Kathmandu Who is responsible for safeguarding cultural heritage in Nepal? Who will ensure protection of thousands of monuments, heritage sites and artefacts belonging to a complex maze of cultural traditions? The loss of tangible heritage due to the earthquake of 2015 has been compounded by continued loss due to mismanagement of damaged monuments and the lack of safeguarding those that remain. There seems to be an overall loss of direction in conserving heritage and no single authority can be blamed. It is desperately time to regroup and bring all authorities, conservation practitioners and experts back on track with a single clear approach. On July 8, a monument was demolished within the Pashupati Monument Zone by contractors hired by the Pashupati Area Development Trust (PADT). This specific project to build a Kriya Putri Bhawan, a building for those observing mourning rites, was being funded through a donation made by Buddha Air, ironically under their Corporate Social Responsibility programme. The video of the demolition of the monument went viral on social media. The community and elected municipal ward representatives rallied against PADT the following day. It is said that the land of the four Shivalayas at the Agnihotri Yagyashala belongs to a private Guthi which had given permission for it to be used to extend the Kriya Putri Bhawans. I was told that traditionally this is an old Vedic place for fire sacrifices (agnihotra) and thus to impose facilities for mourners, that is death-related matters is impossible in terms of rules of purity. The complexities of understanding the Vedic and Brahmanical nuances of rituals as well as those of tantric traditions should be the basis for managing Pashupati ksetra. There seem to be contradicting information on the monument that was demolished. There were statements made that this was not an important nor ancient monument. There would be medieval if not earlier layers of archaeology in this area. Even after requesting PADT to stop use of heavy equipment such as excavators within the World Heritage area, digging the ground in the name of development continues. This incident needs to be understood in its full complexity. PADT is in the process of updating their Master Plan which was valid only till 2011. Without a new Master Plan decisions seem to be taken ad hoc. Projects seem to also be based on the interest of donors. Consideration is not given to the fact that Pashupati is a complex site where numerous stakeholders have in the past lived in harmony despite their often contradictory beliefs. The chronology of events shows another growing trend, that of community activism. We have already seen communities getting involved in previous incidences such as at Rani Pokhari and Kastamandap. This is an indicator that the community cannot rely on the respective authorities and experts to ensure that the local heritage is safeguarded. The authorities in a democratic country must respect this response by the community and take the opportunity to review their own position. There have been numerous examples of authorities trying to steamroll over community sentiments, which is clearly not acceptable. Coming back to the question at the beginning of the article; we must figure out how best to ensure that heritage is safeguarded. There are too many examples of damaged monuments being totally demolished, removing every hint of the original. The destruction of monuments such as the Durbar High School is even being funded by foreign donors. We must take stock of the situation, regroup and develop a clear plan. Rehabilitation plans are required for all the World Heritage Monument Zones as well as other heritage sites and historic settlements. We owe the World Heritage Committee for again not inscribing Kathmandu Valley on the danger list. The author is an architect and can be reached at kai.weise@yahoo.com