Why in News?

• In a significant policy shift, the Government of India is set to allow private sector participation in the core conservation of protected monuments, a domain hitherto monopolised by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
• This move aims to address capacity constraints, improve efficiency, and mobilise CSR funding for heritage conservation, while retaining regulatory oversight with the ASI.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Key Developments
• How the New Model Will Work?
• Reasons for the Shift - Limitations of the Existing ASI Model
• What is New Compared to Earlier Initiatives?
• Global Parallels (Best Practices)
• Challenges and Way Ahead
• Conclusion

Key Developments:

• The Ministry of Culture is empanelling private conservation architects and agencies through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process, closing on January 12.
• Over 20 private heritage conservation agencies from across the country have applied.
• After empanelment, corporate donors contributing via the National Culture Fund (NCF) will be allowed to directly engage conservation agencies of their choice.
• The conservation work will be undertaken within ASI-prescribed frameworks and under its overall supervision.

How the New Model Will Work?

• Eligibility criteria for conservation architects:
  • Experience in conservation or restoration of centrally protected monuments under ASI, State Archaeology Departments, CPWD or State PWD.
  • Experience in heritage projects of PSUs, municipal corporations, and private palaces or buildings (minimum 100 years old).
• Role of donors and agencies:
  • Donors provide funds to the NCF under CSR provisions.
  • Donors have independence to select empanelled conservation architects.
  • Projects must adhere to approved Detailed Project Reports (DPRs), timeframes fixed by donors, and established conservation norms.
  • Execution will be carried out by private agencies, under guidance of conservation architects, supervision of ASI or concerned government agencies.

Reasons for the Shift - Limitations of the Existing ASI Model:

• Monopoly and capacity constraints:
  • ASI is responsible for conserving around 3,700 protected monuments.
  • It has been the sole agency for preparing DPRs, executing conservation works.
  • This led to slow project implementation, delays in utilisation of CSR funds.
• Performance of the NCF:
  • Established in 1996 with an initial corpus of ₹20 crore, the fund has received ₹140 crore in donations so far.
  • It has funded about 100 conservation projects - 70 completed, almost 20 ongoing.
  • The corporate donors faced difficulties due to weak compliance timelines.

What is New Compared to Earlier Initiatives?

• The earlier ‘Adopt a Heritage’ scheme allowed corporates to become Monument Mitras but was limited to tourist amenities (toilets, ticketing, cafes, signage).
• For the first time, private donors are being allowed into core conservation work of monuments.
• The Ministry has identified 250 monuments requiring conservation. Donors may choose from the list, or propose monuments based on regional or thematic preference (subject to approval).

Global Parallels (Best Practices):

• United Kingdom: Churches Conservation Trust with strong private participation.
• United States: Active involvement of private organisations and funding in heritage protection.
• Germany and Netherlands: Heritage foundations supported by private funding.
• These models reflect Public–Private Partnerships (PPP) under strong state regulation.

Challenges and Way Ahead:

• Risk of commercialisation of heritage: Transparent audits and periodic reviews of projects. Promote community and academic involvement alongside corporates.
• Ensuring uniform conservation: Develop clear conservation guidelines and SOPs.
• Potential conflicts: Between donor preferences and archaeological integrity.
• Need for robust monitoring mechanisms: To prevent dilution of ASI’s authority. Strengthen ASI’s role as a regulator and knowledge authority.
• Capacity constraints: Capacity-building and certification of conservation professionals.

Conclusion:

• Opening monument conservation to the private sector marks a paradigm shift in India’s heritage governance, moving towards a PPP-based, capacity-enhancing model.
• While the ASI retains supervisory control, private participation is expected to accelerate conservation, improve fund utilisation, and create a national talent pool in heritage management.
• Success, however, will depend on strong regulation, accountability, and adherence to conservation ethics.