Use Readable text for larger type, or zoom in on the pages.
Trade Council
Summary record of the second session of the Trade Council
Chair: Karina Luna Carballo, Chair of the Trade Council (Guadalajara, Mexico)
Attendance: The session record lists 24 Trade Council members from 16 countries.
Sittings: Asia-Pacific sitting, 06:00 UTC; Europe/Africa/Americas sitting, 16:00 UTC. Both sittings considered the same agenda.
Agenda: (a) opening and purpose of the session; (b) review of the Trade Council’s call for evidence on TR-001; (c) initial reports concerning supplier terms and tariffs; (d) scope and method for continuing evidence collection; and (e) decisions, action items and next session.
The second session of the Trade Council was held on 19 March 2026 in two Open Table sittings, at 06:00 UTC and 16:00 UTC. The chair, Karina Luna Carballo, opened both sittings and confirmed that members could contribute in either sitting or provide written evidence through the established submission process. The record consolidates the proceedings and does not attribute a contribution to a particular sitting unless necessary for clarity.
The chair recalled that the Trade Council’s work arose from the Founders Charter and the call for evidence issued as RC/TR/2026/1 on 10 February 2026. The item under consideration was TR-001. At this stage, the Council’s task was to describe reported practices and determine whether the evidence justified a later pattern review. It was not considering a draft standard, a company-specific case or a request for members to identify their own businesses.
The chair set out the distinction between receiving reports and reaching a finding. Reports were to be gathered first; a five-part test—Volume, Frequency, Consistency, Spread and Corroboration—would be applied only after sufficient material had been collected and reviewed. The chair cautioned that an account could be important to its contributor without, by itself, establishing a pattern across businesses, sectors or countries.
The chair noted that the early reporting base was small. As of 19 March, Reseated had 243 members in 46 countries and had received 507 reports from 49 countries. The Trade Council had 24 members from 16 countries and eight reports from eight countries. The difference between the geographical reach of reports and membership was recorded as a feature of the early evidence base, not as an error or a measure of representativeness.
Members were reminded that international estimates establish the broad economic importance of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises but do not answer the Council’s specific questions about trade-related practices. The United Nations describes MSMEs as approximately 90 per cent of businesses, 60–70 per cent of employment and about 50 per cent of GDP worldwide.1 The International Labour Organization gives an estimate of approximately 70 per cent of employment and notes that around 80 per cent of MSMEs operate in the informal economy.2 The chair said these figures supplied context only; the Council would rely on its own reports when assessing TR-001.
In the first discussion, Lucía Fernanda Ortega of Puebla, Mexico, described supplier terms as a practical constraint that could affect a small trader before goods were dispatched. She said the evidence request should distinguish a change in a supplier’s terms from the downstream costs of complying with those terms. She supported asking contributors to describe timing, notice and the effect on an order, while avoiding assumptions about the motive of any supplier.
Arjun Mehta of Jaipur, India, addressed tariff-related reports. He said that a reported tariff change and the total cost of importing should not be treated as the same issue. Contributors should be invited to record what cost was known when they committed to a purchase, what changed before arrival and whether the information was available in a form a small trader could use. He supported retaining the contributor’s own description of the transaction rather than converting it prematurely into a legal conclusion.
Hanae Mori of Osaka, Japan, asked the Council to make room for reports where a trader could identify the amount due only after several separate charges had been added. She proposed that the evidence form ask whether charges were disclosed before commitment, at dispatch or at delivery, and whether the contributor could obtain a written breakdown. The chair noted that these questions could inform evidence collection without prejudging whether a charge was properly imposed.
Thabo Mokoena of Durban, South Africa, emphasized that a trader’s ability to absorb a delay or unexpected cost depended partly on the size of the business and the amount at stake. He encouraged the Council to collect a simple description of team size and approximate exposure, while allowing contributors to omit information they could not safely or reliably provide. He also cautioned against treating the amount alone as a measure of harm.
Mariana Costa of Recife, Brazil, supported recording the country and route relevant to an account, where the contributor was willing to provide them. She said the Council should not assume that a practice reported in one jurisdiction applied elsewhere, and that differences in rules, intermediaries and shipping arrangements could matter. Her contribution supported the proposed focus on spread and corroboration, but did not claim that either had already been established.
Oliver Grant of Bristol, United Kingdom, asked that the evidence request explain the difference between a supplier’s commercial terms and tariff or border-related costs. He said a contributor may experience both in the same transaction, but combining them in a single category could make later comparison less reliable. He supported asking members to identify which part of the account concerned supplier terms, which concerned tariffs, and which concerned another cost or process.
Fatima Al Mazrouei of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates, observed that a small trader may depend on an intermediary to explain the amount payable and when it is payable. She recommended that reports concerning intermediaries distinguish an estimate from a final invoice and record whether the landed-cost components were itemized. The chair said this point would be captured as an evidence question. No finding was made about any class of intermediary.
Members reviewed the eight Trade Council reports then on file. Four were classified as supplier-terms situations and four as tariff situations. The reports came from eight countries. The median amount at stake was approximately US$2,220. The recorded team-size distribution was: “Just me”, 38 per cent; 2–9 people, 25 per cent; and 10–49 people, 38 per cent. The percentages were read as the reported figures and were not recalculated. Members agreed that these early totals should be presented with their small sample size and should not be used to suggest prevalence across all small importers.
On the question of scope, members discussed whether TR-001 should address only the rules and charges themselves or also the information and transition arrangements that affect a small trader’s ability to respond. The discussion supported retaining all three matters as evidence questions: the rule or cost that changed; the clarity and timing of guidance; and the time or operational adjustment available to the trader. Members did not seek to settle the content of a future remedy at this session.
The chair summarized the proposed approach for the next stage. Reports would continue to be received under the call for evidence. The Secretariat would preserve the distinction between supplier-terms accounts and tariff accounts while allowing a report to contain both. The Council would then review the collected material against Volume, Frequency, Consistency, Spread and Corroboration. The chair stressed that none of the five tests had been passed or failed by a decision at this meeting; no pattern-test determination was before the Council.
Members agreed that further evidence should be sought on the point at which costs become known, the degree of notice given, the form in which guidance is provided, the timing of payment or adjustment, and the consequences for a small trader when an amount or term changes. Members also agreed that the call should invite concrete accounts and supporting material where available, without making supporting documents a condition of participation. Contributors were to be able to describe practices without naming their own businesses.
On the method for handling evidence, the chair confirmed that reports would be treated as member accounts and not as verified findings about a named organization. The Council would seek corroboration across independent accounts where possible. A report’s country, transaction type, approximate amount at stake and team size could assist comparison, but missing information would not automatically disqualify a report. Members were asked to avoid publishing identifying details about another party when those details were not necessary to explain the practice.
The Council considered whether it should prepare an immediate recommendation. Members agreed that doing so would be premature. The eight reports provided a basis for continuing inquiry but not for asserting the volume, frequency, consistency or spread of a practice. Members also noted that the Council had not yet completed its review of corroborating material. Accordingly, no draft fix was authorized, no consultation was opened, and no request was made to any chief executive or other external decision-maker.
The chair recorded the following decisions: (a) TR-001 would remain an evidence-gathering item; (b) supplier terms and tariffs would remain separately identifiable in the reporting process, with cross-category accounts preserved; (c) the evidence questions would cover notice, timing, cost disclosure, guidance and adjustment; and (d) any determination under the five-part test would be made at a later stage, on the evidence then available. These decisions were procedural and did not establish a substantive standard.
The following action items were assigned. Karina Luna Carballo, as chair, would consolidate the discussion into proposed clarifications for the evidence request and bring them back to the Council. The Secretariat would continue to receive and organize reports, retain the categories used in the session, and provide members with a summary of the evidence base at the next session. Trade Council members would continue to invite accounts from small traders and, where contributors consented, supporting material relevant to timing, cost disclosure or changes to terms. Members undertaking outreach would describe the item as an open evidence call and would not present the Council’s preliminary discussion as a finding.
The chair confirmed that the next Trade Council session would be held in April 2026 as part of the monthly Open Table cycle. The precise date and sitting arrangements would be circulated through the Council’s normal notice process. The next session would review additional reports and the proposed clarifications to the evidence request; it would not presume that the pattern test had been satisfied.
In closing, the chair thanked members for keeping their contributions specific and for distinguishing personal experience from conclusions about a wider practice. She reiterated that the purpose of the Council’s work was to describe recurring problems with care, test the evidence openly, and develop a possible response only if the evidence supported one. The session was closed.
Sources
United Nations, “Micro-, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Day”, https://www.un.org/en/observances/micro-small-medium-businesses-day
International Labour Organization, “Micro, small and medium-sized enterprises”, https://www.ilo.org/topics-and-sectors/micro-small-and-medium-enterprises
Notes and sources
Sources
This document has no standing until adopted under the Founders Charter. Reseated Councils is not affiliated with the United Nations.