Monument Conservation Opens to Private Sector 

---

Why in News?

• The Ministry of Culture has decided to open conservation and restoration of centrally protected monuments to private agencies.
• This marks a major shift as Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) will no longer be the sole implementing authority.
• Over 200 private heritage conservation agencies are being empanelled following a Request for Proposals (RFP).
• The move formally ends ASI’s exclusive mandate in monument conservation.

Relevance

GS I (Indian Culture & Heritage)

• Conservation of monuments and heritage management.
• Role of ASI and centrally protected monuments.

GS II (Governance)

• Changing role of the State: implementer → regulator.
• Public–Private Partnerships (PPP) in public goods.
• Accountability and regulatory oversight.

What is the New Conservation Framework?

• Private sector participation allowed in:
  • Conservation.
  • Restoration.
  • Preservation of centrally protected monuments.
• Work will be carried out:
  • Under ASI supervision.
  • Following approved conservation plans and standards.
• Ministry will:
  • Vet and empanel agencies through an internal committee.
  • Monitor execution and compliance.

How Will the System Work?

• Detailed Project Reports (DPRs):
  • Prepared by expert conservation architects.
• Execution:
  • Can be done by:
    • PSU corporations.
    • Municipal bodies.
    • Private heritage firms.
• Funding mechanism:
  • Use of National Culture Fund (NCF).
  • Encourages CSR-based funding.
• ASI’s role shifts to:
  • Approval of plans.
  • Oversight and quality control.
  • Ensuring adherence to conservation norms.

Rationale Behind the Move

• Capacity constraints of ASI:
  • Conservation work for nearly 3,700 monuments handled largely by ASI staff.
• Slow pace of conservation:
  • Limited manpower and institutional bandwidth.
• Need to build a broader ecosystem:
  • Create a national talent pool of conservation professionals.
• Utilise private expertise:
  • Many private agencies possess advanced conservation skills and experience.

Key Institutional Changes

• ASI transitions from:
  • Implementer → Regulator & Supervisor.
• Conservation becomes:
  • More decentralised.
  • Potentially faster and scalable.
• Marks shift from a state-monopoly model to a PPP-style framework.

Illustrative Case

• Ranthambore Fort:
  • Among monuments where NCF is seeking private support for conservation.
• Indicates application to high-value, iconic heritage sites.

Concerns & Criticisms

• Risk of commercialisation:
  • Profit motives may dilute conservation ethics.
• Past experience:
  • Corporates struggled with heritage timelines and compliance.
• Quality control challenges:
  • Need to prevent cosmetic or tourism-oriented alterations.
• Accountability gaps:
  • Clear liability needed in case of damage or non-compliance.

Safeguards Built into the Model

• ASI retains:
  • Final approval authority.
  • Monitoring and enforcement powers.
• Mandatory adherence to:
  • Conservation charters.
  • Scientific restoration norms.
• No transfer of:
  • Ownership.
  • Monument management rights.

Global Parallels

• United Kingdom:
  • Churches Conservation Trust.
• United States:
  • Strong role of private funding and foundations.
• Germany & Netherlands:
  • Historic foundations managing heritage assets.
• India aligning with international best practices under regulatory oversight.

---