What next as Nigeria clinches ICAO council Presidency.... Pros, cons and the future!

The Nigeria aviation safety initiative (NASI) joins Nigeria and Africa at large to congratulate Dr. Babatunde Bernard Aliu on his election ICAO council President. He is the second African (after Algeria’s Taïeb Chérif) to achieve the Presidency of the ICAO council. It is a testament to Dr. Bernard Aliu’s personal credibility, hard work and dedication that he has emerged victorious over other similarly well deserving and qualified candidates. ICAO currently has 191 member countries but the council can only accommodate 36 members. These 36 members are further divided into 3 parts based on their level of importance. Nigeria falls into the second class within the 3 class-structure of the Council. Since, Nigeria neither has technological pedigree in aviation nor does it have established world class aviation systems, its strategic importance and contribution is limited to being a potential market. So this election victory could be regarded as a spectacular feat. It has also brought pride and respect to Nigeria that once again we are able to produce a candidate that is deemed fit and competent to head an Agency of a global organisation such as the United Nations. That is all the good news there is with regards to this spectacular feat. In a few weeks the euphoria of Dr. Aliu's victory will die down and then it will be time to face the business of performing the duties of his esteemed office. This position comes with a wider scope of responsibility. For the last 8 years Dr. Aliu’s primary role in ICAO has been as Nigeria’s representative as well as contributing to stabilising the Africa civil aviation commission  (AFCAC).
NASI believes he was instrumental in Nigeria’s attainment of America’s FAA category 1 status and other improvements we have witnessed in the recent past. In this new role, he is saddled with implementing ICAO’s strategy and obligation to its 191 member states. Knowing that his success will be determined by the performance of his new constituency of 191 member states, it is indeed an arduous task. It is obvious that he will not have the luxury of focusing only on Nigeria and Africa as was previously the case.

My pessimism is borne out of the historical antecedents that Countries that fund such global organisations such as the UN, eventually drive the agenda to be implemented by the organisation. For 16 consecutive years, (1st January 1992 to 31st December 2006) the UN whose primary mandate is global ‘Peace and Security’ was headed by 2 renowned African statesmen; Boutros-Ghali and Kofi Annan. However, at that same period  Africa experienced some of the most horrific conflicts and widespread insecurity in its modern history. Africa was the only continent in the World to record increased poverty in the last 20 years.

The President of the council is not vested with executive powers to veto and determine its decisions. He is merely a spokesman who is expected to communicate and oversee the implementation of decisions taken by the council. That explains why for 6 years (2003-2006), the ICAO council had Taïeb Chérif of Algeria as the council President, yet his tenure had no significant effect on Africa’s aviation safety record or development.  A sedulous look at the composition of the ‘top tier' in ICAO’s council membership reveals a group of 7 countries that have quasi permanent representation on the council. These countries have well developed airlines and are also major manufacturers and suppliers of aerospace/aviation equipment. Is it a mere coincidence that their financially contributions account for at least 65% of the United Nations budget? These countries and their respective contributions are; United States (22%), Japan (11%), Germany (7.1%), France (5.6%), United Kingdom (5.2%), China (5.1%) and Italy (4.5%). Apart from China and Germany these countries are facing serious economic conditions as a result of the last financial meltdown. They will expect to get their moneys’ worth from the UN. So, it is possible that this is a scenario of ‘he that pays the piper, dictates the tune’. Afterall, the objective of all shades of diplomacy is the preservation of national interest.

Africa's historical unsatisfactory performance could also translate into a huge challenge for Dr. Aliu. Africa contributes less than 5% in global aviation and yet is indicted with an accident rate more than 10 times the global average. Certainly, he will want to reverse the stigmatised position. This is not going to be rectified overnight. This will not be solved by ICAO, not even with an African at the helm. Nigeria’s current safety performance may rather be a source of embarrassment to our representative in ICAO. Dr. Aliu will be superintending over the safety and economic performance of over 191 countries only to find that the worst performers are from his Sub-Saharan constituency. African countries need to support and work with each other to effect solutions to their problems. This has to begin at the regional level. The vehicles for the success of this strategy are the African civil aviation commission (AFCAC) which is a specialised arm of the African Union (AU) and African Airlines Association (AFRAA). AFRAA is struggling to assert its legitimacy in Africa's commercial aviation arena due to low patronage and funding. Africa has well over 150 airlines but only 40 are members of AFRAA. The lack of co-operation and synergy within African stakeholders is unfortunate and disappointing.
NASI is of the opinion that Dr. Aliu will better serve the cause of achieving safe and sustainable civil aviation in Africa by being at the forefront of a body such as the AU or AFCAC than being a rubber stamp for the interests of the countries that fund and dictate the agenda of the UN. We expect to have him back after his 3 year term with ICAO is over. For now, he will be the bridge that will effectively build a symbiotic partnership between ICAO, IATA the AU and AFRAA.
We can all help in the quest for creating a safe and sustainable aviation industry in Africa by supporting each other in doing what is right. Starting with the rule of Law, transparency, accountability and probity.

NCAP 2013: Abrogation of the NCAA’s economic regulatory function is contrary to the civil aviation act of 2006, and National interest.

NCAP 2013: A GOOD ATTEMPT PLAGUED BY UNDESIRABLE FLAWS


The object of good governance is to promote a strong, viable and competitive business environment in the aviation industry. It begins with a process that sees the emergence of acceptable and competent leadership followed by enabling laws that will create a conducive environment for stakeholder engagement and group synergy. A starting point for the Managers of our aviation system is the adoption of sound policies and resilient strategy-planning processes that will extract maximum advantage from strengths and opportunities, whilst mitigating weaknesses and eliminating threats. In short, to secure and maintain competitive advantage. The new National civil aviation policy; NCAP 2013 has the semblance of a good policy document. However, detailed examination has revealed a plethora undesirable flaws.

Abrogation of the NCAA’s  economic regulatory function is contrary to the civil aviation act of 2006 and will dilute the effectiveness of the regulatory agency

The new National civil aviation policy (NCAP 2013, Part 3.2) seeks to repudiate NCAA’s economic regulatory function and assign it to a yet to be created 'autonomous' National aviation economic regulatory unit (NAERU) which will be under the Federal ministry of aviation (FMA). The Civil Aviation Act 2006 clearly states that economic regulation of the airline industry is in the responsibility of NCAA. The directorate of air transport regulation (DATR) has this function specifically assigned to it. It is still doubtful what informed this regressive strategy. Creating another autonomous unit with all its attendant organisational paraphernalia will further exacerbate the current high cost of governance, increase the bureaucratic bottlenecks in our regulatory processes and introduce another demi-god in the aviation system.

Two heads are better than one only when they are working to achieve the same objective

The danger with this proposal is that it will introduce a communication chasm between safety and economic regulation as the two in-congruent autonomous bodies will most likely become embroiled in a power struggle to assert their supremacy. As always when two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers. This will make prompt coordinated remedial action almost impossible. The outcome will dilute the effectiveness of the NCAA in performing its statutory functions with regards to aviation safety, consumer protection and anti-trust matters. Ideally, in a fully developed and stable free market environment, the merits of prescriptive economic regulation and its attendant price control mechanisms are considered archaic and unnecessary. As the relevant market forces are expected to determine stability and balance. The prevalence of issues such as abuse of market dominance, predatory pricing, unreasonable discrimination between classes of users, allegations of monumental fraud, in FAAN, NAMA, NIMET, etc. are clear indications that the industry in Nigeria is suffering the consequences of loss of economic efficiency. Hence the need for adroit economic regulation.

There is a clear distinction between statutory economic regulation and the financial mechanism of autonomous automated ‘single till’ revenue collection

It appears advocates of this misguided strategy are confusing the statutory functions of economic regulation with the financial mechanism of an ‘autonomous automated single till revenue collection’. The assertion in the policy document; NCAP 2013, Part 3.2  “Economic regulation of airports and air navigation services” (page 18, first paragraph) that this strategy has been adopted in the UK is also sadly mistaken. The current structure of regulation in the UK clearly indicates that the CAA is still solely responsible for economic and safety regulation. This function is jointly administered by the CAA’s Consumer Protection Group (CPG) and the Regulation Policy Group (RPG). These units are part of the CAA’s four-unit organisational structure: namely Air Safety, Economic Regulation, Airspace Regulation and Consumer Protection.
It is a fact that NASI had recently levelled scathing criticisms of ineffective economic regulation at the NCAA (regulatory agency). However, that does not infer that NASI is favourably disposed to the arbitrary abrogation of that vital statutory function. The objective of our outrage is to challenge the NCAA to live up to its responsibility of delivering proactive and effective economic regulation that will ensure sustainability of the industry.

Why complicate matters by creating another autonomous unit, when we need to equip and support the NCAA to effectively carry out its safety and economic regulatory functions

The Federal Ministry of aviation (FMA) may have identified critical deficiencies within the department of air transport regulation (DATR) in the current structure of the NCAA. The logical action is to address and mitigate them, by providing the required financial resources, training and support to regain provision of effective economic regulation by the department. The (temporary) absence of accidents is not a guarantee that safety has been attained and assured. Certain key indicators of the financial and economic performance of organisations are precursors that safety will subsequently be compromised if the trend remains unchecked. Early detection and prompt remedial action is vital to successful interventions by the regulator. Case in point, Nigeria Airways, Bellview, ADC, Air Nigeria, etc; the list goes on. This regulatory oversight should be extended to FAAN, NAMA and NIMET and all service providers within the aviation sector. Effective economic regulation is essential to the attainment of safety and performance targets. There is absolutely no merit in creating another unit solely dedicated to the conduct of economic regulation, whilst the structure already exists as a department under the already autonomous NCAA. Unless safety and economic regulation are closely monitored and coordinated, current efforts to reform and revitalise the industry will remain futile. It is imperative that the relevant stakeholders and system managers see reason why all regulatory functions;  both safety and economic should remain in the purview of the autonomous NCAA.

Prudent resource allocation and sensible trade agreements

Another area of major concern is the financial and human requirements with corresponding timelines needed to achieve the policy objectives enumerated in NCAP 2013. It is imperative that we have a clear understanding of the cost of the proposed strategies before we embark on  building castles in the air. Any foreign partnership that does not clearly involve the transfer of skills to Nigerians and the strengthening of our manufacturing base is not in our National interest. The Country urgently needs to develop its physical and social infrastructure. However, more importantly we need to develop the skills that will ensure we are able to independently maintain and enhance these structures without recourse to foreign experts.

Additional issues that will underpin any meaningful and sustainable transformation are:

• A free and fair system of Justice that promotes law, order and protection for the vulnerable.
• A clear evidence of government commitment to stem corruption by entrenching "real" transparency, accountability and probity in all its institutions. 
• The currently acquired freedom of information act must also be backed by commensurate 'whistle blower protection policy' if it is to achieve the desired results.
• The evolution of a professional educational and training systems that will ensure the provision, protection and efficient utilisation of skilled competent manpower.
• An Energy sector that ensures the availability of stable electrical power supply backed by a proactive plan for investment in Eco-friendly and sustainable alternative sources of energy in order to reduce over-dependence on fossil fuels. A clear example is the a huge potential Nigeria has with solar energy.

In conclusion, the aforementioned statements and viewpoints thus presented do not compose an exhaustive analysis of the way forward. The intricacies are either quite obvious or will require little investigation to unearth. The real issue is the will and courage to do what is right and in the national interest of our nation; Nigeria. Paraphrasing a quote credited to Martin Luther King Jnr ,“cowardice asks, is it expedient?  Expedience asks, is it politically correct? Vanity asks, is it popular? But conscience asks, is it right?
Now is the time when we must take a position that is neither self centred, politically correct nor popular, but because it is right the thing to do.