WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/MA/W/114 
22 May 2009 
 (09-2490) 
Negotiating Group on Market Access Original:   English 
  
 
MARKET ACCESS FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS 
 
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions on the “Understanding on the Interpretation of the 
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade with r espect to the Labeling of Textiles, Clothing, 
Footwear, and Travel Goods”  
 
Communication from the European Communities, M auritius, Sri Lanka, and the United States 
 
  The following communication, dated 20 May 2009, is being circulated at the request of the 
co-sponsors of the proposed “Understanding on the Interpretation of the Agreement on Technical 
Barriers to Trade with respect to the Labeling of Textiles, Clothing, Footwear, and Travel Goods”  
 
_______________ 
 
 
Core objectives: This proposal is designed to reduce and as appropriate eliminate non-tariff 
barriers (NTBs) affecting trade in textiles, clothi ng, footwear and travel goods by encouraging the 
harmonization of information requirements on labe ls for such goods and by calling for greater 
transparency with respect to the development of  labeling requirements, including by ensuring that 
Members and stakeholders are afforded meaningful  opportunities to participate in Members’ rule-
making processes. 
 
1. Does paragraph 2 apply to permanent labels or all labels, whether permanent or non-
permanent? 
Paragraph 2 applies to all labels, wh ether permanent or non-permanent.   
   2. In paragraph 2.2.1 through 2.2.3, does “country of origin” refer to or include “rules of 
origin”?  If no, how does the reference to “co untry of origin” relate to “rules of origin”? 
The reference to “country of origin” is not a reference to “rules of origin”.   Generally, rules of origin 
are rules to determine the country of origin of  a good for purposes of determining whether a good 
qualifies for preferential treatment (e.g., preferential tariff treatment).  Our proposal does not address 
country of origin for purposes of determining whether a good qualifies for preferential treatment, but 
instead specifies a type of information – country of  origin – that may be required on a label.  Our 
proposal does not address how country of origin – for purposes of labeling or otherwise – is to be 
determined.       3. Why does paragraph 2 not include labeling info rmation related to safety or size?   
Paragraph 2 provides that, if a Member requires any of the information specified in paragraph 2 on a 
label, that requirement will be rebuttably presumed to be not more trade-restrictive than necessary under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.  It does not preclude a Member from requiring other 
information (such as information regarding size or saf ety) on labels.  In fact, paragraph 2 expressly TN/MA/W/114 
Page 2  
 
  references the fact that Members may require other in formation on labels when that requirement is not 
inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.    
 
4. Doesn’t paragraph 2 elevate the requirements listed therein above the legitimate 
objectives listed in Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement? 
No. Paragraph 2 does not address legitimate object ives.  Legitimate objectives are addressed in 
Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement; this provision will continue to apply in a ddition to paragraph 2 of 
the proposal if the proposal is adopted.  Accordingl y, even with respect to a requirement to include 
information specified in paragraph 2 on a label, a Member must have a legitimate objective and the 
requirement must not be more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil that objective.  Paragraph 2 
only creates a presumption that requiring information specified in paragraph 2 on a label is not more 
trade-restrictive than necessary.  That presump tion is rebuttable, however, for example, by 
demonstrating that the requirement is not necessary to fulfil the Member’s legitimate objective.    
 
5. What international standards does the negot iating text refer to in footnote 1?  
Footnote 1 does not refer to specific international standards.  
 
6. Can you explain the concept of a “rebuttabl e presumption” in paragraphs 2 and 4? 
If a Member adopts a requirement that information se t out in paragraph 2 be included on a label, such 
a requirement would be rebuttably presumed to be  not more trade-restrictive than necessary under 
Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.  This means that  other Members would retain the right to rebut, or 
call into question, whether that requirement is in f act not more trade- restrictive than necessary under 
Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.  While we do not anticipate it being the case, there could be 
situations where a Member may require informati on described in paragraph 2 on a label, but that 
requirement may nonetheless be more trade-restri ctive than necessary to fulfil that Member’s 
legitimate objective.  In such situ ations, we feel that it is necessar y to allow a Member to challenge 
the consistency of the requirement under Artic le 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.      
 Conversely, paragraph 4 contains a rebuttable presumption that the requirements listed therein would  
be more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective within the meaning of Article 
2.2 of the TBT Agreement and therefore inconsiste nt with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.  
Creating a rebuttable presumption that such requireme nts are more trade-restrictive than necessary, 
rather than prohibiting such requirements outright , however would still allow a Member employing 
such a requirement to demonstrate that it is in fact necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective. The 
burden of proof would be on a Member employing a re quirement listed in paragraph 4 to demonstrate 
that it is not more trade-restrictive than necessary.  7. Can paragraph 3 be re-drafted to identify a specific list of non-permanent labeling 
requirements, instead of keeping it open?  Can you define “required information” in paragraph 
3?  
Paragraph 3 is intended to encour age Members to permit any required information to be included on a 
non-permanent label instead of a permanent label.  “Any required information” should be read as any 
information that a Member requires on a label, such  as the information described in paragraph 2.  
Paragraph 3 does not include specific non-perman ent labeling requirements or disciplines because 
paragraph 4 already sets out such disciplines for all labels, whether permanent or non-permanent.  In 
addition, paragraph 2 applies to all labels, whet her permanent or non-permanent, and specifies the 
type of information, if required on a label, that would be rebuttably presumed to be no more trade-
restrictive than necessary.   TN/MA/W/114 
 Page 3 
 
 
  8. Can you clearly explain how paragr aphs 5 and 6 differ from the TBT? 
The text of paragraphs 5 and 6 elaborates obligati ons regarding the notification provisions of the TBT 
Agreement with respect to the labeling of te xtile, clothing, footwear and travel goods: 
 
• The TBT Agreement requires a Member to provide other WTO Members notice that it is 
proposing a technical regulation or conformity  assessment procedure if: (i) the technical 
content of the proposed technical regulation or conformity assessment procedure is not in accordance with the technical content of a relevant international standard, guide or 
recommendation or if a relevant internationa l standard, guide or recommendation does not 
exist and (ii) the technical regulation or conformity assessment procedure may have a 
significant effect on trade of other Members.  Under the proposal, a Member would be 
required to notify other WTO Members of all proposed technical regulations or conformity 
assessment procedures with respect to the labe ling of products covered by the proposal.  
Further, the proposal would require a Member to identify up front in its WTO notice the parts of the proposed measure that in substance de viate from relevant international standards, 
guides or recommendations (rather than provide such information subsequently upon request) 
and its reasons for requiring information on pe rmanent labels other than the information 
described in paragraph 2.  
 
• The TBT Agreement requires a Member to publish notices and, upon request, provide other 
Members copies of proposed technical regula tions and conformity assessment procedures.  
Under the proposal, a Member would be requi red to publish the actual proposed technical 
regulation or conformity assessment procedure “at the earliest appropriate stage,” rather than 
simply a notice that the Member proposes to  introduce a measure with a subsequent 
commitment to provide Members a copy of th e proposed measure upon request.  This will 
ensure that the proposed technical regulation or conformity assessment procedure is made 
available to interested parties as well as Members in a timely manner. 
 
• The TBT Agreement requires a Member to allow reasonable time for other Members to make 
comments on the proposed technical regulation or conformity assessment procedure and to take any such comments into account.  The propo sal recognizes that interested parties as well 
as Members shall be given the opportunity to submit comments on proposed technical regulations and conformity asse ssment procedures.  Under the proposal, a Member would be 
required to take into account comments receive d from interested parties as well as Members 
in finalizing its technical regul ation or conformity assessment procedure.  In addition, the 
proposal specifies that a Member shall allow at least 60 days for other Members to submit comments and shall provide favourable consider ation to reasonable re quests to extend the 
comment period.   The proposal would also require a Member to publish or otherwise make available to the public, either in print or el ectronically, its responses to significant comments 
it receives from other Members or the public no later than the date on which it publishes the 
final technical regulation or conformity assessment procedure. 
 
9. Can you explain the meaning of the term “interested persons” in the context of 
paragraphs 5 and 6? 
“Interested persons” refers to anyone, anywhere in the world, including legal entities and private 
individuals that have an interest of any nature in the technical regulation or conformity assessment 
procedure.   TN/MA/W/114 
Page 4  
 
  10. Can you more clearly explain paragraph 5. 4 and the publication of responses to 
comments?  
Paragraph 5.4 concerns ensuring full transparency  and participation in the process of developing 
technical regulations and conformity assessment pro cedures with respect to the labeling of textiles, 
apparel, footwear, and travel goods.  This para graph would require a Member to discuss comments 
upon request by another Member or interested pers on.  This paragraph would also require a Member 
to take into account both the comments and the disc ussions in finalizing the technical regulation or 
conformity assessment procedure.  Such “discu ssions” may be broadly read as including multiple 
means of communication (e.g., face-to-face meeti ngs, digital video conf erences, e-mail, and 
teleconferences).  A Member would have to publ ish or make publicly available its responses to 
significant comments received in the rule-making pr ocess no later than the date on which it publishes 
the final technical regulation or conformity assessment procedure.  In other words, a Member can 
publish responses to such comments prior to, or at the same time as, it publishes the final technical 
regulation or conformity assessment procedure.       11. Why are you creating new TBT-related disciplines for a specific sector?  Would it not be 
more effective and balanced to amend the TBT Ag reement so that any changes applied across 
all sectors?  
Early on in the NAMA NTB negotiations, Members su bmitted indicative lists of non-tariff barriers, 
distilled from information provided by global indu stry.  TBT issues were the second most common 
market access problem cited behind trade facilita tion.   For this reason, several Members have 
submitted industry-driven TBT-related NTB proposals th at aim to facilitate trade and improve market 
access globally in specific sectors set out in the i ndicative lists.  The types of measures that may 
constitute technical barriers to trade or be more tr ade-restrictive than neces sary will differ from sector 
to sector, as will the means by which a reduction of non-tariff barriers can be achieved.  
This proposal identifies what may be considered “m ore trade restrictive than  necessary” with respect 
to requirements concerning labeling of textiles, clot hing, footwear and travel goods in response to a 
particular NTB – labeling of goods –  observed in that sector.  In the context of the textiles, clothing, 
footwear and travel goods sector, we believe paragraph 2 addresses the types of measures in that sector that we have found are generally not more trade-restrictive than necessary, and in the case of 
paragraph 4, are generally more trade-restrictive than necessary.  
 
12. Can you explain why this negotiating text do es not constitute standards-setting by the 
WTO? Could you explain the distinction betw een “parameters for government action” and 
“standards”? 
As Members have consistently indicated, the WTO is not a standards-setting body.  This proposal 
does not create standards, nor should it.  The prop osal does not mandate that Members, for example, 
include certain information on labels or use specific co lors, fonts, font sizes, locations of information, 
or languages for the labeling of textiles, apparel,  footwear, and travel goods. The proposal also does 
not mandate that Members comply with particular standards.  Rather, para graphs 2 and 4 of the 
proposal clarify the types of measures that are rebu ttably presumed to be not more trade-restrictive 
than necessary, in the case of paragraph 2, and tho se that are rebuttably presumed to be more trade-
restrictive than necessary, in the c ase of paragraph 4, in the textiles, clothing, footwear, and travel 
goods sector.   
   
__________