Think tank raises concerns over secrecy in IPEF talks

Secrecy shrouds the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) negotiations, with scant public input, fueling concerns about whether member countries, including India, can effectively protect their key interests, a policy think tank said.

India had on Saturday concluded its negotiations in the IPEF with the signing of two out of four key agreements: on clean and fair economy policies. Delhi had already signed the supply chain resilience clause and opted out of trade.

The clean economy agreement focuses on cooperation in green energy technologies, carbon markets, and sustainable practices, while the other aims to boost tax transparency, combat corruption, and create a more transparent business environment.

The IPEF, which has 14 member countries, focuses on building economic cooperation through its four key pillars—trade, supply chain, clean economy, and fair economy.

While most IPEF members signed the clean and fair economy agreements in June, India and Vietnam had yet to sign it. All members, including India, have already signed the supply chain agreement.

The supply chain agreement may restrict members from trading critical materials, particularly with China, the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI) said, adding that this could pose challenges for Asean countries, whose largest trading partner is Beijing.

“It is hoped that India has negotiated enough flexibility to avoid strict clauses, such as the not-to-use-export restrictions. These are critical during emergencies, as no country can be expected to supply essential goods when facing its own crisis,” GTRI founder Ajay Srivastava said in a report.

“In the clean economy pillar, the hope is that India has not agreed to a non-derogation clause, which would prevent the government from easing domestic regulations for projects of national importance,” Srivatasava wrote, adding that such flexibility is essential for India to pursue key infrastructure projects “without being hindered by rigid international commitments.”

There is also concern that India may have committed to minimum standards for clean energy technologies in the domestic market, which could force reliance on imports and negatively impact local producers, he said.

India needs to ensure it can support its own industries during the clean energy transition, he added.

New Delhi’s preferential treatment for domestic suppliers in government procurement is a key policy tool for supporting local businesses, Srivastava said in the report, adding that he hoped “India has not agreed to drop this preference as it could severely disadvantage local manufacturers in favor of foreign competition.”

On fair economy, India already implements anti-corruption measures, but new obligations could lead to global scrutiny and make domestic actions legally enforceable, the GTRI report said.

This could complicate governance, so it is important that India has carefully examined these commitments to avoid unnecessary legal and administrative burdens. Similarly, commitments related to the effective administration of tax policy might curtail the ability to raise tax revenue, the report added.