Summary record of the first session of the Trade Council

Subject: Summary record of the first session of the Trade Council

Session details

Summary

The first Trade Council session was held as two Open Table sittings at the times shown above. Members considered how to gather evidence about the costs and administrative effects of trade rules on small importers, including the questions of size-based thresholds, plain-language guidance, phase-in periods and transparency of landed costs. The Council had no Trade Council reports on file. Members therefore treated the discussion as agenda-setting and evidence planning, not as a finding about the frequency or prevalence of any practice.

Proceedings

1. The Chair opened the session and welcomed members attending the Asia-Pacific sitting at 06:00 UTC and the Europe/Africa/Americas sitting at 16:00 UTC. She stated that the sittings were part of the monthly Open Table process and that this record combined the proceedings of both. The attendance register recorded nine Trade Council members representing six countries. The chair confirmed that the purpose was to discuss the evidence requested under RC/TR/2026/1, rather than to settle the terms of a standard at this stage.

2. The Chair introduced TR-001 as an inquiry into whether small traders face particular difficulties when new trade rules or tariffs apply. She identified four questions for evidence gathering: whether obligations should vary by the size of the trader; whether guidance is sufficiently clear to be used without specialist assistance; whether a phase-in period is needed; and whether importers receive a reliable explanation of landed costs from freight forwarders. She emphasized that these were questions for examination, not conclusions already reached by the Council.

3. The Chair reported the Council’s starting position using the internal figures available on 18 February. The Trade Council had nine seated members from six countries and had received zero reports from zero countries. The recorded median amount at stake was approximately US$0. With no reports filed, the figure was not evidence of a typical loss or cost; it reflected the empty report record. There were no report-based entries for top countries, situations, team sizes or reports in the last 30 days. Members agreed that the absence of submissions limited what could responsibly be said about the issue.

4. The Chair also placed the Council’s position in the wider Assembly context. Reseated had 59 members in 30 countries and 72 reports from 24 countries. The reported council totals were 52 Platform reports and 20 Cashflow reports. The Chair noted that those figures did not supply evidence for TR-001: the Trade Council required accounts relevant to trade rules, import processes and related costs. Members were asked not to transfer conclusions from another council’s work to this agenda item.

5. María Fernanda Ibarra of Guadalajara, Mexico, said that evidence collection should begin with the sequence of events faced by an importer. She proposed recording when a rule or tariff was announced, when the trader learned that it applied, what documents were requested, and when the trader could determine the full cost. She considered a timeline useful because a single invoice might not show whether uncertainty arose from the rule, the guidance or a service provider. She did not present a report or claim that this sequence represented a common experience.

6. Kofi Mensah of Accra, Ghana, raised the question of thresholds. He suggested asking respondents what practical difference a threshold would make to a small trader, including whether a threshold would reduce paperwork, cost or the need for outside advice. He cautioned that the Council should collect information about the kinds of trade and goods involved before recommending any particular level. The Chair recorded this as a question for evidence, not as a proposed numerical threshold.

7. Amina Otieno of Mombasa, Kenya, focused on the timing of new requirements. She proposed asking whether traders had enough notice to change sourcing, arrange documents or obtain guidance before a requirement took effect. She said evidence should distinguish a short adjustment period from a rule that is unclear even when notice is given. Members agreed that any account should identify relevant dates where the respondent could do so, while avoiding a requirement to disclose commercially sensitive information.

8. Priya Nair of Kochi, India, addressed plain-language guidance. She proposed asking respondents to identify which instruction they used, where they found it and what part remained unclear. She said the evidence should distinguish difficulty caused by technical language from difficulty caused by missing or inconsistent instructions. She recommended that members submit the wording or document at issue only where they were entitled to share it, and that personal or confidential information be removed before publication.

9. Lê Minh Anh of Da Nang, Viet Nam, spoke about landed-cost transparency. She proposed collecting the amounts and components a trader was told to expect, alongside the final charges and the stage at which each charge became known. She said the Council should avoid treating every difference between an estimate and a final bill as unexplained; the record should identify what the estimate covered and whether a later event changed the cost. The Chair noted that this approach could help distinguish transparency concerns from ordinary variation in charges.

10. Eleanor Price of Bristol, United Kingdom, asked that the evidence request include the time and administrative effort required to comply, in addition to direct monetary costs. She proposed asking whether the trader used an employee, an adviser or another service to understand or complete the process, without requiring the respondent to disclose a person’s name. She also recommended giving respondents a way to say that a question did not apply, so that unanswered or inapplicable items would not be misread as evidence of no difficulty.

11. Kwame Boateng of Kumasi, Ghana, proposed that the Council distinguish between information provided by a public authority and information provided by an intermediary. He suggested that respondents identify the source of a requirement and any subsequent explanation they received. In his view, this distinction would help the Council avoid attributing a guidance problem to the wrong actor. He did not name any company or authority, and the Chair confirmed that the evidence call was not intended to solicit accusations against named businesses.

12. Rohan Kulkarni of Pune, India, addressed the form of submissions. He proposed a short, structured account with an optional space for a fuller narrative and supporting documents. He said members should be able to provide approximate dates and amounts where exact figures were unavailable, while clearly marking estimates as estimates. He supported the use of consistent fields so that later review could compare accounts without assuming that different traders had faced identical rules or circumstances.

13. Isabel de la Cruz of Mexico City, Mexico, spoke about coverage. She proposed that the call invite accounts from traders with different shipment sizes and levels of experience, as well as from those who had decided not to proceed with an import. She said that evidence limited to completed transactions might miss costs incurred before a shipment or a decision to withdraw. The Chair noted the proposal and said that the call should make clear that respondents could describe an abandoned or delayed transaction without presenting it as a completed import.

14. In closing the discussion, the Chair summarized the common point made across the sittings: the Council needed specific, dated accounts before deciding whether a recurring practice existed. She said that the five-part pattern test—Volume, Frequency, Consistency, Spread and Corroboration—would be relevant to later review of a problem, but this first session did not apply the test or find that TR-001 had passed it. Members agreed to keep the evidence request open and to avoid stating that any problem had been established on the basis of the discussion alone.

Decisions

1. The Council confirmed TR-001 as its initial agenda item under the call for evidence RC/TR/2026/1. Its scope would include size-based thresholds, clarity of guidance, time to adjust to new requirements and the transparency of landed costs. These subjects would be investigated through evidence gathering; no standard or specific threshold was adopted.

2. The Council recorded that it had zero reports from zero countries as of 18 February 2026. Members agreed that no prevalence claim, pattern-test finding or estimate of typical cost could be made from the current Trade Council record.

3. The Council agreed that evidence collection should seek context as well as the reported difficulty: relevant dates, type of requirement, source of guidance, shipment or transaction status, cost components and administrative effort where available. Participation would not require respondents to identify their business publicly. Members should not include confidential material or personal information that they were not entitled to share.

4. The Council agreed to prepare a clear, structured evidence prompt with space for a narrative account and optional supporting material. The prompt would distinguish actual amounts from estimates and permit respondents to indicate that a question did not apply.

Action items

Next session

The next Trade Council Open Table session was scheduled for 18 March 2026, with an Asia-Pacific sitting at 06:00 UTC and a Europe/Africa/Americas sitting at 16:00 UTC. The proposed agenda was review of the draft evidence prompt and confirmation of the questions to be put to members and other contributors. No later evidence or decisions are recorded in these minutes.