1. Claire Vincent Environment and Heritage Service United Kingdom
CIS - Project 2.4 COAST
Claire Vincent
Environment and Heritage Service
United Kingdom

2. Introduction Status of Guidance Work Packages Life After Guidance
Common Understanding
Typology
Reference Conditions
Classification
Life After Guidance
Lessons learnt

3. Status of Guidance
Final steering group meeting September , Copenhagen
Comments from Steering Group &
Norway
Finland
Latvia
Denmark
Netherlands
Ireland
Belgium
Portugal
Commission

4. Status of Guidance Open issues Controversial issues
fisheries
role of physico-chemical and hydromorphological
Controversial issues
Inconsistent issues
minimum size guideline
typology
type specific / site specific
pressure criteria
high status / reference conditions  

5. WP1. Common Understanding
Water categories
defining transitional
extent of coastal waters
Types
Water bodies
Assigning coastal strips to the appropriate river basin
Wetlands
Territorial waters
Lead WP1 - Germany and United Kingdom

6. Size of ‘significant’ transitional water
? km2
1 km2
0.5km2
Lead WP3 - United Kingdom

7. WP2. Typology Framework - Annex II System B
Lead WP2 - Germany

8. WP2. Typology Framework - Annex II System B
Mandatory factors
lat, long
tidal range
salinity
Venice
Optional factors
exposure
depth
the others
Lead WP2 - Germany

9. WP2 - Typology MSs currently drafting / testing typology
Typology ready - end 2002 / spring 2003
Common types for intercalibration
Lead WP2 - Germany

11. Inconsistent issue - differing approaches to typology?

12. Is a European typology framework necessary?
1. Atlantic Ocean
2. Norwegian Sea
3. Barents Sea
4. North Sea
5. Baltic Sea
6. Mediterranean Sea
Lead WP2 - Germany

13. Is a European typology framework necessary?
No. As long as Member States understand the real differences and co-operate where there are similar types.
Lead WP2 - Germany

14. WP3. Reference Conditions
Reference conditions will be expressed as ranges
Lead WP3 - United Kingdom

15. The European Sea
EuroTypes A B C E D
Reference Conditions

16. WP3. Reference Conditions
Reference conditions will be expressed as ranges
Will not reflect a single date
Lead WP3 - United Kingdom

18. WP3. Reference Conditions
Reference conditions will be expressed as ranges
Will not reflect a single date
Represented by EQR values close to 1
Incorporate ‘very minor disturbance’
Lead WP3 - United Kingdom

19. Ecological Quality Ratio
Deviation
Status 1
High
Relation of biological
parameter
value observed
Good
Slight
EQR =
Moderate
Reference
biological value
Moderate
Poor
Bad

20. Do Reference Conditions = High Status?
Reference conditions are a description of the BIOLOGICAL conditions found in a high status site.
AGREEMENT
COAST - REFCOND - IMPRESS
Lead WP3 - United Kingdom

21. Type specific - site specific
The European Sea
EuroTypes A B C E D
Reference Conditions
AGREEMENT

22. Use of Pressure Criteria
Link - high status and lack of pressures
IMPRESS Toolbox is a useful starting point
Further use of pressure criteria is not in the spirit of the Directive
NORMATIVE DEFINITIONS
AGREEMENT
Lead WP3 - United Kingdom

23.  Fisheries Lead WP3 - United Kingdom
Some fishing activities (benthic trawling) must constitute more that very minor disturbance 
Lead WP3 - United Kingdom

24. Fisheries Lead WP3 - United Kingdom At Good Status Annex V 1.2.3
Description of fish fauna at good status
The abundance of the disturbance-sensitive species shows slight signs of distortion from the type-specific conditions attributable to anthropogenic impacts on physico-chemical or hydromorphological quality elements.
Lead WP3 - United Kingdom

25. WP4. Classification Schemes
Starting point
no classification schemes meeting WFD needs
no classification tools meeting WFD needs
Outlines the principles of classification
One out - all out
Develop guidance further on
how to combine quality elements
statistical advice
use of indicators
Lead WP4 - EEA/WTC

26. Role of physico-chemical and hydromorphological
Annex II 1.3i
…..type-specific hydromorphological and physico-chemical conditions shall be established representing the values of the hydromorphological and physico-chemical elements……at high ecological status.

27. Role of physico-chemical and hydromorphological
Intercalibration
Annex V, 1.4.1
Comparability of biological monitoring results
Intercalibration is on biological parameters only.
Common sense approach - use everything you have to support your decisions on biology!!
Physico-chemical & hydromorphological within a type support the biological information

28. Role of physico-chemical and hydromorphological
Annex V 1.4.2
…..the ecological status classification shall be represented by the lower of the values for the biological and physico-chemical monitoring results for the relevant quality elements…..

29. Do the physico-chemical conditions meet high status?
Do the estimated values for the biological quality elements meet reference conditions?
Do the physico-chemical conditions meet high status?
Do the hydro-morphological conditions meet high status?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Classify as high status No No No
Do the estimated values for the biological quality elements deviate only slightly from their reference values?
Do the physico-chemical conditions (a) ensure ecosystem functioning and (b) meet the EQSs for specific pollutants?
Yes
Yes
Classify as good status No No
Classify on the basis of the biological deviation from reference conditions?
Is the deviation only moderate?
Yes
Classify as moderate status No
Is the deviation only major?
Yes
Classify as poor status No
Classify as bad status

30. Specific pollutants & high status
COAST guidance now explains the terms
chemical status
relationship between chemical status & physico-chemical component of ecological status (ref - EAF PS / AMPS)
specific pollutants (ref - IMPRESS)

31. WP4. Classification Toolbox
Collating information on
existing schemes
biological classification tools
from national schemes
from the Conventions
Lead WP4 - EEA/WTC

32. Greek Plant Classification
Moderate
Good
High
Poor
Bad
30%
60%
Mean
Abundance
% ESG II
Opportunistic
Species
Stable, established community. Late successional species
Mean Abundance % ESG I

33. Sweden - Macroalgae Scheme protected to moderately exposed hard bottom

34. Iterative Process

35. Outstanding Work
Further work on classification principles and schemes (with REFCOND?)
Executive summary
Summary and Conclusions
After Water Directors:
Amend water bodies (if necessary)

36. Life After Guidance COAST - There is a need. Tasks 2003-2004
identify common types for intercalibration
to establish a reference network of high status sites
share information on testing & development of classification tools

37. Lessons learnt - COAST Pragmatism
Steering Group representative of all ecoregions
Steering
Group UK
Sweden
Germany
EEA
France
Remember GUIDANCE
Good communication
Belief in the process
Pragmatism

39. Alternative Fish Classification
Status
Disturbance
Ecological Criteria
Fish sampled from clean, sandy sea bed.
Fish jump, when commanded into boat
in length stratified samples.
No beam trawling, seine
netting or interference
from Civil Servants
High
Fish are present but are slightly shy
of sampling equipment.
Slight disturbance due
to classification
scientists
Good
Only mentally challenged
species remain
All sensitive
species gone.
Moderate
Only mad (indicators) species left.
Flounder and sand goby.
Mud and stones
rip nets
Poor
Fish obscured by mud
Suspect flounder still present
Bad