Thanks very much for the question.
As Carol noted, what you always try to do--I know this as the trading goods market access negotiator--is try to strike a balance in the deal that represents your interests and your sensitivities. It is difficult when you take dairy, poultry, and eggs access off the table--except for the “within access” commitment, where there's a very low tariff already, and a country like Peru would compete with the rest of the world for that closed market. It's then difficult to argue that you need free, immediate access for beef and pork and other things that are somewhat sensitive in those markets.
That said, I think we try our best, given our strong interest in those areas. We look at historical levels of trade and try to get duty-free access greater than that on an immediate basis. Then we look at long-term access for those products. That's generally what we've done. We've done that for pork in this agreement. On the beef side, I must say I'm less happy, but it's the best we could do, given the cards we're dealt in that sector.
But I think overall, and overwhelmingly, you have to look at the benefits here, and they're really for grains and pulses, peas. These haven't been traditionally strong export markets in the meat areas. The access we've got is far and away more than we've shipped historically, and certainly more than in recent years.