Net sales by destination for 2009, 2008 and 2007 were as follows:
## Table 0 ##
(1) Europe, Africa and Middle East 2009 in Comparison to 2008 Sales for 2009 totaled $2,326 million, decreasing 3% from the prior year period of $2,389 million, as Flavor sales declined 1% and Fragrance sales decreased 4%.
Foreign exchange had a 3% negative impact on reported sales during 2009 as the U. S.  dollar was stronger during the first three-quarters of 2009 versus the comparable year-ago period.
Market conditions improved during the second half of 2009, as global economic conditions strengthened and customer inventory levels stabilized.
Local currency (LC) sales increased over 2% during both the third and fourth quarters compared to a decline of 3% during the first six months of 2009.
Flavors Business Unit Flavor sales decreased 1% for 2009 compared to 2008 as the effects of a stronger U. S.  dollar, soft demand and inventory corrections in Europe and customer specific losses in Latin America more than offset new wins, solid demand and price increases in North America and Greater Asia.
Excluding the impact of currencies, sales for the Flavors business increased over 2% during 2009 compared to 2008.
Fragrances Business Unit Fragrance sales decreased 4% for 2009 compared to 2008 reflecting double-digit LC sales declines for Fine Fragrances, as consumers reduced discretionary spending and the industry significantly reduced inventories across the supply chain.
These headwinds were partially offset by solid growth and new wins in beauty care, toiletries and substantially all functional fragrance categories.
Excluding the impact of currencies, sales for the Fragrances business declined 1% during 2009 compared to 2008.
Sales by Region and Category Regional and product category sales performance for 2009 compared to 2008, in reported dollars and local currency, was as follows:
## Table 1 ##
In October 2008, we closed out a $250 million USD LIBOR to EURIBOR interest rate swap and a $250 million fixed to floating interest rate swap at no cost.
Additionally, in February 2009 we terminated a $300 million USD LIBOR to EURIBOR interest rate swap which required us to make a payment of $16 million.
See Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk (Item 7A below) for additional information regarding these transactions.
During the year ended December 31, 2009, we repurchased 75,000 shares on the open market at a cost of $2 million or an average of $26.22 per share.
For the year ended December 31, 2008, we repurchased .7 million shares of our common stock at a cost of $30 million on the open market.
For the year ended December 31, 2007, we repurchased 2.6 million shares of our common stock in the open market at a cost of $127 million, plus an additional 7.6 million shares under the ASR.
In July 2007, our Board authorized us to repurchase up to 15% or $750 million worth of our then outstanding common stock, whichever is less.
In September 2007, under the July 2007 Plan, we entered into two agreements to purchase shares of our common stock under a $450 million accelerated share repurchase (“ASR”) program.
The ASR concluded in June 2008.
Total aggregate shares repurchased under the ASR program were 9.7 million shares at an average purchase price of $46.53.
The ASR was primarily funded through the issuance of $500 million of Senior Unsecured Notes (“Senior Notes — 2007”) in four series under a Note Purchase Agreement.
See Note 8, Borrowings, to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information regarding these notes.
The Facility contains the most restrictive covenant requiring us to maintain, at the end of each fiscal quarter, a ratio of net debt for borrowed money to adjusted EBITDA in respect of the previous 12-month period of not more than 3.25 to 1.
At December 31, 2008, we were in compliance with all financial and other covenants.
At December 31, 2009 our Net Debt/adjusted EBITDA(1) was 2.08 to 1 as defined by the debt agreements, well below the financial covenants of existing outstanding debt.
Failure to comply with the financial and other covenants under these agreements would constitute default and would allow the lenders to accelerate the maturity of all indebtedness under the related agreement.
If such acceleration were to occur, we would not have sufficient liquidity available to repay the indebtedness.
We would likely have to seek amendments under the agreements for relief from the financial covenants or repay the debt with proceeds from the issuance of new debt or equity, and/or asset sales, if necessary.
We may be unable to amend the agreements or raise sufficient capital to repay such obligations in the event the maturities are accelerated.
(1) Adjusted EBITDA and Net Debt, which are non-GAAP measures used for these covenants, are calculated in accordance with the definition in the debt agreements.
In this context, these measures are used solely to provide information on the extent to which we are in compliance with debt covenants and may not be comparable to adjusted EBITDA and Net Debt used by other companies.
Reconciliations of adjusted EBITDA to net income and net debt to total debt are as follows:
## Table 2 ##
Other income increased in 2011 versus 2010 due to higher gains from real estate sales, lower environmental costs associated with non-operating properties and the comparative impact of premiums paid for early redemption of long-term debt in the first quarter of 2010.
Interest Expense – Interest expense decreased in 2012 versus 2011 reflecting a lower effective interest rate in 2012 of 6.0% versus 6.2% in 2011 as the debt level did not materially change in 2012.
Interest expense decreased in 2011 versus 2010 due to a lower weighted-average debt level of $9.2 billion versus $9.7 billion.
The effective interest rate was 6.2% in both 2011 and 2010.
Income Taxes – Higher pre-tax income increased income taxes in 2012 compared to 2011.
Our effective tax rate for 2012 was relatively flat at 37.6% compared to 37.5% in 2011.
Income taxes were higher in 2011 compared to 2010, primarily driven by higher pre-tax income.
Our effective tax rate remained relatively flat at 37.5% in 2011 compared to 37.3% in 2010.
OTHER OPERATING/PERFORMANCE AND FINANCIAL STATISTICS We report key performance measures weekly to the Association of American Railroads (AAR), including carloads, average daily inventory of freight cars on our system, average train speed, and average terminal dwell time.
We provide this data on our website at www.
up.
com/investors/reports/index.
shtml.
Operating/Performance Statistics Railroad performance measures reported to the AAR, as well as other performance measures, are included in the table below:

<table><tr><td> Sales by Destination</td><td> 2009</td><td>Percent Change</td><td> 2008</td><td>Percent Change</td><td> 2007</td></tr><tr><td>EAME<sup>-1</sup></td><td>$808</td><td>-11%</td><td>$907</td><td>6%</td><td>$858</td></tr><tr><td>North America</td><td>600</td><td>0%</td><td>601</td><td>-4%</td><td>630</td></tr><tr><td>Greater Asia</td><td>575</td><td>5%</td><td>547</td><td>13%</td><td>483</td></tr><tr><td>Latin America</td><td>343</td><td>3%</td><td>334</td><td>9%</td><td>306</td></tr><tr><td>Total net sales, as reported</td><td>$2,326</td><td>-3%</td><td>$2,389</td><td>5%</td><td>$2,277</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td></td><td colspan="6"> % Change in Sales — 2009 vs 2008</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td> Fine & Beauty Care</td><td> Functional</td><td> Ingredients</td><td> Total Frag.</td><td> Flavors</td><td> Total</td></tr><tr><td> North America</td><td> Reported</td><td> -14%</td><td> 1%</td><td> 5%</td><td> -3%</td><td> 3%</td><td> 0%</td></tr><tr><td> EAME</td><td> Reported</td><td> -24%</td><td> -3%</td><td> -11%</td><td> -13%</td><td> -7%</td><td> -11%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td> <i>Local Currency</i></td><td> <i>-18%</i></td><td> <i>2%</i></td><td> <i>-6%</i></td><td> <i>-8%</i></td><td> <i>0%</i></td><td> <i>-5%</i></td></tr><tr><td> Latin America</td><td> Reported</td><td> 8%</td><td> 4%</td><td> -2%</td><td> 5%</td><td> 0%</td><td> 3%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td> <i>Local Currency</i></td><td> <i>9%</i></td><td> <i>5%</i></td><td> <i>-1%</i></td><td> <i>5%</i></td><td> <i>4%</i></td><td> <i>5%</i></td></tr><tr><td> Greater Asia</td><td> Reported</td><td> 17%</td><td> 14%</td><td> -1%</td><td> 12%</td><td> 1%</td><td> 5%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td> <i>Local Currency</i></td><td> <i>20%</i></td><td> <i>16%</i></td><td> <i>-3%</i></td><td> <i>13%</i></td><td> <i>4%</i></td><td> <i>7%</i></td></tr><tr><td> Total</td><td> Reported</td><td> -12%</td><td> 3%</td><td> -4%</td><td> -4%</td><td> -1%</td><td> -3%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td> <i>Local Currency</i></td><td> <i>-8%</i></td><td> <i>5%</i></td><td> <i>-2%</i></td><td> <i>-1%</i></td><td> <i>2%</i></td><td> <i>0%</i></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2"> 12 Months Ended December 31,</td></tr><tr><td> <i>(In Millions)</i></td><td> 2009</td><td> 2008</td></tr><tr><td> <i>Net income</i></td><td>$195.5</td><td>$229.6</td></tr><tr><td> <i>Interest expense</i></td><td>61.8</td><td>74.0</td></tr><tr><td> <i>Income taxes</i></td><td>81.0</td><td>54.3</td></tr><tr><td> <i>Depreciation</i></td><td>72.3</td><td>69.8</td></tr><tr><td> <i>Amortization</i></td><td>6.2</td><td>6.2</td></tr><tr><td> <i>Specified items</i></td><td>24.6</td><td>22.9</td></tr><tr><td> <i>Adjusted EBITDA</i></td><td>$441.4</td><td>$456.8</td></tr></table>

Question: In As the chart 0, what is the growth rate of Total net sales, as reported between 2008 and 2009?
Answer: -0.02637