Let me follow up.
The explanation that I got down there was that the crops that went to zero were by and large crops that would be competing against Chile, the United States, and the EU. The crops on which they maintained a high tariff were crops from what we would call almost subsistence farmers, people with one or two acres. In that way the trade agreement did not disadvantage the poor farmers, but at the same time it would help to lower food costs for the broader consuming public, particularly the poor. Bakeries all across the country, of course, would watch their flour costs go down.
Would what I'm saying here be consistent with what you gathered in your more technical language, in terms of what the Colombians were doing and what their reasoning was to protect their poor while at the same time lowering food costs for their overall population?