6.1 Introduction
Knowledge of the space ecosystem – encompassing both objects and activities – has raised numerous concerns among state and nonstate actors, as the scope and significance of operations conducted in Earth orbit, and beyond, continue to expand. The question of knowledge is bound up in this discussion about identifying the nature of spacecraft and understanding the purpose of their operations and maneuvers. Knowledge is hardly monolithic, especially when considering the range of operators, military, governmental, or private, that can carry out space activities. Some spacecrafts are operated to support military operations. Different operations require different types of understanding. Just because a space operator is conducting a benign operation does not mean it is not testing other capabilities. A brief analysis of trendlines shows the need for knowledge and understanding by states, private operators, and observers to coordinate space activities better. Both information-sharing about and monitoring of the space domain continue to gain relevance owing to the multiplication of actors and spacecraft. Experts regularly share their concerns regarding unidentified space activities, disruptive maneuvers, and lack of transparency and cooperation.
From observation of astronomical phenomena and launches of a handful of objects to outer space, space activities now range from the provision of space applications enabled by single space systems or constellations of interconnected space objects to the conduct of scientific investigation on the Moon or other planets. For a variety of stakeholders, including public authorities, military forces, commercial operators, and civil society, contributing to and maintaining awareness of developments within outer space is essential (Borowitz Reference Borowitz2022). This awareness facilitates informed decision-making, enables proactive responses to emerging trends, and supports alignment with practices in the field for better coordination and traffic management between operators. Consequently, stakeholders are actively developing various approaches to gather interpretable and actionable space-related data, either by utilizing proprietary tools or engaging in collaborative efforts. These initiatives reflect a strategic commitment to generating insights that inform decision-making and drive effective responses to emerging developments within outer space. Space-related data can concern both artificial objects (human-made spacecraft) and natural objects (resources on a celestial body, or a satellite body itself, such as a meteoroid, a planet or satellite, or an asteroid).
While there is currently no harmonized or standardized format for data collected and shared globally, whether by public or private entities, expanding access to space-related data to include more participants and possibly sharing more comprehensive data and services globally can foster continuous dialogue and trust-building. The work conducted by analysts and interpreters to process various resource forms and assess data quality is essential to ensure the information’s reliability and usefulness. Sharing data underscores the potential for diverse contributions, not necessarily from those with direct data collection technology but from various fields that can enhance decision-making and algorithm development (Kostopoulos Reference Kostopoulos2019, 9). Interoperability allows for the creation of a cohesive and usable picture of space activities. Using such space-related information does not bar other stakeholders from their capacity to use it. Rather, it contributes to general knowledge, and also helps verify the reliability of the data. The advantage of such platforms is that they provide reliable information, the dissemination of which does not prejudice the national interests of individual countries while protecting the interests of space operators.
However, information may not be shared, leading to the issue called the tragedy of the anticommons. Unlike the tragedy of the commons, where shared resources are overused to the point of depletion, the tragedy of the anticommons arises when multiple parties hold rights to exclude others from a resource, paradoxically leading to its underuse. This sheds light on how fragmented control and excessive exclusion rights can hinder efficient resource use, slow innovation, and limit access to valuable assets, ultimately resulting in missed opportunities. In the context of space knowledge, the tragedy of the anticommons may arise owing to concerns about security and national defense, intellectual property considerations, or international competitiveness – particularly when entities or nations aim to secure strategic or economic advantages.
If too many community members keep information secret or make it inaccessible, this not only causes cooperation between stakeholders to fail but also prevents the positive developments that making knowledge available enables. For instance, limited access to information restrains possibilities to anticipate risks and threats and better plan future space operations. In addition, it increases the costs of access to training and community participation, slowing down opportunities for progress and the willingness to participate and contribute to the community. Moreover, intellectual property limitations could hamper access to the general public, including civil society, the scientific community, and other governmental organizations. This is especially considering the growth of private actors in the space arena. Our goal is therefore to understand the interest of communities with the technology to collect data in sharing it, in order to advance cooperation between stakeholders, strengthen the sustainability of activities, and possibly benefit from the expertise of other members of the community (Ghosh Reference Ghosh, Hess and Ostrom2007, 218).
In the rapidly evolving space sector, where the proliferation of private actors and technological advancements are redefining the dynamics of space governance, the development of a sustainable space knowledge commons is essential, by addressing the challenges of fragmented data sharing, such as the tragedy of the anticommons, and fostering strategic, economic, and scientific collaboration.
This research defines space knowledge commons, in this context, as the collection and sharing of space data for the safe and secure conduct of space activities, to foster long-term sustainability. We advocate for diverse space data-sharing proposals to establish various space knowledge commons that can be analyzed under the governing knowledge commons (GKC) framework. The goal is to ensure the mitigation of risks of disruptions and incidents, and the reduction of threats and misperceptions between space actors. It conceptualizes the notion of sustainable space knowledge commons for stakeholders to manage use and exploration of outer space. The GKC framework provides a useful research tool to ensure the safe, secure, and equitable use of outer space for current and future generations.
This chapter begins by examining the tragedy of the anticommons in space knowledge, offering an in-depth analysis of the factors that disincentivize information-sharing among actors. It then explores the concept of space knowledge by differentiating between space data and space knowledge, examines the context of space data, and presents a case study on space traffic management (STM). Lastly, it introduces the notion of sustainable space knowledge commons from three perspectives – strategic, economic, and scientific – and outlines the community involved. The goal is emphasizing the critical role of space-related data in promoting sustainable exploration and utilization of outer space, including safe and secure operations.
6.2 The Tragedy of Anticommons in Space Knowledge
The governance of space data is particularly important given the increasing presence of private actors in the space arena, including companies such as SpaceX and Blue Origin, which lead in satellite launches and reusable rocket technology; Astroscale, which focuses on orbital debris removal and sustainability; Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin, which have ventured into space tourism; and Planet Labs and Maxar Technologies, which specialize in Earth observation and satellite analytics. Additionally, companies such as Axiom Space and Sierra Space are advancing space habitats and human exploration, while Eutelsat’s OneWeb and SpaceX’s Starlink are revolutionizing global connectivity with satellite constellations. These private actors significantly shape the governance, sustainability, and equitable use of space resources, gathering more knowledge about space.
Currently, there are no formal rules applicable to the international community concerning how space-related knowledge should be collected, used, shared, or protected. Because copying and sharing digital information is relatively cheap and easy (Kellerer et al. Reference Kellerer, Kalmbach, Blenk, Basta, Reisslein and Schmid2019, 715), it would be much more difficult to totally block access to space data than to manage the supply of it to communities. Although the presence of space assets orbiting the Earth cannot be concealed from telescope owners, trajectory prediction is a complex endeavor and precise operations conducted by space operators are rarely publicly shared. Various interest groups have formed and dissolved over time, comprising operators, governmental entities, and experts, contingent not only on available technologies but also on the vested interests at play.
The increasing number of stakeholders involved in space activities and the multiplication of objects launched to outer space makes space data collection dynamic and complex. The multiplication of objects in space, the miniaturization of technology, and novel operational techniques all contribute to this complexity, making it difficult to interpret and verify certain activities (Ben-Itzhak 2022). Criteria for data quality, including timeliness, completeness, uniqueness, consistency, validity, and accuracy, are essential so they can be exploited with other sets of data to form relevant pools of information for a large number of players, so they do not rely on incomplete or outdated data.
However, the limitation of proprietary data collected by operators and the tendency to fiercely protect access and use of this information, motivated by intellectual property and economic and strategic stakes, lead to fragmentation of data availability. Manufacturers and operators may consider that protecting spacecraft designs and operational data can protect their competitive advantage on the market and prevent unauthorized replication or reverse engineering, and also ensure that their activities remain secure from unauthorized use. Each operator, seeking to increase the value of its own investments and avoid sharing its valuable analyses, limits access to this data, preventing maximum exploitation of its collective potential. So, although many players have access to fragmented data, the lack of cooperation and sharing mechanisms hampers synergy and innovation.
The theory of the tragedy of the anticommons proves to be useful here. As Garrett Hardin proposed in his 1968 essay, tragedy of the commons happens in a situation where individuals, acting in their own self-interest, deplete or overexploit a shared resource, leading to the resource’s eventual degradation or collapse (Hardin Reference Hardin1968; Ostrom Reference Ostrom1990; Ostrom Reference Ostrom1999). In contrast, as Michael Heller explains, underuse in an anticommons is the “mirror image of overuse in a commons” (Heller Reference Heller2013, 12). The tragedy of the anticommons arises when multiple owners are each endowed with the right to exclude others from a scarce resource, and no one has an effective privilege of use (Heller Reference Heller2013, 18). When there are too many owners holding rights of exclusion, the resource is prone to underuse. Heller’s theory was initially proposed to describe post-1990 developments in Moscow, where many buildings remained empty because potential users had to secure the agreement or permission of multiple agents, each with the power to exercise a right of exclusion (Heller Reference Heller1998, 633–641). Heller and Rebecca Eisenberg further applied the tragedy of the anticommons theory to biomedical research (Heller and Eisenberg Reference Heller1998). Patent holders, through exclusive licensing, exploit rental value, hindering follow-on developers from realizing potential gains. This stifles development and, ironically, undermines the very purpose of patents: to incentivize research investment.
In the context of space knowledge, we draw on the theory of the tragedy of the anticommons to describe the lack of data sharing, particularly in light of the growing involvement of private companies. We identify three key driving forces behind this phenomenon: national security and national interests, intellectual property concerns, and the pursuit of strategic or economic advantages.
First, regarding security and national interests, certain information concerning satellites placed in orbit to support military operations or test new space capabilities cannot be made public. These satellites, often equipped with advanced technologies, play a crucial role in intelligence gathering, secure communication, and support for strategic missions (Bataille et al. Reference Bataille, Hrozensky, Moranta and Campos2022, 9–13). Revealing details about their nature, position, or capabilities could compromise the security and effectiveness of ongoing military operations and expose space infrastructures to the risk of sabotage or espionage by threat agents (Garino and Gibson Reference Garino and Gibsonn.d., 274). Operators also ensure they retain exclusive rights to critical information, so they maintain a strategic advantage for future activities and exploration efforts. Moreover, as military and dual-use technologies are sensitive data, states can implement measures to prevent adversaries and competitors from acquiring critical technologies, promoting defense and security. Confidentiality around these programs is, therefore, essential to preserve technological superiority and national sovereignty. As such, some operators prefer to keep information about their space assets out of the public’s eyes.
Second, various intellectual property measures can be put into place. These include patents for inventions implemented through software, particularly those involving novel algorithms aimed at solving real-world problems or offering technical advantages, such as predicting space assets trajectories or innovative computing technologies for data processing. Additionally, copyrights protect original works of authorship, such as software code (Malloy et al. Reference Malloy, Mohan, Straub, Tiwana and Bidgoli2003). Many of the problems, dilemmas, and limitations are to be found in the data-collecting and data-processing procedures. Moreover, access to pools of information is generally exclusive, given that space data often carries confidentiality or is protected under intellectual property law. There may be attempts to limit or restrict access and impose some rules and standards to data collection and utilization processes to increase the quality of pools of information generated for specific purposes, such as collision avoidance mechanisms (Buchs et al. Reference Buchs, Florin, David and Kneib2023, 374–383).
Third, while data sharing is essential for the advancement of science and international cooperation, it needs to be balanced by appropriate safeguards. Indeed, once analyzed, data can be exploited for competitive purposes, particularly by entities or nations that might seek to gain a strategic or economic advantage when planning their activities. This preserves the interests of data collectors while ensuring that the information disseminated serves the common good without compromising the strategic or economic benefits associated with space exploration. Moreover, it provides a guarantee that the information shared is verified and contextualized, thus avoiding the propagation of incomplete or misinterpreted data that could harm further research or space security. This is particularly relevant in the context of the exploitation of space resources. Although access to extraction technology is minimal nowadays, as is humankind’s ability to travel in outer space and fully exploit natural space resources, it would be appropriate to work on raising awareness of the risks of overexploitation of resources (Cheney Reference Cheney2024, 353–358). To a certain extent, limiting the dissemination of data about space resources, including their nature, location, quantity, and role for an operator’s space activity, can help to avoid arousing the interest of competitors (Cilliers et al. Reference Cilliers, Hadler and Rasera2023). Here, data dissemination, access to information, and pointers to areas of interest are considered through the lens of the collection and extraction of space resources to mitigate, in the long term, the degradation of certain celestial bodies.
Here is an example involving satellite operators that demonstrates the tragedy of the anticommons. For strategic economic reasons, satellite operators – whether they are planning to launch a single satellite or an entire constellation – need to develop innovative technologies and obtain the best possible orbits. These orbits, which have become precious resources, are fiercely contested as they determine the quality and efficiency of the services provided by these satellites. To protect their market position and secure their competitive edge, operators are careful to keep their projects and technologies secret. Premature disclosure could allow competitors to capture the most strategic orbits or copy innovative business plans, jeopardizing their profitability and technological lead. Intellectual property plays a central role in the processing and valorization of data: In a context where considerable resources are invested in its collection and analysis, the data obtained, often through advanced technologies and sophisticated processing methods, have great value not only as economic assets but also as strategic tools for states. Because of their potential to influence economic prospecting and strengthen strategic positions, operators place a premium on protecting this data and the analyses derived from it, in order to maintain a competitive edge. Protecting intellectual property makes it possible to preserve the results of these efforts and investments, while limiting access by competitors or the general public to information likely to offer a competitive advantage or compromise national interests.
Operators, meaning to protect their investments and maintain a competitive edge, may be reluctant to share valuable data or participate in collaborative initiatives that could compromise their proprietary analyses. Although resources exist, their use is hampered by too many barriers to access them efficiently, reducing their overall usefulness. This phenomenon can lead to wasted opportunities for scientific advancement, economic decision-making, and collective security. To remedy this situation, collaborative regulations facilitating a balance between intellectual property protection and strategic data sharing are needed (Sankar et al. Reference Sankar, Dohrman and Zimmerman2024; Seeds Reference Seeds2024). This would make it possible to utilize these resources optimally while preserving the competitive advantages and strategic interests of the various stakeholders.
There is a clear need for more space data sharing. The lack of a precise policy for data collection, sharing, and ensuring reliability poses a significant challenge to the management and regulation of space and technological information. The United Nations proposes general guidelines to states for operators’ practices (United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space 2019). States and observers are also working on potential legal structures for activities in the exploration, exploitation, and utilization of space resources (United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space 2021). However, each actor, whether state or private, can adopt its own protocols for data collection and processing, leading to a heterogeneity that complicates international cooperation and transparency. The lack of specific standards on what is to be shared and how to certify data reliability and integrity raises crucial questions of trust and security (Baseley-Walker and Weeden 2010). Without harmonized certification and verification mechanisms, it is difficult for states and operators to guarantee the quality and relevance of exchanged data. This can lead to discrepancies in data interpretation and decision-making, potentially affecting national security and geopolitical stability.
6.3 Space Data, Space Knowledge, and the Essence of Data Sharing
6.3.1 Space Data and Space Knowledge
Access to space data benefits various stakeholders, including space operators, whether governmental or nongovernmental, to international organizations, agencies, academic institutions, and civil society (Reed et al. Reference Reed, Dailey, Stilwell and Weeden2022). Until recently, data about objects located in space and activities conducted beyond the Earth’s atmosphere has only been accessible to a small number of space operators, both governmental and nongovernmental. While users are not necessarily the ones collecting and analyzing space data, they benefit from it for various reasons, particularly the planning and management of their present and future missions in outer space and the long-term sustainability of space activities. Managing and governing space data raises several questions: What qualifies as space data (i.e., what information is relevant)? What are its origins (i.e., how is it collected)? Who are the users (i.e., who can access and process it)? How is it utilized (i.e., how is it employed)? And what are its applications (i.e., for what objectives)?
Under the knowledge commons literature, a meaningful distinction exists between data and knowledge. It takes a broad and inclusive view of “knowledge” for purposes of researching common governance, referring to human-generated material at any position that situates “data” at the lowest level, “information” and “knowledge” at intermediate levels, and “wisdom” at the highest level (Madison Reference Madison2024, 320). This recognizes that knowledge is a product of what legal systems consider “counts” as a knowledge resource, and the character of cultural resources is frequently embedded in feedback loops at multiple levels (Madison Reference Madison2024, 321).
Here, we distinguish between “space data” and “space knowledge.” The term “space data” does not refer to the sensing of the Earth’s surface, but rather to data relating to the space environment, including, but not limited to, natural resources characteristics and location and human-made objects’ characteristics, orbital specifications, trajectories, and orbits. Space data ranges from raw information about outer space to the management, dissemination, preservation, and utilization of such data. Whether they generate such data or not, stakeholders need to access this resource and find a shared understanding of opportunities, benefits, and limitations regarding the joint use of this pool of information. Eventually, because of the multiplication of activities and the increasing need to coordinate between emerging and traditional actors, it may come to a point where the international community will have to address common management and governance. These resources are collected as a source of information about space-based natural elements, assets, and phenomena, as well as human activities and human-made objects, both functional and nonfunctional, including their components. Space data also relates to the mechanisms in place, starting with conversion of analog measurements to digital content, after data collection by relevant entities, to create information and share related knowledge, and also manage, disseminate, analyze, and preserve such data.
It is critical to note that the mere presence of data does not imply its active collection. Rather, sensing data is an activity that can only be carried out by a limited number of entities equipped with the necessary technical capabilities. Its processing and storage also rely on dedicated platforms, and compliance with existing transparency measures depends on states’ willingness to share information about national space activities and assets with the international community (MITRE Corporation and Aspen Institute 2022, 5–6). For example, the Republic of Korea introduced plans to develop a space surveillance network combined with the KEPLER (Korea Enhanced Platform for Lowering spacE Risk) project, an advanced system that combines data from optical, radar, and laser sources to enhance situational awareness. During the 2025 United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space scientific and technical subcommittee session, the Republic of Korea unveiled the system’s architecture, introducing Spacebook, a dedicated database for observing, collecting, analyzing, and managing space data. This platform is complemented by the Space Risk Warning Portal, designed to disseminate critical information to users (Choi Reference Choi2025).
There are also initiatives to identify, label, and catalog natural resources and geological features regarding celestial bodies, including the Moon (Lunar and Planetary Institute, n.d.; Chinese Academy of Science 2024). Several projects initiated by private satellite operators and observers aim to better understand space (i.e., Space Data Association and Jonathan’s Space Report) and states started to develop platforms to foster space situational awareness policies and develop STM mechanisms (Lal et al. Reference Lal, Balakrishnan, Caldwell, Buenconsejo and Carioscia2018, 14–16).
The data can be analyzed and converted into valuable information, aiming to mitigate risks, reduce misperception and miscommunication between stakeholders, and anticipate critical scenarios. For example, they can be used to track the trajectory of objects in space and calculate the probability of collisions, thus contributing to the safety of space activities. In addition, these analyses can be used to identify the presence of specific resources on celestial bodies, facilitating the planning of future activities or the development of resource exploitation strategies (Clerc et al. Reference Clerc, Hofmann, Cesari, Verseux, Gargaud, Lehto and Viso2025, 298–299). This transformation of raw data into usable information is fundamental to valorizing it and supporting strategic decisions that are both accurate and timely (Bonvino and Giorgino Reference Bonvino and Giorgino2024).
After collecting data, identifying their type, and checking their reliability, the next step is to ensure relevance and focus on areas of mutual interest to stakeholders (Patriarca et al. Reference Patriarca, Costantino and Gravio2019, 201–211). This process should integrate both protocols for data quality, interoperability, and formatting to ensure consistency and ease of use and tools for data import, analysis, and visualization, which allow contributors to upload data and users to interact with it meaningfully. Furthermore, knowledge gaps exist, as some operators prefer not to make public certain strategic and military uses of outer space. Thus, the objective here is not to list and classify all human-made objects and natural resources present in orbit or on celestial bodies, nor the space phenomena or activities conducted in orbits, but rather to identify how knowledge of these different elements is acquired, shared, and used, and to what purpose.
These resources, ranging from voluntary shared data to actively collected facts and measurements, have diverse characteristics. Despite the existence of transparency measures and incentives to exchange information, it is the detection of data through sensing technology and calculations that is of real interest. Ensuring access to accurate, complete, reliable, relevant, and timely data is made easier if all entities with sensing capabilities make space data available, so the resulting information is properly exploited. In addition, renewed interest in space operations and applications through the deployment of large satellite constellations in low Earth orbit (Blount and Cesari Reference Blount and Cesari2023, 147) and projects to extract natural space resources from celestial bodies (Guyomarc’h 2023, 6) are prompting states and various operators to carefully analyze the space environment before planning and designing their space projects and missions.
Generally, space data access and management tend to be more and more open to a larger part of the population. Being part of a community, as is the case with governmental entities or satellite operators in particular, facilitates access to this type of information. There are not necessarily any particular barriers to capturing data, apart from access to observation technologies (Ortega et al. Reference Ortega, Cesari and Revill2023, 18–19). However, their analysis and the knowledge that can be derived from it may be subject to protection measures to prevent access by strategic competitors.
The development of space knowledge commons, as a whole, involves the collection and sharing of space data to support the safe and secure conduct of space activities, ensuring long-term sustainability. It relates to relevant information beneficial for projecting human activities and fostering the long-term sustainability of space activities (Porras Reference Porras2019). For instance, knowing space objects’ trajectory and orbital parameters is important for adequate coordination between operators operating satellites in orbit. Its goal is to mitigate risks of disruptions and incidents while reducing threats and misperceptions among space actors. Creating knowledge commons based on space data involves developing a shared, accessible resource that enables multiple stakeholders to contribute, access, and build upon collective knowledge. Because sensing space data requires having scientific instruments and observation tools such as optical telescopes or radars, all information about outer space is not necessarily accessible to the public (Weeden et al. Reference Baseley-Walker, Weeden and Vignard2010). However, as observation instruments become more affordable and accessible, and computers become more powerful and numerous, some information can be shared as open source, notably by online user communities and members of civil society, research centers, universities, and so on (Renault et al. Reference Renault, Charon and Laurençon2022, 24; Ortega et al. Reference Ortega, Cesari and Revill2023, 31–33).
6.3.2 Data Sharing as an Essential Attribute of Knowledge Commons
Knowledge commons is governance by a community or collective of shared knowledge, information, and data resources, searching out instances of shared knowledge, information, and data that prompt the need for governance (Madison Reference Madison2024, 308). As explained by Madison, “Knowledge commons research begins with the assumption that sharing knowledge, information, and data effectively is both a substantial public policy challenge and an enormous policy opportunity, not only emerging from questions surrounding contemporary data, software, artificial intelligence, and the like, but also building on equivalent questions of long pre-Internet, even Homeric standing” (Madison Reference Madison2024, 304).
Data sharing is an essential attribute of the governance of knowledge commons. Certain data collection instruments and pools of information exist to catalog the conduct of human-led activities in outer space or the presence and characteristics of space natural resources that could be of value to the market. Cataloging natural space resources is crucial for scientific purposes and improvement of research. It can also help operators know where these resources are to ensure successful missions and resource collection and plan how resources might be collected, managed, and utilized in outer space, particularly on celestial bodies (Clerc et al. Reference Clerc, Hofmann, Cesari, Verseux, Gargaud, Lehto and Viso2025, 301–303). Space-data collection can serve to identify, describe, and possibly quantify resources in order to create a detailed map locating valuable materials on the Moon or other celestial bodies, for both scientific and economic purposes. Opening access to information on the state of celestial bodies, their composition, and the elements that make them up or are located on them may raise concerns about the uncontrolled and unrestricted extraction of natural resources for commercial purposes alone. Gathering and analyzing space-related data, and more specifically cislunar data, is important for states aiming to foster scientific research and future growth and economic activities.
From a space governance perspective, data sharing occurs in two contexts: first, among partners, and second, by making data accessible to the public.
6.3.2.1 Data Sharing Among Partners
First, sharing related information with international partners not only improves global engagement and expands international cooperation but also enhances space situational awareness to maintain a foundation for responsible behaviors in space. Overall, it gives incentives to implement robust communication and navigational infrastructure to support safe and sustainable activities in space (White House 2022). On this basis, partners and competitors working on space mining activity can develop collectively understood norms with regards to acceptable, prohibited, or tolerated actions for stakeholders in specific situations, supported by enforcement measures and specific consequences in cases of noncompliance (Christensen et al. Reference Christensen, Lange, Sowers, Abbud-Madrid and Bazilian2019).
Sharing space data efficiently and profitably requires the establishment of rigorous standards and coordination mechanisms. For these mechanisms to be reliable, rational, and usable, it is essential to establish a global normative policy defined by clear and commonly accepted standards. These standards may include guidelines on how to collect, process, and verify space data to guarantee both its quality and reliability. In the absence of such standards, publicly shared information may contain errors or be incomplete, which can undermine decision-making and trust between stakeholders.
It is, therefore, necessary to adopt certification mechanisms that guarantee the quality and integrity of space data before it is shared. This includes the introduction of international standards for data processing and dissemination, such as technical validation protocols and detailed documentation practices. In addition, enhanced coordination between the various players – be they governments, international organizations, or private entities – is crucial to ensure that space data is interpreted uniformly and that differences are minimized. This coordination can take the form of bilateral or multilateral collaborations, information-sharing forums, and the implementation of centralized platforms where verified space data can be deposited and consulted according to precise rules.
Ultimately, effective space data sharing, based on common standards and solid coordination, will not only promote better information use but also avoid the pitfalls associated with misinformation and errors of judgment caused by inconsistent or unverified data. However, for both public authorities and the private sector, data collection can be complex and costly. This difficulty stems largely from the technical and financial obstacles required to develop and maintain data collection infrastructures. Having one’s own collection capabilities implies access to advanced technologies and substantial financial resources to build, operate, and update the necessary infrastructure. These include sophisticated sensors, robust communications networks, and high-performance data processing systems. The cost of research and development to remain competitive adds a further layer of complexity to the establishment of such an infrastructure.
Sharing and receiving space data from other operators requires integration into a network or group where trust and cooperation are established. Membership in these networks guarantees that data can be exchanged using common secure protocols. Membership in such groups implies commitments, such as compliance with sharing standards and protection of sensitive data, which can limit operators’ freedom to manage information independently. Coordination and interoperability between different systems and collection methods are essential to ensure the consistency and efficiency of the space data exchanged.
Governance and sharing mechanisms are generally set up by both governmental and nongovernmental entities because exchange of information between operators and common governance reduces miscommunication, misperceptions, and mistrust. In that case, access to data can be granted to a part of the user community or be available to the general public so they can extract and use data (Hess and Ostrom Reference Ghosh, Hess and Ostrom2007, 52). Companies, members of civil societies, state operators, and other stakeholders can use space data openly shared as nonrivalrous resources, even though not all information is shared, as some is kept secret for an operator’s competitiveness for economic, strategic, or military reasons.
6.3.2.2 Public Information
Publicly available information is a crucial mechanism for data sharing, contributing to the development of a space knowledge commons. Specific legal instruments, such as the Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space (United Nations 1975), require states to provide information to the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) (United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs 2024). States generally grant licenses to space operators who request them, authorizing them to launch objects to carry out their operations. Furthermore, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) regulates spectrum and orbit for space radiocommunication services (ITU n.d.). To this effect, it records in the Master International Frequency Register frequency assignment and orbital information for space stations onboard geostationary and nongeostationary satellites used or intended to be used in order to ensure efficient, rational, and cost-effective utilization of orbital and spectrum resources, considered as limited resources (ITU n.d.). These transparency requirements proposed at the multilateral level help estimate the number of objects in the various orbits. However, this is a declarative mechanism, and many objects launched to outer space are not registered or information provided is incomplete or erroneous (Hertzfeld Reference Hertzfeld2021, 241). While it is possible for states to share data related to their national space objects in the multilateral context to UNOOSA and ITU (Masson-Zwaan et al. 2024, 242–248), there is no real standard format or particular obligations regarding data quality, accuracy, or completeness. Furthermore, there is no obligation to share data about natural objects and phenomena in space or about how human activities alter celestial bodies (Chen).
Open access information or publicly available data, including that managed by the United Nations register, can serve as a valuable alternative or complement. With the growing presence of private actors, such disclosure is increasingly essential. These data enable operators to obtain information without incurring significant initial collection costs. However, its reliability and level of detail can vary. It often requires additional verification or cross-checking and trust between all stakeholders. Public space-related data plays a crucial role in informed decision-making but must be handled with care to avoid errors owing to outdated, unreliable, or inaccurate information. When space data is made public without the source being identifiable, it may include erroneous or poorly processed information. This may be due to differing collection methodologies, varying levels of accuracy, or failure to apply rigorous processing protocols. The absence of a common validation and certification policy also leads to differences in space data interpretation, making it difficult to align stakeholders on consistent conclusions or to develop harmonized policies.
Open access makes it possible to monitor and verify operators’ compliance with national obligations, ensuring responsible behavior in outer space, in conformity with the licensing states’ international commitments. In the event of an incident, such as a collision, more open access to data helps clarify the circumstances and facilitates access to redress for victims, enabling a fairer and more transparent resolution. Finally, for future exploration activities and scientific progress, open data is essential. It supports the building of a shared knowledge base about outer space, which is essential for understanding and exploring it more safely, securely, and sustainably. This international cooperation and knowledge sharing ensures that space resources are used responsibly, benefiting both current missions and future generations.
6.3.2.3 Case Study: Space Traffic Management
STM serves as a compelling example of why data sharing is critical in space activities. In terms of regional STM, data plays a key role in the surveillance, tracking, and coordination of objects in orbit (Oltrogge and Kerr Reference Oltrogge and Kerr2024). For example, the European Union is exploiting a network of terrestrial sensors, including radars and telescopes, to monitor and track space objects. This Space Surveillance and Tracking System (EU SST) aims to prevent the risk of collisions and track the trajectory of space debris to ensure the safety of satellites and space missions (McKnight 2019, 101–107).
Through this EU SST program, the European Union has also called for the development of space debris mitigation services for space safety and sustainability. (Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space Scientific and Technical Subcommittee 2023; Council of the EU 2023) By providing data and using its technological capabilities, the European Union seeks to enrich the pool of information available to the space community. These efforts aim to make monitoring services more transparent and accessible, aligning the European Union’s approach through open public service (Moranta et al. Reference Moranta, Hrozensky and Dvoracek2020). This would enable private operators and space agencies from various countries to access the data they need to navigate safely in space, plan their missions, and avoid collisions (Moranta et al. Reference Moranta, Hrozensky and Dvoracek2020).
The integration of European efforts with other systems, such as that of the US, is an essential aspect of the overall STM coordination. The US, through the US Space Surveillance Network (Chatters and Crothers Reference Chatters and Crothers2009, 249–258), manages a sophisticated network of sensors that continuously monitor space and provide critical data for STM. By working in partnership with players such as the European Union, the two systems can share complementary data, improving accuracy and global coverage (Stickings Reference Stickings2019, 8–9). Such collaboration also overcomes the geographical limitations of individual sensors, ensuring a more comprehensive and coordinated view of the space situation (Ortega et al. Reference Ortega, Cesari and Revill2023). This articulation can be achieved through common platforms and bilateral or multilateral agreements, where data from both systems are exchanged according to defined protocols. Harmonization of data collection and analysis methodologies helps to enhance the reliability of shared information. Initiatives such as sharing best practices and developing common standards ensure that integrated data from European and American systems can be used consistently by all players in the space sector.
The ultimate aim of this international cooperation is to create a space situational awareness environment that is global and integrated, reducing the risks associated with space activities and supporting the sustainability of in-orbit operations (Oltrogge and Christensen Reference Oltrogge and Christensen2020, 432–438). This could lead to better coordination for proactive debris mitigation, orbital conjunction management, and future space mission planning while promoting safer and more efficient use of space for future generations.
On the private sector level, the Space Data Association (SDA) plays a significant role in bringing together various satellite operators to encourage the sharing of data essential to the safety and integrity of the space environment. The SDA is a collaborative initiative that enables operators to share valuable information on satellite position, trajectory, and status to minimize the risk of collisions and disruptions in space. It emphasizes the sharing of reliable operational data and promotes best practices across the industry (Muelhaupt et al. Reference Muelhaupt, Sorge, Morin and Wilson2019, 80–87).
The SDA approach is distinguished by the fact that it is a closed service reserved for a limited number of operators who agree to participate on a reciprocal basis. This means that members must not only receive information but also contribute their own data concerning their satellite fleet, trajectories, and life expectancy, among other information, to enrich the collective knowledge base. This fosters an environment of mutual trust, where the exchange of information benefits all participants and helps to enhance the safety of space operations (Oltrogge et al. Reference Oltrogge and Kerr2024, 342–361).
Participation in the SDA gives operators access to accurate, up-to-date data on space traffic, reducing the risk of collisions and enabling better maneuver planning for collision avoidance. In addition, this approach promotes the harmonization of STM methods in the private sector. It helps to complement the efforts of government systems such as those of the European Union and the US. By promoting best practices and facilitating secure and efficient data sharing, the SDA supports not only flight safety but also the long-term sustainability of the space environment.
This reciprocal sharing structure demonstrates the importance of private collaboration in STM, particularly when coordinated with public initiatives to create a more comprehensive and resilient surveillance ecosystem. The bottom line is that initiatives to share space data, whether from the public or private sectors or from collaboration between the two, highlight both considerable challenges and promising opportunities. On the part of public-led initiatives, the focus is on establishing robust infrastructures and open services to provide reliable data for safety and STM. However, the absence of common standards on an international scale complicates the coherence of exchanges and the quality of shared data while leaving the door open to divergent interpretations and the risk of errors (Stauch et al. Reference Stauch, Bessel, Rutten, Baldwin, Jah and Holl2016).
On the private side, the reciprocal and reliable sharing of data between operators can significantly improve space safety and coordination between satellite operators. However, these private initiatives remain limited in terms of access and participation and rely on trust and reciprocity, which may exclude important players that do not meet these criteria. The main challenges of these various initiatives include the need to develop harmonized standards, ensure data reliability and accuracy, and coordinate effectively between multiple stakeholders with varied interests. The issue of intellectual property and data protection also remains a major concern, influencing how and to what extent data can be shared.
At the same time, the opportunities offered by structured and coordinated sharing of space data are considerable. They include better management of space traffic, reduced collision risks, more efficient mission planning, and the possibility of developing global strategies for space debris reduction. Cooperation between public initiatives and private efforts could create an integrated and resilient space ecosystem. Such collaboration would be essential to ensure not only the immediate safety of space activities but also the long-term sustainability of outer space and, by extension, their security, a common asset essential to the continuation of space use and exploration. Because the space environment, particularly in low Earth orbit, can undergo rapid changes, space operators constantly need up-to-date information to be aware of a situation and conduct their activities safely, with a comprehensive repository of space data.
6.4 Building a Sustainable Space Knowledge Commons
6.4.1 Overview
The purpose of the GKC framework is to prompt systematic study of resource-sharing practices, as the research program is pragmatic rather than ontological (Madison Reference Madison2024, 317). The Ostrom literature makes an important distinction between a “framework,” a “theory,” and a “model.” A framework identifies, categorizes, and organizes factors considered most relevant to understanding a phenomenon. A theory, in contrast, proposes general causal relationships among subsets of these variables or categories, designating certain factors as particularly significant while treating others as less critical for explanatory purposes. Finally, a model specifies the specific functional relationships among particular variables or indicators, hypothesizing their operation under well-defined conditions (McGinnis 2011, 170). The goal of the GKC framework is to invite researchers to explore knowledge commons governance by addressing clusters of interrelated questions, designed to be examined and answered systematically (Madison Reference Madison2024, 308).
Different from the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, “resources” in the GKC context are not tangible or “biophysical.” Instead, the framework focuses on knowledge, or information that is non-depletable (Madison Reference Madison2024, 309). It also does not make the assumption that “actors” are individuals operating on a rational decision-making basis (Madison Reference Madison2024, 309). Generally, teams of experts are dedicated to the planning, management, and overall control of space activities, under the supervision of public authorities. The terminology in that schematic partially corresponds to the terminology developed by the IAD framework, particularly its emphasis on “rules-in-use” (referring to formal and informal rulesets that define the relevant community and its practices) and “action arenas” (contexts in which relevant actors repeatedly interact concerning shared resources) (Madison Reference Madison2024, 309). However, a key difference lies in the interaction of various variables. Unlike the IAD framework, the outcomes of a given pattern directly influence the input variables, potentially leading to the destruction or sustainability of the resource (Strandburg et al. Reference Strandburg, Frischmann, Madison, Strandburg, Frischmann and Madison2017, 15). These outcomes can also drive modifications to the rules-in-use if the community is dissatisfied with the results.
Overall, we advocate for space data-sharing policies to build various knowledge commons, where these different case studies can be effectively analyzed under the GKC framework. The creation, sharing, and maintenance of common resources and the structures controlling them or facilitating their appropriate use enable all stakeholders to ensure the smooth running of our activities. It also enables the development of rules or norms of behavior in the space environment. As such, the international community is already working on encouraging states to adopt responsible behavior in their use.
This is especially important because of the proliferation of private entities in space governance. Entities such as Starlink, Leolabs, Planet, Look Up Space, CFSCC, USSPACECOM, JSC Vimpel, and SeeSat-L have directly shared space data concerning space assets and activities on different platforms, either open such as Space Track or AstriaGraph or more confidential. Even though this practice might raise intellectual property concerns, this type of open access without costs or permissions does not prevent these platforms from retaining copyright over the work they provide (Wang et al. Reference Wang, Li, Mu, Hao, Zhu and Hu2022, 13).
In addition to existing private initiatives, the European STM platform currently under development and mentioned earlier is supported by space-based data (Moranta et al. Reference Moranta, Hrozensky and Dvoracek2020). The US, meanwhile, has a legal structure for space situational awareness. This is also an opportunity for the military, which sees outer space as a strategic operational domain, important to their operations.
Information about the situation in orbit is useful for satellite operators to calculate collision probability or plan future operations. Generally, the analysis of space data enables better management of traffic, anticipation of collision risks, and identification of the areas in which operators can place space objects, especially in low Earth orbit and medium Earth orbit. Geostationary orbits have been under constant scrutiny ever since operators first realized their economic benefits: Placing an object in geostationary orbit means not having to move it, or reorient it frequently, because of its Earth-like orbit (Sato et al. Reference Sato, Yoshimura, Hanada, Izumiyama and Shinohara2021, 331–338). In nongeostationary orbits, it is more complex to identify the objects that are placed, and their trajectory, speed, altitude, and other characteristics linked to their placement (Borowitz et al. Reference Borowitz, Gunter, Birch and Macke2021). Moreover, not all satellites can be remotely piloted, some are no longer functional, and the presence of debris can cause damage to satellites (World Economic Forum 2021). Only some satellites or space objects can be maneuvered to avoid collisions or simply redirect their antennas to conduct their activities. Therefore, identifying the characteristics of different resources with as much space-related data as possible is essential for obtaining useful and reliable information. Increasingly, this information is being collected and analyzed by a number of categories of experts and researchers (i.e., Space Data Association and Jonathan’s Space Report). Sharing space data therefore facilitates coordination between different space operators and, more generally, improves the efficient management of space traffic.
To date, mechanisms for collecting, sharing, and managing space-related data are used to assess the risk of in-orbit collisions in an efficient, temporal, and precise way, to reduce false alarms and missed events, and to reduce the time and resources devoted to this type of assessment by the various operators. This also minimizes the risk of confusion and conflicting decisions between operators while quickly finding solutions to avoid the risk of interference and collision (Silverstein Reference Silverstein2023, 18–21). In terms of ensuring the investment of time and resources in this type of operation, opening up this information and access to a wider community of observers would perhaps enable greater efficiency and the development of best practices for stakeholders. Without such a mechanism, there is no standardized format for these data, analysis, sharing, and prevention of more reliable and accurate results.
6.4.2 Building a Sustainable Space Knowledge Commons
6.4.2.1 The Boundaries of Space Knowledge: Strategic, Economic, and Scientific Considerations
One fundamental question when conducting GKC research is to define what constitutes knowledge commons. Intangible knowledge resources are not naturally defined by boundaries that limit their use. Instead, it is constructed, rather than discovered, and it operates through at least two resources – either embedded in the tangible form, or shaped and regulated through law and other social practices (Strandburg et al. Reference Strandburg, Frischmann, Madison, Strandburg, Frischmann and Madison2017, 13–14). In the context of patents, for instance, the “claims” define the boundaries (Strandburg et al. Reference Strandburg, Frischmann, Madison, Strandburg, Frischmann and Madison2017, 14). These boundaries are partly within and partly outside the control of members of a knowledge commons, giving rise to a series of social dilemmas (Strandburg et al. Reference Strandburg, Frischmann, Madison, Strandburg, Frischmann and Madison2017, 14).
Space knowledge is inherently valuable but not neutral – it serves both scientific and strategic purposes. On the one hand, analyzing data and conducting research advances space exploration and science. On the other hand, leveraging data for strategic and economic considerations helps markets project revenues, assess investments, and evaluate associated risks (OECD 2024, 6–7). This is a question of social ethics that can be the subject of discussion and study to determine acceptable levels of safety for public expectations, while taking into consideration the desire of certain states to develop their space economy either with extraction technologies in their own way or with all the capacities and logistical systems that surround it.
Here, we utilize “sustainability” as a key term to draw the boundaries for space knowledge commons (Space Data Association 2024). In other words, sustainability becomes a primary goal for space data-sharing policies and serves as a determining factor in deciding what should or should not be shared. Sustainability is a major topic regarding the responsible use and exploration of outer space. It is intrinsically linked to space safety and security, as a debris-saturated and poorly managed orbital environment greatly increases the risk of collisions and accidents, jeopardizing not only ongoing space missions but also the infrastructures on which many terrestrial services depend. Relevant and reliable data on space situations and activities is essential to ensure a sufficient level of safety and security. This is where the concept of sustainability in our understanding of knowledge commons becomes relevant – space data, when shared and accessible for the purpose of space sustainability, can be considered as knowledge commons. The notion of sustainable space knowledge commons encourages the international community to share critical information that strengthens the coordination and collective management of outer space. Reasoned sharing of data on the position and trajectory of space objects, as well as on debris management, contributes to better risk anticipation and faster, more effective response to potential incidents (Space Data Association 2024).
The notion of “sustainability” should be a central aspect of various policies for space data sharing. Within the GKC framework, it serves as an important objective behind different rules-in-use. This concept implies that these data become collective resources, which, when properly managed and exploited, benefit the entire space community and beyond. The importance of knowledge commons for space data is threefold, covering strategic, economic, and scientific aspects.
From a strategic point of view, knowledge about the launch operation of a rocket and the encounter of space satellites should be shared, which gives an operator, whether governmental or nongovernmental, a complete and precise awareness of the situation around its assets. This knowledge is essential for ensuring the safety and integrity of space missions by making it possible to monitor nearby movements and operations and prevent incidents such as collision risks or unauthorized maneuvers, among which are threatening close approach (West Reference West2023). This ability to anticipate and react proactively strengthens the operator’s sovereignty and operational security. The goal is to prevent miscommunication, misunderstanding, misperception, and the rise of tensions between States. (United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) 2022).
From an economic point of view, access to space knowledge on space maneuvers, of the trajectory, and the position in orbit, is essential for investment planning and optimization. Private and public operators need reliable data to design missions, decide on the best orbits to use, and assess environmental conditions before launching satellites. Moreover, in the context of increasing competition for the exploitation of outer space, information on the distribution of debris or the viability of a future satellite’s location can make the difference between a fruitful investment and a considerable loss. Concerning space resource exploitation, the availability of data about celestial bodies, such as the Moon or asteroids, can be used to assess the profitability and feasibility of extraction missions.
With regard to scientific exploration, shared space knowledge on specific celestial bodies in terms of the location and the chemical composition would create a collective knowledge base and facilitate international collaboration to understand outer space, celestial bodies, and improve the study of the universe. This includes the knowledge of specific celestial bodies in terms of the location and the chemical composition. States tend to address this from a scientific point of view – however, future discussions, informed by eventual technology developments, may lean towards an economic point of view. Identifying resources present on asteroids or other celestial bodies, detecting new objects, and analyzing their composition are essential elements for scientific research. These knowledge commons enable the scientific community to work more efficiently, exchange ideas, and push back the frontiers of space research. This stimulates innovation and fosters discoveries that can have beneficial applications on Earth, such as improving space technologies, understanding the universe or even technological spin-offs in medicine and engineering.
6.4.2.2 Community
Managing and accessing space data as knowledge commons represents a crucial opportunity for strategic, economic, and scientific development. However, realizing this potential depends on stakeholders’ ability to develop standards, share infrastructures, and strengthen international cooperation to ensure that these commons are sustainable and accessible while protecting the specific interests of each stakeholder.
Utilizing the GKC framework requires a comprehensive understanding of the community involved. Key questions include identifying community members, defining their roles, and assessing the degree of openness toward different stakeholders and the general public. Establishing standards to assess data quality and predict potential outcomes is crucial for organizing information and connecting it to the growing number of space activities (Hess and Ostrom Reference Ghosh, Hess and Ostrom2007).
Overall, the community managing space data as a knowledge commons comprises space data providers, policymakers, users, space operators, civil society members, the scientific community, governmental organizations, private entities, international bodies, and technology developers, each contributing uniquely to ensuring sustainability, security, and accessibility. This diverse and interconnected network highlights the complexity of aligning interests, establishing governance frameworks, and fostering collaboration to address the shared challenges and opportunities of managing a sustainable space knowledge commons effectively.
The increasing accessibility of observation tools and computational power contributes to the rise of communities focused on outer space (Ortega et al. Reference Ortega, Cesari and Revill2023). The growing awareness of the importance of space sustainability and safety has underscored the need for collaborative efforts. Space data – ranging from voluntarily shared information to actively collected measurements – possesses diverse characteristics. While transparency and information-sharing mechanisms exist, advanced sensing technologies and analytical tools play a crucial role in ensuring access to accurate, reliable, and timely data. Entities with sensing capabilities should make their data available to enable meaningful exploitation and support strategic planning. Recent developments, such as deploying large satellite constellations in low Earth orbit (Blount and Cesari Reference Blount and Cesari2023) and initiatives to extract resources from celestial bodies (Guyomarc’h 2023), have further highlighted the need for comprehensive data analysis to guide project design and mission planning.
State and private stakeholders are becoming more involved in space operations to ensure safety, security, and sustainability. Sharing data allows these parties to coordinate activities effectively, reduce collision risks, and contribute to a stable outer space environment while reaping strategic, scientific, and economic benefits (Foust Reference Foust2019). For both state and nonstate actors, access to shared data promotes mutual understanding and facilitates cooperation on shared objectives.
Information providers, policymakers, and users all have important roles. Providers include those who collect, process, and disseminate data, as well as those offering supporting software, hardware, and infrastructure. Policymakers often operate within self-regulated communities, promoting transparency and encouraging information exchange among stakeholders (Hess and Ostrom Reference Ghosh, Hess and Ostrom2007). Users range from individuals accessing digital content to organizations employing this data for operational purposes.
These interconnected groups typically function at different levels of the knowledge commons, where locally managed information pools are globally utilized. Ensuring that the data remains relevant requires proper categorization and classification, avoiding interference with trade secrets or sensitive military strategies.
In consideration of the law, international legal frameworks impose significant responsibilities on states for their space activities. Under the Outer Space Treaty (1967), states are internationally liable for damage caused by their space objects (Article VII) and must avoid interfering with the activities of other states (Article IX). National space laws further impose licensing conditions, including administrative, legal, financial, and technical obligations on operators. These regulations ensure smooth operations and minimize in-orbit risks.
Space operators, meanwhile, bear responsibility for minimizing their impact, coordinating with others, and contributing to the overall safety and sustainability of space. Given the rapid pace of developments, particularly in low Earth orbit, the creation of a comprehensive repository of space data is essential. Such repositories could enhance collision prevention and post-event analysis while supporting governmental and nongovernmental entities alike (Alfano et al. Reference Alfano, Oltrogge and Arona2022).
While many platforms for sharing space environment data are developed by operators and entities directly using the information, other groups – such as civil society, scientific communities, and governmental organizations – play significant roles. These groups contribute to multilateral discussions by clarifying complex issues, conducting research, and reducing tensions in space (Cesari Reference Cesari2022). Their involvement helps ensure that space data is collected, analyzed, and shared to address emerging challenges and foster stability.
In conclusion, the effective management of space data as a knowledge commons relies on the collaboration of a diverse and complex community. This intricate network of stakeholders, each with unique roles and perspectives, underscores the importance of fostering cooperation, establishing clear standards, and maintaining transparent governance to ensure the sustainability, security, and accessibility of space data for the benefit of all.
6.5 Conclusion
Since the advent of space activities, various actors have strived to monitor activities in outer space to better anticipate future space missions and protect their assets from threats and operational risks. Nowadays, advancements in technology, including more optical telescopes, radar systems, and computing power. Space data collection tools involve diverse technologies, such as radars and tracking dishes, either based on Earth or placed in outer space.
As space-related data are exploited in pools of information by different stakeholders, they are shared differently depending on whether they relate to public operations or confidential and sensitive space missions. Community of users determine mechanisms for designing, sharing, and managing space data based on their characteristics and how this resource can serve different stakeholders, whether private or public, national, regional, transnational, or international.
Even though these technologies provide data that can be used to survey areas of interest, each of them has inherent limitations and biases and no single sensor provides an absolute and ubiquitous truth of the space situation. Furthermore, stakeholders and the general public cannot continuously and persistently observe every object all the time or share information about their objects in real time. However, despite these challenges, space-related data are very useful for various purposes, including the development of safety mechanisms and the planning of space mining activities. Therefore, aggregating data helps gaining a clear understanding of space activities. When the provision and management of space-related data have beneficial implications for all, it can lead to the qualification of knowledge commons.
In recognition of the rise of private actors in space, we are concerned about the potential occurrence of the tragedy of the anticommons, where information is withheld by private companies. We identify three key driving forces behind this phenomenon: national security and interests, intellectual property concerns, and the pursuit of strategic or economic advantages. We then explore the concept of knowledge commons, identifying what it means to share data and why it is important in the context of space data. To define the boundaries of space knowledge commons, we utilize the concept of sustainability and advocate for the development of a sustainable knowledge commons, emphasizing data-sharing policies. The GKC framework is flexible and well suited as an analytical tool for policies related to the collection, processing, and use of space data. The term “sustainability” should encompass economic, strategic, and scientific considerations, driving the rules-in-use within the framework. Furthermore, we outline the community involved, which can be effectively analyzed using the GKC framework to inform and enhance future policy analysis.
If the provision and management of spatial data have beneficial implications for all, it can lead to the qualification of knowledge commons. Value is created by increasing the number of people who use the resource and join a community of users who benefit from data in various sectors, such as knowledge of space, planning of launches and space operations, and information relating to orbits, particularly with regard to the future challenges of their exploitation. Users can engage in governance, regulation, enforcement, education, or similar activities to conduct their space operations in a sustainable manner and foster mutual trust and understanding, ensuring peaceful and secure dynamics of interaction.
7.1 Introduction and Clarification
This chapter is about data gathered in one commons and used to manage another commons: outer space and the Earth environment, respectively. From the commencement of space activities, space data have aided humanity in managing resources, advancing science, predicting weather, mitigating disasters, and understanding human migration, among other activities (Lyall and Larsen Reference Lyall and Larsen2024, 333–334). As the use of the term “commons” can be controversial in space context particularly “global commons” (Hertzfeld et al. Reference Hertzfeld, Weeden and Johnson2015; Pace Reference Pace2017), it is important to note that the use of the term in this chapter does not attempt to limit how states may use the outer space environment, but rather uses the term with respect to space because space is available for use by all countries and data gathering from space affects all countries. It has been asserted that
“[g]lobal commons” is not some talismanic term that demands every utterance invoke Elinor Ostrom … Instead, it has multiple legitimate meanings, and they can apply to outer space in different ways. Outer space is a global commons in the sense of being a domain beyond national jurisdiction and with free and open access, but it is not a global commons in the sense of being commonly owned such that nations cannot assert private property interests in space resources.
It is essential to approach the use of the term “commons” in this chapter as providing opportunities rather than restrictions. Notably, the Outer Space Treaty does not use common heritage of mankind language, nor does it denote a special status to the physical domain of outer space (Hertzfeld et al. Reference Hertzfeld, Weeden and Johnson2015). Instead, in Article I, it denotes space activities as the “province of all mankind.” That said, the concept of a knowledge commons is far more contextually important here. A knowledge commons can be understood as “institutionalized community governance of the sharing and, in some cases, creation of information, science, knowledge, data, and other types of intellectual and cultural resources” (Dedeurwaerdere et al. Reference Dedeurwaerdere, Frischmann, Hess, Lametti, Madison, Schweik and Strandburg2014, 1). The institutionalization of remote sensing data about Earth gathered from space, through the United Nations (UN) and other organizations, has led to the formation of a massive knowledge commons which creates new information through continued analysis of the gathered data. The variety and volume of gathered data is enormous, and applications using differing tools and accessing multiple data sources have increased, leading to additional challenges in effectively using this data (Sudmanns et al. Reference Sudmanns, Tiede, Lang, Bergstedt, Trost, Augustin, Baraldi and Blaschke2020, 833).
7.2 Existing Legal/Normative Frameworks
7.2.1 Outer Space Treaty
When the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (hereinafter referred to as the Outer Space Treaty) came into force in 1967,Footnote 1 it created the basic legally binding framework under which actors operate in space to this day, and hopefully far beyond. Its predecessor was a nonbinding principles document, Resolution 1962: Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space (United Nations General Assembly 1963),Footnote 2 which helped to generate the consensus needed during the height of Cold War tensions to encourage and enable human endeavors in outer space. Resolution 1962 contained similar provisions to the Outer Space Treaty and helped start the process of crystallization into custom of several key principles, including freedom of access and use and nonappropriation (Lyall and Larsen Reference Lyall and Larsen2024, 50). While it is beyond the scope of this chapter to address all Outer Space Treaty principles, the ones with particular bearing on Earth observation (hereinafter EO) data are highlighted here.
Article I sets forth the most fundamental underlying rule in the international space law regime. It establishes, first and foremost, the freedom of exploration and use. Additionally, the benefit principle is derived from Article I, which requires that space activities “be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries.” The equal right to access space without discrimination for all states is reiterated. Additionally, provision is made to facilitate and encourage cooperation in scientific investigation of space. The obligations contained in this Article are foundational for EO activities. Data obtained from satellites in space is used for weather prediction and monitoring, disaster recovery, natural resource management, agricultural management, climate modeling, tracking human migration, and numerous other purposes (Lyall and Larsen Reference Lyall and Larsen2024). The right of all states to conduct these activities and the obligation for states to carry them out in a nondiscriminatory way while respecting the interests of all are critical when it comes to this kind of data that can be obtained from space.
It is worth noting that space is not the only jurisdiction in which freedom of access and use are mandated, while appropriation is prohibited as in Article II of the Outer Space Treaty. Both the high seas and Antarctica operate under regimes that are similar from that perspective.Footnote 3 That said, outer space does operate under a state responsibility regime that is unique in international law. This specialized regime is implemented through Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty, which mandates that states take legal responsibility for their national actors, including private entities, and conduct authorization and supervision for their activities (Cheng Reference Cheng1972). Notwithstanding the distinct nature of this attribution rule for outer space, the application of the law of state responsibility to space activities remains, in accordance with Article III of the Outer Space Treaty that otherwise incorporates general international law.
The application of the Article I benefit principle is widely debated among space law scholars (Matte Reference Matte1987, 319). Some argue that the requirement to act for the benefit of all countries has been broadly met by the improvements in daily life planetwide that have flowed from space activities, including not only the EO benefits mentioned above but also importantly precision navigation and timing, communications access, provision of telemedicine, as well as other services and spin-off technologies (Gorove Reference Gorove1971, 101). Others, however, argue that the often incidental benefit that has accrued does not meet the legal requirement, as the benefit principle has not been implemented with the appropriate level of intentionality.Footnote 4 Either interpretation has a reasonable basis (Lee Reference Lee2012, 157–159).
Likewise, the language in Article I addressing cooperative scientific endeavors is framed for facilitating and encouraging such endeavors, rather than using language of a more binding character. That said, in the view of this author, other clear obligations exist in Article I that protect key rights for states in terms of EO and its relevant data. First, there is an unambiguous requirement to permit use of a space on a nondiscriminatory basis, regardless of technological or economic development. Second, while the benefit principle may not expressly require active engagement to provide benefit to all for each individual activity conducted, it is obvious that a state cannot act knowingly against the interests of other states while complying with their pacta sunt servanda obligations to undertake treaties in good faith.Footnote 5 Thus, Article I provides a framework for nondiscriminatory use of EO data that does not knowingly contravene the interests of other states.
Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty mandates that states “shall conduct all their activities in outer space […] with due regard to the corresponding interests of all other States Parties to the Treaty.” Thus, the Treaty implements a balancing mechanism to maximize overall use of space. States’ free use of space is limited to the extent that such use takes into account the corresponding interests of other states (Harrington Reference Harrington2023). A useful formulation of the due regard principle was provided, though in a maritime context, by the tribunal in the Chagos arbitration: “‘due regard’ calls for the [State party] to have such regard for the rights of [another state party] as is called for by the circumstances and by the nature of those rights.”Footnote 6 Here, it is important to note that the consideration due is to those interests, rather than just the space activities of other states. Thus, a state carrying out an EO activity must provide reasonable regard for the interests of states that may be affected by the data collected.
Finally, Outer Space Treaty Article XI creates a legal environment that facilitates the importance of sharing of space data. The Article reads:
In order to promote international co-operation in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space, States Parties to the Treaty conducting activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, agree to inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations as well as the public and the international scientific community, to the greatest extent feasible and practicable, of the nature, conduct, locations and results of such activities. On receiving the said information, the Secretary-General of the United Nations should be prepared to disseminate it immediately and effectively.
While this requirement is clearly tempered by the feasibility and practicability language contained within (Keefe Reference Keefe1995, 351), the types of data collected by civil space agencies, at least, fall within this purview of required sharing, which has been generally respected. That said, it may not be feasible or practicable for private companies to freely share the data obtained from their space activities, and likewise with regard to sharing data that have particular pertinence to national security.
7.2.2 Remote Sensing Principles
The 1986 UNGA resolution Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer SpaceFootnote 7 (hereinafter Remote Sensing Principles) took fifteen years to negotiate and set the stage for enhanced data sharing within the scope of activities addressed (United Nations General Assembly 1986; Ito Reference Ito2011). Part of the reason for the long tail of time in reaching agreement on the Remote Sensing Principles is that it took that time to build consensus on the opinio juris that freedom to sense other states’ territories from space without authorization is legally permissible (Ito Reference Ito2011; Lyall and Larsen Reference Lyall and Larsen2024, 340–342). The scope of remote sensing activities addressed by the Remote Sensing Principles is limited to “sensing of the Earth’s surface from space by making use of the properties of electromagnetic waves emitted, reflected or diffracted by the sensed objects, for the purpose of improving natural resources management, land use and the protection of the environment,” thereby staying away from discussion of remote sensing data obtained for other purposes, including national security.Footnote 8 For the purposes of this chapter, the remote sensing activities discussed here are also limited to those conducted to sense Earth (excluding data gathered by the remote sensing of outer space, except for those data relevant to the Earth environment), but does not necessarily limit itself to data for the specific uses articulated in the Remote Sensing Principles.
While the Remote Sensing Principles are not a treaty and are thus not legally binding in and of themselves,Footnote 9 they have contributed to both the development of customary international law and states’ practice under the Outer Space Treaty (Aust Reference Aust2010). While the status of each principle as customary international law and/or an interpretive tool for the Outer Space Treaty in accordance with the custom articulated in Article 31(3) of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties is not essential to this chapter (Harrington Reference Harrington2017; Zannoni Reference Zannoni2019, 155–157; Lyall and Larsen Reference Lyall and Larsen2024, 344–345),Footnote 10 it is worth noting their status as “soft law,” though the distinction between hard and soft law is actually not decisive in determining legal character.Footnote 11 Soft law is generally viewed as a method to focus consensus, legitimize desired conduct, and create a positive environment for consistency in the relevant state practice (Cheng Reference Cheng1997). Many of the UN Remote Sensing Principles are “merely re-affirmations of existing rules of international law or provisions of existing treaties” (International Law Commission 2004, para. 9).
At the end of the negotiating process, the only (new) substantial benefit for sensed or non-sensing states derived from the UN Remote Sensing Principles is contained in Principle XII, which grants the sensed state data access rights on a nondiscriminatory basis (Cheng Reference Cheng1997), in addition to such reaffirmed rights as nondiscriminatory access to space and full sovereignty over the natural resources of a state, in Principles III and IV, respectively. These are clearer formulations of requirements embedded in Article I of the Outer Space Treaty and discussed earlier. Disclosure of remote sensing programs under the Principles and a specific call to disclose matters that may be detrimental to the Earth environment and natural disaster information are also useful to all states. Principle XIII requires consultations with a sensed state, but only upon request of the sensed state; this proposition could be tricky in cases where a state is unaware that it is being sensed. In such a case, the state would not know to make such a request (Harrington Reference Harrington2017). The Remote Sensing Principles and subsequent initiatives enabled by them further indicate very widespread support of data sharing for the purposes enshrined therein (Harrington Reference Harrington2017). In particular, Principle XI expressly sets out the protection of mankind from natural disasters as a purpose of remote sensing, and calls upon sensing states to release processed data and analyzed information to states affected by natural disasters or likely to be impacted by impending natural disasters.
One of the most important clarifications, however, found in the Remote Sensing Principles regards the status of data. Principle I(e) provides a definition of the term “remote sensing activities” as “the operation of remote sensing space systems, primary data collection and storage stations, and activities in processing, interpreting and disseminating the processed data.” While the Principles themselves are nonbinding, this definition provides clear evidence that they believe activities relating to collection, use, and storage of data fall within the scope of remote sensing activities, a covered space activity under the Outer Space Treaty. It may thus be argued that these data management activities are included as part of the national space activities of the state, and thus fall within states’ responsibility in accordance with Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty. These activities would also likewise be captured in other relevant sections of the Outer Space Treaty, including the Article I principles as well as the obligation to act with due regard in Article IX. Of course, however, this interpretation would only hold to the extent that its results are not absurd or manifestly unreasonable.Footnote 12
Additional definitions contained in the Remote Sensing Principles are helpful to understanding the nature of EO data in its many forms. Principle I provides definitions for each type of data within the scope of the Principles. These are primary data, processed data, and analyzed information. Primary data is the raw data collected, and though the Principles contemplate film and magnetic tape in addition to digital data transmitted through the radiofrequency spectrum, it is that digital data which is the almost exclusive form in the current day.Footnote 13 Processed data results “from the processing of the primary data, needed to make such data usable.”Footnote 14 And finally analyzed information includes the interpreted data that takes into account other sources of knowledge and information, which can include information produced by human manipulation and analysis of data, information produced by running data through existing software algorithms, and information produced by artificial intelligence analysis of data.Footnote 15 These definitions can help to conceptualize the wide variety of data that fall within the scope of this activity, some of which may involve significant human effort after the initial data collection, and some of which may be presented with the inclusion of implicit biases of human analysts and programmers.
7.2.3 International Charter on Space and Major Disasters
Under the Charter on Space and Major Disasters (hereinafter Disasters Charter), more than a dozen countries have committed space assets since 2000 to the continuing service of warning about and mitigating the effects of disasters (both natural and human-made) (The International Charter Space and Major Disasters n.d.; About the Charter n.d.). Parties to the Charter provide satellite data (processed and unprocessed) free of charge to countries (associated bodies and beneficiary bodies) affected by natural and technological disasters using a single point of contact (Lyall and Larsen Reference Lyall and Larsen2024, 354–355). The hundreds of activations since its inception indicate a consistent state practice on the part of sensing states to deploying assets and freely share data for the stated purpose (Activation List n.d.). Though the Charter itself is not a legally binding instrument, it acts as opinio juris, demonstrating the obligation of states with EO capabilities (or more specifically the agencies within those states) to deploy those capabilities to manage disasters threatening humankind (Activation List n.d., Art. I; Ito Reference Ito2005, 142).
7.2.4 United Nations Platform for Space-Based Information for Disaster Management and Emergency Response (UN-SPIDER)
Following the successful creation and implementation of the Disasters Charter, UN-SPIDER was subsequently created in January 2007, carrying out the agreement established by UN Doc. A/RES/61/110 (U.N., 2007; Lyall and Larsen Reference Lyall and Larsen2024, 356). The mission of UN-SPIDER is to “Ensure that all countries and international and regional organizations have access to and develop the capacity to use all types of space-based information to support the full disaster management cycle” and is the first such agreement to support the full cycle of disaster management. The creation of UN-SPIDER and its continued activities provide further evidence of state practice in the area of disaster management.
7.2.5 World Meteorological Organization Resolution 40
With regard to meteorological data, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), consisting of 191 member states, has established a policy of sharing of space-based meteorological data since 1995. Resolution 40 (WMO Policy and Practice for the Exchange of Meteorological and Related Data and Products including Guidelines on Relationships in Commercial Meteorological Activities) was used to foster sharing, and the WMO has further expanded this policy in a twenty-five-page document providing for the policy, practice, guidelines, and implementation of Resolution 40 (Resolution 40, n.d.).
The practices adopted by Resolution 40 are as follows:
1. Members shall provide on a free and unrestricted basis essential data and products which are necessary for the provision of services in support of the protection of life and property and the well-being of all nations, particularly those basic data and products, as, at a minimum, described in Annex 1 to this resolution, required to describe and forecast accurately weather and climate, and support WMO Programmes;
2. Members should also provide the additional data and products which are required to sustain WMO Programmes at the global, regional, and national levels and, further, as agreed, to assist other Members in the provision of meteorological services in their countries. While increasing the volume of data and products available to all Members by providing these additional data and products, it is understood that WMO Members may be justified in placing conditions on their re-export for commercial purposes outside of the receiving country or group of countries forming a single economic group, for reasons such as national laws or costs of production;
3. Members should provide to the research and education communities, for their non-commercial activities, free and unrestricted access to all data and products exchanged under the auspices of WMO with the understanding that their commercial activities are subject to the same conditions identified in Adopts (2) above (WMO, n.d.).
If Practice 2 is implemented in such a way that conditions on reexport for commercial purposes do not impinge the rights of sensed states, as established under the Remote Sensing Principles, then this Resolution and subsequent documentation further indicate very widespread support of data sharing for the purposes enshrined therein. Thus, another example of effective “soft law” implementation can be seen. Given the widespread membership of states in WMO, as well as the importance of weather forecasting, Resolution 40 has played an important role in creating a shared knowledge commons for EO data from space-based sources.
7.2.6 Long-Term Sustainability Guidelines
In 2018, the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space adopted the Guidelines for the Long-Term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities (hereinafter LTS Guidelines) by consensus (Commission on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space 2018). While many of these guidelines are focused on issues relating to safety of space operation and minimization of space debris, they do take into account the importance of space activities in achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals more broadly (Commission on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space 2018, 1; The 17 Goals, n.d.). Like the Remote Sensing Principles, the LTS Guidelines are nonbinding (Commission on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space 2018, Section I para. 15). In fact, they contain extensive discussion on their voluntary nature, which was necessary to build consensus for them (Commission on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space 2018, Section I paras. 16–20).
Two guidelines in particular contain subparts relevant to the governance of EO activities and remote sensing data. Guideline C.3.4 addresses sharing of data for disaster mitigation purposes.
States and international intergovernmental organizations should also undertake efforts to make relevant space-based information and data accessible to countries affected by natural disasters or other catastrophes, guided by considerations of humanity, neutrality and impartiality, and to support capacity-building activities aimed at enabling the receiving countries to make optimal use of such data and information. These space-based data and information with appropriate spatial and temporal resolution should be freely, quickly and easily available for countries in crisis.
This language continues to reinforce the legally binding data-sharing obligation of Outer Space Treaty Article XI, as well as the benefit principle from Article I. It also reinforces concepts found in the non-legally binding Remote Sensing Principles and Disasters Charter. Though the LTS Guidelines contain specific language indicating that they are not intended to interpret or modify existing international law, they still have value in showing consistent state views on these important matters of data commons.
Within Guideline C.4, both paragraphs 1(a) and 2 likewise address relevant matters, though these are not so specifically focused on data. In paragraph 1(a), states are called upon to “[p]romote institutional and public awareness of space activities and their applications for sustainable development, environmental monitoring and assessment, disaster management and emergency response” (Commission on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space 2018, Guideline C.4); while in paragraph 2, public awareness and education take the focus:
States and international intergovernmental organizations should promote public awareness of space applications for sustainable development, environmental monitoring and assessment, disaster management and emergency response through information-sharing and joint efforts with public institutions and non-governmental entities, taking into account the needs of current and future generations. In designing space education programmes, States, international intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental entities should pay special attention to courses on enhancing knowledge and practice of the utilization of space applications to support sustainable development. States and international intergovernmental organizations should initiate the voluntary collection of information on public awareness and education tools and programmes with a view to facilitating the development and implementation of other initiatives with similar objectives. (Commission on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space 2018, Guideline C.4.2)
Though the handling of the data themselves is certainly important, when considering the EO knowledge commons, it is necessary to engage in longer term planning to ensure public support and development of a future geospatial workforce. Importantly, paragraph 2 brings intergenerational equity into account when considering information-sharing efforts. Though not expressly mentioned in the early public international space law instruments such as the Outer Space Treaty, it has become clear that intergenerational equity is taking center stage, largely as a result of the consequences of anthropogenic climate change. Building the future workforce is another tool that can be used towards satisfaction of the benefit principle, in addition to providing substantive benefits to both sustainable development and disaster management. Though they are quite general and not highly technical, the LTS Guidelines contribute to the normative framework through which EO activities and associated data are understood.
7.2.7 Selected United Nations Efforts Regarding Climate Change
It is helpful to briefly mention the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992 (hereinafter Framework Convention) and associated efforts.Footnote 16 It seems remarkable that climate change garnered sufficient attention more than thirty years ago to produce the Framework Convention, but yet we are still in the relatively early stages of climate change mitigation. The Framework Convention emphasizes both intergenerational equity and the importance of acting with precaution.Footnote 17 Articles 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and especially 12 all contain elements of information sharing. Article 4 paragraph 1(g) specifically calls for the “development of data archives related to the climate system and intended to further the understanding and to reduce or eliminate the remaining uncertainties regarding the causes, effects, magnitude and timing of climate change and the economic and social consequences of various response strategies,” thus creating a specific knowledge commons. Article 5, paragraphs (a) and (b) call for support to further cooperative data sharing and collection efforts. Paragraph (b) promotes “access to, and the exchange of, data and analyses thereof obtained from areas beyond national jurisdiction.” Certainly, data collected from space falls expressly within the relevant purview of the Framework Convention, and thus this instrument plays an important role in our knowledge commons.
Within this framework exists the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) Programme, administered through the WMO (Global Climate Observing System n.d.). There are four main contributors to the satellite network of the programme, namely the Climate Change Initiative of the European Space Agency, the Copernicus Climate Change Service operated on behalf of the European Union, Climate Service EUMETSAT, and Earth Science Division of the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (GCOS Satellite Programs n.d.). The data from these networks, along with atmospheric, terrestrial, and ocean-based sources are used to measure the Essential Climate Variables to measure climate change. Meanwhile, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the UN body charged with assessing climate change-related science, including the data produced by the GCOS Programme (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change n.d.). One only needs to glance at the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) organizational chart to obtain a sense of the scale and complexity of intergovernmental agreements, organizations, and actors within the UNEP system (United Nations n.d.).
7.3 Organizations with Space Data Sharing Initiatives, a Sampling
While some organizations with space data sharing initiatives have been discussed in the context of legal and quasi-legal instruments normalizing space data commons, there are far more groups with various data sets, provided by various actors and for various purposes. This section endeavors to address some of these efforts to provide a sense for how extensive and potentially overlapping space data commons can be.
Though not entirely within the scope of the topic of this chapter, the International Asteroid Warning Network is an interesting example of a data commons using both ground-based and space-based data sources to provide information about outer space (International Asteroid Warning Network n.d.). The data in question specifically addresses naturally occurring Near Earth Objects that could pose a direct threat to Earth and Earth’s environment, which is why it is mentioned here.
The UN Development Programme Geographic Information System and Satellite Imagery Team (United Nations Development Programme Pacific Office 2020) works in cooperation with the UN Satellite Centre (UNOSAT) to provide specialized applications and data to countries in need (United Nations Satellite Centre n.d.; United Nations Institute for Training and Research 2019). Within UNOSAT’s primary mandate is to “support Member States with satellite imagery analysis over their respective territories and to provide training and capacity development in the use of geospatial information technologies, on the basis of voluntary contributions.” Thus, UNOSAT both analyzes and provides data directly while also performing other capacity-building efforts including workforce development. UNOSAT has also partnered with NVIDIA to utilize artificial intelligence in their efforts (United Nations Institute for Training and Research 2022).
Perhaps an unexpected addition to this list, the UN Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) endeavors achieve the goal of providing sustainable and adequate shelter for all people. So where does EO data fit in here (UN-Habitat n.d.)? UN-Habitat maintains the Earth Observation Toolkit for Sustainable Cities and Human Settlements, tied to UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11 (The Earth Observations Toolkit n.d.). “The primary motivation for this toolkit is to support local communities, cities and countries in understanding the value and usefulness of Earth observations for SDG 11 and the New Urban Agenda and to provide practical guidance and examples of Earth observation data, tools, and use cases in support of sustainable urbanization and resilience” (The Earth Observations Toolkit n.d.). This organization is highlighted as it offers a demonstration that EO data is aggregated, freely shared, and analyzed for purposes beyond weather/climate monitoring and disaster mitigation.
Likewise, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime plays a role in this knowledge commons as well, incorporating data obtained from remote sensing systems into their efforts to combat crime and drug trafficking (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime n.d.). Space-based data is essential for creating a safer human society in addition to managing the relationship of humans with our natural environment here on Earth. That said, this particular use of data can (reasonably) raise heightened concerns regarding its potential misuse by governmental entities or private bad actors. Privacy concerns are legitimate with the aggregation of any big data and must be considered with regard to human rights and data protection.
The World Health Organization (WHO) Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Centre for Health uses geospatial data to aid in effective and rapid decision-making in human health policy (WHO GIS Centre for Health n.d.). “By connecting maps, apps, data and people the WHO GIS Centre is dedicated to support countries and partners to make informed public health decisions faster and to extend the reach of geospatial information across the organization.” Not all countries are currently prepared to integrate GIS data into their public health system, so the services provided by the WHO GIS Centre help to equalize the health opportunities across countries of differing levels of development, a good example of space activities leading to benefit for all humankind.
UN Geospatial is made up of geospatial experts who use data, including EO data obtained from space, in support of all UN missions and mandates (United Nations Geospatial n.d.). Their objective is to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and universality with which geospatial data is applied to these ends (United Nations Geospatial n.d.). UN Geospatial is embedded in the Office of Information and Communications Technology (United Nations Office of Information and Communications Technology n.d.), which is a key player in the implementation of the Secretary-General’s Data Strategy (Secretary-General’s Data Strategy n.d.). The Data Strategy seeks to build “a whole-of-UN ecosystem that unlocks our full data potential” (United Nations Secretary n.d.). Implicit in the data strategy is a recognition of the complexity of the UN data gathering, management, and analysis apparatuses, and the inherent inefficiency that can arise among such a tangled web of organizational structures. At a fundamental level, the Data Strategy can be seen as a streamlining effort. The UN Global Service Centre (UNGSC) of the Department of Operational Support also plays a significant role in GIS through the UNGSC Service for Geospatial, Information, and Telecommunications Technologies (ITT), which “provides a direct single point of contact for digital technology services and solutions” (Geospatial, Information and Telecommunications Technologies n.d.; United Nations Global Service Centre n.d.).
The Group on Earth Observations (GEO) and its Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) play a vital role in the coordination and dissemination of the space-based environmental data commons (About GEOSS, n.d.). The participation of 152 partnering organizations, including intergovernmental, international, nongovernmental, and regional partners operating in EO and related spaces goes a long way to ensuring availability of data across these platforms and venues for sharing. The simple fact however, that there are indeed 152 of these organizations, which are inherently international groups, demonstrates the significant fragmentation of laudable efforts for sharing data. While many of the relevant groups are mentioned in this chapter for illustrative purposes, it is certainly not feasible to include description of all 152 organizations here.
UN Global Pulse, which is notably not a partner or GEOSS, identifies as itself as the innovation lab for the UN Secretary-General (United Nations Global Pulse n.d.). This office includes data and digital tools in its innovation portfolio, but its endeavors are far broader than just EO. UN Global Pulse may be an ideal place to continue to work on the problem, in cooperation with GEO, to simplify access to, tracking of, and analysis of EO data acquired from space-based sources.
7.4 Opportunities, Issues, and Recommendations
7.4.1 Opportunities
Many positive developments can be seen in the use of data obtained from space to better environmental conditions and human life on Earth. The UN SDGs, in particular, have catalyzed use of space data to achieve their goals (Commission on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space 2018, 1; The 17 Goals n.d.). The global nature of the SDGs requires a global data collection and management strategy. There is now wide availability of commercial data, much of it offered free of charge and with additional processing or analytical services provided. While the increasing incidence of natural and human-made disasters is, of course, tragic, their escalating pace and severity has raised awareness of the importance of working together. After all, no state is isolated from the possibility of such disasters, and the state that is a provider of data and services today may be the recipient of such when it inevitably faces one or more disasters in the future. Tragedy, while unfortunate, does bring people together to work for the common good.
Numerous efforts are aimed at capacity building, and not just providing data and analysis. While the proverb “give a man a fish, and he eats today; teach a man to fish and he eats for the rest of his life” is true, perhaps the better formulation is “give a man a fish today and then teach him how to fish, so he isn’t hungry today and is ready to learn the skills he needs for the rest of his life.” In terms of data from space, there has been clear effort to provide the initial fish, but also the fishing skills and equipment. Such capacity-building efforts contribute positively to data compatibility, as downstream experts and users will already be trained to produce data in a format that is more universally usable.
7.4.2 Issues
Despite, or perhaps because of, best efforts, the complexity of the data sharing environment is dizzying. It is possible to get lost in the array of arrangements and organizations who are standing by to provide data and/or analysis for a range of problems and under a variety of circumstances. These efforts have led to a fragmentation of data sharing, wherein dozens of organizations may be implicated in any one circumstance. The end user in need of data needs to be aware of where and how to obtain what they need. Smaller countries with lower budgets may struggle to allocate personnel who are prepared to navigate these complex systems. Technical challenges abound. “Developments of sensing observations and producing information from it need to be accompanied by suitable storage, processing and retrieval systems” (Sudmanns et al. Reference Sudmanns, Tiede, Lang, Bergstedt, Trost, Augustin, Baraldi and Blaschke2020, 844). The specific technical challenges regarding both hardware- and web-based systems are broadly beyond the scope of this chapter.
Though there is widespread agreement that states should help each other to mitigate disasters, forecast weather, and model climate change, geopolitical tension and security implications can and do still get in the way. Export controls are applied to satellite remote sensing technologies, making technology transfer and cooperation more difficult. Countries have a patchwork of laws governing the capture of EO data from space, limiting resolution either universally or in certain geographic areas and designating sensitive security zones for which images are often not legally available. These challenges arise even when all parties enter a situation in good faith and with the best intentions. Data just might not be available. Additionally, domestic legal systems may provide personal or institutional penalties for those who share technology or data in violation of these security rules, even if they do so unknowingly.
International competition and conflict have led to the breakdown of international cooperation. Mistrust is rampant, and states have less faith in international law to mitigate risks in the international system. Thus, political will for new treaties and even (to some extent) new soft law instruments has evaporated, allowing our international normative system to stagnate. Likewise, contentious domestic politics in many states have all but precluded the possibility of new treaty ratification, and even make the prospect of new domestic legislation difficult.
It would be unfair, however, to place all the blame on politics, governments, or intergovernmental complexity for these challenges. Proprietary commercial data can also serve as a roadblock to obtaining data that exists, but that is not available. Privatizing EO operations permits commercial control of data in general. Commercial companies do not inherently have the same incentives to share data as governments do, as owners or shareholders expect their companies to turn a profit. While making some data freely available is feasible, contributes to goodwill, and in some cases can lead to lucrative government contracts, there will always be a limit on what private companies will release for nothing, and how low their prices can be for data that is not freely given. After all, even the Remote Sensing Principles endeavor to set up a system where data are provided to sensed states on “reasonable cost terms.”Footnote 18 Even weather forecasting is increasingly being carried out by private companies (Cirac-Claveras 2019).
Of course, a lack of public awareness of the role space plays in day-to-day life and the benefits space has provided, increasing quality of life around the globe. Increasingly people, especially young people, push back on the value of “space exploration” – lacking an understanding of what a domestic space budget provides (Ramani Reference Ramani2023). Growing governmental domestic EO capabilities, or even the capacity for budgets to purchase EO data, can become challenging when constituencies do not understand the value of funding. The problem is exacerbated when such constituencies see space as an active detractor, a contributor to climate change rather than a set of activities and technologies that can significantly improve our ability to manage climate change as a species.
7.4.3 Recommendations
This chapter provides three key recommendations with regard to the management of the EO environmental data commons. First, public communication strategies need to be developed and implemented specifically with a focus on the benefits of EO data provided from space. The images offered by Maxar in the news following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine hinted at the usefulness of this data being available (SatNews 2022). The myriad other uses of data and imagery need to be made clear. The likelihood that the average person knows that space data can improve crop yields, map efficient routes, and contribute significantly to sustainable urban housing solutions is quite low. While maybe somewhat higher, it is likely that many people are either unaware or take for granted the extent to which weather forecasting and climate data is obtained from space. These communications campaigns can come from intergovernmental, nongovernmental, public, and private organizations, but should include a common message: Data from space are highly beneficial, especially when those data can be aggregated and shared.
Such a communications strategy would not only ease the path for space-related budget allocation, but (arguably) even more importantly, would pave the way for the next generation to prepare themselves to undertake careers in systems engineering, software development, and geographic information system applications. Without a sufficiently developed workforce of tomorrow, humanity cannot expect to continue to reap the benefits of the technologies we have developed. “The sheer amount of multi-dimensional and multi-temporal data, interdisciplinary research, and the dynamics of new developments, in general, makes sharing results, algorithms and knowledge between the experts of different fields and non-expert users essential” (Sudmanns et al. Reference Sudmanns, Tiede, Lang, Bergstedt, Trost, Augustin, Baraldi and Blaschke2020, 842). Thus, actual sharing of results should factor prominently in any communications campaign.
Of course, ensuring that capacity-building efforts take interoperability into account is essential, as is the continued organization and streamlining of international efforts for data sharing, primarily facilitated at the UN level and through GEOS. Capacity building efforts must likewise recognize that not all data are equal – a workforce needs to be prepared to manage raw, processed, and analyzed data, respectively. In particular, enlisting the efforts of UN Global Pulse in achieving these objectives, in line with the existing Secretary-General’s Data Strategy, is likely to prove highly beneficial. While some states may challenge the status of space as a global commons, it seems more difficult and less worthwhile to challenge the idea that data about our planet constitute a knowledge commons from which all of humanity should benefit (where feasible and practicable).
Open access