Talking Up Trade in an Election Year

By Peter M. Robinson

The presidential candidates are distorting the facts about trade and jobs. We all need to push back.

USCIB President and CEO Peter Robinson
USCIB President and CEO Peter Robinson

To hear many of the contenders for the White House tell it, international trade is a dead end. There have been numerous memorable quotes from both sides of the aisle that I won’t dignify by repeating here. Nearly all the candidates say the Trans-Pacific Partnership needs to be scrapped or renegotiated.

Such rhetoric, coming from politicians who use it to convince people to vote for them, is extremely disturbing. Why? Because it is distorting the facts about trade and jobs! While the anti-trade diatribes coming from the campaign trail tap into a tangible belief among many disaffected voters that trade policy and the economy in general are rigged against them, they fly in the face of a recent Gallup poll that reports that Americans continue to believe—by a wide margin, 58 to 34 percent—that international trade presents an opportunity rather than a threat.

We in the business community have a responsibility to remind people – including our political leaders – of the facts, and cut through the hyperbole. We need to speak out to help our employees, our shareholders and the communities we operate in understand that the world is growing around us, and that we cannot – nor can other countries – afford to turn inward.

Page2_GallupThe fact is, expanded trade over the past two decades has boosted annual U.S. income by about ten percent of GDP – thousands of dollars per household – relative to what would have been otherwise. A study from the Peterson Institute for International Economics says the United States stands to be a big winner – the biggest winner – from the TPP, with income gains of some $130 billion by 2030. This growth is essential if we are to meet our goals in terms of new and better jobs, and an expanded middle class.

U.S. negotiators drove a hard bargain in the TPP talks, and – while no one, including the business community, got everything they wanted – we came away with an agreement that puts our most competitive industries, and the people they employ, in a good position for strong growth in the burgeoning Asia-Pacific marketplace. This is good news for American workers, since export-oriented companies pay, on average, 18 percent higher wages than their non-exporting counterparts.

It is also important to remember that trade liberalization serves an important geopolitical role, cementing U.S. leadership and a safer, more prosperous world – one where we can address common challenges like tackling climate change, fighting terrorism and lifting people out of poverty. In today’s world, everyone benefits when America leads.

We should take anxiety over trade seriously. But the gains from an agreement like TPP far outweigh the costs. And jobs lost to trade as a result of the agreement can and should be addressed via enhanced Trade Adjustment Assistance, something the business community has long supported. We also need to acknowledge that job dislocation is being spurred by technological advances and corresponding transformative disruptions.

An important priority will be connecting necessary skills development to the jobs of tomorrow. And as World Trade Organization Director General Roberto Azevedo has observed, increased trade, by boosting income and creating better jobs, can play an important role in raising skills and reducing inequality, both within countries and across borders.

Boosting investment for the future

To meet both the opportunities and the demands of the 21st-century economy, the United States needs a comprehensive approach to invest in enhanced competitiveness. Such an approach should encompass serious efforts to improve education and training, rebuild our infrastructure, reform the tax code and improve our regulatory environment.

We also need to invest in future agreements to open up markets for American goods and services. In this regard, it is extremely important to promote open and well-functioning investment policies and regimes. Private investment, in addition to traditional trade, will be a critical factor in the years to come.

At every opportunity, USCIB has sought to demonstrate the positive economic benefits of foreign direct investment – both inbound and outbound – for the American economy. A 2013 report by Professor Matthew Slaughter of Dartmouth, commissioned by USCIB and the Business Roundtable, demonstrated convincingly that U.S. companies who grew their overseas operations to access foreign markets exported more, and provided more and better jobs at home.

USCIB is working hard to address barriers to investment abroad, both in trade agreements like TPP and international organizations that design rules of the road for their member governments. Our members continue to face policy and regulatory barriers that inhibit entry into specific markets, and impede their ability to design, produce, market and distribute their products globally. Unlocking their ability to invest and compete abroad will be critical to American success in the 21st century, leading to sustainable enterprise and job creation.

In a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, Professor Slaughter and Morton Kondracke, the former executive editor of Roll Call, posed the question: “Who will step up to tell the compelling trade story that America needs to hear?”

We, for one, will. And I hope that we can count on everyone in USCIB’s membership to join us and our partners in the broader pro-trade community, in Washington and around the world, to make the case for international trade, and for investing in the future of our country.

Canada Sets Bad Precedent on Transatlantic Investment

by Eva Hampl

In May 2009, the European Union launched negotiations with Canada for the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). After five years of negotiations, they successfully concluded in August of 2014, and the Canada-EU summit in September 2014 officially marked the end of the negotiations of the agreement, which promises to remove over 99 percent of tariffs between the two economies. CETA is the first agreement where the EU has negotiated investment provisions drastically different from the long-established language found in European investment treaties, many akin to what is also provided in our U.S. Model Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). The EU has also been negotiating a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the U.S. since 2013. Negotiations on the investment chapter in TTIP resumed only recently, following an extended process and public debate in Europe on investment protection.

Today investment accounts, directly or indirectly, for a significant and growing percentage of cross-border commerce, encompassing vast global supply chains, and businesses rely on strong investment protections for legal certainty in many countries around the world. Accordingly, investment agreements and chapters continue to be of great importance.

Until a few years ago, the public in Europe had not paid much attention to investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), however has now taken up this cause in an effort to negatively impact agreements such as CETA as well as the TTIP. The widely publicized public debate on ISDS in Europe has been very ideological and emotional in parts, resulting in a politicization of the issue, the response to which was a political solution: “improving” the world of international investment agreements (IIAs), by providing solutions to not quite clearly articulated problems. One such “solution” is the proposal of an international investment court, consisting of a roster of judges, as described in detail in the EU’s proposal for an investment chapter in the context of the TTIP negotiations.

Read the full post at Investment Policy Central

International Business Takes a Stand on International Investment Agreements

by Shaun Donnelly

The Business and Industry Committee (BIAC) to the OECD in Paris recently issued a policy paper on “Why International Investment Agreements Matter”.  The paper was issued in connection with a March 14 OECD conference in Paris on International Investment Treaties.  BIAC is the formally-established business consultation network among the 34 OECD member nations. USCIB played a leading role with BIAC in the development of this investment policy paper. As USCIB’s vice president for investment and financial services, I was a panelist at the OECD Conference on Investment Treaties last week.

The BIAC policy paper lays out the importance of strong international investment agreements in promoting and protecting foreign direct investment (FDI) flows, which, in turn, are major drivers of economic growth, job creation and improved competitiveness.  FDI and investment agreements have recently come under increased political attacks from opponents of economic engagement in today’s and tomorrow’s globalized economy.  This BIAC document lays out a clear exposition of views of international business on the importance of FDI and strong investment agreements.

Read the full post at Investment Policy Central

Global Nutrition: What Is the Private Sector Doing?

SDG Goal 2 End hunger, achieve food security & improved nutrition, promote sustainable agriculture

By Helen Medina

Did you know that March is National Nutrition Month in the United States?  For policymakers, nutrition is top of mind.  In fact, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals place nutrition and the mission to “End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture” at number 2 only after Goal 1 which is to “End poverty everywhere.”

It is indisputable that nutrition provides a vital foundation for human development and is central to meeting one’s full potential.  Nutrition is also important from an economic point of view. Hunger and under-nutrition weaken the mental and physical development of children and adolescents. This in turn lowers the work capacity and income potential of adults and leads to huge social and economic costs. According to estimates by a 2013 UN Food and Agriculture Organization report, hunger and under-nutrition cost the global economy an estimated 2-3 percent of global gross domestic product, equivalent to $1.4-2.1 trillion per year.

The private sector is a key actor in providing nutrition from investing in agriculture; to improving the social, economic and environmental practices in farming and the supply chain; to mobilizing, innovating, and finally delivering agricultural products and food.

So what is the private sector doing on nutrition? For starters, the private sector is a key actor in providing nutrition from investing in agriculture; to improving the social, economic and environmental practices in farming and the supply chain; to mobilizing, innovating, and finally delivering agricultural products and food.  As an employer, the private sector also has a vital role in increasing the livelihoods of society as a way to address poverty, malnutrition and under-nutrition. But that’s not the whole picture. It’s far from it and more can be done. One stakeholder alone can’t solve complex nutrition challenges.

The importance of good governance policies and regulations that support private sector involvement in agriculture should not be underestimated. Access to finance and empowering women is also crucial for improving nutrition around the world. Women are often the family’s primary caretakers and they tend to invest in their children’s health. It’s therefore important for governments to promote policies that help women become farmers, traders and entrepreneurs. Promoting trade and investment in agriculture is also crucial for combating global hunger. There is significant evidence from UN reports that demonstrate increased trade, particularly in the agriculture and food industry, raises the standard of living in developing countries and improves the performance of national economies, all of which are necessary for healthy societies.

Additionally, multi-stakeholder partnerships should be encouraged. More and more of these types of approaches are widely recognized as necessary to increasing the scope of financial and human resources in order to tackle nutritional challenges on a large scale. The private sector often partners with governments and researchers to innovate and create new tools for farmers that improve nutrition. It is essential for all stakeholders to work together and develop a global food system that improves people’s nutrition in a sustainable way. We are committed to public-private partnerships that support nutrition strategies and to preserving natural resources to continue to grow food which is necessary for nutrition.

USCIB Monthly Health and Nutrition Blog

February: We’ve All Got to Work Together On Global Health Issues

January: Businesses Celebrate American Heart Month

ICC: Trade Policymakers — Here are Your Priorities

newspapers_lo-resInternational Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Secretary General John Danilovich urged policymakers to revitalize cross-border trade in a letter to the editor of the Financial Times on March 9.

The letter is available on the Financial Times’s website, and has been reproduced below:

Sir, Your editorial on the regulation of cross-border services (“New global trade under old national rules”, March 7) rightly highlights the imperative for trade policymaking to keep pace with changing patterns of global commerce. But the growing importance of data, services and investment does not obviate the need for policymakers to take urgent action to revitalize cross-border merchandise trade.

The tendency to explain sluggish trade growth by reference to structural shifts in the global economy obscures some of the key factors underlying the recent fall in global merchandise trade — and, in doing so, underplays the potential for simple policy levers to be deployed to boost global growth. Three areas, in particular, warrant further attention.

First, urgent action is needed to address the growing shortage of bank finance to support trade. According to the Asian Development Bank, there is currently a $1.4tn financing gap for trade globally — with small businesses often facing severe difficulties accessing the credit they need to trade internationally. Second, it is time for the international community to get serious when it comes to tackling protectionism. Recent research shows that the sectors in which world trade has fallen the most are those which have been hit hardest by trade barriers over the past two years. This is a worrying trend and one which should be a first-order priority for the G20 in the year ahead.

Finally, governments should ratify and implement the World Trade Organisation’s landmark Trade Facilitation Agreement without delay. This deal — forged in 2013 but ratified by only 70 governments to date — would have a transformational effect on the ability of small business to access global markets by reducing unnecessary red tape at borders. Official estimates suggest that the deal could add more than $1tn to global trade flows, creating 20m jobs in the process. A push to realise the real-world benefits of this agreement would bring a somewhat more optimistic outlook for the future of trade-led growth and development.

John Danilovich
Secretary-general,
International Chamber of Commerce,
Paris, France

Businesses Celebrate American Heart Month

heart_cardio_resized_ssby Helen Medina

February marks American Heart Month, a great time to commit to a healthy lifestyle and make small changes that can lead to a lifetime of heart health. According to the American Heart Association, nearly 801,000 people in the U.S. died from heart disease, stroke and other cardiovascular diseases in 2013. That’s about one of every three deaths. The direct and indirect costs of cardiovascular diseases and stroke total more than $316.6 billion, including health expenditures and lost productivity. 

As innovators and employers, companies are only as strong as the communities that they work in and serve, and they are committed to offering and developing essential medicines and technological solutions for consumers.

USCIB’s members understand the importance of health and wellness, both for their employees and for the wider communities in which they operate, because healthy, happy employees are more productive. Many U.S. companies are innovators when it comes to promoting heart health, in addition to supporting a holistic approach to health and wellness. As innovators and employers, companies are only as strong as the communities that they work in and serve, and they are committed to offering and developing essential medicines and technological solutions for consumers. Additionally, companies are forging innovative public-private partnerships that educate and encourage populations to develop and maintain healthy lifestyles, while also investing in new technologies and innovations that fight diseases.

Given the importance of a healthy lifestyle and the private sector’s role in helping achieve this, USCIB has been working with the Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD (BIAC) to organize a Forum on Innovation in Health and Well-Being from May 3-4. This forum will inform discussions for OECD Health Ministers when they meet in 2017 to discuss the next generation of health reforms.

The BIAC Forum will provide an opportunity to:

  • Exchange solutions and policy recommendations with high-level representatives from the business community, governments and leading voices in the field.
  • Learn more about the innovations and on-the-ground partnerships private sector is undertaking.
  • Explore how healthy populations can be a strong pillar for increased economic productivity and societal well-being.

Please stay tuned as we continue developing the program for this Forum. Due to limited space, the event is by invitation only.

Read last month’s USCIB Health Blog entry, We’ve All Got to Work Together on Global Health Challenges

No Sustainable Development Without Investment

Globe with Money UnderneathEarlier this month, the OECD hosted a day-long workshop in Paris entitled “Making Investment Work for the Sustainable Development Goals,” on the implementation of the Policy Framework for Investment (PFI).  The OECD published a 2015 revision of this document, which was originally drafted in 2006, in response to a call for the importance of investment in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The many business and government voices on the various panels of the PFI workshop included comments by Ambassador Lisa Kubiske, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Finance and Development, who spoke on coping with the challenges of implementation through partnerships, including collaboration between private and government actors, which is vital for the successful implementation of the PFI.

Representing U.S. business at the session as part of the Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC) to the OECD, I spoke on the importance of retaining a focus on core investment issues.  USCIB agrees that investment is essential to realize the SDGs.  Indeed domestic and international investment are vital for global economic growth and development. Investment, however, must be seen as more than the mere means to the end of the SDGs.  To be able to fulfill its role as the creator of economic growth and development, we cannot forget what is required in order for investment to flourish.

Read the full blog post at Investment Policy Central.

Let’s Get Realistic About a Multilateral Investment Agreement

Originally published on the OECD Insights website.

UN_Vienna_flagsShaun Donnelly, retired U.S. diplomat and trade negotiator, now Vice President for Investment Policy at the U.S. Council for International Business (USCIB).  He is a regular participant in the Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD (BIAC) and  OECD Investment work.

I found some very interesting questions and even a few answers in the recent “OECD Insights” blog post on international investment agreements by Professor Jan Wouters from the University of Leuven.  But it seems to me that Professor Wouters’ prescriptions may fit better in a university classroom or a theoretical computer model than in real world of government-to-government diplomatic investment negotiations or in a corporate headquarters making real-world cross-border investment decisions.  As a former U.S. Government trade and investment negotiator and now in the private sector advising/assisting member companies of the U.S. Council for International Business (USCIB), as well as an active participant over the past three years in the investment policy work the OECD and its Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC), I’d like to offer an alternative perspective on some of the international investment issues the professor addresses.

I’m tempted to challenge several of the assumptions that seem to underlie Dr. Wouters’ analysis and prescriptions.  His assertion that multilateralism is an inherently superior venue for all investment issues seems a little naïve to me as a practitioner.  Everyone accepts the theoretical point that in a textbook or the laboratory, multilateral can be the optimal approach – one set of comprehensive, high-standard rules applying to all countries and, by extension, to all investors – a WTO for investment if you will.

The reality is that diplomatic negotiations, investment projects, and job creation take place in the real world, driven by real people representing concrete, real-world interests.  In that real world, governments have a wide range of views on what should or shouldn’t be in an investment agreement. How strong are the protections accorded to investors? Does the agreement include (as U.S. government investment agreements typically do) market opening or “pre-establishment” provisions? Do investors have access to a credible, neutral arbitration process to resolve disputes with host governments?  These are key issues for any government or investor.

Unfortunately, not all players in the investment policy world would share all my views, or those of Dr. Wouters.  Governments vary widely on their policy and political approaches to international investment and, more specifically, to international investment agreements.  Many have views generally in line with those of the U.S. government, sharing a commitment to high-standard international investment agreements.  But some other governments only seem willing to accept much lower standards of investment protection; still other governments are hostile to any international investment agreements.

Some OECD veterans like me recall that some 20 years ago, the then-25 OECD members made a serious attempt to negotiate a Multilateral Agreement on Investment or “MAI.”  Unfortunately, after some early promise, the negotiations broke down over some of the key pillar issues I noted above.  Neither the OECD nor any of its member governments have attempted to revive the search for the elusive multilateral investment agreement framework.  Most OECD member nations seem, explicitly or implicitly, to have accepted the reality that, while multilateralism may be the optimal path, in the investment policy area, it is not, at least for now, a practical way forward.

The lesson I personally draw is clear, and it’s quite different from the approach advocated by Dr. Wouters.  Those Governments around the world that think foreign direct investment is a positive force for economic growth, are trying to make practical progress, not simply engage in endless and frustrating political debates.  They want to negotiate investment agreements that can attract real investment and, thereby, create real economic growth and jobs.  While some of them may see intellectual debates about a theoretical multilateral investment regime at some point in the future as an interesting exercise, their priority is on finding ways to grow their economies today and tomorrow.

So my questions to Dr. Wouters and other advocates of a focus on multilateralism in international investment regimes would include:

  • What kind of investment regime do you really envision?  How strong an agreement would it be?  Would it include the sorts of high-standard protections for investors currently found in recent investment agreements of OECD member countries?
  • What causes you to think there is realistic chance for success in a multilateral investment negotiation?  “Multilateral” now requires nearly 200 sovereign nations reaching a consensus.  Countries ranging from Cuba and Argentina to Japan and Canada; from India and China to the U.S. and the EU; from Russia and Venezuela to Saudi Arabia and Singapore would have to be major players in any multilateral investment effort. What sort of consensus could emerge from that wide-ranging group?
  • When the then 25 “like-minded” OECD member nations couldn’t negotiate an MAI, what causes you to think 200 diverse and widely diverging nations could come together now to negotiate a multilateral investment agreement or framework?

I’d love to be proven wrong, by Dr. Wouters or anyone else, if they can show me a credible path to that elusive high-standard multilateral agreement.  But until someone can show me how to get that done, I believe strongly the better path in the real world is to keep doing what individual governments and groups of countries have been doing for some time, to find willing partners and negotiate strong bilateral or regional investment agreements that work in the real world.  Here in the U.S., we in the business community are excited about the possibility of two “mega-regional” agreements, the recently-concluded Transpacific Partnership (TPP) and the on-going Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) as vehicles to update and strengthen investment protections with key partners.

When it comes to investment protection/promotion agreements, let’s focus all of our efforts on paths that we know can work – negotiating high-standard investment agreements.  If/when someone can find that elusive path to a high-standard multilateral agreement, great! I’ll be at the front of the line applauding. But until that path really emerges, let’s stay focused on what works – the bilateral and regional path that has proven it can deliver real results, real investment, growth, and jobs and leave the multilateral investment framework to the theoreticians.

The OECD, specifically its Investment Committee, has long been a place for serious investment policy research, analysis and debate. I’ve been privileged recently to participate in some of those sessions as a business stakeholder as a BIAC representative. I encourage OECD to continue, indeed redouble, that policy work. There are important and challenging issues to address. We in the international business community, along with other stakeholders, can add much to that OECD work.   I simply urge that the OECD investment work focus on concrete investment “deliverables” which can be implemented, rather than idealistic pursuits of some theoretical multilateral panacea.

Useful links

OECD Conference on investment treaties: The quest for balance between investor protection and governments’ right to regulate OECD, Paris, 14 March, 2016. This second OECD Investment Treaty conference will explore: How governments are balancing investor protection and the right to regulate; the search for improved balance through new institutions or improved rules for dispute settlement including the new Investment Court System developed by the European Union; a case study on addressing the balance through substantive law in particular through approaches to the fair and equitable treatment (FET) provision; and how the OECD, working with other international organisations, can support constructive improvement of governments’ investment treaty policies in this regard.

BIAC’s strategic recommendations on investment

Reconciling Regionalism and Multilateralism in a Post-Bali World, OECD Global Forum on TradeParis, 11 February 2014, Rapporteur’s report

 

We’ve All Got to Work Together on Global Health Challenges

USCIB is pleased to launch this Health and Nutrition Blog, which will include our priorities, activities, and updates related to global nutrition and health policy in major United Nations, World Health Organization, and OECD processes. We look forward working with our members and all stakeholders as they address global health challenges as we aspire to to a healthier 2016 for all! 

By Helen Medina

nutrition_globeAs in years past, January 1st is the time that many Americans make New Year’s resolutions. Often those are associated with a pledge to live a healthier lifestyle. One can experience the result of this undertaking in overcrowded  gyms, jam-packed yoga classes and in the media with advice on how to keep those resolutions. Health and wellness is top-of-mind for many of us, and especially with policymakers. While each of us may be experiencing different challenges to achieve our own optimum well-being, there is no dispute that health is important for all.

Many countries lose approximately two to three percent of their GDP due to under-nutrition, and worldwide, non-communicable diseases account for 60 percent (35 million) of global deaths.

In fact, the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals reflect the importance of nutrition and health, with targets listed at the top as goals 2 and 3 respectively. Goal 2 aims to address the challenges the world faces as the population continues to grow. More effort and innovation are needed to increase agricultural production, improve the global supply chain, decrease food losses and waste and ensure that all who are suffering from hunger and malnutrition have access to nutritious food. Goals 3 is “ensure healthy lives and promoting well-being for all at all ages.” The associated targets aim to reduce the rate of global maternal mortality, end preventable deaths of newborns, reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases and end certain epidemics.

The Access to Nutrition Index indicates that 805 million people globally suffer from hunger and more than two billion people suffer from micronutrient deficiencies. The economic costs of under-nutrition are high, as many countries lose approximately two to three percent of their GDP due to under-nutrition. In Africa and Asia, the cost can be as high as 11 percent of GDP.

According to the World Health Organization, non-communicable diseases (NCD) make the largest contribution to mortality both globally and in the majority of low- and middle-income countries . Worldwide, NCDs account for 60 percent (35 million) of global deaths. The largest burden – 80 percent (28 million) – occurs in low- to middle-income countries, making NCDs a major cause of poverty and an urgent development issue. They will be the leading global cause of disability by 2030.

USCIB understands the scale and complexity of these global challenges. Together with our members, we are actively following and participating in international discussions on nutrition because we believe that no one organization, industry or government can make a material difference completely on its own. Instead, we must bring forward and catalyze partnerships that connect across business, government and civil society. Working together is key to addressing today’s health challenges. As innovators, goods and service providers and employers, companies are only as strong as the communities that they work in and serve, and they are committed to offering solutions and actions.

ICC: Business Leaders Call for Collaborative SDG Effort

John Danilovich (ICC)
John Danilovich (ICC)

Business leaders representing companies with operations in over 190 countries have thrown their weight behind the new UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The SDGs – launched at a major summit in New York during the UN General Assembly – set out a new vision for a brighter, safer and more prosperous world for all. In a letter to the Financial Times the business leaders wrote: “Many businesses are already playing a leading role in promoting sustainable development, but with the right support and incentives from government we can do much more. A collaborative effort is also required to enable the transformation of business practices towards sustainability more broadly – including within the small business sector.”

Commenting on the release of the letter, ICC Secretary General John Danilovich said: “This is a clear and visible demonstration of the business community’s commitment to the new Global Goals. We call on governments to work constructively with the private sector to deliver fully on the promise of the SDGs”.

Read the full text of the letter at ICC’s website.