Workshop Objectives To update COAST on progress To identify common types within ecoregions / ecoregion complexes To select common types for intercalibration & pressures To share information on the development of classification tools To clarify / define any future role for COAST within CIS phase II.

Worms

Actions - Claire and Julia Write a minute of meeting Circulate at Ecological Status drafting group papers to the ‘Artists formally known as COAST’ Co-ordinate comments through country or COAST or both? Put presentations on CIRCA

Specific Actions COAST representation at INTERCALIBRATION Jesper Andersen Anton Edwards 95% confidence, + or - 2% Med? Standard methods within Marine Conventions Kari

Actions - typology PH - circulate ‘The Rest’ suggested types All ‘The Rest’ need to respond before 10th March HH - Contact CCs not represented to verify types selected for intercalibration. Liaise with JA for presentation HH/AE to liaise on comparison of types exercise.

Actions - All Lobby our Ecological Status reps on importance of marine work Read and comment on guidance produced Provide marine examples to verify guidance BE ACTIVE IN PROCESS AND SHOUT LOUDLY SO THEY CAN’T IGNORE YOU!

Actions - COAST Testing COAST guidance in PRBDs typology water bodies (inc. protected areas etc.) reference conditions - develop pilots further? Classification - tools only at this stage

Reference network of high status sites….. For spatially based biological reference conditions, Member States shall establish a reference network for each surface water body type. The network shall contain a sufficient number of sites at high status to provide a sufficient level of confidence about the values for the reference conditions given the variability in the values of the quality elements corresponding to high ecological status for that surface water body type....

Reasons to co-operate.... There may not be many high status sites across Europe Lack of data within Member States Need for a ‘sufficient number of sites at high status to provide a sufficient level of confidence’ There is little time to collect new data before intercalibration

The task….. MSs/CC suggest type specific sites that may be at high status Establish what information is available Test the data against the classification tools and the classification guidance / EQR etc MSs/CCs could agree to take the lead or joint lead on testing tools within types.

The task…. We need to establish how much QUALITY data is available for intercalibration How comparable is it?

The Baltic & other specific types How do we establish reference conditions? How much work is going on to answer this question - CHARM? Does it cover all types?

Don't give up your day job