As the Nepal Tourism Board (NTB) celebrates 27 years since its establishment, the milestone invites reflection. It is an opportunity to examine the circumstances that led to the board’s emergence and the transformations Nepal’s tourism sector has undergone since. The board was established on December 31, 1998, as Nepal transitioned from a closed economy to an open-market economy. In the process of adopting this transformation, the government of Nepal removed two departments—the Department of Tourism and the Department of Civil Aviation—under the Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation. Later, two new autonomous bodies were formed: the Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal and the Nepal Tourism Board.

​The NTB’s formation was not easy. The task would not have been possible without the Visit Nepal Year 1998 campaign. It was an absolute necessity for the government to form it on the last day of the national campaign—December 31, 1998—since there were major tourism projects that relied on the board with external funds. The private sector also contributed to this momentum. With a mere Rs30 million budget, the NTB campaign began gathering all the entrepreneurs involved in Nepal’s tourism industry, including hotels, travel, and airlines. They came together for a common objective: An entirely different institutional setting for Nepal’s tourism industry.

​The purpose was clear: To develop the tourism industry and promote tourism as an ‘entity’, making Nepal an attractive tourist destination. This purpose is embedded in the Nepal Tourism Board Act, 1996 (2053 BS), which explicitly states that the board is formed to market Nepal as an attractive tourist destination and develop tourism.

​The governance framework was another critical consideration. The NTB, being a public-private partnership, had established a board comprising five representatives from each sector and one chief executive officer. This framework was built on the perception that the government alone could not promote tourism, and that expert opinion from the private sector was needed. This system has long proved effective. The NTB has remained the bridge between the policies of the government and the zeal of the private sector in Nepal. Destination marketing remained collective, and the essence of Nepal’s tourism, based on nature, culture and adventure, was developed during this period.

​Substantial developments, however, have taken place in recent times with respect to the board’s governance structure and operational independence. Previously, the CEO selection committee had a 100 percent representation of the private sector in tune with NTB’s partnership strategy. Currently, its composition is such that the representation of the private sector is reduced, and the committee is now headed by a representative of the tourism ministry.

​The same can be seen for the appointment of the Honorary Public Relations Representatives (HPRRs). The HPRRs played a significant role in the institutional framework for the dissemination of information about Nepal’s presence in international markets. During the initial days of the NTB, appointments and management of HPRRs were either handled by the board or by the NTB’s administration to ensure a proper fit within the international market, maintain credibility, and enhance the overall effectiveness of promotion.

​The HPRRs were supposed to serve as a subsidiary of the NTB’s international marketing, mainly at places where permanent offices cannot be established. However, ministerial authority to appoint and manage the HPRRs has increased in recent years. While this strengthens government control, it is associated with a potential diminishment in the board’s autonomy and its ability to respond effectively to market changes. International destination marketing environment is exceptionally competitive and relies on mutual cooperation underpinned by trust, contact and sustained delivery. Over-centralisation risks turning what has been until now a market-oriented promotion campaign into a more ceremonial activity, which contradicts the logic behind the establishment of the NTB as a public-private partnership.

​All these changes are happening at a time when the sector itself is undergoing a paradigm shift. In fact, for so many years, the success of a country’s tourism industry has been measured in terms of how successful it is in visitor arrival figures. Currently, the world is undergoing a shift in tourism discussions from quality tourism to quality interaction. This shift is also observable in Nepal, as reflected in the number and quality of international visitors, measured as international visitor arrivals, and in their interactions and contributions within regions based on their stay and economic influence.

​In this case, Nepal’s strategically unique position is part of this process. China is quickly racing towards the establishment of its AI and data economies. Similarly, when viewed from the south, the strength of religious mobility is reflected in massive religious gatherings, as seen at the Kumbh Mela. Nepal is in a strategically unique position in these two aspects as well.

​The geographical setting of the Himalayan mountain ranges offers a distinct advantage to the country in the age of artificial intelligence. A cool environment favours the setting up of efficient, energy-intensive data centres, which will be fuelled by the rise in hydroelectric power in the country. Second, the Buddhist origins of the country and its holy sites of Buddhism and Hinduism, such as Pashupatinath and Muktinath, make the destination a natural fit for spiritual tourists.

​The government’s decision regarding the digital nomad visa is a sign of growing recognition of the emerging new tourist economy. Long-term visitors, such as programmers, designers, researchers and entrepreneurs, tend to contribute more sustainably than short-term visitors. They live locally, spend year-round, transfer skills and engage socially. This approach aligns with Nepal’s need to move beyond seasonal, route-bound tourism.

​NTB needs to be a nimble facilitator rather than a mere administrative body if this paradigm shift is to be achieved. There must be consistency in policies, prices that reflect value, available infrastructure and the product’s marketing strategy.

​As the NTB embarks upon its 28th year, the question is not whether it has survived, but whether it is transforming as the original vision proposed. The board was always about public-private partnership. It was never about a procedural approach, but one of trust, collaboration and professionalism. The vision that brought this nation together to create the NTB is still valid. What’s required today is a commitment to return to this point—not to romanticise past performance, but to distil this clarity into a complex future.