Does N2k standard data form cause unequal treatment of energy infrastructure (PCI)? Aleš Kregar, Elektro-Slovenija, d. o. o. Brussels, May 3rd 2013

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION on 11 July 2011 concerning a site information format for Natura 2000 sites (notified under document C(2011) 4892) (2011/484/EU): The following ranking system should be used: A: excellent representativity (100 ≥p > 15 %), B: good representativity (15 ≥p > 2 %), C: significant representativity (2 ≥p > 0 %). D: non-significant presence. „— RELATIVE SURFACE: = A(b) of Annex III: Area of the site covered by the natural habitat type in relation to the total area covered by that natural habitat type within the national territory.“

Hypothetical example: Bird species living in central habitat with density of 1000 per km2 and external border area with density of 100 per km2. Three counties: X = 100 km2, Y = 10 km2, Z = 10 km2. PCI = 1 km2.

Graphycal presentation: External border area Central habitat Country X Z Y PCI PCI PCI

Result (Outcome):

Conclusions: Suggestion: Representativity in N2k standard data form depends on the size of the country. Country Z is in the most unfavourable position because it is in the external border area where population density is lower (possibly because of unfavourable living conditions for observed bird species). Suggestion: Impact assessment of PCI on protected bird species should take in account the whole population, independent of the size of the country.

Thank you for your attention. ales.kregar@eles.si