Enhancing Productivity for Inclusive Growth

USCIB CEO Peter Robinson, BIAC Secretary General Bernhard Welschke, and BIAC Innovation & Technology Committee Chair Rick Johnson at the MCM Consultation (Santiago)
USCIB President and CEO Peter Robinson, BIAC Secretary General Bernhard Welschke, and BIAC Innovation & Technology Committee Chair Rick Johnson at the MCM Consultation (Santiago)

“Enhancing Productivity for Inclusive Growth” will be the theme of this year’s OECD Ministerial Council meeting chaired by Chile. The Chilean government, led by the Ministers of Finance and Foreign Affairs, hosted a preparatory meeting with the Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC) to the OECD on April 25 in Santiago, Chile. Fernando Alvear Artaza, the general manager of the Confederation for Production and Commerce (CPC) in Chile, presented the views of BIAC and his federation on measures to improve productivity and to better use the growth potentials of our economies.

USCIB President and CEO Peter Robinson spoke on the key role of business to realize the Sustainable Development Goals. And the chair of BIAC’s Technology Committee, Rick Johnson, explained the potential of innovation and digital technologies for more growth and well-being.

The BIAC delegation was strongly enhanced by the participation of Martin Pérez Monteverde, president of the National Confederation of Private Entrepreneurial Institutions (CONFIEP), BIAC’s new observer in Peru. Following the meetings in Santiago, Martin hosted the delegation in Lima for talks with the presidents of CONFIEP member federations. The Peruvian economy and cooperation with BIAC on all OECD matters were the focus of discussions.

At the OECD Week General Assembly on May 30, BIAC will present the results of its new economic policy survey and celebrate the 40th anniversary of the OECD Declaration on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises.

Business Calls for Improved Trade and Investment at B20

International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and USCIB Chairman Terry McGraw joined global business leaders at a B20 meeting in Washington, D.C. and urged the private sector to intensify engagement with the G20 to promote international trade and investment.

Presided by B20 China Sherpa Yu Ping, the B20 Joint Task Force meeting was held on the margins of the Spring Meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank Group and in the lead up to the G20 Summit in Hangzhou, China next September.

Leading an ICC delegation of 40 CEOs from major multinational corporations, McGraw said: “We need more cooperation by the G20 to reignite world economic growth. That means that G20 leaders need to make trade and investment central to their growth agendas, making investments easier, reducing red-tape and cutting the cost of doing business.”

Zhu Min, IMF Deputy Managing Director stressed that structural reform must be a top priority for the G20 this year: “It’s absolutely important to bring the private sector into this global debate. In this critical junction, while we are facing global challenges and uncertainties, the private sector once again will play a pivotal and key role to stabilize world economic growth, financial markets, to push for growth and bring the world into the next high level.”

Read more at ICC’s website.

New Study Details the Impact of an Environmental Goods Agreement on China

Solar-workers_3The Coalition for Green Trade, of which USCIB is a founding member, issued the following press release today about a new study onthe impact of an Environmental Goods Agreement on China:

New Study Details the Impact of an Environmental Goods Agreement on China

The Coalition for Green Trade today released the results of a new study detailing the effects that a World Trade Organization (WTO) Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA) would have on the economy of China and the country’s ability to meet its environmental goals.

Overall, the study, “Value of an Environmental Goods Agreement: Helping China Meet Its Environmental Goals,” finds that full implementation of an EGA accord to eliminate tariffs on green technologies by China – the largest producer of these technologies participating in the EGA negotiations – would have a positive impact on the Chinese economy and environment.

The study was principally prepared by Dr. Joseph F. Francois and Laura M. Baughman of the Trade Partnership Worldwide, LLC.  They find that full implementation by China of an ambitious EGA:

  • Increases China’s GDP and national income by billions of dollars;
  • Increases exports by nearly $27 billion, up by 9.8 percent;
  • Increases real spending of roughly $22 billion annually on environmental goods; and
  • Results in gains of approximately $659 billion annually in economic benefits linked to improved environmental quality, based on the literature assessing cost-benefit ratios for investment in improved environmental conditions.

In July 2014, the United States and a group of other countries launched EGA negotiations at the World Trade Organization (WTO) in an effort to improve access to important green and energy efficient technologies, among other objectives. The United States and the 16 other WTO members participating in the EGA talks account for at least 86 percent of global environmental goods trade.

The Coalition for Green Trade is composed of a broad range of associations – including the U.S. China Business Council, which provided advice and outreach in support of this report – and companies doing business in the United States who seek to remove barriers to global trade in environmental technologies.

Business Pushes for U.S. Manufacturing Competitiveness

U.S. manufacturers face high costs for inputs not produced in the United States. USCIB joined more than 200 trade groups and companies urging Congress to pass the Miscellaneous Tariffs Bill (MTB) overhaul bill quickly, which would eliminate unnecessary taxes on imported goods not available domestically. USCIB and others stated in a letter that U.S. manufacturers have faced annual tariffs of nearly $750 million since the last MTB expired in 2012, “undermining American competitiveness and the ability of these companies to retain and create manufacturing jobs in the United States.”

“This is something that we’ve been trying to get done for years,” House Speaker Paul Ryan told reporters on Friday. “This MTB issue is something that I personally have been involved in, and I’m very excited that we have a solution now that we are moving. It is a jobs bill. It is a transparency bill. And it upholds our earmark ban, first and foremost, which is very important.”

Read the full letter.

USCIB Discusses Future of U.S. Manufacturing at Bloomberg Seminar

Rob Ivester, Deputy Director of the Advanced Manufacturing Office, U.S. Department of Energy; Vinai Thummalapally, Executive Director, SelectUSA, U.S. Department of Commerce; Shaun Donnelly, Vice President, Investment and Financial Services, USCIB; Matthew Philips, Associate Editor, Blomberg Businessweek (Moderator)
L-R: Rob Ivester (U.S. Department of Energy), Vinai Thummalapally, (U.S. Department of Commerce), Shaun Donnelly (USCIB), Matthew Philips (Bloomberg Businessweek)

With aging and outdated infrastructure, the U.S. manufacturing industry is stalling. How will the United States regain its place as the global leader in manufacturing, and what will future manufacturing plants look like?

USCIB’s Vice President for Investment and Financial Services Shaun Donnelly was a lead panelist in Bloomberg Government’s April 19 Washington seminar “The Future of Manufacturing.” Sharing the panel with senior officials from the U.S. Departments of Commerce and Energy, Donnelly offered a private-sector perspective on the role foreign direct investment (FDI) plays in U.S. manufacturing, and on the unique strengths and challenges of the United States as a manufacturing location.  He emphasized the rapid changes in manufacturing around the world that have led to increased competitive pressures.

“In today’s and tomorrow’s global value chain world, FDI drives growth here at home and is also a key tool for U.S.-based manufacturers, large and small, to serve growing international markets,” Donnelly said.

The seminar drew a large audience of Bloomberg subscribers on-line and in-person at Bloomberg Government’s Washington, D.C. headquarters.

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.

Waiting a BIT for China

Via Politico Pro Trade

Shaun Donnelly, USCIB vice president for investment and financial services, spoke to Politico about the prospects of a U.S.-China Bilateral Investment Treaty as President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jingping are scheduled to meet this afternoon.

Against the backdrop of President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping’s meeting this afternoon, the window is closing on China’s pledge that it would submit an updated market access offer in its investment talks with the U.S. in March. While an offer might have come overnight, Beijing had still not put forward an updated “negative list” offer for the bilateral investment treaty by late Wednesday.

“I understand that a comprehensive, high-standard U.S.-style negative list is a new and daunting proposition for a country like China, which has a long tradition of controlling investment, both domestic and foreign, quite tightly,” said Shaun Donnelly, vice president for investment and financial services at the U.S. Council for International Business.

But it would be disappointing if the two sides missed the opportunity of Xi’s visit to make progress on the talks, he said, even though the Nuclear Security Summit is largely focused on defense and security issues.

Read the full story

Brazil Ratifies Trade Facilitation Agreement

Brazil ratifies WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (Credit WTO)
Brazil ratifies WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (Credit WTO)

Ratification of the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Trade Facilitation Agreement, which is estimated to create 21 million jobs and increase global GDP by $1 trillion over the next decade, is a top priority for USCIB. On March 29, Brazil became the 72nd WTO member to ratify the TFA, an agreement that was forged under the leadership of Brazilian WTO Director General Roberto Azevedo, whom USCIB honored with its 2014 International Leadership Award.

In order for the TFA to enter into force, 108 WTO members must ratify the agreement. Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff signed the Trade Facilitation Agreement during a high-level ceremony at the Palacio do Planalto in Brasilia with the attendance of Roberto Azevedo, who is visiting Brazil this week.

During his stay in the country, Roberto Azevedo will visit ICC Brazil – the ICC Brazilian Committee hosted by the Brazilian National Confederation of Industry (CNI) headquarters in Sao Paulo – and meet with CEOs from various sectors to analyze the potential benefits of the Agreement for Brazil.

Applauding this breakthrough development for trade facilitation, ICC Secretary General John Danilovich said: “Implementing the TFA gives Brazil, once one of the world’s fastest growing emerging market, an opportunity to reboot its economy by creating significant export diversification gains and reducing trade costs.”

Read the USCIB Customs Committee TFA one-pager.

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