Anton Ambrose is the head of Public Policy and Regulatory Affairs for inDrive Asia Pacific (APAC) region. With more than two decades of experience in policy advocacy including roles in aviation and mobility solutions across APAC, Middle East and Africa, he has experience in open skies agreements with diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Ambrose specializes in navigating complex regulatory landscapes and advocates for policies that foster innovation, sustainable growth, and empowerment for all. In this interview, he talks about the prospect of the ride-hailing industry in Nepal, the challenges, and potential solutions. 

How does inDrive plan to navigate Nepal’s regulatory landscape for ride-hailing services?

At inDrive, we strongly believe in open dialogue and collaboration, which is precisely why we are here to engage in meaningful discussions with stakeholders. We recognize that regulatory frameworks are essential for ensuring a well-structured and efficient ride-hailing ecosystem. Given our presence in 48 countries, we have gained extensive experience in adapting to different regulatory environments worldwide.

Our approach is to actively engage with local authorities, policymakers, and relevant stakeholders to contribute to the development of a policy framework that aligns with Nepal’s specific transportation needs. We see this as an opportunity not only to share insights from our global operations but also to tailor solutions that best fit the unique characteristics of Nepal’s ride-hailing sector. By exchanging ideas and best practices, we hope to foster a regulatory environment that benefits drivers, passengers, and the broader community.

What challenges do you foresee in Nepal and how will you address them?

One of the most significant challenges we anticipate in Nepal is the lack of a clear regulatory framework governing ride-hailing services. At present, there are no well-defined policies that specifically address the operational aspects of platforms like inDrive. This regulatory uncertainty can create roadblocks for the industry’s growth and hinder innovation.

However, this challenge also presents an opportunity. Our presence here is not just about operating within the existing framework but also about collaborating with the relevant authorities, policymakers, and industry stakeholders to establish fair and effective guidelines. By working closely with government bodies, transport regulators, and driver communities, we aim to advocate for policies that are both practical and inclusive—ensuring they benefit all stakeholders, including passengers, drivers, and the broader transport ecosystem.

Moreover, regulatory clarity will not only support inDrive’s sustainable operations in Nepal but will also contribute to the long-term development of the ride-hailing industry. By fostering open dialogue and engaging in constructive discussions with policymakers, we hope to pave the way for a more structured, transparent, and growth-oriented environment. In turn, this will create a more reliable and efficient mobility landscape, ultimately benefiting the people of Nepal.

How do the 70:30 rules especially impact inDrive business operations in Nepal?

The 70:30 foreign direct investment (FDI) policy in Nepal has a direct and significant impact on inDrive’s operations, not only for our current business but also for our future expansion plans. This policy establishes a precedent that may discourage foreign investors from entering the market. When we look at Nepal’s neighboring countries, such as India, we see a more flexible approach toward FDI. India has not imposed a strict 100 percent FDI regulation across sectors, allowing businesses more freedom to operate and grow. A rigid 70:30 rule in Nepal creates additional policy barriers, making the country less attractive to global investors.

Investors are generally inclined to operate in regions where there are minimal regulatory constraints and more economic openness. Policies like this, which limit foreign ownership, could hinder Nepal’s ability to attract global businesses and contradict the country’s stated goal of encouraging foreign investment. For example, during investment summits, Nepal’s leadership emphasizes the need to attract FDI. However, restrictive policies like the 70:30 rule send a contradictory message.

Another concern is the inconsistency across different sectors. The IT industry in Nepal has allowed 100 percent foreign ownership. Given this, we seek clarity on why this specific 70:30 ratio was chosen. Why not 90:10, or a more flexible structure that accommodates different business models? These are critical questions for stakeholders to address.

At inDrive, we believe in fostering dialogue with policymakers and industry leaders to find a balanced approach. We are committed to Nepal, not just as a business but as a long-term partner in economic and community development. Our engagement goes beyond operations—we actively contribute to Nepali society through various initiatives.

Our commitment extends beyond our core business. As a brand, inDrive has always prioritized giving back to the communities where we operate. Globally, we have a dedicated initiative called inVision, which focuses on community impact projects. While it is not strictly a corporate social responsibility (CSR) program, it aligns with similar objectives of social good. These initiatives reflect our long-term vision of impacting the lives of 1bn people by 2030. While we operate as a business, we ensure that a portion of our success is reinvested into the communities we serve.

Every nation is striving to attract FDI and open up its economy. Nepal should align its policies with this global trend to foster sustainable economic growth. A restrictive approach like the 70:30 rule risks deterring foreign businesses, reducing investment, and slowing progress.

Are similar regulations implemented in the market where drive upgrades are secondary? If so, how have they affected business dynamics?

Yes, it’s an important question. In most markets, there is a general trend toward economic liberalization, where regulations are designed to encourage competition and innovation. However, Nepal seems to be moving in the opposite direction, adopting policies that may hinder market openness. This is something that policymakers should examine more closely to ensure long-term economic benefits.

As a company, we are committed to supporting and engaging with regulatory bodies to provide insights into global best practices. Our goal is to help educate stakeholders about how similar markets have approached these challenges and what lessons can be applied to Nepal’s context. The adoption of new technologies and business models takes time, and identifying the right partners is a crucial part of that process. While we are open to collaborations, we believe in forming strategic partnerships that align with our vision and contribute to sustainable growth. This is a process that requires careful consideration, but we remain optimistic about working together with all stakeholders to find the best way forward.

How does this rule influence Nepal’s attractiveness for foreign investors, especially in the digital economy sector? 

This rule is likely to significantly reduce Nepal’s attractiveness as a destination for foreign investors, particularly in the digital economy. Investors tend to seek stable and predictable regulatory environments where their businesses can operate without unexpected disruptions. When a large global company like inDrive sees potential risks due to such policies, it raises concerns for other investors as well. They may perceive Nepal as an uncertain investment landscape where regulatory decisions could adversely affect their operations at any time.

As a result, companies will exercise far greater caution before committing resources, which could slow down the inflow of foreign capital into Nepal. This hesitancy will not only impact large businesses but will also create ripple effects throughout the economy. A decline in foreign investment could limit job creation, reduce technological advancements, and curb the overall growth of Nepal’s digital sector.

Moreover, such regulatory uncertainty places unnecessary pressure on the broader economy. Foreign investments often contribute significantly to local communities by creating employment opportunities, fostering innovation, and supporting ancillary businesses. If investors decide to pull back or redirect their capital elsewhere, the people who will suffer the most are those who rely on the economic benefits generated by these investments—local entrepreneurs, service providers, and everyday citizens who depend on a thriving digital economy.

Ultimately, policies that create uncertainty can be detrimental to Nepal’s efforts to position itself as an attractive hub for digital businesses and startups. Instead of fostering innovation and investment, such rules could deter companies from expanding or even entering the Nepalese market in the first place. For sustainable economic growth, it is crucial to ensure that regulations support, rather than hinder, investment in emerging sectors like the digital economy.

Could the 70:30 rule hinder driver availability? Are we to introduce innovative service or technology in Nepal? What do you think? 

The 70:30 rule could potentially complicate the availability of drivers for inDrive, as it introduces significant challenges in terms of resource allocation and future investment planning. This policy not only impacts the local business but also has wider implications for other verticals and regions where we operate. In essence, with the 70:30 rule, we are bound to face restrictions on how we distribute resources, making it more difficult to scale our operations and remain agile.

One of the main issues lies in the unpredictability of such policies. For instance, if the policy were to shift from a 70:30 split to something like 50:50 tomorrow, the resulting changes could create additional strain on our ability to make long-term decisions and investments. Investors, therefore, are likely to feel uncertain about the stability and consistency of the business environment.

In light of this, the key to navigating these challenges lies in policy consistency. Investors and companies need a predictable regulatory framework in order to make sound, long-term investments. Furthermore, it’s important to engage all stakeholders who are likely to be affected by such policies, as this dialogue is crucial to ensuring that everyone has a voice in shaping the future of the economy. In today’s global environment, where nations are in constant competition to attract foreign direct investment (FDI), such collaborative efforts can be crucial for fostering a sustainable and innovative business climate.

As for the introduction of innovative services or technologies in Nepal, the answer largely depends on how the local policy environment evolves. If it remains stable and conducive to business growth, we will certainly be in a position to introduce new services and technologies. However, without such consistency, it becomes much harder to justify the risks associated with new ventures.

What alternative regulatory approaches would you suggest to promote both drivers and welfare of the industry growth in Nepal?

To foster the growth of both the driver community and the overall industry in Nepal, I would suggest adopting a more collaborative regulatory approach. It’s essential to create a platform for engagement between both the government and private sector stakeholders. Open communication and cooperation between the two sides would help align objectives, ensuring that both drivers’ welfare and the industry’s growth are prioritized.

By bringing the industry together, we can find solutions that benefit all parties involved—drivers, the local community, and the industry as a whole. We can also explore opportunities for technology transfer and capacity building, as we are already committed to investing in people and resources. This kind of collaboration can pave the way for more sustainable and effective growth within the sector.

Moreover, it’s important to recognize that government investment in certain areas is not universal across the globe. However, enhancing engagement and collaboration between the public and private sectors, especially through public-private partnerships, could create significant opportunities for the industry’s development. This level of partnership has proven successful in various countries and could lead to a more conducive environment for growth in Nepal’s transport sector.