The much anticipated “Draghi-report” published earlier this month has by now made its way into most parliaments, cabinet offices and boardrooms. The almost 400 pages of analysis and recommendations provide a stark warning for the EU to clean up its economic and industrial act.
The conclusions from the main report (section A) have already been covered in op-eds, policy briefs and essays, but section B of the report, which contains sector-specific in-depth analyses, still contains valuable nuggets of information.
Many of the sectors mentioned in the report are direct research areas of The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies. In this Draghi Report Series, we decided to ask our experts for their views on specific sections of this high-profile report.
We inaugurate the Draghi Report Series by asking Patrick Bolder, our Strategic Advisor Space, Defence and Security, for his take on the report’s section on EU Space policy.
– Which policy recommendations do you think are the strongest, and why?
The recommendation which in my opinion, will assist Europe in becoming a major player in the space domain, be it for security or other reasons (which are all interrelated) is that the organizational structure of ESA and the EU should be more aligned in order to facilitate policies and financial support.
The differences in governance structure between ESA and the EU are now actually hampering a progressive development of the space domain within the EU. Also, Space has mainly been seen as a policy area related to climate change, the stimulating of technological innovation, and the provision of socio-economic benefits to citizens. Only recently the Safety and Security aspect has really been recognized.
Space is such a major policy area requiring an overarching policy across all EU Member States. However, different national governance structures hamper alignment of EU needs in the Space domain. As Space is currently already contested and congested, the competitive challenges will only increase and are too great to overcome for separate EU-member states. The alignment of policy and goals will better position the EU in becoming a major space player as a bloc, like the USA, China and Russia.
– Is there anything missing in the policy recommendations? What would you add?
What is missing is a clear definition of where the EU should excel in concerning the use of space and its position vis-a-vis other major space nations as the US, China, Russia and other upcoming nations such as India and Japan. What should be the Space priorities where EU and ESA should focus upon and can become the global leader? This is a question which should be answered and will guide a true European Space strategy, essential to maintain and protect the dependencies on Space as they currently are and will increase to be.
Also, on certain aspects it would be good to find common ground for co-operation with other spacefaring nations as mentioned above in order to enhance security issues and prevent the ‘fight’ for favorable orbits, which will definitely start in the near future. Furthermore, a clear idea on how European assets in Space have to be protected in order to create a sustainable position in Space is missing.
– Which figure or data point in the report did you find most insightful, and why?
Figure 4 (see below) is actually rather shocking as it portrays exactly what currently is wrong with European spending in Space. This figure shows that expenditures in Space have risen to very high levels in the US, a rising trend in expenditures by China and a flat line for Europe. This displays the fact that Space has not been at the forefront of interests in the EU member states and is a representation of a lack of interest and urgency. Only recently a European commissioner for Space was appointed.
Most probably this under-spending is a result of a lack of common goals and a lacking sense of importance of Space at the national level, witnessed the EU member states’ reluctance in allowing EU spending on Space. The direct relation between Space and territorial sovereignty is gradually being recognized by the EU and its member states, which is a positive development. Spending will probably have a rising tendency, but most beneficial would be an EU-guided spending rise instead of several national increases in Space budgets.
– How do you view the feasibility of these plans in a European context?
It is up to the EU nations to implement the recommendations. On this I am not very optimistic, taking the Netherlands as an example. A return to a more nationalistic view and nationalistic policies instead of recognizing the advantages (and need!!) of more communal EU policies and priorities will make it difficult to comply with the given recommendations.
The result of this nationalistic trend (widely observed within more EU countries) will make us poorer and dumber and will keep us on the back foot in developing the space domain with all downsides as result for the EU as a whole. A strong communication strategy should be developed and executed where the dependencies, vulnerabilities and consequences of underspending are brought to the forefront.
Space as a domain for security and safety, for economic development, for climate research and for its socio-economic benefits are not known enough to the member states, and as a consequence are not a popular topic during elections.
Stay tuned for the next issue of the Draghi Report Series by HCSS, where we invite experts to discuss other sectorial policies in Mario Draghi’s report “The future of European competitiveness”.
Related Content
