Jean-Francoise Mayence, of the Belgium Department of Science, is speaking after lunch. Perspective of small nations.

Two traditional categories of space-faring nations: USA, Russia (manned launchers) and Europe, Japan and Canada. Second is “emerging” space-faring nations.

Space-Faring Nation: Space vision (national strategy), space R&D at a national and/or international level, space capacities (infrastructure, operations). Not sure whether Belgium counts right now. Belgian taxpayer invests quite a bit in space, but no infrastructure, just an R&D partner. Commercial spaceflight exciting because it offers possibilities of being in Belgium. Could establish headquarters there, and operate not just there but in the world.

Woomera been a launch site since 1949, initially by British and later by US. Second most heavily-used site in world at its peak. Founding member of COPUOS, early bilateral arrangement for tracking station development, fourth nation to launch indigenous satellite have been invited to be associate member of ESA. Late 1990s a lot of interest in new commercial site location, with relatively serious studies, and passed domestic space laws in 1998.

What is needed: place to operate, access to technology, technical support and guidance, validation, certification, authorization, license. Questions: is harmonization among States necessary, can the European institutional framework play a role? Because commercial spaceflight can use less infrastructure and existing technology, it may settle in countries other than traditional ones. New vision, multi-sector. Noting that ILS is suing Arianespace over subsidies, so may have to consider new rules of the game.

Have to deal with Single Market in EU — competition rules at both world and regional levels (including international trade rules — will spaceflight be covered by WTO?), regulation of products and services, air traffic control and security. Role of EU is harmonization of national legislation, certification of technology (EASA as discussed this morning), and the role of ESA. How far will ESA, which is completely independent from the EU (different member states) go in supporting? It currently has no regulatory power, but could provide technological support and certification of technology. It could also be a “user” (i.e. customer) for experiments, research, training and testing.

EU and ESA member states can provide legal regime, infrastructure, safety/security, export control. If multiple states involved, coordination and compatibility required, and MOUs may not be adequate solution in all cases (would not with Belgium — would have to be a treaty).

Matthew Schaefer notes that space launch is exempt from GATT, thus also exempt from WTO.

Steven Freeland, a professor of law from the University of Western Sydney, discussing the Australian viewpoint. Pessimistic about Australia and space policy. Gone from serious player in early days to floundering now. Have all of the potential for commercial spaceflight — vast areas of sparse population, launch site, work force, but don’t have any comprehension of importance or political will to take it seriously. Regional neighbors have been recognizing importance as Australia’s has declined. Premised on the assumption that Australia would become leading figure in space commercialization. Expected to become ten percent of commercial launch industry within a decade.

Australia heavily dependent on space technology — need to monitor large coastline with satellites, also major agricultural and mining country needing remote sensing. Despite this, compared to (say) the UK, commercial space development has been low national priority.

Laws were all developed around the development of a commercial space launch industry. Very clear from comments at the time of law passage that the legislators didn’t take subject seriously (“little green men,” etc.). Didn’t consider human spaceflight, considered only launches (Optus) and returns (Hayabusa). Had a model legal comprehensive licensing regime and a high degree of technical//administrative detail, but it was’t aligned with other national policy.

Lack of political will, poorly articulated policy, missed opportunities, failure to perceive space as integral to national interest, no defined purpose. Only major OECD country without a national space agency. Has had to field phone calls from people who didn’t know who else to talk to about Australia space stuff. With exception of communications, they are totally reliant on satellites from other countries (primarily US). Rumor of service interruptions because Pentagon wanted troops to be able to watch Super Bowl. Not good to depend on others, because sometimes even friends have other priorities.

Need to consider a regional space agency, perhaps similar to ESA. Need to recognize the changing nature of space, as demands for capability continues to rise.

A few green shoots. Senate Committe had recommendations a couple years ago: establish a space agency focus more on remote sensing, but space tourism not even on radar screen. Don’t see it as likely, or something that the government should be supporting with taxpayers’ money. Department of Defence has come out with white paper since, recognizing that they live in interesting times and and interesting area, in terms of Asian advances and interest in space technology. Recommended a top-down space policy (there never had been a focus), directed toward the strategic value of space. Again, nothing about commercial launch industry. Need to upgrade existing law, but none of the reports even talk about it. Existing legislation “works well” for what they’re doing, but it’s not adequate or sufficient for what is needed going forward. Need new law and incentives in remote sensing, communications, government/private partnerships, cooperation and intergovernmental agreements, special agencies, building commercial-based capacity.