Use Readable text for larger type, or zoom in on the pages.
Trade Council
March letter from the Trade Council chair
Dear members,
March was a month of turning shared work into shared rules. On 19 March, the Founders Assembly adopted its Rules of Procedure by ballot (RC/A/2026/2), and the first Fellows joined the work. On 24 March, the UK government published its response to the late-payment consultation. And on 25 March, we issued an open letter to freight forwarders and customs brokers on landed-cost transparency (RC/TR/2026/20).
Those are different kinds of steps: one establishes how we make decisions; one is a development in public policy; and one asks an industry to make a cost clearer before a small trader commits. Together, they show why our process matters. We need evidence from members, a careful account of the recurring problem, a practical fix, and a way to put that fix in front of people who can act.
What the numbers say
As of 27 March, Reseated had 302 members in 47 countries and had received 675 reports from 49 countries. The reports break down as follows: Platform, 443; Cashflow, 160; Fair Play, 30; Red Tape, 23; Trade, 11; and Team, 8. Those figures are not a measure of whose problem matters most. They are a record of what members have been able to report so far, and a reminder that each council needs enough evidence to test whether a difficulty is a pattern.
In the Trade Council, 32 members from 20 countries have contributed 11 reports from 10 countries. Ten of those reports arrived in the last 30 days. The median amount at stake is about US$1,470. Six reports concern supplier terms and five concern tariffs. The reported businesses are mostly small teams: 45% are one-person businesses, 27% have 2–9 people, and 27% have 10–49 people. Percentages are rounded.
The reports come from a wide spread of places. The United States accounts for two; the United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates, India, Japan, Poland, South Africa and Brazil each account for one. With only 11 reports, we should be cautious about drawing conclusions from country totals. But the spread does tell us that trade friction is not confined to one market or one kind of small business.
One account, handled with care
It draws on the kinds of issues appearing in our reports.
A small importer receives a quote for goods and plans around the price it has been given. Later, additional charges connected with the shipment or the tariff treatment appear. The business has to decide whether to accept the new cost, ask its customer for more money, or absorb the difference. For a small team, even a charge near the Trade Council’s median reported amount can disrupt cash reserved for wages, stock or the next order. The difficulty is not simply that costs exist. It is that the full landed cost may be hard to understand before the business has committed.
That distinction is important. We are not asking that trade costs disappear, or that every small trader receive identical treatment. We are asking whether the rules and the information around them can be designed so a small business can understand its obligations, plan for changes and comply without needing specialist help at every turn.
What we are learning
First, supplier terms and tariffs are both showing up in a small evidence base, but they are different problems. We should not force them into one explanation or one remedy. Second, the reports describe businesses with little spare time and limited room to absorb an unexpected charge. Third, better information is not a substitute for fair rules, but clear, early information can prevent a business from discovering its real cost only after it has made a commitment.
This is why the Trade Council’s TR-001 agenda asks for three practical things when new trade rules or tariffs apply: thresholds that take business size into account, plain-language guidance, and a phase-in period for small traders. It also asks freight forwarders for landed-cost transparency. These are proposals to examine, not conclusions already adopted by the Assembly. The evidence has to support them, and members must have a chance to challenge or improve the draft.
That discipline is especially important when the total is still 11 reports. We have a signal worth investigating, not a license to claim that every trader has the same experience. More reports can help us distinguish a recurring process problem from a one-off difficulty and understand where a change would help most.
What comes next
Open Tables will continue monthly. They give members a place to compare experiences, ask questions and help us identify what evidence is missing. If you have encountered unclear supplier terms, an unexpected tariff, or a landed cost that was difficult to establish in advance, please report the sequence of events as concretely as you can: what you were told, when you were told it, what changed, and what the change meant for your business. Please do not include information that would identify your business unless you choose to.
On 23 April, the Assembly is scheduled to elect its first Board. That is the next major governance date on our calendar. For the Trade Council, the immediate work remains evidence review: checking the reports against the five-part pattern test—Volume, Frequency, Consistency, Spread and Corroboration—and deciding what more we need to ask before drafting a fix. We will report back as that work advances. No standard should be presented as settled before consultation and an Assembly ballot.
For context, the UN estimates that micro, small and medium-sized enterprises make up about 90% of businesses worldwide, account for 60–70% of employment and contribute roughly half of global GDP. The ILO also notes that MSMEs account for about 70% of employment worldwide, with around 80% operating in the informal economy. Those global figures are not a substitute for our members’ evidence. They are a reminder of why rules that look manageable on paper can have consequences for a very large part of the economy.
Thank you to Amina in Nairobi, David in Bristol, Mei in Singapore and Jorge in São Paulo for your time, your careful questions and your willingness to help make the Trade Council’s work more useful. And thank you to everyone who has filed a report or made room in a busy week to take part. Our evidence is stronger when it is specific, and our proposals are better when members can disagree openly before a decision is made.
With thanks,
Karina Luna CarballoChair, Trade CouncilGuadalajara, Mexico