Despite the favorable market conditions and the industry’s technological readiness, which make agriculture an exceptionally promising sector for the application of unmanned aerial systems (UAS), a number of barriers continue to hinder the growth of this dynamic segment and the broader integration of new technologies into Russia’s agro-industrial complex.
One such barrier is the psychological inertia of industry professionals. Many agricultural producers continue to rely on familiar technologies and show limited interest in adapting their operations to current trends. Both typical clients of drone services and local agronomy departments often lack sufficient knowledge regarding the use of drones in agriculture.
Although the dissemination of positive case studies and the growing circulation of information within the professional community have contributed to a more favorable perception of UAS as an effective tool, further efforts are needed to raise the competency levels of industry specialists. Understanding the cost-effectiveness and practical integration of UAS into agricultural workflows should be embedded in both secondary and higher education curricula, as well as within specialized educational initiatives designed to incorporate the latest technological advancements.
A specific barrier to the effective use of UAS (unmanned aerial systems), characteristic of the current period, is the presence of various levels of flight restrictions in southern agricultural regions of Russia. In areas where administrative barriers can be resolved, operations are often hindered by electronic warfare systems and signal jamming devices, which lead to damage or loss of drones. This renders agricultural drone operations economically unattractive in such regions or significantly increases operational costs.
Although these restrictions are temporary and imposed for security reasons, it would be appropriate to develop organizational and technical measures that enable the execution of essential agrotechnological tasks without compromising public safety in regions that represent the primary consumer base for agricultural UAS. Such measures may include the development of modified navigation systems that allow drones to operate without GNSS signals by relying on local navigation networks, as well as the ability to perform emergency landings in case of control signal disruptions.
In addition, regulatory provisions should permit flights under the condition that drones are equipped with standard tracking devices that provide real-time location data and enable clear identification.
Special attention must also be given to legal barriers, whose resolution requires long-term, systematic efforts involving a wide range of relevant executive authorities. These legal barriers can be broadly divided into two categories: “aviation-related” and “agriculture-related.” 

The presence of aviation-related barriers is largely due to the fact that regulatory standards originally applied to manned aviation were projected onto the unmanned aerial systems (UAS) sector. While stringent safety standards are objectively necessary where human life is at stake, they are often excessive for unmanned aviation. This is not to suggest abandoning safety regulations altogether, but rather to adapt them using a risk-based approach that accounts for real threats while maintaining an adequate level of safety.
It is worth noting that the legal framework for UAS is evolving continuously, and many regulatory gaps have already been addressed. For example, procedures for using airspace for aerial chemical applications have been simplified to an acceptable level. A declarative system for UAS type certification has been introduced. However, the current regulatory norms still cannot be considered optimal.
Due to mass-based classification rules, nearly all agricultural drones fall into the category of UAVs over 30 kg, which subjects them to a number of significant regulatory requirements, including:

• possession of an airworthiness certificate,
• operation only by individuals holding a remote pilot license, classifying them as aviation personnel,
• compliance with federal aviation regulations during flights,
• certification of operators performing aerial chemical work,
• registration of ownership and inclusion of the drone in the Russian civil aircraft registry.
At the same time, the existing procedures for aircraft and operator certification and training requirements for remote pilots are excessive and misaligned with the low-risk scenarios typically involved in agricultural drone use. Moreover, Federal Aviation Rules prohibit nighttime flights for aerial chemical work, despite this being the most optimal time for such treatments. The presence or absence of natural light is irrelevant for automated UAS operations.
An optimal solution to both aviation and agricultural regulatory barriers (the latter discussed below) could be equating agricultural drones with ground-based agricultural machinery. In many cases, the operational parameters of modern self-propelled ground sprayers are no different from those of agricultural drones. This approach would allow the use of the existing regulatory framework and enable the application of officially registered agrochemicals listed in the State Catalog of Pesticides and Agrochemicals.
A compromise solution could be to classify agricultural drones as a distinct, limited category of aircraft subject to simplified certification procedures based on a risk-oriented approach. Personnel operating these drones would no longer be classified as aviation personnel, and training requirements would be tailored to the specific nature of agricultural drone operations, with additional training in handling agrochemicals.
Operator certification procedures for agricultural drones should reflect these specific conditions and be aligned with the operational documentation. Instead of mandatory registration in the federal civil aircraft registry, drones over 30 kg could be subject to a simplified registration system—similar to that used for drones under 30 kg—which operates through the Gosuslugi government portal. This system effectively fulfills the main function: identifying the drone and its owner when needed. Given the relatively short service life of agricultural drones (up to four years), this step would not only reduce the administrative burden on operators but also ease the workload of Rosaviatsiya, the federal agency responsible for registering UAS over 30 kg. 

The barriers in this category are primarily related to the procedures for the use and safe handling of agrochemicals applied via unmanned aerial systems (UAS). Current sanitary regulations and the procedure for the registration and application of pesticides and agrochemicals make no mention of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or unmanned aerial systems (UAS). As a result, the use of UAS is treated as equivalent to manned agricultural aviation, and all corresponding requirements are applied.
This unjustified generalization of regulatory norms leads to overly strict requirements, such as excessively large sanitary buffer zones between treated fields and nearby settlements, water bodies, and similar sites. It also entails unrealistic infrastructure demands, including the construction and use of specialized aerodrome facilities, along with other constraints that are irrelevant to agricultural drones.
It is expected that some of these barriers will be lifted by the end of 2024 as part of the implementation of the “Roadmap for Removing Regulatory Barriers to the Certification, Operation, and Use of Unmanned Aerial Systems in Various Sectors of the Economy.”
Another major challenge in the Russian market is the complex and resource-intensive registration process for agrochemicals. This means that even products specifically developed or adapted for use with agricultural drones must undergo a two-year registration cycle, costing millions of dollars, in order to be approved for aerial application via UAS. Despite strong interest from agrochemical developers in this emerging market, several more years will be needed before specialized products become widely available. However, current practice shows that many existing formulations can already be effectively applied using drones.
In addition, accelerating the deployment of agricultural drones requires further adaptation of technologies to the specific characteristics of Russian crops (hybrids) and soil and climate conditions. For effective integration, there is a need for dedicated testing grounds where various application rates and treatment methods can be trialed on different crops to validate hypotheses and determine optimal operating parameters. This would allow for evidence-based recommendations for the use of specific products on specific crops. Currently, each company handles this process independently.
A viable solution to this challenge would be the creation of a specialized scientific and industrial center for UAS in agriculture, within the framework of the national project “Unmanned Aerial Systems.” This center would focus on the advancement and standardization of agricultural drone technologies.