningen av faciliteten.
The FacilityŐs funds were disbursed using a mix of existing instruments (see paragraph 8) and implementing partners. 
Medlen i faciliteten betalades ut genom flera olika befintliga instrument (se punkt 8) och genomfrandepartner.
As shown in Figure 2, the scale-up in funding was particularly high for humanitarian assistance. 
S som visas i figur 2 var kningen av medel srskilt stor fr humanitrt bistnd.
The agreement was concluded on 3 February 2016, at the start of the Facility (see http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/02/03-refugee-facility-for-turkey/). 23 
21 23 verenskommelsen trffades den 3 februari 2016, d faciliteten just inrttats (se http://www.consilium.europa.eu/sv/press/press-releases/2016/02/03/refugee-facility-for-turkey/).
Aside from the rapid set-up of the Facility and effective pooling of funding, the CommissionŐs choice of delivery mechanisms, as described below, was a key factor in enabling the Facility to achieve its objective of delivering assistance swiftly. (a) The Commission made three direct grants totalling Ű660 million available to the Turkish authorities for large-scale projects under the non-humanitarian strand, without calls for proposals. 
Frutom det snabba inrttandet av faciliteten och det ndamlsenliga sammanfrandet av medel frn olika hll var kommissionens val av genomfrandemekanismer, enligt beskrivningen nedan, en viktig faktor som gjorde att facilitetens ml om att snabbt f ut bistndet kunde uppns. a) Kommissionen gav de turkiska myndigheterna tre stora direktstd vrda sammanlagt 660 miljoner euro fr stora projekt inom den icke-humanitra delen utan ngon inbjudan om att lmna projektfrslag.
In Turkey, EU direct grants are usually used for much smaller projects with an average amount of Ű1 million. (b) 70 % of the Ű3 billion budget was channelled to UN organisations and international financial institutions (see Annex II). 
I Turkiet anvnds EU:s direktstd oftast till mycket mindre projekt vrda i genomsnitt en miljon euro. b) 70 % av budgeten p tre miljarder euro gick via FN-organ och internationella finansinstitut (se bilaga II).