Area: Environment and spatial planning
Competent authority: MOP
EZU URL: .nan
Initiative ID: 1032
Initiative accepted and completed: '2020-06-08'
Initiative classified in EZU: .nan
Initiative forwarded in response: '2020-05-22'
Initiative published: '2020-05-22'
Initiative submitted: '2020-05-21'
Response from the competent authority: "Reply from the Ministry of the Environment\
  \ and Spatial Planning:Pursuant to the Local Self-Government Act (Official Gazette\
  \ of the Republic of Slovenia, No.94/07 - UPB2, 76/08, 79/09, 51/10), a municipality\
  \ independently carries out local matters of public importance \"(original tasks)\"\
  , which are determined by a general act of the municipality or are provided for\
  \ by law. Within the scope of these tasks, the municipality is responsible for the\
  \ protection of air, soil, water resources, noise protection, waste collection and\
  \ disposal, and other environmental protection activities. The more detailed tasks\
  \ and the manner of carrying out the tasks of environmental protection, in accordance\
  \ with Article 19b of this Act, shall be determined by the municipality in a decree.The\
  \ Government of the Republic of Slovenia, on the basis of the third paragraph of\
  \ Article 149 of the Environmental Protection Act (Official Gazette of the Republic\
  \ of Slovenia, No. 39/06 - officially consolidated text, 49/06 - ZMetD, 66/06 -\
  \ Ord. US, 33/07 - ZPNa\u010Drt, 57/08 - ZFO-1A, 70/08, 108/09, 48/12 and 57/12)\
  \ regulates by regulation the pricing methodology, supply standards and technical,\
  \ maintenance, organisational and other measures and norms for the provision of\
  \ public services.The Regulation on the compulsory municipal public utility service\
  \ for the collection of municipal waste (Official Journal of the Republic of Slovenia\
  \ No 33/17 and 60/18) regulates, inter alia, the tasks of the compulsory municipal\
  \ public utility service for the collection of municipal waste and the minimum scope\
  \ of the supply standards and technical, organisational and other measures for the\
  \ provision of the public collection service.It requires users to hand over their\
  \ municipal waste to the public service operator in accordance with this Regulation\
  \ and in the manner laid down in the municipal regulation, and the public service\
  \ operator must collect mixed municipal waste from all the original generators of\
  \ such waste.The Regulation provides that the waste is to be handed over in a container\
  \ or bag at a designated collection point and in the manner laid down in the municipal\
  \ regulation.The frequency of collection is also laid down in the municipal regulation,\
  \ but must be at least once a month.The municipality must ensure that the waste\
  \ is collected at least once a month, and that it is collected at least once a month.The\
  \ public service operator must replace an existing mixed municipal waste container\
  \ if the capacity of the container is inadequate to meet the needs of the user or\
  \ if the container is so badly damaged, destroyed or worn out that leaving it there\
  \ may cause a risk to the environment or to human health.The public service operator\
  \ must also arrange for the collection of bulky waste for users in the municipality's\
  \ area, either in collection campaigns or at the user's request, for the collection\
  \ of municipal waste in collection points and mobile collection points, and for\
  \ the collection of waste in a collection centre. All the services described above\
  \ must be accessible to all original generators of municipal waste.The methodology\
  \ for pricing public services has been established by the Government in the Regulation\
  \ on the Methodology for Pricing of Mandatory Municipal Utilities for Environmental\
  \ Protection (Official Journal of the RS, No 87/12, 109/12 and 76/17). Article 23\
  \ provides that the public waste collection service provider shall charge users\
  \ a collection price, calculated per kg of service provided, in proportion to the\
  \ volume of the container for mixed municipal waste (or the volume of the container\
  \ for biodegradable kitchen waste when calculating the price for the collection\
  \ of biodegradable kitchen waste and green garden waste) and the frequency of collection\
  \ of the container. The calculation is done by dividing, at least once a year, the\
  \ weight of municipal waste (separately collected fractions and bulky waste, separately\
  \ collected packaging and mixed municipal waste) collected in the last accounting\
  \ period in each municipality between the users, according to the volume of the\
  \ mixed municipal waste container and the frequency of collection of this container.Traditional\
  \ municipal waste collection systems used to operate years ago on the principle\
  \ of a single container (often for several properties) in which waste was uncritically\
  \ disposed of. The financing system was based on an equal sharing of costs between\
  \ users, with a uniform price or even deductions in the form of fees or taxes. This\
  \ system was unfair to some users.Some of the users who managed their waste rationally\
  \ subsidised the consumption of those who generated more waste through a uniform\
  \ price. Similarly, another part of the users may have completely ignored issues\
  \ related to consumption, the amount of waste generated and consequently its impact\
  \ on the environment.In the past, waste management operators have charged users\
  \ for services in different ways. The possible bases for calculation were:- the\
  \ area of the residential unit or business premises;- the number of members in the\
  \ household;- the volume and number of times the waste collection and collection\
  \ container was emptied.These methods of charging for waste management services\
  \ each have their own advantages and disadvantages.The system of charging based\
  \ on the square footage of the building was one of the earliest forms of allocating\
  \ the costs of waste management among users. Of course, nowadays both waste management\
  \ experts and users dispute the thesis that the amount of waste generated is related\
  \ to the square footage of the user's facility. However, this method was one of\
  \ the first attempts by public service operators to establish a criterion for cost\
  \ sharing through the official register.The system of calculation linked to the\
  \ number of persons in the user's premises, which in some environments has replaced\
  \ the method discussed earlier, has represented an advance in the calculation of\
  \ costs for smaller (one- or two-person) households. Of course, it is also flawed.\
  \ In this billing method, there is no incentive for multi-person households to reduce\
  \ waste. The public service operator often has difficulties in obtaining up-to-date\
  \ records. There are also problems with the way in which costs are determined for\
  \ holiday homes, which are often shown in official records as unoccupied.The systems\
  \ discussed earlier have been replaced by a billing system (also applied in the\
  \ current regulation on the methodology for calculating the GJS prices) based on\
  \ the volume of containers and the frequency of emptying, which basically encourages\
  \ the user to pollute less by being able to choose the size of the container that\
  \ suits his needs.By upgrading the separate collection system with the delivery\
  \ of containers for the collection of packaging and (in some cases) paper to the\
  \ point of collection (where the cost of collection is included in the public service\
  \ charge and is independent of the size of the containers for the collection of\
  \ these fractions), the user can consequently reduce the size of the mixed waste\
  \ container and thus the cost of waste management.As the size of the container is\
  \ technically limited by a minimum height to ensure machine emptying, and a minimum\
  \ width to ensure the stability of the container, a problem arises when a small\
  \ (one- or two-person) household uses the same minimum container size as a neighbouring\
  \ household of, for example, 5 people, where the users are good waste separators.\
  \ When emptying at a pre-specified interval, it is often the case that the bin of\
  \ a small household is almost empty, which at the very least raises doubts in the\
  \ mind of the service user as to the fairness of the billing system. They are, of\
  \ course, unaware that the waste management invoice is not merely an \"emptying\
  \ account\".With regard to weighing at the point of collection, we would like to\
  \ reply:Article 23(13) of the Regulation (UMEDO) allows for this possibility:''\
  \ Notwithstanding the provisions of the fifth and sixth paragraphs of this Article,\
  \ in the case where the quantity of waste disposed of is determined by weighing\
  \ at the user's premises, the costs of the public infrastructure and the quantity\
  \ of services provided in relation to the third and fourth indents of point 1 of\
  \ the first paragraph of the preceding Article shall be apportioned among the users\
  \ according to the actual weight of the waste disposed of by each user.''It is certainly\
  \ the most accurate tool for determining the quantities of waste collected, which\
  \ is an addition to the electronic identification system (a record of the measured\
  \ weight is added to the transponder number, the time and the geo-coordinates of\
  \ the emptying).Of course, some facts concerning the cost of such technology should\
  \ not be ignored. The vehicle must be equipped with a weighing cell that allows\
  \ the mass of the waste to be measured dynamically. Such weighing equipment must\
  \ be regularly verified. There is also the question of the minimum accuracy of such\
  \ a device, or the measuring range over which this accuracy is guaranteed. The average\
  \ refuse collection vehicle in Slovenian waste collection companies is equipped\
  \ with a one-piece bin shaker, which is activated by the operator by opening a hydraulic\
  \ valve via a lever. The repeatability of such a procedure is questionable (it is\
  \ not possible to ensure that the valve is opened the same way every time, and this\
  \ affects the acceleration when lifting the container). Greater repeatability is\
  \ provided by an electronically controlled automatic shaker, where the automation\
  \ controls the process from the moment the operator triggers the container presence\
  \ sensor until the moment the shaker returns the container to the ground. The price\
  \ difference between the two systems is not negligible, which would also be reflected\
  \ in the price of the service provided.It has been shown that charging collection\
  \ costs based on a minimum container volume usually covers only a little more than\
  \ the \"fixed\" cost of the service.In fact, waste collection incurs costs which\
  \ are independent of the number of times the user has emptied the container or the\
  \ number of kg of waste that has been emptied in the course of the collection process.\
  \ These costs are referred to as fixed costs. These include the operation and maintenance\
  \ of separate collection facilities, the collection of bulky and hazardous waste,\
  \ the operation and maintenance of collection centres and, last but not least, the\
  \ part of the collection costs incurred when the contractor sends a team (a collection\
  \ vehicle and its staff) into the field in accordance with the collection schedule,\
  \ given the (theoretical) possibility that none of the users will put a container\
  \ out for emptying on that day."
Text file: 1032.txt
Title: Weighing of household waste
URL: https://www.stopbirokraciji.gov.si/pobuda/?st=1032
