natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
meni, da je treba, ker naj se pomemben del izdatkov za omrežje Natura 2000 vključi v sklad za razvoj podeželja in/ali strukturne sklade, ustrezno povečati sredstva tega sklada;
Believes that, as a significant part of Natura 2000 expenditure is to be included in the Rural Development Fund and/or the Structural Funds, the endowment of the funds needs to be increased accordingly;
poziva k vzpostavitvi po letu 2006 namenskega sklada EU za biotsko raznovrstnost v okviru predloga LIFE+, namenjenega zagotavljanju sredstev za upravljanje omrežja Natura 2000, ki se ne morejo črpati ne iz strukturnih skladov ne iz sklada za razvoj podeželja;
Calls for the establishment after 2006 of a dedicated EU fund for biodiversity within the LIFE+ proposal, providing funding for Natura 2000 management activities that cannot be funded from either structural or rural development funds;
meni, da se lahko iz skladov za razvoj podeželja financirajo kompenzacijska plačila kmetom, ki so na območju Nature 2000 utrpeli dodatne stroške, če to ne pomeni zmanjšanja potrebnega financiranja drugih ukrepov v okviru razvoja podeželja, dobrobiti živali, kmetijsko-okoljskih ukrepov in drugih ciljev, vključenih v predlagano uredbo o skladih za razvoj podeželja;
Believes that the Rural Development Funds can be used to compensate the extra farming costs in Natura 2000 sites, provided that this does not reduce the required funding for other measures within rural development, animal welfare, agri-environmental measures and other objectives included in the proposed Rural Development Funds regulation;
priznava, da pretekle izkušnje kažejo na omejen uspeh, čeprav celostni pristop ob robustnem izvajanju učinkuje; meni, da predlagane uredbe sklada za razvoj podeželja in strukturnega sklada ne izražajo ustreznih določb Nature 2000, ker ne upoštevajo želje sporočila in ogrožajo cilj biotske raznovrstnosti EU 2010, med drugim zaradi naslednjega:
Recognises that, while the integration approach might be effective if it is implemented in a robust manner, past experience shows success has been limited; considers that the proposed rural development and structural fund regulations fail to reflect adequate Natura 2000 provisions, failing to deliver upon the Communication's ambition and putting the EU 2010 biodiversity target at risk, inter alia due to the following:
ohranitev biotske raznovrstnosti doslej ni bila glavni cilj razvoja podeželja in strukturnih skladov ter lahko v lokalnem in regionalnem smislu celo nasprotuje drugim ciljem socialno-ekonomskega razvoja;
biodiversity conservation has, until now, not been a major objective of rural development and structural funds, and may in a local and regional context even conflict with other socio-economic development objectives;
sofinanciranje področij Natura 2000 bi neposredno konkuriralo drugim ekonomskim in socialnim projektom, kot so vseevropska omrežja ali strukturno prilagajanje v kmetijstvu;
co-financing of Natura 2000 sites would compete directly with other economic and social projects, such as the Trans-European Networks or structural adjustment in farming;
programiranje in upravljanje skladov za razvoj podeželja in strukturnih skladov je usmerjeno k pospeševanju regionalnega socialno-ekonomskega razvoja, uprave, odgovorne za njihovo upravljanje, pa imajo zdaj še vedno omejeno pristojnost za ohranjanje narave, ker jim primanjkuje strokovnega znanja, izkušenj in spretnosti, potrebnih za upravljanje projektov s cilji ohranjanja narave;
the programming and management of rural development and structural funds is geared towards fostering regional socio-economic development, and the administrations responsible for managing them have, at the moment, still limited nature conservation competencies, lacking the expertise and skills required to manage projects with nature conservation objectives;
jamstva, kot je sprostitev strukturnega financiranja, pogojenega z ustreznimi nacionalnimi načrti financiranja Nature 2000, niso predvidena, čeprav so določena v sporočilu o finančnih perspektivah;
no guarantees such as making the release of structural funding conditional upon adequate national Natura 2000 financing plans are foreseen although stipulated in the Communication on the Financial Perspectives;
strukturni, podeželski ali LIFE+ predlogi v sedanji obliki ne zagotavljajo najnižjega financiranja Nature 2000 ali dodatnega financiranja tistih sredstev, ki izražajo to prednostno nalogo;
structural, rural or LIFE+ proposals in their present form do not guarantee minimum funding for Natura 2000 nor additional funding to those instruments reflecting this priority;
poziva Komisijo, da prilagodi svoje mnenje o finančnem inštrumentu za okolje, projekt LIFE +, in v ta sklad vključi cilj, namenjen biotski raznovrstnosti, za zagotovitev financiranja upravljanja področij Natura 2000 poleg skladov za razvoj podeželja, strukturnih skladov in skladov za ribištvo ter poleg skladov, ki so jih dale na voljo države članice, vključujoč posebne naložbe, projekte in nujne ukrepe za ohranjanje narave; raziskave, izobraževanje in ozaveščanje v zvezi z ohranjanjem narave; za čezmejno sodelovanje s tretjimi državami v zvezi z projekti ohranjanja narave;
Calls on the Commission to adjust its proposal for the Financial Instrument for the Environment, LIFE+, to include a dedicated biodiversity objective within that fund to provide funding for the management of Natura 2000 sites complementary to the rural development, structural and the fisheries funds, and complementary to funds made available by the Member States, including for special nature conservation investments, projects and emergencies; for nature conservation research, education and awareness-raising; and for cross-border cooperation with third countries on nature conservation projects;
poudarja, da izračun letnih stroškov Komisije za omrežje Natura 2000, ki znaša 6,1 milijarde EUR, verjetno znatno podcenjuje skupne stroške upravljanja omrežja, in mora biti zato obravnavan le kot nujen najmanjši delež; poudarja tudi, da izračun ne upošteva pristopa novih držav članic (Romunije, Bolgarije in Hrvaške) in da se morajo finančne potrebe ponovno izračunati, da se pokrije omrežje Natura 2000 v vsej EU;
Stresses that the Commission's calculation of the annual cost of the Natura 2000 network of EUR 6.1 billion is likely to be a significant under-estimate of the full cost of managing the network, and therefore should only be considered as the minimum necessary; further stresses that the calculation does not take into account the accession of the new Member States (Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia), and that the financial needs must be recalculated in order to cover the Natura 2000 network in the whole EU;
pozdravlja namero Komisije, da vključi politiko ohranjanja narave v širši okvir trajnostnega gospodarskega, družbenega in regionalnega razvoja v Evropski uniji; vendar meni, da končni predlog Komisije ne odraža njene trdne odločenosti, da bo predvidela zadostno financiranje in zagotovila njeno uspešno izvajanje;
Welcomes the Commission's intention to incorporate nature-conservation policy in the broader framework of sustainable economic, social and regional development in the European Union; considers, however, that its final proposal does not demonstrate its firm resolve to provide sufficient funding for this policy and ensure its successful implementation;
podpira namen Komisije, da objavi podrobna navodila, kako uporabiti strukturne sklade za podporo omrežju Natura 2000 in jo poziva, naj spoštuje sprejeto obveznost, uvrstiti financiranje Nature 2000 kot prednostno nalogo med prihodnje strateške smernice Skupnosti za kohezijsko politiko;
Supports the Commission's intention to publish detailed guidance on how to use the structural funds to support the Natura 2000 network and calls on the Commission to make good its assurances that Natura 2000 financing will be listed as a priority in the forthcoming Community Strategic Guidelines for Cohesion Policy;
poziva k priznanju, s spodbujanjem in širjenjem dobre prakse, tistih ozemeljskih enot, ki pokažejo sposobnost stroškovno učinkovitega upravljanja svojih območij Nature 2000 v okoljskem in tudi v finančnem smislu;
Calls for the recognition, by means of encouraging and spreading best-practice, of those territorial units which demonstrate their ability to manage their respective Natura 2000 areas cost-efficiently in both environmental and financial terms;
poudarja pomen sodelovanja nacionalnih parlamentov, socialnih partnerjev, civilne družbe in regionalnih ter lokalnih oblasti pri uresničevanju teh ciljev prek spodbujanja ustrezne javne razprave;
Stresses the importance of involving the national parliaments, the social partners, civil society and regional and local authorities in implementing these objectives, by promoting proper public consultation;
ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1260/2001 z dne 19. junija 2001 o skupni ureditvi trga za sladkor UL L 178, 30.6.2001, str.
having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p.
Uredba, kakor je bila nazadnje spremenjena z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 39/2004 (UL L 6, 10.1.2004, str.
Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 39/2004 (OJ L 6, 10.1.2004, p.
ob upoštevanju sporočil Komisije Svetu in Parlamentu o vzpostavitvi trajnega kmetijskega modela za Evropo, zlasti da bi se preoblikoval sektor sladkorja ( KOM(2003)0554 UL C 96, 21.4.2004, str.
having regard to the Commission communications to the Council and Parliament on accomplishing a sustainable agricultural model for Europe and, in particular, reform of the sugar sector ( COM(2003)0554 OJ C 96, 21.4.2004, p.
in KOM(2004)0499 ),
and COM(2004)0499 ),
ob upoštevanju analiz vpliva, povezanih z možnostmi reform, predvidenih za ureditev Skupnosti na področju sladkorja (SEK(2003)1022),
having regard to the extended impact assessment on the options for reform of the Community sugar regime (SEC(2003)1022),
ob upoštevanju pogajanj z državami AKP, kot izhaja iz Protokola št. 3 o sladkorju iz držav AKP k Prilogi V k Sporazumu o sodelovanju AKP-ES UL L 195, 1.8.2000, str.
having regard to the negotiations with the ACP States referred to in Protocol No 3 on ACP sugar of Annex V to the ACP-EP Partnership Agreement OJ L 195, 1.8.2000, p.
o uporabi sheme splošnih tarifnih preferencialov in Uredbe (ES) 416/2001 o podaljšanju brezcarinskega dostopa brez kakršnih koli količinskih omejitev za proizvode, ki izvirajo iz najmanj razvitih držav UL L 60, 1.3.2001, str.
and Regulation (EC) No 416/2001 on the extension of duty-free access without any quantitative restrictions to products originating in the least developed countries (LDCs) OJ L 60, 1.3.2001, p.
ob upoštevanju resolucij, povezanih s sladkorjem, ki jih je sprejela Skupna parlamentarna skupščina AKP-EU dne 1. novembra 2001 UL C 78, 2.4.2002, str.
having regard to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly's resolutions on sugar of 1 November 2001 OJ C 78, 2.4.2002, p.
in 21. marca 2002 UL C 231, 27.9.2002, str.
and 21 March 2002 OJ C 231, 27.9.2002, p.
ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 2007/2000 z dne 18. septembra 2000 o uvedbi izjemnih trgovinskih ukrepov za države in ozemlja, ki sodelujejo ali so povezana s stabilizacijsko-pridružitvenim procesom Evropske unije UL L 240, 23.9.2000, str.
having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2000 of 18 September 2000 introducing exceptional trade measures for countries and territories participating in or linked to the European Union's Stabilisation and Association process OJ L 240, 23.9.2000, p.
ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 2563/2000 z dne 20. novembra 2000 o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 2007/2000 z razširitvijo izjemnih trgovinskih ukrepov za države in ozemlja, ki sodelujejo ali so povezana s stabilizacijsko-pridružitvenim procesom Evropske unije, na Nekdanjo jugoslovansko republiko Makedonijo in Zvezno republiko Jugoslavijo UL L 295, 23.11.2000, str.
having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2563/2000 of 20 November 2000 amending Regulation (EC) No 2007/2000 by extending to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia the exceptional trade measures for countries and territories participating in or linked to the European Union's stabilisation and association process OJ L 295, 23.11.2000, p.
ob upoštevanju reforme sistema splošnih preferencialov, ki jo predlaga Komisija ( KOM(2004)0461 UL C 242, 29.9.2004, str.
having regard to the reform of the Generalized System of Preferences proposed by the Commission ( COM(2004)0461 OJ C 242, 29.9.2004, p.
in KOM(2004)0699 UL C 52, 2.3.2005, str.
and COM(2004)0699 OJ C 52, 2.3.2005, p.
ob upoštevanju člena 299(2) Pogodbe ES,
having regard to Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty,
ker so za obveznosti, za katere se je Evropska unija obvezala v krogu pogajanj iz Dohe, potrebne manjše carinske dajatve in manjši ukrepi pomoči na področju proizvodnje ter izvoza; ker je zaradi teh obveznosti in potrebe po modernizaciji celotnega sektorja, da postane bolj konkurenčen, nujna reforma skupne ureditve trga za sladkor,
whereas the commitments entered into by the European Union within the framework of the Doha round require a reduction in customs duties and a reduction in production and export support measures; whereas these commitments and the need for the entire sector to be brought up to date and made more competitive necessitate reform of the common organisation of the market in sugar,
ker bo izid pritožbe zoper odločitev STO vplival na obseg zmanjšanja kvot, zaradi česar je potrebno razmišljanje o prihodnosti sladkorja C,
whereas the outcome of the appeal against the WTO panel ruling will influence the level of quota cuts, making it necessary to consider the future of C sugar,
ker se je Evropska unija po sporazumih o preferencialih z državami AKP in Indijo obvezala, da bo uvozila določeno količino sladkorja z izvorom v teh držav po zajamčeni ceni,
whereas, under the preferential agreements with the ACP countries and India, the European Union is committed to importing a fixed quantity of sugar from those countries at guaranteed prices,
ker pobuda "vse, razen orožja" (EBA), če se uporabi v obstoječi obliki, lahko povzroči velik pritok sladkorja na evropski trg, zlasti preko nezakonite tristranske trgovine, kjer se sladkor, kupljen po ceni na svetovnem trgu, ponovno uvaža v Evropo; ker je odkrivanje takih dejavnosti skoraj nemogoče, ker ti izvozi ogrožajo skladnost in ravnovesje skupne ureditve trga in ker je ta goljufija v škodo evropskih davkoplačevalcev,
whereas the "Everything but Arms" (EBA) initiative, if it is applied as it stands, will result in a massive influx of sugar onto the European market, in particular through illegal triangular trade whereby sugar purchased in advance at the world market price is re-exported to Europe; whereas it is virtually impossible to detect transactions of this kind and whereas such imports put the coherence and even the very balance of the common organisation of the market at risk; whereas, at the same time, such fraud is damaging to European taxpayers,
ker pobuda EBA, kljub temu da ima izredno velikodušne cilje, ne zagotavlja gospodarskega in socialnega razvoja najmanj razvitih držav, saj bodo od predvidene rasti tristranske trgovine imele koristi samo tiste tretje države, ki so že konkurenčne; ker je to v primeru sladkorja z gospodarskega vidika zavajajoče, saj bo v prihodnosti vsako povečanje izvoza sladkorja iz najmanj razvitih držav v Evropo povzročilo zmanjšanje evropske cene, kar je v nasprotju z interesi najmanj razvitih držav,
whereas, although the EBA initiative is generous in its objectives, it does not provide the LDCs with any assurance of economic and social development since the likely increase in triangular trade will benefit only those third countries which are already competitive; whereas it is economically misleading in relation to sugar as, in future, any rise in exports of LDC sugar to Europe will bring the European price down, which is against the interests of the LDCs,
ker zaradi tega najmanj razvite države zahtevajo novo ureditev pobude EBA in ker bo hkrati večletni sistem splošnih preferencialov potekel 31. decembra 2005,
whereas, consequently, the LDCs are calling for new rules for the EBA initiative and whereas the multiannual generalised system of preferences expires on 31 December 2005,
ker sta Uredbi Sveta (ES) št. 2007/2000 in št. 2563/2000, ki državam Zahodnega Balkana zagotavljata brezcarinski in neomejen dostop do trga sladkorja Evropske unije, povzročili izjemno povečanje uvoza sladkorja iz teh držav, zlasti preko nezakonite tristranske trgovine, kjer se sladkor, kupljen predhodno po ceni na svetovnem trgu, ponovno uvaža v Evropsko unijo,
whereas Regulations (EC) No 2007/2000 and No 2563/2000, which provided free and unrestricted access to the European Union's sugar market for the West Balkan countries, have resulted in an unprecedented growth of sugar imports from these countries, in particular through illegal triangular trade whereby sugar purchased in advance at the world market price is re-exported to the European Union,
ker je v prihodnosti možna vključitev držav Zahodnega Balkana v Evropsko unijo, ni zaželeno in ne bi bilo razumno, da bi ustvarili presežne in gospodarsko neupravičene zmožnosti proizvodnje sladkorja s spodbujanjem na podlagi sistema preferencialov,
whereas in view of the possible accession of the West Balkan countries to the EU in the future, it would not be desirable or reasonable to create economically non-viable excess sugar-producing capacity by stimulating it with preferential treatment,
poudarja pomen resolucije Evropskega sveta v Bruslju (24.-25. oktober 2002), ki navaja, da morajo biti reforme izvedene na način, ki ustrezno upošteva specifične probleme manj razvitih regij; ker morajo vzporedno potekati prizadevanja za ohranjanje evropske konkurenčne proizvodnje na visoki ravni,
emphasising the importance of the resolution of the European Council in Brussels (24-25 October 2002) which states that the reforms must be carried out in a way that gives due consideration to the specific problems of the less-favoured regions; and whereas, at the same time, efforts should be made to maintain competitive European production on a sustainable basis,
ker je treba v skladu s sklepi Evropskega sveta iz Bruslja še naprej upoštevati potrebe proizvajalcev iz manj razvitih regij Evropske unije,
whereas - as called for in the Brussels European Council conclusions - the requirements of producers living in disadvantaged regions of the EU must be met,
ker mora reforma skupne ureditve trga za sladkor omogočati cenovno raven, ki zagotavlja primerno nadomestilo tako proizvajalcem v Skupnosti kot tudi dobaviteljem iz držav AKP in najmanj razvitih držav,
whereas the reform of the common organisation of the market in sugar should serve to ensure that prices are set at a level which will provide an adequate income both for Community producers and for suppliers based in the ACP countries and in the LDCs,
ker splošna usmeritev sporočil Komisije ruši ravnovesje v sladkornem sektorju (v škodo proizvajalcev v Skupnosti in dobaviteljev iz najmanj razvitih držav ter proizvajalcev iz AKP ter grozi, da bo izginilo gojenje sladkorne pese, sladkorna industrija ter s tem povezane gospodarske dejavnosti v številnih regijah Evropske unije),
whereas the general tendency of the Commission communications is to upset the existing balance in the sugar sector (to the detriment of Community producers, suppliers based in the LDCs and ACP producers), and to threaten to eliminate the growing of beet, the sugar industry and associated economic activities in numerous regions of the European Union;
ker bo znižanje cen in kvot, ki ga omenja Komisija, v sektorju sladkorja povzročilo velike izgube prihodkov vpletenih v sladkornem sektorju, ne da bi od tega imeli koristi potrošniki, kot so to pokazale prejšnje reforme, ko se z znižanjem cen surovin niso znižale cene končnih izdelkov,
whereas the reduction in prices and quotas envisaged by the Commission will lead to devastating income losses for those involved in the sugar sector, including beet growers, without - in all probability - bringing any real benefit to consumers, as has already occurred in earlier reforms, where a reduction in the price of raw materials has not led to a reduction in consumer prices,
ker ima sladkorni trs vodilno družbeno-ekonomsko vlogo v nekaterih najbolj oddaljenih regijah in igra nezamenljivo vlogo v zvezi z dohodkom kmetovalcev v teh regijah, ki so že prizadete zaradi specifičnih in trajnih strukturnih težav, ki jih priznavajo Pogodbe,
whereas sugar cane occupies a very dominant socio-economic position in some of the outermost regions and plays an irreplaceable role in terms of farmers' income in those regions, which already suffer from specific and permanent structural disadvantages which are recognised by the Treaties,
ker rast proizvodnje sladkorja v nekaterih poglavitnih državah, ki proizvajajo sladkorni trs, resno vpliva na okolje, zlasti z uničevanjem deževnih gozdov, erozijo zemlje in izkoriščanjem naravnih virov, vode, tal itd.,
whereas the growing production of sugar in certain leading sugar cane-producing countries has serious impacts on the environment, such as the devastation of rain forests, land erosion and the exploitation of the natural resources, water, soil, etc.,
Notranji vidiki reforme
Internal aspects of the reform
poudarja, da akterji na področju sladkorja potrebujejo dovolj veliko predvidljivost, da lahko izpeljejo potrebna vlaganja za povečanje konkurenčnosti; zato ocenjuje, da je nujno, da Komisija takoj določi svoje namene za obdobje po letu 2008; predlaga, da reforma skupne ureditve trga za sladkor ostane nespremenjena do konca leta 2012;
Points out that stakeholders in the sugar sector need sufficient predictability if they are to make the necessary investments to become more competitive; considers, therefore, that it is vital that the Commission should now clarify its intentions for the post-2008 period; suggests that the reform of the common organisation of the market should not be altered until the end of 2012;
pozdravlja pripravo študije o ocenitvi vpliva različnih možnosti te reforme s strani Komisije; vendar pa obžaluje, da v tem dokumentu niso vključene jasne posledice osnutka reforme v posameznih državah članicah in različnih proizvodnih regijah sladkorja, zlasti v zvezi z zaposlitvijo v sektorju;
Welcomes the Commission's extended impact assessment of the various options for reform, but regrets that the document does not discuss the exact consequences of the proposed reform in the various Member States and different sugar-producing regions, particularly in terms of employment in the sector;
od Komisije zahteva, da čim prej izvede poglobljeno študijo o ocenitvi vplivov, ki bo obravnavala socialno-ekonomske posledice te reforme za proizvajalce pese in delavce v tem sektorju ter posledice opustitve nekaterih kmetijskih območij v EU; poziva Komisijo, da razširi študijo o presoji vplivov na mogoče učinke reforme na trg žitaric;
Calls on the Commission to carry out a detailed impact assessment without delay for the purpose of studying the socio-economic repercussions which the reform will have both in the case of sugar beet producers and in the case of workers in the industry, and also the effect which it will have on the abandonment of certain rural areas in the EU; calls on the Commission to extend its impact assessment study to the possible effects of the reform on the cereals market;