The BBC's decision to axe the Met Office could be the beginning of the end for accurate weather forecasting worldwide

Has the broadcaster forgotten that the public hold it to the highest standards?

(Getty Images)

The BBC decision to drop the Met Office for its weather forecasts is short sighted and self-defeating and should be reversed. Competitive tendering is a suitable procedure in some areas, but not for a weather service that is widely acknowledged to be the best in the world, and indeed has become an international model that many others have followed.

Perhaps the fundamental issue for most people is how this decision will impact what the BBC broadcasts on radio and TV. With one exception, the people who present the weather on BBC are Met Office staff and, whoever now wins the BBC contract, some current weather presenters - as scientists - will decide that their future remains at the Met Office as a centre of public sector excellence.

Finding good broadcast meteorologists is very hard. So this leaves the possibility that any new contractor to the BBC will slash standards, allowing aspiring young presenters to read pre-prepared scripts with little or no idea about what they are saying.

If so, this would be another example of moving away from public sector excellence. And in this sense, the BBC appears to have forgotten that the public generally expect the organisation to set the gold standard for broadcasting.

The truth is that other weather forecasting organisations do not have the research capability of the UK Met Office, which has enabled the latter to keep making improvements and also make changes as global weather conditions alter, for instance, through climate change. These developments have been rapidly incorporated in forecasts through top class training of BBC forecasters.

READ MORE:
THE BBC IS ALL AT SEA WITH PLANS TO DROP MET OFFICE

Most other countries would regard it as incredible to place in the hands of people who know little or nothing about the special and local features of the weather and hydrology to provide detailed forecasts and warnings.

The origins of this debacle lie in the 1996 decision for the Met Office to become a “trading fund” agency of government with its income no longer provided by yearly contracts for given services. Instead, it began to negotiate its income with about 30 yearly contracts with different government departments, agencies, public bodies including the BBC, and some commercial bodies such as airlines.

These negotiations were tough and influenced by requirements that the Met Office meet demanding targets for improved performance every year; including the improved accuracy and timeliness of forecasts. These are objectively assessed using results of annual surveys of the public and national and international organisations.

Indeed, the ability for the BBC Weather Centre to grow and flourish to an extent where it is now producing some 140 bespoke broadcasts every 24 hours is because a relationship has been forged where both parties want excellence to serve the UK public and indeed around the world where BBC World News is broadcast.

This has made the service a world leader and the State Broadcaster-Met Office model has been readily picked up by others, in particular in developing nations, where a poorly forecast and broadcast large weather event could have significant implications. As climate change develops, there will be more intense weather events that can cause considerable damage to life and infrastructure, particularly in poorer countries.

Hence, our genuine concern that if the BBC proceeds with its decision to drop the UK Met Office, the private sector will then use this success to persuade other state broadcasters across the world to follow suit. In this way, other Met services around the world could be ‘picked off’ with the ultimate losers viewers around the globe.

There has been media speculation that the BBC’s decision is all about cost, but this may not be accurate. Indeed, the Met Office bid may even have been rejected before the finance round had even started.

If that was the case, it should be noted that the consequence of a move by the BBC to use a non-European forecast provider (as indicated in some press statements) could have significant costs. This is because the United Kingdom will continue to pay its contribution to the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) - which is based in Britain because of the excellence of the Met Office - but UK authorities will probably end up paying twice via the BBC because the non-European forecaster will have to pay their contribution in order to receive all the relevant data from the ECMWF.

Taken overall, the BBC must reverse its decision and stay faithful to its mission to inform, educate and entertain which is exemplified in the excellent BBC weather forecasts. There is no third party provider that can provide a similar service quality. If the decision stands, it would be a tragedy for users of weather forecasts and warnings in the United Kingdom and internationally, and in the long term for collaborating Met Offices around the world.