Nepal has four heritage sites inscribed on the World Heritage List. The cultural property of the Kathmandu Valley, with its seven monument zones, was inscribed in 1979, along with the natural property of Sagarmatha National Park. This was followed by the natural property of Chitwan National Park in 1984 and the cultural property of Lumbini, the birthplace of Lord Buddha, in 1997. Already in the 1990s, it was getting more difficult to get a heritage site inscribed. The original nomination submitted in 1993 for Lumbini, together with Tilaurakot and Ramagrama, was deferred, since it was considered that the “current state of knowledge, conservation, and management” of the latter two sites were “not sufficiently advanced”. A much more specific, clear and reduced nomination of Lumbini, as the birthplace of Lord Buddha, was inscribed four years later. The nomination of a mixed cultural and natural site of Shey Phoksundo National Park was also deferred in 2000, due to lack of research and convincing justification. There are already 1121 heritage properties inscribed on the World Heritage list. Many of those already inscribed are under detailed observation. There are 53 properties on the list of World Heritage in Danger. Even when not on the Danger List, properties can be requested to provide State of Conservation reports to allow for closer monitoring by the World Heritage Committee. Presently all four World Heritage properties in Nepal are being carefully scrutinised. For heritage properties to be added to the list, serious preparation and a convincing justification for inscription are required. In the latest version of the ‘Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention’, the nomination process and requirements are provided. It seems easy to follow the instructions, fill out the standard form and provide information on the system of management. However, many recent nomination processes in neighbouring countries have taken between two to five years to prepare, with the involvement of numerous national and international experts. The justification for inscription has to be prepared in a strategic manner, carefully formulated and in line with the latest definitions of the criteria for being of outstanding universal value. The management system must be established in close collaboration with the stakeholders. Sector plans, particularly for tourism and disaster risk management, are compulsory, however, often strategies to deal with regional planning, community participation and other related issues need to be formulated. The first step in the process is to include the heritage site on the Tentative List for World Heritage. There are only 15 cultural properties on Nepal’s tentative list, and these need to be urgently reviewed, particularly taking into account the impact of the 2015 Gorkha Earthquake. Natural and mixed sites need to be added. Efforts have been made to move forward on the nomination of several properties, with mixed results. Work on ‘the walled city of Lo Manthang’ in Upper Mustang has come to a halt due to disapproval by the local community, while local enthusiasm to inscribe the ‘Ram Janaki Temple’ in Janakpur has only been stuck due to lack of expertise. The nomination dossier for ‘the early medieval architectural complex of Panauti’ has been prepared through local efforts, but the only chance for this property to be inscribed would be as an extension of the already inscribed ‘Kathmandu Valley’. The most promising heritage property in Nepal for World Heritage nomination is Tilaurakot / Kapilavastu. The government has prioritised this nomination, and, over the past several years, a lot of archaeological research has been carried out. Reviving the inscription of the mixed cultural and natural heritage site of Shey Phoksundo would be another worthwhile endeavour. It is important to spend time, particularly in establishing a system of management and protection that is realistic and efficient, led by the local community. kai.weise@yahoo.com