By: David Meynell, Founder of TradeLC Advisory and TTP Global Advisory Panel Member

The current direction set out by the ICC Banking Commission reflects a noticeable change in how the industry is choosing to move forward. Rather than immediately revising UCP and ISBP, attention is turning towards how they are applied in practice, and how that application can be made more consistent, more accessible, and better aligned with the realities of modern trade.

This approach is shaped by a fairly clear position across ICC National Committees. There is no strong appetite to revisit UCP 600 or ISBP 821 in the immediate term, and a broad preference to preserve the stability that those frameworks provide. At the same time, there is an awareness that not everything is working as it should. The issues that continue to arise in day-to-day practice are not generally rooted in deficiencies within the rules or practices, but in how they are understood, interpreted, and translated into transactions.

That distinction defines the current strategy. The emphasis shifts away from structural revision and towards optimisation. The intention is to retain the existing framework, while strengthening the layers that sit around it, particularly in areas where ambiguity, inconsistency, or unnecessary complexity continue to create friction.

In practice, this introduces a more structured and continuous model of support. Instead of relying on periodic updates to address emerging challenges, the focus turns to developing guidance that can evolve alongside market practice. Interpretation becomes more central, not as an occasional exercise triggered by uncertainty, but as an ongoing process that helps maintain alignment across institutions and jurisdictions.

The decision to establish targeted Working Groups reflects this thinking. Each group is focused on a specific area where issues tend to recur, whether through digital trade developments, document and transport practice, or the positioning of standby credits within the wider rule landscape. The intention is not to revisit the foundations, but to address the points at which those foundations are applied in ways that diverge from their original intent.

This is particularly relevant in areas such as document examination, where variability in interpretation continues to surface. The rules and practices provide a framework, but the way in which they are applied can differ, sometimes significantly, between institutions. Over time, these differences become embedded in custom, creating a level of inconsistency that is difficult to reconcile through revision alone. Addressing them requires a more detailed and practical form of guidance, one that reflects how transactions are actually handled rather than how they are expected to function in theory.

The renewed emphasis on education sits at the centre of this approach. The reactivation and expansion of the ISBP Education Project is a recognition that many of the issues encountered at the point of presentation originate much earlier in the transaction lifecycle. Drafting remains a key factor. Requirements that are unclear, excessive, or misaligned with the rules continue to give rise to discrepancies that could have been avoided with greater attention at the outset.

By focusing on practical learning, supported by case studies, real scenarios, and alignment with existing ICC Opinions and Technical Advisory Briefings, the aim is to strengthen understanding across the market in a more systematic way. This moves the emphasis away from resolving issues after they arise and towards reducing the likelihood of those issues emerging in the first place.

Access also forms part of this discussion. The recognition that educational materials need to be more widely available, whether through pricing models, digital platforms, or local distribution, reflects a broader effort to ensure that guidance is not only developed but used. Consistency in application depends not just on the existence of guidance, but on its accessibility to those involved in day-to-day operations.

Digitalisation is addressed within this framework, though in a measured and controlled manner. It is clearly identified as an area where further attention is required, particularly in relation to hybrid presentations and the use of electronic records. The focus is on ensuring that digital practices align with existing frameworks, including eUCP, allowing adoption to progress without creating divergence.

This approach reflects the current state of the market. Digital trade is advancing, but not uniformly. Different jurisdictions, platforms, and participants are moving at different speeds, creating a landscape that is both interconnected and uneven. In such an environment, maintaining a stable set of rules while supporting their application across both traditional and digital processes provides a way of preserving coherence as change continues.

A further aspect of the plan addresses the way in which guidance is organised. Feedback suggests that existing materials are dispersed across multiple sources, making it difficult to form a clear and consistent view. The intention to develop a more coherent guidance framework, through centralised resources such as the ICC Digital Library, reflects an effort to bring these elements together. The objective is not only to provide guidance, but to ensure that it can be accessed and applied in a way that supports consistent interpretation.

What emerges from this is a model that places less emphasis on formal revision and more on practical alignment. The rules remain stable, but the supporting framework becomes more dynamic. Interpretation, education, and accessibility are treated not as secondary elements, but as core components of how the system functions.

There is also a sense of sequencing within the plan. By strengthening these supporting layers first, the ICC creates a more informed basis for any future consideration of rule revision. Rather than responding to individual issues as they arise, the intention is to observe how the market evolves once these measures are in place, and to assess whether further changes are justified based on that experience.

This introduces a more deliberate pace to development. It acknowledges that change within trade finance is often most effective when it is incremental and aligned with practice, rather than driven by structural shifts that may not reflect how the market actually operates.

In this context, the current strategy can be seen as an effort to reinforce the foundations without altering them. The focus remains on ensuring that the rules continue to function as intended, even as the environment around them becomes more complex, more digital, and more interconnected.

The outcome is not a static system, but one that is proactive and adapts through its application rather than through its structure. By placing greater emphasis on how the rules are used, rather than on rewriting them, the ICC is responding to a market that requires stability at its core, but flexibility in how that core is applied.

What follows from this approach will depend largely on how effectively these measures are implemented. The development of guidance, the delivery of education, and the alignment of interpretation all require engagement across the market. Their impact will be measured not by the existence of new materials, but by the extent to which they influence day-to-day practice.

For now, the direction is clear. The focus is not on changing the rules, but on making them work better within the environment in which they now operate.