WHO members press traditional medicine coordination toward a 2027 summit
Representatives of WHO Member States, traditional medicine leaders and international partners met in Geneva to expand cooperation around traditional medicine, with Ayurveda serving as the organizing theme for a broader policy conversation about regulation, research, and cross-border implementation. The gathering marked Ayurveda Day 2026 and sat alongside the 8th meeting of the Group of Friends of Traditional Medicine, turning a commemorative event into a practical discussion about how countries can align policy, oversight and knowledge sharing over the next several years.
New membership changed the room’s balance in a visible way. Egypt, Kazakhstan, Nepal and Suriname joined the group, bringing the total to 36 Member States. A larger coalition matters in this field because traditional medicine policy does not sit neatly inside one ministry or one regulatory code; it cuts across public health, trade, education, Indigenous rights, tourism and scientific validation. For governments trying to move from symbolic support to implementable policy, the size and diversity of the group now give the WHO process more political reach.
National delegations focused on the machinery needed to carry the Global Strategy on Traditional Medicine 2025–2034 into practice. Legal frameworks came up repeatedly, alongside barriers to exporting traditional medicine products and the need to protect intellectual property rights and the sacred knowledge held by Indigenous and local communities. Those issues are not abstract. Weak regulation can leave consumers exposed to unsafe or low-quality products, while poorly designed commercial pathways can strip communities of control over knowledge that has been preserved across generations.
One concrete theme was the role of cross-ministerial coordination. Several countries pointed to medical tourism and national centres of excellence as examples of areas where health policy intersects with economics, research, and national branding. In traditional medicine, that intersection can be productive when it supports standard setting, evidence generation and patient safety. It can also become risky when commercial demand rises faster than product verification, ethical sourcing, or oversight of clinical claims.
The conversation also carried a forward-looking political signal: the group expressed support for WHO’s continued attention to traditional medicine after the election of a new Director-General in 2027. That commitment matters because continuity at the global level often determines whether strategy documents become operational workplans or remain aspirational statements. Here, the group was not simply endorsing a topic; it was staking out a multi-year policy lane for WHO to stay engaged in standards, governance and country support.
Thailand positions the 3rd WHO Global Summit as an implementation moment
Thailand used the Geneva meeting to set out its vision for hosting the 3rd WHO Global Summit on Traditional Medicine in November 2027. The country will take the baton from India, which hosted the 2nd Summit in 2025. Thai Ambassador Usana Berananda framed the next summit as a continuation of a longer arc rather than a standalone diplomatic event, describing traditional medicine as carrying “the wisdom of the past” and “the promise of the future.”
The practical message behind that language was clear: the next summit is expected to move the field from recognition toward delivery. In policy terms, implementation is where traditional medicine either gains legitimacy through standards and evidence, or loses credibility when claims outpace proof. Countries that want to integrate these systems into health strategies need frameworks that can distinguish cultural value from clinical utility while still respecting both.
The three-word vision presented by Thailand — wisdom, well-being and wealth — captured the dual identity of the sector. Traditional medicine can serve as a source of identity and continuity, but it is also tied to product development, services, research and trade. Those commercial dimensions are precisely why governance has to be careful. Without guardrails, economic expansion can erode safety, sustainability and the trust of the very communities that sustain these traditions.
WHO’s Living Well proposal pushes a multisectoral model
Dr Shyama Kuruvilla, director a.i. of the WHO Global Traditional Medicine Centre, introduced Living Well, an emerging initiative designed as a conceptual multisectoral action framework. The proposal reaches beyond ministries of health and into environment, agriculture, education, science, technology, trade, finance, tourism and Indigenous affairs. That broad span reflects how traditional medicine operates in real life: as a blend of products, practices, ecosystems, knowledge systems and economic activity.
The framework also includes a proposed multistakeholder cooperation platform to help countries translate the idea into operational work. One element under discussion is a global trust mark for well-being products and services, intended to promote responsible sourcing, safety and sustainability through independent verification. In a market where consumers often face inconsistent quality claims, a trust mark could function as a safeguard only if it is backed by rigorous criteria and credible oversight. A label without enforcement would add branding, not protection.
The need for that rigor is easy to see in this space. Traditional medicine products may move across borders faster than the systems designed to evaluate them, and services may be marketed in ways that outpace national regulation. A verification mechanism could help separate ethically sourced, quality-controlled offerings from those that merely borrow the prestige of tradition. For governments, the challenge will be to ensure that such a tool supports public interest rather than becoming a commercial shortcut.
Ayurveda’s role in research, evidence and health-system integration
The day’s final panel, moderated by Dr Pradeep Dua of the WHO Global Traditional Medicine Centre, focused on Ayurveda and its contribution to the global traditional medicine agenda. Senior officials from India, Mauritius, Nepal and Suriname discussed their countries’ experience with research, evidence generation, innovation, integration into health systems, and promotion of health and well-being. The discussion framed Ayurveda not only as a heritage practice, but also as a policy domain that requires data, institutions and clinical discipline if it is to be incorporated responsibly.
The health-systems question sits at the center of the debate. Traditional medicine can support broader efforts to strengthen access and promote healthy lives, but only when governments define what is being integrated, under what standards, and for which populations. Research capacity becomes especially important in that setting because policymakers need more than cultural affirmation; they need credible pathways for safety monitoring, effectiveness assessment and product quality assurance.
The Geneva meeting made one thing plain: traditional medicine is now being negotiated as a global governance issue, not just a cultural one. The next phase will depend on whether countries can turn summit language, cooperation platforms and trust marks into durable systems that protect patients, respect knowledge holders and hold commercial actors to account.