The ongoing debate over the funding of Nigeria’s aviation agencies deserves the attention of every stakeholder concerned about the future of the industry. At the recent National Assembly public hearing, the Nigerian Airspace Management Agency (NAMA) reportedly sought, among other things, a review of the existing revenue-sharing arrangement and proposed that 90 per cent of Aviation Height Clearance (AHC) fees should accrue to NAMA, leaving 10 per cent to the Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA).
NAMA’s concern about sustainable funding is understandable. Air navigation is capital-intensive. Radar systems, communication and navigation facilities, power infrastructure, software, imported equipment and specialist personnel require substantial and continuous investment.
But the solution to an operational funding challenge should not create a regulatory safety problem.
The Real Funding Question
NAMA itself has reportedly drawn attention to the fact that some of its navigation charges have remained unchanged since 2008, despite enormous increases in foreign exchange rates, electricity, equipment, technology, training and other operational costs.
That points to the real issue requiring attention.
If NAMA’s navigation charges no longer reflect the cost of providing modern Air Navigation Services, then those charges are clearly due for a comprehensive review. The National Assembly and relevant authorities should support such a review and ensure that NAMA is appropriately remunerated for the operational services it provides.
What is difficult to justify is addressing an under-recovery in NAMA’s operational charges by taking a substantial share of another agency’s regulatory cost-recovery fees.
The two are fundamentally different.
AHC Is Regulatory Cost Recovery
Aviation Height Clearance is not merely an obstacle assessment. It is a regulatory process through which the NCAA determines whether buildings, telecommunications masts, transmission towers, cranes and other structures may constitute hazards to aircraft operations.
The process involves technical evaluations, obstacle assessments, aeronautical studies where required, site inspections, verification of coordinates and elevations, determination of permissible heights, issuance of approvals, continuing surveillance and enforcement.
These responsibilities do not end when an AHC certificate is issued. The regulator must continue to ensure that approved structures remain compliant with aviation safety requirements.
The fees collected for these activities are therefore intended to recover the cost of regulatory safety oversight. They should not be viewed as a general aviation revenue pool available for redistribution.
More importantly, the resources available for carrying out these regulatory responsibilities are themselves limited. Reducing an already constrained cost-recovery mechanism could undermine the inspections, surveillance, technical capacity and enforcement activities the fee is intended to support.
Parliament should be careful not to solve one institution’s funding challenge by creating another institution’s safety oversight deficit.
NAMA Is Already Paid for Technical Services
There is another important distinction.
NAMA performs legitimate technical and operational functions, including instrument flight procedure design and WGS-84 aeronautical surveys. Where these services are undertaken for airport operators and other beneficiaries, NAMA is remunerated for the services rendered.
That is appropriate.
If NAMA undertakes a WGS-84 survey, it should be paid for that survey. If it designs an instrument flight procedure, it should receive the applicable charge. If its navigation charges are outdated, those charges should be reviewed.
But providing technical input into a regulatory process does not confer ownership of the regulatory function or an entitlement to the regulator’s cost-recovery fees.
Aviation Height Clearance involves a much broader regulatory determination. NAMA’s obstacle assessment may be an important technical input, but the final regulatory responsibility—including approval, surveillance and enforcement—rests with the NCAA.
A Precedent Parliament Should Consider Carefully
There is also a wider governance question.
If an agency providing technical input into a regulatory decision becomes entitled to a percentage of the regulator’s statutory fee, where does that principle end?
Many regulatory decisions involve inputs from multiple government institutions. Technical collaboration does not ordinarily translate into revenue-sharing rights.
Regulatory cost recovery is based on the statutory responsibility for making, administering, monitoring and enforcing the regulatory decision, not merely on participation in one component of the process.
This is particularly important in aviation, where ICAO’s safety oversight philosophy emphasizes effective State regulation and a clear distinction between regulatory responsibilities and operational service provision.
Strengthen NAMA Without Weakening NCAA
This should not become an NCAA-versus-NAMA debate.
Nigeria needs both institutions to be strong.
NAMA must have sufficient resources to modernize radar, communications, navigation and surveillance infrastructure and provide efficient Air Navigation Services.
The NCAA must equally have sufficient resources to maintain independent safety oversight, recruit and train inspectors, conduct inspections and surveillance, undertake technical assessments and enforce compliance with aviation safety requirements.
The appropriate policy response is therefore straightforward: review NAMA’s long-overdue navigation charges and ensure that the Agency is properly compensated for the operational and technical services it provides, while preserving NCAA’s regulatory cost-recovery fees for the safety oversight responsibilities for which they were established.
A Call for Legislative Caution
The National Assembly should look beyond the immediate attraction of redistributing existing revenues.
If an operational charge established many years ago has become economically unsustainable, then that charge should be reviewed transparently and appropriately. A funding deficiency in Air Navigation Services should not be corrected by substantially transferring resources from independent regulatory oversight.
Nigeria needs a financially sustainable NAMA, but it also needs a financially capable and independent NCAA.
The solution is not to weaken one institution to strengthen another.
Review outdated navigation charges. Pay NAMA appropriately for WGS-84 surveys, procedure design and other services it provides. But preserve Aviation Height Clearance cost-recovery fees for the regulatory safety oversight responsibilities for which they were established.
The National Assembly has a responsibility to protect that balance.
In aviation, revenue can be reviewed and charges can be adjusted. But once the boundary between service provision and independent safety regulation is blurred, rebuilding institutional clarity and regulatory credibility may prove far more difficult.
Nigeria’s aviation safety architecture should not become the unintended casualty of a revenue-sharing debate.
By Dr. Ibrahim Suleiman
Aviation Policy Analyst