About Natura 2000Natura 2000 in Slovenia
Natura 2000 in Slovenia
Slovenia has designated 355 Natura 2000 sites: 324 according to the Habitats Directive (SAC + pSCI) and 31 according to the Wild Birds Directive (SPA).
Total area of Natura 2000 sites is 7684 km2 (7.678 km2 terrestial, 6 km2 marine) (Source: Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation, 2016).
The sites in total encompass 37,16 % of the country, which is the highest rate in EU.
The Natura 2000 sites were adopted by the Government of Slovenia on April 29, 2004 (Decree on special protection areas – Natura 2000 sites, in English), on April 19, 2013 (Decree, in Slovenian) and on March 16, 2016 (Decree, In Slovenian), based on article 33 of the Nature Conservation Act.
|Number of species and habitat types||Decree 2004||Decree 2013, 2016|
|Number of species – Habitats Directive||109||114|
|Number of habitat types - Habitats Directive||57||60|
|Number of species – Wild Birds Directive*||103||122|
* Birds of pray and water birds are not comprised in this number, because the Directive lists them as a group (not individual species). Therefore the whole group is listed as one species. (Source: Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation, 2013.)
Accoring to demographic estimates, approx. 128.000 inhabitants live in the Natura 2000 areas (Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation, 2013).
Further information on the network:
Attitudes of Slovenians towards Natura 2000
As many as 62% of Slovenians have already heard of Natura 2000. Slovenia ranks the fifth most informed EU nation about this network of nature protection areas, according to the Eurobarometer survey published in 2013. The findings for Slovenia are well above the European average of 27%. Furthermore, 32% of Slovenians know what Natura 2000 actually stands for, as opposed to only 11% of EU citizens.
When asked about damage or destruction of nature protection areas as a consequence of economic development, as many as 54% of Slovenians agree that such economic intervention should be prohibited, while only 11% think it is acceptable because economic development takes precedence.