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, National People’s Congress Deputy and Director of the China Pacific Insurance Strategic Research Center (ESG Office) Zhou Yanfang has offered suggestions to further promote the implementation of the advance care planning guardianship 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 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 a necessary 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 hindering the implementation of the advance guardianship system, mainly in the following areas:

1. Legal basis for advance guardianship needs improvement, and local guidance lacks uniformity.

Currently, while 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, there are no specific implementation rules or judicial interpretations. Supporting systems are not yet detailed, procedural, or operational, leading to inconsistent standards and 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, establishing 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 greatly on notary institutions, but due to complex procedures and high responsibility risks, nearly 45% of notary agencies nationwide have never handled such cases. Service resources are concentrated mainly in a few municipalities and provincial capitals. Although community committees (residential or 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 instance, in Shanghai, only three organizations are engaged in advance guardianship, creating a significant gap 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 exchange among notary offices, civil affairs, courts, medical institutions, community 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, resulting in 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 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 who are 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 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, and the lack of supervision has become a major bottleneck hindering full implementation.

To further promote the system’s implementation, 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 full implementation of advance guardianship. It is recommended to systematically review the pilot experiences and best practices in Shanghai, Beijing, and other regions, and push for the rapid development of supporting policies. When local laws and regulations are not yet mature, normative documents such as implementation opinions can be issued to set a framework for basic matters. As practical experience accumulates, more detailed management measures and guardianship regulations should be gradually formulated. Government departments can clarify key procedures such as agreement notarization, property escrow, and emergency medical authorization through detailed rules or operational guidelines.

Second, establish a multi-party collaborative execution 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. For example, accelerating the empowerment of grassroots organizations by incorporating advance guardianship into community grid management systems, as exemplified by the “Guidelines for Community (Village) Committees in Putuo District Participating in Advance Guardianship Affairs” in Shanghai, can clarify responsibilities and procedures for community committees in guardianship investigation, legal education, witnessing, dispute resolution, and interim guardianship. Additionally, efforts should be made to cultivate and standardize professional social guardianship organizations. The civil affairs department should develop industry standards, specifying qualification requirements, staff training, service norms, and fee standards. Building a collaborative framework of “grassroots organizations + notary agencies + social organizations” will create a strong force to effectively implement advance guardianship at the local level.

Third, establish a comprehensive record-keeping and explore digital technology to enable full-process smart management of advance guardianship.

Protecting the legal rights of the ward accurately is key to 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 registration and sharing of advance guardianship information. This platform should cover the entire process, including agreement establishment, modification, revocation, capacity assessment, and guardianship initiation and termination, with real-time data collection and dynamic management. Additionally, leveraging big data and information technology can promote intelligent, standardized operation from agreement signing and capacity evaluation to guardianship execution and risk warning. Establishing clear standards for information access and use, and granting necessary permissions to medical institutions, public security, courts, and financial institutions for online verification, will facilitate cross-departmental, cross-sector trusted sharing of guardianship information, addressing issues like proof difficulty and conflicting rights from the source.

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

Advance guardianship should be integrated into national legal education and elderly care initiatives. Utilizing community elderly services and mainstream media to conduct targeted legal education can help eliminate awareness gaps. Simultaneously, an integrated supervision system involving administrative, judicial, and social oversight should be established. For administrative supervision, municipal and district civil affairs departments should set up guardianship supervision units with legally and socially trained inspectors, implementing annual inspections. Judicial oversight can involve courts conducting ex officio reviews of major matters such as large property transactions and medical plan changes. Social supervision should include cultivating third-party guardianship assessment organizations and developing scientific, controllable evaluation systems. Rigid supervision will strengthen trust and effectively safeguard the legal rights of the elderly.