RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN PRIVATE SECTOR ENGAGEMENT LAURA M. DELGADO LÓPEZ INSTITUTE FOR GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGIES

OVERVIEW Motivation and goal of research Approach Report release: May 2012 Goals of presentation: Provide context: recent developments in this area Share common themes of research Pose questions for ongoing discussion

PUBLIC-PRIVATE MODELS TYPE Gov’t supported public service Core & Discretionary Funded Commercially Funded Build-Operate Transfer CHRACTERISTCS Relies on public funding Aims to advance public good Private sector takes basic information, enables value-added industry Government provides core funding Additional funds are competed through short- term contracts or state- owned enterprise. Agency competes directly in competitive, commercial markets. Agency and private sector partner to create entity that brokers information/da ta exchanges PPP Institutional cooperation between partners to jointly manage complex projects Source: D. Rogers and V. Tsirkunov, Managing and Delivering National Meteorological and Hydro-meteorological Services (Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery: 2011)

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS 1.NOAA Partnership Policy (Release: 2006; Review: 2012) 2.Climate Partnership Task Force (CPTF) report (Release: October 2011) 3.Open Weather and Climate Services (OWCS) concept (Release: December 2011)

NOAA PARTNERSHIP POLICY Response to NRC Fair Weather report: defined decision-making process Acknowledges changing landscape, growing role of private sector and academia. “The nation benefits from government information disseminated both by Federal agencies and by diverse nonfederal parties, including commercial and not-for-profit entities.” Tension between actors: “some level of friction is inevitable.” NOAA to foster growth of enterprise “to serve the public interest and the nation’s economy.” Principles: Mission connection Consultation Open Information Dissemination Equity Recognition of Roles of Others January 2006; review every 5 years. EISWG will review in NOAA reaching constituency through AMS; AMS to request feedback

CPTF REPORT CPTF established by NOAA SAB’s Climate Working Group and EISWG to develop model for public-private sector collaboration in provision of climate services “NOAA will engage and empower the private sector as a partner in creating climate products and services and delivering them to the nation.” “NOAA cannot meet the accelerating demand for climate information alone—it must involve the private sector.” Successful partnership key to +ROI 70+ companies provide climate products and services Open-access to publicly funded data, sustained collaboration are critical. Build on weather enterprise success Key actions: Establish clear processes Define roles w/o stifling innovation Effectively manage data Attract private sector collaboration Incorporate outside data sets Balance risk Final report release October 2011

OPEN WEATHER AND CLIMATE SERVICES Developed by SAB’s EISWG White paper on Enterprise’s limited access to NWS data Issue: NWS collects/creates more than it can share; exchanges between NWS and Enterprise are not optimized Assumes value of NWS info is realized outside OWCS: open access data policy, greater involvement in design/development of new technologies side-by-side development – no need to filter information “NOAA should adopt the OWCS paradigm as part of its core philosophy and work to implement it whenever and wherever possible.” SAB response in November 2011 meeting. NOAA to examine implementation challenges. EISWG holding workshop on May 1 st engaging leadership from NOAA line offices. Dr. Lubchenco will formally respond (within 1 year)

COMMON THEMES 1.NOAA partnership policy is sufficient to guide public-private climate relationship. 2.Open dialogue/participation between NOAA and the private sector is key moving forward. 3.Though coupled in practice and policy, similarities/differences exist between weather and climate (from a services perspective). These are critical to determine policy/practice. 4.Key challenges: 1.User education is lacking in: climate needs, services available, and uncertainties/limitations of data. 2.Issue of communication: other ways to say climate, climate change that may appeal to broader communities. 3.Public-private partner roles are largely undefined. Fundamental NOAA roles include: global data access/quality/stewardship. Tension can be reduced by private sector-NOAA implementing attribution guidelines for data. Private sector becoming more vocal: this is why we need NOAA. Business opportunities can be exploited. Derived from research and interviews with: Edward Johnson, Eileen Shea, Peter Neilley, Warren Qualley,, Joel Smith, Lee Branscome, Scott Rayder

DEFINING WEATHER VS. CLIMATE IN RESPECT TO SERVICES Timescale of Data/Servic es PASTPRESENTFUTURE Weather Short-term forecasting (0 hours – 2 weeks) Climate Analysis of Historical Record Long-term forecasting >2 weeks Intraseasonal Interseasonal Interdecadal

ADDITIONAL DISTINCTIONS: SECTOR MATURITY WeatherClimate Business requirementsWell-definedVaries by sector User educationAdvancedVaries by sector Scope of data Short-term (0 hours – 2 weeks) Historical, Trend Analysis, Short term (2 weeks – 1 year), Long-term (intraseasonal, interseasonal, 1 year+) Observing system/operators Government, Growing Business market Government, academia Distribution mechanism Government, Established business market Government, Academia, Research, Emerging business market Public-private roles Well-defined, continually tested Not well communicated, Untested Entry pointsWell-definedUndefined, untested

PENDING QUESTIONS How can climate services be defined (from a user perspective)? i.e: actionable information How are climate and weather similar/different from a services perspective? What lessons can be applied from the Weather Enterprise experience? What are the main issues in climate service user education? How should the partnership address these? e.g. Climate Normals (their uses, limitations) What are the impediments to using climate information services? What principles define public and private roles? Does the issue of visibility/attribution engender competition? How can it be addressed? How should public-private engagement be structured?

Questions? Comments? Laura Delgado López