95. The representative of Bolivia offered preliminary comments on the joint paper introduced by Australia (document IP/C/W/289) on extension of protection of geographical indications to other products. His delegation was very pleased that the paper permitted a substantive debate on extension, and left behind procedural questions as to whether or not there was a mandate. This paper was constructive and expressed serious preoccupations about an extension of protection. The first question presented in the submission was very pertinent and his delegation regretted that this question had not been posed during the Uruguay Round. It should have been posed by some developed countries at that time and, if it had been, the TRIPS Agreement would now be totally different. His delegation encouraged the sponsors of this paper to submit it not only in the TRIPS Council but also in other WTO subsidiary bodies, in particular, in the preparations for the Ministerial Conference in Doha. Bolivia would give such a proposal its full consideration. Turning to paragraph 24 of the attachment to the joint paper, regarding the possible relationship between protection of geographical indications and commercial protectionism, he said that Bolivia, a small economy, had a trade policy faithful to the principles of liberalization of the multilateral system, and it did not apply any trade distorting measure, as had been shown in the July 1999 trade policy review of Bolivia. Bolivia sought an extension of geographical indication protection to products other than wines and spirits but could never support a protectionist proposal. Turning to the section of the joint submission on negotiating history which said that there were imbalances in the TRIPS Agreement, his delegation agreed that there was discrimination regarding intellectual property protection and an imbalance in the protection of geographical indications between wine and spirits, on the one hand, and other products, on the other hand, just as there was an imbalance between the protection of individual intellectual property and indigenous communities' intellectual property, which was closely linked to the protection of geographical indications. He thanked the sponsors of the joint submission for the questions that they had presented and said that his delegation would try to respond to them in subsequent meetings.
