Meteorology, Meteorological, History

An IGO
monit-
oring
weather and
climate
change

HISTORY OF EUMETSAT, p42.

HISTORY OF EUMETSAT, p40.

p41.

The Chairman asked delegates for their views. Despite the cost difference, all delegations except France were leaning toward the "European" solution, that is, controlling the satellite from ESOC. The delegates, again except France, also accepted that the operation could be funded from savings in the MOP.

France reminded delegates that the GOES back-up was a new programme and that, under the terms of the Convention, it required a unanimous vote. The French point was not a surprise because during the fourth meeting of the PAC the Chairman had reminded members of the need for unanimity.

Despite this earlier policy position that a unanimous decision was needed for the GOES back-up, delegates used Italy's argument about the value to Europe of a satellite over the Atlantic as a reason for considering the movement of Meteosat-3 to be part of the existing MOP. To emphasise the point they renamed the mission Atlantic Data Coverage (ADC).

There were two consequences of adopting this view of the GOES back-up. By making ADC part of the existing MOP, the delegates needed to reach only a two-thirds majority to proceed with the mission instead of the unanimity necessary for a new programme. Secondly, the delegates saved time. If ADC were a new programme then the Annex to the Convention that described the initial system would have to be changed and some Member States would need to go back to their parliaments for permission. This could be a time-consuming exercise. In addition, a new programme opened the door to negotiations on scales of contribution, also potentially a time-consuming exercise.

So the Secretariat prepared a new document providing a legal justification for including ADC within the MOP. A new Resolution was attached. Fourteen delegates voted in favour, the Netherlands abstained pending more information about cost savings. France did not participate in the vote.

It was not that the French delegation was against moving Meteosat-3. France was, in fact, in favour of the mission and had spoken strongly of Europe's moral obligation to the USA. Nor were the remaining delegates motivated by anything other than a desire to act quickly because the matter was urgent.

All the same, the French delegation was outraged by what it saw as disrespect for the Convention, and asked for its protests to be recorded formally in the minutes. What had started as a disagreement about cost and technical approach was now a question of principle. France said that it could not accept the adoption of a new programme with less than unanimity and objected to the proposal to pay for the GOES back-up with money from the MOP. The Council's decision, said the French statement, pressurised France to pay for a new programme at a scale of contribution with which it did not agree. For these reasons, France would not vote, formally contested the vote's legality and would not pay toward the programme. Finally, said the French statement, the delegation would report to its government, which would decide, "upon the possible legal consequences with regard to this unfortunate situation that could generate a major crisis in relations between France and EUMETSAT."

A month later, André Lebeau, who at the time was Director of the French National

SEE ALSO| |

1. Meteorologists shed political shackles, a review of Declan Murphy's history of the first 25 years of EUMETSAT (2011), by Helen Gavaghan.

2. An interview in 2010 with Dr Tillman Mohr, a special advisor to the secretary general of the World Meteorological Organisation, in Science, People & Politics.

eChapter| |TOP

Contents

Preface

Foreword

Introduction

Ch.1

Ch.2

Ch.3

Ch.4

Ch.5

Ch.6

Ch.7

Ch.8

The History of EUMETSAT is available in English and French from EUMETSAT©.
First printed 2001. ISBN 92-9110-040-4

Eumetsat meteorology meteorological artificial satellites
European Space Agency weather climate policy politics history