Espoo/Helsinki, 10 March 2004

ECMWF data access and utilisation

Please find attached a Table entitled «Numerical Weather Prediction Data Used Operationally by PRIMET Corporate Members as of 24-Feb-2004» resulting from a recent study. The key findings of the study are:

According to Art. 2, §1(e) of the ECMWF Convention, the objectives of the Centre include:
"to make available to the meteorological offices of the Member States, in the most appropriate form, the results of the studies and research provided in (a) and (c) and the data referred to in (b) and (d)"

Subpara. (b) refers to the "data necessary for the preparation of medium-range weather forecasts", whilst subpara. (d) covers the function to "collect and store appropriate meteorological data". Therefore all ECMWF operational and archived data required by the meteorological offices of the Member States shall be made available to them.

Furthermore, if an ECMWF Member State does not waive its sovereign rights to these data, all operational and archived ECMWF data are to be delivered to the meteorological offices of that country free of charge, as the ECMWF Convention does not make provision for payments by the Member States for the ECMWF products and services guaranteed by the Convention.

The most efficient action to remedy the situation as regards the use of ECMWF data within Europe would be that the Member States, separately or jointly, confirm that these data are to be made available to all meteorological offices within their countries at no charge. This would of course be contrary to the current practice of excessively high charges for ECMWF data, which as shown by the attached results of the NWP study has resulted in non-NMS users in Europe taking virtually all the NWP data they require from NCEP Washington.

Even if only a few credible private sector meteorological offices existed in Europe in the early 70's when the ECMWF Convention was drafted, the situation is now very different, with independent companies providing operational weather services in most European countries. To deny such companies, in particular those responsible for forecasts to the general public over TV and radio as well as those providing specialised weather services to a variety of customers, access to the ECMWF data for administrative reasons or by means of excessive charges is not in the best interest of the country and the taxpayer.

In addition to discriminatory action based on charging for the ECMWF data, discriminatory measures of a technical nature have also been imposed by the ECMWF Council. Reference is made, in particular, to the early decision that there should only be one telecommunications link between the Centre and each Member State, with this link terminating at the National Meteorological Service which thereby can monitor and even control the traffic to its competitors.

Furthermore the resulting direct and privileged access which the NMS's in the Member States have to the enormous global data base of ECMWF operational and historical data and products makes it very demanding and challenging for them from a technical, administrative and even moral perspective to follow in practice the requirements of the EC DG-IV Comfort Letter on ECOMET issued on 21 October 1999 (reference is made in particular to the ruling that private sector meteorological services and the commercial divisions of the NMSs must be treated equally with regard to access and invoicing of the data). Even if the circumstances during the early years of ECMWF operations may have justified the above restrictive distribution policies, today the limitations on the dissemination of the Centre's products can be virtually removed at relatively short notice by allowing forecast dissemination also via the Internet. Although this because of potential communications delays would not be quite as satisfactory a solution as a dedicated link, it would still make it possible for other centres than the NMS's to interface directly and interactively with the ECMWF product dissemination system which in fact was designed in the early 1980's to operate on this basis.

Overall it should be kept in mind that ECMWF was established by European countries and not by their national meteorological offices, and that the only reference in the ECMWF Convention to these offices can be found in Art. 4§2, in which it is stated that «The Council shall be composed of not more than two representatives from each Member State, one of whom should be a representative of his national meteorological service».

In practice the ECMWF Council has since the beginning been dominated by the national meteorological services. This would seem to imply that decisions by the ECMWF Council on discriminatory action in favour of the national meteorological services constitute «abuse of dominant position» as defined in European Competition Law. In this context it is interesting to note that the protection associated with the EC Competition Directorate Comfort Letter on ECOMET of 21 October 1999 may not cover activities beyond 1 May 2004.

I sincerely hope that corrective action will be taken to ensure that the budgetary contributions by the Member States of some 40 million euro per year fully benefit all relevant parties in the Member States, and that the products of this very expensive and quite excellent centre could be more fully utilised.

It should also be kept in mind that the global set of atmospheric analyses and forecasts produced operationally by ECMWF could by means of an open data access policy serve disciplines such as oceanography, hydrology, radioactive/chemical pollution dispersion as well as environmental risk management and related planning in the Member States much better as compared to the situation today, thereby providing further justification for the budgetary funding of ECMWF.

In particular it is proposed that:

1. the distribution of ECMWF data to the «meteorological offices of the Member States» should in future be provided on the same conditions to governmental and private sector operators, in line with the ECMWF Convention, the EC Comfort Letter on ECOMET and the EP/EC Directive of 17 November 2003;
2. the current restrictions imposed on operational dissemination of ECMWF analysis/forecast products over the Internet are lifted, thereby allowing for forecast dissemination over the Internet to private sector meteorological offices, in parallell with the existing transmissions to the Member States' national meteorological services;
3. the private sector is allowed in future to participate more actively in the management and coordination of the use of ECMWF products and services within the Member States.

Yours sincerely,

Daniel Soderman
PRIMET Secretary General

Attachment: « Numerical Weather Prediction Data Used Operationally by PRIMET Corporate Members as of 24-Feb-2004»