Dr Patricia Lewis
Well, welcome, everybody. I hope everybody can hear me. We’re having a few technical glitches, I think, with our music at the beginning. So, my name is Patricia Lewis. I’m the Research Director at Chatham House for Conflicts, Science and Transformation. I’m the Director of International Security Programme. We’re here today to talk about space and space governance and space security and all that matters about all of those issues, and I’m absolutely delighted to welcome you all and delighted to welcome all of our panellists.
I want to start by thanking Leonardo, who are sponsoring and supporting our work on this, and have been doing so since 2012, and I’m hoping that Carlo Musso is on the call, for his support throughout this and for supporting today’s meeting and our current work. I also should mention Sasakawa Peace Foundation, the Stanley Foundation and the Norwegian Ministry of Defence for all of their support for our work on space security over the years, that we’ve been developing and particularly looking at the digital part of that and the cyber impacts and the vulnerability of our space systems, particularly to position on navigational and timing signals.
So, a few housekeeping rules, first of all. Despite this being a Chatham House meeting, we are not using the Chatham House Rule. We are on the record, and this is being recorded. For questions and answers, if I could ask you, please, to use the Q&A box and to write your question in there and let me know if you would like me to call on you to ask that question, or if you would prefer me to read it out. My preference is that you ask it, rather than me ask it, ‘cause I think by halfway through this meeting, you will all be sick of my voice, so it will be really great to have some new voices in there.
So, we’re in the midst of a major technical revolution in space. We have new spacefarers, we have states, private sector, non-governmental organisations, international organisations, who are all competing for a place in space, and we have new technology for internet connection, communications, Earth imaging and some exciting new scientific exploration capabilities, and all of this is developing rapidly. At the same time, there are daily attempts at hacking into satellites. There are satellites buzzing at each other. There are new technologies that are being developed for cleaning up space debris and we have a major problem with space debris. And some of those, of course, could be used as weapons and there’s all sorts of new weaponry, both kinetic and digital, for the use in space.
So, we’re at this, sort of, cusp at the moment and we’ve got old treaties, we’ve got old agreements going back to the 1960s, that are the mainstay, particularly the Outer Space Treaty, the mainstay of a set of treaties that govern our behaviour in space. But you know, a lot’s happened in the last 50 years and those treaties, which were developed for that time, which still have enormous power and impact, nonetheless, need to be supplemented. They need to be supported and new measures need to be developed in order for us to be able to develop to cope with this new situation. And these need to be added in and integrated into a new set of rules for space behaviour. And there are many proposals at the moment for new treaties, and new codes of conduct, trust and confidence building measures and most recently, the UK has begun a UN process on responsible behaviour in space. So, all of this now is a very exciting and demanding and important debate that’s going on in the international arena.
So, I’m going to call on our stellar panel to make a few minutes’ opening remarks each. First of all, I’m going to call on Dr Peter Martinez, who’s the Executive Director of the Secure World Foundation, and he’s the Former Chair of the UN COPUOS, that’s the UN Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space Working Group on Long-Term Sustainability. Peter, can I turn to you first, please?
Dr Peter Martinez
Thank you, Patricia, and good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you may be joining this panel discussion today. It’s a great pleasure to be here and thank you for the invitation to participate in today’s panel.
The notion that the Earth’s orbital environment is a shared resource that is to be used rationally and equitably to promote global stability and benefits on Earth, not only for our generation, but also, with a view to the needs of future generations, is something that is still in the early stages of being socialised widely in the public consciousness and is really just starting to enter into the mainstream political discourse in many countries. Several of the challenges to space sustainability are being addressed in multilateral fora, such as the UN – United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Spaces and considerable progress has been made. Recent examples include the adoption by UN COPUOS of 21 Guidelines for the Long-Term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities, and more recently, the adoption of UN Resolution 75/36 on Reducing Space Threats Through Norms, Rules and Principles of Responsible Behaviours.
But there are also quite a number of challenges that are not yet being addressed in these bodies, such as mega-constellations or traffic management, space traffic management, I mean. And there is a growing sense of frustration with the glacial speed that these multilateral fora move, compared to the rapidly evolving situation in orbit. This frustration opens the door for initiatives that seek to circumvent the established multilateral fora and which I think could potentially be destabilising, in terms of reaching consensus on how to address these global space governance challenges.
The nature of these shared challenges is such that no single actor, or group of likeminded actors, be they state actors or private sector actors, can ensure the safety, security and sustainability of their own space operations entirely on their own. Therefore, I believe these multilateral fora are critically important for successful space governance and we need to think of ways to making them more efficient and more responsive to the changing dynamics of the global space arena. In this regard, I think we should look at the lessons to be learnt from the management of common pool resources and other shared domains, such as, for example, the maritime domain.
There is, nowadays, much talk about the need for norms of responsible behaviour in space, but we need more clarity as to what constitutes responsible and irresponsible behaviours in space. This is a difficult problem, because there is no legal definition of what constitutes responsible behaviour. As we have seen, states and non-state actors alike, have recently called out actions in space that, while not contravening any international laws, have none – nevertheless, been characterised as being irresponsible or disturbing. I’m hopeful that the work being done under GI Resolution 75/36 will help to clarify the concept of responsible behaviours.
In this regard, voluntary measures to improve transparency, such as the sharing of information on space activities and information on the motions of space objects, can reduce the risks of miscalculations, misperceptions and mistrust, lowering the potential for accidents or conflict in space. Having clear protocols or rules of the orbit to follow in certain contingency situations would be a good start. Taking a [audio cuts out – 09:34] perhaps we could consider something akin to the Incidents at Sea type of agreement for outer space.
Turning now to commercial space activities, the increasing commercial use of the space domain offers tangible social and economic benefits, while simultaneously, raising a number of new space sustainability challenges. No longer solely a government dominated domain, space has become a multiuser domain, with commercial actors becoming an increasingly important stakeholder group. I believe that the stability of the space domain will be enhanced through actions that develop and reinforce the beneficial commercial uses of outer space in a sustainable manner. As the commercial use of space expands, private sector space operators must be increasingly brought into the development and implementation of responsible and sustainable operating practices. Through such practices, the benefits that private sector space capabilities bring to society can be enhanced, while mitigating [audio cuts out – 10:37]. With that, I will end my opening remarks here and hand the floor back to you, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thank you very much, indeed, Peter, for those opening remarks. So, I’m going to turn now to Aarti Holla-Maini, who is the Secretary-General of EMEA Satellite Operations Association. Aarti, welcome, we look forward to what you have to say.
Aarti Holla-Maini
Thank you so much, Patricia. It’s an honour to be part of your event. Thank you very much to the Chatham House for inviting me. Indeed, I represent 22 satellite operators and they provide many different communication services around the world. Some of them are for critical and safety of life services, some are for content delivery, some are for vital internet connectivity, where no other service is available, or even for communications on the move, be it on the sea, in the air, for mobile healthcare, mobile banking and so on.
But the point is that our services have become embedded in society in a way that most people really have no idea about. So, in a day without satellites, many services that we actually rely on for the proper and secure functioning of society would come to a grinding halt and it’s for this reason, above all, that ESOA members are committed to actions to ensure the continued ability to use the space orbital resource to do good things for humankind.
Space is absolutely a precious resource. It needs to be responsibly maintained. We don’t want to be facing environmental issues in space, like we’re facing on Earth right now. With climate change, we may already have gone too far, but with space, we do still have an opportunity to steer the course. We have created debris, it’s true, but it’s not yet at the stage that access to space is denied. So, for the moment, it’s still a question of if and not a case of when. So, if we act sensibly and in a co-ordinated way, we can still preserve space and continue to benefit from space-based services, but the situation that we face now is that space regulation has not kept pace with the advent of new space and mega-constellations. And from the ESOA perspective, we need urgent action to ensure that the long-term sustainability of space is preserved for future generations. Time really is of the essence. We cannot spend another five years talking about it.
And I wanted to give the example of a workshop organised by the European Commission last week, in which I participated, on space traffic management. At EU level, there are various studies underway, they have multiple different stakeholders involved and they’re all – they’re due to report in about 18 months’ time. Now, if you just think of those 18 months, in that time, potentially thousands of new satellites will already have been launched, so we need faster decision-making processes if we’re going to get a handle on this topic and have a good shot at it. I would leave it at that for the moment.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Fantastic, Aarti, thank you so much. I’m now going to turn to Dr Carine Claeys, who’s the Special Envoy for Space of the EEAS, the European External Action Service, and the Head of the EEAS Space Task Force. Carine, welcome, we look forward to what you have to say, from the European perspective.
Dr Carine Claeys
Thank you very much, Patricia, and very honoured to be invited to this workshop. I think it is very timely, again, also, concerning, as Aarti said, the urgency on the matter. It is now urgent to act. And this is precisely what the EU is thinking and the reason why, now two years ago, have launched a Public Diplomacy Initiative [audio cuts out – 14:31]…
Aarti Holla-Maini
I do believe that Carine is on mute.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thank you. I’m afraid I’m having connectivity problems. I completely froze. Carine, can you put yourself…
Dr Carine Claeys
[Audio cuts out – 15:14].
Dr Patricia Lewis
Carine?
Dr Carine Claeys
[Audio cuts out – 15:27].
Chatham House Staff
Hello, everyone, sorry about this. Apparently, it seems that we’ve lost Patricia, but we’ve just brought in Dr Beyza Unal, who hopefully, can just cover while we try to get Patricia back in and, yeah, just while we deal with some of the issues.
Dr Beyza Unal
Carine, I think we’re having issues with your internet connection, actually. Could you just unmute yourself and let’s see…
Dr Carine Claeys
[Audio cuts out – 16:40].
Dr Beyza Unal
I’m having the same issues as others are doing. I think, Carine, we have an internet connection issue with you. Could I pass to…?
Dr Carine Claeys
[Audio cuts out – 16:51].
Dr Beyza Unal
Carine, would you mute yourself and can I pass to, perhaps, Henry Heren, and then, we can get back to you, Carine, but Tom can get in touch with you, so that we can solve the internet connection issue with you. Henry, would you like to go next, please?
Lt Col. Henry Heren
Certainly, thank you. Hope everything works out there and we can bring her back shortly. I’d like to start by thanking Chatham House for allowing me to take part in this discussion here today and before I start, I do need to note that my comments here are attributable only to me. I don’t represent any official positions here today of the US Space Force or the Joint Staff from the United States.
With regards to space security within the governance, specifically, the types of threats encountered by space capabilities, I would like to pass on the natural threats presented within the environment and focus briefly on the human design threats. Space systems are generally seen to be comprised of at least three elements: the space element, or the satellite, which is comprised of both the vehicle and the operational payloads, the ground element, which can include both the ground stations and users, although for some users are seen as a separate group unto themselves, and then the link, the communications signal that joins the previous two elements mentioned.
Each of these elements face a variety of threats. The satellite vehicle can be engaged with anti-satellite weapons seeking to disturb the satellite’s orbit, or even damage the satellite beyond operational use, which in turn, runs the risk of generating debris that’s been previously discussed here today, thus causing a further threat, not just to the targeted satellite, but to other satellites in that orbit for years and, potentially, decades. Similarly, the payloads on these satellites can be engaged as hostile actors seek to disrupt the collection and/or dissemination of data.
This can be attempted through various electromagnetic applications, to include lasers or malicious software attacks through cyberspace. Aside from engaging the satellite and the payload directly, threats can be focused on disrupting the flow of data at the link between the satellite and the ground elements, leaving the systems to operate freely, but with little value at that time. Finally, the ground stations can be engaged through physical assault or attacks through cyberspace, disrupting and potentially corrupting the data, products services provided by space-based capabilities.
Each of these threats is seen differently by the various tribes operating in and through space. For the scientific and exploratory organisations, the threat of debris generating activities, particularly in low Earth orbit, are of paramount concern. Commercial ventures also worry about debris, but they also worry about the disruption of their commercial products. Attacks through cyberspace, as we have seen terrestrially, run the risk not only of decreasing the company’s profit margin, but also enduring for long periods of time, as companies are sometimes reticent to publicly acknowledge such attacks for fear of adversely affecting their stock price. This not only does financial damage to the company, but it increases the challenge of confronting the perpetrators and eliminating the threats.
Regarding military operations, whose effectiveness hinges upon space-based capabilities, all of the previous mentioned threats are on the table, with the added complexity of mission success, which can hold lives in the balance, and those are just military operators who are using space capabilities as a utility. For those operators focused on operating in space, these threats are a daily struggle, through which they must operate, and they must also look to future threats to anticipate hostile actions and remain mission capable. And what we have seen, then, regarding security in a space domain is a variety of threats posed against several elements of space systems and being dealt with by several tribes within the larger space community, each with differing motivations, priorities and responses.
Thank you, again, for allowing me to take part in this discussion and I look forward to any questions.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thank you very much, indeed, Henry. I love it when technical things go wrong, because I think it’s always a good wakeup call for all of those who are dealing in technology and imagining it will all work perfectly all the time. So, it’s always a good wakeup call in that sense. Carine, I’m wondering if we might turn to you now. Maybe you can speak without your camera on. Maybe that’s the way we can do this, if you can unmute yourself [pause]. Oh, dear, looks like we don’t have capability from Brussels. Tom, are you able to say any – about Carine? Oh, we have a new Carine [pause].
Dr Carine Claeys
Can you hear me?
Dr Patricia Lewis
Yes, we can hear you.
Dr Carine Claeys
Woo.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Excellent.
Dr Carine Claeys
Patricia, that’s wonderful.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Okay, Carine, go ahead. So, begin again, from the beginning. You need to unmute.
Dr Carine Claeys
Thank you.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Yes.
Dr Carine Claeys
Yes, I’m – I think I am unmuted, okay, and it seems to work. Wonderful, and awfully sorry for that. So, I was just thanking you and I thank you again, Patricia, because with all those problems, there is – there are reasons to thank you twice. So, thank you very much for enabling me to join this event on this important issue, because indeed, the access to space and the future access to space is an important element, and I would like to echo the comments made by Peter and by Aarti. I’m sorry, I didn’t hear what Henry said, but I’m sure it was very interesting.
And so, echoing the element that indeed, access to space is important because our modern society are more and more dependent on space systems and space services. And echoing what Peter said concerning the progress that we see in the international fora and in particular, in the UN, with the respective progress, both on the purely comm – space community, I mean, COPUOS and Fourth Committee of the UNGA, with the adoption of the 21 Long-Term Sustainability Guidelines, with also, the progress on the Working Group on the LTS, on the Long-Term Sustainability Guidelines in beginning of September, where, hopefully, the real work on the implementation of the LTS will be able to start in February next.
And the adoption last year of the Resolution 75/36 on responsible behaviour and the very interesting contributions made by quite a lot of UN member states to the report of the Secretary-General on the matter, as well as their contribution, joint contribution by the EU, by the way, in order to progress into the direction of ensuring together a relevant safety, security and sustainability of outer space activities. And this is also precisely what the EU aims at by having launched a public diplomacy initiative two years ago, in 2019, called Safety, Security and Sustainability of Outer Space, meaning 3SOS, but also, three – thrice SOS, meaning it is urgent to act.
And on this, I completely go in the same direction as Aarti does, it is urgent to act, we have to act and do that together. On this – on the access to outer space and the use of outer space for peaceful use – the peaceful use of outer space, it is really needed that all states of the Earth do act together across the geopolitical spectrum, because it is the – this access to common good that is at stake and for that, we need a carbon action and we need to be able to act together, preferably in the United Nations framework, because as Peter said, we have noted that when there are initiatives – in unilateral initiatives, or uni – of initiatives with only a few member states of the United Nations, then it does not really work. We have to have everyone onboard, and this is one of the objectives, the main objective of this 3SOS initiative, to try to raise awareness of policymakers across the geopolitical spectrum, with the help of the scientific community, with the help of the think tankers, like you are in Chatham House, with the help of the industry, both the producers and the operators. So, everyone together, we should try and strive to find common solutions in order to maintain and to preserve the outer space for use, for the peaceful use, of our generation, of future generations.
I will stop with that – the opening remarks. Thank you very much, Patricia, and sorry again, for those…
Dr Patricia Lewis
No problem.
Dr Carine Claeys
…technical issues.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Very glad we got you. So, I’m hearing this all the time, not only in the issue of space security, space governance. I’m hearing it throughout the whole of the international system, that, you know, we have urgent situations, we have fast-changing technology, we have fast-changing threats and growing threats and what we need is international co-operation, and yet, what we’re seeing is really poor international co-operation at the moment, at the UN level. And it is a real problem. I think Peter put it particularly well, we have some ‘glacial’ progress at the international level, in terms of measures, but we have ‘rapid’ technological change.
And so, one of the problems that I see is that we have a set of countries calling for treaties, which of course, take years, even with the best will in the world, take years to negotiate on the whole. And we have a set of countries who are saying, “Let’s go for confidence building measures, behavioural measures, etc., because they’ll be quicker, they’re not legally binding, but they’ll be quicker,” and we’re not seeing agreement between those two sets of countries to move forward and in the meantime, everything else is moving at pace.
So, how do we cope with that in the space sector? How do we get the attention of the international community? Is there a way, for example, to lever the private sector, who need, desperately need, for, as Aarti put it, the environment to be safe and sustainable, that we need to create an environment in which they can actually operate? And I think, Aarti, you put it so well, because people do not understand how much – how dependent we are in every country in the world on space technology and satellites, and how do we – so, how do we connect and communicate that to people, so that perhaps we can put some pressure on governments to move ahead with the measures that we need to keep safe – space safe and sustainable and free for operation?
So, Henry, I’m going to turn to you first on this and then I’m going to see if Aarti or Peter or Carine want to come in.
Lt Col. Henry Heren
I guess the short thing – short way to respond would be say I don’t really know what the answer is there. As I mentioned in my opening comments, I mean, there’s so many competing priorities and interests and I guess I would say that we’re creating norms as we go forward, day-to-day, right? And that’s – that may not be very fulfilling for folks to hear, but that is what’s happening, right? I mean, laws can be created both through legislation, but also through custom. And so, as we go forward and continue to operate, and all the different groups are operating, we are creating a sense of what is the norm, even if people aren’t always publicly agreeing to that in the legislative bodies. And I don’t know that we’re going to get it to move faster just because we want it to, when you have so many different competing ideas.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Well, I’ll just push you a little bit, Henry. So, we have China and Russia and various other countries who’ve been trying for years to get a legally binding negotiation process going in Geneva, and the United States and other countries have been resisting that for a long time. And at the same time, other countries, like the UK, have been trying to push on the responsible behaviour. The European countries really pushed on a code of conduct and, of course, Russia and China have resisted that. Is there a quid pro quo that we could perhaps explore here? Is there a way in which, you know, we could join your bit if you joined our bit? Is there a compromise that could be reached in that way?
Lt Col. Henry Heren
Well, I’m not a legislature, but I would suggest that it would come down to how those legally binding things would be codified, how are they phrased? If you’re trying to put something that’s legally binding, that’s not acceptable to folks, then they’re not going to sign off on it.
Dr Patricia Lewis
No, of course. You won’t…
Lt Col. Henry Heren
But I think that’s where you have the potential…
Dr Patricia Lewis
I think just in a negotiation, it’s – there’s no codification, there’s no drafts, but just to begin a negotiation is all that’s required at the moment, I think.
Lt Col. Henry Heren
Yeah, the – well, from my understanding, the proposals that have been put forward by the nations you mentioned have elements into them that are not palatable to other parties, right? And so, the – from my perspective, the norms of behaviour is something that, yeah, maybe it doesn’t get us to where we want to be, but it does get us closer to where we want to be.
Dr Patricia Lewis
So, anybody else want to look at that? Peter, perhaps, from the Secure World Foundation perspective?
Dr Peter Martinez
Thank you, Patricia. Yeah, a couple of thoughts come to mind on this. It is a challenge that the international community is going to have to address and for now, there does not seem to be given the way – given that COPOUS makes progress through consensus, absolute consensus of all its members, there does not seem to be an appetite by a significant number of states to enter into discussions on new legally binding treaties. And a more pragmatic way to make progress is by discussing voluntary non-binding measures, such as the LTS Guidelines.
But I want to make the point that non-binding does not mean non-legal, in the sense that these UN resolutions, principles, guidelines, etc., can be, and indeed, have been, adopted by a number of states into their own national regulatory frameworks, thereby giving them legally binding character within those jurisdictions. So, I – you know, just to remind folks that these voluntary, non-binding measures, can be legally binding within the national jurisdictions of states, should they choose to adopt them.
The other thing is to also recognise the progress that has been made and to actually make use of the maximum universal use of the existing instruments, for example, the Outer Space Treaty is already very widely ratified. It’s well over 100 countries and yet, just last week, I saw a press announcement of a new national space agency being established, which is aspiring to launch its first satellite within a year and that country has not ratified any of the space treaties. And so, I think we should continue to promote the universalisation of the Outer Space Treaty and the implementation of these existing instruments. Granted, although the existing rules and norms are not enough, but if everyone were to adhere to the ones we already have and to begin to implement things like the LTS Guidelines, for things like, you know, practices, such as post-mission disposal and so on, we will already be in a better place.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thanks, Peter, and of course, the Outer Space Treaty has no mechanism for review, right? It has no way of monitoring the health of the treaty on a regular basis, like other treaties have. And it seems to me that, on the international sphere, there’s been no real enthusiasm for rectifying that. Is there anything that you think that can be done about that?
Dr Peter Martinez
That’s a good question. I – it would be interesting – and from time-to-time, I’ve heard suggestions of a meeting of the states’ parties of the treaty, but that does not seem to have – be gaining any traction, so, yeah, I don’t know. I don’t know how – whether there is a sufficient appetite for something like that.
However, just as you mentioned the Outer Space Treaty, the other thing is, there are mechanisms in the treaty that can help to address a number of the concerns we have around behaviours. For example, Article IX of the treaty refers to actions of states being guided by the principle of co-operation and mutual assistance and that states should conduct their activities in outer space, with due regard to the corresponding interests of other states. I think that, you know, some effort could go into our understanding and reaching a common understanding of what this principle of due regard entails, what it means.
Also, the same Article IX also requires states that have a reason to believe that an activity that they are planning could, potentially, be the cause for harmful interference to the space activities of other states. That such a state should undertake appropriate international consultations. And conversely, a state that believes the activities of another state could, potentially, interfere with its activities, may request consultation.
So, there are some mechanisms in the treaty that I think could be explored as pragmatic ways of dealing with some of these questions that are arising.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Absolutely. I mean, I think the treaty has tremendous unexplored power, but of course, if there are no meetings to shepherd the treaty, then these are not opportunistic, can arise very easily.
Aarti, if I could turn to you. One of the things that really struck me about your remarks is the importance of space and how people don’t understand it, and I know for your organisation, and your operators and how do you communicate that to people? How do you get that across, particularly for things like critical infrastructure, for all of our communications, etc.? How does your organisation communicate that and how can we do better?
Aarti Holla-Maini
Thank you, yes. So, we are all about advocacy and high-level communications and we have spent years doing that. It – the – as a sector, we have suffered from being an invisible infrastructure, so, embedded across society, absolutely vital, turn off satellites, you have no internet, you have no mobile phone working and no weather. So many different services that just go dead, but nobody realises that. However, I think the awareness issue has changed. So, to start with, the entrepreneurial activities of a few billionaires, for example, has brought a lot of attention to space and all of a sudden, people understand what is satellite broadband? People didn’t know that before.
But what is really, is important, is not just that they understand the services, because it’s very easy for human beings to take things for granted. You might understand it in theory, but in reality, you’re still going to take it for granted until it’s not there. But equally, this attention that has been brought to the topic has highlighted the need for governance. It has highlighted it to Astronomers, who were oblivious to this in the past, to other satellite operators, who are so concerned with the health – the, you know, the fact that they need to continue to deliver on long-term contracts for absolutely essential services.
So, I don’t think attention is the issue anymore. We even have the G20 making statements about space now. The real issue is the governance, where – which has not changed in so long. The regulations around space have been unchanged since, like, the 90s. A great example is the 25-year-rule for decommissioning satellites, LEO satellites. You know, we know it’s not fit for purpose in the era of mega-constellations, but it’s not changing yet. And a lot of that is to do with the fact that I think we’re now living in a new Space Race.
This isn’t just about maximising the benefits of a common good. This is back to geopolitics. This is about who’s going to be able to be the first to put up, you know, a global satellite broadband system? Who’s going to develop all of the next generation services and capabilities that will come from that? Europe on – you know, Europe, with their initiative from Commissioner Breton for the EU Constellation for Secure Connectivity, that’s precisely because the Commissioner realises that if Europe doesn’t get its act together, we risk being a customer of next generation services and capabilities developed in another part of the world and we will lose all of the jobs, the skills, the opportunities to develop these things, miss all of the economic opportunities that come with the emergence of these new capabilities, right?
So, I mean, I know I’ve gone slightly off script with respect to space governance, but this is very important thinking behind it, and this is part of the reason why you will not get consensus around binding rules and regulations in this issue, because Henry used the word ‘competitive’. It’s – it is about competition, it’s about global competition and I think that’s a great shame, because I think we do need to remember that space is, it is a global common. It is a finite resource. You know, we should compare it to climate change. Are we going to – we cannot let individual players dominate space and that is what the lack of regulation has allowed. Individual players can, today, be dominant and take resources, like orbital domains, for their own use, in a way that might not allow future players and future innovation to occur at all.
So, I mentioned climate change. It’s a question of do we allow big countries to be big polluters and keep telling the smaller ones to stop polluting, or do we create a regime that shares the finite space resource among all, rather than just among a few? The irony of all this is that we are treating space in a way that risks causing irreparable harm, yet, at the same time, it’s only satellite systems that can hope to connect the world’s poorest and the most isolated communities, which is at the heart of so many of the UN SDGs.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Fantastic. Thanks a lot, Aarti. So, Carine, you know, Aarti is saying that the private sector’s really changing the game and I know the European Union recently had an issue with a private sector satellite and space in space – place in space. And I think that, you know, how has the – how is ESA, how is the Space Task Force, how is the Special Envoy for Space, i.e., you, how are you managing all of these new actors as they come into what was a differently regulated, but primarily large private sector working with government domain, in the past?
Dr Carine Claeys
Thank you, Patricia. I mean, it’s definitely a gamechanger, and as each gamechanger, it brings opportunities, but it also generates new threats. I mean, that’s not new. It’s for each new challenge. And the opportunities, of course, is the creativity of this so-called new space. This is quite useful. The fact that it is not only a few big companies working with a few spacefaring nations, but it is much more open, both in terms of geography and in terms of private-public. So, this, I think, is positive.
Now, the threats, of course, are that a few people can act without, or with, only minimal regulation and do whatever things. Send, for their private interest, some strange object in space, just for the fun of having advertisement over there. We speak here also about space tourism. I’m not a very big fan of that, I must say. However, the scientific part of sending people in outer space is very important and should be continued.
What this leads to is the need for governance and the needs for rules. Now we, indeed, see that quite a lot of elements are not dealt with in the present legislative regime, at worldwide level, I mean, OST and the other conventions and treaties. This is correct. I find in the move and the adoption of the 21 LTS Guidelines, the Long-Term Sustainability Guidelines, a very, very important way forward, and the fact that more and more United Nations member states want to be part of COPUOS is a very important element, indeed, according to me. That means that more and more states around the world are interested in the space environment and in the regulation of the space environment. So, we put quite a lot of hope in the work of the Working Group on Long-Term Sustainability under the Scientific and Technical Sub-Committee of COPUOS, in order to be able to go on and to progress on what we think is the best way forward, meaning start with transparency and confidence building measures in order to gain more confidence and without excluding a future legally binding instrument. But I think that it is, for the moment, too soon to obtain results on a legally binding instrument. The TCBMs are a first step that is leading towards there, and we will achieve that. It will take some time, but I think that we will achieve it. Thank you.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Let’s see, Carine, let’s see. So, I’m going to turn now – aware of the time, and we may have to go a few minutes over, just to give you some – a bit of warning there, to the really great questions that are coming up. And I’d like to go to Clay Moltz and then – and Daniel Paras first, to ask questions together, ‘cause they’re linked. So, Clay, if I could ask you to speak, please? Thank you.
Clay Moltz
Yes, thank you very much, Patricia. You know, when we look back at how we got to the Outer Space Treaty, obviously, in 1962, we passed two UN Resolutions and that created a set of norms that led, very quickly, to the formation of a treaty. Now, it was a simpler time, we didn’t have as many space actors, but is that a venue through which we might move toward breaking this, kind of, cycle of not getting anywhere or just talking about norms, but not doing it in any purposeful way? And I wonder, again, whether the commercial sector, NGOs or others, could play a role in this process. Thank you.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Great, and following on from that very neatly is Daniel’s question, I think.
Daniel Paras
Thank you very much, Patricia. Can you hear me okay?
Dr Patricia Lewis
Yes, we can.
Daniel Paras
Thank you. We often hear this reprieve that treaties are much more difficult to come – to agree to than creating norms, and I wanted to ask, Peter, for your – in your experience, in particular, are treaties really so much harder to develop than norms? Does it take a lot longer to develop them, or you know, perhaps if we maybe try and find a particular subject where all interests converge, could that actually be a source of a treaty that we could come up with relatively quickly, and something on a legally binding stance, but maybe not perhaps – you know, maybe perhaps feeding in a little bit more into what a lot of, particularly the Global South countries are always asking for, which is, you know, some kind of legally binding measure? Thanks.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thanks, Daniel. So, I don’t know who wants to answer that. I don’t want to go to every single panellist and so on, so, I’m wondering, Peter, if I can go to you first on that, and then, if the other panellists could raise their hand, perhaps, if they want to address it.
Dr Peter Martinez
Okay, thank you. Well, great questions, Clay and Daniel. Well, I think, you know, given that there is currently no possibility of consensus on negotiating new legally binding treaties on COPUOS, I think one has to be pragmatic and the discussion of these non-binding instruments is a pragmatic way forward. But I wanted to emphasise a point that Carine made. I think that this does provide a pathway towards, perhaps, eventually creating the fertile ground that would allow the negotiation of legally binding instruments in the future. And I think that the – so, this is an important element in the discussions is that trying to keep the door open for future legally binding instruments and seeing the discussions of non-binding measures as a sort of, an interim step.
There’s another point that I wanted to touch upon briefly, which is to just remind ourselves that, you know, we’ve been focusing on these – on the multilateral fora, but I think that there is a lot that can be done by way of international co-operation that does not necessarily require working through these multilateral fora, but can enhance them. And one particular approach that comes to mind is trying to – using the multilateral fora to enhance better regulator-to-regulator exchanges and dialogue. Having, in a previous life, myself, been a Chief National Regulator, I know that many regulators in the past have op – tended to operate in silos and not really exchange much information with each other, in terms of, you know, licensing applications and so on.
I think that, given the much more global nature of space activities, we should encourage greater regulator-to-regulator dialogue. This will have the advantage of regulators exchanging their experiences in the development and implementation of national regulation, in the implementation of these voluntary non-binding measures, like LTS Guidelines, and that – in this way, help to build each other’s regulatory capacity, so that they can better implement their Article VI obligations, in terms of authorisation and ongoing supervision.
Often, the regulatory offices have tended to be quite small, in the past, and yet, the licensing burden is increasing in a number of jurisdictions, and I think that they will find it challenging to maintain the ongoing supervision aspect of this.
And this, I think, will help to address two phenomena that are of growing concern. The first is regulation shopping and the second is what I call chain of custody issues, where things fall through the cracks, because you know, space systems may be developed and implemented across multiple jurisdictions.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thank you very much, indeed, Peter. Aarti, you wanted to come in on this.
Aarti Holla-Maini
I did, thank you. I think it’s – I think this is the only place in society where we allow bad behaviour to just happen. At least, even when you think of oil spills and major disasters, there is some kind of pressure to clean it up afterwards. But in the space domain, when there is bad behaviour, there’s no agreed consequences for it. You saw Swarm launched satellites without an FCC licence. Aerospace Corporation did a study last year that showed that so many companies don’t even comply with the 25-year decommissioning rule for LEO satellites. If somebody has a satellite that fails and they can’t commi – decommission it, there’s no consequences. If somebody launches a bunch of satellites, but they don’t actually have all the financing for the entire system secured, and then they file bankruptcy or something, and they can’t operate them, they can’t sell them, there’s no consequences. So, where is the incentive for satellite operators to do the right thing, besides being responsible space citizens?
We have seen, and I think it was – Peter mentioned this earlier, we can learn important lessons from the maritime sector, and I think we should. You know, there are international rules governing collision avoidance at sea, who has priority, who has to move, and both parties know how to behave, even if they’ve never seen each other before, and that’s in the vast expanse of the sea. But we don’t have that in space.
Yeah, I wanted to give a quote from one of my members. They said – one of my colleagues said, “Putting non-manoeuvrable cubesats into LEO in densely populated orbits is like putting go-karts on the freeway.” Nobody would do that, but we do, in space we do, and new players don’t necessarily have the CapEx to make their satellites as reliable, manoeuvrable or trackable as established players do, so their satellites, effectively, act like a piece of debris from day one.
So, the question was asked about how can the private sector help? Has the private sector got a role to play? And I think, for sure, they do. You can – the Space Data Association, for example, which is an association that brings together operators on a voluntary, but binding legal basis, allows operators to exchange information through a software, so not directly with each other, on when a – who is going to move their satellite, when, what time, by how much and so on and so on – forth. And it does all the conjunction analysis and calculations to prevent the collisions. Now, that is a private sector initiative. However, because it brings value, it has made a meaningful difference in a relatively quick space of time for not very much money, it even has public sector entities participating. But the SDA cannot scale for mega-constellations without public support.
So, I don’t think it’s all about finding solutions uniquely in the public domain and seeing, okay, how can the private sector help? It’s also about looking at what is happening that we can improve, that we can scale up? Because that is accelerating the process, you know. But the problem for SDA, as I said, is how do they treat a company, which may have thousands of satellites compared with another company who has maybe only five? So, it is a stopgap until there’s a public system with the same quality of service.
One last example, I want to talk about the EUSST, so the European Union system. With Brexit, companies who are today feeding vital data into that system, so it’s a benefit for both the system as a whole and anybody who is participating in it, but also a benefit for the British companies, they have been told that from the end of 2022 – 2021, they can no longer participate. There is no common sense in this at all. We need to share more data. That is such an easy step to take. It doesn’t require an international treaty. It requires a sensible decision by a regional group of policymakers. It should be a no-brainer and we need to push for these things.
Dr Patricia Lewis
That’s a really good point. I’m going to turn to Carine in a minute, but I just wanted to bring in a couple of comments for people, because we are running short of time. I notice that Timiebi Aganaba has said, “Swarm did get a $900,000 fine for what they did. For a big operation that’s nothing, but for a start-up, you can really sense that they might feel that.” And Saeed Moshashaee says that, you know, “Does responsible behaviour extend to state authorisation of space systems, such as mega-constellations?” Right, so this interplay between the private sector and government is really important, and really good questions, too, “How can governments recognise the interdependence in relation of spectrum when it comes to the frequencies that things are allowed to use and how it gets all divided up, but not in the use of orbits?” And I think they’re both really excellent.
So, Carine, if I could turn to you, you probably have a few comments to make, and I – if it’s alright with everyone, I’d like to extend by about ten minutes. Is that okay, ‘cause we lost a bit of time? Is that alright? Great, thank you.
Dr Carine Claeys
Thank you very much, Patricia. I will be very, very short and say that that’s one of the beauties of the LTS Guidelines and the system that has been put in place for the implementation of those and the exchange of information on those. This is really an important part of this Five Years’ Working Group on the LTS Guidelines. It is to exchange information on the implementation and good practices and that will bring us forward. I think it was important to say it and to pay tribute to those in the international community who make that possible. Thank you.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thank you very much, Carine. I’d like to turn now to a group of questions on the Outer Space Treaty. So, first of all, we have Elena Chicovic, who is looking at existing international law and particularly, looking at the Outer Space Treaty Article VII. We have Paul Meyer, who is a Former Canadian Ambassador, who’s saying, you know, “It just takes, really, one of the 110 states parties to convene a meeting,” but I note, Paul, that Canada didn’t do that, right? And you point out that the UK didn’t do it, either, as a depository. But you know, would just take that. And then – and Ram Jakhu about the “treaty not having to have a provision for its review.” So, they’re saying that.
So, I wonder if I could, if you don’t mind, in the interests of time, just turn to our panellists, rather than get you to read out those questions, about how you could actually use the existing treaty and how you could set up some kind of process that would allow for the sort of things, Peter, that you were talking about, where you would get mechanisms for strengthening, mechanisms for, you know, implementing the existing provisions in what is, you know, a very powerful treaty and has never been really fully exploited. I don’t know, Henry, if this is something you want to come in on, or Peter, if this is something you want to come in on. So, Carine, you probably also have views on this, as well, I should imagine, and Aarti, too. But Peter, if I could turn to you, ‘cause I think it’s something that the Secure World Foundation has looked at.
Dr Peter Martinez
Thanks for the question. Yeah, so, well, I think, you know, that Paul’s comment, I think, has, kind of, set out what the challenges are, but I think there are certain pragmatic measures that one could do, and it’s not only the treaty, it’s the fora, such as COPUOS. I think we could look at ways of enhancing the effectiveness and responsiveness of COPUOS and figuring out ways of incorporating inputs from civil society and the commercial sector. I don’t have any immediate solutions to propose here, but I suspect that this is something that might be a fruitful avenue to pursue, in terms of bringing in the rapidly accumulating wealth of knowledge and experience of the private sector in the conduct of safe and sustainable space operations.
And then, as I said, also, I think it’s very important to encourage greater regulator-to-regulator dialogue and again, I think this is something that can be done through COPUOS. We’re seeing the exchanges of information. This is a golden thread that runs through all the 21 LTS Guidelines, is the importance of exchange of information, and we’re not only talking here about data on space objects and events. We’re talking about experiences of implementation and so on. And I’m very encouraged to see that in the last few sessions of COPUOS, that the states have started to share their national implementation experiences, both good and bad, with other states, and I think this helps to build a community of practice around these instruments that have already been adopted. I – you know, we talk a lot about the challenges with COPUOS and international governance and the slow pace of progress, but there is already a lot of work that’s been done, instruments that have been adopted, and we should certainly try to universalise the implementation of those. That will really make – have a huge impact.
Lt Col. Henry Heren
So…
Dr Patricia Lewis
Okay.
Lt Col. Henry Heren
…I’ll jump in there just for a moment and trying to keep this somewhat in my lane, you know, the United States just established the Space Force two years ago and we’re seeing those types of things happening in France, in the UK, in other nations, as well. And we heard from Aarti earlier, talking about how integrated space capabilities are just into people’s daily lives, but how disconnected they were from the understanding of those things. And so, perhaps, to – just to push back slightly on even the space tourism issue, I think these things are good things, right? These things bring public awareness and if you start to build the public awareness and the consciousness and understanding, then you might just see – you might then see more pressure on these processes to get to decisions, to get to agreements. But right now, you really have just a smart group of folks who know and understand, and they’ve met some inertia there that maybe the public dialogue is something that will help move this forward.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thanks, Henry, and I think that addresses Trisha de Borchgrave’s question about the Big Tech guys and billionaire businessmen, whether or not they’re, sort of, “dealing in traditional competitiveness, or whether or not they’re actually “helping us become more aware and more aware of the need to keep space safe and more sustainable and contribute to the scientific innovations.” So, thank you for that.
I wonder now, perhaps, if we could just have a look at another question, which is this whole thing about the ‘shared fear’, if you like. Clay Moltz brings it up over “the threat of catastrophic war, which helped to lead to nuclear arms control,” and I think, as well, I’m just trying to find who else mentioned this. There was a very good point made about the worries that – sorry, the questions are moving around, because people keep boosting them up – about the “concerns over disinformation” and so on, “that has led to, you know, an attempt to try to regulate in that sphere.” So, perhaps just what we need to do, essentially, is to beef it up into the domestic politics of countries, so that they actually understand, and that speaks, Aarti, to your point about this really being a big issue for ordinary people in ordinary lives.
So, in the last few minutes, I’m going to turn to each of you to perhaps address the issue of how we make this more important to our decisionmakers. So, very quickly, Carine, I’m going to you, then Aarti, then Peter and then Henry. Thank you.
Dr Carine Claeys
Thank you, Patricia. Well, you know our public diplomacy initiative. This is one way for us to try and raise awareness and thereby, create that fertile soil for diplomatic initiatives, for development of non-binding instrument and ultimately, possibly, for legal binding instrument. So, I think, indeed, and you’ve voiced it very well, that it is needed to make people aware – more aware and to take the space tools out of their transparency. They were, and they still are, transparent and we definitely need to make everyone, including the decisionmakers, aware that they exist and that without them, our modern societies just cannot live. Thank you.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Excellent. Thank you very much. Aarti?
Aarti Holla-Maini
You ask such tough questions, Patricia. I think, sadly, there’s going to be a little bit of lessons learned in this. I think, you know, when we look at what’s happening in technology generally, we hail and applaud technology advancement and we look at what’s happening in other regions of the world and every region wants to be the first to do something and so on. And we need a few bold leaders who are actually going to put their people first.
You know, let me give you a really random example, which you might think has no bearing on this, but Bhutan. Bhutan is meant to be the happiest country in the world. When they come on the global stage, they’re invited – their Ministers are invited to speak at ITU events, International Telecoms Unions events, for example, in connection with connectivity, right? But does anybody actually take that seriously, because it’s not scientific, it’s not tech – about technology advancement? It’s actually putting your people first, and I think this is where we need to put pressure to insist on a user centric approach and not chase and hail technology advancement as, you know, the next best thing to sliced bread, because it isn’t. It always has unintended consequences. Look at what’s happening with social media. Look at what’s happening with space. It always has unintended consequences. It is not a good thing, per se. You cannot count on the most affluent peo – proponents who are active in this field to really take care of the greater good, because that’s not what their companies are about. We shouldn’t blame them for it, either. They have their own missions, right?
So, I think it’s incumbent upon policymakers and on the entire ecosystem that cares about this to really insist that it is people who count. It is citizens of the world who count and their interests have to come first, not corporations. And also, guard against the dominant voices, so the political weight that comes when you have so many resources. The satellite industry has suffered under this in the spectrum field, because the terrestrial mobile industry is so much larger, it has so many more resources and they are – they have frequently drowned our voice out, and who has suffered? It’s users who have suffered, not us, as an industry. Users have suffered, first and foremost. So, that would be my message here, I think. Thanks.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thank you very much. Peter, quickly.
Dr Peter Martinez
Thank you. Yes, well, in terms of how we make these – this issue more important to decisionmakers, I think we need to recognise that there’s a whole spectrum of awareness. So, the leading spacefaring nations, I think, decisionmakers are quite aware, but at the other end of the spectrum, many emerging space nations, the decisionmakers are much less aware, and so we need to level the playing field, so that we can have meaningful multilateral dialogues. And this is one of the areas that we work in at Secure World Foundation, is to engage with emerging space actors to empower them to engage purposefully in these multilateral fora and the multilateral discussions. It is so important.
I saw this myself when I was chairing the LTS process in COPUOS, that in the beginning, the discussions – you know, you could fit the main discussants into a small room, just like a dozen people, and it gradually grew. And towards the end of the process, we kept on having to ask for larger and larger venues at the UN building in Vienna, because the interest had grown. But, you know, it took a long time to get there and so, I think it’s very, very important to build capacity in all states, to engage in these conversations. It’s one of the things that we focus on at Secure World and again, just to reinforce the point I made earlier about the importance of regulator-to-regulator dialogue, in this regard, as well.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thank you, Peter, and Henry, last word to you.
Lt Col. Henry Heren
I think I’m going to, basically, double down on my previous comments. You know, we – when we talk about the Outer Space Treaty, created back in the 60s, it was a very bipolar world, and that world just doesn’t exist today. And if you’re going to get movement and momentum, you’re going to need an informed populous, and to be informed, they’re not going to be interested in legislation. They’re going to be interested in a story, something that’s compelling to them, that allows them to connect. And I think we see those kinds of things today, and maybe not so much in space, although there are some good Authors out there writing some very good, more realistic science fiction, but you definitely see it in terms of cyberspace and artificial intelligence, useful fiction. Fiction that’s been written that can help put the ideas of the technologies that are coming forward and put them in the hands of the people that need to care about it and need to try to be imaginative with it. And maybe that’s something that we need to really pursue here, is some sort of useful fiction to just inspire the population and provide that impetus to the folks that are then going to sit down and hammer out the rules.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thank you very much, indeed. I think it’s a mark of a really good panel that we’ve had to go over time and that everybody – pretty – well, almost everyone stayed on the line to carry on. So, I’d like to thank you all for your generosity in sharing your views and expertise and I’d like to thank all of the people participating for the great questions. I’m sorry we weren’t getting – weren’t able to get to you all, or get chance for all of them, but we had a good stab at it. There’s more to be said here. We’ll be doing more on this as time goes on. It’s such an important issue and we are going to do our bit to try and raise it up the political agenda. So, thank you all very much indeed. I hope you enjoyed it. It will be available at a later date, I think, as it’s being recorded. So, thank you very much. Goodbye.
Lt Col. Henry Heren
Thank you, yeah.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Have a good evening, or afternoon.
Lt Col. Henry Heren
Hmmm hmm.
