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

2. Introduction How COAST was organised
Brief overview of the COAST Guidance
Life after guidance

3. COAST Guidance WP1. Common Understanding of Terms WP2. Typology
WP3. Reference Conditions
WP4. Classification
Steering
Group UK
Sweden
Germany
EEA
France
I would like to start by giving you a brief introduction into how the work of this group has been structured. I will then give you a brief update on the progress of each work package, and I will finish with a summary of how the group plans to finalise the guidance before the Autumn.
1st animation
The Working Group has been organised through a steering group of partners - Sweden, Germany, France the EEA with the UK acting as lead partner. The working group has no formal funding and is totally supported by these partner Member States contributions of staff time and the hosting of workshops.

4. Working Group

5. COAST Meetings Sept 2001 Brussels Jan 2002 Berlin May Stockholm June
Copenhagen
June
2002
Paris
Sept
Copenhagen

6. 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

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

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

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

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

14. 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

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

16. WP4. Classification Schemes
Starting point
no classification schemes meeting WFD needs
no classification tools meeting WFD needs
for some quality elements - no data
Outlines principles
Lead WP4 - EEA/WTC

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

18. 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

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

20. 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

21. 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