非遗"十五五"规划：四件事，指向一个方向

先说这份规划的基本盘。它延续了 2021 年中共中央办公厅、国务院办公厅《关于进一步加强非物质文化遗产保护工作的意见》确立的十六字工作方针，并接续了到 2025 年、2035 年的两阶段目标。

变化的部分，在于它提出"1+3+N"的工作格局。政策语言里的字母，通常意味着层级与分工：一个总纲、三个支撑，再加 N 项具体抓手。

方向因此很清楚——非遗保护正在从"一项一项地救"，转向"成体系地管"。文件没有把话说得很花，但格局一变，做事的方式就会跟着变。

规划的任务清单里，有一条提法很值得留意：整治虚假宣传、过度商业化。

不少人一看"整治"两个字，就以为政策要收紧生意。换个角度读，这条更像是在划底线——反对的是虚假宣传与过度商业化，不是正常经营。

逻辑不难懂。非遗一旦被当成纯粹的流量标签，"手工"变成文案，"传承"变成话术，最先受伤的恰恰是认真做东西的人。他们抬不高声量，却要和话术更响的人同台竞价；久而久之，价格被拖低，工艺被拖薄。

所以这条底线，对踏实做手艺的人其实是保护。

还有一件事值得留意：这份规划把整治虚假宣传、过度商业化写进了任务清单，却没有把"商业"本身当成问题。文件用的是"过度"二字，分寸就在这里。

这份规划里还有两条与"人"有关，容易被忽略。

一条是建立全国非遗保护工作者轮训机制，另一条是推动建立非遗保护专业技术职称评审制度。

这两条看着是行政安排，落到现实里却指向同一件事：非遗保护正在成为一门"专业"。过去，做这件事的很多是靠情怀支撑的志愿者、基层文化干部和匠人自己；今后，它要有标准、有培训、有职业通道。

对匠人来说，这意味着"带徒"之外，多了一条把经验变成资历的路。手艺传下去，不只需要徒弟，也需要能把手艺讲清楚、管明白的人。

国家层面的方向是一贯的。2021 年两办意见第（十二）条明确，鼓励非物质文化遗产相关企业拓展国际市场，支持其产品和服务出口；《关于推动文化高质量发展的若干经济政策》（国务院办公厅，国办发〔2025〕4号）也提出，促进文化企业和产品、服务"出海"。

再往前看，《中国传统工艺振兴计划》（文化部、工业和信息化部、财政部，2017 年）就提出，推动传统美术与传统技艺"在现代生活中广泛应用"；这几年持续推进的非遗工坊建设，则在把"指尖技艺"变成"指尖经济"。这些文件串起来，是一条从"活下来"到"用起来"再到"卖出去"的线。

把这些文件放在一起读，会发现一件有意思的事：对虚假宣传与过度商业化划底线的同时，对真正的产品出口、文化交流是鼓励的。看似一收一放，其实是同一套判断——先让行业干净，再让它走远。

对做非遗出海的人来说，这条底线不该被看成阻力。海外客户对"手工"与"来路"的敏感度不低，一张讲不清身世的标签，在国内或许侥幸，出了关就是风险。把来路讲清楚、把工艺说明白，本身就是出海路上最实在的准备。

以上仅为个人梳理，具体以官方原文为准。

做非遗的朋友，你最关心这份规划里的哪一条？留言聊聊。

📩 非遗项目 ｜ 匠人举荐 ｜ 跨境出海 ｜ 线下联营

欢迎留言或后台联系，我们与匠人同行。

English

Start with the fundamentals. The plan carries forward the sixteen-character guiding principle set out in 2021 by the Opinions on Further Strengthening the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage, issued by the General Office of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council, and continues the two-stage goals for 2025 and 2035.

What has changed is its "1+3+N" working framework. Letters in policy language usually signal tiers and division of labor: one master outline, three pillars, and then N concrete levers.

The direction is therefore clear: ICH protection is shifting from "rescuing one item at a time" to "managing as a system." The document is not ornate, but once the framework changes, the way work gets done changes with it.

One item on the plan's task list deserves particular attention: the rectification of false advertising and over-commercialization.

Many read the word "rectification" and assume policy is tightening the screws on business. Read from another angle, and it looks more like drawing a baseline — what it opposes is false advertising and over-commercialization, not ordinary commerce.

The logic is not hard to follow. Once ICH is treated as a mere traffic label — "handmade" as copywriting, "transmission" as a sales pitch — the first to be hurt are precisely those who make things in earnest. They cannot raise their volume, yet must compete on the same stage with louder rhetoric; over time, prices are dragged down and craft is thinned out.

So this baseline is, in fact, a protection for those who work honestly.

One more thing deserves attention: the plan writes the rectification of false advertising and over-commercialization into its task list, yet does not treat "commerce" itself as the problem. The document uses the word "excessive," and that is precisely where the line falls.

Two more items in the plan concern people, and are easily overlooked.

One is the establishment of a nationwide rotating training mechanism for ICH protection workers; the other is the promotion of a professional title evaluation system for ICH protection work.

On the surface these are administrative arrangements, but in practice they point to one thing: ICH protection is becoming a profession. In the past, much of this work was carried by volunteers, grassroots cultural officials, and craftspeople themselves, sustained by devotion; going forward, it will have standards, training, and a career path.

For craftspeople this means that, beyond "taking on apprentices," there is now a path to turn experience into credentials. Passing on a craft requires not only apprentices, but also people who can explain it clearly and manage it competently.

The national direction has been consistent. Article (12) of the 2021 Opinions explicitly encourages enterprises related to intangible cultural heritage to expand into international markets and supports the export of their products and services; the Several Economic Policies on Promoting High-Quality Cultural Development (State Council General Office, Guo Ban Fa [2025] No. 4) likewise calls for advancing the "going global" of cultural enterprises, products, and services.

Look further back and the Plan for the Revitalization of Traditional Chinese Craftsmanship (Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Ministry of Finance, 2017) already called for promoting traditional arts and crafts so that they find "broad application in modern life"; the continuing upgrading of ICH workshops in recent years is turning "fingertip skills" into "fingertip income." Strung together, these documents trace a line from surviving, to being used, to being sold abroad.

Read these documents together and something interesting emerges: while a baseline is drawn against false advertising and over-commercialization, genuine product export and cultural exchange are encouraged. Apparently tightening on one side and loosening on the other, it is in fact one judgment — first make the industry clean, then let it travel far.

For those taking ICH abroad, this baseline should not be read as an obstacle. Overseas customers are hardly insensitive to "handmade" and to provenance; a label that cannot explain its origins may slip by at home, but past customs it becomes a liability. Stating provenance clearly and explaining technique plainly is, in itself, the most practical preparation for going global.

The above is a personal reading only; the official texts shall prevail.

ICH Projects · Artisan Referrals · Global Distribution · Salon Partnerships