IAC 2010: E3.1A. New Developments in National and International Space Policies and Programmes I

September 27, 2010 at 5:58 am | Posted in Blogcast, Space Law | Leave a comment

E3.1A. New Developments in National and International Space Policies and Programmes I was chaired by Kazuto Suzuki (Hokkaido University, Japan) .

The first presentation was given by John M. Logsdon, Space Policy Institute , George Washington University; it was titled “Understanding the New U.S. Approach to Human Spaceflight. His comments focused on the new American spaceflight plans and the new American space policy as put forth from the Obama administration. He stated that this policy represented a dramatic shift in human spaceflight strategy in the United States, and that these proposals have been extremely controversial, and have received negative comments from Congress as well as former astronauts. The origins of the new strategy was a result of the NASA transition team that was appointed after Obama took office as well as a ten person commission headed by Norm Augustine. He stated that NASA did not incorporate the findings of the Augustine Commission, and that as a result the White House took charge and worked on a new strategy on its own. Once the policy was made public, members of Congress immediately objected. As a result NASA is doing two different things. Logsdon stated that by law NASA is pursuing Constellation but that it is also planning what it will do if the proposed cancellation goes through. Additionally, he stated that Congress is torn as well and has as of yet been unable to adopt an authorization bill. He stated that the real question was whether American society could accept this “radical change.”

Next was Ariane Cornell, Space Generation Advisory Council, who presented “Five Key Turning Points in the American Space Industry in the Past 20 Years: Analyzing Moments That Molded Supply, Demand, and Regulation to Plan Ahead.” She began by stating that 1990’s and 2000’s have been marked by important changes. she said there were 5 key moments during this. The first was the Aerospace and Defense Consolidation following the Cold War, which caused a substantial reduction in the number of aerospace companies.. She said that this caused a reduction in R&D and a decrease in innovation. The next moment was the Itar Violations of the mid1-990s. The result was that space technology became subject to ITAR, which has kept American companies from taking part in the global space economy. The third moment was the creation of SpaceX. The result of this was new face for “new space” making space more appealing and beginning the reversal of the earlier consolidation. The fourth moment was the Iridium-Cosmos collision, which brought space debris issues to the forefront. Finally, she pointed to the Constellation cancellation, which she said creates more opportunities for industry. She suggested that this structural change should be embraced and that a greater involvement in international regulations was important.

The next presentation was “The Making of a Nation’s Space Policy: Australia’s Approach” by Noel Siemon, The PC Users group (ACT). His remarks focused on recent space policy activities in Australia. He stated that early space policies were not effective in fostering a long term development plan, which caused a lack of confidence from the space community. He pointed out that recently there was Senate report as well as a defense white paper, and that these have catalyzed new thinking on a central space policy for Australia. he noted that the Senate report specifically pointed to the lack of a central space agency as being shortcoming of Australia’s space activities. As a result of this report was the establishment of a Space Policy Unit and a Space Innovation Council. These entities were meant to give advise on the development of a space activities. he observed that the institutional structure is similar to the the structure that preceded the 1986 policy which was a=Australia’s first and short lived policy. He stated that specific challenges were determining a goal for the policy, avoiding reverse policy making, establishing a formal institutional structure, recognizing best practices globally, creating a purpose beyond political desires, and making sure that it creates a comprehensive structure. He said that meeting these challenges were crucial.

Next, Lulekwa Makapela of South Africa presented on “the National Space Policy : Movement Towards a More Co-ordinated Approach of Space Activities in South Africa.” She stated that South Africa has just recently finalized it’s national space policy and it was launched in 2009. As a result she said there has been and increase in space activities in South Africa. She said that activities are coordinated by different government stakeholders and one of the purposes of the policy was to create a guidance document for these various stakeholders. She stated that there were various things that influenced the policy including the Accelerated Shared growth Plan of South Africa. She said that there are six guiding principles but that the most important one was Cooperation and Government Coordination. This coordination ranges over the public sector, public institutions, the private sector, and academia. She also noted that there was a legal and regulatory framework that supports the national space policy.

“A Comprehensive Mapping of the European-African Cooperation Using Satellites and Policy Perspectives” was presented by Christina Giannopapa, European Space Policy Institute. Her presentation was on an ESPI study on European-African cooperation in space activities. She said the methodology for the study included desktop research, interviews with stakeholders, questionnaires to stakeholders, and a roundtable and worship with stakeholders. The roundtable and workshops occurred in February of 2010, June 2010, and July 2010. As a result she stated that goals and strategies included the meeting of the Millennium Development Goals. Also, she discussed the Joint Africa-EU strategy which defines the long-term policy orientation between the continents and includes space and space applications. After this work was done she stated that the report went on to map the actors and the activities engaged in these activities. She also gave an overview of bilateral agreements between EU countries and African countries as well as an overview of African space policy activities.

Next, Stephanie Wan, George Washington University, presented “Influence in Space Policies and Cooperation in the Asia Pacific.” Her focus was on Korean space activities, and gave a brief summary of Korea’s space activities. She then moved to discussing Korea-China cooperation. She said that this has been limited due to the Missile Technology Control Regime, but that there have been some cooperation. Next she discussed Korea-Japan space cooperation. She said that this cooperation has focused on the necessity to cooperate for socio-economic benefits, but that there have still been problems based on historical tensions. She next discussed international organizations. She started with APSCO, noting that it was an ESA-like legal framework. She said that Korea has not joined APSCO. She next discussed APRSAF, which is much less formalized than APSCO. She also covered UN ESCAP/RESAP and its goals and how these influence space cooperation. She briefly noted that there were other organizations such as ASEAN Space Organization and the Asian Space Agency. She concluded that Korea has a strong future but that they should pursue cooperation and leadership in the Asia Pacific region.

Joseph Fuller of Futron Corporation gave a presentation titled “Space Policy and Governance as Barriers to International Collaboration.” He started by noting that that we have the opportunity sustain and protect the planet if international collaboration is pursued. He noted that we have no global governance system, but that there are global problems which the world faces.He said that while market is driven by economic forces, but that governance is still required within the market. he said that there is a need to identify global priorities based on States mutual needs and interests. He noted that global goods and utilities have evolved such as GPS, weather satellites, the ISS, and the European Space Agency. He then noted that there were UN models for global governance such as International Atomic Energy Agency, Climate Committee, and COPUOS. Then he discussed example of national policy barriers like Foreign Diplomacy (e.g. human rights issues), National Security (e.g. ITAR), and transparency. He concluded by stating that requirements for success would be no military involvement in civil activities, transparency, continuity of support, cost and schedule performance, and extended political stability and suggested several structures that could help organize such governance.

“Contemporary Space Exploration in the United States and Europe: A Public Policy Comparison” was presented by Veronica Chkadua, University of Alabama in Huntsville. She started by noting that the United States and Europe’s space policy planning schemes were very different and noted that an understanding of these differences was very important in comparing the policy’s of the two. She said that in the United States policies are mad by political appointees, appropriated for in one year increments, and are executed by NASA with Congressional oversight. Next she turned to the EU model wherein policies are developed by ESA and the EU civil service and adopted by the EU Council and Parliament; funded in 7 year increments, and executed by ESA with joint EU/ESA Space Council oversight. She stated that there were key policy issues that the two were dealing with differently including exploration infrastructure, industrial base, and defining relevance of the programs.

Sandra Cabrera Alvarado, France, presented “The Analysis of Existing International Space Cooperation Initiatives for UNESCO’s World Heritage Sites.” Alvarado started with a discussion of UNESCO world heritage sites. She said that the 1972 Convention for the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage Sites gave UNESCO this competency. She said that there are now 911 properties on the list and that the task of protecting these sites has gotten more difficult as the list grows. To this end, she said that UNESCO and ESA entered into an agreement to use space technologies to help protect these sites. She said that ESA has a policy of using space technologies to assess global problems and help overcome them. The framework is an open initiative that allows a diverse range of State and non-State partners (currently 53) to join and asset in using these technologies to these ends. The initiative supports the 1972 convention. She gave a brief case study on Mexico City. In this study DLR has monitored with its TerraSAR-X satellite the sinking of the city which has threatened the world heritage site in Mexico City. This information is then passed on to the national authorities that control the site, so that they can take proper measures. SHe said the agreement is not binding agreement instead it requires compliance on a good faith basis, but that States are still bound by the 1972 convention. The agreement does comply with the Remote Sensing Principles as well as the Outer Space Treaty. She proposed that the open initiative should be a step towards working towards a binding charter.

“Transparency and Confidence-building Measures (TCBM) for Space Security” was presented by Jana Robinson, European Space Policy Institute. She began with a definition of “transparency” as “is the degree of openness in conveying information and a device of strategic negotiations.” She said the level of transparency was a policy choice by individual States, but that modern technologies can increase transparency on their own. She also noted that information availability alone does not constitute transparency. Next she addressed the need for these measures. She identified incidents in space that have happened recently as well as issues such as debris, crowding orbits, and intentional interference. She next moved to leading examples and proposals such as the SALT I talks, INF and START I treaties and the 1990 CFE treaty. She noted that there are new proposals on the table such as the China-Russia PPWT, the European Draft Code of Conduct, and the Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines among numerous others. She stated that TCBMs will continue to to be an important part of space security. She did note that they have strengths as well as limitations, but that they will remain and important element in space governance. She gave a a brief overview of the EU Draft Code of Conduct for Space Activities.

The final paper was presented by Olufunke Ero-Phillips of Switzerland on “The Role of Space Technology and ICTS in Global Activities on Food Security.” Her presentation focused on the use of space technologies to increase food security around the world. She stated that space technologies can help through disaster risk management, climate adaptation, enhanced end user activities, improving food supply chains, resource management, early warning systems, communications, and food security analysis. She then went over the Nigerian space policy which covers food security specifically. Then she discussed problems associated with these sorts of activities such as liability for damage, contract issues, legal problems with remote sensing, intellectual property rights, cybersecurity, and the world’s digital divide. Finally, she recommended that space policies be broadened to address these issues.

Leave a Comment »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: