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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment