Keeping pace with technology: drones, disturbance and policy deficiency

Abstract

This paper analyses regulatory responses to rapid intensification of the use of drones/remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) in the context of wildlife protection. Benefits and disadvantages of the technology to wildlife are examined, before three key limitations in policy and law are identified: failure to address wildlife disturbance in RPA regulation; reliance upon insufficiently comprehensive existing wildlife protection legislation to manage disturbance effects; and limited species-specific research on disturbance. A New Zealand case study further reveals an inconsistent regulatory approach struggling to keep pace with innovation, inadequate regulatory capture of environmental effects due to exemption as “aircraft”, and no recognition that specific geographical locations, such as coastal areas, distinguished by recreational pressures and high numbers of threatened species require special consideration. Recommendations include acknowledging the impact on wildlife in policy, gap analysis of legal arrangements for protection from disturbance (including airspace), and adoption of minimum approach distances to threatened species.

Keywords:

• UAV
• RPA
• drone
• aircraft
• regulation
• wildlife conflict
• wildlife disturbance

Acknowledgements

We thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.