Closed consultation

Annex C – Presentation to UN COPUOS on enabling multi-state active debris removal and in-orbit servicing missions

Updated 5 March 2024

Slide 1: Front plate: Enabling multi-state active debris removal and in orbit servicing missions - perspectives from New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

Slide 2: Project overview. New Zealand and the UK are developing a flexible, non-binding arrangement for consensual joint ADR and IOS missions that describes: roles and responsibilities of each state; principles covering liability sharing models for different types of servicing missions; an approach to jointly handling third-party claims under the Liability Convention and transparency and information sharing measures. Key objectives are: putting in place a framework to enable such missions; reducing policy and regulatory uncertainty; clarifying states’ responsibilities and ensuring activity is consistent with international law.

Slide 3: Rationale for the project. Enabling satellite servicing for the benefit of space sustainability by working through challenges in applying international law to novel, multi-state space activities; removing regulatory and policy uncertainty as a barrier, particularly for liability issues; developing good practice and enabling commercial missions, opening up potentially lucrative economic sector.

Slide 4: For proximity missions that involve more than one state, arrangements may be required between states with regard to how liability is apportioned for joint missions, relevant consents provided and how safety and security regimes are mutually recognised.

However, this is untested since such international proximity missions have not yet taken place and many states are still developing their regulatory frameworks for proximity missions.

• New Zealand and the United Kingdom have similar values, regulatory regimes and interests in enabling Active Debris Removal (ADR) activity, so it is an obvious partnership.

• The proposed arrangement would make it clear how our respective regulatory regimes would interact and how activity can be carried out consistently within the context of international law, including the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects - the ‘Liability Convention’.

Slide 5: Hypothetical scenarios of increasing complexity may involve one state in respect of the launch, another in respect of the servicing satellite and a third in respect of the client object.

Working through from simple scenarios and progressively building on these scenarios to add complexity.

Capturing common themes from each scenario to start building a picture of what an umbrella arrangement would look like.

Building an understanding of things which change from mission to mission in order to exclude bespoke variations to ensure an umbrella arrangement would remain flexible.

Slide 6: Leading towards the consideration of what multiple debris removal or servicing operation missions involving multiple countries would look like.

Slide 7: Key outcome - interface with individual mission agreements. Some liability issues are mission specific, due to different risk profiles. Mission-specific agreements will specify: any insurance requirements for the mission, including amount required and duration; any limits of liability to be applied; and the start and end of a servicing/removal operation (in the case of multi-debris removal missions).

• The proposed arrangement is intended to work in such a way as to open up the market. This slide demonstrates what we think many of these types of missions will look like in future (note: countries displayed for illustrative purposes only).

Slide 8: Key outcome - liability sharing, with the launching state/s having liability; the satellite servicing state having liability; and shared liability between the client object state and the servicing satellite states.

Principles that would apportion liability to those who are actively involved in interacting with the satellite – segmenting liability.

If a country’s only involvement is with the launch phase of the servicing satellite, we propose that their liability ends when the servicing satellite is placed into the agreed orbit, dealt with in the commercial agreements that sit under this arrangement.

For missions where multiple client objects are removed or serviced, we propose apportioning liability between the launching state of the servicing object and the launching state of the client object, subject to individual mission agreements. These would also set out an agreed start and end point for the various servicing phases for each respective client object, so the duration of liability sharing would be agreed in advance. This would involve seeking agreement from the territory and/or facility involved in launching client objects (assuming this is a country’s only involvement and their liability has ended).

Shared liability between the servicing satellite and client will begin at an agreed point, dealt with in the commercial agreement. Arrangements regarding liability would be managed in accordance with the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects – the Liability Convention. Cross-waivers will apply (liability constrained to each separate activity) so as not to inhibit activity due to the servicing-satellite state taking on sole liability for the duration of its mission, such as those arising from risk posed by client objects.

Slide 9: Key outcome - transparency. Transparency is key for building confidence internationally in servicing operations. Individual mission agreements should enable at least: publication of information about the joint servicing operation on the websites of all parties; and liaison with UNOOSA and other space-faring nations on each mission. This needs to occur within a timeframe that would allow for meaningful consultation between states whose assets may be affected by the operation.

Slide 10: Next steps: consider feedback from COPUOS members; finalise non-binding agreement; and provide an update to COPUOS members.