The government moved to ease regulations by enforcing the Act on the Promotion of Drone Utilization and the Establishment of Its Foundation (Drone Act) to foster the drone industry, but the Korea National Park Service, under the Ministry of Environment, has stuck to an internal rule of a total flight ban for eight years. Drone enthusiasts filed a police complaint accusing the agency's chair, saying the agency's "anachronistic regulation" infringes on basic rights and ignores higher law, and reported the chair to police on suspicion of abuse of authority.
◇ "Drone Act first" vs. "separate place control rights"… diverging legal interpretations
According to the industry and police on the 2nd, members of "DronePlay," the nation's largest drone community, late last month reported Korea National Park Service Chair Ju Dae-young to the Yongin Seobu Police Station on suspicion of "abuse of authority and obstruction of the exercise of rights." The core of the complaint is that the agency has completely blocked the public from flying drones for eight years based on a single "notice" with weak legal grounds.
A member of DronePlay, a person surnamed Lee, argued in the complaint that "Article 4 of the Drone Act, enforced in Oct., specifies that it prevails over other laws regarding the promotion of drone utilization," and said, "The agency is neutralizing the force of the new law by putting forward the outdated Natural Parks Act and internal rules, and obstructing the legitimate exercise of the public's rights." The member added, "This complaint is not just a tantrum asking to let us fly drones, but an effort to correct the old habits of a public institution that seeks to reign above the law, and we will fight to the end until rule-of-law administration is realized."
Some say the backdrop of this situation is the discord among government ministries and the agency's "administrative convenience." The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport touts drones as a key to the Fourth Industrial Revolution and calls for becoming a "drone powerhouse," but the Ministry of Environment and the agency managing sites are imposing uncompromising regulations in the name of "nature conservation" and "safety." In particular, the domestic drone industry complains, "If the Seoul metropolitan area is off-limits for security reasons and local landmarks are blocked because they are national parks, where are we supposed to test technology and build data?"
The agency is maintaining its existing stance regarding the complaint. It emphasizes that noise and visual stimuli can negatively affect wildlife habitats. The agency's position is, "The Drone Act's priority application concerns the operation of aircraft itself, not the exclusion of activity restrictions in specific areas," and "Restrictions are unavoidable to protect visitor safety and the ecosystem under Article 29 of the Natural Parks Act."
An agency official said, "According to advice from the legal team, the Drone Act's priority clause pertains to operations such as aircraft specifications and flight methods, and was interpreted not to nullify control rights over specific areas," and added, "If we followed the complaint's logic, nuclear power plants, airports, and military units—security facilities—would all have to be opened under the Drone Act." The official continued, "National parks are special areas where conservation takes precedence under the Natural Parks Act, so activity restrictions over places are the agency's inherent authority."
◇ A pilot program was promised for review, but progress stalls over lack of cases and concerns about side effects
Drone enthusiasts' biggest complaint is that the agency actively operates drones for its own promotional videos or academic research. Critics say, "Is it safe when agency employees fly them, but environmental damage when licensed citizens do?" In fact, the National Park customer bulletin board and other forums are seeing a string of objections saying, "Allowing TV stations to film while blocking the general public violates fairness."
Some in the industry argue that the agency's response is a "Galapagos regulation" that fails to keep up with the pace of technological development. Unlike early drones, the latest aircraft have made dramatic advances in safety technologies such as low-noise propellers and collision avoidance sensors. There is also analysis that the domestic hobby drone market has effectively withered due to a lack of flying locations, allowing Chinese-made drones such as DJI to monopolize the market.
A drone industry official said, "We are not calling for unconditional permission; we propose introducing negative regulation such as opening certain zones and time slots, excluding wildfire watch periods or wildlife breeding seasons," and added, "The agency has repeated 'under review' for years, cutting off the industry's growth for administrative convenience."
In July last year, the agency responded to a civil petition requesting permission to fly drones in national parks by saying it was "reviewing a pilot program to allow personal drone flights in designated areas of select parks." It said at the time that it would improve policy through analysis of overseas cases and gathering expert opinions, but critics say progress remains sluggish to this day.
An agency official said, "We agreed with the intent to revitalize the drone industry and reviewed a pilot program positively, but there is virtually no domestic or international research data or clear evidence on the impact of drone flights on natural ecosystems, making it difficult to establish practical guidelines," and added, "If we open up hastily without clear standards, then reimpose a ban if problems arise, it could trigger even stronger backlash, so we have no choice but to be cautious."