second set of guidelines, and finally, a full come pen dumb of guidelines, to be referred to the general assembly in 2018. dear colleagues, let me address interconnection and the strategic work to be undertaken under the 50th anniversary of the first uni space conference, uni space plus 50 to take place in june 2018. endorsing a set of priorities, which together constitute the common road toward uni space plus 50 and beyond. number one, global partnership in space inspiration and innovation. number two, legal regime and global space current and future perspectives. number three. enhance change or space objects

and events. number four, international framework for weather. cooperation for global health. number six. international cooperation towards low emissions, and societies. and number seven, capacity building for the 21st century. those priorities have been selected based on an assessment of the cross areas of governments, resiliency, capacity building and sustainable development. strategically inter linkedin our design to provide the result oriented approach and the office throughout the space affairs. included in this is the fost fostering of dialogue between governments and ngos industry, private sector and civic society. the priorities are intended to help us identify the areas where

stronger space governance and supporting structures are required to protect the space environment and secure the long-term sustainability of other space activities. they also help us ensure that the benefits of space support missions in implementing the agenda for sustainable development in reaching these goals. the inter linkages mechanisms on governance, and resiliency. as an example, space exploration covered by priority number one is an essential driver for opening up new domains and space science and technology. getting new partnerships and capabilities that create new opportunities for creating global challenges. it is a aim to force space industry and the private sector in this regard. dear colleagues, you will likely have noticed that the close

connections between the guidelines for the long-term sustainability of outer space activity and the uni space plus 50, the guideline on the safety of space operations, to highlight an example, are fundamentally linked to the priorities on enhanced on space objects, and on an international framework for weather services. the fact that guidelines sharing orbital information on space objects, debris monitoring and space weather forecast, have been reached consensus, have already been reached consensus, demonstrate ace clear acknowledgment by the international community on the importance of enhancing information and on building up an interventional framework for space weather services. regarding long-term on the sustainability of space activities, the priority on the legal regime of outer space and

global space governance, that's the title of the priority number two, in combination with the priority on enhanced information exchange space object and events, number three, is particularly interesting. allow me therefore to make an assessment of certain critical inter linkages. priority number two on the legal regime strives to promote united nations treaties, and their relationship with related no legally binding instruments. the priority aims to analyze the effectiveness of the legal regime, and to identify areas that may require additional consideration. there is a close connection between the work undertaken by relevant working groups of both the scientific and legal

component of copous. the duplication of work are central pillars in this structure. the goal of number three on enhanced information on space objects and events is to define and develop requirements foreign hansed information exchange and notification procedures. particularly, on risk reduction efforts for the space operations. to support this objective should be identified. capacity building and outreach activities on transparency and confidence building measures encouraged. in this context, let me rate the importance of building a robust and cost-efficient information system that is in the end, must serve all relevant actors. i wish to recall to your information a special report by the united nations mechanism, better known as u.n. space, long-standing coordination

mechanism in u.n. system under the leadership of the office for outer space affairs. this report was prepared in close coordination with united nations office for government affairs and issued for copous this june. you can find it in the documents. the report addresses among other matters the current information exchange mechanisms and notification procedures under the legal regime of outer space for which the judges responsibility of the general. the register on space objects and operational mechanisms instituted under the outer space treaty and the nuclear power source principles. the united nations register is the most important global treaty based transparency and confident building mechanism in the arena. given the formal authority to

charge the responsibilities of the united nations sg, there is increasing attention paid by copous to discover ways and means in avoiding duplication and notification procedure at the governmental level. any efforts to support robust transparency and confidence building measures, legally based and policy motivated requirements. the operational needs must not be underist matestimated and th why study long-term mechanisms as a basis and fun da mental for enhanced. i would like to review the legal copous registration practice. as you are aware, this work resulted in the successful general assembly 2007 resolution

number 62-101. if gives room for reporting on for example the change in status of space objects. it might be appropriate to look into the application and scope of this resolution in forming additional guidance for voluntary information exchange, and risk reduction notification. dear colleagues, let me turn to another, but closely related area of sustainability, but this also covered by the dedicated uni space 50, namely on international framework for space weather services. it is becoming increasingly evident that there is a need to strengthen theoreliability of it and to develop a space weather road map for international coordination and information exchange on space weather events and their mediation.

space weather is recognized as a global challenge and increasing to help identify governance and cooperation ne co coordination mechanisms. particularly partners in space weather, this is not only for scientific reasons, rely able operational, are increasingly e dependant to withstand, therefore, the global community needs to be prepared. uni has been involved in projects in space weather for many years, scientific activities with states and international space agencies, including long-standing with mana -- nasa. we're working on addressing

symposiums, areas of concern to the space community, including space weather. copous is focusing attention on space weather under its scientific and technical subcommittee. this work is closely connected to uni space plus 50 msf, with priority number four. dear colleagues, in conclusion, i have tried to show that why we as an international community have achieved already something significant in this area, a lot remains to be done to enhance the sustainability. ready to do everything it can to the stakeholders to achieve objectives set out for uni space plus 50 and beyond. we will use various occasions to raise awareness of uni space plus 50 in particular, as well as to present the work of the office and the committee. and efforts to peaceful cooperation in outer space.

the office will be organizing a series of three high levels, space as a driver for socioeconomic sustainable development. the forum is being organized by the office of outer space affairs, in coordination with the united emirates. it will be in dubai. the high level, facilitate a dialogue between key stakeholders to address the economic, environmental socio policy. a set of recommendations space activities for drivers, socioeconomic developments for sustainable future. sustainability of space activities have a fundamental impact on this process. working with all relevant stake

holders in addressing long-term concerns, space 2013 will give us the tool to defend concrete deliverables of uni space 50 and beyond, the economy, space society, space accessibility and space diplomacy. space community to address the important of space activities to fulfill the 17 sustainable development goals and to be sure that while space research technology and applications are drivers for socioeconomic development, no one is left behind. thank you very much. >> thank you. let's move along the table to david kendall, the current chair. dave. >> good, thank you very much. it is a privilege to be here with you today, and to be invited to this event. i want to commend very much the u.s. state department and secure

world for bringing us together to discuss this very important topic, and to -- i don't like the word socialize, but i will use it, socialize these long-term sustainability guidelines. as chair, he really hope this is the first of many such forums that i'm invited to by different countries as you, many of you probably know, copous has 83 member states, hopefully 84, when new zealand joins, and this is very important. this effort that we need to make now to ensure that countries and states understand what we're doing, and what these -- what the ramifications of these guidelines will be on, i think all space actors in the future. as noted by simonetta and others, we've reached an important milestone.

it has been a long hard road, and i want to give credit actually to the people who really started this. this started well over ten years ago, back with uni space 3 in 1999, when the genesis of the ideas of security and sustainability at outer space were put forward. brought forward by the chair of the scientific and technical subcommittee in the early 2000s, carl deutsch, and then picked up again i think really was very well developed by goff, when he was chair a decade ago. and then supported, of course, by the office of outer space affairs, who led a lot of that, and of course is being picked up now by simonetta. there are many fathers and mothers of this process, and this -- it has been a very

sustained and i think excellent collaboration. clearly, a lot of -- you don't come to these agreements without some, i would say, challenges. and there have been challenges. those have been i think extremely well handled by peter martinez on my left who will talk much more about the details. i would just like to really, as chair, mention the collegiality that we found inside the -- inside the committee on putting this together. now, we have 83 states, not all states have been fully engaged. i would say that all states have signed on, and that's very important. but states such as of course, the u.s., the russian federation, japan, france, china, india, germany, italy, canada, brazil, mexico, i can go on, these are the leader whose

have come together week after week to really put these guidelines into the state we have them right now. and let us not underestimate these guidelines, as mentioned by simonetta and others. these are really, i believe, going change the way that we work in space collectively and globally. now, it is appropriate these come through copous, the global platform that we have that can discuss these types of issues. and as simonetta has mentioned, we are undertaking right now a re-evaluation of the agenda, of copous, to ensure that issues dealing with the long-term sustainability, dealing with security in space, dealing with the other thematic priorities that simonetta has mentioned, we start to address those in a very

open way over the next decade, leading as simonetta said, through the uni space plus 50 exercise, which we will conduct in 2018. now, one way of looking at the long-term sustainability, the way i like to look at them, using the term that others have used, which is tcbms, transparency and confidence building measures. this term really came out of a group of, u.n. group of governmental experts that met about, what, four or five years ago. and their report was agreed by the general assembly and is now being followed. we have to, and i think that the term is very -- we have to work on trans pir ren see and we're going to need to build confidenceparency and we're goi

to need to build confidence amongst the various actors. we hear on a regular basis about the congested nature of space, how it is contested, how it is competitive. and how it is vulnerable. and there is not really a week goes by without some issues that are being -- need to be dealt with on a fairly high level in order to ensure that we do not make a mistake, and we have a really bad day up in the -- up above us. these tcbms, those the trans pair rens a -- transparent and confidence building measures have been used for a number of years, not only the long-term sustainability, forums where one can obtain -- one can get major states together to discuss coordination of their activities in key areas

we're dealing with space. i'll mention a few of them, because it is -- it has been, i would say, a relatively successful decade of starting to build these -- this confidence. i mentioned the space coordination committee, 13 major agencies that get together and at great detail, discuss the way that space debris is being tracked, is being handled, is being mitigated. most of you know about the idc guidelines, the guidelines that nonbinding guidelines that sort of guide space actors as to how to mitigate against more -- adding to the space debris. we have -- well, we have a classic one, the international space station. that's built confidence among the major states in operating together in space.

we have two new committees, consulting committees dealing with astroid threats, the international astroid warning network and the space plus 5 and copuos activities which are meeting on a regular basis to look at how to work together as nations to ensure that we can react to a possible asteroid threat. the icg, the international coordination group on global navigation satellite systems i think is another very good example of how countries are getting together, all those countries who now have interest in global navigation systems are talking to each other about compatibility, about how they're not going to jam each other's signals and how they can share relative information. that's a huge breakthrough. again came out of copuos and unispace plus 50. great leadership has been shown there in a way we can work

together, doesn't matter which states we are. we are on a good track, we need to do more. the long-term sustainability is -- activity is extremely important. we have now as simonetta mentioned, achieved a certain level of success. we have more work to do. the first 12 guidelines have been put in the bank and we are going to be working over the next two years at the next set and there are some very sensitive issues and peter will, i'm sure, mention some of those issues as we move forward. it's not going to be easy but we have to work together and now we have to -- as this meeting is why we're here we have to start to talk about these guidelines because near are going to affect the way that nations do their business in space as a leadoff speaker said, safe and responsible use of outer space is the key and we need now to move forward and i'm pleased to be here and pleased that we are discussing these and such in

open forum with all the stakeholders. one of the challenges we have in copuos is that copuos is made up of states. again, i repeat, we have 83, 84 states. the commercial sector, the academic sector are not members of copuos. how do we bring these extremely important parts of the community into the discussions? how do we listen do them? how do we ensure that we have their ideas incorporated into these guidelines as we move forward? this is part -- and the agenda of copuos as we move forward and

this is part of the high level symposium that was just mentioned. i will stop there. but just to say that over the next two years as i am now the chair and take the chair for the next two years of the committee i give you my commitment this will be the highest priority as far as i'm concerned to bring these long term sustainability guidelines to the general assembly to get them approved in 2018 and to move forward with the agenda to increase these -- the sustainability activities through yuan space plus 50 so thank you very much for your attention and i look forward to hopefully chatting with some of you the rest of the day, thank you. [ applause ] >> last but not least we have peter martinez the chair of the long term sustainability working

group. he had quite a job herding cats so congratulations peter and thank you for coming to speak on this. >> thank you, victoria, good morning, ladies and gentlemen, it's a great pleasure for me to be here this morning to participate in this special event koo organized by the state department and secure world foundation to discuss the very important topic of space sustainability. i would like to thank the organizers of this event for the invitation to participate in this panel and for giving me the opportunity to prevent the progress on the working group on outer space activities. the international regulatory framework for outer space activities is predicated on the notion that states as subjects of international law bear international responsibility and liability for outer space activities conducted by entities under their jurisdiction and/or control. the number and diversity of space actors is increasing

rapidly and the space environment is becoming increasingly congested in earth orbit with increased possibilities of contingency situations arising in or bit that could endanger the safety of space operations to the detriment of a wide variety of space actors. the actions of a single actor in outer space could have serious consequences for many other space actors conversely, no single actor or even a group of like-minded states can adopt measures to mitigate entirely the risks posed by the congestion in the earth's orbital environment. this is an intrinsically multilateral issue, in his remarks david kendall showed you how copuos is the appropriately mandated multilateral body to address such questions. at the same time, the non-governmental space actor is growing in size and importance and any multilateral solution to the problems of space sustainability must take into account the experience,

capabilities and concerns of non-state actors. the private sector has experience in the conduct of space activities, it has a vested interest in a safe, stable, and conflict-free space environment with clear rules for the orderly and predictable behavior of all space actors. copuos has been addressing aspects of the long-term sustainability of our outer space activities, or lts, as we refer to it in the committee, for quite a number of years but it's only in the past few years it has taken a more wholistic approach to this topic and i would like to recognize this morning the presence among us of gerard brachet, a former chairman of copuos who played a leading role setting in motion the process that led to the creation of this working group. building on the previous efforts of gerard, in 2010 the scientific and technical subcommittee of the committee on the peaceful uses of outer space

established a new working group to focus on the long-term sustainability of outer space activities. the objectives and desired outputs of the working group include identifying areas of concern for the long-term sustainability of outer space activities and proposing measures in the form of a set of voluntary non-binding guidelines that could enhance the safe and sustainable use of outer space for peaceful purposes and the benefit of all found reis in 2011, copuos adopted the terms of reference and work plan for this working group which included a comprehensive list of pertinent topics for consideration by the working group, these topics were clustered into four broad thematic areas and in order to expedite its work, the working group established expert groups to discuss the topics in these thematic areas in parallel. expert group a addressed

sustainable space utilization supporting sustainable development on earth and explored the linkages between sustainable development on earth and space sustainability. expert group b addressed space debris, space operations and tools to support collaborative space situational awareness and i'd like to recognize among us the presence today of richard bineke, one of the co-chairs of that expert group. expert group c addressed space weather issues and the affects of space weather on systems. expert group d expressed the regulatory regimes and guidance for space actors in the space arena and we're privileged to have among us one of the co-chairs of that group professor sergio marcchesio who will speak in a subsequent panel. the expert group comprised experts nominated by the member states and i would like to take the opportunity to thank the member states for supporting the participation of the experts in these groups for a number of years.

most of the guidelines that we adopted in june this year were the ones that reached a high level of maturity, particularly because of the inputs of the experts in the early discussions and the proposals of those guideline so thank you to all of the member states who contributed their experts for quite a number of years. in contrast to the diplomatic negotiating format of copuos discussions, the expert groups were delivered at fora in which the experts exchanged their views and proposed draft guidelines if the consideration of the working group, inputs from non-state actors were received through the relevant member states of copuos or through the permanent observers to the committee. these included intergovernmental organizations such as the itu, other u.n. entities such as the u.n. office for disarmament affairs, professional bodies such as kospar or the iaa, international entities such as the iaf and industry

associations of several countries. in addition, in 2013, a long-term sustainability workshop was organized during the 56th session of the scientific and technical subcommittee of copuos where representatives of national private sector entities and industry associations were provided by with an opportunity to share their experiences and perspectives on lts with members of the working group. by mid-2013, the working group had before it a compilation of candidate guidelines proposed by the four expert groups. in 2014, the working group consolidated the candidate guidelines proposed by the expert groups to reduce duplication and overlaps and during 2014 and 2015 several member states proposed additional draft guidelines for consideration by the working group. as of the start of 2016, there

were 29 draft guidelines under consideration and it was clear the various guidelines were at different levels of maturity with some being largely agreed and therefore within the reach of consensus by copuos while other draft guidelines still needed substantial further discussion to build consensus. time does not permit me to give you a detailed blow-by-blow account of all the discussions in copuos. i see my co-panelist smiling here because he knows the details. suffice it to say that in 2016 the working group reached consensus on 12 of the 29 guidelines and it noted this state of guidelines was ready for states and international intergovernmental organizations to consider implementing on a voluntary basis. the committee also agreed on a work plan for the period 2016 to

2018 to continue its discussions of the remaining guidelines and preambular text with a view to providing a compendium of guidelines for long-term sustainability to be referred to the general assembly in 2018, the same year as unispace plus 50. the first 12 agreed guidelines represent the low-hanging fruit of the lts discussions but they also mark a significant step forward in that they will present the tangible progress that has been made in addressing space sustainability. the first set of guidelines create a foundation for further consensus building in copuos. time does not permit me to describe these 12 agreed guidelines in detail here and, indeed, they're readily available on the website of the office for outer space affairs in the annex to the report of the 59th session of copuos.

broadly speaking the agreed guidelines address the adoption and updating of national regulatory frameworks for space activities, the supervision of national space activities and the rational and equitable utilization of radiofrequency spectrum and orbital regions. there are a number of guidelines that address matters such as improving the accuracy of orbital data on space objects, the sharing of such information as well as the sharing of information, models and expertise on space weather phenomenon and on established practices for the mitigation of adverse space weather effects on space systems. lastly, some of the agreed guidelines address matters of awareness, capacity building and research on ways to support space sustainability and to manage the space debris population in the long term. of the remaining draft guidelines currently under discussion some are closer to

consensus than others. these include guidelines on exchange of contact information of spacecraft operators, exchange of information on orbital events, conjunction assessments for objects in orbit and pre-launch conjunction assessments. there are proposed guidelines on enhancing registration practice, conducting space activities solely for peaceful purposes, on ensuring the security and integrity of ground infrastructures used to support space activities and also proposed guidelines on active debris removal and on destruction in exceptional circumstances of space objects in orbit. not surprisingly, the draft guidelines where we are still far from consensus are those that touch on more sensitive topics such as the removal of space objects from orbit, issues of cybersecurity, technology

safeguards and intellectual property safeguards which the areas of international cooperation and information sharing. it is entirely possible that although the working group may not achieve consensus on some of the proposed guidelines within the current extended work plan, it may reach consensus on the need to continue discussions on those topics within copuos in future. indeed, one may identify topics currently not under discussion which could be addressed by copuos under the general context of lts in the future. perhaps issues arriving from on-orbit servicing or the placement of large scale constellation in earth orbit could be the subjects of such future discussions and possibly

future guidelines, future proposals for guidelines. i would like to report in the period since june, we had a very successful intersessional meeting in vienna in late september and we're very hopeful that this has created fertile ground for making further progress in agreeing on additional guidelines in the coming sessions of copuos in 2017. i would like to in my state with a few reflections on the way forward both in terms of the process and substance of the lts discussions within copuos. from the process perspective i would like to point out that as the lts process has gathered momentum, so, too, has the number of states participating actively in the discussions. during the expert group stage of the discussions it was mainly the countries with established space capabilities that contributed to the initial drafting of guideline proposals but as the process entered the negotiation stage more states

started participating actively in the discussions. currently this stands at 45 member states. this is a very encouraging trend for a process that can only achieve result by consensus of the growing number of copuos member state which is currently stands at 83 and soon to be 84. working by consensus is slow, difficult work but in the absence of legally binding international instruments to promote space sustainability, the lts guidelines provide a pragmatic way for the global space community to take urgent action now to preserve outer space for future generations. from a substantive perspective, the working group will need to ensure the guidelines represent a balance of the interests of nations at different levels of development of their space capabilities. the barriers to space activity are being lowered and many more actors are entering the space arena. it is in no one's interest for

emerging space actors to repeat the lessons learned in the first 50 years of the space age on how to conduct safe and sustainable space activities. therefore, the guidelines should be seen as a strong encouragement for states with considerable accumulated experience that space activities to share appropriate experience, establish best practices and relevant information we merging space actors to the benefit of all users of outer space. this accounts for the strong threat on international cooperation, information sharing, and capacity building that runs through the guidelines. of course the guidelines will only be effective if they are implemented by the member states to the greatest extent practicable. indeed, implementation of the guidelines will be the litmus test as to whether voluntary non-binding instruments can be an effective means to promote space sustainability.

in this regard the implementation experiences of states will be useful to establish the effectiveness of the guidelines as well as to amend them if necessary. here again the implementation experiences of non-state actors will be a valuable source of information for the lts process going forward. we will also need criteria for the consideration of proposals for new guidelines and the amendment of existing guidelines in future. it is worth emphasizing that although the guidelines are voluntary and non-binding, this does not mean they are non-legal in the sense that states may implement the guidelines at national level in a way that has legal character for entities under their jurisdiction and/or control. the speakers before me have highlighted the linkages ults discussion and the unispace 50

thematic priorities so i will not repeat what they've said. however, with regard to the future of lts discussions and copuos, the runup period to unispace plus 50 would be a good time to think about how we would like to structure the lts discussions in copuos in future. in the immediate post 2018 period, the emphasis on the discussions will probably shift from negotiation of new guidelines to implementation experiences, to the sharing of implementation experiences and discussions on procedures for the revision of guidelines or the introduction of new proposals for guidelines in future. the point is that maybe we should think about lts as being an activity under the main committee of copuos rather than under the scientific and technical subcommittee, as is the case at present as this would allow for improved coordination and dove tailing of relevant lts-related activities under the agendas of the two

subcommittees of copuos. the challenges of lts are inherently multilateral challenges and it's my genuine belief that in multilateral space diplomacy the international community has an opportunity to work together to find ways not only to expand the access to the benefits of space to more nations but also to ensure the space environment is preserved and protected for use by future generations. thank you for your attention and i look forward to hearing the perspectives of the other participants at this event. [ applause ] >> okay, great. that gives us some time for q&a. i'll use the power of the chair to start the discussion. peter, your presentation raised the question in my mind, do you guys envision guidelines, discussions, to be a permanent part of the copuos work? >> thanks, victoria.

i think this is something we will have to discuss in the next few years as the focus, of course, is necessarily on wrapping up the discussion of the guidelines currently on the table but as i said in my remarks, the implementation stage is going to be key so we need to figure out a way in which the implementation phase of lts will be discussed and whether this is through a -- an agenda item or some other mechanism is something we need to discuss and agree in copuos. >> i think from my perspective we do have to find a way to ensure this activity is not stopped or is not slowed down through the -- after 2018, which is the extend to which the committee has extended the working group on the long-term sustainability.

i think, though, there is very good signs that states that are members of the committee understand the importance of continuing this work as simonetta mentioned, there are quite a few linkages between the thematic priorities we are discussing now and the current primary issues that we're dealing with in the future. space debris mitigation and certainly remediation is one that comes to mind straight away and that is part of where i think unispace plus 50 is moving through some of its priorities. space weather is another one that simonetta mentioned which is clearly something we need to continue to work on and to strengthen the governance i would say, global governance, of this activity.

so, yes, i'm very hopeful that we have a good path forward to ensure that we will continue the important work and as peter mentioned, share now hopefully practices that -- where these guidelines are being implement bid many states which i think is absolutely crucial to ensure that dialogue is -- there's a mechanism for that dialogue moving forward. >> >> following up on that, everyone mentioned that copuos now has 83 -- soon to be 84 members. that's a lot of different view points and perspectives. i'm wondering if you envision the possibility of changing how copuos functions or the guidelines function to be from a consensus-based organization to majority vote organization. >> i can also reply on this.

i'm the executive. >> thank you, victoria. i won't respond directly to the question you've just asked but i will give you a perspective from the lts view point. we are very mindful that as more states join the discussion that there is a danger of reopening guidelines that have been agreed to by consensus in the past so these guidelines that we agreed to in june, there was an understanding in the committee that those would not be touched again in the period for 2018. there may be at the end when we compile the compendium we may need to harmonize some of the guidelines to address issues of terminology or whatever but there's an understanding in the working group that we would not reopen those guidelines so what do we do between now and 2018? as we move forward and hopefully reach an agreement in each

session of copuos? as chair of the working group, i would hope we could be in a situation where as we reach an agreement on guidelines in 2016 to 2018 period, we could agree to bank the guidelines and not reopen them and focus our discussion on the remaining body of material. so that is the pragmatic way in which we are addressing the development of the guidelines in the context where there's a growing number of member states. >> let me just say as chair having to reach consensus amongst 83 states with different outlooks on the way the world functions is certainly a challenge but also a great benefit. once you do reach that cabo san lucas us you have put off the table the issue that states can

say i never agreed with that an finish the debate. you have finished the debate. you have a signed document in 83 states who have agreed to move forward in a certain way. getting there is tricky, yes. but in the end states in the committee understand that. and i think what we have achieved with long-term sustainability is an excellent example of how consensus can be reached in some very, very sensitive areas. i think personally i would not like to see modus operandi change. >> i can keep asking questions but maybe audience members with questions can raise your hands. can you please wait for the mic and identify your self. >> chris johnson from secure

world foundation. you say some guidelines which you finalized some closer to consensus and some which are further away in reaching consensus. can you kind of give an outlook on the challenges in finalizing ones closer, challenges further away, and then within the u.n. what is the destination for those guidelines, once they are finalized, referral to general assembly and in what type of form within the u.n. are they finalized. thank you. >> thank you for the question.

so as i mentioned in my remarks, the guidelines where we're closer to achieving consensus are those dealing with, for example, the sharing of information on contacts of operators, orbital events, conjunction analysis. there are a number of open issues there, but i'm freely, cautiously optimistic we are able to reach agreement on those guidelines, guidelines where i think we may be a bit further from achieving consensus at this stage are the ones dealing with more sensitive issues such as cyber security or the removal of objects from orbit. there are questions around the legal status of unregistered objects and so on.

we will continue in terms of the mode of discussion. we will continue to discuss all the up guidelines in the upcoming sessions of the main committee and scientific and technical subcommittee. we have also in recent years followed the practice of having intercessional meetings. as i mentioned an intercessional meeting in vienna in the last week -- penultimate week of september, which was characterized by a remarkable spider of flexibility and cooperation on the part of all the member states present and a very well attended meeting. so i'm optimistic we will continue to make progress on all of the guidelines, even the ones we're further from consensus at this point. we may not reach consensus on all elements but i'm optimistic we will reach consensus on many,

if not most of them. for those to be done we may agree to continue those discussions in an ongoing lts process of some sort. with regard to how the guidelines will be taken forward in the general assembly, there is a general understanding in the working group that the guidelines -- once the compendium of guidelines is compiled in 2018, that this will be referred to the general assembly in some appropriate form. that form has to be decided by working group and endorsed by the committee. that decision hasn't yet been taken. it's the intent general assembly in 2018. >> i'll just add to that. yesterday the report, "the general assembly approved by the

general assembly. in that report, it notes -- the report includes an annex which has guidelines and those tentatively approved and those worked upon. there's a note in the resolution that says the annex is not part of the formal approval process. so all states, all 193 states of the united nations now have before them a document which shows the current status of the long-term sustainability activity. although as noted, it is not part of the formal approval of the report for this year. the report does note the process mentioned where we will be bringing forward with the general assembly in 2018, a full compendium of agreed upon

guidelines is the plan. so again the general assembly is aware of the process as the report without the annex but is aware of the annex and process. >> i actually have a question for you slightly shifting focus a little bit. this has been in the news having signed agreements with sierra nevada and having cooperative efforts. i wonder if you could explain about agreements and what the status is on that. >> with pleasure. as i mentioned in my statement, there is a need and preparation to look at the entire and broader space community and also to look at new ways of fulfilling our mandate in a way. under the umbrella of the human space technology initiative which stopped in 2010, we've

been signing in particular three agreements recently. one with jaxa, for principle investigators, proposals from principle investigators from developing countries. and we just saw made the announcement last year together, made the selection together and just selected the first cube set from the universe which is going to fly -- deploy from the module on the international space station next year. that's the first part. it's already a first step to start doing capacity building in developing countries in a different way. not only capacity building, training, workshops, technical advisory, which are still very, very important. we continue to

do that. there's also another way of helping developing countries with benefits of space activities for their own developments. the second agreement which has been signed back in march, because the one with jaxa was last year, so already advanced in a certain way and we just issued second announcement of opportunity in guadalajara for isc. the second agreement, as i said under the umbrella of sdi is an agreement i signed with the chinese space agency and is ab agreement in order to allow developing cubs to some experiments in lower orbit through the chinese space

station. we are in the process of, let's say, hire someone to do this job and we hope the opportunity could be out second quarter next year maximum beginning of summer period next year. and then we recently signed agreement with sierra nevada corporation that is a strong push in order to develop more and more collaborations with the private sector. in this case sierra nevada a unique development going, dream chaser. the idea is to have by 2021, first u.n. space nation with dream chaser where we will like to give open access to all countries. so particular attention to developing countries again but to all countries.

what we are doing in this case is to look for sponsors and contributors in order to have a donation paid by -- to support developing countries. we have some interesting dial ocean ongoing. the announcement of opportunity that's the target should go out july next year if everything goes well. in any case, as i said, time being target launch date is end of 2021 in for a mission in orbit, unmanned mission in orbit for 10 days. for what digital globe is concerned, it was signed last year and the first agreement signed with a private company. they are very known company in

the world for providing high-resolution images, which is quite important for our activities so the main goal of this agreement is to develop a platform. mainly for u.n. but for all the potential users. the agreement we have that we have to provide requirements for them to develop the best platform possible. in order to prepare them for this development, we have been working together. up to now we had what is called discovery days. already three discovery days. the first one was last year together with fao, because clearly we're working with other u.n. entities. the first one was in december last year in rome with fao. then we had another one back in may, was in geneva. together observation and wmo.

the third one last week organized with undp. this is because what we want to do is really to explain how good is this idea we've been developing and we want to collect users requirements and needs mainly from this stage u.n. entities. i have to tell you we're a minimum 40 people attending in new york. so i expect in the coming months to be able to provide a requirement document to develop this platform. >> other questions. i can keep going. anyone from the audience? sorry. >> my name is audrey schaeffer

and i had the privilege of being involved with negotiation last few years negotiating lts guidelines. in that time political dynamics have shifted quite a bit in a variety of ways both in the committee as well as the world. that has affected the negotiation of the guidelines during that time so i'm wondering from your perspectives, 2018, quite a bit of optimism, which i share, that will be able to complete negotiation of a second set and send full compendium. i'm wondering from your perspectives having watched the process how you think the politics will shape up and what the signs are that we can look toward to be optimistic that we'll be able to have a great success in two years. thank you. >> i'll start off by not mentioning u.s. presidential election. i'm always an optimist. i believe through the process

you know very well being a key member of the team who worked diligently over the past six years, the remarkable leadership of peter to get us to this stage. it relies on certain personalities. i believe the last six year developed a certain relationship between the various actors that has developed basically confidence in the process. i've been personally very i would say pleased at the way the team works. clearly there's differences of opinion. these differences of opinion, as you point out, stem from geo politics often. but in the end the various

states have given responsibility to people that got to know each other and got to know their way of working. u.n. while imperfect is, again, go back took the unique platform. if we didn't have u.n., we'd probably have to reinvent it. where else do we get together in order to discuss issues that are critical to the security and safety of outerspace activities for all actors. so a bit of a long answer to a simple question, and i am optimistic although who knows what tomorrow will bring in the geopolitical arena. i believe that the major actors are working diligently towards the same area, direction. one thing, let me be quite blunt with you that worries me,

discussions not in copious but on the conference of disarmaments and the areas -- more security areas that tends from time to time, i believe, to lean over towards the discussions in the peaceful arena of outerspace affairs. and i am not -- there's many more experts in the room that follow this much more closely. i believe that although there's a bit of -- continues to be stalemate in the area, there is dialogue going on in these areas, was mentioned, i think, this morning, what was mentioned this morning about discussions between the u.s. and china, for example, on aspects of security

in space. these are very positive. i think there is a willing -- i hope there is a willingness to continue those across powers to make sure we have understanding and, again, going back to the phrase that i used at the beginning, transparency which is where we need to be. thank you. >> thank you, david. david has just said much of what i would have said, so i'll be very brief. audrey, i think you and all the others in this room today who have worked so hard in the development of these guidelines, and i'd like to acknowledge too many to mention by name, but

it's been a fantastic privilege to work with such professional colleagues in the past few years in developing these guidelines and continuing our discussions. what i've perceived as chair of the working group is a willingness by the member states -- first in appreciation by the member states that we really cannot fail. it has to succeed. we may differ on views in terms of the process going forward. there may be differences of opinion on certain substantive matters but there's a lot of common ground where we can make progress. it's my function in the chair to try and identify common ground where we can build consensus and to develop that as rapidly as possible so we can then focus our discussions on the more

difficult issues. i've seen a great willingness on part of delegations to really listen to each other's perspectives and concerns. i've also witnessed quite a lot of flexibility in terms of the discussions certainly that took place in june and more recently in september. and to go back to a point david mentioned about tcbms, the very fact we were able to reach agreement on the first 12 guidelines is in it's self tcbm, shows we can reach consensus on discussions on sensitive issues and builds confidence for the process going forward. thank you. >> yeah. more on the process, all the other points have been touched. first of all, something asking, i would like to clarify currently office without space affairs, drafting a paper that will be presented for the first

time in subcommittee and 2017 cycle, which means next year, beginning of next year. we are going to present some ideas for discussion and final decision by member stays on the organization of the activities for unispace plus 50, which would be a segment of the normal session in june 2018. where we expect to have two documents, one out of the meeting session in june 2018, one being the usual report, which will then produce in a way that usually will be in the information document for the resolution and -- general assembly as usual. and then another document which

could be probably resolution, again, to be discussed by member states in february next year, which will have a parallel life, which will deal mainly with it. 2018 is really an important milestone, and i would expect that all member states will look at june 2018 as a lending point overall, because from that point on, i am sure they will like to see the look at the future with different perspectives. so i'm quite confident that will be with all the players working together towards same goal. i'm quite sure june 2018 would be a success. >> we have time for probably one more question. >> i will ask the last question

then. seems a real commentary between guidelines and obligations that exist. i'm curious if you guys think that the community will ever move back towards treaties for space issues or are we doing sort responses to this? >> i think this is legal subcommittee to discuss. much easier to discuss this later on in the day. my view is that everybody would like to see some more teeth in what we're doing. i think there's general consensus on that point. nobody really sees a clear path on how to get there is what as pointed out geo politics is

going to be more and more -- it is all part of what we're working with every day in the committee. and the complexity of reaching a treaty now with the 83 states is i wouldn't say overwhelming but close to being overwhelming from the perspective i have unless there is a breakthrough. i think the breakthrough would only really come if the very top leaders of the major states decide this is something which they really need to move forward on. currently i do not see through g7 or g-20 exercise, this being at that level. i think that's what it will take to make a breakthrough at a treaty level. >> thank you. >> yes, i agree with david. i think it's going to require

leadership to move back to treaty making mode. we all know there is not at the present time a great appetite for negotiating new legally binding treaties. instruments like guidelines and pcbms are pragmatic measures we can take. our, i would like to remark that tcbms and guidelines if they are observed and implemented to the greatest extent practical by member states could lead to established practice of states and that might in the long run create fertile ground for the discussion of more legally binding norms. for the time being, i think tcbms and guidelines are the pragmatic route forward to address a very pressing issues of immediate importance.

>> just to say that it's been already mentioned by the the end of the year we will get -- reach 84. i can anticipate already a couple of preliminary information at least other two countries could ask for becoming members. at the very end, i believe this is the proof that we are fulfilling our mandate quite well. the mandate is to bring space to human kind. the more countries we get on board, the more it seems to me we are doing our job well together. so if you look at the positive side of the story, the more we are, the more we can go together

and be sure that what we do is not only, you know, important guidelines in the long-term sustainability but overall entire broad spectrum of space activities is taking care the maximum number possibility of countries and united nations members states. thank you. >> thank you. >> perhaps if i could just make one other remark. even quite apart from talking about new legally binding instruments, perhaps we should first strive to build universal adherence to space. even members that haven't ratified some of the basic instruments. so i think that is another area that we should pursue to encourage ratification of existing space treaties.

>> with that i think we're actually out of time. please join me in thanking that panel for a fascinating discussion. [ applause ] we have a lot of people and i'm glad about that, but i don't have a chair. with the exception of o our colleague from the embassy of the russian federation, the science and technology counselor who has joined the panel. his biography is not in the pack right now, but he will have it provided to you all at a later time. so, everyone else's bio is in

the packet and we are going to go down in the order in which people are seated. so we're going to start with pascal and go on. each of you have ten minutes and please, please do weep the time, don't make me have to jump up out of the the seat and point to you. >> thank you very much. i am greatly honored to speak in front of the distinguished audience. i'd like to thank the organizers for the invitation. i got the honor as a french in part of the french ministry of foreign affairs and participating for the last five year to the working group on the sustainability about activities and previously as a member of the group b. co-chaired by -- specification

and the situational awareness. always attributed a serious interest and has played an active role this group. in particular, would tlik e recall that the idea of creating such a working group was proposed by the french in 2008 when he was chair of can committee. we all know the necessity here of strengthening the system and ability. safety and security in space. it is our collective best interest for all peaceful faring nations to encourage the rest of the use of space and minimize to protect any spacecraft from risk of collisions and to preserve the space environment. we are convinced these guidelines agreed last june in

vienna was a huge achievement for the committee on the peaceful uses of outer space. however, there's still much work to be done. probably the most difficult ones need to be discussed over the next two years. to be able to take by the committee and to the general assembly in 2018. this would coincide with as it was mentioned before by plus 15 and this extraordinary conjunction requires the working group to face this new challenge. please let me now focus on what we do in france in ferms of best processes for ability. first, the french space agency founded in 1961 is a measure outer space in france.

the agency responsible for shifting policy in europe. the agency is under the ministry of education and research along with the ministry of defense. the agent's more than 2,400 strong workforce and pool of talent. we've seen 1,800 executives. 30% are women. it is helping to benefit societies, focusing on the five priorities. access to space. critical communications, observation, science and the domain, security and defense. the domain where i work. in the domain of space, awareness and increasingly

complex of space environments seems indespinsable and space in the long run. the increasing pressure on the regimes such as ngo, we drive and foster the need for large scale space situational awareness. i would like to explain here, the worst trend and efficiency of our ss organization in france based on its sitting on military -- there's a full profession and close lean between the french and space agency. this means are unique in europe and we are convinced is sts best way to proceed the to address national issues as well as international corporation ones for outer space ability. in europe, we want to share with our partners the same feeling of the advantage of -- the french

organization consists of four different levels, the program and decision making levels. and the research the decision-making level, the french space agency, the french joint space command and french armament procurement agency for many years to define policy and priorities. the french mods, [ inaudible ] on a regular basis. operational since 2005, designed by the french aerospace lab and operated by the french. it is capable to take care on a daily basis 3,000 objects of one square meters.

unique in europe, only available at the moment. it provides first level to me for large objects in france. at the professional level, we have two operations in france. the military center of the french air force is responsible for air and space defense in front of the prime minister, according to the french code of defense. the kinis operational center consists of 24/7 team of ten specialists dedicated to assessment outlets and recommendations to onus. 23 satellites are currently protected from risk of collisions, 13, free mod satellites and geo, and seven, five in geo.

it is connected to the operational center to exchange classified information, in particular, in particular, performed the french using measurements in a classified room around 3,000 orbits performed each day. as a result, kines are better able to, our own conjunction messages. of course, we also retrieve another city of this book, approximately 100 per day at seven days. the french organizational center is internationally recognized for its expertise and conjunction sensitivity analysis of dispersion. we have demonstrated skills for

most activity in space. other research and development level, it is located at kinis in toulouse, and provides expertise for system studies and development of algorithms for future operational use. space revolution modeling, which is used within the agency to investigate and consider new measures in the long-term. for instance, today, we believe that there is a need to assess small satellites and consolations on the future space environment. we believe that international and corporation are of primary importance for sustainability. two subjects should deserve specific attention in the future. exchange of information and space objects and extreme space events.

in terms of the corporation, france has developed a long-standing corporation with the u.s. during the last two years, the french ministry and the u.s. signed two ssa agreements, in with which kines is fully involved. as a member of the french team. kines signed with nasa in june 2015. in europe, following the decision of the parliament and establishing and tracking, most of it in building the initiative together with the united kingdom, germany, italy and spa spain, supported by the commission. i can conclude this presentation from french practices for outer space without addressing space

variations. the french space act in june 2008 imposes strategy space limitation. the technical regulation in 2004 enforce since march -- 2011, and applicable to launch operations, in orbit and end of life mission disposal operations. on behalf of the ministry of higher education and research, our national regulatory framework in place today france activity contribute to the lolgs tublt ever -- long term sustainability of outer space. france is an advantage to contribute and improve the security and stability in space.

the domain is too important to few countries to face the borden alone. our goal in france and europe is to share the burden in order to improve and betterment of our actions. that's the reason why our decisions in coordination with our partners, because space is a global challenge we have to overcome altogether. thank you for giving me the possibility to share our french experience. [ applause ] good morning, it is a real pleasure and honor to be participating in this event. i would like to thank the secure world foundation as well as all of the speakers who have joined us today as well as all of you in the audience. because this is a fairly significant achievement. i would like to take a different approach, though, in terms of my remarks. what i would like to do is put what we've achieved in

historical perspective and talk about the process on the united states side. i've been involved in the outer space committee since 1980. so, i was, i guess around 11 years old when i started. and it has been -- it is interesting to see how the committee and how it works has evolved. when i -- the reason i mention how it works is because we have reached a stage with these long-term sustainability guidelines where this was inconceivable 20 or 30 years ago because of not only the nature of the topic, but also the actors involved. now, on the committee, we develop treaties in the 1960s, because there was no space law. we had to develop this from whole cloth. there was this victoria asked if

we'll see any other new binding treaties, and i don't think so, because it is not kind of the political dynamic nor the appetite to develop the binding treaties. but the five that we have has withstood the test of time. so we had these global negotiations setting the rules of the road, if you will, for space activities. but we came up -- but then there were specific issues that we needed to address, and the committee showing its great flexibility decided, well we'll address some of these issues with principles, not necessarily binding treaties. so we negotiated the remote sensing principles that were adopted in 1986 that set the stage for not only civilian remote sensing, but also commercial remote sensing.

what's interesting about the remote sensing principles is it enshrined a number of fundamental principles if you will that most states now follow through their regulatory regimes and commercial activities, commercial entities also follow. that is, making data available on a public nondiscriminatory basis. either free of charge or for a cost. but it just meant that everybody could share in the -- in this technology which has been hugely beneficial to the global scientific and commercial field. the second set of principles, we're dealing with nuclear power sources in space. we had ussr nuclear powered satellite crash in canada. we didn't want to ban the use of nuclear power, but wanted at least some minimum standards

that those who chose to use nuclear power sources in space would follow, again, that built confidence in the general public and the world community that if states were to use nuclear power, that they would at least, on a voluntary basis look at these principles. then we had the guidelines on debris mitigation, which relied heavily on work done by the space agencies, and the iadc. but we're able to make these guidelines that kind of universal, again on a voluntary basis, and adopted by the general assembly. so we have that, we have that legacy. then the next, kind of the next phase of what we've been doing on the committee, is not necessarily developing new guidelines, but looking at what states do to implement the treaties as well as the -- as well as the principles and other

agreements within the committee. so we've had review of national legislation, the legal subcommittee, which looked at what states are doing to give effect to their obligation under the outer space treaties. what that does is provide a model for other states who are contemplating, you know, their own space programs or who believe that they need some kind of national legislation to ensure that they're providing the proper supervision and authorization to their government as well as nongovernmental entities. so we have this kind of tradition of looking at different ways of accomplishing specific issues, specific work dealing with specific issues. so for the -- in the case of the long-term sustainability guidelines, this was really a new phase for the committee and a new paradigm in terms of how

we did our work. specifically, we wanted sustainability guidelines that were universal, that were applicable to all space activities, but recognizing that the new reality, which is private activities are dominating outer space, which is from my perspective, is a good thing. but we could not do -- we could not develop these guidelines in a vacuum. we needed to have not only government experts and we had, you know, audrey and dick on the u.s. side as well as amber childworth from the state department who formed the core of our negotiating team, but it was a whole government effort. we had many other agencies involved in terms of providing input for these guidelines. but more importantly, we were able to -- we were able to get the support in active

participation of experts from industry and academia to participate in these four expert groups, and the four expert groups was again, something new to the committee, where we had co-chairs who work on a voluntary basis, pretty much doing -- yeah without -- without direct u.n. support. we organized the four, these four working groups or expert groups. they were quite active, and had a real cross-section of developing countries participating as well as individual experts. on the u.s. side, not only did we have the inner agency process, but we also -- we were also able to get the support from industry through organizations like secure world foundation, space foundation,

aiaa, american astronaut, and the satellite industry association. what that did is gave us a reality check on what we were trying to accomplish in the u.n. it was a confidence building and transparency measure for domestic purposes, and it provided -- it provided what i would say a degree of credibility, at least in terms of what the u.s. was seeking to accomplish for the long-term sustainability guidelines exercise. so the, i guess that -- i just wanted to make sure that you all fully appreciate the scope and nature of what we were able to accomplish with these 12 guidelines. it was not a simple, you know, u.n. exercise that involved -- it involved civil society as well as industry.

and i will just conclude by saying for me, this is a big achievement. one of the hallmarks of the president's national space policy was not only promoting international cooperation, but also, promoting the safe and responsible use of outer space, and this is really -- these two guidelines are the cornerstone of that policy at least for our purposes. thank you. [ applause ] good morning. ladies and gentlemen, i'm glad to be invited to tend to this

workshop, and my colleagues and i, we all learn more about at this workshop. and now i worked at -- worked on space debris field, and in this rts events, i worked as chinese delegate for work expert group b, space debris for three years. and now we are -- i worked continuous to support the working group's work for the rts. now i give brief remarks of our work, chinese work, on the space debris mitigation, and space debris counter measures. now, hyper velocity of space

debris is fay tor to orbit spacecraft and space debris will impact human and assess 50. population increase of space debris critical effect outer space long-term. now i give six expect our work in china. first is in space policy, china has consistently adhered to maintain peaceful use of outer space and sustainable development of all the space activity. our policy file white paper on china space activity in 2000 first point out that the issue of space debris is a challenge to space activities. the white paper of 2011 point out that china will continue to

stress its work on space debris observation and mitigation, and the spacecraft protection. besides, china will develop technologies for monitoring space debris and the conjunction and the risk assessment. and small earth object observation. it will set up a design and assessment system of space debris mitigation. and to take measures to reduce space debris left by post mission, spacecraft and launch vehicles. second aspect is about our space legislation. in july 2015, the national security law of the people's republic of china was promulgated in article 32, it

states that persists in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space stressing international cooperation and preserving the security of space activity and assess. now, under this law, the china's national space law is being formulated and it will be give about next year. third expect is our space activity regulations. to stress the management on space activity and space operations, reference to the u.n. copuos, the interim measures on space debris and the spacemanagement in 2009, in

accordance with this requirement, the rocket and post mission geo satellites have contacted mitigation and operative measures. for example, launch 2 c and 2 d launch vehicle implemented the preservation and orbiting measures and the rocket implemented preservation to the final stage. and 28 and 2 and 3 and the bato satellites implemented that the orbit operation as required. outer works, all the work have laid a good foundation for spacecraft security design and application. space debris conjunction

analysis was conducted actively. in the serious of mission, which ensure the safety of the spacecraft flight. this measure was revised in last december. its names have been changed to two measures, space degree mitigation and space management. in this measure, which further specify the space entity responsibility and clarify the requirements of space debris mitigation. according to the complete process, causing disabilities that is, design, development and manufacturing launch in orbit and disposal. space debris mitigation and protection requirement was proposed. meanwhile, the measure was compatible with the other three,

measures for administration of registration of space object. and the interim measures for the administration for civil space launch project, and the interim measures for satellite, engineering administration. the last one, which is issued by this year, at -- in august. the fourth spot about work standard. chinese national space administration promote to research and establish space debris mitigation and the protection standard for supporting implementation of the measures, all of the three, four measures. the technical standard have been adopted by some of spacecraft missions. they were applied into the process of spacecraft design

launch and/or -- and orbit. the technical standard and implementation mitigated space debris production and risk as well as protect space safety. and in fifth, about organization establishment. nsa founded a new agency, new organization. it is named the space debris operation and the data application center, stokes. i am the director of general of this center. deputy director, yeah. it is funded last year. this agency has founded by chinese academia of science.

technical supportive as well as management agency to ensure satellite in orbit, and conduct international cooperation on space debris and the near earth object. in sixth, about international cooperation chinese government positively participate in corporation and communication in space debris research and technology field with other states. for example, participate iadc organization activities, and work together with other members agency to promote the joint observation activity to the space debris and conduct work, and other research work.

and now i give some summary of our work. china positively participates in rts working group, and export group work from 2011. next several years, we will continue to stress bilateral dialogue in constructive manner, and work with other countries. and other members, member states to study and exchange development practice that promotes the long-term of outer space activity and actually promote the development of the modernization of all the space governance and the role of law within the framework of the united nations. we believe that with the concert

effort of all countries, the international community will have enough wisdom and courage to solve the common challenge faced by mankind in outer space and issue the peaceful sustainable development of outer space activity and create efficiency and fairness. thank you. [ applause ] >> all right, so we are pressed for time. you know, as i was sitting here, thinking this is a very busy session, panel, we are very cramped here. this is what a satellite in one of those orbits full of space debris must feel like. they can't really move around without bumping into one another, you know. well, i'm going to use my smartphone to check for time.

you guys here cannot see, ken is really classy. he has a pocket watch. >> you can use that in. >> no, no, i don't trust those things, you know. i'm evolving. well, thank you. i would like to thank the secure world foundation and the department of state for the invitation and their support. i hope my participation can justify the expectation they place on me. i have been told i have to be brief. and this is a particular challenge to a brazilian, you know. probably more difficult than getting our guidelines approved, peter. brazilians are not known for their concision. i'll do my best. my views, based on my own personal exchanges with other developing nations, particularly other countries. as such, my views should not be understood as generalizations. they could apply to all emerging actors. i believe they're more than just

educated guesses, right, they could inform our discussion here. well, when we started discussing the greulich proposals, one thing we realized really soon is we were dealing with different degreeses of understanding what implications of the lts prospects were or are, because we're still working on them. as we work together, i gain some insight on some of the challenges faced by these different emerging space actors, and you know, and challenges that affect the participation. and which i believe will also affect the implementation stage. which is something we are discussing here. one thing, for example, the decision in policymakers in each country, you know, they may have limited awareness of the importance of maintaining and preserving sustainability of outer space activities. if i put it bluntly, they don't realize the far reaching consequences of our discussions sometimes. right? and then it is often the case

that developing countries have limited resources and in the whitest sense, resources of all kinds, you know, to handle these tasks that will stem from the implementation of guidelines. obviously, this fact, you know, can be attributed in part to the lack of awareness i just mentioned, you know, because they don't realize what is involved. they do not devote enough resources, enough time. enough funds to develop these resources. and now, this is of course, followed by limitations in terms of human resources, right? smaller countries may simply do not have enough expertise to handle such issues. and another problem that we face, and this is something that stemmed from my personal experience, is that decision-making on space matters is fragmented sometimes. there may be either too many actors involved, sorry, there may be too many actors involved and poor coordination among them. and then when you don't have really established governance

and roles, discussions and implementation space policies, space issues, discussions seem to shift from the military to the scientific to the diplomatic community, back and forth. then this makes it very duff cult to consolidate national positions, right? you realize this when you are discussing, for example, some issues there in the lts when we meet. you have this consultation going back and forth and positions tend to change from one session to the next, for no apparent reason, right? well, this limitations, they have very interesting consequence. as they have, you know, countries face human resources and technical and regulatory matters, it means they tend to get involved with conceptual as spegts of the guidelines of the discussion. right, and to some extent, this was the case in the proposal of brazil and greulich in the beginning, sharing a conceptual,

rather than purely practical nature, right. then obviously as got involved, familiarize ourself with technical aspects, things like, you know, information launches, et cetera, and then, you know, we as diplomats in this case, other colleagues, specialists, they had to seek support of technical. this makes, again, the negotiation process much more complicated. right. and again, your challenge will be to identify who the domestic interlocutor is. who will you be seeking for support, okay. and then appoint that i would say that does not apply only to the merging space countries or developing countries, i think it applies to all of us, but in our case, you know, this is perhaps used often as an excuse. and overlooked, we need to handle internal criticism about the progress of the discussions.

we all do. right. but in a case of emerging space actors, this criticism sometimes is used to justify, you know, justify limited or no participation. why are we doing this, you know. this kind of thing. because they don't -- they are just the same guys, and we're being called to, you know, kind of check, you know, offer a check mark and say okay, everything is okay, because it is consensus based. and i have heard officials ask me why we were involved in the process all. this is not something we should be dealing with. our concerns are much more mundane, you know. this is not true, of course, but it is an opportunity to educate these people in a sense. but in countries of smaller space programs, this is not always possible. right, it is something that we have to be aware of. and another point for concern is

that you know, some of these countries are worried about contributing with the process. they may create technical and financial barriers who may burden space program which could be limited. no consideration is given to that, but i'm saying that in many of these countries, people don't have an understanding, and out of concerns, okay, we are not going to get engaged, we're not going to implement this, or not going to do that. so this is more or less what the scenario is. how do we handle this, you know? i think the answer is precisely, you know, how do we address the question i just mentioned. one thing i would say is a permanent one. i know peter wants to finish, okay. and you know, and i want to see the lts guidelines as a living document. i do not mean reopening the discussion. that's not what i'm saying.

we need to finish, agree and have a document ready by 2018. we have to agree i think it would be a good idea to agree that the documents should be open to periodic revisions. every now and then we could sit down and agree and assess what has worked and what hasn't. and the thing is not only making the guidelines more effective, but when we reopen the discussion, we will be creating more opportunities for more people to get engaged. this is not a finished process like what happened with the debris guidelines, you know. you have the surge of interest, a lot of people get involved and then after that, you tend to -- need to work very hard. make sure that more and more people get involved. in the case of copuos for example, you have many new states that join copuos in recent years and they did not participate in the discussions of space debris document. and so they just say okay, this is a document, they don't know what it is about. i've said that, right. and this is related to the fact that they don't have enough

experts and people who can handle that, right. now, another point. we must create opportunities and programs to have establish an emerging space actors work together, right. emerging space actors cannot be consumers of guidelines and rules, right. they have to participate actively in joint initiatives, right. and the lts process presents the possibility, right, as the preservation of sustainability that the whole concept is only effective if countries agree to work together. so the process must not follow this logic, you should do this, you should adopt, right. but rather, you know, let's work together to see how we can implement the guideline in your country, right. you can learn something from us. i can learn something from you. so this should be an active process, right. and those are more experienced in expertise have, i'm sorry, i should say to reach out, you know. i think the initiative will

largely rely on them, right. but i do not mean only established actors, even countries like brazil have a role to play. we already have some degree of governance that would help us, allow us to do that, right. now, in the same vein, programs are needed to develop the necessary knowledge and expertise. and we need to bring more opportunities from specialists at different stages of development to work together in the process of implementing the guidelines, and perhaps one idea i had, i don't know if this is feasible, but we could ewe the u.n. regional centers for projects. we could establish programs. this would allow us to reach out to large areas, sections of the globe. also, if i have to summarize these observations, i would say the key answer is joint work in the implementation stage, right. we have to learn the ropes together. and if we work together, we increase our share of

understanding and how to handle them. by increasing cooperation, we help a growing number of space actors realize that the preservation is in the interest of all of us alike. then in closing, i would like to say that challenging is the lts process may be, i share david's opt nichl earlier on. right? the sustainability of the outer space environment is a shared need. like michael simpson this morning, i would like to quote him who say the leads of the many outweigh the few or the one. this is the spirit that should guide our work. thank you. [ applause ] >> so i appreciate the invitation of your foundation and the state department to join, as i joined this panel, important panel, the very last moment, i present myself. i'm alexander ermolaev, russian

embassy. and i color all the areas of scientific corporation, including space that are not explained by today. not by russian initiative. so we consider very important this event that attempt to highlight the topic of long-term sustainability of outer space activity. there is no doubt that the liberation within the copuos of the guidelines remain one of the key points. that's why the result reached in vienna, so far should not be under estimated. we're welcoming the subset of 12 guidelines agreed to, but there is a little work to be done in

order to satisfactorily achieve by 2018 the task of drafting the entire set of the guidelines that would provide for the aggregate. regulation of space -- we consider this entire integrated state of the guidelines extremely important. we surely do not want to make optimistic assumptions, but we have to say that there isn't meeting in the working group in vienna. finally, attempting to agree substantive space security issues may be achieved. the russian side was diligent in going to its share for work as regards to pragmatic updating of russia proposed draft guidelines. to compromise existing

differences, and in position of various delegations adhered to. recent discussions in vienna and the fact that the delegates under the guidance of chairman working group, mr. peter martinez, succeeded in achieving a balance served to prove that a consensus of pertinent safety and security issues not to be so difficult after all. we believe that the sets of guidelines that have been drafted gives an excellent opportunity to provide for an actual framework to deal with challenges to safety and security in outer space. we also hope if approved to be very meaningful and self-sufficient in the long-term. to ask attempts to take more