Attendants:
Daniel Soderman (DS) was not present, but provided background material for the meeting
AV opened the meeting on Friday, February 24th at 09.15. It was decided to have an open discussion meeting. AV welcomed the participants and regretted not having Daniel Söderman in the meeting. DS provided material for the meeting in advance. It was decided to have a conference call with him later.
AV summarized the policy of PRIMET. Our mission is to be the counterforce against ECOMET. In every PRIMET meeting some new ideas arise, and thus meetings are important. It is also important to have a formal legal structure of PRIMET.
HO introduced the preset situation with ECOMET, which as a legal entity is there, either acting legally or not. It is better to send positive signals rather than blow everything up. Key successes have been better access to data (like ECMWF). Also continuous dialogue with ECOMET chairman has been useful. In reality NMSs do not pay for the data nor pay VAT, which gives them unfair advantage. Discount for small service providers is sometimes used unfairly. Service provider prices (five times that for end users) are very uncompetitive. We should rather not focus on free data but equal treating. We should approach ECOMET now with a positive new suggestion.
JC pointed out that a basic requirement is that we should contribute to the meteorological infrastructure. We should work for getting more data, and gain more visibility among the public. We should more precisely agree on PRIMET objectives. Positive development can be seen: private sector has grown and has now more weight on our field.
MK also expressed the opinion that it is better to have ECOMET and not fight with them, rather to continue with fruitful dialog. In Norway National Competition Authority seems not to have enough power, as national politics is more powerful. Storm's report compiled since 2000 showed last year that DNMI's business must be separated. But as government recently changed, the process was stopped in three weeks.
CC said that data as such is not a big issue for WNI. Proper accounting separation is more important. Correspondence with ECOMET 18 moths ago has not put us any forward, we have to rethink our strategy. We should be more aggressive.
HO pointed out that our opponent is the state with much more resources and EU backing them.
JJ has recently met the national competition authorities and they have been very active. More evidence has been found. Conclusion will be the separation, draft ready and should be ready this year. They will start looking at ECOMET accounting which raises questions. PL added that visibility in media must be get.
PS gave similar news from Finland where the report from the National Competition Authority will be out soon (finally!) where they will recommend the separation of FMI to a state-owned company. Separation of FMI's business is the first on PS's agenda, as that will solve eventually the other data related problems. She thinks that legally we cannot win ECOMET, as it has been constructed to obey EU competition law. If its Members follow the law is another story.
AV noted they have a lobby office in Brussels, which suggested two possible paths. Firstly, go straight to politicians, which is very time consuming for all. Secondly, to approach the Commission's Competition Office open for everybody. They are obliged to respond and investigate with EU money, we will not be involved.
PS reminded of Wim Kok's shame list and Lissabon Strategy for more competition in EU. HO already approached Mr. Kok but the response was not very promising. Report of Cohen 1997 was used to prove separation of public businesses. State should not compete with the citizens. In France situation is opposite, public sector is very strong. MeteoFrance has 3700 staff, business TO is 42 M€. Still no analytical accounting system.
The main objectives of PRIMET were discussed. What is our primary agenda?
CC stressed the importance of sharing information what is happening in other countries.
JC reminded availability of data: some weather data is still inaccessible.
These cases are definitively illegal and must be informed to authorities.
Agenda should be:
Level playing field is the most important point on the agenda. Second guaranteed access to data.
PL listed three important points to include:
PRIMET could use the new EU data directives to stress the data problems. An investigation is going on how the directives have been followed in EU.
Exact tasks of NMSs should be defined. It is sometimes difficult to decide what services should be provided free of charge.
We need better publicity. AV has learned that Italian politicians do not mind if public sector does all weather services. They need education first to understand the issue. We should produce a simple brochure for them.
PS reminded that climate change could be used to start a media campaign. Climate data price is absurd in Europe not allowing innovation of services to EU citizens.
PRIMET should also act to improve private-public relationships. One plausible idea is to have a public-private partnership to have one database with all data accessible to everybody with a certain lump price.
HO pointed out that companies with different sizes have different needs for the data policy. NS gave a summary of his particular problems, as they need only synoptic data, not radar data.
AV summarised the PRIMET objectives as:
Two out of 25 PRIMET members did not pay their annual fee in 2005. Meteomedia from Switzerland is the only one that has not express intention to pay. DS was authorized to communicate with Meteomedia whether they want to continue with PRIMET.
The payments for 2006 are not out yet. Annual fees with present level are about 20.000 €. The meeting decided to increase the annual fee to 75 € per staff member (man years) to get more funds for activities. With this budget we can pay running costs as now and also for some extra paper work when necessary.
AV has presented the plan to start an association in San Marino, which would imply having basic funds of some 50-100k€ to start with. Other possibilities are to have a normal company or a foundation. Foundation will be most respected, but needs at least 2M€ funds in Italy. San Marino is a feasible solution as it does not have a weather service, but we cannot start one either.
In Finland an association can be started with very little costs. PS will check this with DS, some preliminary studies have already been done. Reasonable bureaucracy would be needed, forming the statutes, keeping of accounts, etc. Meeting decided to authorize DS to do the necessary paper work with extra payment.
The meeting agreed that DS should be appointed PRIMET General Secretary for 2006. Monthly expenses of 500 € will be paid by PRIMET. A lump sum of 10.000 € will be reserved for extra paper work, which includes establishing the registered PRIMET Association in Finland.
In a telephone conference, DS approved the decision and the meeting was happy to appoint him as the next Secretary General. The appointment will start immediately.
The meeting decided to appoint a three person Board to PRIMET. The following persons volunteered: JC, MK, PS. The Board with these three members was appointed, even though it was noted that the Board is anything but gender equal.
PRIMET must respond to Anton Eliassen's letter, which was disappointing. We do not agree Van Bael & Bellis to do the legal scrutiny. PS has experience of them during the years of establishing ECOMET. Rather we should be constructive and have a meeting with PRIMET Board and ECOMET or continue privately with Anton. Meeting authorized DS and the Board to continue this process.
A press release will be drafted by JC to issue the official registration of PRIMET and our agenda.
The European Commissioner on competition issues Neelie Kroez will be approached after our September meeting and the official registration of PRIMET.
PRIMET contact information must be checked, e.g. WSI.
PS will forward the meeting Minutes by e-mail latest on February 25th to other PRIMET Members for approval.
Ivan Ristic has authorized NS to invite PRIMET to have the next AGM in Belgrade. The meeting was happy to receive this invitation. To return back to the original meeting schedule the timing should be in September. If the General Secretary is not able to travel at the time, there will an option of having the meeting in Helsinki. The final decision will be made in due time for practical meeting organizations. Friday, September 29th was reserved for the meeting date, with Saturday 30th as a reserve day.
Official part of the meeting was closed at 16.00. After this AV organized a visit to Epson Weather Centre where Antonio Sano and Andrea Falcinelli from IlMeteo joined. Annual Meeting Dinner closed the meeting.