2016年版《文化資產保存法》之修訂及其意義

The Practical Significance of“Cultural Heritage Preservation Act”2016

臺灣自1982年公布《文化資產保存法》施行至今已有35年，其中歷經八次的修正。1999年921大地震古蹟遭到重大災害，才突顯當時法令無法適應此一突發狀況及時保護文化資產，遂促成了2005年大修法，針對文化資產類型、範疇以及文化資產的保護與管理加以重視，惟實際修正幅度依然有限，難以顧及各類型文化資產的全面保護；復以全球對於歷史場域、自然環境保育的觀念不斷革新，經過多年的醞釀才有2016年的修法議題。在2016年修法的過程中，注意到聯合國教科文組織對全球世界遺產文化資產保護的基本概念，須將保存對象擴及到各類型的無形文化保存，以及自然環境維護保育的領域。再從近幾年來國內保護文化資產的過程來看，主管機關雖然在推動文化資產保護方面受到一些阻擾，但在法規方面對於新觀念的引入，以及在地民意對於文化資產保護理念的覺醒，卻有很大的進展。許多人注意到文化資產一詞所包含的，除了建築物和少數地方歷史、人物以外，尚包括屬於民眾和社會的共同歷史記憶。也注意到地方分權、原住民文化和自然環境保護的問題，古蹟的指定不再只限定為中央政府的職掌。更重要的是注意到古蹟保存過程的民主環節，從民眾的主動行為中將文化與地方歷史情感深植於民心。促進古蹟的再利用，使古蹟與現代生活共生共存，並用獎勵與補償的方式，減低民眾在實質利益上的損失，但同時也加重了一些罰責，以嚇阻民眾對文化資產的破壞。希望修法足以使廣域的文化資產保護工作，更落實到全球化、多元化與在地化的呈現，此亦即2016年修法實質意義所在。

In the 35 years since the establishment of Taiwan’s ''Cultural Heritage Preservation Act'' in 1982 it has experienced eight amendments. The 921 Earthquake in 1999 highlighted the inadequacy of this act in handling such a severe level of natural disasters. Therefore the Act had a large-scale amendment in 2005. The amendment in 2005 added more types and categories of cultural properties and emphasized protecting and managing cultural properties. However, the scale of the amendment in 2005 was still not large enough to thoroughly protect all types of cultural properties. In addition, since 1982 the concepts of preserving natural environments and historical sites have being updated internationally. All these factors led to further amendments in 2016. We place emphasis on the basic concept of UNESCO that while preserving the world heritage, the scope of protection must cover not only tangible cultures but also intangible ones as well as natural environments. Taking a look at how domestic cultural properties were processed, we have noticed that although governments still encounter some obstacles in protecting cultural properties, we have made improvements in both raising people’s awareness of protecting cultural assets and accepting news concepts of preservation. Many people started to note that cultural assets cover not only architecture, history and monuments to historical figures, but also the common historical memory shared by local people and society. Also, with a view to the issue of decentralization of authority, recognition of aboriginal culture and the protection of the natural environment, the designation of monuments is no longer limited to the central government. What is more, the historical site preserving process has become more democratic. Local people’s involvements bring cultures and historical emotions together, which help the reuse of heritage and reintegrates it into modern life and local culture. Through a reward and the compensation policy, local people receive real compensation for their loss. Meanwhile, punishments have been increased so that people hesitate in destroying cultural properties. We hope such amendments to the act makes it possible to broaden cultural property preservation, to carry out globalization, and to diversify as well as localize our preservation works. This is the practical significance of the revised Act of 2016.