Article 17 reporting: some experiences and questions from Flanders Desiré Paelinckx

Future prospect: 2007  2013 HABITATS Consequences: positive: clear differentiation between habitat types which will be able to meet the 2020 goals No effect on overall assessment negative: difficult to explain Question: have most of the MS a comparable experience? Reason: methodological differences (mainly introduction of 12 year time scale)

Favorable reference population At (biogeographical) regional level: >= population size when HD came into force (1994) maintaining genetic diversity Ne = 500 ind.  total population of 5000 individuals Metapopulation Dispersion capacity Maintaining 95% genetic diversity over 100 y Function of generation time t e.g. Hyla arborea = total individual metapopulation: Ne,95 = 244  total population of 2440 ind. 𝑁 𝑒, 95 = 𝑡 −2𝑙𝑛 0.95

Favorable reference population Hyla arborea: RM = croaking / calling males > 244 individuals Zwin Actueel: 50-100 RM Merkske Zegge Actueel: 5-10 RM Mariahof Actueel: 10-50 RM SIHD: 200 RM Maasmechelen SIHD: 400 RM Dautenweyers Actueel: 10-20 RM SIHD: 50-200 RM Wijvenheide Actueel: >400 RM De Brand Actueel: >400 RM

Favorable reference population Works well for species with low dispersion capacity How to deal with species with large dispersion capacity  needs approach at the level of complete biogeographical regions (thus above MS level) Questions: do other MS use such approach? positive and negative experiences?