natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Data for 2010 was not available at the time of the audit, but the trend in years prior to 2010 did not show an increase of biodegradable waste diversion16 (see Table 2); (b) concerning packaging directive targets, the situation noted in the eight regions varied significantly. 
V času revizije podatki za leto 2010 niso bili na voljo, vendar trend iz predhodnih let ni pokazal povečanja preusmerjanja biološko razgradljivih odpadkov z odlagališč16 (glej tabelo 2); (b) stanje, ugotovljeno v zvezi s ciljnimi vrednostmi iz direktive o embalaži, se je v osmih regijah precej razlikovalo.
Catalonia, Sardinia and Andalucía contributed to achieving EU targets. 
Katalonija, Sardinija in Andaluzija so prispevale k doseganju ciljnih vrednosti EU.
In the five other regions, no specific monitoring was carried out at regional level. 
V preostalih petih regijah pa na regionalni ravni ni bilo izvedeno nobeno ločeno spremljanje.
The Court estimated, based on data obtained in the Member States, that these regions were unlikely to contribute to achieving EU targets due to the low separate collection rate; (c) five of the eight regions sampled17 did not contribute to achieving the EU target for separate collection of electrical and electronic equipment to be achieved in 2006 in accordance to the electrical and electronic equipment waste directive, even if in general a positive trend was noted. 
Sodišče je na podlagi podatkov iz držav članic ocenilo, da je verjetnost, da bodo te regije prispevale k doseganju ciljnih vrednosti EU, majhna zaradi majhnega deleža ločeno zbranih odpadkov; (c) pet od osmih regij v vzorcu17 ni prispevalo k doseganju ciljne vrednosti EU za ločeno zbiranje električne in elektronske opreme, ki jo je bilo treba v skladu z direktivo o odpadni električni in elektronski opremi doseči do leta 2006, čeprav je bil na splošno ugotovljen pozitiven trend.
Catalonia had already contributed in 2006 and Sardinia and Puglia in 2009 and 2010. 
Katalonija je k doseganju ciljne vrednosti prispevala že leta 2006, Sardinija in Apulija pa leta 2009 in leta 2010.
Regarding the two regions sampled in Portugal, Lisboa e Vale do Tejo and Norte, data were not available at regional level. 
Za dve portugalski regiji v vzorcu, Lisboa e Vale do Tejo in Norte, podatki na regionalni ravni niso bili na voljo.
However, the target was not met by the Member State as a whole. 
Toda država članica kot celota ni dosegla ciljne vrednosti.
29 TABLE 2 BIODEGRADABLE WASTE LANDFILLED RATE TREND ON THE BASIS OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF BIODEGRADABLE MUNICIPAL WASTE PRODUCED IN 1995 2006 2009 Regions sampled Achieved Target Achieved Target ES-Catalonia IT-Sardinia IT-Puglia ES-Andalucía Portugal1 RO-Nord-Est RO-Sud-Vest 69 % 59 % 84 %2 87 % 79 % 56 %3 75 %4 < 75 % < 75 % < 75 % < 75 % NA NA NA 45 % 36 % 85 % 93 % 78 % 69 %3 87 % < 50 % < 50 % < 50 % < 50 % < 75 %5 < 75 %5 < 75 %5 1 No figures available for the two regions, but only at the level of the Member State. 
2006 2009 Regije v vzorcu Doseženo Ciljna vrednost Doseženo Ciljna vrednost Španija – Katalonija Italija – Sardinija Italija – Apulija Španija – Andaluzija Portugalska1 Romunija – Nord-Est Romunija – Sud-Vest 69 % 59 % 84 %2 87 % 79 % 56 %3 75 %4 < 75 % < 75 % < 75 % < 75 % NR NR NR 45 % 36 % 85 % 93 % 78 % 69 %3 87 % < 50 % < 50 % < 50 % < 50 % < 75 %5 < 75 %5 < 75 %5 1 Podatki so bili na voljo samo na ravni države članice in ne na ravni obeh regiji.
2 Data for 2008. 
2 Podatki za leto 2008.
3 To be added, municipal waste not collected ,which amounted to 35 % and 27 % of the total municipal waste generation respectively. 
3 Temu je treba prišteti nezbrane komunalne odpadke, ki so dosegli 35 % oz. 27 % skupnih povzročenih komunalnih odpadkov.
4 Data for 2007. 
4 Podatki za leto 2007.
5 Target for 2010. 
5 Ciljna vrednost za leto 2010.
Special Report No 20/2012 – Is structural measures funding for municipal waste management infrastructure projects effective in helping Member States achieve EU waste policy objectives? 30 ILLEGAL DUMPS WERE ERADICATED IN HALF OF THE REGIONS BUT WASTE WAS GENERALLY LANDFILLED WITHOUT ANY PRIOR TREATMENT 43. 
20/2012 – Ali financiranje projektov za izgradnjo objektov za gospodarjenje s komunalnimi odpadki v okviru strukturnih ukrepov uspešno pomaga državam članicam pri doseganju ciljev politike EU glede gospodarjenja z odpadki? 30 NEZAKONITA ODLAGALIŠČA SO BILA ODPRAVLJENA V POLOVICI REGIJ, TODA ODPADKI SO SE ODLAGALI NA ODLAGALIŠČA V GLAVNEM BREZ PREDHODNE OBDELAVE 43.
According to data provided by the regions audited, during the 2000–09 period, illegal dumps had been either eradicated or their number significantly reduced: (a) in four regions, according to the data provided by the relevant authorities, no illegal dumps were operational at the time of the audit; (b) in the other four regions, illegal dumps were still being used, especially in the two regions selected in Romania where in 2009 municipal waste collection only covered 54 % and 33 % of the population. 
Glede na podatke, ki so jih zagotovile revidirane regije, so bila v obdobju 2000–2009 nezakonita odlagališča odpravljena ali pa je bilo njihovo število precej zmanjšano: (a) po podatkih, ki so jih zagotovili ustrezni organi, se v času revizije v štirih regijah ni uporabljalo nobeno nezakonito odlagališče; (b) v preostalih štirih regijah so se nezakonita odlagališča še vedno uporabljala, zlasti v dveh izbranih romunskih regijah, kjer je leta 2009 zbiranje komunalnih odpadkov zajemalo samo 54 % oz. 33 % prebivalcev.
The lack of collection of municipal waste in these two regions was especially noticeable in rural areas. 
Komunalni odpadki v teh dveh regijah se niso zbirali predvsem na podeželju.
In the audited regions municipal waste was generally landfilled without proper treatment, despite the landfill directive stipulating that waste deposited in landfills should be treated to reduce the quantity of waste or hazards to human health or the environment. 
V revidiranih regijah so se komunalni odpadki v glavnem odlagali na odlagališča brez ustrezne obdelave, kljub temu da se v direktivi o odlagališčih zahteva obdelava odpadkov, ki se odlagajo na odlagališča, da se zmanjša količina odpadkov ali nevarnost za zdravje ljudi ali okolje.
The Court noted the following: (a) municipal waste was generally landfilled without any treatment in four of the regions sampled18. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo: (a) da so se komunalni odpadki v glavnem odlagali na odlagališče brez kakršne koli obdelave v štirih revidiranih regijah18.
In addition, in these regions the separate collection of biodegradable waste was only found in a very limited number of municipalities resulting in high levels of biodegradable matter in waste landfilled; (b) in one region, treatment prior to disposal covered waste generated by only approximately 40 % of the total population of the region. 
Poleg tega je bilo v teh regijah ugotovljeno, da zelo malo občin ločeno zbira biološko razgradljive odpadke, zato je bil velik delež biološko razgradljivih snovi odložen na odlagališča; (b) da je v eni regiji obdelava pred odlaganjem zajemala samo odpadke, ki jih povzroči 40 % celotne populacije regije.
However, this lack of treatment was partially mitigated by the fact that the separate collection of biodegradable waste was carried out in most of the region; 18 To be noted that Romania was granted an additional deadline, until 2017, to ensure that all existing landfills comply with the requirements of the landfill directive. Special Report No 20/2012 – Is structural measures funding for municipal waste management infrastructure projects effective in helping Member States achieve EU waste policy objectives? 
Vendar je pomanjkanje obdelave deloma omililo to, da so se v večini regije biološko razgradljivi odpadki zbirali ločeno; 18 Opozoriti je treba na to, da je za Romunijo rok za zagotovitev, da vsa obstoječa odlagališča upoštevajo zahteve direktive o odlagališčih, podaljšan do leta 2017. Posebno poročilo št. 20/2012 – Ali financiranje projektov za izgradnjo objektov za gospodarjenje s komunalnimi odpadki v okviru strukturnih ukrepov uspešno pomaga državam članicam pri doseganju ciljev politike EU glede gospodarjenja z odpadki?
31 (c) in the three remaining regions, there were more mechanical biological treatment plants carrying out treatment prior to disposal but in general they did not achieve the performance expected (see Box 8). 
31 (c) da je v preostalih treh regijah več objektov za mehansko-biološko obdelavo odpadke pred odlaganjem obdelalo, vendar na splošno niso tako uspešno delovali, kot se je pričakovalo (glej okvir 8).
WERE MEASURES PUT IN PLACE TO MAXIMISE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EU FUNDING? 
ALI SO BILI SPREJETI UKREPI ZA DOSEGANJE NAJVEČJE MOGOČE USPEŠNOSTI FINANCIRANJA EU?
In order to maximise the effectiveness of the co-financed infrastructures, information, administrative and economic supporting measures, such as awareness campaigns, quality standards and separate collection or ‘pay as you throw’ schemes and landfill taxes (see paragraph 9), should be in place to encourage waste prevention and recycling in accordance with the EU waste hierarchy (see Figure 3). 
Da bi se dosegla največja mogoča uspešnost sofinanciranih objektov, bi morali biti zaradi spodbujanja preprečevanja nastajanja odpadkov in recikliranja v skladu s hierarhijo EU za gospodarjenje z odpadki na voljo informativni, upravni in ekonomski podporni ukrepi, kot so kampanje za ozaveščanje, standardi kakovosti in ločeno zbiranje odpadkov ali sheme „plačaj, kolikor odvržeš“ in dajatve za odlaganje na odlagališča (glej odstavek 9 in diagram 3).
EU financial support should encourage the implementation of such supporting measures. An appropriate regulatory framework and guidelines should be implemented. 
Izvajanje takih podpornih ukrepov bi bilo treba spodbujati s finančno podporo EU, poleg tega pa bi bilo treba izvajati ustrezen zakonski okvir in smernice.
BOX 8 EXAMPLE OF A REGION WHERE TREATMENT FACILITIES WERE IN PLACE, BUT WHERE THEIR PERFORMANCE WAS NOT SATISFACTORY In one of the regions sampled 22 of the 28 landfills in operation at the time of the audit received pre-treated waste from mechanical biological treatment plants. 
OKVIR 8 PRIMER REGIJE, KI JE IMELA OBJEKTE ZA OBDELAVO, VENDAR NJIHOVO DELOVANJE NI BILO ZADOVOLJIVO V eni od regij v vzorcu je 22 od 28 odlagališč, ki so v času revizije obratovala, prevzemalo predhodno obdelane odpadke iz objektov za mehansko-biološko obdelavo.
However, these plants did not meet their performance targets. 
Vendar ti objekti niso dosegli ciljnih vrednosti delovanja.
On average 76 % of waste entering the 23 treatment facilities available in the region was landfilled in 2008 with a high content of biodegradable matter despite the treatment process; in the case of the plant audited (Linares, Spain) the recovery of biodegradable waste only amounted to between 6 % and 9 % rather than the design target of 25 % to 28 %. Special Report No 20/2012 – Is structural measures funding for municipal waste management infrastructure projects effective in helping Member States achieve EU waste policy objectives? 
Leta 2008 je bilo v povprečju 76 % odpadkov, ki so jih prevzeli v 23 objektih za obdelavo, kolikor jih je imela regija, kljub procesu obdelave na odlagališča odloženih z velikim deležem biološko razgradljivih snovi; v revidiranem objektu (Linares, Španija) je bilo izločenih le od 6 % do 9 % biološko razgradljivih odpadkov in ne med 25 % in 28 %, kolikor znaša ciljna vrednost iz zasnove obrata. Posebno poročilo št. 20/2012 – Ali financiranje projektov za izgradnjo objektov za gospodarjenje s komunalnimi odpadki v okviru strukturnih ukrepov uspešno pomaga državam članicam pri doseganju ciljev politike EU glede gospodarjenja z odpadki?
46. 
32 46.
The Court examined whether: (a) informative, administrative and economic instruments were put in place at Member State and/or regional level to support the co-financed waste management infrastructures and whether the Commission encouraged their implementation when approving operational programmes or projects; (b) the EU regulatory framework and guidelines were likely to maximise the effectiveness of EU funding. 
Sodišče je preučilo: (a) ali so bili na ravni držav članic in/ali regij vzpostavljeni informativni, upravni in ekonomski instrumenti za podporo sofinanciranim objektom za gospodarjenje z odpadki in ali je Komisija pri odobravanju operativnih programov ali projektov spodbujala njihovo izvajanje; (b) ali je za zakonski okvir in smernice EU verjetno, da bodo dosegli največjo mogočo uspešnost financiranja EU.
THE LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION OF INFORMATION, ADMINISTRATIVE AND ECONOMIC SUPPORTING MEASURES VARIED SIGNIFICANTLY AMONG THE REGIONS SAMPLED INFORMATIVE MEASURES 47. 
RAVEN IZVAJANJA INFORMATIVNIH, UPRAVNIH IN EKONOMSKIH PODPORNIH UKREPOV SE JE MOČNO RAZLIKOVALA MED REGIJAMI V VZORCU INFORMATIVNI UKREPI 47.
In general in the regions where the sampled waste management infrastructures were located, there was evidence of complementary information activities such as public awareness campaigns or the publication of waste management guidelines. 
Na splošno so v regijah, v katerih so bili objekti za gospodarjenje z odpadki, zajeti v vzorcu, obstajali dokazi o dopolnilnih dejavnostih informiranja, kot so kampanje za ozaveščanje ali objava smernic za gospodarjenje z odpadki.
Box 9 describes one such case. 
Tak primer je opisan v okviru 9.
32 BOX 9 A GOOD EXAMPLE OF HOW DEVELOPING PUBLIC AWARENESS CAN RESULT IN A BETTER QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE FROM INFRASTRUCTURES One of the composting plants in Portugal (Lipor) was operated by a company providing waste management services (separate collection and treatment) to eight municipalities accounting approximately for 1 million inhabitants. 
OKVIR 9 DOBER PRIMER TEGA, KAKO LAHKO OZAVEŠČANJE IZBOLJŠA KAKOVOST DELOVANJA OBJEKTOV Eno od kompostarn na Portugalskem (Lipor) je upravljalo podjetje, ki je osmim občinam s približno enim milijonom prebivalcev zagotavljalo storitve gospodarjenja z odpadki (ločeno zbiranje in obdelava).
As the company considered communication and high levels of participation as key factors for the success of the management of waste, all its activities were associated with efforts to provide information, raise awareness and educate the public. 
Ker je podjetje menilo, da sta komuniciranje in visoka stopnja sodelovanja ključna dejavnika za uspešnost pri gospodarjenju z odpadki, je vse svoje dejavnosti povezalo s prizadevanji za zagotavljanje informacij, ozaveščanje in izobraževanje javnosti.
In particular, the construction of the composting plant was accompanied by communication and awareness campaigns as well as a specific marketing strategy for the compost. 
Zlasti ob gradnji kompostarne so potekale kampanje za komuniciranje in ozaveščanje, uporabljala pa se je tudi posebna strategija za trženje komposta.
Public satisfaction surveys were carried out periodically, a free information phone line was set up and waste management guidelines were published and distributed. 
Redno so se izvajale ankete o zadovoljstvu javnosti, vzpostavljena je bila brezplačna informativna telefonska linija, poleg tega pa so bile objavljene in razdeljene smernice za gospodarjenje z odpadki.
All these efforts resulted in a satisfactory segregation at source of biodegradable waste by households and commerce, which allowed the production and selling of high-quality compost (see Box 2). Special Report No 20/2012 – Is structural measures funding for municipal waste management infrastructure projects effective in helping Member States achieve EU waste policy objectives? 
Zaradi vseh teh prizadevanj so gospodinjstva in trgovine že pri viru zadovoljivo ločevali biološko razgradljive odpadke, kar je omogočilo proizvodnjo in prodajo visokokakovostnega komposta (glej okvir 2). Posebno poročilo št. 20/2012 – Ali financiranje projektov za izgradnjo objektov za gospodarjenje s komunalnimi odpadki v okviru strukturnih ukrepov uspešno pomaga državam članicam pri doseganju ciljev politike EU glede gospodarjenja z odpadki?
48. 
33 48.
However, the Court noted the following: (a) in none of the regions sampled did the responsible authorities measure the success of their information campaigns and no measurable targets had been defined at the outset; (b) in the two regions selected in Romania, despite some awareness campaigns, almost all biodegradable waste collected separately was found to be contaminated and had to be directly landfilled rather than being treated in the composting plants. ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES 49. 
Toda Sodišče je ugotovilo: (a) da odgovorni organi v nobeni od regij v vzorcu niso merili uspešnosti svojih kampanj za informiranje in na začetku niso bile opredeljene nobene merljive ciljne vrednosti; (b) da so bili v dveh izbranih regijah v Romuniji skoraj vsi ločeno zbrani biološko razgradljivi odpadki kljub nekaj kampanjam za ozaveščanje pomešani z drugimi odpadki, zato jih je bilo treba odložiti naravnost na odlagališče, saj jih ni bilo mogoče obdelati v kompostarnah.
As required by the waste directive, the eight regions implemented a system of issuing of permits for establishments carrying out waste treatment. 
UPRAVNI UKREPI 49. Osem regij je v skladu z direktivo o odpadkih uvedlo sistem izdajanja dovoljenj za subjekte, ki obdelujejo odpadke.
Such inspections were, however, limited to the assessment of potential environmental impacts and did not cover the performance aspect of the waste management facilities (see Box 6). 
V času revizije so odgovorni organi pregledovali vse objekte, vendar so bili ti inšpekcijski pregledi omejeni na oceno morebitnih okoljskih vplivov in niso zajemali delovanja objektov za gospodarjenje z odpadki (glej okvir 6).
Concerning separate collection, the Court noted significant discrepancies in its implementation in the regions and municipalities served by the waste management infrastructures audited. 
Sodišče je v zvezi z ločenim zbiranjem odpadkov opazilo precejšnje razlike v izvajanju med regijami in občinami, ki uporabljajo revidirane objekte za gospodarjenje z odpadki.
Whereas segregated collection of packaging waste, paper and cardboard and glass was widely implemented, contributing to the good performance observed in the audited sorting plants, separate collection of biodegradable waste was satisfactory in two regions only. 
Sicer se odpadna embalaža, papir in karton ter steklo v glavnem zbirajo ločeno, kar prispeva k uspešnosti revidiranih sortirnic, a ločeno zbiranje biološko razgradljivih odpadkov je bilo zadovoljivo samo v dveh regijah.
These regions contributed to meeting EU diversion targets for biodegradable waste and managed to reduce the kilograms landfilled per capita (see paragraphs 41 and 42). 
Ti regiji sta prispevali k doseganju ciljnih vrednosti EU za preusmerjanje biološko razgradljivih odpadkov z odlagališč, uspelo pa jima je tudi zmanjšati količino odpadkov, odloženih na odlagališča, na prebivalca (glej odstavka 41 in 42).
For the other six regions separate collection of biodegradable waste was generally not in place or was ineffective. 
Za preostalih šest regij ločeno zbiranje biološko razgradljivih odpadkov v glavnem ni bilo vzpostavljeno ali pa je bilo neuspešno.
As a result, composting plants treating mixed waste or biodegradable waste not properly segregated at source performed poorly. 
Zato kom-postarne, ki so obdelovale mešane odpadke ali pri viru neustrezno ločene biološko razgradljive odpadke, niso bile uspešne.
33 Special Report No 20/2012 – Is structural measures funding for municipal waste management infrastructure projects effective in helping Member States achieve EU waste policy objectives? 
Posebno poročilo št. 20/2012 – Ali financiranje projektov za izgradnjo objektov za gospodarjenje s komunalnimi odpadki v okviru strukturnih ukrepov uspešno pomaga državam članicam pri doseganju ciljev politike EU glede gospodarjenja z odpadki?
51. Figures show an inverse relationship between separate collection implementation and percentage of waste landfilled (see Figure 6). 
Podatki kažejo obratno sorazmerje med izvajanjem ločenega zbiranja odpadkov in deležem odpadkov, odloženih na odlagališča (glej diagram 6).
Regarding compost quality standards, the Court noted that, at the time of the audit, four regions lacked any such standard and for the remaining four regions the admissible concentration limits of heavy metals in the compost varied significantly and were less stringent than those contained in EU draft guidelines. 
Sodišče je glede standardov kakovosti za kompost ugotovilo, da v času revizije štiri regije niso imele nobenih takih standardov, v preostalih štirih pa so se omejitve glede sprejemljive vsebnosti težkih kovin v kompostu precej razlikovale in niso bile tako stroge kot tiste iz osnutka smernic EU.
The lack of quality standards contributed to the difficulties faced by the composting and anaerobic digestion plants in selling their compost. 
To, da ni bilo standardov kakovosti, je povečalo težave kompostarn in objektov za anaerobno razgradnjo pri prodaji komposta.
Source: European Court of Auditors based on data available at Commission and Member State levels. 
Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče na podlagi podatkov, ki so na voljo na ravni Komisije in držav članic.
35 ECONOMIC MEASURES 53. 
35 EKONOMSKI UKREPI 53.
Based on the review of the waste management tariffs charged by municipalities to households in at least the three major municipalities served by each infrastructure in the sample, the Court noted the following: (a) in all cases, tariffs were flat19 and not based on ‘pay as you throw’ schemes intended to take into consideration the ‘polluter pays principle’ and to prevent or reduce waste generation; (b) some municipalities, despite not having a ‘pay as you throw’ scheme, introduced elements in the tariff to encourage recycling (see Box 10). 
Sodišče je na podlagi pregleda cen za odvoz odpadkov, ki jih gospodinjstvom zaračunavajo vsaj tri velike občine, ki uporabljajo objekte v vzorcu, ugotovilo: (a) da so bile cene v vseh primerih pavšalne19 in niso temeljile na shemah „plačaj, kolikor odvržeš“, s katerimi naj bi se upoštevalo načelo „povzročitelj plača“ in preprečilo ali zmanjšalo povzročanje odpadkov; (b) nekatere občine so kljub temu, da niso uporabljale sheme „plačaj, kolikor odvržeš“, v ceni upoštevale elemente za spodbujanje recikliranja (glej okvir 10).
A waste disposal tax charged to municipalities20 per tonne of waste landfilled and/or incinerated on top of normal landfill and/or incineration fees is another economic incentive to try to change behaviour. 
Dajatev za odlaganje odpadkov, ki se poleg običajne cene za odlaganje na odlagališča in/ali sežig zaračunava občinam20 na tono odpadkov, odloženih na odlagališča, in/ali sežganih odpadkov, je še ena ekonomska spodbuda za spremembo vedenja.
Five of the eight regions sampled have introduced such a waste disposal tax to promote waste management options less damaging to the environment. 
Pet od osmih regij v vzorcu je uvedlo tako dajatev za odlaganje odpadkov, da bi spodbujale gospodarjenje z odpadki, ki je manj škodljivo za okolje.
The two regions with the highest level of landfill tax presented the lowest percentage of waste being disposed of in landfills in 2009 (see Figure 7) and the most significant improvements during the 2000–09 period. 
V dveh regijah z najvišjo dajatvijo za odlaganje odpadkov je bil leta 2009 odstotek odpadkov, odloženih na odlagališča, najmanjši (glej diagram 7), izboljšanje v obdobju 2000–2009 pa največje.
In order to encourage separate collection, two regions linked the amount of the waste disposal tax to the rate of separate collection achieved by each municipality (see Box 11). 
Regiji sta zaradi spodbujanja ločenega zbiranja odpadkov znesek dajatve za odlaganje odpadkov vezali na stopnjo ločenega zbiranja odpadkov, ki so jo dosegle posamezne občine (glej okvir 11).