1. Results of the Coastal and Transitional Waters Metadata Analysis
WG 2A Ecological Status
Results of the Coastal and Transitional Waters Metadata Analysis
COAST Expert network
Based on data submitted by 14 October

2. Coastal sites by ‘class’ and country sites submitted by 14 Oct.
Country number of sites
total HG GM
Cyprus
Germany
France
Great Britain
Lithuania
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Sweden
Slovenia
TOTAL
Information still missing from:
Malta
Italy
Greece
Spain
Portugal
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
Estonia
Latvia

3. Number of Sites submitted for each Ecoregion and Category

4. Coastal Mediterranean types & sites submitted to the intercalibration register by 14 October
Name of Type
All Med Countries
Cyprus
Slovenia
CW - M1
Rocky shallow coast x
CW - M2
Rocky deep coast
CW - M3
Sedimentary shallow coast 2
CW - M4
Sedimentary deep coast

5. Experts’ report on Mediterranean sites possibly to be submitted?
Type GR IT ES FR SI CY
CW - M1 1 2 -
CW - M2 4 3
CW - M3
CW - M4 ?
total 27

6. Updated Table of the coastal types and IC sites to be submitted for the Baltic Sea
Name of Type (provisional) DK EE
LV* LT PL FI DE SE
CW – B0
Bothnian Bay Inner sheltered 1
CW - B1a
Bothnian Bay sheltered 2
CW - B1b
Bothnian Bay exposed
CW - B2
Bothnian Sea sheltered/ moderately exposed
CW - B3
Archipelago
CW - B4
Estonian-Swedish outer coast
(X?)
CW - B5
Danish-Swedish outer coast
CW - B6
Danish-German Western Baltic open coast
CW - B7
(Western Baltic) Lagoon
<G/M
CW –B8
South-Eastern sandy lagoon ( = B7?)***
CW – B9
Shallow sheltered coast, hard bottom** (=B5?)
CW – B10
South-eastern exposed***
total 22
*LV please check types ** types proposed by PL *** proposed by LT

7. Updated Table of the coastal types and IC sites to be submitted for NE Atlantic Ecoregion
Name BE DK FR DE IE NL NO PT ES SE UK
CW – NEA1
Exposed, euhaline, shallow X 2 5 1 10
CW – NEA2
Sheltered, euhaline, shallow 3 6
CW – NEA3
Polyhaline, exposed Wadden Sea
CW – NEA4
Polyhal., moderat. exp. –Wadden Sea
<G/M
CW – NEA5
Low current, very exposed
CW - NEA6
Shallow, low current, sheltered
CW – NEA7
Deep, low current, sheltered 4
CW – NEA8
Polyhal, microtidal, Sheltered, shallow (Skagerrak inner arc type)
CW – NEA9
Polyhal., microtidal, exposed, shallow (Skagerrak middle arc type)
CW – NEA10
Polyhaline, microtidal, exposed, deep (Skagerrak outer arch. type)
TW-NEA11
Transitional waters,sheltered 2 11 4 3 12
TW-NEA12
Transitional waters, moder.exp.
2-3
total 96

8. Available for all sites
Expected availability of biological data for coastal & trans. water IC sites
Country
Phytoplankton
Macroalgae
Angiosperms
Benthic invertebr.
Fish (Trans. Waters only) GR ++ SI + ? CY - IT FR ES PT BE IE UK NL NO DE DK SE PL LT LV EE
FIN
Available for all sites
Not for all sites
No infromation

9. Major pressures in focus
Eutrophication
Fishing
Toxic subst.
Habitat degrad.
Baltic ++
(+)
N.E. Atl. +
Mediterr.

10. Summary of the Coastal metadata
Submitted Coastal metadata is still incomplete & scattered (75 sites submitted, while ca 145 potentially available)
Difficult to make in depth analysis (such as checking for the comparability of sites within a common type)
For some types not so many sites (< 5) available since only 2 countries sharing the type (esp. Baltic and some NE Atlantic types) – should those be included?
With the exception of UK, most countries tend to select only 1-3 sites per type
Most data available for phytoplankton & benthic invertebrate fauna
Major pressure to be in focus: Eutrophication

11. Recommendations of the COAST Expert Group

12. Further Guidance urgently needed because
no agreed classification tools or schemes with in countries
no agreement on how to set EQRs
no agreement on how to set boundary conditions particularly in relation to the terms used in the normative definitions.
no common understanding on ecological quality even within different regions within a MS/AS.

13. Further Concerns of COAST
At present not a high confidence of the status of the sites submitted
For some MS/AS most of sites will be below the good/moderate boundary – is it possible to submit moderate or worse?
‘informal’ intercalibration of fish data using sites exposed to habitat degradation
Possibility to use EUNIS habitat classification scheme to establish reference conditions?
More sites for transitional waters needed
Better involvement of Accession Countries
Boundary criteria needed for H-G, G-M
Circulate ECOSTAT papers also to COAST experts!