Introduction
Questions have been raised publicly about the international recognition status of the Nepal Accreditation Foundation (NAF). Here’s what’s been reported, what remains unconfirmed, and how to check for yourself.
If you’re evaluating an ISO certification body in Nepal, or you already hold a certificate accredited through the Nepal Accreditation Foundation (NAF), you may have come across a recent investigative piece — published by ISO Forum — questioning NAF’s international accreditation standing. This article summarizes what was reported, flags what hasn’t been independently verified, and lays out concrete steps anyone can take to check the facts themselves.
A note on sourcing: everything specific to NAF below is attributed to that ISO Forum report. We have not independently verified its claims, and we did not obtain a response from NAF or QMS Nepal before publishing. None of this should be read as a finding of wrongdoing — it’s a summary of an allegation, plus a general guide to due diligence that applies to any accreditation body, anywhere.
Nepal’s Two Accreditation Landscapes
Nepal has one government-mandated accreditation body: NEPLAB, which operates under the Nepal Bureau of Standards and Metrology (NBSM) and is governed by the Nepal Standards (Certification Mark) Act. Separately, private organizations — including NAF — also offer accreditation services in Nepal’s market. Private accreditation bodies aren’t inherently illegitimate; internationally recognized private ABs exist all over the world. The question is always whether a given body’s claimed international recognition is current and verifiable.
What the ISO Forum Report Alleges?
According to the ISO Forum investigation, NAF’s central credibility claim rests on membership in the International Accreditation Forum (IAF) — historically the global body whose Multilateral Recognition Arrangement (MLA) is what makes an ISO certificate meaningful across borders. The report lays out this timeline:
- NAF’s CEO signed IAF membership paperwork in December 2025.
- The IAF itself ceased operations shortly after, on January 1, 2026, succeeded by a new body called Global Accreditation Cooperation Incorporated (Global ACI).
- As of Global ACI’s July 2026 membership resolutions, the report states NAF is listed as an Associate Member — not a Full Member, and not an MLA signatory.
The distinction matters: MLA signatory status is what gives an accreditation mark international teeth. Associate membership, per the report, does not carry that recognition. The article also states that NAF’s public materials continue to reference IAF/MLA language despite this, which it argues risks overstating what NAF currently holds.
The report additionally raises:
- A leadership overlap — it identifies NAF’s CEO as also serving as director of QMS Nepal, a certification body that NAF, as an accreditor, would be expected to oversee independently.
- A lack of publicly disclosed governance information (legal registration status, board composition, complaints process, published accreditation scope).
- A comparison to AERSSC, a separate private Nepali accreditation body whose ILAC MRA signatory status was reportedly discontinued in 2023.
Again — this is what the report claims. We haven’t independently confirmed the Global ACI membership records, the leadership details, or the correspondence the report references.
How to Verify This Yourself?
Rather than take any single article’s word for it — including this one — here’s how to check an accreditation body’s status directly:
- Search IAF CertSearch. This is the official global database for checking whether a certification body’s accreditation is recognized under a current MLA signatory.
- Contact Global ACI directly. Ask them to confirm, in writing, the current membership category of any accreditation body you’re relying on.
- Request the accreditation body’s Certificate of Incorporation from Nepal’s Office of Company Registrar to confirm its legal status.
- Ask your certification body, in writing, who accredits them — and verify that accreditor’s status independently rather than taking the certificate at face value.
This process applies whether you’re evaluating NAF, NEPLAB, or any accreditation body anywhere in the world. International recognition claims are, by design, publicly checkable — you don’t have to take anyone’s marketing (or any single investigative article) on faith.
The Bottom Line
There’s a real, publicly reported question mark over NAF’s current international recognition status, based on the ISO Forum investigation. Whether that reflects an outdated claim, a transition-period miscommunication, or something more deliberate isn’t something we can determine from the outside — and NAF hasn’t had a chance to respond in this piece. If you hold or are considering a NAF- or QMS Nepal-accredited certificate, the responsible move is the same either way: verify directly with Global ACI and IAF CertSearch before relying on it.