natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Cilj strategije je prispevati k doseganju učinkovite in trajnostne uporabe naravnih virov, da bi se zmanjšal negativen vpliv odpadkov na okolje.
The objective of the strategy is to contribute to achieving efficient and sustainable use of natural resources, with a view to reducing the negative impact of waste on the environment.
To je eden od razlogov za sočasno objavo strategije o uporabi virov.
That is one of the reasons for the simultaneous publication of the strategy on resource use.
Evropska unija že več kot 30 let izvaja politiko ravnanja z odpadki.
The European Union has been pursuing a policy on waste for more than 30 years.
Politiko je uvedla kot odgovor na vse očitnejše probleme z odpadki ter ogroženost okolja in javnega zdravja zaradi vseh škodljivih vplivov, povezanih z nenadzorovanim odlaganjem odpadkov.
The policy was introduced in response to the fact that the problems of waste were becoming increasingly manifest, and the environment and public health were being put at risk by all of the harmful effects associated with the uncontrolled dumping of waste.
To je bil poglavitni razlog za razvoj politike ravnanja z odpadki.
That was the crucial reason for developing a policy on waste.
Najpomembnejši cilj politike ravnanja z odpadki pa je bil vedno varovanje okolja.
The most important goal of waste policy has always been the protection of the environment.
Ta interes, varovanje okolja, je treba imeti vedno v mislih.
It is very important to keep this concern, the protection of the environment, firmly in mind.
V zadnjih 30 letih je bilo doseženega veliko.
A great deal has been achieved over the past 30 years.
Številne škodljive snovi so bile odstranjene iz proizvodov in zato ne končajo več v odpadkih.
Many harmful substances have been eliminated from products and therefore no longer end up in waste.
Razviti so bili okolju prijaznejši načini ravnanja z odpadki.
More environmentally friendly methods of treating waste have been developed.
Vendar je treba poudariti, da obstajajo med državami članicami velike razlike v količini ponovno uporabljenih ali recikliranih odpadkov.
It should, however, be pointed out that there are major differences between the Member States as regards the volume of waste re‑used or recycled.
Na ravni EU je bila sprejeta zakonodaja o izvozu, odlaganju in sežiganju odpadkov.
At the EU level, legislation has been adopted on the export, landfilling and incineration of waste.
Poleg tega je bila uvedena zakonodaja za posebne tokove odpadkov, kot so odpadne baterije, embalaža, avtomobili in električna oprema.
In addition, legislation has been introduced for specific waste streams, such as waste batteries, packaging, cars and electrical equipment.
Izkazalo se je, da ni enostavno sprejemati, izvajati in nadzorovati zakonodajo ter zagotavljati njeno izvrševanje, kadar se ukvarja s tako številnimi tokovi odpadkov in različnimi načini ravnanja z njimi ter se uporablja v 25 različnih državah članicah.
It is proving no simple matter to adopt, implement, monitor and enforce legislation relating to so many different waste streams and different treatment methods, applying in 25 different Member States.
Čeprav je bilo pri zakonodaji in njenem izvajanju veliko doseženega, ostajajo zlasti naslednji problemi in pomanjkljivosti:
Although a great deal has been achieved with regard to legislation and its implementation, the following problems and shortcomings, in particular, exist:
· Količina odpadkov se še naprej veča.
· The volume of waste is continuing to increase.
· Še vedno se preveč odpadkov odlaga na odlagališča.
· Too much waste is still being landfilled.
· Odpadki se še vedno premalo ponovno uporabljajo in reciklirajo.
· There is still too little re‑use or recycling of waste.
· Še vedno so med državami članicami razlike v napredku (pri izvajanju) politike ravnanja z odpadki preštevilne in preširoke.
· Differences between Member States in terms of progress in (implementing) waste policy are still too numerous and too wide.
· Delno tudi kot posledica zgoraj navedenega je nezakonit in neželen prevoz odpadkov še vedno pogost pojav.
· Partly as a consequence of this, illegal and undesirable transport of waste is still a frequent occurrence.
· V teku je razprava o tolmačenju in izvajanju politike ravnanja z odpadki, tudi glede opredelitev.
· There is a continuing debate on the interpretation and implementation of waste policy, including with regard to definitions.
· Zakonodaja EU o odpadkih se neustrezno izvaja, prav tako se neustrezno zagotavlja njeno izvrševanje.
· EU legislation on waste is being inadequately implemented and enforced.
Glede na navedene probleme poročevalec pozdravlja dejstvo, da je Komisija končno podala predlog strategije.
In the light of these problems, your rapporteur welcomes the fact that the Commission has finally put forward a proposal for a strategy.
Vendar je obžalovanja vredno, da predlog omenjene probleme obravnava zgolj v zelo omejenem obsegu.
Regrettably, however, the proposal only addresses the aforementioned problems to a very limited extent.
Predlaganih je le malo konkretnih ukrepov na področju preprečevanja in recikliranja.
Few concrete measures are being proposed in the area of prevention and recycling.
Edini konkretni predlogi, ki so bili dani v obravnavo, so bili vključeni v spremembo okvirne direktive.
The only concrete proposals put forward have been taken up in the revision of the framework directive.
Glavni cilj politike EU o ravnanju z odpadki je varovati okolje, ne pa pospeševati notranji trg z odpadki.
The main aim of EU waste policy is to protect the environment, not to facilitate the internal market for waste.
Seveda je pomembno, da se nelojalna konkurenca odstrani s trga z odpadki.
It is, of course, important to eliminate unfair competition on the waste market.
To pomeni, da je treba v vseh državah članicah uporabljati enake okoljske pogoje in zagotavljati njihovo izvrševanje.
That means that the same environmental conditions must apply to all of the Member States and must be enforced.
Kljub tridesetletni zgodovini evropske zakonodaje o odpadkih smo žal še vedno daleč od uporabe enakih okoljskih pogojev za vse.
Despite a history of 30 years of European legislation on waste, we are, regrettably, still a long way from applying the same environmental conditions.
Za številne tokove odpadkov še ni sprejeta nikakršna zakonodaja.
In the case of a number of waste streams, no legislation is in place as yet.
Poleg tega se obstoječa zakonodaja ne izvaja oziroma se njeno izvrševanje ne zagotavlja (enako) v vseh državah članicah.
In addition, existing legislation is not being implemented and enforced (in the same way) in every Member State.
Zato je zelo pomembno, da se pozornost posveti veljavni zakonodaji o odpadkih v EU, in sicer izboljšanju njene uporabe, izvajanja in zagotavljanja njenega izvrševanja.
It is therefore very important to pay attention to improving the way in which current EU waste legislation is applied, implemented and enforced.
Prav tako je treba poudariti, da je tudi v prihodnji politiki ravnanja z odpadki v EU še naprej treba uporabljati previdnostno načelo, načelo, da plača povzročitelj obremenitve, načelo odgovornosti proizvajalca, načelo bližine in načelo samozadostnosti.
It should also be stressed that the precautionary principle, the 'polluter pays' principle, the principle of producer responsibility and the principles of proximity and self‑sufficiency must continue to be fully applied in future EU waste policy.
Še zlasti pri posebnih tokovih odpadkov se lahko z načelom individualne odgovornosti proizvajalca dosežejo pozitivni rezultati, kot npr. pri embalaži, baterijah, avtomobilih in električni opremi.
Above all for specific waste streams, the principle of individual producer responsibility can produce positive results, as, for example, in the case of packaging, batteries, cars and electrical equipment.
Ključni ukrepi
The key measures
Komisija je predlagala sveženj ukrepov, ki se delijo na štiri glavna področja.
The Commission has proposed a package of measures, which may be divided into four main areas.
V nadaljevanju so ti ukrepi predstavljeni, nanje pa so podane tudi pripombe.
These measures are set out, and commented on, below:
Komisija predlaga, naj se številne opredelitve razjasnijo, drugače uporabljajo ali razlagajo.
The Commission is proposing that a number of definitions be clarified, applied in a different way or interpreted differently.
Gre za opredelitve pojmov odpadki, odstranjevanje odpadkov, predelava odpadkov in recikliranje.
The definitions concerned are those of waste, disposal, recovery and recycling.
V praksi se je izkazalo, da pri opredelitvah, ki se uporabljajo v politiki ravnanja z odpadki v EU, obstajajo številni nesporazumi in nekaj negotovosti.
In practice, it has become apparent that there are various misunderstandings, and some uncertainty, surrounding the definitions used in EU waste policy.
Glavni razlog za to je dejansko stanje.
The main reason for this is that the situation in practice, involving all kinds of different waste streams and different types of waste handling, is very complex.
Ker vključuje nadvse različne tokove odpadkov in različne načine ravnanja z odpadki, je izjemno zapleteno.
Moreover, the waste industry has often insisted on testing the boundaries of European waste legislation in the courts.
Poleg tega je industrija odpadkov na sodiščih pogosto vztrajno preizkušala meje evropske zakonodaje o odpadkih, kar je pripeljalo do številnih sodb Evropskega sodišča, ki razlagajo ali razjasnjujejo zakonodajo.
This has led to a number of rulings by the European Court of Justice interpreting or clarifying the legislation.
Na splošno je namen Sodišča, da primere obravnava samo na osnovi veljavne zakonodaje.
Generally speaking, the idea is that the Court of Justice only tests cases against current legislation.
Ker pa je veljavna zakonodaja mestoma očitno nejasna in pomanjkljiva, je Sodišče v veliki meri prevzelo vlogo zakonodajalca.
As, however, the current legislation is evidently unclear in places and contains shortcomings, the Court has been stepping to a greater extent into the shoes of the legislature.
Zdaj je naloga zakonodajalca (Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta), da odpravi težave zaradi pomanjkljivosti in nejasnosti v zakonodaji.
The task of the legislature (the European Parliament and Council) is now to rectify the problem of the shortcomings and lack of clarity in the legislation.
Zelo pomembno pa je, da se jih loti premišljeno.
It is very important, however, to approach this in a well thought‑out way.
Spremembe opredelitev bi lahko ponovno vodile v dolgo obdobje negotovosti in k novim težavam, kako razlagati te nove opredelitve.
If definitions are changed, this could again lead to a long period of uncertainty and to fresh problems regarding how to interpret the new definitions.
Zato je bolje za osnovo vzeti obstoječe opredelitve in jih zgolj razjasniti in dopolniti, kjer je potrebno.
It is therefore better to take the existing definitions as the basis and to only clarify and supplement them where necessary.
Celotni sklop opredelitev bo zagotovil jasen okvir za evropsko zakonodajo o odpadkih.
The complete set of definitions is designed to provide a clear framework for European waste legislation.
Namen spreminjanja opredelitev vsekakor ni reševanje težav z negativno podobo, prav tako ne izogibanje določenim predpisom o varstvu okolja iz zakonodaje o odpadkih.
The purpose of amending definitions is absolutely not to deal with problems of image or to get round certain rules on environmental protection laid down in waste legislation.
Spreminjanje opredelitve pojma odpadki, da bi določene tokove odpadkov uvrstili med proizvode ter tako z njih odstranili negativno etiketo „odpadki“, ni utemeljen razlog za tako spremembo.
Amending the definition of waste in order to classify certain waste streams as products so as to remove the negative 'waste' label attaching to them is not a legitimate reason for introducing such an amendment.
Isto velja za spreminjanje opredelitve pojma predelava odpadkov, katerega namen je izogniti se negativni podobi odstranjevanja odpadkov.
The same applies to amending the definition of recovery with a view to getting away from the negative image of disposal.
Tudi neuspehi pri doseganju rezultatov pri ponovni uporabi, recikliranju in predelavi tokov odpadkov iz drugih direktiv niso dober razlog za spreminjanje opredelitev.
Failure to achieve targets for re‑use, recycling and recovery of waste streams under other directives is also not a good reason for amending definitions.
Ponovno je treba poudariti, da moramo opredelitve spremeniti zaradi logike, doslednosti in jasnosti.
It should be stressed again that definitions should be amended on grounds of logic, consistency and clarity.
Če obstajajo težave, povezane s cilji, je morda treba spremeniti cilje, ne pa opredelitev!
If there are problems in connection with targets, it may perhaps be necessary to amend the targets, not, however, the definitions!
4.1.1 Opredelitev pojma odpadki
4.1.1 Definition of waste
Komisija predlaga, naj bo dopustna možnost za uvrstitev tokov odpadkov med ne-odpadke.
The Commission is proposing to allow the possibility of classifying waste streams as non‑waste.
Naslednji predpogoj je, da status ne-odpadkov ne sme voditi k zmanjševanju varstva okolja.
A further prerequisite is that non‑waste status must not lead to a reduction in environmental protection.
Končno, status ne-odpadkov naj bi bilo možno pridobiti zgolj po taki obdelavi odpadkov, katere rezultat je proizvod, skladen s posebnimi evropskimi merili kakovosti, ki zagotavljajo, da se proizvod lahko uporablja v predvideni namen na varen in okoljsko odgovoren način.
Finally, non‑waste status should only be able to be obtained after the waste has undergone treatment which results in a product that meets specific European quality criteria, ensuring that it may be used for the intended purpose in a safe and environmentally responsible way.
Tokovi odpadkov, ki imajo možnost, da se jim podeli status ne-odpadkov, so reciklirani kompost in inertni del odpadkov pri rušenju objektov (granuliran gradbeni material).
Waste streams that may be eligible to be accorded non‑waste status are recycled compost and the inert part of destruction and demolition waste (granulated rubble).
4.1.2 Opredelitev pojmov dejavnosti odstranjevanja in predelave
4.1.2 Definition of disposal and recovery activities
Opredelitve pojmov iz veljavne zakonodaje v skladu z razlagami Evropskega sodišča ne spodbujajo dobrih okoljskih praks.
The definitions laid down in current legislation, as interpreted by the European Court of Justice, do not tend to promote good environmental practice.
Tako na primer sosežiganje odpadkov v betonskih sežigalnicah Sodišče obravnava kot predelavo, sežiganje odpadkov v posebnih sežigalnicah pa obravnava kot odstranjevanje, čeprav so okoljski standardi za emisije onesnaževal manj strogi v primeru sosežigalnih obratov.
For example, co- incineration of waste in a cement kiln is deemed by the Court to constitute recovery and incineration of waste in a specialised incineration kiln to constitute disposal, although the environmental standards applying to pollutant emissions are less stringent in the case of co-incineration plants.
Da bi rešila ta problem, Komisija predlaga, naj se sežigalnicam z visoko energetsko učinkovitostjo podeli status predelave.
In order to resolve this problem, the Commission is proposing to accord recovery status to incineration plants with high energy efficiency.
Tak pristop je vprašljiv, saj je seveda sežiganje odpadkov namenjeno predvsem njihovemu odstranjevanju.
This approach raises questions, as the incineration of waste is, clearly, designed in particular to dispose of waste.
Problem sežigalnih in sosežigalnih obratov bi bilo bolje rešiti tako, da se obojim naloži enake okoljske standarde.
It would be better to resolve the problem in relation to incineration and co‑incineration plants by imposing the same environmental conditions on both.
V praksi bi to lahko izvedli s spremembo direktive o sežiganju odpadkov, ki bi za sežigalne in sosežigalne obrate uporabljala enake emisijske standarde in standarde energetske učinkovitosti.
In practice, that may be done by amending the directive on waste incineration in order to apply the same emissions and energy efficiency standards to both incineration and co-incineration plants.
Komisija daje tehničnim odborom pomembno vlogo pri določanju, kdaj odpadki niso več odpadki ali kdaj lahko dejavnost obravnavamo kot odstranjevanje in kdaj kot predelavo.
The Commission gives technical committees an important role in determining when waste ceases to be waste or when an activity may be regarded as disposal and when it may be regarded as recovery.
Ker imajo lahko tovrstne odločitve pomembne posledice, jih je treba sprejeti na politični ravni s postopkom soodločanja.
Given that such decisions may have important consequences, they must be taken at the political level, through the codecision procedure.
4.2 Uvedba koncepta življenjskega cikla v politiki ravnanja z odpadki
4.2 Introduction of life-cycle thinking into waste policy
Komisija predlaga, naj se pri izbiranju najboljšega načina za ravnanje s tokom odpadkov izvede analiza življenjskega cikla.
The Commission is proposing that, when deciding on the best way of handling a waste stream, a life cycle analysis be carried out.
S tako analizo je mogoče določiti, kateri način ravnanja z odpadki je najboljši ob upoštevanju celotnega življenjskega cikla, od proizvodnje vključno do obdelave odpadkov.
With the help of such an analysis, it is possible to determine what way of handling waste is best for the environment taking account of the whole of the life cycle, from production up to and including the treatment of waste.
Načeloma je treba ta pristop obravnavati pozitivno, saj temelji na preverjanju celotnega vpliva na okolje.
In principle, this approach is to be viewed positively, as it is based on looking at the overall environmental impact.
Na drugi strani obstaja nevarnost, da je narava takega pristopa predvsem teoretična.
On the other hand, there is a risk that this approach is chiefly theoretical in nature.
V praksi bo zelo težko izvesti objektivno analizo življenjskega cikla.
In practice, it will be very difficult to carry out an objective life cycle analysis.
Če analiza vključuje nezanesljive dejavnike, pušča veliko prostora za razpravo.
If there are uncertain factors in the analysis, there will be a lot of room for discussion.
Ta pa lahko hitro pripelje do ocene, ki bo izdelana na osnovi politične, namesto čisto tehnične, obravnave.
That can quickly lead to an assessment being made on the basis of political, rather than purely technical, considerations.
Zato je za izhodišče bolje obdržati sedaj veljavno petstopenjsko hierarhijo ravnanja z odpadki.
It is therefore better to retain the current five‑step waste hierarchy as the starting point.
Vendar je v primeru omejenega števila posebnih tokov odpadkov možno predvideti odklone od te hierarhije.
It is possible to envisage deviating from this hierarchy, however, in the case of a limited number of specific waste streams.
S tem v zvezi pa je seveda treba jasno dokazati, da ima ravnanje z odpadki na nižji stopnji hierarhije jasne koristi za okolje.
It is necessary, of course, to clearly demonstrate, in that connection, that the handling of waste at a lower level in the hierarchy has clear environmental benefits.
Poleg tega takih odločitev ne smemo prepustiti tehničnim odborom, ker gre za odločitve glede politike.
Furthermore, such decisions must not be left to technical committees, as they are policy decisions.
Čeprav je izboljšanje temeljnega znanja o politiki ravnanja z odpadki vedno dobrodošlo, obstaja tveganje, da se mu bo posvetil nesorazmeren delež časa in energije.
Although it is always desirable to improve the knowledge base in relation to waste policy, there is a risk that a disproportionate amount of time and energy could be devoted to this.
To se ne sme zgoditi na račun sprejemanja in uveljavljanja konkretnih ukrepov za izboljšanje politike ravnanja z odpadki in boljše varovanje okolja.
This must not be done at the expense of adopting and implementing concrete measures to improve waste policy and better protect the environment.
Tako mora na primer temeljno znanje za analizo življenjskega cikla voditi do objektivne metode, preverjati pa ga mora neodvisni odbor strokovnjakov.
The knowledge base for a life cycle analysis, for example, must lead to an objective method and be verified by an independent committee of experts.
Komisija pravzaprav predlaga, naj se možni ukrepi za preprečevanje nastajanja odpadkov prepustijo državam članicam.
The Commission is simply proposing that possible measures on waste prevention be chiefly left to the Member States.
Šesti okoljski akcijski program Skupnosti jasno opredeljuje, da je treba uvesti posebne cilje zmanjšanja.
The Sixth Environment Action Programme clearly states that specific reduction targets must be introduced.
Takih ciljev pa ne predlaga Komisija, čeprav bi bilo to nujno, saj nastajanje odpadkov nenehno narašča.
Such targets are not, however, being proposed by the Commission, although this is necessary given that waste generation is continually increasing.
Gospodarsko rast je tako ali drugače treba ločiti od nastajanja odpadkov.
In one way or another it is necessary to separate economic growth and waste generation.
Pri tem bo morda pomembno vlogo prevzelo nadaljnje uvajanje odgovornosti proizvajalca.
Further introducing producer responsibility may possibly play a role in this.
4.5 K evropski družbi recikliranja
4.5 Towards a European recycling society
Cilj, za katerega si prizadeva Komisija, družba recikliranja, je hvalevreden.
The goal to which the Commission aspires, a recycling society, is a laudable one.
Zavedati pa se moramo, da smo žal še daleč od tega cilja.
However, it is important to be aware that, unfortunately, we are still a long way from that goal.
Čeprav je v šestem okoljskem akcijskem programu določeno, da mora Komisija uvesti nove direktive o bioloških odpadkih, gradbenih odpadkih ter odpadkih pri rušenju objektov in blatu iz čistilnih naprav, tega še ni storila.
Although the Sixth Environment Action Programme specified that the Commission must introduce new directives relating to biowaste, construction and demolition waste and sewage sludge, it has not yet done so.
Potreba po tovrstni zakonodaji pa je očitna, ker trenutno primanjkuje jasnih predpisov.
There is, however, a great need for such legislation, as there is at present a lack of clear rules.
To ne pomaga ne okolju ne notranjemu trgu za recikliranje.
That is not helping the environment or the internal market for recycling.
Razen tega tudi sama industrija zahteva evropsko zakonodajo za te tokove odpadkov.
Furthermore, the industry itself is asking for European legislation on these waste streams.
Poleg tega je zelo presenetljivo, da Komisija namiguje, da je obstoječa zakonodaja Evropske unije problematična.
In addition, it is very surprising that it is being implied by the Commission that existing EU legislation is a problem.
Predlagala je celo, da je treba spremeniti cilje recikliranja za izrabljena vozila in za odpadke električne opreme.
It is even being suggested that the targets for recycling of end‑of‑life vehicles and waste electrical equipment should be amended.
Prav tako je po mnenju Komisije treba natančno pregledati uredbo o pošiljkah odpadkov, čeprav naj bi (po intenzivnih pogajanjih) zadevno zakonodajo v kratkem objavili.
Moreover, according to the Commission, the Waste Shipment Regulation should be overhauled, although (following intensive negotiations) the legislation in question is to be published shortly.
Komisija pa niti slučajno nima prav, saj je ravno namen uredbe o pošiljkah odpadkov preprečiti pošiljke odpadkov čez mejo, s katerimi se skušajo obiti okoljski predpisi ali se skuša ravnati z odpadki na način, ki manj varuje okolje.
The Commission is completely wide of the mark here, as the Waste Shipment Regulation is precisely designed to prevent cross-border shipments of waste that seek to circumvent environmental rules or treat waste in a way which provides less protection for the environment.