Setting the Scene
2 Feb 2026 14:05h - 14:20h
Setting the Scene
Session at a glance
Summary
Kent Bressie, representing the International Cable Protection Committee (ICPC), delivered a comprehensive presentation on the current state and challenges facing submarine cable infrastructure globally. He began by acknowledging the massive expansion in cable construction driven by increasing digital demands, artificial intelligence, and data center requirements, noting that the number of cables has grown significantly even since the previous year’s meeting in Abuja. Despite this growth, many parts of the world remain unconnected or have fragile connectivity that lacks resilience.
Bressie emphasized that approximately 70% of cable damage annually results from accidental causes like fishing activities and vessel anchoring, though intentional damage from bad actors also poses risks through equipment theft, infrastructure damage, and cyber attacks. He stressed the vulnerability of these cables, demonstrating that deep ocean fiber optic cables are only 17 millimeters in diameter, making them extremely fragile despite carrying critical global communications. The presentation included detailed statistics showing that in 2024, there were 204 cable repairs conducted across 136 jurisdictions, with 52% affecting service and the longest repair taking 947 days.
A key concern highlighted was that while the fault rate per route kilometer is decreasing due to better protection measures, repair times have doubled since 2012, primarily due to regulatory and permitting challenges rather than technical issues. Bressie noted significant global variation in repair efficiency, with countries like the United Kingdom and South Africa demonstrating best practices for quick repairs despite busy ocean areas. He concluded by emphasizing the critical need for regulatory certainty, international cooperation between governments and industry, and better understanding of cable protection requirements to maintain global digital connectivity.
Keypoints
Major Discussion Points:
– Submarine cable infrastructure and global connectivity: The presentation covers the extensive global network of submarine cables, highlighting rapid expansion (600+ cables) driven by digital demands, AI, and data centers, while noting that some regions remain unconnected or have fragile connectivity.
– Cable damage risks and causes: Discussion of the primary threats to submarine cables, with 70% of annual damage caused by fishing and vessel anchoring, plus emerging risks from seabed mining, climate change, and intentional damage, emphasizing how fragile these 17mm cables actually are.
– Repair challenges and regulatory barriers: Analysis of cable repair statistics showing that while fault rates per kilometer are decreasing, repair times have doubled since 2012 due to regulatory and permitting issues, with massive global variation in repair timeframes (longest delay: 947 days).
– Industry collaboration and best practices: Overview of the International Cable Protection Committee (ICPC) mission and their work with the ITU advisory body to develop comprehensive protection strategies, including pre-installation design, post-installation monitoring, and regulatory cooperation.
– Need for government-industry cooperation: Emphasis on the critical importance of regulatory certainty, international cooperation, and alignment between government policies and industry needs to ensure cable protection and resilient global connectivity.
Overall Purpose:
The discussion aims to provide stakeholders with baseline knowledge about submarine cable infrastructure, operational challenges, and protection needs to inform policy discussions and collaborative efforts between government and industry partners in ensuring global digital connectivity resilience.
Overall Tone:
The tone is professional, informative, and collaborative throughout. Kent Bressie maintains an educational approach while presenting technical data and statistics, expressing appreciation for partnerships and cooperation. The tone remains consistently constructive and solution-oriented, emphasizing shared goals between industry and government rather than adversarial positions.
Speakers
– Kent Bressie – Co-executive secretary, Legal advisor for ICPC (International Cable Protection Committee)
Additional speakers:
– Thomas Lamanowskis – Deputy Secretary General of the ITU, Co-executive secretary
– Doreen Bogdan-Martin – ITU Secretary General
– Professor Sandra Massimiano – Co-chair for the advisory body
– Minister Tajani – Co-chair for the advisory body
– Dean Viverka – Chairman (mentioned as providing a video message)
– Andy Palmer-Felgate – ICPC colleague who manages data gathering and analysis
Full session report
Kent Bressie, representing the International Cable Protection Committee (ICPC), delivered a comprehensive and data-driven presentation providing essential baseline knowledge about the current state, challenges, and protection requirements of global submarine cable infrastructure. Before beginning his main presentation, Bressie thanked co-executive secretary Thomas Lamanowskis (Deputy Secretary General of ITU), the ITU team led by Doreen Bogdan-Martin, co-chairs Professor Sandra Massimiano and Minister Tajani, and the ANACOM team. He specifically acknowledged that Professor Massimiano “set me up nicely with her comments about the importance of expertise and data.”
Massive Infrastructure Expansion and Global Connectivity Growth
Bressie highlighted the extraordinary scale of recent submarine cable development, describing it as a “ferocious amount of new construction” driven by exponential growth in real-time data demands, artificial intelligence applications, and data centre requirements. The rapid pace of expansion was evident in his observation that cable numbers had grown significantly even since the previous year’s meeting in Abuja, reaching over 600 cables globally. This growth represents new cables reaching previously unconnected parts of the world and providing redundancy to remote locations through second cable installations.
Despite this remarkable expansion, Bressie noted that significant portions of the world remain either completely unconnected or dependent on connectivity that lacks resilience, demonstrating the continued need for infrastructure development in underserved regions.
Physical Infrastructure Characteristics and Vulnerability
Bressie demonstrated the physical fragility of submarine cables by showing that a deep ocean fiber optic cable measures only 17 millimeters in diameter, explaining “this is the cable” – not bundled with hundreds of others as might be assumed. The communication stream is carried over thin glass fibers, with the remainder of the cable providing power conduction for amplifiers and basic protection. In coastal areas, cables may be armored with steel wire and buried when seafloor conditions permit, but the fundamental physical characteristics make them vulnerable to damage from maritime activities.
Comprehensive Risk Assessment and Damage Statistics
Bressie provided detailed analysis of the actual threat landscape facing submarine cables, presenting data showing that approximately 70% of cable damage annually results from accidental causes, primarily fishing activities and vessel anchoring. This contrasts with media coverage that emphasizes suspected cases of intentional damage, including equipment theft, infrastructure sabotage, and cyber attacks.
Bressie explained that the term “fault” in the industry refers to “an event that will eventually require a repair. It isn’t necessarily a complete breaking of the cable or severing of it.” He detailed how damage occurs across different ocean areas: territorial sea (12 nautical miles), exclusive economic zone (up to 200 nautical miles), and high seas (deep ocean), with most damage occurring in shallower waters.
Beyond traditional threats, Bressie identified emerging challenges from climate change and unpredictable weather patterns, seabed mining activities, and various forms of energy resource development that are increasing activity in ocean areas where cables are deployed.
ICPC Mission and Data Collection
Bressie outlined the ICPC’s role as an NGO with government observers, explaining his position as legal advisor alongside a marine science advisor. The ICPC maintains comprehensive datasets on submarine cable damage, collecting information from competitors while ensuring compliance with competition laws. This data collection provides detailed analysis of fault causes, repair frequencies, and geographic distribution of incidents that inform both industry practices and government policies.
The organization’s scientific approach extends to environmental considerations, as evidenced by their recent report on submarine cables and marine biodiversity developed in partnership with UNEP-WCMC. This enables the ICPC to participate effectively in international negotiations, including the recently entered-into-force BBNJ agreement governing activities on the high seas and seabed, and work with the International Seabed Authority.
Protection Requirements and Best Practices
Despite challenges, the fault rate per route kilometer is decreasing despite massive increases in cable deployments, indicating that improved protection methods and industry practices are proving effective. The industry has focused on geographic diversity in cable routing, with new routes being established in previously unserved areas, particularly in the southern hemisphere.
Bressie outlined comprehensive pre-installation and post-installation protection measures, ranging from detailed seafloor surveys and route optimization to ongoing monitoring and engagement with other maritime industries. These measures are documented in ICPC recommendations and best practices that provide detailed guidance for cable operators on protection strategies.
A significant development was the alignment between industry-developed best practices and recommendations adopted by the ITU advisory body. This convergence addressed concerns that industry recommendations merely reflected commercial interests rather than broader stakeholder concerns. The 12-page ICPC Best Practices document continues to be updated and translated into multiple languages, serving as a foundation for international cooperation on cable protection issues.
Critical Repair Challenges and Regulatory Barriers
The most concerning trend identified was the dramatic increase in cable repair times, which have doubled globally since 2012 despite technological advances. In 2024, there were 204 cable repairs conducted across 136 jurisdictions, with 52% affecting service delivery. Most alarmingly, the longest repair delay reached 947 days—nearly three years.
Bressie identified regulatory and permitting challenges as the primary driver of extended repair times, rather than technical limitations. These barriers include basic vessel permits, cabotage and flag-related restrictions, crew limitations, and customs procedures for moving materials and personnel for repair operations.
Global variation in repair efficiency provided both concerning evidence of the problem and encouraging examples of solutions. Countries such as the United Kingdom maintain short repair timeframes through efficient regulatory processes despite busy ocean areas with frequent cable damage. South Africa was highlighted as achieving the best repair rate globally for the second consecutive year.
Industry Collaboration and Maintenance Arrangements
The ICPC facilitates industry collaboration where competitors work together to share critical safety and protection information while complying with competition laws. This cooperation extends to maintenance arrangements, with different “flavors of zones where cable owners band together to contract with ship owners” and “private maintenance” options, ensuring repair capabilities are strategically positioned globally.
Bressie acknowledged Dean Viverka’s video message and Andy Palmer-Felgate’s work on data analysis, demonstrating the collaborative nature of the industry’s approach to addressing protection challenges.
Regulatory Certainty and Multi-Level Cooperation
Throughout his presentation, Bressie emphasized that regulatory certainty represents the most critical requirement for effective cable protection, building on Professor Massimiano’s earlier comments about the importance of expertise and data in policy development. This encompasses clear and consistent rules and efficient implementation mechanisms enabling rapid response to cable damage incidents.
Cooperation requirements extend across multiple levels: within governments for coordinated approaches across agencies; between neighboring governments and regional partners for shared maritime challenges; and between governments and industry to leverage technical expertise while meeting public policy objectives.
Future Challenges and Implementation
Looking forward, Bressie identified areas requiring continued collaboration between industry and government stakeholders. Implementation of the BBNJ agreement will require coordination to ensure new environmental protections do not compromise cable protection or repair capabilities. Growing interest in deep seabed mining necessitates ongoing engagement with the International Seabed Authority to develop appropriate coordination mechanisms.
The presentation highlighted opportunities for improving dissemination and utilization of cable protection data, enabling better-informed decisions about infrastructure development and protection measures. The ICPC’s partnerships with various UN agencies provide platforms for expanding collaborative approaches to emerging challenges in ocean governance and digital infrastructure protection.
Conclusion
Bressie concluded by acknowledging he had run “far over time” and expressed appreciation for the audience’s attention. He emphasized the ICPC’s desire to continue working with stakeholders on these critical issues. His presentation demonstrated that submarine cable protection represents a critical intersection of technical infrastructure management, international governance, and global digital resilience, requiring sustained commitment to regulatory reform, international cooperation, and evidence-based policy development to ensure the resilience of global digital communications infrastructure.
Session transcript
Good afternoon, Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen. It’s a pleasure to be here and to see many friends and to connect in person again with our partners. Just some brief thanks first to my co -executive secretary, the Deputy Secretary General of the ITU, Thomas Lamanowskis, with whom I have partnered a lot on these initiatives.
The rest of the ITU team, obviously led by Doreen Bogdan -Martin, our co -chairs for the advisory body, Professor Sandra Massimiano and Minister Tajani, and thanks to the team at ANACOM for putting on a great event here in this lovely city.
So, Professor Massimiano, set me up nicely with her comments about the importance of expertise and data. And what I’m going to do now is share a little bit of information so that everyone might have sort of some baseline background on the nature and extent of cables, operational issues and risks, and some of the challenges facing the industry that are being addressed through the work of the advisory body, and which we’re going to discuss in more detail in the panels starting later this afternoon and into tomorrow, and also some related issues with investment in the breakfast tomorrow.
And so just briefly, here you have a couple of maps showing the extent of cables in a couple of regions. There has been a ferocious amount of new construction of cables driven by… A plethora of things that are available in real time on our phones.
that are stored in data centers that are relying on artificial intelligence. As the ITU Secretary General had mentioned, the scale of the activity is enormous these days, and that is driving significant cable construction. The 600 number was a lot lower even when we were in Abuja a year ago.
And so we are seeing new cables in a lot of parts of the world that haven’t had cables before, and even remote places seeing a second cable. But there are still unconnected parts of the world, and those whose connectivity is not resilient and is fragile. So when we talk about the risks to cables, globally each year about 70 % of cable damage is due to fishing or vessel anchoring.
But there are a lot of other activities in the oceans and on shore. that can damage cables. And there are also actors who engage in intentional activities with equipment theft and intentional infrastructure damage, cyber attacks on the communication stream.
But it’s important, even with headlines right now about suspected cases of intentional damage, to remember that so much of what is going on is more of an accidental nature and that we can’t neglect resources to address those risks as well, particularly as countries become more interested in seabed mining, either in their areas of jurisdiction or on the seabed of the high seas, with different kinds of energy resource development, whether it’s hydrocarbons or renewables and the like.
And then the natural environment is changing with climate change and… more unpredictable weather, all of which can have big impacts on cables. And so with the ICPC, we worry a lot about all of that, in part because cables are really tiny and fragile.
So this is a 17 millimeter deep ocean fiber optic cable. This is it. This isn’t bundled together with a hundred of these to create a cable.
This is the cable. The communication stream is carried over these glass fibers. The rest of it is for conducting power, for amplifiers, and for protection.
In coastal areas, these might be armored with steel wire rod to make a greater circumference, and they might be buried if seafloor conditions permit. And so when we’re talking about these risks, it doesn’t take much from these activities to damage a cable like this. And that’s why cable protection and resilience in the event that one segment can’t be protected, having alternative paths and infrastructure is really critical.
So the ICPC has the world’s leading data sets about submarine cable damage and goes to great lengths to collect this in a way that complies with competition laws, because this information comes from competitors, but also to analyze it and publicize it.
And so this provides, and the term fault is used in the industry for an event that will eventually require a repair. It isn’t necessarily a complete breaking of the cable or severing of it, but that is the industry term. It’s possible in some cases if a cable is penetrated by seawater, it creates an electrical fault, but the cable may still operate for some time.
It still needs to be repaired. And so here we have information both about causes, where known or suspected, and also about particular fault types. The ICPC gathers a lot of this information from different maintenance zones around the world.
There are a couple different flavors of zones where cable owners band together to contract with ship owners to provide maintenance. In a particular zone with a ship kept in a port in that area, or vessel operators themselves that offer what’s referred to as private maintenance, where they have their own maintenance product and go out and shop that to customers.
In 2024, there were 204 repairs globally conducted in 136 jurisdictions. 52 % of those actually affected the service provided by the cable. The longest repair delay in those cases was 947 days.
So when we talk about delays and the loss of connectivity, that is really massive. But as our chairman, Dean Viverka, noted in his video at the beginning, the incidence of faults has not kept pace with the massive new deployments of cables. And so per route kilometer, we are seeing the fault rate actually drop.
So in terms of ocean areas, the busiest areas are closer to shore. So the blue in this pie graph represents the territorial sea that extends 12 nautical miles seaward. The exclusive economic zone, these are zones established under the Law of the Sea Convention and customary international law, the EEZ.
The EEZ is up to 200 nautical miles, and then beyond that is the high seas. which is really the deep ocean. That’s not where we’re seeing most of the damage.
It’s where the other human activity and the impact of weather and climate change and the like is occurring in shallower water. And here we have a global distribution of the repair frequency. It’s a little hard to read what some of the colorings represent.
But in the busiest ocean areas, we have the greatest number of repairs, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that there is always a big delay with the repair as well, which I’ll talk about at the end. So this is really the mission of the ICPC, is to address cable protection and resilience. I’m not going to go through all of this detail because I think Dean covered some of this in his video message at the beginning.
But we are an NGO, although we have government observers, and our mission is really to help identify and mitigate the risks of damage. and promote protection and resilience, and that includes legal and scientific components. I’m the legal advisor.
We have a marine science advisor. We participated in the negotiations over the BB &J agreement, which just entered into force last month, which will address all kinds of activities on the high seas and the seabed of the high seas. And so we’re very active also with the International Seabed Authority in addressing coordination with deep seabed mining.
So we have a lot going on. We have partnerships with other UN agencies, but much of our focus recently has been on the advisory body with the ITU. So what do we need for cable protection and resilience?
I think that Professor Massimiano really highlighted if you had to identify, if you had to identify one thing, regulatory certainty. is really critical, but also, as both Professor Massimiano and Minister Jani mentioned, cooperation. And that’s cooperation within governments.
That is cooperation between governments who are neighbors or in region, and that’s cooperation between governments and industry. I think there is greater awareness of the importance of cables. There’s still not great awareness of the technical characteristics people don’t really, in many cases, realize how tiny they are.
There’s a lot of cooperation in the industry, even among competitors, to ensure that resources are used to build and repair cables. And there needs to be a better understanding of the sources of threats and risks, which I summarized on my last slide. In the crowded oceans, there’s a need to engage a lot with other industries.
The ICPC is not the only . industry body like this. The ICPC is the global one.
We have regional cable protection committees in many parts of the world that focus on a lot of regional issues to try to address these in a more granular fashion. And a lot of it is engagement with other marine industries. And then much of my job is also promoting, as part of that regulatory certainty, the rule of law for the oceans.
Just briefly, the industry does a lot itself to try to design protection and ensure protection post -installation, but it needs governments to work with industry on the things that industry can’t address alone.
And so in terms of the pre -installation design protection activities, there’s a desire first to find the shortest route, but then to adjust it to a ensure that it is not exposed to unacceptable risks.
There’s also, within the last 15 years or so, a much greater focus on geographic diversity. The maps that I showed you at the beginning, there’s still a lot of clustering on cables on particular routes, but we’re seeing innovations with a lot of new routes that have never seen cables before, particularly in the southern hemisphere, and that will help to build resilience as well.
But there’s a lot of study, in addition to seafloor survey activities, to try to identify an appropriate route. And then there’s a whole laundry list of activities that cable operators use to address protection post -insulation. A lot of these are addressed in ICPC recommendations, which are documents facing toward the industry itself about what is recommended to ensure cable protection.
And then there’s a whole laundry list of activities that cable operators use to address protection post -insulation. And this ranges from placing cables on nautical charts, to placing cables on the ground, to engaging with other ocean industries, trying to maintain spatial separation where possible as a method of protection, and many others.
I’m not going to go through the whole list in the interest of time. So we had summarized some of our thinking about best practices, sort of our wish list, what we would like to see from governments, things that we as an industry can’t do on our own that would complement those pre -installation and post -installation protection activities.
And we summarized them in a 12 -page document called The Best Practices, which we continue to update, and we’ve translated into some languages other than English. But it establishes some baseline general principles for promoting cable protection, including really a comprehensive approach to risk, whether it’s accidental or intentional. and addresses other principles.
Again, you can find the best practices on our website, and we’re always happy to engage about these. In addition to the general principles, there are a lot of very specific best practices, and when you look side -by -side at the best practices and the recommendations that the advisory body adopted this morning, you’re going to see a lot of overlap, but also a lot of further elaboration because the advisory body had the involvement of many, many stakeholders, and in the past, a couple of people had sniped, well, the best practices, that’s what industry wants.
What does government think about that? Well, we have recommendations now that really reflect consensus views of industry and government participants about a way forward, and they’re very much aligned. Which is very exciting for us.
and it helps us get the message out. In our work with the ITU in this process, many more people have become aware of what the ICPC does, what expertise it can bring, and what data it has to help inform these activities. So just briefly, I’m going to share a few more statistics, if you’ll bear with me, because we have a lot of data, and I need to give a shout -out to my ICPC colleague, Andy Palmer -Felgate, who manages much of this data gathering and analysis for the ICPC.
But as I mentioned before, the fault rate per route kilometer is going down. So we are doing a better job of protecting cables, but where there is cable damage, it is taking twice as long as compared with 2012 to repair a cable globally on average. and it really is a regulatory issue.
There are also other factors. I don’t want to discount the availability and usage rates for cable ships, particularly in certain regions. There are a lot of complexities with maintenance, but permitting issues are whether it is basic vessel permits, it is cabotage flag -related restrictions, it’s crew restrictions, it’s customs issues, trying to get both material and crew in and out of particular, you know, you have to put into port somewhere to pick up and drop off people and repair materials.
And so that really is driving a lot of the increases in repair times. Here we have some other detail about some of the elements for the delays. But there’s massive variation globally in terms of repair times.
We have some countries, as I mentioned, that have a lot of cable breaks that nevertheless have short permitting timeframes. The United Kingdom is a good example of that, very busy, crowded ocean areas, but short repair timeframes. A number of these countries with short average permitting timeframes for repair are in Europe, but not exclusively.
South Africa actually has the best rate for the second year in a row. And so these kinds of things were very much a focus for working group one of the advisory body in looking at how can we improve the environment for repairs. Because a loss of connectivity, given our digital dependence, can be catastrophic.
And so again, we are already talking within the ICPC about how we can improve the environment for repairs. We might do a better job of disseminating some of this data so that stakeholders can make better use of it. But we have a lot of other resources that we also want others working with oceans and telecommunications issues to be aware of.
Our recommendations, again, are more industry -facing. We just released a new report addressing submarine cables and marine biodiversity. We did a lot of work.
This is a successor to a 2009 report with UNEP -WCMC, so another one of our UN agency partnerships. But it’s very much science -focused and meant to inform implementation of the BBNJ agreement. And so we referenced this a lot in a recent consultation, actually, with the UK government about how it’s going to implement its treaty obligations there.
And so this is a lot of the kind of activity that we do, whether it’s science or operations or law. And so we’re going to do a lot of work. We would like to continue to work with you all on this.
So I’ve run. far over time today, but I appreciate your time. Thank you.
Thank you.
Kent Bressie
Speech speed
138 words per minute
Speech length
2617 words
Speech time
1136 seconds
Submarine Cable Infrastructure and Global Connectivity – Ferocious amount of new cable construction driven by real-time data demands and AI, with cable numbers growing from 600 to higher levels in just one year
Explanation
Bressie argues that there has been massive growth in submarine cable construction due to increasing demands from real-time applications and artificial intelligence. The scale of this construction activity is enormous and continues to accelerate rapidly.
Evidence
Cable numbers grew significantly from 600 cables when they were in Abuja a year ago to higher numbers currently, driven by data stored in data centers relying on artificial intelligence and real-time phone applications
Major discussion point
Rapid expansion of submarine cable infrastructure
Topics
Information and communication technologies for development | The digital economy
Submarine Cable Infrastructure and Global Connectivity – New cables being deployed in previously unconnected parts of the world, including remote areas getting second cables for redundancy
Explanation
Bressie highlights that cable deployment is expanding to regions that previously lacked connectivity, with some remote areas now receiving multiple cables for improved resilience. This represents a significant improvement in global connectivity infrastructure.
Evidence
New cables are appearing in parts of the world that haven’t had cables before, and even remote places are seeing a second cable for redundancy
Major discussion point
Geographic expansion and redundancy in cable networks
Topics
Closing all digital divides | Information and communication technologies for development
Submarine Cable Infrastructure and Global Connectivity – Unconnected parts of the world still exist with fragile and non-resilient connectivity
Explanation
Despite the expansion in cable infrastructure, Bressie notes that significant gaps remain in global connectivity. Many regions still lack adequate cable connections, and existing connections in some areas remain vulnerable and unreliable.
Evidence
There are still unconnected parts of the world, and those whose connectivity is not resilient and is fragile
Major discussion point
Persistent digital divides and connectivity gaps
Topics
Closing all digital divides | Information and communication technologies for development
Cable Damage Risks and Causes – 70% of global cable damage annually is due to fishing or vessel anchoring, representing the primary accidental threat
Explanation
Bressie identifies fishing activities and vessel anchoring as the dominant causes of submarine cable damage worldwide. These accidental activities represent the most significant threat to cable infrastructure, far outweighing other causes.
Evidence
Globally each year about 70% of cable damage is due to fishing or vessel anchoring
Major discussion point
Primary causes of cable infrastructure damage
Topics
Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs | The enabling environment for digital development
Cable Damage Risks and Causes – Intentional damage including equipment theft, infrastructure damage, and cyber attacks poses growing concerns despite headlines focusing on suspected cases
Explanation
While intentional damage gets significant media attention, Bressie emphasizes that such activities represent a smaller portion of overall cable damage. He argues that resources must still be allocated to address accidental damage, which remains the predominant threat.
Evidence
There are actors who engage in intentional activities with equipment theft and intentional infrastructure damage, cyber attacks on the communication stream, but it’s important to remember that so much of what is going on is more of an accidental nature
Major discussion point
Balance between addressing intentional vs accidental cable damage
Topics
Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs
Cable Damage Risks and Causes – Climate change and unpredictable weather patterns create increasing natural environmental risks to cable infrastructure
Explanation
Bressie warns that climate change is creating new challenges for submarine cable protection through more unpredictable and severe weather events. The changing natural environment poses increasing risks that the industry must adapt to address.
Evidence
The natural environment is changing with climate change and more unpredictable weather, all of which can have big impacts on cables
Major discussion point
Environmental threats to cable infrastructure
Topics
Environmental impacts | Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs
Cable Damage Risks and Causes – Seabed mining and energy resource development activities present emerging threats to cable protection
Explanation
Bressie identifies emerging ocean industries as new sources of risk to submarine cables. As countries become more interested in extracting resources from the seabed, these activities create additional potential for cable damage that must be managed.
Evidence
Countries are becoming more interested in seabed mining, either in their areas of jurisdiction or on the seabed of the high seas, with different kinds of energy resource development, whether it’s hydrocarbons or renewables
Major discussion point
Emerging ocean industry threats to cables
Topics
Environmental impacts | The enabling environment for digital development
Cable Physical Characteristics and Vulnerability – Submarine cables are extremely fragile, with deep ocean fiber optic cables measuring only 17 millimeters in diameter
Explanation
Bressie emphasizes the surprising fragility of submarine cables by highlighting their small physical size. This tiny diameter makes cables vulnerable to damage from various ocean activities and underscores the need for protection measures.
Evidence
A 17 millimeter deep ocean fiber optic cable – this is the cable, not bundled together with a hundred of these to create a cable
Major discussion point
Physical vulnerability of submarine cables
Topics
Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs | Information and communication technologies for development
Cable Physical Characteristics and Vulnerability – The entire communication stream is carried over thin glass fibers, with the rest providing power conduction and protection
Explanation
Bressie explains the internal structure of submarine cables to illustrate their vulnerability. The actual data transmission occurs through delicate glass fibers, while the remainder of the cable’s small diameter is dedicated to power and protection systems.
Evidence
The communication stream is carried over these glass fibers. The rest of it is for conducting power, for amplifiers, and for protection
Major discussion point
Technical composition and vulnerability of cables
Topics
Information and communication technologies for development
Cable Physical Characteristics and Vulnerability – Coastal cables may be armored with steel wire and buried when seafloor conditions permit for additional protection
Explanation
Bressie describes how cables in coastal areas receive additional protection measures due to higher risk environments. These protective measures include steel wire armoring and burial, though they depend on suitable seafloor conditions.
Evidence
In coastal areas, these might be armored with steel wire rod to make a greater circumference, and they might be buried if seafloor conditions permit
Major discussion point
Enhanced protection measures for coastal cables
Topics
Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs
Cable Repair Statistics and Challenges – 204 global repairs were conducted in 136 jurisdictions in 2024, with 52% affecting cable service
Explanation
Bressie provides concrete statistics on the scale of cable repair activities worldwide, showing both the frequency of repairs needed and their impact on service. Over half of these repairs resulted in service disruptions for users.
Evidence
In 2024, there were 204 repairs globally conducted in 136 jurisdictions. 52% of those actually affected the service provided by the cable
Major discussion point
Scale and impact of cable repair operations
Topics
Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs | Monitoring and measurement
Cable Repair Statistics and Challenges – Repair times have doubled compared to 2012 levels globally, primarily due to regulatory and permitting issues
Explanation
Bressie identifies a concerning trend of increasing repair times, attributing this primarily to regulatory barriers rather than technical challenges. This represents a significant deterioration in the repair environment that affects global connectivity resilience.
Evidence
It is taking twice as long as compared with 2012 to repair a cable globally on average, and it really is a regulatory issue. Permitting issues include basic vessel permits, cabotage flag-related restrictions, crew restrictions, customs issues
Major discussion point
Regulatory barriers increasing repair times
Topics
The enabling environment for digital development | Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs
Cable Repair Statistics and Challenges – The longest repair delay reached 947 days, demonstrating massive connectivity loss potential
Explanation
Bressie highlights an extreme case of repair delay to illustrate the potential severity of connectivity loss. This nearly three-year delay demonstrates how regulatory and logistical challenges can result in prolonged service disruptions.
Evidence
The longest repair delay in those cases was 947 days. So when we talk about delays and the loss of connectivity, that is really massive
Major discussion point
Extreme cases of repair delays and connectivity loss
Topics
Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs | Closing all digital divides
Cable Repair Statistics and Challenges – Fault rate per route kilometer is actually decreasing despite increased cable deployments
Explanation
Bressie presents a positive trend showing that the cable industry is becoming more effective at protection despite massive expansion. While absolute numbers of incidents may increase, the rate of problems per unit of cable infrastructure is improving.
Evidence
The incidence of faults has not kept pace with the massive new deployments of cables. Per route kilometer, we are seeing the fault rate actually drop
Major discussion point
Improving cable protection effectiveness
Topics
Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs | Monitoring and measurement
Regulatory and Cooperation Requirements – Regulatory certainty is the most critical need for cable protection, along with cooperation within and between governments
Explanation
Bressie identifies regulatory certainty as the single most important factor for effective cable protection, building on earlier comments from other speakers. He emphasizes that this must be coupled with cooperation at multiple levels of government.
Evidence
Professor Massimiano really highlighted if you had to identify one thing, regulatory certainty is really critical, but also cooperation within governments and between governments who are neighbors or in region
Major discussion point
Critical importance of regulatory certainty and cooperation
Topics
The enabling environment for digital development | Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs
Regulatory and Cooperation Requirements – Cooperation between governments and industry is essential for addressing protection challenges that industry cannot solve alone
Explanation
Bressie argues that effective cable protection requires partnership between public and private sectors. Many protection challenges require government action and cannot be addressed through industry efforts alone.
Evidence
There needs to be cooperation between governments and industry. Industry needs governments to work with industry on the things that industry can’t address alone
Major discussion point
Public-private partnership necessity for cable protection
Topics
The enabling environment for digital development | Financial mechanisms
Regulatory and Cooperation Requirements – Better understanding of technical characteristics and threat sources is needed among stakeholders
Explanation
Bressie identifies a knowledge gap among stakeholders regarding the technical realities of submarine cables and the various threats they face. This lack of understanding hampers effective protection efforts and policy development.
Evidence
There’s still not great awareness of the technical characteristics people don’t really, in many cases, realize how tiny they are. There needs to be a better understanding of the sources of threats and risks
Major discussion point
Need for improved stakeholder awareness and understanding
Topics
Capacity development | Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs
Industry Protection Measures and Best Practices – Pre-installation design focuses on shortest routes while avoiding unacceptable risks, with increased emphasis on geographic diversity
Explanation
Bressie describes how the industry balances efficiency with risk management in cable route planning. There has been a shift toward geographic diversity in recent years to improve overall network resilience, even if it means longer routes.
Evidence
There’s a desire first to find the shortest route, but then to adjust it to ensure that it is not exposed to unacceptable risks. Within the last 15 years or so, a much greater focus on geographic diversity, with innovations with new routes in the southern hemisphere
Major discussion point
Evolution in cable route planning and design
Topics
Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs | The enabling environment for digital development
Industry Protection Measures and Best Practices – Post-installation protection includes nautical chart placement, spatial separation, and engagement with other ocean industries
Explanation
Bressie outlines the various measures the cable industry takes after installation to protect infrastructure. These measures focus on making cables visible to other ocean users and maintaining safe distances from potentially damaging activities.
Evidence
Placing cables on nautical charts, engaging with other ocean industries, trying to maintain spatial separation where possible as a method of protection, and many others
Major discussion point
Comprehensive post-installation protection strategies
Topics
Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs | The enabling environment for digital development
Industry Protection Measures and Best Practices – ICPC best practices document provides comprehensive approach to risk management that aligns with ITU advisory body recommendations
Explanation
Bressie highlights the alignment between industry-developed best practices and broader stakeholder recommendations developed through the ITU process. This convergence validates the industry approach while incorporating broader perspectives from government and other stakeholders.
Evidence
When you look side-by-side at the best practices and the recommendations that the advisory body adopted this morning, you’re going to see a lot of overlap, but also further elaboration because the advisory body had involvement of many stakeholders
Major discussion point
Convergence of industry and multi-stakeholder approaches
Topics
The enabling environment for digital development | The development of the WSIS framework
Industry Protection Measures and Best Practices – Industry collaboration among competitors ensures efficient resource use for cable building and repair operations
Explanation
Bressie describes how cable companies work together despite being competitors to ensure efficient use of resources for construction and repair. This cooperation is essential for maintaining global connectivity infrastructure effectively.
Evidence
There’s a lot of cooperation in the industry, even among competitors, to ensure that resources are used to build and repair cables. Cable owners band together to contract with ship owners to provide maintenance
Major discussion point
Industry cooperation despite competitive relationships
Topics
The enabling environment for digital development | Financial mechanisms
Agreements
Agreement points
Regulatory certainty is the most critical requirement for effective cable protection
Speakers
– Kent Bressie
Arguments
Regulatory certainty is the most critical need for cable protection, along with cooperation within and between governments
Summary
Bressie emphasizes regulatory certainty as the single most important factor for cable protection, building on earlier speakers’ comments about the importance of expertise and data
Topics
The enabling environment for digital development | Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs
Cooperation at multiple levels is essential for addressing cable protection challenges
Speakers
– Kent Bressie
Arguments
Cooperation between governments and industry is essential for addressing protection challenges that industry cannot solve alone
Regulatory certainty is the most critical need for cable protection, along with cooperation within and between governments
Summary
There is strong emphasis on the need for cooperation within governments, between neighboring governments, and between governments and industry to address cable protection effectively
Topics
The enabling environment for digital development | Financial mechanisms
Industry and multi-stakeholder approaches are converging on cable protection best practices
Speakers
– Kent Bressie
Arguments
ICPC best practices document provides comprehensive approach to risk management that aligns with ITU advisory body recommendations
Summary
Bressie highlights the alignment between industry-developed best practices and broader stakeholder recommendations developed through the ITU process, showing convergence of approaches
Topics
The enabling environment for digital development | The development of the WSIS framework
Similar viewpoints
There is insufficient awareness among stakeholders about the technical realities and vulnerabilities of submarine cable infrastructure, which hampers effective protection efforts
Speakers
– Kent Bressie
Arguments
Better understanding of technical characteristics and threat sources is needed among stakeholders
Submarine cables are extremely fragile, with deep ocean fiber optic cables measuring only 17 millimeters in diameter
Topics
Capacity development | Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs
Effective cable protection requires collaboration both within the industry among competitors and between industry and government sectors
Speakers
– Kent Bressie
Arguments
Industry collaboration among competitors ensures efficient resource use for cable building and repair operations
Cooperation between governments and industry is essential for addressing protection challenges that industry cannot solve alone
Topics
The enabling environment for digital development | Financial mechanisms
Unexpected consensus
Accidental damage remains the primary threat despite media focus on intentional attacks
Speakers
– Kent Bressie
Arguments
70% of global cable damage annually is due to fishing or vessel anchoring, representing the primary accidental threat
Intentional damage including equipment theft, infrastructure damage, and cyber attacks poses growing concerns despite headlines focusing on suspected cases
Explanation
Despite significant media attention on suspected intentional cable damage, Bressie emphasizes that accidental damage from fishing and anchoring remains the dominant threat at 70% of all incidents. This represents an unexpected consensus that resources should not be diverted entirely from addressing accidental damage despite security concerns
Topics
Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs
Cable protection effectiveness is improving despite infrastructure expansion
Speakers
– Kent Bressie
Arguments
Fault rate per route kilometer is actually decreasing despite increased cable deployments
Explanation
Unexpectedly, despite massive expansion in cable infrastructure and increasing absolute numbers of incidents, the industry is becoming more effective at protection with fault rates per kilometer actually declining
Topics
Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs | Monitoring and measurement
Overall assessment
Summary
The presentation demonstrates strong internal consistency in Bressie’s arguments about the need for regulatory certainty, multi-level cooperation, and balanced approaches to cable protection. There is clear alignment between industry best practices and broader stakeholder recommendations developed through international processes. The emphasis on data-driven approaches and the convergence of industry and government perspectives suggests a mature understanding of the challenges.
Consensus level
High level of internal consensus within the presentation, with Bressie’s arguments building coherently on each other and referencing alignment with other stakeholders mentioned earlier. The implications are positive for developing effective cable protection frameworks, as the convergence of industry and multi-stakeholder approaches provides a solid foundation for policy development and implementation.
Differences
Different viewpoints
Unexpected differences
Overall assessment
Summary
No disagreements identified as this transcript contains a single speaker presentation rather than a multi-speaker debate or discussion
Disagreement level
No disagreement present – this is an informational presentation by Kent Bressie about submarine cable infrastructure, protection measures, and industry challenges. The speaker references alignment and consensus with other stakeholders (Professor Massimiano, Minister Tajani, ITU advisory body) rather than presenting conflicting viewpoints.
Partial agreements
Partial agreements
Similar viewpoints
There is insufficient awareness among stakeholders about the technical realities and vulnerabilities of submarine cable infrastructure, which hampers effective protection efforts
Speakers
– Kent Bressie
Arguments
Better understanding of technical characteristics and threat sources is needed among stakeholders
Submarine cables are extremely fragile, with deep ocean fiber optic cables measuring only 17 millimeters in diameter
Topics
Capacity development | Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs
Effective cable protection requires collaboration both within the industry among competitors and between industry and government sectors
Speakers
– Kent Bressie
Arguments
Industry collaboration among competitors ensures efficient resource use for cable building and repair operations
Cooperation between governments and industry is essential for addressing protection challenges that industry cannot solve alone
Topics
The enabling environment for digital development | Financial mechanisms
Takeaways
Key takeaways
Submarine cable infrastructure is experiencing massive growth driven by real-time data demands and AI, but significant vulnerabilities remain due to the physical fragility of cables (only 17mm diameter)
70% of cable damage is accidental (fishing/anchoring), not intentional, requiring continued focus on addressing these routine risks alongside security concerns
Cable repair times have doubled since 2012 primarily due to regulatory and permitting delays, not technical issues, with some repairs taking up to 947 days
Regulatory certainty and multi-level cooperation (within governments, between governments, and between government and industry) are the most critical needs for cable protection
The fault rate per route kilometer is actually decreasing despite increased deployments, indicating improved protection methods are working
Geographic diversity in cable routing is increasing, with new cables reaching previously unconnected areas and providing redundancy to remote locations
Industry best practices align well with ITU advisory body recommendations, demonstrating consensus between industry and government stakeholders
Resolutions and action items
Continue updating and translating ICPC best practices document to reach broader stakeholder audiences
Improve dissemination of repair time and permitting data to help stakeholders make better decisions
Maintain ongoing work with UN agencies and the International Seabed Authority on deep seabed mining coordination
Continue partnership with ITU advisory body to implement the recommendations adopted that morning
Engage with other marine industries to address protection issues in crowded ocean areas
Unresolved issues
How to address the doubling of repair times and lengthy permitting processes across different jurisdictions
Managing emerging threats from seabed mining and energy resource development activities
Addressing connectivity gaps in unconnected parts of the world with fragile infrastructure
Balancing resources between addressing accidental damage (70% of incidents) and intentional threats that receive more media attention
Improving availability and usage rates for cable ships, particularly in certain regions
Standardizing permitting processes across the 136 jurisdictions where repairs were conducted in 2024
Suggested compromises
None identified
Thought provoking comments
But it’s important, even with headlines right now about suspected cases of intentional damage, to remember that so much of what is going on is more of an accidental nature and that we can’t neglect resources to address those risks as well
Speaker
Kent Bressie
Reason
This comment is insightful because it challenges the prevailing narrative focus on intentional cable damage (likely referring to geopolitical sabotage) and redirects attention to the statistical reality that 70% of cable damage is accidental. It demonstrates critical thinking by separating media sensationalism from operational data.
Impact
This reframing shifted the discussion from a security-focused perspective to a more comprehensive risk management approach, setting up the foundation for discussing diverse threats including fishing, anchoring, seabed mining, and climate change impacts.
So this is a 17 millimeter deep ocean fiber optic cable. This is it. This isn’t bundled together with a hundred of these to create a cable. This is the cable.
Speaker
Kent Bressie
Reason
This physical description is thought-provoking because it dramatically illustrates the vulnerability paradox – that global digital infrastructure depends on something incredibly fragile. The emphasis on the tiny size challenges assumptions about the robustness of international communications infrastructure.
Impact
This tangible detail fundamentally changed the context for understanding all subsequent risk discussions, making the vulnerability concrete rather than abstract and explaining why seemingly minor maritime activities can cause major disruptions.
The longest repair delay in those cases was 947 days. So when we talk about delays and the loss of connectivity, that is really massive.
Speaker
Kent Bressie
Reason
This statistic is striking because it reveals that cable repairs can take nearly three years, which seems almost incomprehensible in our digitally dependent world. It highlights a critical gap between our expectations of instant connectivity and the reality of infrastructure maintenance.
Impact
This data point elevated the urgency of the entire discussion, transforming it from a technical presentation into a critical infrastructure resilience issue. It provided concrete justification for all subsequent policy recommendations.
But where there is cable damage, it is taking twice as long as compared with 2012 to repair a cable globally on average. and it really is a regulatory issue.
Speaker
Kent Bressie
Reason
This insight is particularly thought-provoking because it identifies that while technology and protection methods are improving (fault rates per kilometer are decreasing), regulatory bureaucracy is actually making the problem worse over time. It reveals an unexpected inverse relationship between technological progress and operational efficiency.
Impact
This observation shifted the discussion from technical solutions to governance and policy reform, highlighting that the primary bottleneck isn’t engineering but administrative processes across multiple jurisdictions.
We have some countries… that have a lot of cable breaks that nevertheless have short permitting timeframes. The United Kingdom is a good example of that, very busy, crowded ocean areas, but short repair timeframes… South Africa actually has the best rate for the second year in a row.
Speaker
Kent Bressie
Reason
This comparison is insightful because it demonstrates that regulatory efficiency isn’t correlated with economic development or maritime traffic volume, challenging assumptions about which countries would be best at managing this infrastructure. It provides concrete proof that good governance practices can overcome geographic disadvantages.
Impact
This evidence-based comparison provided a roadmap for policy solutions, showing that regulatory best practices can be identified, measured, and potentially replicated across different jurisdictions.
Overall assessment
These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by systematically deconstructing common assumptions about submarine cable infrastructure. Bressie’s presentation moved the conversation from abstract policy discussions to concrete, data-driven problem identification. His insights created a logical progression: first establishing the counterintuitive nature of cable vulnerabilities (accidental vs. intentional damage, tiny physical size), then quantifying the real-world consequences (multi-year repair delays), and finally identifying the root cause (regulatory inefficiency rather than technical limitations). This structure transformed what could have been a technical briefing into a compelling case for specific policy reforms, with clear examples of successful governance models to emulate. The overall impact was to elevate submarine cable protection from a niche industry concern to a critical infrastructure governance issue requiring immediate international attention.
Follow-up questions
How can we improve the environment for cable repairs and reduce repair timeframes?
Speaker
Kent Bressie
Explanation
This is critical because repair times have doubled since 2012 globally on average, with the longest repair delay being 947 days, which can be catastrophic given our digital dependence
How can we better disseminate cable damage and repair data so that stakeholders can make better use of it?
Speaker
Kent Bressie
Explanation
The ICPC has extensive data sets about submarine cable damage but acknowledges they might need to do a better job of sharing this information with relevant stakeholders
How to address coordination between submarine cables and deep seabed mining activities?
Speaker
Kent Bressie
Explanation
This is becoming increasingly important as countries become more interested in seabed mining, which poses new risks to submarine cable infrastructure
How to improve regulatory processes for cable repairs, including permitting, vessel permits, cabotage restrictions, crew restrictions, and customs issues?
Speaker
Kent Bressie
Explanation
Regulatory issues are a major factor driving increases in repair times, with massive variation globally in repair timeframes due to different regulatory environments
How to implement the BBNJ agreement obligations related to submarine cables and marine biodiversity?
Speaker
Kent Bressie
Explanation
The BBNJ agreement just entered into force and will address activities on the high seas and seabed, requiring implementation guidance for submarine cable considerations
How to address the availability and usage rates for cable ships, particularly in certain regions?
Speaker
Kent Bressie
Explanation
This is identified as one of the factors contributing to longer repair times, alongside regulatory issues, and needs to be addressed to improve cable maintenance
Disclaimer: This is not an official session record. DiploAI generates these resources from audiovisual recordings, and they are presented as-is, including potential errors. Due to logistical challenges, such as discrepancies in audio/video or transcripts, names may be misspelled. We strive for accuracy to the best of our ability.
Related event
International Submarine Cable Resilience Summit 2026
2 Feb 2026 13:00h - 3 Feb 2026 16:00h
Porto, Portugal