Portugal can leverage its geographic location to make a “strong contribution” to Europe.
However, according to the president of the Portuguese Space Agency, Portugal may “lose competitiveness” with the harmonisation of space laws. In an interview, during the AEDDays 2024, Ricardo Conde also criticized the excess of European regulation and the fact that venture capital is too dependent on EU funds.
What would you highlight on this first day of AEDDays?
We are at a crossroads. Until recently, our main priority was – and always should be – focused on sustainability, on our relationship with resources – and the perspective that things could worsen. Now, with the geopolitical situation – and Paulo Portas emphasised this very well – priorities have shifted. Security has become more important. There is no well-being without security. Europe has spent many years trying to maintain perhaps an overly pacifist model – we are all pacifists – but there must always be someone providing security.
The world changed about a year ago. The discourse on resilience, the issue of vaccines, masks… I think everyone had a wake-up call, everyone did wake up.
We deindustrialized, we risk not having critical mass, we have an overly aged population… What is the EU’s position? There is much talk about resilience. It was in this balancing act between sustainability and defence that defence became important. Why? Because we are looking at the “bad neighborhood” we have, so to speak, and we feel threatened. In other words, it’s a reaction. Resilience is built over time, but we don’t have time.
Then there is another extremely important issue, which is the decision-making circuits. The US is one country, they have a president, a space agency, a Department of Defence… Europe has 27 member states, very regional and different geopolitical interests, internal decision-making… And how do you build a common defence policy?
We did the hardest thing: we built a common monetary policy. It was only possible with the visionaries of the time. Today we wouldn’t be able to do that. What would eventually be the easiest, building a common defence policy, speaks to sovereignty, speaks to public welfare. Why do we need this common defence policy? For technological development, to level the playing field for everyone.
Is it possible to have this common defence policy in the current situation?
I believe it is possible. Europe remains the place where everyone wants to come. But this cannot exist without a strong concept of defence. We should ensure these conditions are in place. Otherwise, Europe is a fragmented Europe. That’s what technology can bring us. For example, how could space provide an answer? In Europe, we have the know-how, but we had to turn to our international partners to get answers to the current situation.
You also mentioned this in your intervention at AEDDays: the fact that there is a gap in Europe compared to the US – we are very dependent on the outside.
When the war in Ukraine started, with the Russian invasion, the Member States coordinated to impose sanctions. And the European Space Agency implemented a breakdown in relations with Russia. The impact was brutal. The first thing we lost was access to space: we are developing a rocket, and in French Guiana, we were counting on Russian cooperation to access space with astronauts. There was that cut, and it had an immediate implication.
Material goods, like steel and aluminum, that we imported for fuselages, missions that were postponed… It was a brutal impact.
At that moment, everyone woke up and asked, “how can we be more resilient?”. This talk about resilience is very interesting, but resilience takes a long time to build. I hope this connection between defence and space will contribute to speeding this up.
And regarding Portugal, specifically?
We have to make choices. Particularly in the space field, I apreciated the intervention of the Secretary of State for Defence. What is Portugal’s potential in space? Are we going to do what others are doing? No. Let’s look at our geographical situation, at the matrix of our skills, and see what we can do.
We can do two things to make a very strong contribution to Europe: one is that our geographic situation – or geographical location – is very important in accessing space. We can access space from Portugal. It is a way to contribute to this European resilience that is so much talked about, which is commercialization.
Another problem with the EU was the institutionalization of everything: I found Paulo Portas’s criticism of what happens in Europe quite amusing: ‘first, regulate, and then there’s innovation.’ I agree with him, I also believe it should be exactly the opposite.
Is there too much regulation in the EU?
The EU is often the focus of the problem. Let me give you a specific example: there are 11 countries in Europe that have a law on space – Portugal is one of them and reviewed it at the beginning of the year to boost competitiveness. Now, the EU wants to harmonize all space-related legislation. The argument for this is the sustainability of outer space. But this harmonization will come at a cost to what we call the new space economy: we will lose competitiveness.
Why do different countries have different space laws? Because there are different geographical locations, there are different interpretations – for instance – on access conditions to space…
Perhaps we can compare it to fishing, with Exclusive Economic Zones…
Exactly. For example, regarding space debris: a load of regulation is coming. The US lets the market – and they are very effective in this regard – operate with self-regulation with a kind of final word at the governmental level. What is the consequence? The proliferation of many companies that, obviously, overlap with European capacity.
We have a long way to go. There’s savoir-faire, there’s a lot of knowledge, but there’s little venture capital – precisely because we are very conservative.
In Europe, it is expected that Governments and the European Commission advance. Only then does venture capital move in. In the US, this doesn’t exist. In fact, the tolerance for failure in the US is enormous. Venture capital in the US is tolerant to failure. The logic is: where should we fail to succeed.
Do we lack a culture of risk and a culture of error?
Yes, definitely.
Without access to space, Europe “will be subjugated”
The president of the Portuguese Space Agency argues that it is necessary to adopt “a new concept of space use at the military level” so that Europe does not become even more vulnerable.
Regarding Portugal, Ricardo Conde stresses the need to increase the Defence budget and criticises the “disclaiming attitude” of venture capital, which, although present in Portugal, is still “timid”.
At AEDDays, several participants emphasised the need for political courage in this field, which is sometimes unpopular in the eyes of public opinion. What can we do to make the field ‘sexier’, as it was said a few years ago about the shoe industry?
It is also said about space today, that it is a sexy area. But it’s not just a sexy area because of astronauts, it’s also a sexy area to produce something that is operational for our security. The result is this: decades of disinvestment.
Look at our Armed Forces, for which I have great esteem and I think we all do because it is considered an institution in which the Portuguese trust. The lack of investment is brutal. We have some areas of the Armed Forces that are not operational. The consequence of this is what has now led us to wake up to the sad reality: we don’t have the capacity to defend ourselves. Assisting Ukraine with ammunition is something that will take away capacity from countries.
Those who think there can be an economic social model without ensuring our defence are completely mistaken. We need to ensure the minimum conditions to have a defence capacity and, in the European context, a collective capacity. There is an impressive thing that I think is going well, but it will only have results in a few years: common European programs have to be strong enough to prevent the proliferation of small things at the national level. I’m talking, for example, about the program that is ensuing, at the industrial level, to establish a network of secure communications for all institutions, particularly the Armed Forces. We don’t need to make sectoral investments because it’s already there. But it will only produce effects in four or five years.
We woke up too late. The navigation network, the European GPS, is already operational. For example, we don’t have the capacity to launch our own navigation satellites. We had to ask Falcon 9, two weeks prior, to launch them. Maybe we should have a new concept of space utilization at the military level. If Europe doesn’t have access to space, it doesn’t have military capacity in outer space and will be subjugated. It’s a combination of these things that result in vulnerabilities. The Armed Forces, nowadays, and Defence are not just soldiers, it’s technology.
That’s what’s missing, that’s the gap. I know it’s hard to think of a 3% increase in the Defence budget. We are immediately prompted to think: where are we going to take it from? Health, schools, security, justice? No. We need more productivity for the 3% increase to be possible.
There’s an expression that says: “no one is coming to save us from ourselves”. We can’t count on these new geopolitics, particularly with the US… The US won’t put a soldier on European soil to die. I think that’s the great lesson we have to learn.
Can events like AEDDays help attract venture capital?
It’s already there. Timid, but it’s there. Particularly in space, we’ve had very interesting developments in the last two years. I can say that in 2022/2023, we had almost 30 million euros in venture capital. In this sector, it’s huge. It’s symptomatic in Europe. We already have some venture capital companies here in Portugal, but in Europe, there aren’t many companies. Why? Because venture capital is exactly what it means: I am in if there is also private or external investment, or from third parties. Here we always wait for structural funds to enter, not private financing.
The Recovery and Resilience Plan (PRR)?
The Recovery and Resilience Plan, the 2020, the 2030… There is almost complete abdication regarding the economy because someone, institutionally, will provide a part of the investment. Regarding the Recovery and Resilience Plan, I think only the companies that already had their plans, to make investments and, when the Recovery and Resilience Plan came, those 50% incentive made all the difference because they already had a strong business case and are transformational. Regarding the rest, I have serious doubts that there will be that economic impact. It would be good, but I doubt it.