Panel 4 – Legal and Regulatory Frameworks for Cable Protection

Summary

This panel discussion focused on legal and regulatory frameworks for submarine cable protection. Experts from various countries and organizations discussed challenges and potential solutions for improving cable security and resilience.

Key issues highlighted included the need for streamlined permitting processes, both for new cable installations and repairs. Panelists noted that complex, multi-jurisdictional permitting requirements often cause delays and increased costs. There was consensus that governments should view submarine cables as critical national infrastructure rather than revenue sources, and adjust policies accordingly.

The importance of public-private partnerships and international cooperation was emphasized. Panelists suggested creating centralized “one-stop shops” for permitting and improving coordination between national and local authorities. The need to raise awareness about cable importance among policymakers and other stakeholders was also discussed.

Several speakers highlighted the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as an important foundation, but noted many countries have not fully implemented its provisions. There were calls to update and expand on UNCLOS given technological changes since its adoption.

Panelists shared examples of best practices, including Australia’s cable protection zones and the Netherlands’ efforts to create a unified national approach. The discussion emphasized the need for holistic strategies addressing governance, monitoring, crisis management, and international partnerships.

Overall, participants agreed that protecting submarine cables requires ongoing collaboration between industry and government, as well as efforts to change how cables are perceived as critical infrastructure. The panel concluded by noting the advisory body’s potential role in developing actionable recommendations to improve legal and regulatory frameworks globally.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The need for improved legal and regulatory frameworks to protect submarine cables

– Challenges with permitting processes for cable installation and repair

– The importance of public-private collaboration and information sharing

– Recognizing submarine cables as critical national/international infrastructure

– Regional and international coordination on cable protection measures

Overall purpose/goal:

The purpose of this panel discussion was to examine legal and regulatory approaches for protecting submarine cables, identify challenges, and discuss potential solutions and best practices that could be implemented globally.

Tone:

The tone was professional and collaborative throughout. Panelists spoke candidly about challenges but maintained an optimistic and solution-oriented approach. There was a sense of urgency about the need to improve cable protection measures, balanced with recognition of the complexities involved in coordinating across jurisdictions and stakeholders.

Speakers

– Robert Pepper: Senior fellow at the Global Digital Inclusion Partnership (GDIP), focusing on digital infrastructure and internet policy

– Ernst Noorman: Ambassador at large for foreign affairs, Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs

– Luke Slattery: Director of telecommunications policy, Office of the Pacific, Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

– Anna Butchar: Head of UK security policy for subsea telecommunications cables, Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology

– Douglas Njenga: Director of regulatory and strategic affairs, WIOCC group

– Jane Munga: Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, leads technology stream for Africa program

Additional speakers:

– Announcer: No role/title mentioned

– Audience members: No roles/titles mentioned

Legal and Regulatory Frameworks for Submarine Cable Protection

This panel discussion brought together experts from various countries and organizations to examine legal and regulatory approaches for protecting submarine cables, identify challenges, and discuss potential solutions and best practices that could be implemented globally. The tone was professional and collaborative throughout, with panelists speaking candidly about challenges while maintaining an optimistic and solution-oriented approach.

Key Issues and Challenges

The discussion highlighted several critical issues in submarine cable protection:

1. Permitting Processes: Panelists agreed on the need for streamlined permitting processes for both new cable installations and repairs. Complex, multi-jurisdictional requirements often cause delays and increased costs. Different approaches were suggested:

– Douglas Njenga proposed shifting the burden to governments assessing projects rather than companies proving need.

– Anna Butchar emphasized streamlining processes for both new cables and repairs.

– Luke Slattery advocated for establishing protection zones to streamline processes and increase security.

2. Critical Infrastructure Recognition: There was consensus that governments should view submarine cables as critical national infrastructure rather than revenue sources, and adjust policies accordingly. An audience member mentioned that Nigeria had recently declared submarine cables as critical national infrastructure.

3. Legal Frameworks: Several speakers highlighted the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as an important foundation but noted many countries have not fully implemented its provisions. Douglas Njenga provocatively stated, “UNCLOS is a 1982 legislation, it’s high time that we shouldn’t be truly just leaning on UNCLOS as the basis for protecting our own infrastructure.” This comment led to discussions about the need for updated legal frameworks to address modern challenges.

4. Regional Disparities: Douglas Njenga highlighted stark contrasts between different regions’ approaches, noting, “Singapore is a good example. The current crisis is congestion of submarine cables. Yet in Africa, the countries that don’t have even one, there’s countries that give submarine landing permits that are a million dollars a permit, right?” He also mentioned the West Indian Cable Company (WIOC) and their investment in submarine cables, illustrating the varied landscape of cable infrastructure globally.

Proposed Solutions and Best Practices

Panelists offered various solutions and best practices to address these challenges:

1. Public-Private Collaboration: All speakers emphasized the importance of collaboration between government and industry, though they proposed different mechanisms:

– Ernst Noorman advocated for creating public-private partnerships and sharing information.

– Luke Slattery suggested engaging in ongoing dialogue with industry through advisory bodies.

– Douglas Njenga focused on prevention, accountability, and collaboration to reduce cable cuts.

2. Comprehensive National Strategies: Ernst Noorman and Luke Slattery both advocated for comprehensive national strategies to protect submarine cables. Noorman detailed the Netherlands’ implementation of a five-point approach:

a) Designating cables as vital infrastructure

b) Establishing a governance structure

c) Creating a risk assessment framework

d) Developing mitigation measures

e) Implementing continuous monitoring and improvement

Slattery highlighted Australia’s cable protection zones and the establishment of the Cable Connectivity and Resilience Centre.

3. Awareness and Education: Jane Munga and Robert Pepper emphasized the importance of educating policymakers and government staff about the technical aspects and ecosystem of submarine cables to improve decision-making and processes.

4. Balanced Legislation: Anna Butchar stressed the need to “balance legislation to encourage good behavior without unintended consequences,” while Douglas Njenga suggested focusing on “prevention, accountability and collaboration” to reduce cable cuts.

5. Centralised Permitting: Panelists suggested creating centralized “one-stop shops” for permitting and improving coordination between national and local authorities.

6. Improved Cable Protection: There was discussion on the need for manufacturers to improve cable protection against various threats, including seismic activity and animal damage.

Areas of Agreement and Disagreement

The main areas of agreement included the importance of collaboration between government and industry, the need for streamlined permitting processes, and the recognition of submarine cables as critical infrastructure. There was also consensus on the need for comprehensive national strategies and education of policymakers on technical aspects of submarine cables.

However, there were some differences in approach, particularly regarding:

1. The specific mechanisms for improving permitting processes

2. The focus of regulatory efforts (e.g., universal access vs. protecting existing infrastructure)

3. The exact nature of collaboration between government and industry

These differences reflect the complexity of the topic and the varied experiences and perspectives of the speakers from different countries and organizations.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The panel concluded by noting the advisory body’s potential role in developing actionable recommendations to improve legal and regulatory frameworks globally. The discussion emphasized that protecting submarine cables requires ongoing collaboration between industry and government, as well as efforts to change how cables are perceived as critical infrastructure.

Several follow-up questions and topics were raised, including:

1. How to organize regional bodies and conferences to discuss submarine cable protection in Africa, as suggested by Jane Munga

2. Ways to streamline and centralize the permitting process within countries

3. Policy changes needed to make cable protection zone regulations enforceable for foreign-flagged vessels

4. How to enact laws deterring other marine users from damaging submarine cables

5. Methods for better incorporating industry knowledge into legal and regulatory frameworks

6. Strategies for raising awareness among policymakers about the critical nature of submarine cable infrastructure

7. The implications of the UN General Assembly resolution on oceans and law of the sea, as mentioned by Robert Pepper

These questions highlight the ongoing need for international cooperation, knowledge sharing, and policy development in the field of submarine cable protection. The panel emphasized the importance of continued dialogue and collaboration to address these complex challenges and ensure the resilience of global submarine cable infrastructure.

Announcer: Once again, I’d like to appreciate the West Indian Cable Company, WIOC, for the coffee break. We’ll be proceeding with panel four which will be focusing on legal and regulatory frameworks for cable protection. Uh moderator Doctor Robert Pepper. Doctor Pepper, if you’re in the hall, please take your seat. Thank you, sir. A round of applause for Doctor Pepper as he takes his seat. Doctor Robert Pepper is an inaugural senior fellow at the Global Digital Inclusion Partnership. GDIP, where he focuses on digital infrastructure, and internet policy based on his extensive four-decade career in government and the private sector. Welcome Doctor Pepper. I’ll be handing over to you to handle panel four.

Robert Pepper: Thank you very much. Um and again, thank you to the to our wonderful hosts. Um this has been a great meeting. Great two days. Uh and the hospitality, the warmth of our uh hosts has been uh absolutely, absolutely terrific. Uh you know, we’ve been talking about uh let me bring up the the panelists first. So, uh why doesn’t everybody from the panel come up and then I’ll introduce you. So, there’s no particular order on the uh on the seating because we’re going to be um out of water. We’re okay. Um Douglas is going to not hear you. Uh here he comes. Great. Thank you. So, um Ambassador Ernst Noorman, uh long career with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the Netherlands as well as within other other ministries. Um before taking up his new position as ambassador at large for foreign affairs, uh about a year and a half ago, he served for about 13 years as ambassador to the kingdom of the Netherlands. Um next is Doctor Anna Butchar who heads the UK security policy for subsea telecommunications cables in the telecom security and resilience team at the Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology. And she has over 20 years experience in national security and foreign policy. Doctor Jane Munga is a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Jane leads the technology stream for the Africa program. Her research focuses on the continent’s digital economy with insights on regulatory environment. She also is an expert in written papers on subsea submarine communication systems. Uh and Carnegie’s going to be coming out with some papers on subsea which maybe we can talk about Jane. Douglas Njenga with our thank you for coffee. Um he is a seasoned executive in digital infrastructure and submarine cable resilience. He serves as the director of regulatory and strategic affairs for um WIOCC group. Africa’s premier hyperscale digital infrastructure investor. Right? People who write checks are really important. Right? So investors right without people writing checks nothing gets built. And then um at the my you know the the bookend is uh Luke Slattery who is director in the telecommunications for telecommunications policy within the office of the Pacific at Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade where there’s a key focus and he focuses on digital development subsea telecommunications cables and a variety of other telecommunications matters relevant to the Indo-Pacific region. Uh and you know Luke and I have collaborated on work with some of the small Pacific Islands. Um and some of those issues have already come up here in the last two days. So this is a session on legal and regulatory framework for cable protection uh questions. But in every session that we’ve had so far there’s been conversations about legal and regulatory framework. So this is well this is our topic. It’s the topic for everybody. Um but we’re going to try to unpack some of these in particular. And talk about some specific issues that we’re

Ernst Noorman: Please allow me to explain those five different lines. First is a clear governance and unified coordination. At the core of our approach is a robust governance framework. We have established clear roles and responsibilities for all stakeholders. This framework is designed to ensure that all stakeholders are accountable, operational and tactical. The interministerial collaboration ensures that every stakeholder knows their part from setting policy to executing day-to-day security measures. By doing so, we leave no room for ambiguity and make sure that all stakeholders know their part from setting policy to executing day-to-day security measures. Understanding the threat landscape is the first step toward effective protection. That is why we have placed a strong emphasis on improving our maritime situational awareness and maritime situational understanding. Our aim is to continuously detect, analyze and respond to potential threats before they can impact our infrastructure. This protective approach is further supported by innovative pilot projects, or sandboxes, where we test and refine our imaging and data analysis capabilities in real-time scenarios. Third is increasing resilience. Our government believes that maritime security requires greater focus within our national security framework. We are committed to enhancing resilience by improving information exchange and taking proactive measures to prevent or mitigate risks at technical, operational and strategic levels, even within the private sector. We actively share current assessments with all relevant parties so that both the and our North Sea partners can better protect themselves. Additionally, we aim to clarify the roles between public and private stakeholders to improve coordination and provide clear guidance for future developments. This approach empowers private entities with actionable perspectives to implement resilience enhancing measures that are tailored to current threats and focused on mitigating risks during crisis situation. Fourth is the integrated crisis management and preparedness. We understand that even the best preventive measures must be paired with a robust crisis response. To that end, we have developed a comprehensive crisis response playbook that integrates maritime security tasks into our national crisis management framework. This playbook outlines clear protocols, communication channels, and decision-making processes, ensuring that in the event of an incident, all relevant agencies, from the Coast Guard and intelligence services to our operational teams, are prepared to act swiftly and in unison. Through regular training and joint exercises, we continuously refine our capabilities to respond effectively to any crisis. And five and last, collaborative partnerships and international cooperation, the security of our subsea infrastructure is not solely a national issue. It has profound international implications. That’s why our approach is built on foundation of collaboration. We actively engage in public-private partnerships and work closely together with our North Sea neighbors and international allies. By fostering a culture of information sharing, joint analysis, and coordinated action, we not only strengthen our own defenses, but also contribute to the resilience of a wider maritime community. This collaborative spirit ensures that the best practices are shared, innovative solutions are developed, and collective security is enhanced. So in summary, our holistic approach, characterized by clear governance, state-of-the-art monitoring, integrated crisis management, and strong collaborative partnerships, demonstrates how we in the Netherlands are protecting our critical subsea cable networks. We believe that this model not only secures our own interests, but also offers valuable insights for other nations, aiming to enhance their maritime security frameworks. Thank you.

Robert Pepper: No, thank you. And actually, you know, given the comprehensive nature of the holistic approach, I would expect that you’re gonna be feeding a lot of that into the work of the advisory body, which is really terrific. Douglas.

Douglas Njenga: Oh, so. Okay. Try and put some context. So for an operator, we’ve been in the trench.

Robert Pepper: Hold the microphone closer.

Douglas Njenga: We’ve been in the trench for over 15 years now. And our experience in the 14 African countries that we operate in has to be considered from a contextual basis. In 2013, the internet penetration in Africa was around 13%. And of course, over the last decade, the focus has been on universal access. So put our heads together, and the focus primarily has been on creating more access, more open access, connect the homes. So it’s not surprising that a lot of the attention has purely been on connection rather than the strategies that we can use to protect the existing infrastructure. We’ve seen a significant growth from the benefits or from the gains that we’ve made from universal access. And it is actually the time to ask ourselves, what are we doing in terms of protection? It’s an interesting question you raise, because yes, the ICPC has standards. The EU has a couple of other strategies that’s put together. But why have we not adopted them as a continent? To answer that question, you’d need to look at it from, in my view, three main areas, protection, accountability, and collaboration. We’ve talked about collaboration across the room most of yesterday and today. But if you think about the concept of protection, you have to think on the investment side, how are we motivating these strategies in terms of investor appetite? It’s also driven by uptake of capacity. And the investment in some of those technologies that are needed by some of these governments have to align with the protection strategy that the cable owners themselves want to adopt. Without taking away from what my colleague has said, it is a high time that we ask ourselves that question, and I’m glad we have a forum to do that today. But to answer your question, it’s not a simple yes or no on why these strategies are not being adopted. Each country has its unique challenges. We would know, we’ve been at it for a long time now. But there is an opportunity for us to, and I’m sure we’ll discuss a lot of this across the room, to look at which ones are practical for us. I was speaking to a colleague from Maine one now, and the view is that the philosophy needs to change. From our experience in the permitting side, the philosophy can either take two sides, and I think it was discussed sometime back in the ICPC, where government takes a step back and says, you need to come and demonstrate to us that your project, for instance, in the environmental permits, come and demonstrate to us that the project has no impact to the environment. The other strategy they could take is you bring your project and they assess for compliance. So it shifts the banner and gives an opportunity for government to take more accountability. But some of these have to take the natural process to get there. Yeah, no, thank you, yeah. And that’s, governments want the investment, but they need to actually have the types of protections and practices that attract the investment, right? So yeah, that’s extremely helpful. Thank you.

Robert Pepper: The next question is gonna be for Anna, Jane, and Luke. In the field of legal measures to protect submarine cables, what do you believe are the most effective measures to be implemented by everybody? It’s not just one country, but across the board. Anna, why don’t we start with you, then Jane, and then Luke. Thank you.

Anna Butchar: Thanks very much. So I think I’ll start with repairs. So yesterday, there were quite a few sessions on repairs, and we talked about the importance. I think the most illustrative thing that comes across from that is that the longest delay in repairing a cable is waiting for that permit. But there are other solutions, and I was very pleased to see the slide and speech yesterday. So in the UK, we have a bit of a good news story on this. I think they have the same in the Netherlands. And in some other places. But we have a good news story on this because we have an exemption built into our licenses to allow for emergency repairs. So as a result, we have a very high fault count in the UK. We have quite a large continental shelf. We have a lot of fishing, busy shipping lanes. But we have one of the fastest repair times, and that’s just because of that exemption. But cables are multi-jurisdictional, just like some of the problems that we see with UNCLOS when we cover those shipping. A cable has to pass through multiple exclusive economic zones, multiple territorial waters for a system. Take a system like 2Africa, travels all over the world. And so, whereas we can have a good news story in the UK, that cable can still get damaged elsewhere, and while we’re waiting for a permit to come through, will lead to a reduction in our resilience while we wait for that cable to be repaired. And I think there’s something really important that we need to think about as countries is to understand what it actually means to think about this technology as our critical national infrastructure. So, Andy said yesterday, you wouldn’t install a cable without a maintenance plan, without having in plan and place the requirements that you need to fix that cable if it gets break to get it up and running. So, why are we as governments not putting that in place when we’re getting new cables in? We know the maintenance agreements are there. We know the ships are there. We know the industry are working on it. Why are we waiting until the breaks happen, until our countries are carrying a reduction in resilience to then suddenly, oh, quick, we’ve got to do this process. You need to do this study. You need to do this. You need to pay these taxes. You need to get diplomatic clearance for this vessel to come in. All of these things. Why don’t we have that system built in? And I think there’s a lot that we can do as an international community to really think about that and a lot that we can do working with industry. In terms of new systems, again, this is something that we’ve. don’t get right in the UK. I like to think we’re not bad but there’s still a lot that we could do to improve. I think industry have been very clear with us there. They want transparency and they want clear timescales because you can’t plan for a multi-billion dollar cable that crosses the whole continent unless you know when you’re able to get that planning in place, when you’re able to have the ships do the different sections of the build. So I think having that transparency and again it comes down to this critical national infrastructure point. Are we using cables as a way of extracting finance from our territorial waters, my right, exclusive economic zone by charging them high rents, by charging them large amounts in terms of surveys and all the rest of it or do we recognize that this is critical national infrastructure that facilitates our economic development and our digital economies and that we require in order to run all of our services. So again it’s that balance on transparency, timescale but also reducing costs.

Robert Pepper: Thank you. Jane.

Jane Munga: Sure and good morning and first my gratitude to fellow panelists Dr. Pepper and also to the Nigerian government really want to say thank you and also to the co-hosts the ITU and ICPC. So you ask a very relevant question and I’m going to tackle it from the African perspective because that’s I focus on African research of the Carnegie Endowment and our key research that we’ve been doing is trying to track the different digital economy policies that are in Africa and in particular we’re also looking at the submarine ecosystem and we’ve come up with some few findings and it’s some of what Dr. Anna said and everybody has been saying here. First we found out that the regulatory, the policy regime on submarine cables or some call it undersea is a complicated affair. It’s like that social media post when you ask are you in a relationship, yes, no, complicated. This is what we’ve just found it’s very complicated and I’ll say why it’s complicated. For the multiple reasons as we’ve said there are multiple jurisdictions and in multiple levels so you have the national government and within the African context we have 55 African countries that are recognized by the African Union and then beyond that we have out of those 55 we have 39 African countries with a coastline. We have 38 countries that land cables on them with exception of course of Eritrea. So what that does that mean? You have 38 very different legislations when it comes to submarine cables and secondly these legislations are not in one place. They move from different policy places mostly in the ICT sector but also in the Marine Department but also they are also in multiple documents. So first and foremost at the very national level it’s not as simple as you’d want to get it. Secondly then now you move to the subnational level. This is why it even gets more complicated especially with landing of permits, there are subnational actors and it gets murky. It’s not visible you don’t know who sometimes even who to go to and who is regulating that coastline or that part of the waters and the different kinds of jurisdictions and bureaucracies then come out of that. So you can see the level of multiplicity here is quite complex and that’s why for me I would answer that question specifically to say maybe we need to change the approach more than say a legal measure because we need a different kind of thinking towards this and that thinking needs to bring us to a coordinated and harmonized level of how we look at submarine cables. We’ve talked about permits, first we need a one-stop shop area. At the national level we need a coordination mechanism between the different ports or the different departments. Previously I was in the government of Kenya so I understand how silos work within some of these ministries but we definitely need better coordination. I was talking to Wally this morning about the experience is one of these countries and they’re saying you have to deal with some of the petrol industry or in areas where you’re working with different jurisdiction and understanding how they regulate that. So it’s important then that we coordinate that secondly. And lastly as I wind up I think it’s also important that when we’re dealing with these issues there’s a need of raising awareness at the policy level on how these submarine cable permits and regulations affect the entire process. So shift in how we do this and also in approach let’s also build the capacity of those who are developing these regulations, fast track the process so you’re not waiting for ship to dock when it needs to do that. Thank you.

Robert Pepper: Thank you very much and actually it’s your point which is great it’s not just effective measures to be implemented by countries right but also within countries between the national and subnational or even very local levels right and that type of coordination becomes critical right so it’s horizontal and vertical if you will. Yeah thank you. Luke. The mic needs to, terrific.

Luke Slattery: Hello yeah thank you. Thanks Pepper and to my colleagues before me. As Pepper mentioned I’m from Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and my ordinary role looks at the Indo-Pacific specifically. I feel very privileged to be here in Nigeria which is a long way from the Indo-Pacific but the problems that we deal with here are pretty consistent so not unique to any of us and for that reason I think the answer to the question of one most effective measure is that there isn’t one because it’s really complicated. There’s anchors, there’s undersea seismic activity, the cables exist in some of the most challenging environments that we know. There’s a range of human induced and natural threats to the cables and so I think as a result you need a pretty diverse approach to protecting them. Australia’s position is focused on protection, prevention and resilience and so if you were starting from scratch and looking for a one-stop shop that does its best to address many of these challenges I don’t think you can go far past UNCLOS and some of the provisions there and so ratifying that I think would be a good starting point. So for Australia in particular there’s an obligation to ensure Australian flag vessels and crews don’t damage cables and that’s in our domestic system. Obligations to provide access to vessels to lay cables and repair them and also obligations to protect the cables in territorial waters. So domestically within our Telecommunications Act a lot of these provisions come into place in Schedule 3A of the Act and that also establishes our regulator the Australian Communications and Media Authority which oversees a lot of these things. In particular a framework for establishing protection zones and also landing permits within Australia as two key parts of our domestic system. Separate to that is the security considerations and so our Department of Home Affairs oversees a number of measures that are focused on sabotage, espionage and interference and that includes both physical and cyber concerns and so I think within our domestic system a really joined-up approach through those entities in the government that are interested in cables is really important and something that people should look to replicate I think. And also key to our system is the infrastructure is fundamentally owned by industry usually and so there’s shared interests in protecting the infrastructure so through our legislative framework there’s a requirement for carriers in Australia to protect their network which is a good opportunity for government and industry to work together on the threats that we see to cables. There’s also a requirement to notify the government of changes in the communication providers network which is another great opportunity for government to work with industry and very important some of the threats and challenges that we face. Thank you.

Robert Pepper: Thank you. Luke, you mentioned UNCLOS so let me, which is a great transition to Douglas, the UN Convention on Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, requires state parties to establish offenses under domestic law for damages to cables. Yet most state parties have not yet established that list of what are the offenses. Why do you think that’s the case and frankly more importantly what can be done about that to implement UNCLOS? Luke mentioned this but you know you work here in Africa, 55 countries, so maybe you can give us a perspective on how UNCLOS is viewed. here, and what you think can be done to improve the use and enforcement of UNCLOS.

Douglas Njenga: So I think it was Andy that put up some data on the – where some of – most of the submarine cable cuts happen. They happen mostly in our own economic zones. So we do actually – that’s something we do need to ask ourselves. On the one hand, the African economy benefits from Internet penetration. Everything is moving online. A lot of the economies now are leaning on Internet connectivity as a basis for economic growth. The last – I think the last build of a submarine cable – well, as WIOC, we’ve put in just under a billion dollars in terrestrial and subsea investment. So why are we not doing anything about it, yet, again, the most number of cuts are happening within our special economic zones? It’s a complex question, because for a long time, the focus of most African governments have been, again, as I said, universal access. Let’s focus on how much money we can raise to create more connections and create more access. But that has shifted the focus away from really, okay, over the last 10 years, we’ve been building this infrastructure. What are we doing to protect it? Some of the systems that – I mean, Africa is a large continent, and you would expect that because of the size, the number of submarine cables would be in excess of thousands. But there are countries in Africa today that have a shoreline that still don’t have a submarine cable, and you would wonder how that is, right? The Internet today, as we know it, 98 percent of the Internet goes through cable. So what’s happening to these countries? What’s happening to countries that rely on – that are landlocked, that rely on countries to the shoreline? Why are we not having a regional conversation on how to create more protections for these cables? To answer that question, you’d need to look back into how we organize ourselves in terms of collaboration, the regional bodies, and the efforts that go to protecting submarine cables. UNCLOS is a 1982 legislation, it’s a high time that we shouldn’t be truly just leaning on UNCLOS as the basis for protecting our own infrastructure. There has – give credit where it’s due – there has been significant effort. The Nigerian government has led the charge by declaring submarine cables as critical infrastructure. There’s a new wave of awareness that’s also not just on the continent. I think the U.S. is also trying to put together a Submarine Cable Protection Act that will mandate the U.S. government to also come up with strategies to protect these cables, because we are relying more and more on them. And I think it’s a high time that all partners that are in – a lot of these opinion leaders to government start sparring this conversation, and there’s the hope that – because the ICPC has done a lot of work to provide certain starting points. You don’t have to reinvent the wheel, there’s already a starting point that the ICPC has started, the ITU, that we could use to improve the local laws in terms of protection. And then my second point is around accountability. The current approach to accountability from subsea licensing and permitting perspective is you come, you get your permit, it’s a piece of paper that you go back with to allow you to start your lay. But there needs to be a bit more effort towards protection. I think it was a speaker yesterday who said the father is a fisherman, and their priority is hardly to find out the best route to fish, it’s to collect the fish, and at the end of the day, if they don’t have the awareness of how important some of those submarine cables are, then we will find ourselves in the same situation we have been over time. There are obviously certain other considerations to be made, because of course there’s some areas in Africa that are still under conflict, we’ve seen the situation with the Red Sea. For some of those, there’s still a bit more effort to be done around what that translates to the submarine cable industry. But yes, I would take my key points around lack of legislation to awareness, and I think this summit is a great opportunity for government to also bring all the players together to collect the interests and understand how can we protect the interests both of the investors and the operators, and the stakeholders in the seabed, the fishermen and the pipeline owners, because they are all core tenants of the seabed. Thank you.

Robert Pepper: You raise a really important question, or an issue, which is UNCLOS is over 40 years old, but there’s been some new developments as well, which you’ve identified the importance of. So Jane, maybe you can talk about, last December, the UN General Assembly adopted a new resolution on oceans and law of the sea. It urges all states in cooperation with the International Maritime Organization, IMO, and other relevant international organizations and agencies, I would think the ITU as well, as part of the UN family, to improve the protection of seabed infrastructure, such as submarine cables. Do you think the IMO and ITU are doing enough in this regard? What do you think would be a good approach going forward? And then how can we take some of that as an agenda and build it into the advisory body going forward to come up with outputs, recommendations, to move the needle forward?

Jane Munga: Thank you for that question. It’s tricky to answer on whether ITU is doing enough when I’m sitting in an ITU meeting. But I think these international bodies, ITU and IMO, are doing a great job in starting the conversation. Yesterday, I was challenged by something that was discussed by, sorry, from ICPC. He said that they started thinking about this idea two years ago, on how to start having an advisory council on the resilience of submarine cables. I think that is what has been bathed here. But we still have a longer journey to go, because I want to double-click on what Douglas has said. Why are we not having this conversation regionally? From now, from henceforth, as we take this, as we are challenged to have practical action, can we start having regional conferences around this, an African conference that brings all the stakeholders and talks about submarine cables? I had seen the Secretary General for the African Telecommunications Union. I don’t want to call him out. But I think there’s a challenge to the African Union and such bodies now to start tearing those conversations down, and also on the regional bodies. But also, I want to also say that within this framework of how we can continue this conversation, there’s still, again, as I said in my earlier point, we need to start framing and thinking differently. And because of the diverse interests that are just within the submarine cable ecosystem, again, it’s been said it’s a private industry investment, but there are shared interests on this. So what does that mean? Even when the private sector is deploying this, there still needs to be some thinking that is brought in from all those who have those shared interests. And I think for Africa, it’s time we start thinking as one around this. We’ve seen a lot of diverse thinking. We are 55 different regions. But I think the time to bring everybody to the table, where we may not be as one, but can at least think as one on how we take this conversation forward, and come up with action items that help us come up with one actionable solution. And secondly, when we talk about deploying and the resiliency of the ecosystem, it’s going to be very, very critical that the expertise that is needed within developing this, we heard about the innovation around this sector, starts to flow down into the different various stakeholders within that room. Again, I want to double-click on the policymakers, because policymaking also determines the kind of permits and regulations that come out of it, and it’s important that there’s an understanding of the kind of how we can either stifle or build that ecosystem. So we want something that thrives vis-a-vis that which is going to stifle the ecosystem. So for me, it’s to say that, yes, we are seeing a lot of work that’s happening at the ITU, at the very apex of these discussions, but I think the time has come now where we need to tear that down and come up with actionable solutions at the regional, national, what we just said about Nigeria, it’s great to see there’s such initiatives happening. We need more countries that will take up that call, in Nigeria, in West Africa, in other regions, countries that will start championing for these conversations. to ensure that we are double-clicking on the right things and we are having the right conversations with the right partners on the table. Thank you.

Robert Pepper: Douglas, please.

Douglas Njenga: Yeah, and I think we really can’t overemphasize the permitting conversation. Singapore is a good example. The current crisis is congestion of submarine cables. Yet in Africa, the countries that don’t have even one, there’s countries that give submarine landing permits that are a million dollars a permit, right? And again, you have to go build the project, find the funding, and then still find that significant amount of money for a single permit. So, and it was an interesting conversation from the Singapore government that if they have a submarine cable project, it takes less than two or three weeks, was it, to approve all the permits? Yet in our continent, you’d have to go through almost 15 or 16 other different agencies. In one of the permitting processes, we had to go through the Department of Rare Trees, the Department of Archeology, the Department of Culture. It is really, it’s a high time that we sort of centralized the permitting process, and it will make it easier to get more cables into Africa and spur investment. And this is something government can take on.

Robert Pepper: Thank you. Actually, that leads to a great question for Anna, which is, at the regional level, there have been some regional bodies that have recently called on its member states to consider measures to expedite permitting for both new systems and repairs, and the repairs, particularly important that it be fast, timely. How can such measures work? Can they be adopted globally? Are there some good practices as examples to address some of the questions that Douglas raised? And Douglas, your point, I think, is extremely important, which is looking at new cables and permits for new cables. It’s counterproductive to think of that as a cash register to generate cash, because the economic benefits to a country of having the cable land and build it quickly, those economic benefits overwhelm financially, overwhelm any short-term ticket price for a permit. And more countries are recognizing that. But the older approach was seeing it as a way to raise revenue, not to facilitate critical infrastructure investment. And so, Anna, some of the things that you’re seeing on a regional basis to streamline permitting, I think, could be really important globally. So you might want to, if you could, talk about that.

Anna Butchar: I think if we look at UNCLOS, it sets out the requirements that are needed for subsidy cables, but also for maritime law. And then you look at the fact that not all countries have ratified it. And then you look at the fact that an awful lot of countries haven’t put into place the legal requirements that are there. And then you look at the different permitting structures across the globe, and how everyone is different, everything is slightly differently structured. And how, what I was saying before about those permits not necessarily matching up to the importance of this infrastructure, and how we need to really change the way we think about these things. It is a global network. It is the backbone of our digital economies. We need to work together, and we need to work with industry, and we need to think about the way that we think about this infrastructure. And when we start to change the way we think about that, we start to actually raise the importance of putting in place the requirements under UNCLOS, in place the requirements that we need that are streamlined permitting, that we work together, that we think about the holistic nature of a cable. So are we working with our close partners when we know that cables are probably gonna have to transit their exclusive economic zone to get to ours? How are we going to think about this, and think about that as part of kind of working together, I think is really important there.

Robert Pepper: Yeah, thank you. And there are different types of permits. So at the national level, you’re looking at, or maybe regional within a country, permits on the landing, on the wet side. But in many countries, you also have local permitting by municipalities, which in the US is a big issue. And last week, we were at a session in London, where a colleague from ASN said that permitting issues, both on the wet side and once you get to the CLS, he said, just to give you an idea of how more complicated and onerous it is, when he started working at ASN, they had one person working on permits. He said, they now have 17 people having to deal with permits, right? And that complexity leads to delay and uncertainty that affects Douglas investors, the people who write the checks. So how do we, within countries, right? So there’s the coordination on the economic zones, on the coordination across countries. Has anybody thought about, how do we bring that to the local level within a country? Because it’s additional local permitting requirements at even a municipal level. Does anybody want to address that?

Ernst Noorman: Well, what we are trying to create now is a Dutch Sea Cable Coalition nationally, to indeed bring all parties together. I think we have an advantage as an analyst because we’ve been fighting or working to protect our country against water. And that means, you cannot say, well, the local government, I have a different interest. No, we’re all threatened by possible flooding and we had to create dikes, infrastructure. And I think that helps us also create a coalition in the Sea Cable Coalition to make a one-stop shop. And we’re still working on it, but we think we achieve it, that it will be really possible for the cable coalitions to apply for only one-stop shop for all the permits, instead of going around and then have to address the local requirements, et cetera. But I think we do have an advantage with our history of working together in all parts. But also, once we have achieved it, we hope to share at least this experience also in the advisory body for others to learn from.

Robert Pepper: Did anybody else wanna address that? Douglas, please.

Douglas Njenga: Yeah, so the philosophy needs to change. The philosophy needs to change. At the moment, the general feel is that an investor in a submarine cable needs to demonstrate to government why they should do the project and how important it is to the state, right? Therefore, you have to go do your own surveys, invest in getting all the data to demonstrate to government that it has met all the requirements. And that approach then means there’s been no attention to enabling a centralized approach to, for instance, a developer or an investor in a cable to bring a cable in. And that’s how, with the example of ESM, they have to invest in people to understand the regulatory system and permitting process, and then come up with all the requirements to go back, because the burden of proof is with the consortium members and the investors in submarine cable, to demonstrate to government that the project should go ahead. Is it time we actually realize that because this is critical infrastructure, government should look at the project? And that’s the centralized approach. You come to government, and government collates all the interested parties to give their feedback on any areas of noncompliance with the project. So it shifts back, by shifting the burden to the government to do that, it allows for opportunity for cross-leveraging feedback. So that you don’t have to, if, for instance, an approval document from one department to another, to another, because then there’s a common forum to test each of the qualifications. collective interests.

Robert Pepper: Thank you. Yeah, Luke, why don’t you go ahead and then I was going to actually ask you and Ernst a final question, but yeah, go ahead, please.

Luke Slattery: Hello. Thanks. Just quickly, I don’t know necessarily that we’ve got it completely right because permitting is such an issue for the industry. I understand that, but to take an isolated example where in Australia it’s applying to land a cable within a protection zone, it streamlines the process and in many cases applying to land a cable in the zone, the process can take half as long as it would to land a cable outside of the zone because there’s efficiencies there. So having that protection zone framework really does support the permitting process as well. Thank you.

Robert Pepper: That’s a great example. So the last question maybe for both you and Ernst is to improve the legal and regulatory frameworks that we’ve just been talking about, what are the effective measures that we need to incorporate in terms of knowledge and understanding of industry norms and practices as well as policy requirements for critical infrastructure at a very practical level? How can that happen and how can that cooperation be achieved? And then this feeds into the work of the advisory body trying to have actionable recommendations. So Luke, why don’t you kick off and then Ernst you can wrap us up.

Luke Slattery: Thanks for the question. I mean, as we’ve been discussing the last two days but on this panel as well, the problems are really broad and the only way that we can tackle them is to do it together and that includes cross-government and also with industry. And so for us, we build that into our approach in as many places as we can and including our regulatory approach. So an open dialogue with industry, open and ongoing dialogue with industry to really make sure that’s built in. Domestically, we engage regularly in telecommunications advisory bodies. We establish them. Our legislative process requires that we consult with industry as part of assessing the regulatory impact and benefits. So that’s built in there. And then internationally, the Australian government’s a registered observer on ICPC but also we actively engage in the advisory body and also PTC and submarine networks world. So it really is essential. We recognise ICPC government best practice guidelines in our approach and in particular our management and protection framework for submarine cables requires that industry specifically demonstrates how they propose a new cable is going to achieve ICPC best practice. So that’s recognised in the approach as well. I talked about the efficiencies of landing cables in protection zones. We hear from industry that they like the approach of protection zones. They want more of them. So we’re actively considering more protection zones in our system. And yeah, there’s many benefits of that. The other thing I’ll talk just briefly about is our Cable Connectivity and Resilience Centre which has been established under our Quad Cables Partnership. The Connectivity and Resilience Centre has three main functions. Demand driven technical assistance and training for people in the region that are looking for it. They commission reports and analysis to benefit submarine cable resilience in the region. And they also convene dialogues in the region for folk that are interested in these issues to come together. And I think that’s important in recognising that all these cables have at least two ends and there’s no way for us to solve these problems without industry, academia and governments coming together. Thank you.

Robert Pepper: Thank you. Ernst, you started us off. Let’s see if you can wrap us up.

Ernst Noorman: Thank you. Well, I leave the wrapping up to you. If I look to my country, we need to protect the infrastructure on the sea and in the North Sea. Wind farms, electricity data cables, gas pipes, sea lanes, it’s very busy out there. It’s a region bustling with numerous active stakeholders. So protecting both telecom cables and energy infrastructure is essential for maintaining our digital connectivity and energy supply. To improve our legal and regulatory frameworks, we must integrate the deep insights and practical know-how of the industry. This means moving beyond a one-size-fits-all approach and embedding real-world practices into our policies. We achieve this by forging robust public-private partnerships where both government and sector stakeholders work side-by-side. In practical terms, our approach is twofold. First, at the strategic level, we establish a framework for general collaboration. This involves sharing general information and aligning long-term security goals. By doing so, we create an environment where best practices flow freely between all parties. Second, we recognize that there is a need for intensive technical cooperation. In this realm, detailed and even real-time data sharing is crucial. Such a hands-on approach enables us to quickly address risks, coordinate repairs of sea cables, and ensure continuous operations of critical infrastructure. Our vision is to create a dynamic, flexible living system of agreements. A partnership that is periodically reviewed and refined to keep pace with technological advancements and emerging threats. It is through this evolving partnership that we can make sure that our infrastructure remains resilient, ensuring energy supply security, digital connectivity, and continued progress of our energy transition. As the North Sea grows in importance for both our energy supply and digital communication, it becomes even more essential that we build resilience across all levels. By combining government oversight with the expertise of our sector partners, we will safeguard our infrastructure against disruptions and create a safe foundation for the future. In conclusion, by embedding industry knowledge into our legal framework and fostering an adaptive, collaborative partnership, we can secure the North Sea’s critical assets effectively. Together, through strategic vision and technical cooperation, we will ensure the uninterrupted functioning of our vital infrastructure. Thank you.

Robert Pepper: Thank you. So, what’s come out to me, right, not just on this panel, but through the entire two days, but particularly here, is the importance of close collaboration, coordination, and alignment between the private sector that’s making the investments, the operators that are building the networks, the policymakers, the regulators who lay out and identify the goals for government. Recognizing that this is critical infrastructure and that there is the need to create the right incentives for the investment, but it has to be safe and secure as well. And that requires ongoing and continuous conversation, which is why the work of the partnership of ITU and ICPC on the advisory body, I think, is so important. And the short timeline to actually get something done, not just to make it a conversation, but actually come up with actionable recommendations for both industry and government. So, thank you very much. And if you could all put your hands together and thank a terrific panel. Thank you. Yeah. Oh, we’re over time, but we can ask it. Do we have time for any questions? Oh, okay. I thought we were. Is there? Andy, please. A microphone. Andy, do you just want to grab a microphone? This one? Is that working? Is it working? Oh, it is working. Okay.

Audience: So, quick question for Luke. If I understand correctly, with regard to the Australian cable protection zones, they’re about 40 miles in length, so they cross both the territorial sea and the EZ. In the territorial sea, they are enforceable with regard to anybody, whether overseas, foreign flag, vessel, or otherwise. But in the EEZ, they’re only enforceable with regard to Australian nationals or Australian flagged vessels. Is that correct and what policy changes would be needed to make your regulations enforceable with regard to foreign flagged vessels in the EEZ?

Luke Slattery: Thank you. Not, I believe that’s the case, yes. I think the best approach is engagement in multilateral forums and with partners. And one of the key things about the protection zone arrangements is it enables a documented pathway, I guess, where the cables exist. So it helps with sharing locations and and specific areas where measures need to be increased to protect the cables. Thank you.

Robert Pepper: Any other questions? We do have time. There is one back. Well, I’m sorry. And then the gentleman in the back there. Why don’t we do both questions back to back and then we can have the responses. Please.

Audience: All right. Thank you. First of all, thank you for a very interesting panel. A lot that I’ve learned there. So as I wear a technical hat, so excuse me if it sounds like an ignorant question, why is there a need for repair permits? If you have been, if you’ve gone through the whole process of rationalizing the reason why you’re building cables and all the studies and you’ve received the initial permit to build the cable and maybe just touching on Mr. Slater’s comment on protection zones, would that maybe facilitate a bit of a change in the whole aspect of permitting in terms of thinking about a one permit for build and maintenance, which means when your cable breaks, all you just need is a pass, probably, just to clear you to go and fix your cable. Why is there justification for permitting?

Robert Pepper: I’m not sure who can answer that. Okay. Actually, we were going to have the other gentleman, but Luke, if you want to just jump in. Okay. So why don’t we have the second question.

Audience: Thank you very much, sir. My name is just more of a contribution. I don’t thank you for the deliberations and insights so far, but what we’re discussing here is not rocket science. I’m a rocket scientist. Beyond the fact that I understand we have, you know, legislations and jurisdictions around, the point here is all government of nations understand the criticality and importance of what submarine cable stands, particularly after COVID-19 learning curve. So it’s government of nations, particularly global south countries, understand that it is as critical as the food we eat. It’s as basic as the shelter we seek, and it’s as important as the clothing that we I remember last year, my Honorable Minister, Dynamic Honorable Minister, presented a position paper before the President of Federal Republic of Nigeria that all telecoms and associated equipment to telecommunication should be declared critical national infrastructure. And that came to be last year, August precisely. So at ITU level that regulates issue of telecommunications with almost over 200 member nation, I want to also proceed that ITU also declares submarine cable around international waters as critical international infrastructure that enables digital transformation and development around the continent. That’s one. On the other side, I also want to say, particularly on the side of manufacturers, manufacturers also have a big role to play, particularly when it comes to actually building resilient submarine cable around providing to, and when you do CNI, when you declare that it is now critical international infrastructure, what that means is paramilitary and military of all nations, including coastal guard, will also additional, provide additional protection over this, particularly when the patrol, I know, patrol a continental shelf and coastal area of the waters, including also providing to special information where these are laid, where this submarine cable, so that trawlers, fishermen, miners on the sea, miners, avoid those areas. And the other role they have for manufacturer is the fact that if there has to be additional layer of protection on this infrastructure, particularly when we carry out feasibility studies and we know where you have high probability of seismic activity, particularly around the ring of fire of the planet Earth, then there should be extra protection, just the same way for extra protection against shark. We should be able to have slags, ring of slags, strengthened by stool, such that when you have technology plate movement, then obviously it offers some level of protection to this, you know, critical infrastructure. I have more. I mean, just last year, just this year, I published a paper on the need for telecommunication corridor, and part of my paper also include the fact that we have an issue worrying us in West Africa sub-region. Rats. You have rats with canine teeth, you know, they have this kind of what I may call anatomy with ligament and tendons around their jaw that tear up your ear. I’ve experienced that several times because of rats. So what that means is manufacturers to shore coming to fortify against even cables we lay within metropolitan cities against such kind of incidents and all of that. Thank you very much.

Robert Pepper: Thank you. So we’ll come back to the notion of critical infrastructure and protection zones, but that’s a lot of the work that ICPC has been doing, and you know, Andy Palmer-Felgate was presenting some at the very beginning, some basic, you know, there were some, you did in Kent, basically using Andy’s data, talked about these things. And we do have to have both physical as well as logical protections of the cables. But in responding to NEMSA’s question, Luke.

Luke Slattery: Thank you. Thank you very much for the question. It’s obviously, permitting is obviously a matter of particular interest to a lot of people. And I can’t speak for all systems, but within our system, one of the key reasons for different types of permits are the number of agency interests that are interested when a cable is being repaired versus when one’s being installed in the first place. I also mentioned within our system, the obligation to protect your network. And so part of that includes an ability for the government to have some oversight over how a cable’s being repaired and when and whether that has implications for our broader communications in the country. And it’s also, because we have the cable corridors and protection zone framework, it’s necessary for others within the system to be aware that repairs are occurring and the permitting process allows for us to have some ability to oversee that. I hope that answers the question.

Robert Pepper: Thank you. Anybody else want to respond to that? Please.

Jane Munga: I think for me, it’s just really, I liked what the last gentleman spoke about. I think there’s definitely a need of approach. And that approach is, I think we cannot overemphasize it. It’s been said in this panelist, Douglas mentioned about it, that as stakeholders in this industry, we really have to change how we perceive the critical infrastructure. So we need to bring the right people on the table. I just want to emphasize that as even a closing remarks, bringing the right people on the table to change how we frame this and the kind of then the permitting regime and the regulatory regimes that come out of it. But it will take concerted effort by all the stakeholders and policy makers, especially to bring that, because they’re the ones who bring the shared interest together. So thank you.

Robert Pepper: So just picking up on that for a moment, what Jane, you were saying, is that it’s not just the minister, the vice minister, the head of the regulatory agencies, but in many ways, it’s the staff within the agencies and the departments. And one of the things, and staff move. And so one of the things that I think that we can do as industry working collaboratively with government is helping the staff understand the technology, its evolution, the trends. what it takes to build these systems and to the intervention, the importance of the cables and what it means. Why does it take three to four years? What happens when you have to book a ship, a vessel, two to three years in advance and if local permitting means you miss that window, what happens? What are the costs? What are the implications? And some of the work that we’ve done in terms of working with staff level, people at governments, helping them understand, has been an eye opener and it actually has changed the way people work and understand and process applications, for example. Understanding the urgency, the time sensitivity. So I think that there’s things that we can do working together, right, and that’s part of the terms of what, again, going back to the advisory body, some of the things that we can do there to facilitate the investment while at the same time addressing the really, the real and important policy concerns by government. It’s not either or, it’s and, it’s both, together, working together. So I think we have time for another question, if there is one. Back over here, I’m seeing somebody point. Right over here. And yeah, you can just push, push the button, please. Hello? Yes, we can hear you. Okay.

Audience: So I’m Isaac, Isaac Aiku from Ghana. I wanted to ask this question. We all acknowledge that, I think from yesterday, we got the confirmation that 70% of our incidents are being caused by other marine users like the fisher folks and those out there. So my question then is, what can government do to enact maybe laws, you know, that will serve as deterrent to those, to those users that impact on the cables? What can government do? Because if we are acknowledging that we have 70% of the incidents of cable cuts, be it cable cuts or transport, being caused by other marine users, what can government do or regulatory bodies do to enact the laws that will serve as deterrent to these users? That’s my question. Thank you.

Robert Pepper: Anna.

Anna Butchar: Thank you for your question. It’s a really important one and it’s one that governments are grappling with all the time. I think industry have taken on a huge amount of responsibility in the way that they design cables, the way they lay cables, working with the fishing industry. A lot of companies will also have fisheries liaison officers and spend a lot of time working with the fishing industry to try and raise that. And that includes producing some charting software that the ICPC and ESCA have been part of to show those locations of the cables to make it easier for the fishermen to avoid them. From a government perspective, we need to work with industry to support that work. But I think there’s a lot more that can be done in terms of raising awareness with the fishing industry and kind of policy approaches as well as looking at legal frameworks. So UNCLOS requires us to have in place domestic legislations to protect cables. We don’t all have those. Part of that legislation should be about trying to deter the kind of activities that are leading to these cable breaks. So advising fishermen to avoid fishing over cables. But it’s quite a difficult one to get the balance right with. And this is something that every country is really grappling with. Because by putting in place tough legislations and rules to try and stop cable damage, you don’t want to have the kind of unintended consequence knock-on effect of actually encouraging bad behavior. So for example, it’s advisable for a fisherman not to fish over a cable because if they snag their nets, it’s dangerous. The ship can sink. People have died. As well as damaging the cable. But if you make it illegal to fish over a cable and then a fisherman does and snags their net, what happens then? And if the legislation is just literally going to, you know, send them to prison, put a big fine on them and do that, then they’re probably not going to cut their nets and call the cable company and do the appropriate sensible thing. They’re probably going to wait for the tide to turn and hope that they get unsnagged and they can head on their way, which makes it more dangerous and causes more damage. So that’s one thing. It’s about these unintended consequences. And I think it’s the same when we think about protections. So protection corridors, cable corridors, they work in some places. They don’t work in other places. There are geographic constraints. There are environmental constraints. And various different countries, again, are looking at, are there legislations that we can put in place? You know, do we require our cables to be buried three meters? Do we need to have better protection of them? What are the legal frameworks that we can use to better protect those cables? And I think in doing that, we have to be really careful as governments to get the balance and not let the laws that we put in place allow that kind of securitization to become the enemy of resilience. Because ultimately, in order to have a resilient system, in order to prevent this damage, we need to create the legislatory environment to encourage good behaviors, to support the industry and the work that they do to protect their cables and stop those cables being damaged. And where appropriate, hold them to account. So if there’s a ship that accidentally drops its anchor and drags it across a few cables, are we able to board that ship? Are we able to arrest it? Do we hold them to account? Do we have those legal powers? And what are we doing in advance of that? So there are international standards. There are international requirements. There are things, you know, there are mechanisms on ships for holding anchors up, for example. And there are requirements about those being maintained and those being put in place under tow. And we know that quite regularly, they’re not put in place. They’re not maintained. They’re not there. So what are we doing using the legal frameworks around safety to stop those accidents from happening? So I think it’s quite, it’s a good question and it’s quite broad, but it’s one that we all need to think about.

Robert Pepper: Thank you. Douglas.

Douglas Njenga: Hello. Yeah, so I think it’s simple. Prevention, accountability and collaboration. It’s very expensive to repair a cable and it’s actually unfortunate that based on the numbers that we are talking about in terms of where they occur are things that can be prevented. And there should be a lot more accountability when it comes to the actors of these cable cuts. There are countries actually that have made it a criminal offense to damage submarine cables. That’s something that governments should explore in ensuring there’s accountability. And then more importantly, collaboration. The only way we can prevent these incidents from happening is ensuring that our collaboration mechanisms at the government level, and I’m glad Luke has talked about the resilience department, it preempts some of the actions that all industry players need to plug into that ensure that we avoid or at least can prevent the avoidable ones. Thank you.

Robert Pepper: I’m getting the signal that our time actually has expired, but thank you again. And if we could thank them again, a great panel. Thank you.

Announcer: We’ll take a group picture now. Thank you, Dr. Pepper, for moderating and bringing your wealth of experience on the issue of legal and regulatory frameworks. Thanks to His Excellency, Ambassador Ernest Nguyen, Mr. Luke Slattery, Dr. Jane Munga, Mr. Douglas Njenga, and Dr. Anna Bouchaz. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Your Excellencies, distinguished guests, we’ll be taking a lunch break now for just one hour. Today’s lunch is courtesy of Huawei. Thank you, Huawei, for supporting the summit. My colleague, Amira, will be leading the advisory body to the Zuma Lounge. The advisory body, please stand. The advisory body to the Zuma Lounge. The advisory body, please, will be led by Amira to the Zuma Lounge while the rest of us will convene upstairs for lunch. So, see you in an hour. Thank you so much.

Agreement points

Importance of collaboration between government and industry

Speakers

– Ernst Noorman
– Luke Slattery
– Douglas Njenga
– Jane Munga
– Robert Pepper

Arguments

Create public-private partnerships and share information

Engage in ongoing dialogue with industry through advisory bodies

Change philosophy to government assessing projects rather than companies proving need

Raise awareness among policymakers about submarine cable ecosystem

Close collaboration between private sector, operators, policymakers and regulators is crucial

Summary

All speakers emphasized the need for close collaboration and information sharing between government and industry to effectively protect submarine cables and streamline processes.

Need for streamlined permitting processes

Speakers

– Anna Butchar
– Douglas Njenga
– Ernst Noorman
– Luke Slattery

Arguments

Streamline permitting processes for new cables and repairs

Change philosophy to government assessing projects rather than companies proving need

The Netherlands is creating a Dutch Sea Cable Coalition to streamline permitting

Establish protection zones to streamline processes and increase security

Summary

Multiple speakers highlighted the importance of streamlining permitting processes to reduce delays and improve efficiency in cable installation and repairs.

Recognition of submarine cables as critical infrastructure

Speakers

– Douglas Njenga
– Unknown speaker
– Anna Butchar

Arguments

Shift focus from universal access to protection of existing infrastructure

Declare submarine cables as critical national/international infrastructure

Streamline permitting processes for new cables and repairs

Summary

Speakers agreed on the need to recognize submarine cables as critical infrastructure, which would lead to better protection and streamlined processes.

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for comprehensive national strategies to protect submarine cables, including the establishment of protection zones and clear governance frameworks.

Speakers

– Ernst Noorman
– Luke Slattery

Arguments

The Netherlands has implemented a five-point approach to protect submarine cables

Establish protection zones to streamline processes and increase security

Both speakers emphasize the importance of educating policymakers and government staff about the technical aspects and ecosystem of submarine cables to improve decision-making and processes.

Speakers

– Jane Munga
– Robert Pepper

Arguments

Raise awareness among policymakers about submarine cable ecosystem

Education of government staff on technical aspects is important

Unexpected consensus

Balancing legislation and industry needs

Speakers

– Anna Butchar
– Douglas Njenga

Arguments

Balance legislation to encourage good behavior without unintended consequences

Change philosophy to government assessing projects rather than companies proving need

Explanation

Despite representing different perspectives (government and industry), both speakers agreed on the need for a balanced approach to legislation that considers industry needs while ensuring protection of submarine cables.

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the importance of collaboration between government and industry, the need for streamlined permitting processes, and the recognition of submarine cables as critical infrastructure. There was also consensus on the need for comprehensive national strategies and education of policymakers on technical aspects of submarine cables.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among the speakers on key issues, particularly on the need for collaboration and streamlined processes. This consensus suggests a strong foundation for developing effective legal and regulatory frameworks for submarine cable protection. However, the specific implementation details may still require further discussion and negotiation between stakeholders.

Different viewpoints

Approach to permitting processes

Speakers

– Douglas Njenga
– Anna Butchar
– Luke Slattery

Arguments

Change philosophy to government assessing projects rather than companies proving need

Streamline permitting processes for new cables and repairs

Establish protection zones to streamline processes and increase security

Summary

While all speakers agree on the need to improve permitting processes, they propose different approaches. Douglas Njenga suggests shifting the burden to governments, Anna Butchar emphasizes streamlining processes for both new cables and repairs, and Luke Slattery advocates for establishing protection zones.

Focus of regulatory efforts

Speakers

– Douglas Njenga
– Jane Munga

Arguments

Shift focus from universal access to protection of existing infrastructure

Need for coordinated and harmonized approach across national and subnational levels

Summary

Douglas Njenga argues for shifting focus from universal access to protecting existing infrastructure, while Jane Munga emphasizes the need for a coordinated approach across different levels of government.

Unexpected differences

Approach to legislation for cable protection

Speakers

– Anna Butchar
– Douglas Njenga

Arguments

Balance legislation to encourage good behavior without unintended consequences

Focus on prevention, accountability and collaboration to reduce cable cuts

Explanation

While both speakers discuss ways to protect cables, Anna Butchar unexpectedly emphasizes the need for balanced legislation to avoid unintended consequences, whereas Douglas Njenga focuses more on accountability and prevention. This difference highlights the complexity of creating effective legal frameworks for cable protection.

Overall assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the specific approaches to improving permitting processes, the focus of regulatory efforts, and the mechanisms for collaboration between government and industry.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is moderate. While there is general consensus on the importance of protecting submarine cables and improving regulatory frameworks, the speakers propose different strategies and emphasize different aspects of the issue. These differences reflect the complexity of the topic and the varied experiences and perspectives of the speakers from different countries and organizations. The implications of these disagreements suggest that a one-size-fits-all approach to submarine cable protection may not be feasible, and that international cooperation and knowledge sharing will be crucial in developing effective strategies.

Partial agreements

All speakers agree on the importance of collaboration between government and industry, but they propose different mechanisms to achieve this goal. Ernst Noorman emphasizes public-private partnerships, Luke Slattery suggests ongoing dialogue through advisory bodies, and Douglas Njenga focuses on prevention, accountability, and collaboration.

Speakers

– Ernst Noorman
– Luke Slattery
– Douglas Njenga

Arguments

Create public-private partnerships and share information

Engage in ongoing dialogue with industry through advisory bodies

Focus on prevention, accountability and collaboration to reduce cable cuts

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for comprehensive national strategies to protect submarine cables, including the establishment of protection zones and clear governance frameworks.

Speakers

– Ernst Noorman
– Luke Slattery

Arguments

The Netherlands has implemented a five-point approach to protect submarine cables

Establish protection zones to streamline processes and increase security

Both speakers emphasize the importance of educating policymakers and government staff about the technical aspects and ecosystem of submarine cables to improve decision-making and processes.

Speakers

– Jane Munga
– Robert Pepper

Arguments

Raise awareness among policymakers about submarine cable ecosystem

Education of government staff on technical aspects is important

Key takeaways

Resolutions and action items

Unresolved issues

Suggested compromises

The current approach to accountability from subsea licensing and permitting perspective is you come, you get your permit, it’s a piece of paper that you go back with to allow you to start your lay. But there needs to be a bit more effort towards protection.

Speaker

Douglas Njenga

Reason

This comment challenges the existing permitting process and suggests a need for a more comprehensive approach focused on protection rather than just granting permission.

Impact

It shifted the discussion towards considering how permitting processes could be improved to enhance cable protection, leading to further exploration of regulatory frameworks.

Why are we as governments not putting that in place when we’re getting new cables in? We know the maintenance agreements are there. We know the ships are there. We know the industry are working on it. Why are we waiting until the breaks happen, until our countries are carrying a reduction in resilience to then suddenly, oh, quick, we’ve got to do this process.

Speaker

Anna Butchar

Reason

This comment critically questions the reactive approach of governments to cable repairs and maintenance, suggesting a need for proactive planning.

Impact

It prompted a discussion on the need for governments to change their approach to submarine cable infrastructure, viewing it as critical national infrastructure that requires advance planning and streamlined processes.

UNCLOS is a 1982 legislation, it’s a high time that we shouldn’t be truly just leaning on UNCLOS as the basis for protecting our own infrastructure.

Speaker

Douglas Njenga

Reason

This comment challenges the reliance on outdated legislation and suggests the need for updated approaches to cable protection.

Impact

It led to a discussion about the need for new, more relevant legal frameworks and international cooperation to address modern challenges in submarine cable protection.

Singapore is a good example. The current crisis is congestion of submarine cables. Yet in Africa, the countries that don’t have even one, there’s countries that give submarine landing permits that are a million dollars a permit, right?

Speaker

Douglas Njenga

Reason

This comment highlights the stark contrast between different regions’ approaches to submarine cables and the potential negative impact of high permit costs.

Impact

It broadened the discussion to include considerations of how different regulatory approaches can either encourage or hinder investment in submarine cable infrastructure.

Prevention, accountability and collaboration. It’s very expensive to repair a cable and it’s actually unfortunate that based on the numbers that we are talking about in terms of where they occur are things that can be prevented.

Speaker

Douglas Njenga

Reason

This comment succinctly summarizes key principles for improving cable protection and emphasizes the preventable nature of many cable damages.

Impact

It provided a framework for discussing practical solutions, shifting the conversation towards actionable strategies for cable protection.

Overall assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by challenging existing practices, highlighting regional disparities, and emphasizing the need for proactive, collaborative approaches to submarine cable protection. They shifted the conversation from a focus on current challenges to exploring potential solutions and new frameworks for cable protection and regulation. The discussion evolved from describing problems to proposing concrete actions and policy changes, emphasizing the critical nature of submarine cables as infrastructure and the need for governments to adapt their approaches accordingly.

How can regional bodies and conferences be organized to discuss submarine cable protection in Africa?

Speaker

Jane Munga

Explanation

This is important to bring stakeholders together and develop coordinated approaches to submarine cable protection across the African continent.

How can the permitting process for submarine cables be streamlined and centralized within countries?

Speaker

Douglas Njenga

Explanation

Streamlining permitting could significantly reduce delays and costs for new cable projects and repairs, encouraging more investment.

What policy changes would be needed to make Australian cable protection zone regulations enforceable for foreign-flagged vessels in the Exclusive Economic Zone?

Speaker

Audience member (Andy)

Explanation

This could enhance the effectiveness of protection zones by applying them more broadly to all vessels.

How can governments enact laws to deter other marine users, like fishermen, from damaging submarine cables?

Speaker

Audience member (Isaac Aiku)

Explanation

With 70% of cable incidents caused by other marine users, addressing this through legislation could significantly reduce cable damage.

How can industry knowledge and practices be better incorporated into legal and regulatory frameworks for submarine cables?

Speaker

Robert Pepper

Explanation

Integrating industry expertise could lead to more effective and practical regulations for cable protection and management.

What can be done to raise awareness among policymakers about the critical nature of submarine cable infrastructure?

Speaker

Jane Munga

Explanation

Increased awareness could lead to more supportive policies and regulations for submarine cable protection and development.