Yes. There's one that's active and one that's proposed. The main one that we would deal with is around crop protection products. Jurisdictions across the world use a risk-based approach to how they regulate those kinds of products. The EU uses a hazard-based approach. One of the things we're seeing from them—and this is creating all kinds of issues for Canada but also for anybody else trying to trade into the EU—is that they're eliminating import MRLs. Essentially, if they choose to eliminate a crop protection product for use in Europe, to make that reciprocal, they eliminate an import MRL, so essentially, if you're using that product in Canada, you can't then export to the EU.
They're making choices to remove those products in the EU based on a hazard-based approach, not a risk-based approach, which is a fundamental problem. It then becomes an issue where Canada can't export into the EU because of that, because they're removing an import maximum residue limit. It's not just us that it impacts; it impacts the world.
The second one would be around deforestation. This is a classic “mirror clause”, as they would call it. It was meant to be implemented at the end of this year, but they've delayed it by a year. They are placing deforestation standards on anything that comes into the bloc, which is essentially a pure standard of reciprocity, so anybody would have to meet a standard they're setting. When I say “anybody”, I mean anybody who's looking to import into the EU. They're really setting a high bar for how these things are used for protectionism.
Those are the two main ones.