GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
08:59 Feb 26, 2013 |
Spanish to English translations [PRO] Science - Forestry / Wood / Timber / Forest resources - Chile | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Selected response from: James A. Walsh Spain Local time: 21:35 | ||||||
Grading comment
|
Summary of answers provided | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
4 +1 | reported to the Fund |
| ||
4 | advances afforded by the ....Fund |
|
Discussion entries: 1 | |
---|---|
que reportan el Fondo reported to the Fund Explanation: Hi Muriel, After reading sizeable chunks of the FCPF’s 2011 Annual Report (see link below), I’m pretty convinced that this is a typo and should be “AL Fondo” (not “el”). This report makes it clear that countries wishing to avail of the FCPF Readiness Fund have to report their “progress towards REDD+ Readiness” (the “avances” in your ST, I believe) to the FCPF, and the FCPF in turn evaluates this progress, and acts accordingly. Based on that, here’s my understanding of the passage: “El poner en marcha a plenitud la PBCCh significa un esfuerzo mancomunado entre distintos actores del país, estimándose sumamente necesario que dentro de la estrategia país se incorporen los avances que reportan el Fondo Cooperativo del Carbono Forestal (FCPF), ya que sin duda dan credibilidad al sistema en su conjunto…" “To fully implement the PBCCh, a joint effort is required of the different stakeholders in the country, and it is crucial that all progress reported to the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) is integrated into the country strategy, as this would undoubtedly add credibility to the system as a whole...” ******************** So in answer to your question, I believe it is the stakeholders reporting to the Fund. Hope this helps :) -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 5 hrs (2013-02-26 14:02:14 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- Meant to mention, Muriel; if this is a typo (el/al), it's one of those that can so easily go unnoticed in a document as "el" is also a valid word, so the spellchecker won't pick it up. And even the most eagle-eyed proofreader could easily miss it too. Reference: http://tinyurl.com/bf2bwqq |
| |
Grading comment
| ||
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
advances afforded by the ....Fund Explanation: I don't think reportan here has anything to do with 'report'. -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 27 mins (2013-02-26 09:26:30 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- instead of afforded you could say brought by provided by etc. -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 29 mins (2013-02-26 09:28:52 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- This is a very common use of 'reportar'. EG, try googling 'reportar beneficios' -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 31 mins (2013-02-26 09:30:39 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- Try this link for examples http://www.linguee.es/espanol-ingles/traduccion/reportar ben... -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 31 mins (2013-02-26 09:31:18 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- try this link http://www.linguee.es/espanol-ingles/traduccion/reportar ben... -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 51 mins (2013-02-26 09:51:01 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- La iniciativa del Gobernador Moreno Valle para generar algunas adecuaciones a la Ley Orgánica de la Administración, enviada al Congreso del Estado el año pasado, en la actualidad ya empezó a reportar avances. Hoy, agregó, las áreas de desarrollo forestal, áreas naturales protegidas, biodiversidad, sustentabilidad, UMA´s, ordenamiento territorial, desarrollo urbano, verificación vehicular y emisiones de la industria, también forman parte del sector rural. http://www.sexenio.com.mx/puebla/articulo.php?id=16370 -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 4 hrs (2013-02-26 13:42:09 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- Either way, as Joseph comments, it would appear that there is a grammatical error in this. -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 6 hrs (2013-02-26 15:53:58 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- But looking at it again, the logic of thing would support this interpretation. |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.