When the government becomes inactive

Nepal, renowned for its rich cultural and natural heritage, boasts four UNESCO World Heritage Sites: the Kathmandu Valley (1979), Sagarmatha National Park (1979), Chitwan National Park (1984), and Lumbini (1997). Yet, 15 additional sites linger on UNESCO’s Tentative List, embodying the nation’s diverse legacy but stalled in their journey to full inscription.  It is imperative to rigorously evaluate how the Nepal government’s apathetic and lethargic stance on heritage conservation stifles the inscription of its 15 tentative UNESCO World Heritage sites. This systemic inaction, starkly illustrated by the failure to secure Tilaurakot’s inscription at the 47th UNESCO World Heritage Committee session in Paris (July 2025) due to insufficient documentation and conservation efforts, jeopardizes the preservation of Nepal’s rich cultural heritage. Such neglect erodes the integrity of the nation’s civilization and the enduring legacy of its people. From the ancient ruins of Tilaurakot, a site intrinsically linked to Gautama Buddha’s early life, to the historic medieval town of Tansen, these treasures languish under the government’s indifferent approach. The deferral of Tilaurakot’s inscription serves as a glaring testament to Nepal’s failure to prioritize and prepare these sites for global recognition, jeopardizing their cultural and historical significance on the world stage.

15 tentative sites

According to UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre (whc.unesco.org), Nepal’s 15 tentative sites, with their inclusion dates, are:

1. The early medieval architectural complex of Panauti (23/05/1996) – A sacred town with Hindu and Buddhist pilgrimage sites, like Indresvar Mahadev and Brahmayani Temples.
2. Tilaurakot, the archaeological remains of ancient Shakya Kingdom (23/05/1996) – The ancient Shakya capital, tied to Gautama Buddha’s early life.
3. Cave architecture of Muktinath Valley of Mustang (23/05/1996) – Features 10,000 man-made caves with ancient Buddhist artifacts.
4. Medieval Palace Complex of Gorkha (23/05/1996) – A 16th-century complex central to Nepal’s unification.
5. Ramagrama, the relic stupa of Lord Buddha (23/05/1996) – A 2,500-year-old stupa in Nawalparasi with Buddha’s relics.
6. Khokana, the vernacular village and its mustard-oil seed industrial heritage (23/05/1996) – A Newari village known for traditional mustard oil production.
7. Medieval Earthen Walled City of Lo Manthang (30/01/2008) – A historic Tibetan Buddhist city in Mustang.
8. Vajrayogini and early settlement of Sankhu (30/01/2008) – A culturally significant Kathmandu Valley site.
9. Medieval Settlement of Kirtipur (30/01/2008) – An ancient Newari settlement with historical importance.
10. Rishikesh Complex of Ruru Kshetra (30/01/2008) – A sacred Hindu pilgrimage site in Palpa.
11. Ram Janaki Temple (30/01/2008) – The birthplace of Goddess Sita in Janakpur.
12. The Medieval Town of Tansen (30/01/2008) – A hill town with a historic market and Newari industries.
13. Sinja Valley (30/01/2008) – The 12th–14th-century Khasa Kingdom capital, origin of the Nepali language.
14. Bhurti Temple Complex of Dailekh (30/01/2008) – A historic temple complex with ancient heritage.
15. Nuwakot Palace Complex (30/01/2008) – An 18th-century Malla-style palace on a historic trade route.

Apathetic approach

The Nepal government’s indifference and sluggishness are the primary barriers to inscribing the 15 tentative sites, rooted in systemic neglect and inaction:

• Neglect of the Nomination Process

The UNESCO inscription process demands rigorous documentation of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) and robust management plans. Sites like Tilaurakot and Ramagrama, with global Buddhist significance, require extensive archaeological research and dossiers. Yet, the government’s lethargy in mobilizing resources and expertise results in incomplete or delayed submissions. The deferral of Tilaurakot’s inscription at the 47th UNESCO session in Paris (2024) highlights this failure, as the government’s inadequate dossier and lack of conservation measures led to its rejection. The Department of Archaeology, tasked with coordination, often fails to meet UNESCO’s annual nomination deadlines, leaving sites like the Muktinath Valley caves in limbo.

• Chronic Underfunding and Resource Scarcity

As a developing nation, Nepal faces resource constraints, but the government’s apathy exacerbates the issue. Sites like the Gorkha Palace Complex and Bhurti Temple Complex demand significant investment for preservation and infrastructure. The government prioritizes short-term economic relief over long-term heritage conservation, diverting funds from tentative sites to other sectors. Even when international aid, such as UNESCO’s World Heritage Fund, is available, bureaucratic inertia hinders effective utilization, leaving sites like Lo Manthang’s earthen walls deteriorating.

• Bureaucratic Inefficiency and Political Apathy

Frequent political turnover and administrative lethargy stall coordination efforts. The preparation of dossiers for sites like, the early medieval architectural complex of Panauti or Kirtipur is mired in red tape, with successive governments showing little commitment to heritage. For instance, the Sinja Valley, a cradle of Nepali language, remains neglected due to inconsistent policies and lack of leadership. This apathy contrasts sharply with the proactive management of Chitwan National Park, inscribed in 1984.

• Failure to Protect Sites from Threats

Many tentative sites, such as Khokana and Sankhu, face urban encroachment and environmental degradation. The government’s indifference to enforcing conservation measures allows these threats to persist. The Muktinath Valley caves, with their fragile artifacts, require specialized preservation, yet no significant action is taken. Unlike Lumbini, which benefits from global attention, sites like the Rishikesh Complex lack government-driven protection plans, undermining their UNESCO eligibility.

• Inaction Post-Natural Disasters

The 2015 earthquake inflicted significant damage on Nepal’s cultural sites, yet the government’s sluggish restoration efforts have stalled the nomination readiness of its 15 tentative UNESCO World Heritage sites. Resources remain disproportionately funneled toward repairing established sites like the Kathmandu Valley, while tentative sites are consistently overlooked, exposing a lack of proactive vision for the preservation of Nepal’s rich cultural heritage.

• Ignoring Community Engagement

The government fails to foster public awareness or involve local communities, crucial for UNESCO nominations. Sites like Tansen and the Bhurti Temple Complex lack the grassroots support seen in Lumbini due to absent education campaigns. This apathy risks further degradation, as seen in Sankhu’s vulnerability to urban sprawl.

• Lack of Strategic Prioritization

With 15 tentative sites, the government’s indecision on prioritizing globally significant sites like Tilaurakot over lesser-known ones like the Bhurti Temple Complex wastes opportunities. The deferral of Tilaurakot in 2024 exemplifies this failure to strategically focus on high-potential sites. This lethargy allows global competition to outpace Nepal, with over 1,200 WHS inscribed worldwide by 2025.

• Failure to Balance Tourism and Conservation

While UNESCO status could boost tourism, as seen in Sagarmatha National Park, the government’s inaction on developing sustainable tourism infrastructure for sites like Tansen or Kirtipur risks their authenticity. Unlike Chitwan, where tourism is managed, tentative sites lack plans to mitigate visitor impacts, further delaying nominations.

Strategies for future

To secure the inscription of Nepal’s 15 tentative UNESCO World Heritage sites, the government must urgently streamline its efforts by prioritizing the preparation of comprehensive dossiers for high-potential sites such as Tilaurakot and Ramagrama. This involves addressing the critical deficiencies outlined in the 2025 deferral by UNESCO, ensuring meticulous documentation and robust conservation measures to elevate these sites to global recognition.

Furthermore, Nepal should actively pursue increased funding by forging international partnerships and tapping into UNESCO funds, emulating the successful financial strategies employed for Lumbini. This proactive approach would provide the resources necessary to safeguard and promote these cultural treasures.

In parallel, engaging local communities is vital to foster a sense of ownership and responsibility. By launching targeted campaigns similar to those that galvanized community involvement in the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal can cultivate grassroots support, ensuring the preservation of its heritage sites through collective stewardship.

To overcome systemic inefficiencies, the government must strengthen governance by implementing consistent heritage policies to reduce bureaucratic delays. A cohesive and streamlined administrative framework will expedite progress toward inscription and enhance the management of these invaluable sites.

Finally, Nepal must build resilience by integrating disaster risk management into the conservation plans for each site. Drawing lessons from the recovery efforts following the 2015 earthquake, proactive measures to protect these cultural landmarks from natural calamities will ensure their longevity for future generations.