97230 DANUBE WATER PROGRAM Water and Wastewater Services in the Danube Region Slovenia Country Note A State of the Sector | May 2015 danube-water-program.org | danubis.org CZECH REPUBLIC UKRAINE DANUBE SLOVAKIA DANUBE AUSTRIA MOLDOVA DANUBE HUNGARY SLOVENIA CROATIA ROMANIA DANUBE DANUBE BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA SERBIA BULGARIA MONTENEGRO KOSOVO FYR ALBANIA MACEDONIA Key Water and Sanitation Sector Challenges X Increasing the rehabilitation of the water infrastructure and improving its reliability. Although there has been much progress in the replacement and rehabilitation of the water and sanitation infrastructure, water losses in some utilities remain very high, evidence that more replacement work is needed. In addition, the hydrological drought of 2011–2012 proved that numerous water supply systems may experience serious problems in case of prolonged drought. X Improving monitoring and reporting practices. The only effective monitoring system currently is the water quality monitoring scheme. There are no other utility performance monitoring and reporting systems, such as on water balance, water losses, and nonrenewable water. This makes monitoring of improvements in operational efficiency and sound economic management of water utilities almost impossible. Further resources On water services in the Danube Region X A regional report analyzing the State of Sector in the region, as well as detailed country notes for 15 additional countries, are available at SoS.danubis.org X Detailed utility performance data are accessible, if available, at www.danubis.org/eng/utility-database On water services in Slovenia The following documents are recommended for further reading; the documents, and more, are available at www.danubis.org/eng/country-resources/slovenia X Filippini, M., N. Hrovatin, and J. Zoric. 2008. “Cost Efficiency of Slovenian Water Distribution Utilities: An Application of Stochastic Frontier Methods.” Journal of Productivity Analysis 29 (2), 169- 182. X TC Vode. 2013. Market Sector Scan of Water Management of Slovenia. Ljubljana: TC Vode. Acknowledgments. This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, ts Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on part of The World Bank concerning legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. This note has been prepared by Maria Salvetti, consu tant, with the support of Stjepan Gabric, World Bank, based on the data collection by Primoz Banovec, local consu tant. It is part of a regional State of the Sector review led by David Michaud, World Bank, under the Danube Water Program financed by the Austrian Ministry of Finance, whose support is gratefully acknowledged. The authors welcome comments and can be contacted through David Michaud (dmichaud@worldbank org). Rights and Permissions. The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2422; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. DANUBE WATER PROGRAM WATER SNAPSHOT Sources for all numbers in the snapshot are provided in full in the body of this country page; a complete description of the methodology is provided in the State of the Sector Regional Report, at SoS.danubis.org. Access to services: Danube Danube average, bottom 40% and poor Value Year best average practice 100% Context for Services 80% GDP per capita, PPP [current 28,298 2013 16,902 n.a. 60% international $] 40% Population [M. inh] 2.060 2013 8.451 n.a. Poverty headcount ratio [$2.50 20% 0.01 2011 1.65 n.a. a day [PPP] [% of pop]] Local government units Piped supply Flush toilet 212 2014 1,987 n.a. [municipalities] Slovenia Danube average Danube best For which, average size [inh] 9,719 2013 4,253 n.a. Total renewable water 2008- 15,411 7,070 n.a. availability [m3/cap/year] 2012 Sector Structure Organization of Services Se f-provision 3 Private concessions Number of formal water 98 2014 661 n.a. 12% 4% service providers Average population served 18,502 2013 9,496 n.a. Water services law? Yes 15 Regional util ties Single line ministry? Yes [Ministry of Environment and 58% Spatial Planning] Regulatory agency? No 80 Municipal util ties Utility performance indicators Yes [www.ijsvo.si] 26% publicly available? Major ongoing reforms? No Sustainability Assessment Access to Services Access to piped water (%) 99 2012 83 100 Financing Piped water Access Investment Flush toilet Access to flush toilet (%) 99 2012 79 99 Wastewater Affordabil ty treatment Performance of Services coverage Service continuity [hours/day] 24 2013 20 24 Operating Customer Nonrevenue water [m /km/d] 3 7 2011 35 5 cost ratio satisfaction Water utility performance index 80 n.a. 69 94 Continu ty [WUPI] Non revenue water of service Financing of Services Staffing level Wastewater Operating cost coverage 1 2013 0 96 1.49 compliance Collection ratio Efficiency Quality Average residential tariff [€/m3] 2.14 2013 1.32 n.a. Slovenia Danube average Danube best practice Share of potential WSS expen- Based on normalized indicators, closer to the border is better 0.8 2012 2.6 n.a. ditures over average income [%] Sector Danube Danube best Value Average annual investment Sustainability Average practice 51 n.a. 23 n.a. [€/cap/year] Assessment 84 64 96 State of Sector | Slovenia Country Note | 1 DANUBE WATER PROGRAM Context for Services EU MS Danube Danube Indicator Year Source Value average average best Socioeconomic Situation Population [M. inhabitants] 2013 World Bank 2015 2.060 8.481 8.451 n.a. Population growth 1990- World Bank 2015 0.13 -0.26 -0.37 n.a. [compound growth rate 1990 – 2013] [%] 2013 Share of urban population [%] 2013 World Bank 2015 50 63 63 n.a. GDP per capita, PPP [current international $] 2013 World Bank 2015 28,298 24,535 16,902 n.a. Poverty headcount ratio 2011 World Bank 2015 0.01 1.86 1.65 n.a. [$2.50 a day [PPP] [% of pop]] Administrative Organization No. of local government units [municipalities] 2014 SOS 2015 212 2,335 1,987 n.a. Av. size of local government units [inhabitants] 2013 Authors’ elab. 9,719 3,632 4,253 n.a. Water Resources 2008- FAO Aquastat Total renewable water availability [m3/cap/year] 15,411 10,142 7,070 n.a. 2012 2015 Annual freshwater withdrawals, domestic 2013 World Bank 2015 18 38 26 n.a. [% of total withdrawal] Share of surface water as drinking water source 2014 ICPDR 2015 3 16 31 n.a. Economy. Slovenia has been an EU member since 2004 and has one of the highest per capita GDPs in Central Europe. Slovenia has experienced one of the most stable political transitions in Central and South-Eastern Europe. However, long-delayed privatizations and an increasingly indebted banking sector have fueled investor concerns since 2012. The 2008–2009 economic crisis hit Slovenia especially hard in the real estate and construction sectors, and the unemployment rate rose to 13% in 2014, according to the Slovenia Statistical Office (SURS 2015). The country’s 2 million inhabitants are evenly distributed between urban and rural areas, but there are regional disparities between the wealthier and more developed central and western regions and the less developed eastern regions. Governance. Public administration is organized at the national and municipal levels. Slovenia is a parliamentary republic composed of 212 municipalities. Local self-government units perform activities such as local spatial planning and development and provision of local public services including water and wastewater services. Water resources. Slovenia has good-quality and sufficient water resources. Eighty-one percent of the Slovenian territory belongs to the Black Sea basin, and the rest is part of the Adriatic Sea basin (ICPDR 2010). With 15,411 m3/ capita/year, there are sufficient quantities of water on average in Slovenia, and most of it is in a good ecological state. However, agriculture has had a severe impact on groundwater quality, and there is a concern about the decreasing groundwater level in certain areas due to overabstraction. Industrial and domestic pollution of surface water is present in the Sava River and in coastal waters, where heavy metals and toxic chemicals threaten water quality. Runoff and river flow characteristics have changed significantly due to urbanization, transportation, and construction of hydropower plants. As a result, floods, especially flash floods due to hilly terrain, are more frequent and more intense, causing extensive material damage to infrastructure (including water and wastewater assets) and concerning more than 15% of the country’s territory (ICPDR 2010). Due to the increasing concentration of population located at the bottom of basins and broad valleys (where almost two-thirds of Slovenes reside), a significant share of the population now lives in areas exposed to floods. This is the case for both rural and urban settlements. Climate change is expected to reinforce flood and drought frequency and amplitude. However, no action plan has been implemented. Water supply sources. Drinking water supply relies almost exclusively on groundwater. Surface water is predominantly used for the production of electric energy in hydroelectric power stations, while groundwater provides 97% of the raw water for potable public supply (ICPDR 2015). Industry is another significant user of water. Only a 2 | The Danube Water Program | WB & IAWD DANUBE WATER PROGRAM small share of water consumption is used for agriculture, tourism, services, and fish farming. The major source of surface water pollution comes from point sources (emissions from industrial and communal wastewaters and rainwater from urbanized areas). In still or slow-flowing surface waters, the occurrence of eutrophication due to excessive amounts of nutrients is a significant problem. Groundwater is mostly susceptible to diffuse pollution from agriculture and urbanization, which is most pronounced in the very north-eastern part of Slovenia. Critical pollutants significantly contributing to this pollution are desetilatrazine, nitrates, and atrazine. Concentrations of atrazine and desetilatrazine are generally declining, however, due to the ban on their use (ICPDR 2010). Karstic characteristics of more than one-third of the Slovene territory result in specific management issues for water utilities, such as turbidity and risks of microbiological contamination in case of intensive precipitation or difficulties managing drinking water protection zones (ICPDR 2010). Organization of Services EU MS Danube Danube Indicator Year Source Value average average best Number of formal water service providers 2014 Expert estimate 98 1,060 661 n.a. Average population served [inhabitants] 2013 Authors’ elab. 18,502 6,643 9,496 n.a. Dominant service provider type Local / municipal utility companies Service scope Water and sanitation Ownership Municipality Geographic scope One to a few municipalities Water services law? Yes Single line ministry? Yes [Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning] Regulatory agency? No Utility performance indicators publicly available? Yes [www.ijsvo.si] National utility association? Yes [CCIS Chamber of commerce with extensive coverage] Private sector participation 4 concessions Service provision. Local government units provide water Figure 1: Water services provider types and market shares and sanitation services through 98 utilities. Fifteen 3 Private concessions Se f-provision regional water and sanitation utilities serve 58% of the 4% population. Eighty medium and small municipal water 12% utilities serve about 26% of the population. The rest of the population, mainly located in rural areas, relies on self- provision (12%). Three private operators provide water and sanitation services to 7 municipalities (Figure 1). 80 Municipal utilities 26% 15 Regional utilities Policy-making and sector institutions. The regulation of the water sector is centralized at the national level. 58% There are two national entities in charge of water sector regulation in Slovenia (Figure 2): Source: Expert estimate. X The Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning, which is the line ministry responsible for water sector policy development and implementation. It is in charge of regulatory benchmarking, and finances investments and manages EU Cohesion Funds (MOP 2015a). X The Environment Protection Agency, which is responsible for issuing water abstraction permits and for water resources management and allocation. It is also responsible for monitoring water resources quality and quantity, collecting water abstraction and pollution taxes, and protecting drinking water intake zones (ARSO 2015). State of Sector | Slovenia Country Note | 3 DANUBE WATER PROGRAM Figure 2: Water services sector organization National P Ministry of Environment P Environment Protection Agency level I and Spatial Planning R Discusses and implements policies, Issues permits, controls extractions finances investments, manages EU funds and discharges Regional level R - regulation Local R Local Owns, governs Water/sewer P - policies level Government S company I Consents to tar ffs I - investments S - service provision Source: Authors’ elaboration. Capacity and training. Staff capacity building and training is an important issue in the water sector. Water services management staff is appointed by municipal representatives, and political influence is exerted on the utility management board. However, turnover according to political cycles is not necessarily the rule. Staff training has mainly been driven by individual initiatives from water utilities, which are largely undocumented and one-off. The lack of well-trained technical and financial personnel has led to inefficiency in the technical operations and financial management of some water utilities. Thus, there is room for improvement of staff training and for development of staff capacity in the water sector. The national water association does not currently provide training or technical assistance to water stakeholders. Economic regulation. Local government units are in charge of service quality and tariff setting. The water sector in Slovenia is regulated through a public self-regulated model, since there is no national regulatory agency. A partial benchmarking approach has been adopted by the Ministry of Environment, but it is not being used as an economic regulatory tool (MOP 2015a). Service quality and tariff setting are the responsibility of municipalities, which must follow a mandatory methodology spelled out in a decree issued in January 2013. This new pricing mechanism is based on the cost recovery principle. Tariffs are revised on an annual basis by utilities and must be approved by municipal councils. Prior to this decree, water tariffs were controlled by the central government and were kept very low. Ongoing or planned reforms. There has recently been little change in the water supply sector. Many water utilities in urban areas have been in continuous operation for more than a century. After the transition process in the 1990s, the number of municipalities increased from 60 to 212, and the number of water services increased to 98 utilities. Prompted by the EU integration process,1 large investments were made to improve wastewater collection and treatment, and to a lesser extent to enhance water supply. Currently, however, there are no significant institutional reforms ongoing in the sector. 1 The EU integration process is still active, since final deadlines for the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive are in 2015. 4 | The Danube Water Program | WB & IAWD DANUBE WATER PROGRAM Access to Services EU MS Danube Danube Indicator Year Source Value average average best Water Supply Piped supply – average [%] 2012 Authors’ elab. 99 91 83 100 Piped supply – bottom 40% [%] 2012 Authors’ elab. 99 85 76 100 Piped supply – below $2.50/day [PPP] [%] 2012 Authors’ elab. 100 77 61 100 Including from public supply – average [%] 2013 MOP 2015b 88 83 74 99 Sanitation and Sewerage Flush toilet – average [%] 2012 Authors’ elab. 99 83 79 99 Flush toilet – bottom 40% [%] 2012 Authors’ elab. 98 74 70 98 Flush toilet – below $2.50/day [PPP] [%] 2012 Authors’ elab. 100 63 54 100 Including with sewer – average [%] 2012 SURS 2015 58 67 66 94 Wastewater Treatment Connected to wastewater treatment plant [%] 2013 SURS 2015 54 62 45 95 Service coverage. Slovenians have full access to water services. Ninety-nine percent of Data Availability the Slovenian population has access to piped water and flush toilets (Figure 3). Eighty-eight There are almost no percent has access to public piped water supply and 58% to piped sewer systems. Only data available on the 54% of wastewater discharged from sewage systems is treated. efficiency of water utilities. As a result, it is Equity of access to services. Marginalized groups have fairly good access to water difficult to assess the supply and sanitation facilities. Indeed, 100% of the poorest share of the population (living overall performance of on less than $2.50 a day) reportedly has access to piped water and flush toilets, although the sector. no specific study about service coverage of ethnic minorities has been performed. 100% Figure 3: Access to Total 99% water and sanitation: 90% Total total population, 80% and bottom 40% of the bottom Bottom 40% population and poor 40%, 98% 70% 99% Source: Authors’ elaboration, MOP 2015b and SURS 2015. 60% 50% Poor Poor 100% 88% 100% 58% 54% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Piped water Public supply Flush toilet Sewer Wastewater treatment State of Sector | Slovenia Country Note | 5 DANUBE WATER PROGRAM Service infrastructure. One-fourth of the Slovenian water network was installed before 1920. From 2000 to 2010, the rehabilitation of water supply systems was boosted by EU grants and funding specifically dedicated to water infrastructure improvement. Slovenian water pipes are made of polyethylene high-density (PEHD) (53%), of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (10%), cast iron (8%), or asbestos and cement (10%). This latter material (now discarded in modern water systems) is liable to cracking and leakage. Among the 486 water treatment plants, 72% rely on chlorine disinfection and 13% on mechanical and chemical treatment. Value Value Year Source Water Wastewater Expert estimate & Number of treatment plants 486 304 2013/2011 Eurostat 2014 Length of network [km] 22,655 8501 2013 SURS 2015 Average connections per km of network 20 31 2013 SURS 2015 Performance of Services Service Quality EU MS Danube Danube Indicator Year Source Value average average best Residential water consumption [liters/capita/day] 2014 SURS 2014 114 113 122 n.a. Water supply continuity [hours/day] 2013 Expert estimate 24 24 20 24 Drinking water quality [% of samples in full 2013 ARSO 2015 92 96 93 99.9 compliance] Wastewater treatment quality [% of samples in full 2011 Eurostat 2014 83 79 79 100 BOD5 compliance] Sewer blockages [number/km/year] — — — 3.0 5.0 0.2 Customer satisfaction [% of population satisfied 2013 Gallup 2013 90 78 63 95 with services] Quality of service. Drinking water quality in Slovenia improved during 2004–2013 for both microbiological and chemical parameters. The compliance rate has steadily increased over the last decade to 92% in 2013 (Figure 4). However, there are still some potable water quality issues in small settlements. Average water consumption is 114 liters per day and service is continuous throughout the day. Customer satisfaction. The satisfaction of the population with the service provided in their city is very high, at 90% (Gallup 2013), higher than in most countries in the region. 6 | The Danube Water Program | WB & IAWD DANUBE WATER PROGRAM Figure 4: Evolution of nonrevenue water and collection ratio 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% Drinking water compliance 20% 10% 0% 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2013 Source: ARSO 2015. Efficiency of Services EU MS Danube Danube Indicator Year Source Value average average best Nonrevenue water [%] 2011 SURS 2012 31 34 35 16 Nonrevenue water [m3/km/day] 2011 SURS 2012 7 14 35 5 Staff productivity [water and wastewater] [number of — — — 8.7 9.6 2.0 employees/1,000 connections] Staff productivity [water and wastewater] [number of — — — 1.0 1.7 0.4 employees/1,000 inh. served] Billing collection rate [cash income/billed revenue] [%] 2013 Expert estimate 97 102 98 116 Metering level [metered connections/connections] [%] 2013 Expert estimate 95 96 84 100 Water Utility Performance Index [WUPI] n.a. Authors’ elab. 80 80 69 94 Overall efficiency. Because there are few data on efficiency, a proper assessment of the efficiency of the water sector cannot be made. However, we can say that in 2012, nonrevenue water amounted to 31% or 7 m3/day/km, in line with most countries in the region. The metering level is high at 95%. There are no data regarding staff productivity. Recent trends. The evolution of the efficiency of the water sector cannot be analyzed due to lack of data. No information regarding the evolution of the efficiency of utilities is available. The water sector needs to be better assessed and monitored in order to monitor future improvement in efficiency. State of Sector | Slovenia Country Note | 7 DANUBE WATER PROGRAM Financing of Services Sector Financing EU MS Danube Danube Indicator Year Source Value average average best Sources of Financing Overall sector financing [€/capita/year] Authors’ elab. 113 101 62 n.a. Overall sector financing [share of GDP] [%] Authors’ elab. 0.55 0.55 0.45 n.a. Percentage of service cost financed from tariffs Authors’ elab. 55 65 67 n.a. Percentage of service cost financed from taxes Authors’ elab. 7 10 13 n.a. Percentage of service cost financed from Authors’ elab. 38 25 20 n.a. transfers Service Expenditure Average annual investment [share of overall Authors’ elab. 45 42 38 n.a. sector financing] [%] Average annual investment [€/capita/year] Authors’ elab. 51 42 23 n.a. Estimated investment needed to achieve targets 2007-2013 GHK 2006 114 65 43 n.a. [€/capita/year] Of which, share of wastewater management [%] Authors’ elab. 72 64 61 n.a. Overall sector financing. Tariffs only cover Figure 5: Overall utility sector financing, 2012 operation and maintenance costs (Figure 5). Investments, which represent less than half of 100% sector costs, are mainly funded by EU funds 90% and are augmented by subsidies from national Transfers 38% and municipal budgets. Seventy-two percent 80% Investment of investments go to sanitation projects and 70% 45% 28% to waterworks. Taxes (national) 60% 6% The main sources of funding of water and Taxes (local) 50% 1% wastewater utilities are described in Figure 6 using the OECD three Ts methodology (tariffs, 40% Tar ffs (utility) transfers, and taxes). 55% 30% O&M 20% 55% 10% 0% Financing Spending Source: Authors’ elaboration. 8 | The Danube Water Program | WB & IAWD DANUBE WATER PROGRAM Figure 6: Main sources of funding of water & wastewater services Fiscal transfer Loan repayments (funded by national taxes) EU funds State Budget Transfer Subsidies State tax for National (funded by local taxes) Water and wastewater water resources taxes (collected through utilities water bill) Transfer of collected fixed charge Tar ff Consumers and polluters Local govrnment budget Local taxes Source: Authors’ elaboration. Investment needs. To meet investment needs, the annual per capita capital expenditure would have to triple. At present, investments are needed for the renovation of existing water infrastructure and to reduce water leakage. In the Operational Program for Urban Waste Water Drainage and Treatment, the investments in wastewater management from all financial sources (EU funds, the national budget, the local community budget, and the environmental water pollution tax) for 2009–2015 are estimated at around €1.6 billion, or approximately €266 million per year or €114 per capita per year. Investments. Current investments in the water and Figure 7: Investment sources, 2012 sanitation infrastructure mainly rely on EU Cohesion 100% Funds. In Slovenia, regional policy and measures are Subnational implemented by 12 regional development agencies 90% 2% National within the framework of the Operational Programme 13% 80% for Strengthening Regional Development Potentials (OPSRDP) (SVRK 2007a). The country is also entitled 70% to receive EU Cohesion Funds under the framework of 60% Operational Programme of Environment and Transport Infrastructure Development (OPETID) (SVRK 2007b). In 50% addition to these programs and associated funding, a 40% Water Fund, managed by the Ministry of Environment and receiving its funds from water resources rights, can 30% International be used to finance investments in water infrastructure; 85% 20% construction of public and local infrastructure to meet water infrastructure requirements; and for 10% intermunicipal and regional projects for the purpose 0% of constructing facilities for the pumping, filtering, and Source capturing of water for construction of movable water distribution systems for drinking water supply. Source: Authors’ elaboration. State of Sector | Slovenia Country Note | 9 DANUBE WATER PROGRAM From 2007 to 2013, €555 million (€462 million from the OPETID, comprised of €393 million from EU funds and €69 million from the national budget), and €93 million from OPSRDP (comprised of €77.5 million from EU funds and €15.5 million from local contributions) was available for water infrastructure investments, and €187 million was available for wastewater infrastructure investments (comprised of €54 million from OPSRDP and €133 million from OPETID), with an additional €103 million from EU funds and €30 million from the national budget. This represented an average capital expenditure of €51 per capita per year (Figure 7). No information is available regarding how these grants were actually spent. Cost Recovery and Affordability EU MS Danube Danube Indicator Year Source Value average average best Cost Recovery Average residential tariff 2013 Expert estimate 2.14 2.18 1.32 n.a. [incl. water and wastewater] [€/m3] Operation and maintenance unit cost [€/m3] Authors’ elab. 1.69 1.77 1 20 n.a. Operating cost coverage 2013 Expert estimate 1 1.10 0.96 1.49 [billed revenue/operating expense] Affordability Share of potential WSS expenditures over 2012 Authors’ elab. 08 3.1 2.6 n.a. average income [%] Share of potential WSS expenditures over 2012 Authors’ elab. 1.1 4.7 3.8 n.a. bottom 40% income [%] Share of households with potential WSS 2012 Authors’ elab. 03 24.7 14.1 n.a. expenditures above 5% of average income [%] Cost recovery. Utilities only recover operation and maintenance costs through tariffs. With water tariffs controlled by the central government until January 2013, water utilities struggled to generate adequate revenues to cover their costs. According to the national legislation on water tariff setting, local government units can partially subsidize the water price using their municipal budget. However, this option is not often used. Tariffs. Water tariffs are composed of a fixed and a variable Figure 8: Share of potential average water and fee and amount to an average of €2.14/m3. According to sanitation expenditure in income the January 2013 decree, the water tariff comprises a fixed charge for service availability, which is set depending on 5% the meter diameter, and a volume charge proportionate to water consumption. This tariff structure is uniform for all 4% categories of water users (households, public institutions, industry). However, in specific cases, very large industries 3% can directly negotiate water tariffs with the local public provider. The average water price is €0.98/m3, including 2% the fixed charge. The average sanitation price is €1.16/ 1.1% m3,including the fixed charge. Water prices can vary 0.8% 1% depending on conditions under which the water is supplied in Slovenia’s regions. Some areas benefit from abundant and qualitative water resources, which are supplied through 0% a gravity conveyor system at very low production costs, Average Bottom 40% whereas in other regions (especially karstic ones), water Source: Authors’ elaboration. must be transported over long distances, with notable pumping costs and high potable treatment costs. 10 | The Danube Water Program | WB & IAWD DANUBE WATER PROGRAM Affordability. The water and sanitation tariff does not currently trigger any affordability issues. The share of water and wastewater expenses in average household income has remained stable over time at 0.8% in both 1996 and 2013. For the bottom 40%, potential water expenses are 1.1% of household income, which does not trigger an affordability issue at present (Figure 8). Water Sector Sustainability and Main Challenges To evaluate and reflect the sustainability of services in the region, an overall sector sustainability assessment was done, taking into account four main dimensions: access to services, quality of services, efficiency of services, and financing of services. Each of these dimensions is measured through three simple and objective indicators. For each indicator, best practice values are established by looking at the best performers in the region, and countries closest to those best performers are deemed to have a more mature sector. A more complete description of the methodology to assess the sector sustainability is included in the Annex of the State of the Sector Regional Report from the Danube Water Program. The outcomes of this assessment for the Slovenia water sector are displayed in Figure 9, which also shows average and best practices in the Danube region. The Slovenian sector sustainability score is 84, which is above the Danube average sustainability score of 64. The assessment shows that, on average, the country performs well in terms of access to piped water and flush toilets, affordability, continuity of service, customer satisfaction, nonrevenue water, and collection ratio. The main deficiencies of Slovenia’s water sector identified through the sector sustainability assessment are wastewater treatment coverage, operating cost ratio, and investment level (Figure 9). Financing Piped water Access Figure 9: Sector Sustainability Assessment, Slovenia Investment Flush toilet Source: Authors’ elaboration. Wastewater treatment Affordability coverage Operating Customer cost ratio satisfaction Non revenue Continu ty water of service Slovenia Staffing level Wastewater Danube average compliance Efficiency Collection ratio Quality Danube best practice The main sector challenges are: X Increasing the rehabilitation of the water infrastructure and improving its reliability. Although there has been much progress in the replacement and rehabilitation of the water and sanitation infrastructure, water losses in some utilities remain very high, evidence that more replacement work is needed. The funding required must be secured. In addition, the hydrological drought of 2011–2012 revealed that numerous water supply systems may experience serious problems in case of prolonged drought. The reliability of the water supply under extreme hydrological conditions needs to be improved. State of Sector | Slovenia Country Note | 11 DANUBE WATER PROGRAM X Improving monitoring and reporting Slovenian Waters practices. The only effective monitoring In 2009, a public registry of water supply systems (called IJSVO) system currently is the water quality and a cadaster of public water supply infrastructure were developed. monitoring scheme. There are no other These tools are now in use and have improved the analytical utility performance monitoring and reporting information on the overall status of water supply in Slovenia. Thus, systems, such as on water balance, water it is now possible to access information on water supply from the losses, and nonrenewable water. This makes agglomeration level to the level of individual building and supply monitoring of and improvements in operational pipe. Improvements regarding data quality and validation are still efficiency and sound economic management necessary, but these registries are, nevertheless, key tools in the of water utilities almost impossible. overall management of the water supply sector. Sources X ARSO. 2015. Slovenian Environment Agency. X SOS. 2015. Association of Municipalities and Towns Accessed 2015. http://www.arso.gov.si/en. in Slovenia: Municipalities. Accessed 2015. http:// X Eurostat. 2014. European Commission Directorate- skupnostobcin.si/obcine. General Eurostat: Statistics Explained - Water X SURS. 2012. Statistical Yearbook 2012. Ljubljana: Statistics. Accessed 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/ Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Water_ X —. 2014. Water - From the Source to the Outflow. statistics. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of X FAO Aquastat. 2015. Food and Agriculture Slovenia. Organization of the United Nations - AQUASTAT X —. 2015. Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia: Database. Accessed 2015. http://www.fao.org/nr/ Data Base. Accessed 2015. http://www.stat.si/ water/aquastat/data/query/index.html?lang=en. statweb/en. X Gallup. 2013. World Poll. Accessed 2015. http:// X SVRK. 2007a. Operational Programme for www.gallup.com/services/170945/world-poll.aspx. Strengthening Regional Development Potentials for X GHK. 2006. Strategic Evaluation on Environment and Period 2007-2013. Ljubljana: Government Office for Risk Prevention under Structural and Cohesion Funds Development and European Cohesion Policy of the for the Period 2007-2013 - National Evaluation Report Republic of Slovenia. for Slovenia. Brussels: GHK Consulting Ltd. X —. 2007b. Operational Programme of Environmental X ICPDR. 2010. Danube Facts and Figures: Slovenia. and Transport Infrastructure Development for the Vienna: International Commission for the Protection Period 2007-2013. Ljubljana: Government Office for of the Danube River. Development and European Cohesion Policy of the X —. 2015. International Commission for the Protection Republic of Slovenia. of the Danube River. Accessed 2015. http://www. X World Bank. 2015. World Development Indicators. icpdr.org. Accessed 2015. http://databank.worldbank.org/ X MOP. 2015a. Ministry of the Environment and Spatial data/views/reports/tableview.aspx. Planning of the Republic of Slovenia: Areas of Work - X Water. Accessed 2015. http://www.arhiv.mop.gov.si/ en/areas_of_work/water. X —. 2015b. Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning of the Republic of Slovenia - National System for Public Service Performance. Accessed 2015. http://www.ijsvo.si. 12 | The Danube Water Program | WB & IAWD Slovenia Country Note The World Bank / IAWD Danube Water Program supports smart policies, strong utilities, and sustainable water and wastewater services in the Danube Region by partnering with regional, national, and local stakeholders, promoting an informed policy dialogue around the sector’s challenges and strengthening the technical and managerial capacity of the sector’s utilities and institutions. DANUBE WATER PROGRAM www.danube-water-program.org | www.danubis.org | SoS.danubis.org office@danube-water-program.org