For decades, the Asia-Pacific growth story has been built on openness, integration, and the belief that trade could deliver prosperity for all. Yet the region’s trade agreements—hundreds of them now in force—remain largely silent on one of the most critical determinants of sustainable growth: inclusion. While gender and MSME references are gradually finding their way into new agreements, the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples and other marginalised groups (e.g. such as persons with disabilities) is still rare, and almost entirely absent from Asian economies-negotiated free trade agreements (FTAs).

A Gap in the Inclusive Trade Agenda

Trade has undeniably lifted millions out of poverty. But it has also produced unequal outcomes—widening income disparities, excluding rural and marginalised groups, and in some cases threatening the very cultural and ecological systems that sustain communities. Recognising this, many governments and international institutions have sought to make trade more “inclusive.” Gender chapters, SME cooperation provisions, and sustainability clauses are now familiar features in a new generation of trade agreements.

However, inclusivity remains uneven and selective.  A striking example of this oversight is that of Indigenous Peoples, numbering an estimated 476 million worldwide, but who are rarely visible in Asia’s trade discourse. Yet their economic and cultural roles are significant: they are stewards of biodiversity, holders of traditional knowledge, and contributors to sustainable production systems. If trade policy continues to overlook them, inclusive growth will remain an aspiration rather than a reality.

Evidence from 36 Trade Agreements

Our recent study, Indigenous Peoples and Trade Agreements: A Trade and Economic Cooperation Analysis and Proposed Good Practices (EDM, 2025), reviewed 36 FTAs concluded between 2005 and 2025 to identify provisions explicitly referencing Indigenous Peoples or related terms such as traditional knowledge, First Nations, or Māori.

The results show both progress and neglect.   Only a small fraction of the provisions in Asian FTAs —fewer than 10 per cent—contain clear references to Indigenous Peoples. Where they do, they fall into four broad categories:

1. Affirmation of rights: recognising the distinct legal status of Indigenous Peoples and their treaty rights (as in the Treaty of Waitangi clause in New Zealand’s agreements).
2. Protection of interests: especially regarding intellectual property, biodiversity, and traditional knowledge.
3. Set-asides or exemptions: such as Indigenous procurement carve-outs in Canada’s and New Zealand’s FTAs.
4. Cooperative activities and capacity building: including dialogues, training, and Indigenous business promotion.

While modest in number, these provisions represent a new approach to trade design—one that links participation in trade to equity and social participation. The Indigenous Peoples Economic and Trade Cooperation Arrangement (IPETCA), co-governed by Indigenous and government representatives, is perhaps the most innovative model: a non-binding, plurilateral framework that brings Indigenous leadership directly into trade policy cooperation, aiming to enhance Indigenous participation rather than establish market access commitments as in traditional FTAs.

Lessons from the Leaders

Two countries stand out for pioneering inclusion: Canada and  New Zealand.
Canada’s trade policy integrates inclusivity through Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA Plus) and specific carve-outs that preserve Indigenous rights under its Constitution. New Zealand systematically references the Treaty of Waitangi across all FTAs and has established formal Māori engagement mechanisms through Te Taumata and the Aotearoa ki te Ao programme. Additionally, both countries have started to include standalone chapters on Indigenous Peoples and Trade in their recent FTAs. 

These approaches demonstrate that inclusive trade can be designed without undermining legal certainty or economic efficiency. On the contrary, they increase legitimacy and buy-in for trade policy by aligning international commitments with domestic equity goals.

Asia’s Missing Dimension

In contrast, Asia’s FTAs—including the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and most ASEAN+1 agreements—contain no explicit Indigenous Peoples or comparable inclusion provisions. There are several agreements (between Rep. of Korea and Columbia and Peru; as well as between Indonesia and UAE) which  generally include Indigenous-relevant provisions in environmental and intellectual property chapters, emphasizing recognition and protection of traditional knowledge and biodiversity, rather than binding requirements for economic participation or co-governance. Mechanisms for Indigenous participation in implementation are minimal or absent, with the exception of the Guatemala- Chinese Taipei FTA, which includes an oversight committee for intellectual property issues.  Other mentions of inclusivity tend  to focus narrowly on women or SMEs, often through non-binding cooperation language. 

This omission is striking given Asia’s demographic reality: the majority of the world’s Indigenous Peoples live in this region—from India’s Adivasi to the Dayak of Indonesia and the hill tribes of Southeast Asia. Yet trade agreements treat them as invisible.

The lack of attention is not merely symbolic. It means missed opportunities for sustainable resource management, fair participation in regional value chains, and community-driven innovation. It also represents a blind spot in the region’s pursuit of resilience: excluding Indigenous and marginalised voices weakens social cohesion and undermines the legitimacy of trade integration itself.

Moving from Recognition to Results

Inclusive trade cannot rely on rhetoric alone. Drawing from the analysis and interviews in our study, several practical steps can help Asian economies catch up:

1. Embed enforceable language. Trade texts should go beyond aspirational preambles to include clear legal protections—particularly regarding traditional knowledge, biodiversity, and cultural expression.
2. Institutionalise participation. Indigenous and other marginalised groups must have structured roles in negotiation and implementation processes, similar to the co-governance model in IPETCA.
3. Design context-specific capacity building. Inclusion works when programs are co-designed and led by the groups they target. Trade-related technical assistance should support Indigenous business readiness, digital trade participation, and market diversification.
4. Measure and report on implementation. Governments should commit to transparent reporting and indicators on how inclusive provisions are implemented—currently almost no FTA requires this.
5. Link trade with domestic policy. FTAs can set the framework, but complementary national programs are indispensable. Inclusion fails when trade provisions are not backed by education, finance, or legal reforms.

Why Broader Inclusion Matters

Although this study focused on Indigenous Peoples, its lessons extend to all marginalised groups. The mechanisms that work for Indigenous inclusion—co-representation, targeted capacity building, and measurable outcomes—are equally relevant for women, youth, and persons with disabilities.

Treating inclusion as a cross-cutting design principle rather than a stand-alone “chapter” would align Asia’s FTAs with emerging global practice. It would also respond to the WTO’s renewed emphasis on inclusive trade under its 2025 “Trade for People” agenda and the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.

In short, inclusive trade is good trade policy. It enhances predictability, improves compliance, and deepens domestic legitimacy—essential in an era when the social contract around trade is fragile.

The Way Forward for Asia-Pacific

To maintain its leadership in regional integration, Asia must catch up in its trade policy with respect to inclusive integration. The following pathways could anchor that shift:

• Regional dialogue on inclusive trade design, under ASEAN or APEC auspices, to share models like IPETCA or the Canada–Ukraine and NZ–UK FTAs.
• Adoption of voluntary guidelines for integrating inclusion into FTAs—covering consultation, representation, and evaluation.
• Integration of inclusive impact assessments into FTA negotiations, ensuring distributive effects are measured before ratification.
• Collaboration with development partners, including Canada and New Zealand, to build technical capacity on inclusive provisions and data collection.

Conclusion

The Asia-Pacific’s trade future will depend not just on competitiveness or connectivity, but on credibility. The region cannot claim leadership in sustainable growth while leaving Indigenous Peoples and other marginalised groups outside its trade architecture.

Trade agreements are not panaceas—but they are among the most visible expressions of economic values and priorities. If Asia wants its integration model to be future-proof, it must evolve from market-opening to opportunity-sharing.

While the tools and examples are present, there remains an opportunity for greater alignment so that inclusion is considered in the foundational stages of trade design, rather than only as a later consideration.

______________