The IABM and ECOMET 

A position paper prepared by Board of Directors

The world of Meteorology encompasses many different activities; observing, forecasting, research, climatology, and so on. For the great majority of the ordinary people, though, the world of Meteorology means only one thing; the weather forecast on radio and television. The weather broadcast is the main point of contact between meteorology and the outside world. How the populace - and those who are the decision-makers in society - view our science will be greatly influenced by what they see on the small screen and hear on their car radios. It is important for the overall good of meteorology - if for no other reason - that weather broadcasting be conducted to the highest possible standards. Anything less will reflect poorly on our chosen field of endeavour.

What makes a good weather broadcast? Opinions, of course, will vary from country to country, from culture to culture, and even from person to person. Weather broadcasting is essentially about the transmission of information - information that can be detailed and complex at times; information which contributes to the efficient and economic conduct of society; information that is needed for the protection of life and property when the elements turn really nasty. Good weather broadcasting, then, is built on two foundations; quality of information and quality of presentation.

Historically, the problems of weather forecasting have revolved around the efficient collection of vast amounts of weather data; the organisation of this data into a coherent synoptic view of the atmosphere; the preparation of maps and charts showing the likely evolution of the atmosphere over time, and then the interpretation of this evolution into the details of the expected weather at a specific location.

The weather broadcaster needs to be able to talk about the weather with authority and credibility. To do this, they do not need to involve themselves in all the steps of weather forecasting, but they do need an understanding of why the forecast is evolving in a particular direction. They need this both to explain properly the upcoming changes in the weather (one cannot explain what one does not understand) and also to correctly interpret the developing weather, as seen in observations and in radar and satellite imagery, in the context of the overall forecast.

Only by having weather broadcasters who are meteorologically trained and who have access to a continuous supply of weather observational data can the highest levels of weather broadcasting be achieved. Broadcasts which are badly presented, or which are simply out of date, reflect badly upon the meteorological community as a whole.

It is the belief of the IABM that current ECOMET pricing structures militate against good weather broadcasting, and act against the long-term interests of European meteorology in general and European NMHS’s in particular.

Before explaining why we hold this belief, we would like to make a few general points. We do not have a difficulty with the concept that some income should flow from broadcasting to support the meteorological infrastructure. We are, however, aware that developments within broadcasting - specifically the development of digital broadcasting and the proliferation of television channels - is putting enormous pressure on broadcasters to produce more content for less revenue. The costs of broadcast content are being driven relentlessly down.

We would like also to emphasise that we do not see this as being primarily a public versus private sector issue. There are many NMHS’s in Europe which are active in the field of broadcasting. Most, if not all, of them want to retain a presence in this market, but this will only be possible if they can produce a keenly-priced package for their broadcasters. The ECOMET pricing structures make this very difficult.

If a broadcaster wishes to produce a weather forecast of high quality, the first thing they will need to do is to engage the services of a meteorologist or an experienced forecaster. They may employ this person directly, or they may have a secondment arrangement with an NMHS or a private sector weather supplier. This person may go on screen directly, or may work in the background briefing, and preparing material for, a non-met presenter.

The key point here is that there is a substantial cost to the broadcaster in employing someone with this skill and experience. Contrary to popular belief, presenters chosen purely on the basis of their appearance or presentational ability are frequently not well paid. There is a large supply of such persons, and limited demand. They tend to be young, without dependants and therefore willing to work for lower pay than an experienced professional. A broadcaster who employs an experienced meteorologist is already making a significant investment in quality.

A meteorologist or forecaster, however experienced, cannot work without information; the broadcaster now must make a second investment and acquire a stream of weather data with which the meteorologist can work. It is the cost of this data in Europe which is the nub of the problem. The pricing structures of ECOMET put a high value on raw data and a (relatively) low value on end products. The broadcaster who wishes to invest resources in quality weather broadcasting is penalised by these pricing arrangements. It is simply cheaper for a broadcaster to buy in a forecast product and employ eye candy to present it. With the pressure on content costs this will soon be the only affordable option for European broadcasters. Authoritative weather broadcasting will simply disappear from European television screens.

There is another aspect of this situation that deserves consideration. The free availability of weather data in the US has spawned a vigorous private sector there dedicated to the provision of weather forecast packages for broadcasting. This is a mature market, with strong and well-resourced companies. These companies have been handed a competitive advantage by ECOMET in that they can supply turn-key packages of graphics and model data to European broadcasters at a substantial discount to the costs that must be charged by those who base their services on European products. In order to compete, European weather companies are now integrating US data into their packages and services. We may yet get to a stage where the output from ECMWF, HirLam, Arpége, UKLam, Aladin etc simply disappear from the television weather broadcast, to be replaced by products based on the AVN or the MRF.

We in the IABM are aware that many European NMHS’s have, in recent years, been forced to put considerable effort in findings creative ways “around” the ECOMET regulations in order to continue to supply weather information to broadcasters. That this should happen is in itself an indication that there are severe problems in this area. One of the reasons that NMHS’s want to retain broadcast clients is that it provides them with visibility to the public and to the decision makers. Indeed such visibility through broadcasting is strongly encouraged through WMO as a capacity-building measure for all NMHS’s. It is curious, however, that no monetary value is put on this exposure when contracts between broadcasters and NMHS’s (or private-sector companies) are being worked out. If it is important to NMHS’s to retain visibility, then a value needs to be put on this exposure, and this amount explicitly accounted for in contracts with broadcasters.

The IABM understands that ECOMET was established out of the necessity to regulate the European market in weather data and the relationships between European Met Services, and to bring these into line with EU competition law. However, the effects of ECOMET rules and pricing structures on broadcasting have been to create many difficulties between NMHS’s and broadcasters in Europe, who are being forced to look to other suppliers for their weather data. This situation is worsening as broadcasters grapple with the need to produce ever more content with ever more limited resources.

The IABM strongly supports the public service role of NMHS’s, its members want to work with NMHS’s to help deliver their forecast and warnings services to the public. ECOMET policies have made this work more difficult, and have put severe pressure on long-established relationships that have existed between NMHS’s and the media for many years. ECOMET needs to re-evaluate its role in, and impact upon, broadcast meteorology. ECOMET needs to examine how it can actively support quality weather broadcasting in Europe, and it needs to do this now.

Gerald Fleming

26th November 2001