當前，全球貿易增長乏力，對世界經濟增長拉動作用大幅下降。過去30年，全球貿易增速是全球GDP增速的兩倍。然而，由於需求疲弱、成本升高、貿易摩擦增多等周期性和結構性原因，全球貿易增長進入十分低迷的時期。從未來重振全球貿易發展看，扭轉世界經濟持續性放緩甚至衰退的根本，在於提高全球經濟體生產力，深化全球價值鏈分工效率與合作水平，積極構建面向下一代的貿易政策新框架。這對實現全球新的增長繁榮具有深遠意義。

近幾年，“全球價值鏈與增加值貿易”迅速成為全球貿易、投資、價值鏈以及分工領域的研究熱點。世貿組織、經合組織、聯合國貿發會議等多個國際組織都對全球價值鏈及增加值貿易核算進行了廣泛深入的研究，並列入議事日程。2014年11月，亞太經合組織（APEC）領導人峰會通過了《APEC促進全球價值鏈發展合作戰略藍圖》、《亞太經合組織貿易增加值核算戰略框架》等綱領性文件，為下一步全球價值鏈合作發揮了引領作用。

全球價值鏈是全球經濟循環中最為關鍵的鏈條之一。隨着全球生產網絡和新一輪產業革命與新一代信息技術革命的推動，全球價值鏈（GVC）正在成為世界經濟的一個顯著特徵。東亞以及亞太地區的區域一體化進程不斷加快，APEC 成員間關係日益密切，東盟一體化、區域全面經濟夥伴關係（RCEP）、中韓自貿協定、中日韓自貿協定、跨太平洋夥伴關係協議（TPP）等區域貿易協定不斷推進。在這種區域性生產和服務網絡不斷深化的背景下，各國均實施各種改革，試圖通過加強區域合作來融入產業價值鏈，全球價值鏈將進入一輪深度整合期。

全球價值鏈的快速發展改變了世界經濟格局，也改變了國家間的貿易、投資和生產聯繫。全球價值鏈最顯著的特徵是一件最終產品經過兩個或兩個以上連續階段的生產，要經過兩個或兩個以上的國家參與生產過程並在不同階段實現價值增值，因此產生了大量的中間品貿易和增加值貿易。

以蘋果手機為例，一部iPhone手機的生產要環繞地球一周，全球30多個國家或地區為其提供原材料及零部件。它由美國設計，日本、韓國、馬來西亞、菲律賓、泰國、新加坡和德國等國提供零部件，並最終在中國組裝完成。蘋果公司的外部價值網節點企業包括了多個行業的合作夥伴，而蘋果通過完美的產品平台，將這些合作夥伴的資源能力整合起來，進而搭建基於全球價值鏈生產的新興國際分工體系。

在以最終產品為界限的傳統分工和貿易形式下，跨境流動的主要內容是最終產品，而在全球價值鏈分工和貿易模式下，跨境流動的主要內容則變為“中間品”。根據聯合國網站UN Comtrade的統計數據測算，自1995年以來，中間產品出口額佔全球總出口額的比重一直在50%以上，2013年更是高達69.32%。由此可見，中間品貿易在全球貿易中已經佔據了絕對主導地位。

然而，與全球中間品貿易與全球價值鏈分工相背離的是，全球各類隱形貿易壁壘出現頻繁。特別是金融危機之後，隨着全球貿易萎縮，為獲取更大的本國利益和附加價值發起技術標準、知識產權保護等顯性和隱性貿易摩擦手段更受青睞。近期，世貿組織發佈關於G20貿易限制措施的第15次貿易監測報告，報告顯示G20成員新申請實施的貿易限制措施出現增長，貿易限制措施的月平均數達到該組織2009年啟動貿易監測以來的最高水平。

再以TPP為例，為了保證全產業鏈、供應鏈、生產鏈和投資都在其成員國，TPP制定了新的原產地規則，以確保產品生產的中間環節也在成員國內部，並享受優惠關稅。區域化所帶來的貿易成本增加可能對全球貿易自由化產生消極影響，將產生比較大的區域貿易轉移效應。

這些對全球價值鏈合作是非常重大的挑戰。事實上，在全球價值鏈體系中，存在經貿關係的國家都是一個鏈條上的利益相關者，任何貿易壁壘都會打亂整個價值鏈的運轉，進而波及到其自身利益，影響全球價值鏈和分工的合作。

因此，從增進全球貿易福利和價值創造的角度看，首先要以降低貿易摩擦成本和減少貿易壁壘為切入點，提升亞太乃至全球價值鏈合作水平。應進一步降低平均關稅水平，削減最高關稅，鼓勵部門貿易自由化（零關稅），抑制關稅升級，取消進出口中的配額和其他數量限制，修改原產地規則中的累計原則以鼓勵區域價值鏈的貿易發展，進而消除價值鏈壁壘。同時，我們希望應該在今年G20的框架下，中美作為全球最大的貿易大國，應積極主動推動全球價值鏈合作夥伴倡議和相關議題的談判，以2014年APEC《促進全球價值鏈新興發展合作戰略藍圖》為路線圖，加快構建和完善貿易增加值統計體系，降低中間品進口關稅，完善中間產品知識產權制度，促進全球價值鏈夥伴關係合作。

Global trade, after having grown at twice the speed of the global economy for three decades, now has lost steam as a driving force, due to weak demand, rising costs, increasing trade frictions, among other cyclical and structural causes. Global trade is in the doldrums now, but a fundamental solution lies in boosting productivity on a global scale, improving efficiency by improving the division f labor along the global value chain, and instituting a forward-looking trade policy framework. This will also have a profound impact on efforts to secure global growth and prosperity.

Recent years saw “global value chain and trade in value-added (TiVA)” moving to the front and center of research on global trade, investment, value chain and division of labor. Tellingly, the subject has been featured prominently on the agenda of 天河WTO, OECD, UNTAD and other international organizations. In November 2014, the APEC summit meeting endorsed two overarching documents, namely the APEC Strategic Blueprint for Promoting Global Value Chains Development and Cooperation, and Strategic Framework on Measurement of APEC Trade in Value Added (TiVA), with a view to advance the development of the global value chain.

The Global Value Chain, also known as the GVC, has become a critical building block of the global economic cycle. With the advent of global production network, the GVC has become a hallmark defining the global economy. Regarding Asia, regional integration, especially in East Asia and Asia Pacific, is gaining ground with greater speed. The APEC community is becoming more closely knit, and the ASEAN integration, a China-ROK FTA, a China-ROK-Japan FTA and the TPP are all advancing. With cross-border production and service networks growing and expanding, reform initiatives at country level have been made to further integrate an individual country into the GVC, thus paving the way for a fresh round of profound restructuring of the GVC.

The GVC's rapid development has reshapes the world economic landscape, and redefined how trade, investment and production work across borders. A salient feature of the GVC is that in the production cycle, at least two stages are located in two different countries or more countries, and the input by these countries generate value added, hence large amounts of intermediate trade products and value added trade.

The production of the iconic IPhone is a good example in point. An iPhone has its various parts sourced and produced in over 30 countries and regions, before being assembled into the final product in China. Apple works with a selection of companies along the value chain, and by producing iPhones, it offers a platform that integrates and fosters synergy among different partners and their resources, and when amplified it contributes to creating a new system of division of labor.

Under the traditional model of division of labor and trade pattern, cross-border trade is measured by the final products. But in the GVC, cross-border trade is dominated by intermediate trade products. According to statistics from UN Comtrade, intermediate trade products have accounted for over 50% of global trade since 1995, and shot up to 69.32% in 2013. It is evident that intermediate trade occupies a dominant position in global trade.

But against this prevailing trend, behind-the-border trade barriers have been on the rise in recent years, marking a departure from the ongoing GVC formation. In the wake of the global financial crisis, non-trade barriers citing technical, IPR and other reasons are deployed out of a parochial pursuit of national interests. According to the G20 trade-restrictive measures released by the WTO and 15th trade surveillance report, G20 members are applying for more restrictive measures, with the monthly average reaching a new high since the surveillance was launched in 2009.

The TPP, meanwhile, creates new rules on place of origin to ensure the production, supply, and investment chains all take shape and take root in TPP member countries, and the intermediate trade products will also be produced in TPP community and be eligible for favorable tariffs. Increase in trading costs as a result of regionalization may have a negative impact on trade liberalization globally, and may result in large-scale trade diversion.

All these combined will pose a significant risk to GVC cooperation, as in an intertwined system such as the GVC, countries are so interconnected and interdependent that any trade barrier triggered by any country threatens to upset the function of the value chain, to the detriment of its own interests and could only end up disrupting the GVC and division of labor.

All in all, in order to enhance global trade and value creation, reducing trade friction-induced costs should be a top priority, which will contribute to elevating GVC cooperation in Asia and at large. Measures should be taken to lower the average tariff level by paring peak tariff, and encourage further trade liberalization. Tariff escalation must be kept at bay, by removing quota and other forms of restrictive measures in trade. For rules of place of origin, practices such as origin cumulation should be rectified to foster regional value chain and remove value chain barriers. In the meanwhile, as two major trade power in the world, China and the U.S. should actively take forward the GVC partnership initiative under the G20 framework, with the 2014 APEC Strategic Blueprint for Promoting Global Value Chains Development and Cooperation as the roadmap, and set up the system for valued added calculation, reduce tariffs for intermediate trade products, improve IPR protection and ultimately advance the GVC partnership.