The benefits of drones to science

Across many scientific disciplines basic research is driven by the collection and analysis of data. Research involving the collection of data from UAVs is already well-established in many scientific disciplines. For example, UAVs have been used extensively in photogrammetry, remote sensing and mapping (Colomina & Molina, Reference Colomina and Molina2014). UAVs also have a broad range of uses in ecological research (Anderson & Gaston, Reference Anderson and Gaston2013). In ornithology, fixed wing UAVs have been widely used for census works and observations including close up video filming of birds in flight (Vas, Lescroël, Duriez, Boguszewski, & Grémillet, Reference Vas, Lescroël, Duriez, Boguszewski and Grémillet2015). A key benefit of UAV use in such research is that they allow repeat surveys of colonies of birds with minimal disturbance allowing for monitoring of temporal and spatial variation of breeding pairs (Anderson & Gaston, Reference Anderson and Gaston2013), although the extent of disturbance of bird populations is still unclear.

Low-altitude flights of UAVs also enable collection of finer spatial resolution data. Where previously access to satellite and airborne sensors on fixed wing aircraft provided similar types of datasets, access to both was prohibitively expensive and inaccessible to many researchers. UAVs offer a cheaper and relatively more accessible alternative (Koh & Wich, Reference Koh and Wich2012).

UAVs are also emerging as a powerful tool in conservation management aiding law enforcement efforts to stem poaching of threatened species in Africa and parts of Asia (Pimm et al., Reference Pimm, Alibhai, Bergl, Dehghan, Giri, Jewell and Loarie2015). While the author has not been able to identify any examples where drones have been used for law enforcement in Antarctica or the Southern Ocean, it is foreseeable that the technology could be adapted to law enforcement or monitoring, especially in the context of steps to limit so-called illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing in the Southern Ocean. At least one regional fisheries management organisation, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, in conjunction with non-governmental organisations, such as the WWF, has already begun exploring the potential utility of drones for fisheries management. This has included a trial flight of an aerosonde UAV in Palau in 2013 (WWF, 2014).

Drones and Antarctic science

A desktop review of published literature (both peer-reviewed scientific literature and ‘grey’ literature on the internet) for the purposes of this study has confirmed that UAVs are now used by many national research programmes in Antarctica including those of Australia, the USA, the UK, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Poland, Norway, Germany, Portugal and Chile. A total of 19 research projects using drones in Antarctica were identified as set out in Table 1. While not intended to be an exhaustive account of UAV research in Antarctica, as some of the examples shown in Table 1 illustrate, UAVs are used in a diverse range of applications across many scientific disciplines. These include a range of research projects involving aerial geomagnetic surveys, meteorological measurement and biological observations (Higashino, Funaki, Hirasawa, Hayashi, & Nagasaki, Reference Higashino, Funaki, Hirasawa, Hayashi, Nagasaki, Nonami, Kartidjo, Yoon and Budiyono2013). Other applications include measurement of sea ice and measurement of the impacts of climate change.

It is also worth noting that on occasion UAVs have also been used to assist with navigation of vessels transporting researchers to and from Antarctica. For example, in December 2015, a UAV launched from the Australian vessel the Aurora Australis helped the icebreaker navigate through sea ice on its annual resupply voyage to Casey Station (Griffith, Reference Griffith2016). Launched from the aft deck of the Aurora Australis the quadcopter UAV provided real-time imagery of sea ice conditions providing useful additional information to assist with vessel navigation (Australian Antarctic Division, 2015).

The benefits and risks of drone use in Antarctica

As highlighted above, drones are emerging as an integral part of scientific research in Antarctica. In many respects they are just like any other piece of scientific equipment and their use in Antarctica should be embraced for the benefits they bring to science.

In a working paper presented at ATCM XXXVIII in 2015 the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs (COMNAP) highlighted that in the Antarctic context the use of drones has two main benefits: safety and logistics or operational (COMNAP, 2015)

In Antarctica's notoriously changeable and extreme weather conditions flying helicopters and fixed wing aircraft in support of scientific research can at times be extremely dangerous. While aircrew flying in these extreme conditions are highly skilled and typically very experienced, accidents do occur. For example, in 2012, a helicopter operated by the Chinese Antarctic expedition crashed near China's Zhongshan Station injuring one of its pilots (ATCM, 2012). More recently, in December 2013, a helicopter chartered by the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) impacted with the surface of the Amery Ice Shelf injuring the pilot and two passengers (ATCM, 2015a). Since, unlike fixed wing aircraft or helicopters, drones carry neither pilot nor passengers there is no risk that either will be injured or killed if a drone crashes.

COMNAP has also noted that the use of drones in the Antarctic context has several logistical or operational benefits compared with traditional fixed wing aircraft or helicopters. Drones are now relatively inexpensive both to purchase and in their ongoing operational costs (COMNAP, 2015). Their small size means that they are also easy to transport and deploy, and because they are typically run on rechargeable batteries, as opposed to fossil fuels, there is minimal fuel transportation cost and, hence, they are cheaper to operate and have less of a carbon footprint than traditional aviation (COMNAP, 2015). In addition, while some level of skill is required to fly a drone in Antarctica's extreme conditions, the pilot training required is significantly less than a fixed wing aircraft or helicopter (COMNAP, 2015).

It has also been suggested that drones could have a role to play in fire-fighting, searching for missing persons, in medical emergencies and quick reconnaissance (for example, crevasse detection) (COMNAP, 2015). While these additional safety features of drones have been noted in the context of debates on drones in Antarctica within the forums of the Antarctic Treaty System, to date there appear to be no reported examples of where drones have actually been used for these purposes.

While drones offer many benefits in terms of safety and logistics they also pose risks to safety different to fixed wing aircraft or helicopters. While there are no pilots or passengers on board a UAV, there is always the risk that a UAV might collide with the pilot operating the UAV or other bystanders, such as scientists or tourists, on the ground (COMNAP, 2015). When operated near bases with active runways, skiways or landing pads where fixed wing aircraft and helicopters are operating from there is also the risk of a UAV colliding with such aircraft, with potentially disastrous consequences. In the ‘crowded operational space’ around bases there is also the risk of injury to bystanders and damage to the built environment of stations, infrastructure and scientific instruments (COMNAP, 2015).

In addition, there is also the potential for radio signals and other electromagnetic signals from bases to interfere with control of UAVs possibly resulting in UAV pilots losing control of the UAV (COMNAP, 2015). COMNAP (2015) has also highlighted a range of other factors that can lead to UAV crashes including pilot error, pilot medical issues, loss of communication with UAVs, loss of line of sight (important for some less sophisticated UAVs that rely on the pilot being able to see the UAV for it to be safely operated), equipment failure, mid-air collision with other aircraft, and weather conditions (COMNAP, 2015).

The potential environmental impact has been another key concern that has been raised in relation to drone use in Antarctica. While this is a key issue there is actually very little data available on the environmental impact of drones on fauna. To date, the limited evidence suggests that the key environmental impact could potentially be on avian fauna, such as penguins, that nest throughout many of the coastal areas of Antarctica. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) has noted that ‘no peer-reviewed published research [can] be found in the scientific literature . . . on UAV impacts’. But in the ‘absence of published studies on UAV . . . impacts in Antarctica’ SCAR has recommended, inter alia, ‘. . . members using UAVs in areas with wildlife concentrations [should] support research into UAV impacts, and means to avoid them’ (SCAR, 2015, p. 5). Consistent with this recommendation from SCAR, in a working paper submitted to ATCM XXXIX, Germany reported on initial results of research on the interference of UAVs with an Adélie penguin colony on the South Shetland Islands. This paper recommended horizontal and vertical minimum distances for micro-UAVs to Adélie penguin colonies of 100 m and take-off distances of more than 50 m (CEP, 2016a).

Outside Antarctica there have been a few studies on the impact of drones on avian fauna; however, the full picture on environmental impacts is still unclear. One recent study (Vas et al., Reference Vas, Lescroël, Duriez, Boguszewski and Grémillet2015) tested the impact of drone colour, speed and flight angle responses of semi-captive mallards, wild flamingos and common greenshanks in a wetland area. This study observed that birds were more sensitive to drones approaching vertically and recommended launching drones more than 100 m from birds, but noted different distances may be appropriate on a species by species basis (Vas et al., Reference Vas, Lescroël, Duriez, Boguszewski and Grémillet2015).

In light of the limited evidence available SCAR has recommended ‘[i]n the absence of evidence for the Antarctic. . . [M]embers to consider avoiding UAV launches closer than 100 m to wildlife and to consider avoiding vertical approaches to wildlife with UAVs, until Antarctic-specific information becomes available’ (SCAR, 2015, p. 5).

Emerging debates within the Antarctic Treaty System

As noted above debate on UAV use in Antarctica was sparked by a working paper submitted by Germany and Poland (ATCM, 2014). The use of drones in Antarctica was first discussed in detail at ATCM XXXVII held in Brazil in 2014 in the context of agenda Item 10 – Safety and Operations in Antarctica and at the meeting of the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP) (Agenda Item 8b) held immediately before the ATCM. In 2014, the CEP requested reports by SCAR and COMNAP on the utility and risks of UAV operation in Antarctica, as well as papers from IAATO and member states on their experience of UAV use (CEP, 2015). While 2014 marked the first substantive discussions on the issue, more detailed debate did not occur until the ATCM and CEP meetings held in Bulgaria in 2015. At its 2015 meeting, the CEP considered a number of papers on the issue including the requested papers from COMNAP (COMNAP, 2015), SCAR (SCAR, 2015) and IAATO (IAATO, 2015). In addition, information papers on member states’ experiences of UAV use in Antarctica were submitted by Poland (ATCM, 2015b), and South Africa (ATCM, 2015c). The USA also presented two information papers on risk-based approaches to safe operations of UAVs in the US Antarctic Program (USAP; ATCM, 2015d) and guidance on UAV use in Antarctica developed for applications to scientific studies on penguins and seals (ATCM, 2015e).

Significantly, a working paper submitted by COMNAP set out a number of key recommendations that have shaped subsequent developments (COMNAP, 2015). In this working paper, COMNAP recommended that national Antarctic programmes develop programme-, equipment- and site-specific guidelines for UAV use based on the COMNAP UAV code of conduct which was being developed. The working paper also recommended that national Antarctic programmes and other operators collect and share data and support research on UAV use. After extensive discussion of these documents CEP's advice to the ATCM merely noted that it ‘recognized the benefits of developing guidance on the environmental aspects of UAV use in Antarctica, and agreed that it would consider at CEP XIX initiating work to develop such guidance’ (CEP, 2015).

Following on from discussions within CEP there was also considerable discussion on the implications of drone use at ATCM XXXVIII in 2015 both in the context of discussion of the CEP's report to the ATCM, but more significantly as part of the overall discussion of aviation matters in agenda Item 10 on Safety and Operations in Antarctica. In this context the ATCM expressed general support for UAV use in Antarctica and ‘acknowledged UAVs as an important tool for the future’ (ATCM, 2015f). The ATCM also took note of COMNAP's work on UAVs and in particular noted that it would consider guidelines on UAV use then under development by COMNAP (ATCM, 2015d).

In 2016, the first concrete steps towards a regulatory regime for UAV use in Antarctica were taken. At CEP XIX, the CEP considered the initial version of the UAS Operator's Handbook, which had been developed by the COMNAP Unmanned Aerial Systems-Working Group (UAS-WG) and was contained in a working paper submitted by COMNAP to the meeting and the ATCM (COMNAP, 2016). The UAS-WG had been established in August 2015 at the COMNAP Annual General Meeting (AGM) XXVII to focus on UAS-related issues. Its members included representatives from Australia, Germany, the UK, Italy, France, Russia, South Korea, Japan, Poland, China and the USA. In its presentation to the CEP, COMNAP explained that the handbook had been developed as a result of discussions by experts from the 11 national Antarctic programmes who participated in the UAS-WG (CEP, 2016b). The CEP noted that the handbook would be discussed at the ATCM and expressed its support for the handbook (CEP, 2016b). The CEP also recognised the need for more work on the potential environmental impacts of UAV use in Antarctica, and supported the establishment of an intersessional contact group (ICG) to develop further guidance on the environmental aspects of UAV use commencing at CEP XX, when more information on environmental impacts (including a report by SCAR) would be available.

While some CEP members expressed support for a suggestion raised during the meeting to ban the recreational use of UAVs in Antarctica, no such recommendation was adopted. The CEP agreed that recreational uses could be given further consideration during the planned ICG. This oblique reference to recreational uses of UAV was not related to use of UAVs by tourists, but rather as the report of the CEP's meeting suggests it related to ‘the utility of carefully managed recreational use of UAVs to station staff, particularly those remaining in Antarctica over winter, would usefully inform future discussions’ (CEP, 2016b, p. 91). In essence it has been suggested by the CEP that there may be certain benefits to over winter base morale by allowing scientists to use UAVs for recreational purposes.

At ATCM XXXIX held in Santiago in 2016, COMNAP submitted a working paper on the work of the UAS-WG (COMNAP, 2016) and provided a briefing on the work in developing the UAS Operator's Handbook. The response of the ATCM was merely to thank COMNAP for its working paper and noted ‘the usefulness of the UAS Operator's Handbook’ and expressed ‘overall support for the use of UAVs for scientific purposes and underlined their benefits both for science and other operations in Antarctica’ (ATCM, 2016, p. 41). No resolution or other measure was adopted by the ATCM in relation to the UAS Operator's Handbook. Thus it is clear that to date the handbook has no legal effect other than as non-mandatory guidance to national Antarctic programmes.

While it has no legal effect the UAS Operator's Handbook does offer some very clear guidance on how drones can be used sustainably in Antarctica and has been designed to evolve over time as published research on the use and impacts of UAVs in Antarctica becomes available, and as the technology itself evolves (COMNAP, 2016). The following discussion sketches the key elements of this guidance.

The Antarctic UAS Operator's Handbook

The UAS Operator's Handbook is broken into three parts: Part 1 includes some introductory or general background information on why the handbook has been developed; Part 2 contains recommendations to provide guidance to national Antarctic programmes on the use of UAVs in the Antarctic Treaty area; and Part 3 contains appendices of various templates of common forms that might be used and adapted by national Antarctic programmes.

As noted above Part 1 of the handbook sets the scene for why the guidance contained in the handbook is needed and how it should be implemented through a process of risk assessment and mitigation. Thus Part 1 notes:

Although the UAS Operator's Handbook has no binding legal effect, it is clear from the reference to the Madrid Protocol that it has been developed with the existing legal regime for environmental protection in mind. Safety concerns also underlie the development of the handbook.

Part 2 contains 12 recommendations to assist with UAV activity in the Antarctic Treaty area. But the handbook explicitly recognises that ‘as countries develop their own UAS regulation, national Antarctic programs must act in a manner that does not contradict their national rules and regulations’ (COMNAP, 2016).

The following discussion summarises the major points contained in each of these recommendations. Recommendation 1 suggests that national Antarctic programmes should prohibit UAV operations without authorisation from their programme's head of operations, air operations or station manager. Recommendation 2 ‘strongly recommends’ that UAV deployment be primarily for support of science, logistics and operations, and emergency and search and rescue situations. Recommendation 3 then goes on to stress consideration should always be given to the environmental impact of activities as per the requirements of the Madrid Protocol, any ATCM measures and provisions contained in any ASMAs. Recommendation 4 notes the importance of advanced notification and communication to other Antarctic programmes and bases of UAV use, as well as any existing airspace restrictions. Recommendation 5 then goes on to strongly recommend every national Antarctic programme deploying UAVs to develop their own national operations manuals consistent with international regulations (which may or may not be developed in the future). Recommendation 6 suggests UAVs should carry brightly coloured identification marks including national registration and identification information to identify the pilot and operator in the event of an accident, incident or near miss. Curiously recommendation 7 recommends that national Antarctic programmes take a common approach to safety risk assessment but does not contain any detailed provisions on what such approach should be. Recommendation 8 strongly recommends that UAV flights be notified to other air operations in the area through standard aviation mechanisms, such as communications plans and Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) where relevant.

In terms of UAV pilot training recommendation 9 states that national Antarctic programmes ensure each pilot has training consistent with appropriate national regulations and applicable requirements of Annex 1 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation dealing with Personnel Licensing.

Recognising that accidents will occur, recommendation 10 states that all UAV operations and all national Antarctic programme operations manuals make provision for the retrieval of waste in event of an accident.

Similarly, recommendation 11 acknowledges that much of this technology will develop and evolve over time and as such recommends that national Antarctic programmes adopt search and avoid capabilities, perception and avoidance systems as they are developed.

Finally, recommendation 12 strongly recommends sharing of operational and certification information and best practice over time.

Part 3 of the handbook contains appendices of various templates and common forms that national Antarctic programmes could use in their UAV operations. These cover issues such as risk assessment and management of environmental impact and safety of human life, communication plans in relation to air operations, NOTAMs, pilot records, flight records, and accident, incident and near miss reporting.

Antarctic Treaty System response-critique

Although the development of the UAS Operator's Handbook is a positive first step in addressing concerns that have been raised in relation to drone use in Antarctica, there are a number of weaknesses in this approach worth noting. First, this document contains recommendations only, which have no binding legal effect. Likewise, it is not clear what the significance is of some recommendations being ‘recommended’ while others are ‘strongly recommended’. Similarly, the handbook only contains recommendations in broad terms on what national Antarctic programme guidelines or regulations should cover, not specific details on how each issue should be addressed.

As such a key weakness of this approach is that it is very much dependent on the content and quality of national regulation by individual Antarctic programmes. In fact many jurisdictions have yet to adequately respond to the regulatory challenges raised by drones within their own mainland territories, let alone develop comprehensive national regulation to apply to their Antarctic operations. Australia is one of the few states that does have detailed regulation of UAVs in place under Sub-part 101.F of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998. While the AAD is reportedly developing policy guidance on how these regulations will operate in Australia's Antarctic programme, the terms of that policy guidance is not currently publicly available so its adequacy cannot be assessed. Spain has also developed a ‘protocol for the operation of aircraft piloted by remote control and automated [sic] (UAV)’ (ATCM, 2016). In most other jurisdictions regulation is not as far advanced. Thus while South Africa currently has no specific regulations in place that would apply to drone use in Antarctica, draft regulations are under development (ATCM, 2015c). Similarly New Zealand released a draft policy for comment in 2013, but its status is currently unknown (COMNAP, 2015).

The USA has been developing a regulatory regime for drone use more generally for a number of years, but domestic debate has been long and protracted and it is unclear when a clear regulatory regime will arise for drone use under US law. However, this has not stopped US policy makers from issuing specific guidance on the use of UAVs by USAP personnel. Thus a USAP programmatic notice issued on 15 September 2014 provides:

A related question is whether or not there will be a consistent approach to regulation among all Antarctic programmes that use drones. Given the collaborative nature of Antarctic research there is also potentially an as yet unanswered question as to which state's regulation would apply in research projects involving researchers from several nations. What happens if contradictory national regulations or requirements apply to parties from different nations? Which country's programme guidelines would apply?

Another unresolved issue is what might happen if drone use by tourists were to interfere with scientific research. The handbook gives no guidance as to how the scientific use of drones might interact with other lawful activities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, such as tourism or fishing.

In light of those issues the following discussion examines the separate response that has been developed by the tourist industry in Antarctica.

IAATO moratorium

Regulation of tourist activity in Antarctica relies heavily on the responsible stewardship of tourist operators, principally through guidelines developed by IAATO. IAATO is an international industry organisation comprised of more than 100 companies and organisations from Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the People's Republic of China, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK and the USA engaged in Antarctic tourism (IAATO, 2016b).

In the 2014/2015 tourist season, 68 UAV flights were reported by IAATO members, comprising 44 in coastal regions and 24 in deep field environments including coastal areas fringed by ice shelves (IAATO, 2015). The vast majority of these flights were primarily for professional filming purposes and to a lesser extent for ice reconnaissance or in support of scientific research work (IAATO, 2015). Of these 68 flights, only one major incident was reported when one UAV was lost in a crevasse at Waddington Bay. This UAV was operating from a yacht. In addition, there was one reported case of a tourist operating a UAV without approval that was stopped by the tour operator (IAATO, 2015).

In the 2015/2016 season, IAATO reported a total of 96 UAV flights associated with activities of IAATO members. Of these, 89 flights occurred in coastal regions and seven occurred at non-coastal deep field sites, primarily for commercial filming purposes (IAATO, 2016a). There were no reported incidents involving UAVs during the 2015/2016 season, although there was one reported instance of an unauthorised flight at Neko Harbour (IAATO, 2016a).

To its credit IAATO has recognised that the use of UAVs by tourists in Antarctica does come with potential environmental impacts. Thus IAATO has noted:

In an information paper submitted at the ATCM in 2015, IAATO reported that for the 2015/2016 season a temporary moratorium on the use of UAVs applying to their members’ operations (originally developed for the 2014/2015 season) was re-affirmed with some minor amendment at the IAATO meeting in 2015 (IAATO, 2015). The current version of the IAATO statement on the use of UAVs that applies for the 2016/2017 tourist season provides:

Thus under the terms of the current moratorium recreational UAV flights would not be permitted in coastal areas, although UAV flights for scientific or commercial purposes would be allowed if conducted with permission/authorisation from a competent authority. But as noted above current regulation to the extent it applies to scientific research conducted as part of national Antarctic programmes is at best patchy and under development, while regulation for commercial uses has not been canvassed at all in the current debates. Similarly, UAV flights by tourists would also be allowed at deep field sites, including coastal areas bound by ice shelves, if conducted with permission/authorisation from a competent authority. But here again currently there is no mechanism in place for competent national authorities to grant permission for tourist uses.

More significantly, as noted above under the IAATO statement, UAV flights are allowed at ‘deep field sites, including coastal areas bound by ice shelves’, if conducted with permission/authorisation from a competent authority. But the IAATO statement does not clearly define what these sites are and where these sites are located. One way that this issue could be addressed would be for these sites to be identified on a map. If IAATO were to publish such a map tour operators would then clearly know where UAVs should or should not be used. This would also help identify any potential conflict with important sites such as roosting sites, locations where active scientific research is being undertaken or other sites where UAV use may raise concerns. As far as the author is aware to date no such maps exist.

Similarly, while the IAATO statement makes clear that prior to conducting the activity the use of UAVs must be included in the tourist operator's permit or authorisation conditions such as those relating to advance notification, environmental impact assessment and its waste management permits, where relevant, it is not clear how these conditions of approval are to be sought.

In addition, a series of points to be considered for operators were suggested by IAATO to its members. These points are as follows:

1. 1. Legal requirements

1. 2. Flight Operations and Piloting of UAVs

1. 3. Flight restrictions

1. 4. Environmental restrictions

1. 5. Record Keeping

These points for consideration are comprehensive and do cover the key issues that have been raised in relation to UAV use in Antarctica, including important issues such as pilot training, safe operation in hazardous conditions and, importantly, significant restrictions on where UAVs can be flown. IAATO therefore appears to have introduced robust recommendations to its members. While the explicit recognition of the need of operators to comply with the provisions of the Antarctic Treaty and the Madrid Protocol is a positive sign, it remains to be seen whether these points for consideration will be adequate into the future and whether or not more robust regulatory responses may be required by state parties to the Antarctic Treaty and the Madrid Protocol. One obvious measure that states could adopt to strengthen this might be for key provisions banning flight over ASPAs, ASMAs and Historic Sites and Monuments (HSMs) to be included in relevant management plans and other instruments regulating activity in such protected areas.

Similarly, it might also be worthwhile for state parties to revisit the provisions of the Guidelines for the operation of aircraft near concentrations of birds in Antarctica adopted under Resolution 2 at ATCM XXVI in Cape Town in 2004 (ATCM, 2004). These guidelines contain recommended separation distances and recommended measures to avoid disturbance of wildlife by fixed wing aircraft and helicopters. For example, under the guidelines, penguin, albatross and other bird colonies must not be overflown below 2000 ft. However, with the minimal noise and less disturbance caused by UAVs, overflight at much lower altitudes might be permissible. But given the acknowledged lack of scientific evidence on environmental impacts noted earlier, any such changes to the guidelines will need to await the outcome of the collection of further data on possible environmental impacts of UAV use.

In addition, consideration may also need to be given as to whether further amendment to the guidelines is required to specify when UAVs can be used so as not to disrupt breeding seasons. The flight season of fixed wing aircraft and helicopters is currently restricted and given the current state of scientific knowledge it is an open question as to whether these could be relaxed for some UAVs. Again this awaits further information on the environmental impact of UAVs.

Other outstanding issues

The measures adopted by IAATO are a welcome step. In many respects the IAATO provisions are more comprehensive than those contained in the UAS Operator's Handbook. Many of the IAATO provisions could be integrated into the handbook, provisions on operating in protected areas or those dealing with the weather in which UAVs can or cannot be operated being two obvious examples, although many others might also be worth incorporating. Given that the UAS Operator's Handbook is regarded as a living document that has been designed to change over time, provisions of the IAATO measures could easily be copied and incorporated.

However, some of the IAATO provisions would not be appropriate for scientific research. For example, the requirement that the pilot maintain visual contact with the UAV at all times. While this is desirable for small UAVs it is not practical for some of the larger long-range UAVs used by some national Antarctic programmes such as the British Antarctic Survey. For large drones such as these, regulation would instead need to address minimum requirements for electronic communication or radar contact, for example. This one issue suggests that as regulation evolves it may be that we see the emergence of guidelines appropriate for specific forms of technology. Similarly, as scientific understanding of the environmental impact of UAVs grows it might be that species-specific guidelines for overflight might be appropriate.

In a similar vein the regulatory response to UAVs in Antarctica may have to evolve over time as other international regulatory frameworks are developed. One obvious area that will need to be watched by Antarctic policy makers will be the work of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) on drones. The most relevant aviation treaty in this context is the Convention on International Civil Aviation (signed in Chicago on 7 December 1944 and amended by the ICAO Assembly [Doc 7300]; hereinafter referred to as the Chicago Convention). Article 8 of the Chicago Convention provides:

Given the, at times, ambiguous nature of jurisdiction in Antarctica, it is unclear if drone use in Antarctica constitutes international civil aviation within the remit of ICAO. In the context of the contested nature of claims to territory in Antarctica and the provisions of the Antarctic Treaty dealing with territorial claims what meaning do we give to ‘territory’ in the Antarctic context? How is special authorisation to be obtained when, as noted above, most countries active in Antarctica are yet to develop regulation of drone use in Antarctica under their national law? For the time being these remain unanswered questions.

In any event ICAO is still struggling with developing an appropriate regulatory response in areas within national jurisdiction where these concepts are not contested. In 2011, ICAO issued a circular on UAS as a ‘first snapshot on the subject’ (ICAO, 2011, p. iii). Although further work on developing appropriate regulatory frameworks for UAVs is currently being undertaken by ICAO, the first regulatory instruments are not likely to be issued before 2018 (Casey, Reference Casey2015). Nonetheless, developments outside the Antarctic Treaty System, such as those under the auspices of ICAO, will need to be monitored in coming years for their implications for drone use in the Antarctic context.

Long term, other questions may arise from the increased use of UAVs in Antarctica that we cannot yet anticipate. Crampton (Reference Crampton2016) recently argued that UAVs ‘constitute socio-technical assemblage of the sky and vertical space’ and urges future analysis not only of their technological development and capacities but also of the implications ‘their effects and affects’ (p. 137). What will be both the long-term effects and affects of UAV use in Antarctica? These are questions we may only ever be able to answer with hindsight. But two initial issues come to mind. First, if UAVs are now to hover in the most remote and isolated place on earth what does this mean for the conceptualisation of Antarctica as a wilderness? This is a question that in turn raises the key question raised by Bastmeijer nearly a decade ago, ‘What are wilderness values in the context of the polar regions and when would these be affected?’ (Bastmeijer, Reference Bastmeijer2009, p. 73). Can one really have a wilderness if drones buzz overhead?

Alternatively, what might the ‘nationalisation’ of airspace through separate regulation of UAV use by national Antarctic programmes have on airspace over Antarctica. Will this undermine the ‘grand bargain’ on the sovereignty question, the freeze on territorial claims set out in Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty? The regulation of drone use in airspace that is currently strictly neither national nor international may, longer term, hold as yet unknown implications for the ‘frozen’ claims to sovereignty in Antarctica.