@article{1212816b68f24343b6fdbb4ef38f730d,
title = "Making space for drones: The contested reregulation of airspace in Tanzania and Rwanda",
abstract = "In contrast to their use in warfare and surveillance, there is growing interest in the potential of “drones for good” to deliver societal benefits, for example by delivering medical products and other essential goods. Yet development of medical and commercial delivery has been limited globally by restrictive regulation to protect airspace safety and security. In this paper we examine how certain African countries have become testbeds for new forms of drone infrastructure and regulation, driven by the overlapping interests of governments, drone operators, and international development agencies. In particular we explore the factors that have led to the development of an advanced medical delivery network in Rwanda and contrast that with the closing down of airspace for drones in Tanzania. The paper makes a distinctive contribution to research on the ongoing constitution of dronespace as a sphere of commercial and governmental activity. Rwanda{\textquoteright}s drone delivery system is seen as the forerunner for the wider enclosure and parcelling up of the lower atmosphere into designated drone corridors that limit the democratic and disruptive potential of drone activity in line with prevailing logics of airspace regulation.",
keywords = "airspace regulation, drones, enclosure, infrastructure, Rwanda, Tanzania",
author = "Andy Lockhart and Aidan While and Simon Marvin and Mateja Kovacic and Nancy Odendaal and Christian Alexander",
note = "Funding Information: In this paper we focus on the selective opening up and closing down of commercially operated drone activities in Tanzania and Rwanda. Both countries have become key sites of “drones for good” innovation, with an interest in rewriting airspace regulation to manage the emergence of commercial dronespace – defined as a new frontier for enclosure and development, made up predominantly of Class G airspace operationalised by civilian drones, and the socio‐technical systems that enable its use. In Tanzania, ambiguous regulatory authority initially enabled several emblematic mapping projects, but airspace regulators have gradually closed down space for drones in response to increasingly ambitious proposals for delivery projects, and specific concerns about risks of airspace safety. The Rwandan government meanwhile was quick in establishing a strict regime for prohibiting unregulated drone ownership and use, but subsequently worked proactively with US drone start‐up Zipline to develop the then most advanced drone corridor network for the delivery of blood and medical products in the world. Zipline{\textquoteright}s drone infrastructure model has since been transferred to Ghana, and provided a socio‐technical foundation for the development of innovative “performance‐based” regulations for facilitating other kinds of Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) drone operations in Rwanda. Drawing on qualitative research carried out in 2018 (funded by the British Academy “Drones/Robotics and Development Priorities in Africa: Transformative infrastructure or digital colonisation?” project), the paper examines the difficulties in reregulating airspace for drones and the factors that have supported and enabled innovation in Rwanda. The two examples, it is argued, are emblematic of wider struggles over the constitution of commercial dronespace, but also prefigure future enclosure of airspace for drones and raise important questions about proprietorial control by “trusted” drone delivery platforms. 1 Funding Information: British Academy- KF1\100069. We are very grateful to the four reviewers whose generous but challenging comments greatly improved the paper and to Matt Sparke for his encouraging editorial steer. We would also like to extend our appreciation to all our extremely accommodating interviewees and in-country partners who helped facilitate our fieldwork, as well as our advisory board, and especially Tom Goodfellow and Jon Silver, whose constructive engagements over the course of the project were invaluable in shaping the research. Finally, we would like to thank our funders at the British Academy for making the research possible through grant KF1\100069 of the Knowledge Frontiers programme. Publisher Copyright: The information, practices and views in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Royal Geographical Society (with IBG). {\textcopyright} 2021 The Authors. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers)",
year = "2021",
month = dec,
doi = "10.1111/tran.12448",
language = "English",
volume = "46",
pages = "850--865",
journal = "Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers",
issn = "0020-2754",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd",
number = "4",
}
