National People's Congress Deputy Zhou Yanfang: Suggests making efforts in four areas to further promote the implementation of the voluntary guardianship system

During the 2026 Two Sessions, National People’s Congress Deputy and Director of China Pacific Insurance Strategic Research Center (ESG Office) Zhou Yanfang offered suggestions on further promoting the implementation of the advance care planning (ACP) system.

To actively respond to the realities of an aging society, Articles 33 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China and Article 26 of the Law on the Protection of the Rights of the Elderly establish the adult advance guardianship system at the national legal level. Pilot programs in economically developed regions like Shanghai and Beijing have achieved initial success. However, nationwide, the advance guardianship system is still in its early exploration stage, facing challenges such as insufficient social awareness, incomplete supporting systems, a limited number of responsible entities, and poor interdepartmental coordination. It is urgent to summarize experiences from pioneering regions, strengthen overall planning, and comprehensively promote the system’s effective implementation.

Zhou Yanfang believes this is an inevitable response to the deepening aging and changing family structures, which can help ease social governance pressures at the grassroots level and support the development of a multi-layered elderly care service system. It also reflects respect for the elderly’s right to self-determination and the protection of their personal dignity.

However, Zhou also pointed out that the implementation of the advance guardianship system still faces several issues, mainly:

1. The legal basis for advance guardianship needs to be improved, and there is a lack of unified guidance for local promotion.

Currently, while the Civil Code and the Law on the Protection of the Rights of the Elderly provide general principles for adult and elderly advance guardianship, there are no specific implementation rules or judicial interpretations. There is also no detailed, procedural, and operational supporting system, leading to inconsistent standards and unstandardized practices across regions, severely limiting the system’s applicability. In December 2025, Shanghai issued the “Several Opinions on Promoting the Implementation of Elderly People’s Advance Guardianship System (Trial),” forming a relatively complete local framework. Other regions generally lack comparable policies and guidelines.

2. The system relies heavily on notary agencies, with insufficient roles played by grassroots organizations and social forces.

In practice, advance guardianship depends heavily on notary agencies, but due to complex procedures and high responsibility risks, nearly 45% of notary offices nationwide have never handled such cases. Service resources are concentrated mainly in a few municipalities and provincial capitals. Although the Law on the Protection of the Rights of the Elderly assigns responsibilities to neighborhood and village committees, unclear division of responsibilities, funding issues, and operational standards hinder their effective participation in witnessing, supervision, and emergency guardianship. Additionally, the number of professional social guardianship organizations is severely limited; for example, in Shanghai, only three organizations are engaged in advance guardianship, creating a significant gap between supply and demand.

3. The protocol and record-keeping system are lacking, and information silos between departments are prominent.

Currently, there is no nationwide or provincial-level authoritative platform for registering advance guardianship agreements. Information sharing among notary offices, civil affairs, courts, medical institutions, neighborhood/village committees, and financial institutions is disconnected, forming “information islands.” This causes difficulties for guardians to prove their authority quickly in emergencies, affecting rights protection. It also increases the risk of conflicts over guardianship rights, as courts or grassroots organizations might appoint guardians without full knowledge, leading to contradictions between advance and statutory guardianship and undermining the system’s authority.

4. Public awareness and trust are both low, and the statutory supervision mechanism is overall lacking.

Most elderly people and their families have limited understanding of the concept, procedures, and legal effects of advance guardianship. Surveys show only 29% of the public are aware of the system beforehand; after learning about it, 79% are willing to choose advance guardianship. There is a clear mismatch between demand and awareness, with many potential needs not being effectively addressed. Moreover, the system’s operation heavily depends on supervision, but current laws lack a rigid oversight mechanism. The boundaries of guardians’ powers, supervising bodies, performance procedures, and accountability standards are unclear. Society is concerned about risks such as property infringement and neglect, and the absence of a comprehensive supervision mechanism has become a major bottleneck hindering full implementation.

To further promote the implementation of the advance guardianship system, Zhou Yanfang proposed the following suggestions:

First, summarize and promote experiences from pioneering regions like Shanghai, and accelerate the development of supporting systems.

The full implementation of advance guardianship depends on strong top-level design. It is recommended to systematically review the pilot experiences and best practices from Shanghai, Beijing, and other regions, and promote local policies for elderly advance guardianship. When conditions for local legislation and government regulations are not yet mature, normative documents such as implementation opinions can be issued to establish a basic framework. As practical experience accumulates, management measures and guardianship regulations can be gradually developed. Relevant government departments should clarify operational standards for key aspects such as protocol notarization, property escrow, and emergency medical authorization through detailed rules or guidelines.

Second, establish a multi-party collaborative execution mechanism, and fully leverage grassroots organizations and social institutions.

Notary agencies play a key role in advance guardianship, ensuring legal validity and authority of agreements. However, their limited coverage makes it difficult to meet demand nationwide. It is necessary to integrate resources and foster collaboration. On one hand, accelerate the empowerment of grassroots organizations by incorporating advance guardianship into community grid management systems. For example, referencing the “Guidelines for Grassroots (Neighborhood/ Village) Committees Participating in Advance Guardianship Affairs” in Putuo District, Shanghai, to specify responsibilities and procedures for grassroots committees in guardianship screening, legal education, witnessing, dispute resolution, and emergency guardianship. On the other hand, accelerate the cultivation and standardization of professional social guardianship organizations. It is recommended that civil affairs departments develop industry standards, clarify qualification requirements, staff training, service norms, and fee standards. Building a collaborative framework of “grassroots organizations + notary agencies + social organizations” will create synergy and effectively address the “last mile” challenge of implementation.

Additionally, establish a comprehensive registration and record-keeping system, and explore the use of digital and intelligent technologies to support the entire process of advance guardianship.

Ensuring the legal rights of the protected persons is crucial for effective implementation. It is suggested that civil affairs departments, in cooperation with judicial, health, financial regulatory, and court agencies, build a unified national or provincial platform for registration and sharing of advance guardianship information. This platform should cover the entire lifecycle, including agreement establishment, modification, revocation, capacity assessment, and guardianship initiation and termination, with real-time data collection and management. Furthermore, leverage big data and digital technologies to promote intelligent, standardized operation of the system—from agreement signing and capacity evaluation to guardianship enforcement and risk warning. Establish clear norms for information access and use, granting authorized agencies such as medical institutions, public security, courts, and financial institutions online verification rights, enabling cross-departmental, cross-sector trusted sharing of guardianship information to address issues like proof difficulty and conflicting rights from the source.

Finally, strengthen legal publicity and guidance, and build a comprehensive supervision system.

Incorporate advance guardianship into national legal education and elderly care initiatives. Use community elderly services and mainstream media to conduct targeted legal education, breaking down awareness gaps. Simultaneously, establish an integrated supervision system combining administrative, judicial, and social oversight. For administrative supervision, recommend setting up guardianship supervision units within municipal and district civil affairs departments, staffed with legally trained social workers, and implementing annual inspections. For judicial oversight, suggest establishing court review mechanisms for major matters such as large property transactions and medical plan changes. For social supervision, recommend cultivating third-party guardianship assessment organizations and developing scientific, controllable evaluation systems. A robust supervision framework will strengthen trust and effectively safeguard the legal rights of the elderly.