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

As the 2026 Two Sessions are underway, Zhou Yanfang, a National People’s Congress delegate and director of the China Pacific Insurance Strategic Research Center (ESG Office), has offered suggestions to further promote 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 and Interests 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 stages of exploration. Challenges such as insufficient social awareness, incomplete supporting systems, limited responsible entities, and poor interdepartmental coordination hinder its implementation. It is urgent to summarize experiences from pioneering regions, strengthen overall coordination, and comprehensively promote the system’s effective rollout.

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 safeguards their personal dignity.

However, Zhou also points out that there are still issues in implementing the advance guardianship system, mainly in the following areas:

1. Legal basis for advance guardianship needs improvement, and local initiatives lack unified guidance.

Currently, the Civil Code and the Law on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of the Elderly provide general principles for adult and elderly advance guardianship, but there are no specific implementation rules or judicial interpretations. Supporting systems are not yet detailed, procedural, or operational, leading to inconsistent standards and unstandardized practices across regions, severely limiting the system’s applicability. For example, Shanghai issued the “Opinions on Promoting the Implementation of Elderly Advance Guardianship System (Trial)” in December 2025, forming a relatively complete local framework. Other regions generally lack comparable policies or guidelines.

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

In practice, advance guardianship depends heavily on notary agencies for implementation. Due to complex procedures and high responsibility risks, nearly 45% of notary agencies nationwide have never handled advance guardianship cases. Service resources are concentrated mainly in a few municipalities and provincial capitals. While neighborhood (village) committees are assigned relevant responsibilities in the Civil Code, unclear division of responsibilities, funding, and operational standards hinder their ability to effectively witness, supervise, or provide interim 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 stark mismatch between supply and demand.

3. Lack of a unified record-keeping and cross-departmental information-sharing mechanism leads to information silos.

Currently, there is no nationwide or provincial authoritative platform for registering advance guardianship agreements. Information sharing among notary offices, civil affairs, courts, medical institutions, neighborhood committees, and financial institutions is disconnected, forming “information islands.” This results in guardians having difficulty proving their authority quickly in emergencies, affecting rights protection. It also increases the risk of conflicts over guardianship rights, as courts or grassroots organizations may 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 low, and the statutory supervision mechanism is largely absent.

Most elderly people and their families lack sufficient understanding of the concept, procedures, and legal effects of advance guardianship. Surveys show only 29% of the public are aware of the system beforehand; among those aware, 79% are willing to choose advance guardianship, indicating a significant gap between demand and awareness. Many potential users are not effectively converting their needs into action. Moreover, the system’s operation relies heavily on supervision, but current laws do not establish a rigid oversight mechanism. The boundaries of guardians’ powers, supervising entities, performance procedures, and accountability standards are unclear. Society is concerned about risks such as property infringement and neglect of care. The absence of a comprehensive supervision mechanism is a major bottleneck hindering full implementation.

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

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

A comprehensive top-level design is essential for the system’s full implementation. It is recommended to systematically review the pilot experiences and best practices in Shanghai, Beijing, and other regions, and promote local policies on elderly advance guardianship. When conditions for enacting local laws or government regulations are not yet mature, normative documents such as implementation opinions can be issued to establish a framework for basic matters. As practical experience accumulates, management measures and guardianship regulations can be gradually developed. Relevant government departments should clarify operational standards for key processes such as agreement notarization, property escrow, and emergency medical authorization through detailed rules or guidelines.

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

Notary agencies play a crucial role in advance guardianship, ensuring legal validity and authority of agreements. However, their limited coverage cannot meet the needs of all regions. It is necessary to integrate resources and foster collaboration. On one hand, activate the capacity of grassroots organizations by incorporating advance guardianship into community grid management systems. For example, Shanghai’s Putuo District’s “Guidelines for Neighborhood (Village) Committees Participating in Advance Guardianship” clearly define responsibilities such as screening, legal education, witnessing, dispute resolution, and temporary guardianship, promoting orderly grassroots participation. On the other hand, accelerate the development and standardization of professional social guardianship organizations. The civil affairs department should lead the formulation of industry standards, specifying qualification requirements, training, service norms, and fee standards. Building a collaborative framework of “grassroots organizations + notary agencies + social organizations” can create synergy and effectively address the last mile of system implementation.

Third, establish a comprehensive record-keeping and information-sharing mechanism, and explore the use of digital and intelligent technologies to optimize the entire process.

Protecting the legal rights of the ward is key to effective implementation. It is recommended that civil affairs departments, in coordination with judicial, health, financial regulatory, and court agencies, build a unified national or provincial platform for registering and sharing advance guardianship information. This platform should enable the full cycle of data, including agreement creation, modification, revocation, capacity assessment, and guardianship initiation or termination, to be centrally managed and dynamically updated. Additionally, leverage big data and digital technologies to automate and standardize processes such as agreement signing, capacity evaluation, guardianship enforcement, and risk warning. Establish clear norms for information access and use, granting authorized entities like medical institutions, police, 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 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, dispelling misconceptions. Simultaneously, establish an integrated supervision system combining administrative oversight, judicial review, and social evaluation. For administrative supervision, suggest setting up guardianship supervision units within municipal and district civil affairs departments, staffed with legal and social work professionals, and implementing annual inspections. For judicial oversight, recommend establishing court review mechanisms for major matters such as large property transactions and medical plan changes. For social supervision, suggest cultivating third-party guardianship assessment organizations and developing scientific, controllable evaluation systems. A robust supervision framework will strengthen trust and effectively safeguard the rights and interests of the elderly.