OECD Updates its Policy Framework for Investment

Kimberly Claman (Citigroup)
USCIB member Kimberly Claman (Citigroup) speaks at the joint meeting of the World Bank and the OECD.

At last month’s annual Ministerial meeting of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the 34-member organization adopted and issued an important update to the OECD’s Policy Framework for Investment (PFI), first adopted nine years ago in 2006. Basic information on this OECD investment policy effort, including the text of PFI, the OECD’s fact sheet and press release, the Ministerial Council’s action on the PFI, and relevant background materials are available here.

The PFI offers a broad-based checklist of policy recommendations for consideration by individual governments, especially developing country governments who want to attract and retain Foreign Direct Investment (FDI).  The checklist is voluntary and has been used successfully in connection with OECD advisory services, regional FDI policy dialogues and policy review of individual countries that step forward to use this policy tool.

USCIB, both directly and through the OECD’s Business and Industry Advisory Council (BIAC) has been quite active in this effort to update the PFI.  USCIB staff and member company representatives have participated in reviews of draft versions of the update held in Paris, Brussels and Washington as well as playing a leading role in authoring detailed formal BIAC comments into the OECD drafting process.  I was honored to lead BIAC teams in the formal stakeholder consultations on PFI held in Paris and Brussels over the past year.  USCIB members Kimberley Claman of Citigroup and Nicole Bivens Collinson of Sandler Travis & Rosenberg P.A. were panelists at a joint OECD/World Bank seminar on the PFI held in Washington this spring.

Nicole Bivens Collinson (Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg)
USCIB member Nicole Bivens Collinson (Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg) speaks at the joint meeting of the World Bank and the OECD.

As in so many policy areas, in investment the critical variable is host government commitment to policy reform and implementation.  PFI is not a panacea or magic wand to attract investment. It should not be oversold. But in the hands of a government committed to policy reform in the investment area and beyond, the PFI has proven it can be a useful, practical tool to help improve investment climate to promote growth and development through FDI.

I commend the OECD for a job well done in updating the PFI and for the increased priority the organization is according to investment and FDI issues within OECD member countries and beyond.

This post was originally published on the Investment Policy Central website.

S&ED Outcomes: Investing in China

S&EDLast week, the United States and China concluded their seventh meeting of the Strategic & Economic Dialogue (S&ED) in Washington, D.C.  The annual high level dialogue, which launched in 2009 to provide a forum to discuss a wide range of bilateral, regional, and global issues between the two countries, has become an integral part of the economic relationship. The meeting resulted in a number of joint strategic and economic outcomes issued by the Departments of State and Treasury which co-lead the U.S side.  The Treasury also published a U.S.-specific fact sheet on the outcomes of the economic track.

At the dialogue, both nations reaffirmed their commitment to negotiate a high-standard Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) and intensify negotiations.  Even before the meetings began, the BIT was considered one of the top issues on this year’s agenda.  The 19th round of BIT negotiations concluded earlier this month in Beijing, following a period of a year and a half, during which China developed its “negative list,” a compilation of areas it would like exempted from the BIT’s market-opening rules.  Despite the apparently slow process of the negotiations, China presented its list, the first the country has ever created, at the June round in Beijing, demonstrating its commitment to the negotiations.  The U.S. experts, led by USTR and State, are now reviewing the initial Chinese list in great detail.

A major outcome of last week’s S&ED, described as one of the dialogue’s most significant outcomes by U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, was China’s commitment to provide an updated negative list reflecting a commitment to open investment environments by September of this year.  This could be a key step in the negotiation process, moving discussions forward in a manner that will allow for an appropriately market opening agreement to benefit both negotiating parties.  The Treasury Department’s fact sheet explains that U.S. officials have made clear to China that their list of exceptions will have to be ‘very limited and narrow’, as well as ‘represent substantial liberalization’.

Adequate investment protection is indispensible for U.S. investors in China, as anywhere in the world.  While a successful BIT presents an opportunity for U.S. investors to gain access to new sectors in the Chinese market, without protections and narrowly tailored exclusions, the benefits remain limited.  USCIB’s Shaun Donnelly, Vice President of Investment and Financial Services, discussed the S&ED on a segment on CNBC last week, highlighting the importance of the investment talks.

Despite being the world’s two largest economies, and the destinations for about 30 percent of global foreign direct investment (FDI), the United States and China account for a relatively small share of one another’s FDI.  In 2014, Chinese FDI in the United States exceeded American FDI in China for the first time.  Given the size and dynamic nature of the Sino-American economic relationship, the importance of finishing these the BIT negotiations with a high-standard outcome cannot be overstated; a sub-standard agreement would do more harm than good.  Progress from the most recent round of negotiations and the outcomes of the S&ED provide much needed momentum to the process and hopefully, the United States and China can capitalize on this momentum, leading to a swift conclusion of a strong agreement.

Of course, other developments – be they positive or negative – continue to be relevant to American or other foreign investors looking at China, which remains a complex and challenging place to do business.  Even as we see signs of progress on the BIT, other developments send discouraging signals – from sectoral restrictions to a new NGO law that threatens to restrict independent business organizations in China.  The U.S. business community, including USCIB, will continue to focus on investment issues in China, working to encourage the two governments to provide clear protections and real market opening for potential investors in both directions.

This blog post was originally published on the Investment Policy Central website.

 

Letter in New York Times on Trade and Climate

USCIB President and CEO Peter Robinson at a press conference in Lima, Peru on December 8. “If a global agreement on climate change doesn’t work for and with businesses, it just won’t work,” he said.
USCIB President and CEO Peter Robinson at a press conference in Lima, Peru on December 8. “If a global agreement on climate change doesn’t work for and with businesses, it just won’t work,” he said.

USCIB President and CEO Peter Robinson has a letter in today’s issue of The New York Times on climate change and trade policy. The letter is reproduced below, and you can view it on The Times’ website by clicking here.

Robinson rebuts a recent piece by Times columnist Eduardo Porter that suggested border taxes on products from countries outside a so-called “climate club,” saying that countries should instead offer trade incentives, rather than punitive tariffs, to reduce carbon emissions and spur the deployment and use of greener energy technologies.

This letter is especially timely, as it comes after the most recent negotiating session of the UN climate change talks in Bonn, where USCIB played an important role in voicing private-sector views. Click here to read our report. It also comes as we gear up for next week’s climate-focused meeting of USCIB’s Environment Committee and the North American Business Climate Consultation, held in conjunction with the International Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

Finally, USCIB continues to advance American business interests in the WTO’s Environmental Goods Agreement talks as well as other key trade negotiations, even as we grapple with the current trade deadlock on Capitol Hill.

The New York Times

June 15, 2015

The Opinion Pages/Letters

Climate Change and Trade Policy

To the Editor:

Eduardo Porter advocates launching a trade war as a way of ”solving” the climate challenge (”Climate Deal Badly Needs a Big Stick,” Economic Scene column, June 3), imposing tariffs on those countries that don’t join a ”climate club” committed to reducing carbon emissions.

But we should offer carrots instead of sticks to accelerate the transition to greener energy. Rather than threatening higher-emitting countries with punitive tariffs, we should roll back barriers to trade in environmental goods and services.

There is no contradiction between economic development and climate protection. Indeed, as countries grow richer, they can devote additional resources to cleaner energy.

To be viable, climate solutions must factor in real-world needs, including the need for economic growth, and deliver benefits today to people in both rich and poor countries.

And they need to be in line with political and market realities, including the global community’s common interest in keeping markets open and economic relations cordial.

The ”big stick” that Mr. Porter endorses fails to meet these criteria.

PETER M. ROBINSON
President and Chief Executive
United States Council for International Business
New York

Investment Protection In TTIP: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

By Eva Hampl

The EU Commission finally released its report on the online public consultation on investment protection and investor-state dispute settlement in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, but it is disappointing that negotiations on an investment chapter in TTIP have yet to resume, writes Eva Hampl in Investment Policy Central.

Read the full post: http://www.investmentpolicycentral.com/content/investment-protection-ttip-one-step-forward-two-steps-back

Now Is the Time to Stand Up for Trade and Investment

Trade is like a bicycle – it needs forward momentum to avoid falling over.

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

Last March, President Obama issued his 2014 U.S. Trade Agenda, which outlined ambitious priorities for expanding American trade and investment around the world, in support of expanded job growth and enhanced U.S. competitiveness. Part of the trade agenda’s ambition lay in an “all of the above” approach – that is, the United States would move forward on major bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral efforts to expand cross-border commerce, while securing bipartisan support for renewed Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) in Congress. We at USCIB applauded loudly and set about drumming up private-sector support.

More than six months on, while some progress has been made, I fear that we face a number of disappointments, potential setbacks and stiff challenges that have served to undercut the administration’s ambitions and the broader cause of expanded trade. Consider these developments:

  • In July, a small group of countries led by India blocked implementation of the World Trade Organization’s Trade Facilitation Agreement, which was agreed last December at the WTO ministerial in Bali. This has sent the organization into yet another crisis, putting the brakes on the WTO’s whole post-Bali agenda.
  • Unfounded anxiety, some might say hysteria, has sprung up in Europe over certain aspects of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), such as the same strong investor-state dispute settlement provisions that already exist in numerous U.S. and European commercial agreements. The hysteria is threatening to upend these crucial negotiations, and could complicate efforts to negotiate a U.S.-China bilateral investment treaty.
  • Several countries, including the United States, are threatening to carve out certain sensitive areas from liberalization commitments under the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), as well as in the TTIP negotiations.
  • TPA legislation remains stalled on Capitol Hill, captive to Washington’s increasingly polarized, partisan divide.

All this is deeply disappointing. Expanding trade and investment is essential for economic growth and job creation. Indeed, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the Peterson Institute for International Economics estimate that the trade facilitation agreement alone would create 21 million new jobs worldwide. More broadly, it is increasingly clear that freeing up cross-border trade and improving conditions for FDI must be part of critical global efforts to address climate change and promote sustainable development.

After investing so much time and effort to champion the pro-trade consensus that now seems to be fraying, we in the business community have every right to be frustrated. Yet we must try to help our political leaders around the world pick up the pieces and get back to the negotiating table in Geneva, summon the courage to stand up for an ambitious approach to the TPP and TTIP negotiations, and move forward – after lengthy delays – on Trade Promotion Authority.

With that in mind, in October I joined USCIB (and ICC) Chairman Terry McGraw and ICC Secretary General John Danilovich in Geneva at the World Investment Summit. Convened by the UN Conference on Trade and Development, the summit was an important opportunity to look at how FDI can be leveraged for sustainable development, economic growth and jobs. In addition, both John and Terry have spearheaded an aggressive global campaign to help get the WTO back on track.

As this issue of International Business went to press, we joined with the OECD and its Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC) to organize a high-level conference in Washington, D.C. on new directions in trade and investment policy. The October 30 event showcased groundbreaking policy-related research from OECD on the rise of global value chains, trade in services and other aspects of the 21st-century global economy. We hope that the fresh ideas and new perspectives offered at the conference will help demonstrate the importance of moving forward to tackle today’s most pressing trade and investment barriers.

USCIB continues to play a leadership role pressing for strong, market-opening commitments in TPP and TTIP. We are also working closely with a broad-based business coalition to move forward on TPA. The old saying still holds: trade is like a bicycle – it needs forward momentum to avoid falling over. That is why it is more important than ever for business around the world to keep up the pressure on our political leaders to implement the Bali package, strive for ambitious, high-standards agreements with Asia and Europe, push ahead to negotiate a high-standard U.S.-China bilateral investment treaty, and get off the dime to pass meaningful Trade Promotion Authority.

Peter Robinson’s bio and contact information

Other recent postings from Peter Robinson:

What’s the Rush on Global Tax Reform? (Summer 2014)

Setting the Rules of the Road in Cross-Border Commerce (Spring 2014)

It’s Time to Clap with Both Hands on FDI (Winter 2013-2014)

Making Sure the Business Voice Is Heard in International Agencies (Fall 2013)

The WTO Can Still Work

By ICC Chairman Terry McGraw and ICC Secretary General John Danilovich

The Economist

“Your leader on the latest setback for the World Trade Organisation sets out an intriguing vision for the future of multilateral trade liberalisation (“No more grand bargains”, August 9th). But your call for a radical change of approach is dangerously premature. You say that the WTO has allowed the “best [to] be the enemy of the good” in negotiating new trade pacts. But in reality, last December’s Bali accord was a radical break from the orthodoxy of multilateral negotiations, moving away from the struggle for an all-encompassing grand bargain to strike a limited deal covering a handful of important trade reforms.”

Read the full letter: http://www.economist.com/news/letters/21613153-letters-editor

Back to the Table on Trade

By ICC Chairman Terry McGraw and ICC Secretary General John Danilovich

New York Times

““Global Trade Talks Suffer Another Setback” (editorial, Aug. 4) neatly captures the disappointment felt by many after the breakdown of talks to carry out the historic Bali trade agreement. But we should not conflate this “setback” with “failure” by the World Trade Organization.”

Read the full letter: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/13/opinion/back-to-the-table-on-trade.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=3

Let statesmanship prevail in Geneva

By ICC Chairman Terry McGraw and ICC Secretary General John Danilovich

Financial Times

“Last December we wrote – together with 80 other business leaders – to call on governments to conclude the first global trade deal in almost two decades. High quality global journalism requires investment. The World Trade Organisation’s Bali agreement has since been widely, and rightly, hailed as providing a major contribution to the global economy; not to mention saving any hope for the WTO’s multilateral trading system.”

Read the full letter: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/311936cc-1652-11e4-8210-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3QuAptMOB

Ambassador Froman on a TTIP Investment Chapter

By Eva Hampl

Investment Policy Central

“The U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Michael Froman chose to highlight investment issues in his May 5 speech at the German Ministry of National Economy and Energy in Berlin on the U.S.-EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).  Addressing the question why two major economic partners with good judicial systems and rule of law need a strong investment chapter, Ambassador Froman said:”

Read the full post: http://www.investmentpolicycentral.com/content/ambassador-froman-ttip-investment-chapter

Europe Must Commit to Foreign Direct Investment

By Shaun Donnelly

Investment Policy Central

“In July 2013, the U.S. and the European Union finally launched formal negotiations for a comprehensive free trade and investment agreement, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership or “TTIP.” This proposed agreement would include binding commitments from both sides to swing the doors wide open to investment, what negotiators call Foreign Direct Investment or “FDI,” from the other side of the Atlantic.  We at USCIB think this is absolutely the right policy approach – that FDI, both inward and outward, can help drive economic growth, job creation, and global competitiveness in the context of a high standard TTIP agreement.”

Read the full post: http://www.investmentpolicycentral.com/content/where-does-europe-really-stand-foreign-direct-investment