Critical infrastructure operators may be given right to take down drones

Ministries are discussing whether and under what conditions to grant critical infrastructure operators the right to take down drones that violate flight restrictions. Currently, only a limited number of law enforcement agencies have the authority to intercept drones.
The right to down drones is part of the state's monopoly on the use of force, just like the right to carry a service weapon or use a telescopic baton. This means that private individuals, businesses, and most government institutions cannot ban flights over their territory or interfere with drone operations in any way.
"This logic is similar to standard law enforcement practices," said Indrek Link, adviser on law enforcement and criminal policy at the Ministry of the Interior. "Even in regular law enforcement, we have not given such measures to others, and it is primarily the state that intervenes when necessary."
For example, before February 8, when Estonia disconnects its power grid from Russia's, the state will impose temporary flight restriction zones over key Elering facilities. If someone still sends a drone over a major substation or system compensator, they may lose their aircraft. Security agencies will handle enforcement.
Ministry asks ports which facilities need protection
Rules governing drone defense were adopted into law in the first half of 2022. Since then, the number of "critical objects" has significantly expanded. Government agencies have developed a broader understanding of the potential threats posed by unmanned aerial vehicles.
"There is also discussion about whether and under what conditions facility operators themselves could be allowed to counter drones," Link said, describing the discussions that began last year.
Last week, the Ministry of Climate sent a letter to the Logistics and Ports Association, asking which ports, fuel terminals, or other facilities they believe should be protected from drones.
At the same time, Jaan Erik Kiissel, an adviser in the ministry's aviation department, said under the current law, only law enforcement agencies can provide protection.
"But their ability to guard every critical facility every day and every minute is not always realistic," Kiissel said, noting that Estonia has a large amount of critical infrastructure.
The scope of rights would depend on the specific facility
Electricity and gas system operator Elering is looking for ways to counter drones over its infrastructure.
By 2026, the company wants to have developed the capability to detect and neutralize drones with the help of EU funding. The project could cost tens of millions of euros. It hopes by the time the technology is in place, the legal amendment will have been introduced by the state.
Indrek Link stressed that if changes to the law are agreed upon, they will apply to a broader range of infrastructure operators.
"But all of this needs to be thoroughly discussed," he said. "The larger the group involved, the more carefully we need to determine what measures can be shared. There must also be oversight on how these measures are implemented."
Law enforcement agencies are authorized to take down drones that violate flight restrictions using firearms, radio jammers, lasers, or nets. Other unmanned aerial vehicles may also be deployed against rogue drones, or their control may simply be taken over.
However, Link noted that infrastructure operators would not be granted access to all of these options: "But perhaps some simpler measures, those with fewer side effects on others."
But not all critical infrastructure operators should be given identical capabilities, according to Jaan Erik Kiissel. He believes the available tools should depend on the specific facility. For example, in Tallinn, near an international airport, extra caution must be exercised.
"No matter which measure is used, it must be based on a risk analysis that assesses its potential consequences and risks," he said.
Elering's infrastructure security chief Karl Kristjan Kits said conditions for protecting each facility should be detailed in a permit issued by the state.
"For example, whether jamming is allowed during peacetime, whether it can be used only in crisis situations, and what the duration and power of signal interference should be," he outlined.
Dividing monopoly on force debated for years
Both the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Climate believe legal amendments should at least be considered. However, it is still not known whether discussions will lead to actual legislative changes.
For example, splitting the state's monopoly on force with local governments was first discussed at the Ministry of the Interior in 2016. However, municipal police still operate without telescopic batons and handcuffs. The issue is still being discussed with the coalition.
Karl Kristjan Kits said Elering could still ensure the security of its infrastructure even if the state retains the exclusive right to take down drones.
"In the long run, it could very well be that the infrastructure is ours, the equipment is ours, but it is managed and used by a law enforcement agency based on the assessed level of risk," Kits explained.
He said that if drone countermeasures involve, for example, radio signal jamming, this would not require a state official to be physically present at the site at all times. The systems can be managed remotely.
"Whether these systems are centralized within a single company or spread across various companies nationwide, remote control is still possible," Kits said.
--
Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!
Editor: Mirjam Mäekivi, Helen Wright