By Our Reporter
More than 13,500 government officials travelled to 148 countries in 2025. That figure raises a simple but important question: what did the nation actually gain from all those trips?
Foreign travel by civil servants is not necessarily wasteful. Officials can learn about new technologies, policies, administrative systems and ways of delivering public services. A tax official might return with ideas for improving digital tax collection. An engineer could learn about a better approach to infrastructure. Health officials might see practices that could improve public hospitals. International meetings and training can also help Nepali officials build professional networks and learn how other countries are dealing with problems Nepal faces too.
The concern starts when foreign travel becomes something officials seek out rather than something their work genuinely requires. According to Department of Immigration data, 13,531 government officials travelled abroad in 2025, excluding Nepal Army and Nepal Police personnel serving on UN peacekeeping missions. They travelled to 148 countries for study, training, seminars, conferences and other official activities. Between 2021 and 2025, more than 56,000 officials travelled abroad.
The rise has been significant. Only 3,787 officials went abroad in 2021. That number jumped to 9,528 in 2022 and 16,105 in 2023. It then remained high, with 13,292 trips in 2024 and 13,531 in 2025. Foreign travel has clearly become a regular feature of government administration rather than an occasional necessity.
India was the most visited destination, followed by China, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates. Together, those four countries accounted for more than half of all official foreign trips. Given Nepal’s regional ties and the number of training, development and diplomatic programmes held in these countries, the pattern is understandable. Still, the sheer scale deserves closer examination.
The government spends billions of rupees each year under travel, monitoring and evaluation headings. The allocation for the current fiscal year is Rs 3.306 billion. Not all of that money is spent on foreign trips, but it gives some indication of the resources involved.
The amount of money spent, however, is not the only concern. The bigger question is what comes back with the officials.
A five-day training programme should not end the moment an official returns to Kathmandu. If someone comes back with useful knowledge but does nothing to share or apply it, the benefit remains limited to that individual. Likewise, if an international conference leads to no new policy, project or improvement in government services, taxpayers have little reason to regard the trip as worthwhile.
That is why the government’s decision to tighten foreign travel rules makes sense. Under the new rules, ministries, commissions and government agencies must obtain prior approval from the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers before sending officials abroad for study, training, meetings, seminars, workshops or conferences.
The requirement for officials to explain what they learned and share useful knowledge with colleagues within five days of returning is particularly important. It shifts the focus from simply attending an event to showing what came out of it.
Still, rules on paper will not be enough. Nepal has tried to restrict unnecessary foreign travel before. In 2023, the Cabinet decided that officials should travel abroad only when absolutely necessary. Similar restrictions have been introduced by previous governments. Yet foreign travel remained high. That points to a familiar problem: weak enforcement.
The government should now make the approval process more transparent. Every proposed trip should clearly identify its purpose, expected benefit, cost and the official’s role. If the same training is available online, approval should be difficult to justify. Sending several officials to the same event should also require a clear explanation.
Officials should submit a proper report after returning. Except where confidentiality is necessary, these reports should be made public. They should explain what was learned, which practices could be useful in Nepal and what the concerned agency plans to do with that knowledge.
Selection also matters. Officials should be chosen because their work is directly connected to the programme, not because of personal connections or administrative influence. A central database of overseas training and official visits could help prevent the same people from repeatedly travelling while equally qualified officials are left out. It could also help the government track whether lessons from previous trips were actually put into practice.
Foreign exposure can certainly strengthen Nepal’s bureaucracy. But it should be treated as an investment in public service, not as a privilege attached to government employment.
If 13,531 officials travelled abroad in a single year, the government should eventually be able to show what changed because of those visits. Did services improve? Were new systems introduced? Did officials bring back practices that saved money or made government more efficient?
If the answer is unclear, then the real problem is not simply the number of trips. It is the absence of a system that measures their value.
The five-day reporting requirement is a useful beginning. What matters now is whether the government has the will to reject unnecessary trips, select officials on merit, track the results and hold agencies accountable for every rupee spent.
Login to add a comment