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’s 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 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, nor are there detailed, procedural, and operable supporting systems. This results in 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 People’s Advance Guardianship System (Trial)” in December 2025, 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 Civil Code assigns responsibilities to neighborhood and village committees, unclear division of responsibilities, funding issues, and operational standards hinder their effective participation in witnessing, supervision, and temporary 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. The protocol filing and record-keeping mechanism is 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 guardians to face difficulties in self-certification, impeding quick proof of identity in emergencies or property transactions, 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; 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 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, raising concerns about property infringement and neglect. The absence of a comprehensive supervision mechanism is a major bottleneck hindering full implementation.

To further promote the 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 on elderly advance guardianship. When conditions for enacting local laws and 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. Government departments should clarify operational standards for key procedures such as protocol 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 key role in advance guardianship, ensuring legal validity and authority of agreements. However, due to limited coverage, they cannot meet all needs. 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, Shanghai’s Putuo District issued the “Guidelines for Neighborhood (Village) Committees Participating in Advance Guardianship,” clarifying their responsibilities in screening, legal education, witnessing, dispute resolution, and temporary guardianship, thereby promoting orderly grassroots participation. On the other hand, accelerate the cultivation and standardization of professional social guardianship organizations. It is recommended that civil affairs departments develop industry standards, specify 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 implementation.

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

Protecting the legal rights of the ward is crucial for effective implementation. It is recommended that civil affairs departments, in cooperation 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 entire cycle of agreement creation, modification, revocation, capacity assessment, and guardianship initiation and termination to be centrally managed and dynamically updated. Furthermore, leverage big data and information technology 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 conflicts over 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, 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 legal and social work professionals, 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 agencies and developing scientific, controllable evaluation systems. A robust supervision framework will strengthen trust and effectively safeguard the legal rights of the elderly.