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

2. 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)

3. 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

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

5. 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?