Heritage Conservation Reimagined: India’s Turn Towards a PPP Framework

Why in News ?

In a major policy shift, the Government of India has decided to allow private sector participation in the core conservation of centrally protected monuments, a responsibility that has traditionally rested exclusively with the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).

The move seeks to overcome capacity constraints within the ASI, accelerate conservation timelines, and better utilise Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) funds, while retaining regulatory oversight with the State.

Background: Monument Conservation and the ASI’s Central Role

India has one of the world’s richest cultural legacies, with thousands of monuments spanning ancient, medieval, and colonial periods.

Existing Conservation Framework

• The ASI, established in 1861, is the custodian of:
  • Around 3,700 centrally protected monuments
• Responsibilities include:
  • Documentation and research
  • Preparation of Detailed Project Reports (DPRs)
  • Execution and supervision of conservation works
• Conservation funding is channelled partly through the National Culture Fund (NCF), set up in 1996 to encourage public and private donations

Despite this institutional framework, conservation outcomes have often been constrained by limited manpower, procedural delays, and underutilisation of available funds.

Key Developments Under the New Policy

• The Ministry of Culture has initiated an empanelment of private conservation architects and agencies through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process, closing on January 12
• More than 20 heritage conservation agencies from across India have applied
• Post-empanelment:
  • Corporate donors contributing through the NCF will be allowed to directly engage conservation agencies of their choice
• All conservation work will:
  • Follow ASI-prescribed conservation frameworks
  • Be undertaken under ASI’s overall supervision and regulatory control

How the New Model Will Work

Eligibility Criteria for Conservation Architects

• Proven experience in conservation or restoration of:
  • Centrally protected monuments (ASI)
  • State Archaeology Departments
  • CPWD or State PWD projects
• Experience in heritage conservation of:
  • PSU-owned structures
  • Municipal heritage assets
  • Private palaces or buildings over 100 years old

Role of Donors and Conservation Agencies

• Donors:
  • Contribute funds to the National Culture Fund under CSR provisions
  • Have the autonomy to select empanelled conservation architects
• Conservation agencies:
  • Execute projects based on approved DPRs
  • Adhere to donor-fixed timelines and conservation norms
• Oversight:
  • ASI or concerned government agencies supervise execution
  • Archaeological integrity and authenticity remain non-negotiable

Why the Shift ? Limitations of the Existing ASI-Centric Model

Monopoly and Capacity Constraints

• ASI has been the sole authority for:
  • Designing conservation plans
  • Executing restoration works
• This led to:
  • Slow project execution
  • Delays in utilisation of CSR funds
  • Bottlenecks in DPR approvals

Performance of the National Culture Fund

• Established in 1996 with an initial corpus of ₹20 crore
• Received around ₹140 crore in donations so far
• Funded nearly 100 conservation projects
  • About 70 completed
  • Nearly 20 ongoing
• Corporate donors faced:
  • Delays in project execution
  • Weak compliance with defined timelines

What Is New Compared to Earlier Initiatives ?

Departure from the ‘Adopt a Heritage’ Scheme

• The earlier scheme allowed corporates to become Monument Mitras
• Scope was limited to:
  • Tourist amenities
  • Toilets, ticketing systems, signage, cafes
• Core conservation work remained off-limits

What the New Model Changes

• For the first time, private entities can participate in structural and material conservation
• The Ministry has identified 250 monuments requiring conservation
• Donors may:
  • Choose from the identified list
  • Propose monuments based on regional or thematic preference (subject to approval)

Global Parallels and Best Practices

Several countries successfully combine private participation with strong state regulation:

• United Kingdom: Churches Conservation Trust with private funding support
• United States: Active role of private foundations and donors in heritage preservation
• Germany and Netherlands: Heritage foundations backed by private contributions

These models demonstrate that Public–Private Partnerships (PPPs) can enhance conservation outcomes without compromising authenticity, provided regulatory oversight is robust.

Challenges and the Way Ahead

Risks of Commercialisation

• Danger of branding-driven conservation
• Mitigation: Transparent audits, periodic reviews, and academic involvement

Ensuring Uniform Conservation Standards

• Diverse agencies may follow different practices
• Mitigation: Clear conservation guidelines and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)

Potential Conflicts of Interest

• Donor preferences may clash with archaeological principles
• Mitigation: ASI’s approval of DPRs as a mandatory safeguard

Monitoring and Regulatory Oversight

• Risk of dilution of ASI’s authority
• Mitigation: Strengthening ASI as a regulator and knowledge authority

Capacity Constraints

• Shortage of trained conservation professionals
• Mitigation: Certification, training programmes, and skill development in heritage conservation