By Our Reporter
Nepal’s proposed aviation overhaul addresses a problem that should have been resolved years ago. The Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal regulates aviation while also operating airports and providing services. Combining those responsibilities creates a conflict: an institution must scrutinise activities from which it also earns revenue. The two bills seek to separate safety oversight from airport and service management. That separation deserves parliamentary support, followed by close scrutiny of implementation.
Changing the structure, however, will achieve little unless the regulator gains the people, resources and independence to act. An inspector must be able to identify unsafe practices, demand corrections and enforce restrictions without worrying about commercial losses or political displeasure. Independence has to reach everyday decisions. A separate office and a new letterhead cannot provide it.
Nepal’s audit results show where attention belongs. The 2022 ICAO assessment recorded an overall Effective Implementation score of 70.10 percent, but accident and incident investigation scored just 21.69 percent. Civil aviation organisation also performed poorly. These are weaknesses in the state’s ability to understand failures and prevent their repetition. They should determine staffing and spending priorities after separation.
Accident investigation also needs independence from the bodies whose decisions it examines. Investigators must have technical expertise, access to records and protection against interference. Authorities should publish recommendations alongside deadlines, responsible institutions and evidence of completion. Marking a recommendation “closed” means little unless the corrective action changes operating practice and withstands independent checking.
The other proposed authority faces a different challenge: making airport investment useful. Gautam Buddha and Pokhara airports have added capacity, yet international traffic remains overwhelmingly concentrated in Kathmandu. Nepal has built infrastructure faster than it has developed the conditions needed to attract sustainable services. Opening an airport is the beginning of a commercial task, rather than proof that the task has succeeded.
Airlines need passenger demand, workable costs, dependable access and routes that fit their networks. The service authority should publish airport finances and realistic traffic forecasts. Before approving further expansion, the government must explain why airlines would use it and how operating costs would be covered. Private investment does not remove the need for that discipline.
The transition itself could expose passengers to risk if responsibilities become unclear. Every unresolved safety finding needs an assigned owner. Historical records must remain accessible, and scarce specialists must go where their skills are required. Parliament should demand a funded transition plan before celebrating the bills as completed reform.
External confidence will follow demonstrated improvements. Kyrgyzstan’s removal from the EU Air Safety List in June 2026 shows that restrictions can change when oversight improves. Nepal should study that experience, while recognising that European approval cannot replace accountability to Nepali passengers. Safety reform must serve everyone who boards an aircraft here.
The government should therefore publish annual targets for inspections, corrective action, staffing and airport performance. Appointments must reward competence, and funding must support enforcement. Parliament’s responsibility continues after passage through hearings and public reporting. Nepal cannot keep answering aviation failures with promises of restructuring. If these bills merely create two institutions with familiar patronage, weak scrutiny and unclear responsibilities, the country will have doubled its bureaucracy while leaving passengers to carry the risk. That would be a costly failure disguised as reform.
Login to add a comment