natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Насърчаването от страна на държавите-членки на разделното събиране на отпадъци, с оглед събиране на отпадъците от домакинството в съответствие със стандартите за качество в съответните сектори.
Encouragement by Member States of selective collection systems, with a view to ensuring that domestic waste is collected in compliance with the quality standards in the relevant sectors.
Приложение IV, подзаглавие 2
Annex IV, subtitle 2
Measures that can affect the design and production phase
Measures that can affect the design and production phase
Мерки, които засягат фазата на създаване, производство и разпространение.
Measures that can affect the design, production and distribution phase
Distributors should not be forgotten as an important actor.
Distributors should not be forgotten as an important actor.
Consumer behaviour is important issue to be tackled in the prevention programs.
Consumer behaviour is important issue to be tackled in the prevention programs.
Приложение IV, точка 7
Annex IV, point 7
The inclusion of measures to prevent waste production at installations not falling under Directive 96/61/EC.
The inclusion of measures to prevent waste production at installations not falling under Directive 96/61/EC.
Where appropriate, such measures could include waste prevention assessments or plans.
Where appropriate, such measures could include waste prevention assessments or plans.
Приемането на мерки за превенция на отпадъците в инсталациите, които не попадат в приложното поле на Директива 96/61/ЕО.
The inclusion of measures to prevent waste production at installations not falling under Directive 96/61/EC.
Такива мерки могат да включват оценки или планове за превенция на отпадъци.
Such measures could include waste prevention assessments or plans.
see justification to Annex IV, subtitle 2.
See justification to Annex IV, subtitle 2.
Приложение IV, точка 9
Annex IV, point 9
The use of voluntary agreements, consumer/producer panels or sectoral negotiations in order that the relevant businesses or industrial sectors set their own waste prevention plans or objectives or correct wasteful products or packaging.
The use of voluntary agreements, consumer/producer panels or sectoral negotiations in order that the relevant businesses or industrial sectors set their own waste prevention plans or objectives or correct wasteful products or packaging.
Употребата на законодателство , доброволни споразумения, кръгли маси между производители и потребители, секторни преговори, за насърчаване на съответните учреждения и промишления сектор да съставят свои собствени планове в областта на превенцията на отпадъци и цели да променят продуктите или опаковането, произвеждащи много отпадъци.
The use of legislation, voluntary agreements, consumer/producer panels or sectoral negotiations in order that the relevant businesses or industrial sectors set their own waste prevention plans or objectives or correct wasteful products or packaging.
see justification to Annex IV, subtitle 2.
see justification to Annex IV, subtitle 2.
Приложение IV, точка 11
Annex IV, point 11
Economic instruments such as incentives for clean purchases or the institution of an obligatory payment by consumers for a given article or element of packaging that would otherwise be provided free of charge.
Economic instruments such as incentives for clean purchases or the institution of an obligatory payment by consumers for a given article or element of packaging that would otherwise be provided free of charge.
Употреба на икономически инструменти и мерки, насърчаващи потребителите да извършват екологични покупки или въвеждането на задължително заплащане, от потребителите на продукт или опаковъчен елемент, който се предлага безплатно или на по-ниски цени.
Economic instruments such as incentives for clean purchases or the institution of an obligatory payment by consumers for a given article or element of packaging that would otherwise be provided free of charge or at a lower price.
See justification to Annex IV, subtitle 2.
See justification to Annex IV, subtitle 2.
This Directive carries forward the debate begun by the first EU Waste Directives in the 1970s and given greater focus by the Landfill Directive of 1999.
This Directive carries forward the debate begun by the first EU Waste Directives in the 1970s and given greater focus by the Landfill Directive of 1999.
The questions for our times are how do we reduce the amount of waste that our increasing prosperity encourages us produce, and how do we now need to change our policies so that we deal with waste primarily as a resource from which value can be extracted, rather than as a residue that can only be stored in a landfill.
The questions for our times are how do we reduce the amount of waste that our increasing prosperity encourages us produce, and how do we now need to change our policies so that we deal with waste primarily as a resource from which value can be extracted, rather than as a residue that can only be stored in a landfill.
Given the number of Court of Justice cases that have arisen on the interpretation of EU waste law to date, the first thing we should try to ensure is that whatever law we finally adopt establishes certainty - about definitions and policy intentions.
Given the number of Court of Justice cases that have arisen on the interpretation of EU waste law to date, the first thing we should try to ensure is that whatever law we finally adopt establishes certainty - about definitions and policy intentions.
This is why the committee has suggested a number of additions to Article 3 and a consolidation there of definitions appearing elsewhere in the Directive.
This is why the committee has suggested a number of additions to Article 3 and a consolidation there of definitions appearing elsewhere in the Directive.
The rapporteur has received many representations about the need for the Directive to contain a reference to the waste hierarchy in its fullest - 5 stage - form.
The rapporteur has received many representations about the need for the Directive to contain a reference to the waste hierarchy in its fullest - 5 stage - form.
It is important to remember that the hierarchy has no legal force.
It is important to remember that the hierarchy has no legal force.
However stating it sends out a signal about priorities and, in the case of this directive, resolves what is rather a confusingly drafted Article (Article 1).
However stating it sends out a signal about priorities and, in the case of this directive, resolves what is rather a confusingly drafted Article (Article 1).
It is, however, immediately clear that allowance must be made for departures from the hierarchy when conditions demand it.
It is, however, immediately clear that allowance must be made for departures from the hierarchy when conditions demand it.
The question is: what conditions?
The question is: what conditions?
The committee's suggestions are contained in the last part of the amendment to Article 1.
The committee's suggestions are contained in the last part of the amendment to Article 1.
There seems to be a consensus that departures should be based on life-cycle thinking/analysis/assessment, and a cost-benefit analysis has to fit in there somewhere.
There seems to be a consensus that departures should be based on life-cycle thinking/analysis/assessment, and a cost-benefit analysis has to fit in there somewhere.
The question is how rigorous a clearance/ approval on this basis would have to be: would a Member State operate clearance procedures on a case-by-case basis?
The question is how rigorous a clearance/ approval on this basis would have to be: would a Member State operate clearance procedures on a case-by-case basis?
Would there be a reference to the Commission each time?
Would there be a reference to the Commission each time?
Perhaps, the best course - or at least one suggestion - is contained in the committee's idea that the Commission might establish guidelines as to how life cycle analysis might work.
Perhaps, the best course - or at least one suggestion - is contained in the committee's idea that the Commission might establish guidelines as to how life cycle analysis might work.
Then there is the question of what happens next.
Then there is the question of what happens next.
We need further action to determine which waste streams will be covered by the provisions of Article 11 and moved from categorisation as waste to classification as a product.
We need further action to determine which waste streams will be covered by the provisions of Article 11 and moved from categorisation as waste to classification as a product.
The committee's amendment to Article 11, new paragraph 3a, sets out an agenda for future action by the Commission.
The committee's amendment to Article 11, new paragraph 3a, sets out an agenda for future action by the Commission.
On the question of procedure, the rapporteur concludes that there is far too great a reliance in the directive on the use of the comitology process, as set out in Council Decision 1999/468/EC.
On the question of procedure, the rapporteur concludes that there is far too great a reliance in the directive on the use of the commitology process, as set out in Council Decision 1999/468/EC.
The Directive contains 11 references in various articles to decisions that are to be referred to the comitology process.
The Directive contains 11 references in various articles to decisions that are to be referred to the commitology process.
But a distinction needs to be made between using comitology for technical adaptations, and mis-using it to take decisions of a more general, highly political nature, that are best taken through the co-decision process.
But a distinction needs to be made between using commitology for technical adaptations, and misusing it to take decisions of a more general, highly political nature, that are best taken through the codecision process.
For this reason, it is suggested that we move to the co-decision procedure in article 5 (to establish efficiency criteria), in article 11 (to establish criteria for when waste becomes a product) and in article 21 (minimum standards for permits.)
For this reason, it is suggested that we move to the codecision procedure in article 5 (to establish efficiency criteria), in Article 11 (to establish criteria for when waste becomes a product) and in Article 21 (minimum standards for permits.)
Changes to the Comitology process are certainly under discussion but the rapporteur is not optimistic that they will add up to more powers for MEPs to veto a decision, or to more involvements by outside interests.
Changes to the Commitology process are certainly under discussion but the rapporteur is not optimistic that they will add up to more powers for MEPs to veto a decision, or to more involvements by outside interests.
It suits the Member States and Commission to keep the process as closed as possible.
It suits the Member States and Commission to keep the process as closed as possible.
That is why we must resolutely resist its inappropriate encroachment on democratic decision taking.
That is why we must resolutely resist its inappropriate encroachment on democratic decision taking.
The Directive encompasses the existing directives on hazardous waste and waste oils.
The Directive encompasses the existing directives on hazardous waste and waste oils.
The rapporteur considers that it does this adequately and safely: she would be resistant to reversing the process of simplification to re-build these directives in their entirety.
The rapporteur considers that it does this adequately and safely: she would be resistant to reversing the process of simplification to re-build these directives in their entirety.
One amendment to article18 in the direction of the promotion of waste oil regeneration has however been included.
One amendment to article18 in the direction of the promotion of waste oil regeneration has however been included.
The question of what will qualify under the Directive as a recovery process and what will qualify as a disposal process is a vital one.
The question of what will qualify under the Directive as a recovery process and what will qualify as a disposal process is a vital one.
The Directive introduces a qualification based on efficiency criteria in article 5.
The Directive introduces a qualification based on efficiency criteria in article 5.
The criteria are set out in Annex II, section R1.
The criteria are set out in Annex II, section R1.
Neither the Directive, nor the thematic strategy nor the impact assessment attached to it gives any details at all of the likely economic and social impact of the application of these criteria.
Neither the Directive, nor the thematic strategy nor the impact assessment attached to it gives any details at all of the likely economic and social impact of the application of these criteria.
Yet they are vital: an incinerator that qualifies as a recovery operation can deal with imported waste, and can be part of a strategy for meeting recovery targets in such EU legislation as the packaging Directive.
Yet they are vital: an incinerator that qualifies as a recovery operation can deal with imported waste, and can be part of a strategy for meeting recovery targets in such EU legislation as the packaging Directive.
An incinerator that qualifies as a disposal operation has no such options.
An incinerator that qualifies as a disposal operation has no such options.
Given the short time scale before the new standards are supposed to apply, it seems unlikely that existing operators could adjust their processes in time.
Given the short time scale before the new standards are supposed to apply, it seems unlikely that existing operators could adjust their processes in time.
The new criteria are highly likely to cut across existing contracts and may damage jobs and local authority waste plans.
The new criteria are highly likely to cut across existing contracts and may damage jobs and local authority waste plans.
Evidence from France suggests that out of a total of 85 existing plants, only 14 could satisfy the recovery criteria chosen.
Evidence from France suggests that out of a total of 85 existing plants, only 14 could satisfy the recovery criteria chosen.
It cannot be right that at a time when the air is thick with suggestions for making impact assessment more efficient, we should miss such an assessment out completely on this crucial aspect of the Directive.
It cannot be right that at a time when the air is thick with suggestions for making impact assessment more efficient, we should miss such an assessment out completely on this crucial aspect of the Directive.
Finally, the Directive contains two sets of proposals for waste plans and programmes.
Finally, the Directive contains two sets of proposals for waste plans and programmes.
The committee's amendments retain the overall objective of encouraging planning for waste plans and prevention programmes.
The committee's amendments retain the overall objective of encouraging planning for waste plans and prevention programmes.
But the changes proposed make the detailed requirements less bureaucratic and better matched, in tune with the principle of subsidiarity, with differing local conditions.
But the changes proposed make the detailed requirements less bureaucratic and better matched, in tune with the principle of subsidiarity, with differing local conditions.
We should also ask what precisely the Commission is going to do with the plethora of plans and programmes that it will now have to monitor.
We should also ask what precisely the Commission is going to do with the plethora of plans and programmes that it will now have to monitor.
Such continuous monitoring is better left to the work of the European Environment Agency.
Such continuous monitoring is better left to the work of the European Environment Agency.
The Agency is not mentioned in the Directive but should surely play a key role in ensuring that Member States are broadly in step with each other in the war against waste and for the better use of resources.
The Agency is not mentioned in the Directive but should surely play a key role in ensuring that Member States are broadly in step with each other in the war against waste and for the better use of resources.
OPINION of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy
OPINION of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
The revision of directive 75/442/EEC which has been submitted to Parliament undoubtedly seeks to update some aspects, such as introducing environmental objectives and remedying shortcomings in the definitions and other concepts which, in the view of many sectors and experts, are one of the weak points of the previous directive.
The revision of directive 75/442/EEC which has been submitted to Parliament undoubtedly seeks to update some aspects, such as introducing environmental objectives and remedying shortcomings in the definitions and other concepts which, in the view of many sectors and experts, are one of the weak points of the previous directive.
In addition to these clearly stated objectives there are other proposals: (1) to simplify the current legal framework; (2) to propose repeal of Directive 75/439/EC on the disposal of waste oils and Council Framework Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste.
In addition to these clearly stated objectives there are other proposals: (1) to simplify the current legal framework; (2) to propose repeal of Directive 75/439/EC on the disposal of waste oils and Council Framework Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste.
There is also a clear intention throughout the text not to perpetuate the hierarchies of waste and prioritisation which have been an essential feature of EU waste policy in previous decades.
There is also a clear intention throughout the text not to perpetuate the hierarchies of waste and prioritisation which have been an essential feature of EU waste policy in previous decades.
This urge towards simplification is particularly worrying in the case of the directive on hazardous waste, a directive that society had accepted and applied with relative success.
This urge towards simplification is particularly worrying in the case of the directive on hazardous waste, a directive that society had accepted and applied with relative success.
Its repeal could leave a vacuum without sufficient safeguards in one of the sectors most fraught with risks.
Its repeal could leave a vacuum without sufficient safeguards in one of the sectors most fraught with risks.
If there is a proposal for prioritisation, we consider that this should be the first and clearest.
If there is a proposal for prioritisation, we consider that this should be the first and clearest.
With regard to waste oil, our proposal takes account of its usefulness and the need not to harm the existing industry and market.
With regard to waste oil, our proposal takes account of its usefulness and the need not to harm the existing industry and market.
The main reason to revise the legislation is the numerous judgments issued by the Court of Justice in Luxembourg against various countries for failure to transpose the European legislation, or their slowness in doing so, or what could be called an insufficient definition of the basic concepts in the previous directives.
The main reason to revise the legislation is the numerous judgments issued by the Court of Justice in Luxembourg against various countries for failure to transpose the European legislation, or their slowness in doing so, or what could be called an insufficient definition of the basic concepts in the previous directives.
In effect, one of the innovations in this proposal is that new definitions have been drawn up in line with best practices.
In effect, one of the innovations in this proposal is that new definitions have been drawn up in line with best practices.
This concern is recognised by some of the Member States and sectors involved, which have serious misgivings about the definitions in Articles 3 and 5, fearing that once more the directive may generate legal uncertainty.
This concern is recognised by some of the Member States and sectors involved, which have serious misgivings about the definitions in Articles 3 and 5, fearing that once more the directive may generate legal uncertainty.
This proposal, while seeking to remedy some deficiencies, has added others.
This proposal, while seeking to remedy some deficiencies, has added others.
For all the definitions, the reference text has been the definitions drawn up by the Court of Justice in its explanations of decisions.
For all the definitions, the reference text has been the definitions drawn up by the Court of Justice in its explanations of decisions.
Another innovation in this draft directive is the environmental impact of waste, including two assessments: risks posed by waste to health and the environment, and also the energy costs of recycling and recovery.
Another innovation in this draft directive is the environmental impact of waste, including two assessments: risks posed by waste to health and the environment, and also the energy costs of recycling and recovery.
Thus a new concept (the ‘life cycle’) has been introduced, which must be taken into account before decisions are taken on the alternatives which exist to deal with waste.
Thus a new concept (the ‘life cycle’) has been introduced, which must be taken into account before decisions are taken on the alternatives which exist to deal with waste.
The life cycle approach must specifically include assessment of energy costs.
The life cycle approach must specifically include assessment of energy costs.
Although on paper the life cycle assessment is very ‘good’, and it seems logical to include energy costs in the decision-making process, the reality is much more complex, and it can become a particularly dangerous criterion.
Although on paper the life cycle assessment is very ‘good’, and it seems logical to include energy costs in the decision-making process, the reality is much more complex, and it can become a particularly dangerous criterion.
Therefore in one recital and article we call for a scientific study of the definition of the life cycle, and for diverse and flexible proposals depending on types of waste, territories, transport, calorific capacity, economic measures, etc and for the Member States to be responsible for carrying this out, since in each case they have expert knowledge of existing waste, costs and technical capacity.
Therefore in one recital and article we call for a scientific study of the definition of the life cycle, and for diverse and flexible proposals depending on types of waste, territories, transport, calorific capacity, economic measures, etc and for the Member States to be responsible for carrying this out, since in each case they have expert knowledge of existing waste, costs and technical capacity.
The fundamental question in this directive is whether the priority should lie in recovery and recycling rather than disposal.
The fundamental question in this directive is whether the priority should lie in recovery and recycling rather than disposal.
A major industry and market for recycling and recovery has developed in Europe in the last 30 years and it seems logical that this new directive should not interfere with this process by giving priority to disposal.
A major industry and market for recycling and recovery has developed in Europe in the last 30 years and it seems logical that this new directive should not interfere with this process by giving priority to disposal.
On the other hand, another view maintains that energy expenditure must be reduced, and the possibility of producing energy from waste obliges us to consider disposal as an alternative which in future could replace some recycling operations.
On the other hand, another view maintains that energy expenditure must be reduced, and the possibility of producing energy from waste obliges us to consider disposal as an alternative which in future could replace some recycling operations.