_59_ Saharan African country (out of a total of 1,300 such cases) and in only one case was a countervailing action taken (out of 460 total actions). That the relative unimportance of nontariff protection cannot be held responsible for it poor export performance is also reflected in the fact that pre-Uruguay Round NTB coverage ratios for African exports were about one-half those for the successful fast growing developing country exporters in East and South Asia.

The situation regarding the future importance of NTBs is somewhat unclear due to the major achievements the Uruguay Round made on the liberalization of these measures, and the extent to which OECD countries may attempt to adopt other measures (like antidumping actions or safeguards) to circumvent the liberalization. However, there do appear to be several policy options and/or research initiatives that could be particularly important for Africa. These include:

- The Uruguay Round converted agricultural trade barriers to [specific] tariffs which may incorporate levels of protection of several hundred percent -- which may be all but prohibitive for many potential suppliers. Given the problem of extreme rural poverty in Africa, and the potential contribution increased agricultural exports could make toward its reduction, policy initiatives are needed to reduce this protection against African food exports. One possible option would be to extend (ceiling free) preferences under established GSP programs.

- The Uruguay Round dramatically changed the profile of nontariff barrier protection facing developing countries. The UNCTAD Inventory of Trade Control measures should be updated to reflect the current (preUruguay Round) situation and to identify remaining NTBs which are of particular importance to Africa (like those on fisheries and energy products). Also, monitoring mechanisms need to be developed to ensure that no legalized or other backsliding occurs in sectors were nontariff protection is being relaxed. This might involve a cooperative effort between various international institutions.

* Aside from the direct adverse effects of OECD agricultural trade barriers, developing countries exports to third markets often have been undercut by subsidies that industrial countries have employed to dispose of surpluses generated behind high level of external protection. While the Uruguay Round did achieve some discipline in the use of such subsidies what was achieved appears to have fallen far short of what had been envisioned at the start of the Round. Analyses should be undertaken to determine where export incentives have had there most important adverse effects on Africa, and what sorts of corrective policy actions could be implemented.

* In many of the poorer developing countries problems associated with food security and spoilage are of major importance. Since further processing (canning, drying, freezing, packaging, etc.) generally extends the usable life of a product any external constraints to the development of this activity -- where output would be directed to both internal and external markets -- should be removed. In particular, the preferences OECD countries extend each other under regional FTAs have increasingly disadvantaged African export oriented food processing industries. Measures are needed to, _at least,_ place sub-Saharan African countries and other developing countries on an equal competitive footing with OECD members.