4.	DISCUSSION ON THE GOALS OF C-GOOS

Prior to the meeting of the panel, the chairman circulated a "think piece" on the goals of the C-GOOS panel (Annex VI) to promote pre-meeting discussion and facilitate the development of a consensus among panel members. With this as a point of departure, the chairman led an extended discussion designed to solicit participants' views on the goals and scope of Coastal GOOS. This discussion set the stage for the development of the panel's action plan. The following key points were made:

1. First identify the issues and problems, then ascertain the data and information needed to address them.
2. Assuming that one of the primary goals is to nowcast and forecast environmental change over a range of scales, the full range of modeling approaches and observational capabilities will be required. In order to determine the kinds of models and observing systems that will be needed, it is necessary to define exactly what is to be predicted and what is to be measured. This will lead to the selection of modeling approaches and specification of the resultant products. A critical aspect of such an approach is the observing system that fuels the model (s). It must be able to detect and quantify episodic inputs of energy and matter and responses to such inputs.

   In this regard, it was recognized that the scarcity of observations on coastal environments that are of sufficient duration, spatial extent, and resolution and the lack of knowledge (theoretical and empirical) on the propagation of variability across scales through and among coastal ecosystems are major barriers to the goals of nowcasting, forecasting and predicting environmental changes and their consequences.

   Many of the models we might wish to use are not complex. The degree of complexity required must be borne in mind in the design of C-GOOS. In some cases models may run on supercomputers; in other cases they may be rules of thumb. Nested models with differing degrees of resolution are likely to be needed given the complex local nature of the coast on the one hand, and the relative homogeneity of the adjacent coastal sea on the other hand. Larger scale phenomena, like currents, sea-level, and storm surge lend themselves to more advanced modelling. Some coastal events are driven by events thousands of miles away, which affect forcing at the offshore boundary of the coastal sea. Predicting plankton patchiness, on the other hand might be as difficult as precisely predicting local weather.

3. For the benefit of developing nations the task of C-GOOS should be to provide road-maps or blueprints addressing realisable goals, such as storm surge forecasts or the modelling of probable transport paths of harmful algal blooms, oil spills, etc. To be do-able, useful, and continuous, especially worldwide, C-GOOS should focus on a small number of inexpensive measures made globally. Is there such a common set of multi-purpose variables the measurement of which will yield data required to address relevant problems? If so what are they?
4. Pilot projects are required to demonstrate that the GOOS concept will work in the coastal zone and that it fills a unique and important niche. In addition to demonstrating that networking mechanisms can be put in place that make possible the timely exchange of data and information on appropriate scales, pilot projects should focus on geographic areas of interest to coastal managers and on key problems in terms of important operational issues. Pilot projects are required in both the developing and developed world, but are likely to be different in each case. Users will be convinced by results, so some pilot projects must be designed to obtain quick results. However, users should not be led to understand that GOOS is about quick fixes - it is a development for the long term, in which time series information is a valuable product. In choosing themes for pilot projects it would be wise to apply (replicate) technologies that are known to work, so as to minimize the risk of failure, in order to get the concept to spread quickly.
5. Making best use of existing systems is a key element of C-GOOS. In this context, programmes like Mussel Watch, GLOSS, GCRMN, HAB could be networked to create an Initial Observing System for C-GOOS, enabling information synthesis for coastal management. Consideration needs to be given urgently to integrating existing IOC programmes with GOOS in such a way that the original customers for those programmes are not disadvantaged. C-GOOS could also become a framework for existing national monitoring systems, which can contribute to it provided they meet basic GOOS requirements.
6. The design must be flexible to accommodate changing technology.
7. Education of the user community should include demonstrations that illustrate the benefits of C-GOOS - that C-GOOS provides an effective means of solving relevant problems. Users need convincing that others share similar problems, and that each can gain from the others by being involved collectively. The user community (including policy makers) should be involved in the design from the beginning. Education must start now before the fully fledged GOOS is available. Educating policy makers will require consideration of the fora in which that education should take place to be most effective.
8. In designing C-GOOS and in educating the user community, it must be borne in mind that the managers of coastal systems are usually not themselves well-coordinated within anyone country or region. Not only do the missions and goals of many government agencies overlap in the coastal zone, the management process is highly fragmented regionally. C-GOOS will need to convince these disparate users that the integrated framework approach of C-GOOS brings benefits.
9. Cost-benefit analyses may provide a useful tool in persuading governments to invest in C-GOOS. In considering the issues and problems, economic concerns must be borne in mind, such as (a) the cost of pollution caused by fish farming, (b) the economic effects of contamination of coastal waters by agricultural practices (nutrient runoff), (c) the economic consequences of changes in ecosystems caused by changes in fishing practices, (d) lost revenues from tourism and aquaculture, resulting from pollution. Economics must be considered as one of the forcing factors.
10. One benefit not to be lost sight of is the continuity the C-GOOS approach could (should) bring to data collection efforts across changes in government. Experience shows that only 1:20 monitoring programmes survives more than 1 decade; only 1:80 survives more than 2 decades. C-GOOS must do better.
11. C-GOOS will have to find a means to address the trend towards commercialisation of data, which tends to act against the data sharing essential to integrated coastal zone management.
12. A survey is needed like that proposed by the LMR Panel of who is doing what, when, where and how.