Hello, everyone, and welcome to those of you joining us on the webcast. Today we'll be focusing on the most material environmental factors of relevance to ABF's businesses. Much of what you'll hear has been underway for many years, long before the term ESG was invented, and many of the activities and programs we'll set out today started out because quite simply, they were the right thing to do, not because we wanted to be able to demonstrate our commitment to sustainability. As we've explained in previous sessions, ESG factors present opportunities for our businesses. This is not simply an exercise in risk mitigation. We'll show you today how reducing emissions and taking action to protect ecosystems makes our businesses stronger, improves their balance sheets, and we believe will be a source of competitive advantage over time. We'll also cover two key themes today that may be new to many of you. First, the critical role of byproducts and co-products from ABF businesses as feedstock for other industries. When I first visited one of our sugar plants in 1991, I remember being told that there is no such thing as waste. There are only ever products we haven't found a use for yet. That was the thinking that has led up to our sugar businesses to become a major supplier of animal feed and an important feedstock source for multiple different sectors, all of which we'll explain later. Our food and ingredients businesses are highly efficient at maximizing the value that can be derived from the crops and raw materials they use. This makes good commercial sense. It's also aligned with best practice environmental principles prioritizing waste prevention and reuse wherever possible. The second theme we'll cover is the crucial role our businesses play in carbon enablement, helping other companies and customers reduce their own emissions. The examples we'll share with you today demonstrate a substantial contribution to total emissions averted and across entire sectors. Those outcomes arise from decisions by our businesses to invest and innovate, in some cases many years ago, and they underline my point about ESG as a commercial opportunity. Let me talk briefly about our approach to ESG from a governance and strategy perspective. If you joined us for our first ESG briefing a year ago, you may remember I talked about the importance of building objectives from the bottom up rather than from the top down. I also explained that we had a fundamental belief in giving people scope and authority to create and run the best businesses they can and to take accountability for their actions. Our ESG agenda is shaped by the leaders within each business who are closest to the opportunities and risk and who benefit from detailed local knowledge, customer insights, and clear ownership of actions. It means ESG factors are not only taken into account within business strategy, they're put into effect by people at every level of the company who are trusted and empowered to exercise good judgment. All our businesses operate within a clear framework defined by the group, and material decisions for our businesses are made collaboratively, not simply imposed from head office. The board reviews each business segment in depth every year, including analysis of material ESG factors, and there are detailed reviews throughout the year of critical ESG themes across the group as a whole. Paul Lister, our Director of Legal Services and Company Secretary, oversees all ESG aspects of our businesses, working with Katharine Stewart, our Group Director of Corporate Responsibility. You'll hear from Paul and Katharine later. Sue Whalley, our Chief People and Performance Officer, has group-wide oversight of employee factors, including health, safety and diversity. The leadership team of each business is responsible and accountable for the ESG program for their business, with specialist support at operational level and from within Paul and Katharine's teams. We also have processes to ensure legal compliance standards across the group and policies and procedures to address critical governance risks such as bribery and corruption. A governance framework doesn't mean much without the right values and behaviors. We focus on action, not vague promises, and we seek to be honest wherever we don't have answers. Our culture favors taking action today wherever we can make a positive difference over promises tomorrow based on imprecise assumptions. The ambitions you'll hear about today are based on deep analysis with clearly defined and measurable intended outcomes. They're very specific, fully costed, and in almost all cases, work is already underway to achieve them. We're also focused on aligning our environmental ambitions with our social commitments. Strategies focused on the E and the S of ESG should be intrinsically linked. We believe in the pursuit of a just transition that balances action to protect the planet with a concern for the welfare of our employees and all the people in our value chain. We understand the focus on scenario planning that is central to TCFD, and as John will explain later, we have engaged with the spirit as well as the letter of TCFD reporting. I would draw a distinction between theoretical constructs based on potential future scenarios and the granular detail of real business plans designed to mitigate climate change factors at an operating level. Of course, long range thinking is essential in any business, ABF included, but it is no substitute for action in the short and medium term. We are deeply skeptical about multi-decade forward plans that gloss over the fact that much of what lies ahead cannot accurately be predicted. There will always be significant complexities as yet unknown. For example, very few companies would have placed a global pandemic at the top of their risk register in early 2019. We are even less persuaded by long-term targets that are so far in the future that the people making the commitments will not even be around to be held accountable to them. It's easy to work back from the future. It's much harder to work forwards from today. What will get us there is not a plan. We'll achieve our aims through the capabilities of our people, our collective agility as a company to adapt quickly to changing circumstances, and our willingness to invest in innovative concepts and to share best practice across the group. That's how we'll manage the many uncertainties that lie ahead. Many of our businesses have large and complex global supply chains. Each business has its own specific emissions and biodiversity-related challenges and opportunities, and each is taking action in response. In our largest businesses, those actions have been underway for some time and extend out to the end of the decade or longer. The cumulative effect of those individual actions is significant, as I hope you will agree when we have taken you through the main highlights today. You'll also see a change in how we report on ESG in future. As you all know, ESG reporting and financial reporting are beginning to converge, and we welcome this. ESG factors have always been integral to our perspective on business performance and strategy. We do not view ESG as a separate activity operating within its own rules for the benefit of its own specialist community. The themes we'll talk about today are central to our thinking as a group and will be even more embedded within our corporate reporting from November onwards. ABF absolutely can reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. In fact, I want to get us there much sooner. I think in light of the pace and breadth of the emissions reduction programs we will share with you today, we have every reason for our confidence. However, there's an important caveat. We will do what we can to go further, faster, but we cannot do this alone. Much of what is needed will depend on system change at multiple points of the value chain, including a radical reshaping of national energy policies by governments. It simply isn't credible to offer up a net zero 2050 ambition without also acknowledging that so much of what lies ahead over the next 28 years is unknown and is also beyond the control of any one company, ABF included. More of this from the team later. Our focus in the session today will be on ABF businesses where environmental factors are the most material. We'll focus predominantly on AB Sugar and a number of our other food businesses. We'll also touch on Primark, building on the points we covered when we talked about Primark's ESG agenda last September. What we will share with you will reflect the themes and priorities of the most relevant frameworks for many of you, from TCFD to the EU Taxonomy and the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation. This is not a box-ticking exercise. Our aim is to provide you with real insights into our approach to responsible environmental stewardship presented by the people who lead the work. For ABF, ESG is so much more than compliance. We always welcome your feedback and insights, and we look forward to further engagement over the months ahead. Now over to John. Great. Thanks, George. Hello, everyone. It's great to see so many of you in person again. Here's our agenda for the session. In a moment, the ABF Director of Legal Services and Company Secretary, Paul Lister, will take you through our actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the group. Mark Carr, the Group Chief Executive of AB Sugar, will briefly describe our sugar business and outline our approach to performance improvement. Paul Kenward, Managing Director of British Sugar, will provide much greater detail on this approach at British Sugar. Our Group Director of Corporate Responsibility, Katharine Stewart, will then take you through the role our businesses play in enabling other companies and their customers to reduce their own emissions. I'll then come back to talk to you about protecting value through the transition to net zero and bring you up to speed on some of the key learnings from our work on TCFD to date. George will then introduce the second part of our session, and that will be focused on biodiversity. We'll hear from David Webster, who's Director of Sustainability and External Affairs at U.K. Grocery. David will provide you with an overview of how our businesses seek to protect ecosystems and soil health and ensure effective stewardship of water resources. Katharine will then return to talk about plastics and packaging before handing back to George to conclude the session. We'll then take a short break, and then we'll open up for Q&A with analysts and investors. Let me hand over to Paul Lister now to talk about the group and the action it's taking on climate change. Paul. Thanks, John, and hello everyone. I'm going to take you through an overview of the group's programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I'll begin with a historical perspective. I will then look forward to 2030, then I'll talk briefly about the two decades from 2030 to mid-century. We've reduced our Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by around 17% in the six years since the Paris Agreement. That's largely a consequence of absolute reductions achieved by some of our largest businesses, particularly AB Sugar. It's important to look at this data in the context of overall business performance. As you can see from the slide, prior to COVID, which materially affected Primark, there had been a consistent increase in group revenue over the same period. This reduction in emissions was achieved against a background of higher sales and revenue before the start of the pandemic. AB Sugar accounts for the large majority of our reported Scope 1 emissions, and the second largest contributor is our grocery division. The main sources of our reported Scope 2 emissions are ABF Ingredients and Grocery divisions. A number of food and ingredients production processes are energy intensive. This is an overview of the group's total energy needs. Our businesses require just under 22 TWh per year, the large majority of which arises within AB Sugar, followed by Ingredients and Grocery. The data is broadly consistent year-over-year. Around 54% of total energy needs across the group as a whole are met from renewable sources. These are predominantly biomass fuels from by-products generated as a natural part of the production process within our agricultural business. Crop fiber from sugarcane, known as bagasse, accounts for the vast majority of biomass use in ABF. Several businesses also use by-products as feedstock for anaerobic digestion facilities to produce biomethane, which is then used in combined heat and power plants. Hydrocarbon sources, predominantly gas, account for just over 1/3 of our total energy needs, and the emissions from those sources are reflected in our Scope 1 reporting. Purchased electricity accounts for 8% of our total energy needs at around 1,700 GWh per year. Around 92% of the energy we derive from crop biomass is used within our businesses to power their own operations. There is a high degree of energy self-sufficiency within AB Sugar in particular. Several of our businesses are also a significant source of renewable electricity export. Last year, AB Sugar exported 855 GWh into national grids, and our Agricultural and Ingredients businesses also exported around 54 GWh. That's approaching 1 TWh per year of electricity for homes and businesses from renewable biomass sources that are a natural by-product from sugar, food, and ingredients production. That is a meaningful contribution. To put that number in context, it's equivalent to around 13% of the total electricity consumption of Tanzania, one of Africa's fastest-growing economies, or around 25% of total electricity generated by the solar PV industry in South Africa. One further point for context, the electricity from renewable sources that our businesses feed into national grids is the equivalent of 53% of the total purchased electricity we use across the group as a whole. Let's look again at the 1,700 GWh of electricity used across the group, much of which is purchased from third-party power generation companies via national grids. As you know, the majority of all power generation worldwide is fueled by coal or gas. Renewables account for around 29% of total global electricity generation, but at present this capacity is heavily weighted within developed markets. We encourage our businesses to transition to renewable energy tariffs for their purchased electricity needs wherever it is operationally and commercially feasible for them to do so. In reality, in many locations, options for this are still limited or simply do not exist, but that is changing. By 2030, around 39% of electricity purchased by the group will be in countries where renewable sources will account for the majority of power generation. We expect our Scope 2 emissions to fall significantly over time as that transition gathers pace. I'll now turn to Scope 3. We've identified the upstream, our supply chain, as the main focus for our Scope 3 reduction plans. Agricultural crops are the foundation of most of our businesses, including Primark, where cotton is the main fiber in the garments we sell. The large majority of the group's total Scope 3 upstream impact arises within Primark. We covered our plans in this area last September, but as a quick reprise, around 100 suppliers in five major sourcing countries and regions account for the large majority of Primark's upstream Scope 3 emissions. We have started work with those suppliers to design and implement energy efficiency programs and to transition to renewable energy, both on and off grid. Primark has a detailed plan to achieve a significant reduction in supplier emissions by the end of the decade. I should also highlight that these are genuine net reductions in direct and indirect supplier emissions. Primark will not need to purchase carbon offsets to meet its targets. Moving beyond Primark, we are also in the process of updating the group's overall Scope 3 benchmarking data. This is work in progress. The main focus is on AB Sugar, our Grocery division, and AB Agri. I'll turn now to our targets for 2030. A number of our largest businesses have already announced emissions reduction plans. Primark is targeting a 50% reduction across all three scopes by 2030 against a 2018 baseline. AB Sugar is targeting a 30% reduction in Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by 2030, also against a 2018 baseline. You'll hear more on this from Mark Carr in a moment. Our U.K. Grocery businesses are targeting a 50% reduction across all three scopes by 2030 against a 2015 baseline. This is aligned with the Courtauld Commitment convened by the sustainability organization WRAP to reduce emissions across the entire U.K. food chain. Our U.K. Grocery division is a signatory to that commitment. There are other programs across the group that are less material in terms of their overall emissions impact, but are still worth mentioning. For example, our tea business, Twinings, hopes to be carbon neutral bush to shelf by 2030. The cumulative impact of these activities will be to reduce total Scope 1 and 2 emissions by ABF as a whole by 32% by 2030 against a 2018 baseline. This would mean that over the 15-year period from the Paris Agreement to 2030, our total Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions will fall by more than 37% compared with the levels in 2016. We've also begun to analyze our plans under a relatively new methodology called Implied Temperature Rise or ITR. This is a way of looking at how a company's plans to reduce its emissions compare with published global temperature pathways. A company without GHG reduction targets will have a much greater impact in driving up average global temperatures by mid-century than a company with aggressive reduction targets. Emissions projections are complex to model with a high degree of uncertainty. We have taken all of the emission reduction commitments from ABF's businesses, and we factored in a range of external assumptions, including recent International Energy Agency projections. We've received assistance from external environmental advisors in collating the data and modeling outcomes. This is not an exact science, but it's a useful exercise all the same. Based on current plans across all of ABF's businesses, our analysis indicates that our 2030 targets are in line with the Paris Agreement. Our implied temperature rise is less than 1.8 degrees above pre-industrial levels by mid-century. I'll now turn to net zero by 2050. Our past track record and plans for 2030 should provide you with confidence that we're well-placed to make equally significant progress over the 20 years from 2030 to mid-century. For example, Primark are already aligned with the UNFCCC Fashion Industry Charter's goal of net zero emissions across all three scopes by 2050. George mentioned the fact that achieving net zero by 2050 will be contingent on a number of factors beyond our control. Paul Kenward will return to this point in a moment, but I hope we've provided you with a good level of comfort that we are committed to pursuing this ambition to the best of our abilities and indeed have been working towards it for many years now. I'd now like to hand you over to Mark Carr, who will explain how the concepts I've outlined have been implemented to good effect within one of our biggest businesses. Thank you, Paul, and hello everyone. I'll begin with an introduction on how our business operates, picking up on George's point in his introduction that in our business, there's no such thing as waste. Everything we produce is a feedstock for other industries. We don't just make sugar. Our facilities are highly efficient biorefineries that play a key role in other sectors' value chains. As Paul mentioned, several of our plants also generate electricity at scale from natural biomass by-products. Our raw materials are sugar beet in the U.K., Spain and China, sugarcane in Southern and East Africa, and feed wheat for our U.K. bioethanol business, Vivergo. Sugar beet is an important break crop for farmers. It's planted in rotation with cereal crops and helps improve overall soil health and increases farm incomes. Sugarcane is a multi-year crop, and it's also one of the world's largest crops on a tonnage basis. Some of the crops we grow ourselves within our own direct operations, but the majority of our volumes are purchased from third-party growers. The four main product categories derived from these simple raw materials are sugar, animal feed, biofuels, and organic chemical feedstocks used in many products, including pharmaceuticals. This is in addition to our strategically significant role as a renewable power generator. That's important context to bear in mind when considering our greenhouse gas emissions profile. Our reporting encompasses Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 transportation and distribution. We are working on a broader Scope 3 benchmarking program, and this will focus mainly on upstream in line with Paul's comments earlier. The chart shows the breakdown of our total emissions as of 2017-18, the baseline year for the emissions reduction program that I'll outline in a moment. British Sugar was the largest source of emissions in the baseline year, followed by our Illovo sugarcane business in Southern and East Africa, Vivergo, and our sugar beet businesses in China and Spain. This is a breakdown of where emissions arise within the value chain, again, based on our 2017-18 baseline reporting. The key point in the chart on the left is that the majority of our reported emissions are generated within our factory operations. Energy efficiency and process optimization programs at the factory level have a significant effect on overall emissions for AB Sugar as a whole. That's an important factor I'll come back to later when I talk about our emissions reduction targets. As you can see from the chart on the right, the sugar crystallization process accounted for around 55% of total emissions in the baseline year. Around 44% of total emissions arose from the production of bioethanol, renewable power generation, and the production of animal feed, which displaces much more carbon-intensive imported alternatives. In other words, just under half of the total reported emissions relate to our portfolio of renewable outputs that make a significant contribution to emissions reductions in other sectors. Again, we'll talk more about this later in the presentation. I'll now turn to our plans to reduce total Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by 30% by 2030. Our plans are being put into effect against the backdrop of the sharpest increase in energy prices for many years. In a U.K. context, for example, gas prices have increased from EUR 0.30 per therm before the COVID pandemic to well over 5 lbs per therm in the early weeks of the war in Ukraine. There's a similar trajectory in international coal benchmarks, which, as with gas prices, also feed into purchased electricity costs. Gas is currently around EUR 1.70 per therm, and it's clear from the U.K. gas futures market that these very high prices are expected to remain the norm for at least a year. Even long-term futures contracts out to 2028 are above pre-COVID benchmarks. Another relevant factor for context is carbon pricing. We've seen steep increases in both the U.K. and the E.U. emissions trading schemes in recent years. Sugar plants are heat and energy intensive, and purchased energy is one of our biggest costs. Maximizing energy efficiency has been a core aspect of our business for decades, as Paul Kenward will explain in a moment. We began work on our 2030 emissions reductions targets in 2018, long before the current surge in energy prices. Our plans were designed from the outset to stand on their own merits. They were not triggered by upward movements in energy markets, and we are committed to pursuing our plans even if energy prices drop back to more normalized levels in the future. That said, what made good business sense at EUR 0.30 a therm becomes even more attractive when prices are five or 10 times higher. Current inflationary factors simply strengthen the financial logic even further. This is an overview of how our emissions reduction plans translate into CapEx commitments across the business. We've already completed a number of projects that have reduced our emissions by 10% against the baseline year 2017-18. The focus on these charts is on a further 20% reduction against that baseline by the end of the decade. All projects have passed through a well-established governance process that examines each performance improvement proposal against internal rate of return criteria and ESG factors. There are a number of points to highlight here. Firstly, we can achieve a reduction in emissions of more than 200,000 tons a year, that's around 8% of the baseline total emissions with zero or low CapEx. Reducing emissions by more than 500,000 tons a year, around 20% of baseline, will require CapEx of up to GBP 100 million cumulative to 2030. For context, this is against a backdrop of typically GBP 80 million-GBP 100 million of CapEx per year across the AB Sugar division as a whole. These projects can easily be incorporated into our well-established program management resources. This is incremental change, not radical change. It's clear that reducing energy and carbon costs will be highly value accretive when compared with a base case of no further action or investment. These are affordable and commercially attractive projects, all of which are expected to achieve a return above our standard 15% internal rate of return threshold. Here's a quick example of the kind of project I'm talking about. Our Azucarera business in Spain has already switched from using gas-fired dryers to evaporate water from sugar beet pulp to solar drying at three of its four plants. Drying sugar beet pulp in the sun is a simple change. It involves very little CapEx, reduces energy costs considerably, and has reduced average Scope 1 emissions at the plants involved by around 25% per year. Total emissions averted over the last five years are just over 100,000 tons. That's an overview of the business plan behind our emissions reduction projects. I'll now turn to how we enable others to reduce their emissions through our bioethanol business, Vivergo. Vivergo is a good illustration of ABF's entrepreneurial spirit and willingness to invest in new and emerging technologies. It also underlines George's point about the opportunities presented by the transition to low and net zero carbon. We invested in Vivergo 10 years ago when E10 petrol was just emerging in Europe. Today, the blending of E10 bioethanol with petrol is a key aspect of many governments' greenhouse gas reduction strategies. Vivergo is the largest bioethanol plant in the U.K. and one of the largest in Europe. At peak, the business will use around 1 million tons of U.K. feed wheat. That's wheat that is grown for animal consumption, not milling wheat, which is used for food. One of the main co-products is protein for animal feed, and at peak capacity, the business will also be the largest single source animal feed supplier in the U.K. At full capacity, we estimate Vivergo will produce 420 million L of bioethanol per year, and when blended with gasoline at E10, this will reduce the total vehicle emissions by around 500,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent a year. I would also highlight the importance of bioethanol from an energy security perspective in light of the war in Ukraine. Vivergo is a sustainable energy source with significant downstream impact, and it is also an important domestic energy source. To conclude, and before I hand you over to Paul Kenward, we're taking a robust approach to reducing our energy consumption and emissions. We know what to do, how to do it, we can afford to do it, and the net outcome will be very tangible financial benefits. Our business also plays a strategically critical role in reducing emissions in other sectors, and in doing so is becoming an increasingly important source of long-term value creation for the group as a whole. Now over to Paul to explain how the concepts and principles I've outlined are put into practice within British Sugar. Great. Thanks, Mark. I'll begin with a little more detail on the diversity of products that we derive from sugar beet. This rather wonderful diagram is a high-level overview of how our plants operate. We are the leading sugar producer in the U.K. and Ireland. We're a major producer of animal feed, supplying more than 500,000 tons a year to the group's agri food business, AB Agri, which is around 29% of their total U.K. sales volumes. We're one of the largest bioethanol producers in the country alongside Vivergo. We produce raffinose and betaine used in nutritional supplements and personal care products. We're working to restart the CO2 liquefaction plant at Wissington later this year to produce carbon dioxide for customers in multiple industries, from food to manufacturing. We produce aggregates, lime mix used in soil conditioning and fertilizer from our anaerobic digestion plant. As we explained earlier, we're an important renewable energy source, burning biomethane from fermented sugar beet pulp to generate electricity fed into the national grid. The electricity that we purchase, reflected in our relatively small Scope 2 emissions, will be entirely renewable and therefore nil emissions from October 2022. These industrial synergies are commercially efficient. They're profitable. They're also highly efficient in environmental terms. As Mark mentioned, we focus on improving energy efficiency for decades. Every year since 1980, as you can see from the chart, we've gathered energy efficiency data within our factories and supplied this to U.K. Government as part of our regulatory returns. The metrics vary from year to year as a consequence of crop yields, campaign length, and growing conditions. For example, the sugar content in beet fluctuates from one harvest to the next, as does the amount of water within the beet. As you can see from the chart, there's been a significant downwards trend over the last 40 years. We've achieved this through continuous process improvement, informed by detailed analysis of how and where energy is consumed across the business. We've also prioritized investment in energy efficiency measures and fuel substitution. Our factory at Wissington is now one of the world's most efficient sugar plants. A ton of sugar produced today requires around half the energy needed 40 years ago. I hope you'll agree this is a strong track record, and we intend to build on it in future. We currently have 12 significant projects underway across our four factory sites, delivering emissions reductions. These have all been assessed under the well-established governance process that Mark mentioned, and they will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by more than 40,000 tons a year. Around 40% of these reductions will be achieved through process optimization, around 30% through energy efficiency measures, and the remaining 30% through switching from coal to gas. This is a snapshot from a single year's business plan, but it's typical of the actions we've undertaken year after year and at a granular level, identifying and implementing numerous small changes that cumulatively have a big impact. It's this incremental approach, site by site and process by process, that will deliver our 2030 target. There's another important dimension to consider, our customer's perspective. We sell our products to a wide range of customers. To very large B2B buyers such as Coca-Cola and Britvic, to major British supermarket groups, and ultimately to consumers. Our Silver Spoon brand is the U.K.'s market leader. Increasingly, our customers, manufacturers and retailers, care a great deal about the ESG performance of the company that supplies them. Our product is local. There are beet fields not more than 30 mi from where we're speaking to you today, from here. The journey from farm to store is short and traceable, with detailed oversight over what happens in the field. It is not produced in multiple different countries, thousands of miles away and transported by ship to the U.K. market. As you will all know, it's best practice in ESG to seek continuous improvement within the company's supply chain as well as within its own operations. Many of our business-to-business customers have detailed emissions reduction plans similar to our own, which include specific upstream Scope 3 objectives that require action on the part of their suppliers. Action from us. Last year, 34% of our total B2B sales were to customers who've required us to demonstrate in detail how our business intends to reduce its emissions over time. We expect that proportion to increase as more companies focus on their upstream Scope 3 impacts. Sustainability factors are also reshaping consumer purchasing decisions at the retail level. Our commitment to high standards in ESG is already a source of competitive advantage. We sell more volume at higher prices because of our attractive sustainability credentials. Further reducing the embedded carbon of our products will build on that advantage. Our business has always taken a long-term view of the need to optimize how we operate. Mark has set out our global ambitions to 2030, and our work will not stop at the end of the decade. Over the twenty years from 2030 to the mid-century, we will continue to drive down energy consumption and emissions beyond the 30% target we've outlined. We want to play our part in the U.K.'s mission to reach net zero by 2050. However, we're a major industrial energy user. We're reliant upon U.K. national energy infrastructure. To reach net zero in our operations, we will need the energy supplied to us via the grid to be low or zero carbon. George has highlighted the importance of action by others to accelerate the net zero transition, and I want to reiterate that point as the managing director of one of the U.K.'s largest purchasers of gas. We're already actively engaged with the U.K. government and energy providers to help shape the outcomes required. There are known technologies that could help the U.K. achieve its net zero ambitions. Green hydrogen is one possibility, as is switching to electricity to power industrial heat-intensive applications. It's likely that new technologies will emerge over time. We're optimistic that the changes required will be implemented eventually. I know that energy policy is uppermost in the minds of many in government and the wider political community, and the U.K. energy sector has already begun to map out options for the future. What's needed now is detail. How exactly will energy transmission infrastructure be upgraded, and in what timeframe? How will the economics work? How will rural locations like our sugar factories be factored into planning? We will do all we can to help accelerate the transition, but there's only so much that we can do in our own right. In a moment, I'm going to hand over to Katharine Stewart. Before I do that, I'd like to share with you some insights from our team at the Wissington plant in the U.K. Here at British Sugar, there is no such thing as waste. We have a strong track record of decarbonizing our operations and finding innovative ways to make as much value from the sugar beet delivered to our plants as possible. It starts with turning 8 million tons of sugar beet that has on average traveled 28 mi from field to plant into a range of sugar and non-sugar products. Our sugar products are supplied into the food and drink sector in the U.K., Ireland, Europe, and even across the world. They range from granulated sugar you see in your sugar bowl to a range of specialty sugars, syrups, and blends to meet the needs of our customers. We also create a range of non-sugar products. We sell over 500,000 tons of animal feed by using the fibrous material that sugar beet is made of. We receive around 200,000 tons of soil that is covering the sugar beet. We recover it and sell it as topsoil to landscaping and amenity industries. We help to decarbonize road fleets by producing up to 80 million L of bioethanol annually. We were the first company to manufacture bioethanol in the U.K., and today it is blended in unleaded car fuel known as E5 and E10. We use the pressed sugar beet pulp to generate green electricity. Our Bury Anaerobic Digester plant uses around 97,000 tons of press pulp annually and exports 38 GWh of electricity to the national grid. We use the surplus heat, carbon dioxide, and hot water from our Wissington plant to grow a crop in our 18 hectare glass house that is used in children's medicines to treat epilepsy. These are just a few of our non-sugar products that we make within our plants to create value to the benefit of our customers, the environment, and the rural communities in which we operate. Carbon enablement has always been integral to a number of our businesses and a key focus for investment and innovation. I'm going to give you a brief overview of two ABF businesses whose core purpose has a materially positive impact in reducing Scope 3 upstream and downstream emissions. AB Enzymes is an industrial biotech company that specializes in the development of enzymes used by companies in multiple industries. The business has extensive R&D expertise in molecular biology and biochemistry, and holds more than 625 active patents or patent applications. Enzymes are biological catalysts found everywhere in nature that essentially accelerate biochemical reactions. They also biodegrade rapidly, and they're a very effective alternative to petrochemical-based products. The examples I'm going to share with you have been developed in conjunction with the environmental consultancy ClimatePartner. First, the textiles industry. In the final stages of cotton production, the fabric goes through a process known as biopolishing, which cleans the surface and removes fluff. For many years, that process involved immersing the fabric in water heated to 50 degrees Celsius. Cold cellulase enzymes enable manufacturers to achieve the same quality in water heated to only 30 degrees. That reduces energy consumption by around 350 kWh for each ton of fabric processed. The major sourcing countries where these textiles are processed are China, India, and Pakistan. The primary fuel source in those countries is coal. The energy efficiency gains from enzyme use therefore translate into a large reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Every ton of fabric processed using cold cellulase supplied by AB Enzymes averts around 364 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent that would otherwise be emitted. There isn't any precise data on the volume of fabric processed in biopolishing vats each year in the major cotton sourcing countries, but a reasonable estimate is that somewhere around 10% of all cotton is processed in this way. Total cotton production volumes in Asia in 2020 were estimated at around 13.6 million tons. If around 1.5 million tons of that cotton is biopolished each year, and if all of this is processed at 30 degrees using enzymes, the emissions averted would be around 600,000 tons a year. This is a global view, and for AB Enzymes, it represents potential, not actual impact, as the cold cellulase products involved have only just launched. It does demonstrate the scope for even a fairly niche application to make a difference at scale. For context, 600,000 tons is greater than the total reported Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions for the whole of ABF's global ingredients business last year. My second example is laundry detergent. Adding enzymes to detergent enables clothes to be washed at 30 degrees Celsius as effectively as at 40 degrees Celsius. This reduces electricity consumption by around 260 kWh per 1,000 washes. It's difficult to translate that energy efficiency gain into carbon averted at a global level because of the wide variations in the fuel mix used for power generation in different countries. For example, in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, a 260 kWh efficiency gain equates to around 119 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent averted. In India, where coal predominates, that same efficiency gain equates to around 230 kg of carbon averted. If we apply the more conservative 119 kg of carbon averted to the total volume of AB Enzymes products sold to the detergent industry worldwide last year, the total carbon averted is around 630,000 tons. These modeling assumptions are only what we want to share for illustrative purposes. We don't know how consistently the company's products are used in practice, but these calculations are based on recognized positive carbon impacts from enzyme use, which we've then applied to our current or predicted sales volumes. These two examples alone equate to more than 1.2 million tons of carbon emissions averted. That's equivalent to almost 40% of the total reported Scope 1 and 2 emissions for the whole of the group last year. Even if the true impact is less than the data I've outlined would imply, it would remain significant for what are only two product lines within a single ABF company. I hope you'll agree that AB Enzymes is a valuable business with an increasingly important mission. I'll turn now to our agri-food business, AB Agri. The company's IntelliLink business has developed Farm Print Footprints, a measurement system for assessing on-farm emissions. This helps farmers optimize a number of different crop and livestock processes to reduce carbon impact and increase livestock yields. As you know, livestock are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions globally. Animal feed supplied to AB Agri from British Sugar displaces the use of imported soya hulls. The embedded carbon within imported soya hulls fed to U.K. Dairy herds is estimated at around 1.8 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per tonne of product. Fiber from U.K. sugar beet is estimated at around 460 kg of carbon per tonne of product. That's around 75% lower than the imported alternative. What I've shared with you is no more than a small subset of the work underway across our businesses to manufacture products that reduce other companies' and customers' emissions. I should also add that we've assessed these positive impacts purely to inform our own understanding. We do not include any of these indirect effects within ABF's own emissions reporting. I hope you'll agree it's worth highlighting the role our businesses play in supporting broader system change within other sectors, even if only at an illustrative level. Before I hand you over to John, there are some further insights from the team at ABF Ingredients. ABF Ingredients is a specialty ingredients division of Associated British Foods. It comprises six global businesses, each impacting many aspects of the lives of consumers all over the world. We provide manufacturers across many sectors ranging from pharma, food, to human and animal nutrition or industrial businesses with specialty ingredients which have a specific role to play in our customers' end products or production processes. A core part of the ABF Ingredients business is supplying enzymes, which serve as catalysts to accelerate diverse biochemical reactions. When our customers apply our enzymes in their industrial processes, it allows them to minimize their energy consumption, increase their production yields, decrease their waste generation, and therefore helps them reduce their own carbon impact. Many of our enzyme solutions are indeed specifically designed to significantly reduce the carbon intensity of the processes they are applied in, such as baking, textile, pulp and paper, and detergents. Our research and development teams leverage biotechnology to select, develop, and optimize our enzymes so that they provide an ever greater enabling effect in helping our customers and their end users reduce their emission and their impact on ecosystems. It is part of the innovation project goals right from the start, and it gets validated once the customer we partner with confirm through real scale industrial tests that indeed they can measure the benefits our enzymes were created for to protect the environment through reduced energy usage, increased yields, reduction of waste generation, and emissions or else. I'm incredibly proud to be part of an amazing group of talented people across ABF who are creating more environmentally friendly solutions that help safeguard a viable future for us all. The presentations by AB Sugar demonstrate the commercial advantages for that business from the maximization of energy efficiency, which of course delivers a significant reduction in carbon emissions and the breadth of their renewable co-products, which in turn enable other businesses to decarbonize. The value creation opportunities are clear, but it's equally important that value should be protected as companies mitigate climate change and adapt when necessary. We will report on TCFD more fully in our financial results this November. In preparing for this, we have already reached some significant conclusions, which I would like to share with you today. We have conducted a high-level review of the potential risks across the group and as a result have then focused on AB Sugar, Primark and Twinings, which account for some three-quarters of the adjusted operating profit for the group and some 70% of the group's total Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. Today, I will cover AB Sugar and Primark, and in November, we'll also include the analysis for Twinings. Our analysis encompasses the supply chain as well as the operations of our businesses. For those areas of risk that we identified, we have used climate change scenarios and analysis supported by the environmental consultancy, South Pole. I will then cover both the transition and physical risk factors. Before I give you the detail, it's important not to underestimate our existing capabilities across the ABF group to react and adapt to major unforeseen events. Our response to the challenges of COVID over the last two years is very much evidence of this. It's been a real strength of the group. I think we can also expect companies generally, and indeed countries, to adapt their operations as they seek to mitigate the effects of climate change. TCFD is a framework with a principal focus on financial risks and opportunities. I can assure you that we're taking the potential human impacts of climate change very seriously, and we will share our thinking with you on this in due course. Let me begin with transition factors out to 2030, looking first at AB Sugar. Mark Carr has already explained how AB Sugar's plans to reduce carbon emissions are also affordable and commercially attractive. Paul Kenward then demonstrated British Sugar's long-term track record of successfully implementing projects and work in this area. We have also looked at the likely increase in cost to our sugar business arising from carbon pricing mechanisms, and our work gives us confidence that those increases would not have a material impact on the overall operating profit for the group. Our presentation today has highlighted that AB Sugar is an important source of renewable energy and co-products that reduce upstream and downstream emissions for other businesses. The transition to net zero clearly represents significant opportunities for our sugar business. In September last year, we presented the comprehensive and ambitious ESG program, which is being implemented by Primark over the period to 2030, known as Primark Cares to our customers. As a brief reminder, the increasing costs arising from Primark Cares, net of mitigating actions taken by both ourselves and our suppliers, will be modest and manageable within the context of the Primark business model as a whole. Although inflationary pressures have intensified since September and have made the general business environment more difficult, this margin guidance in respect of Primark Cares does not change. We firmly believe that both existing and the next generation of customers will recognize Primark's commitment to sustainability and will respond positively. Let me now turn to climate-related physical risks. In evaluating the scenarios for physical risk, we have used the IPCC representative concentration pathway model. This translates emissions pathways into average global warming events. You will need no reminding that the greater the RCP number, the worse the effect of climate change will be by the end of the century. Our evaluation covers RCP 2.6, which was the base case ambition for the Paris Agreement, and RCP 8.5, which is considered to be the very worst possible outcome, representing global warming of some 4 degrees above pre-industrial levels. I'll begin with British Sugar. The climate models indicate that winters in the U.K. will be warmer and wetter by 2030. Our work done under both RCP pathways on the U.K. regions where sugar beet is grown indicates a likely increase in typical crop yield. Our analysis indicates average crop yields in 2030 will be some 8% higher under both pathways. Clearly a positive for yields. However, this likely increase is still smaller than some of the year-on-year variation seen over recent decades. These warmer conditions would also increase the potential for crop diseases. In this regard, British Sugar has a strong existing capability in developing solutions to mitigate the impact of a number of diseases. I'll now turn to Illovo. Its operations are situated across the broad region of Southern and East Africa. The consequence of global warming in this region is to increase the volatility of weather conditions and to increase the risk of droughts and wildfires in some areas within the region. It will not be a surprise to you that the Illovo team has always dealt with the consequences of severe weather conditions in any year, and that includes the damage created by cyclones and flash flooding. Illovo is building further on its capability to deal with the increased likelihood of these events. Coming on to the effect on average crop yields. The two models used to predict the effects in this environment do give different results. Although one model indicates the potential for a large net increase across the whole region, the other model indicates a range of impacts depending on location, with some areas not experiencing any impact, while others would see a reduction in yield of up to 11% in any year. The scale of the worst-case scenario would be less than the year-on-year variations that we've already seen in this business. We have determined that the two most important factors for Primark are the risks to cotton yields generally and of coastal flooding to garment production in Bangladesh and China. Today, I'll present our analysis on Bangladesh. Our work on China is underway, and we'll report on that in due course. As we explained to you in September, cotton is currently 57% of the total fiber mix of the garments sold by Primark. Bangladesh has become a major sourcing country for garment production and currently accounts for 22% of all products sold by Primark. Turning first to cotton. Last September, we described to you the Primark Sustainable Cotton Program. Over the years, it's proven to be very successful and it's growing strongly. Further significant expansion is planned, and we now expect that cotton sourced from this program will account for the majority of our global cotton procurement by 2030. This slide shows the regions in India and Pakistan where the program operates. I'd like to remind you that the success of this scheme to date has been largely driven by the advice and support for smallholders to enable them to improve cotton yields while reducing the volume of water and application of chemical fertilizer. The climate-related physical risks for cotton production are extreme temperatures, heavy rainfall, and the timing and duration of the monsoon season. Our work on the climate change scenarios to 2030 show that the effects on cotton yields are minimal. The outcomes range from virtually no impact under one pathway to a reduction of some 4% under the worst-case scenario. Again, these variations are well within the bounds of the year-on-year variations that we already see, and even then, the capability is in place to work with smallholders to mitigate these effects. Now, garment manufacturing in Bangladesh. Many of the factories of Primark's Bangladeshi suppliers are in the greater Dhaka region. This is a low-lying, densely populated area on the Ganges Delta, and it's exposed to coastal flooding, which can be particularly acute due to storm surges. The Dhaka authorities are well aware of the region's current exposure to extreme weather events. The Bangladeshi government's nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement includes a focus on the need for infrastructure investment to build resilience and develop their management of disaster risk. Already, some suppliers have moved their factories away from the areas known to be at the greatest risk from flooding. In our first ESG briefing in March last year, we described the rigorous structural integrity program conducted by our well-established local team in Dhaka. Later this year, this team will begin to assess the exposure to flood risk at every supplier factory location. This assessment will become part of our regular evaluation of the structural integrity of these factories. These risks are increasingly being taken into account in government planning and in our suppliers' own contingency planning. We have also examined coastal flooding risk for the container freight stations and the two port facilities and will report on this in due course. We've looked at exposure for each of the points on this map, and we have considered the percentage of Primark order units at risk under each RCP pathway. We've used 1997 as a historical baseline to assess the impact on these locations of severe coastal flooding based on decades of local weather data. We estimate that a one in 100 year coastal flood in the baseline year would have put at risk some 4.4% of the total order units placed by Primark in Bangladesh. Under both the RCP pathways, the proportion of order units at risk rises minimally to some 5% of total order units by 2030. The breadth of locations in Bangladesh and in other countries demonstrate that these risks are very manageable within the Primark supply chain. However, we understand the consequences of flooding for supply chain workers and likely sustainability of those locations that could become flooded. We should also recognize the work of the government and local authorities over many decades to protect people from flooding. These scenarios, therefore, do not represent a material risk for the group. I have presented the scenarios on climate change factors for the period to 2030. Over this period, there is more confidence in the climate change models and hence the outcomes. Not surprisingly, the variability of outcomes for longer-term scenarios to 2050 is much greater, and so we use this 2050 data to check our sense of direction. Our plans are focused on the period to 2030. The benefit we have seen from developing the long-term scenarios, however, is that they've added emphasis to and provided focus for our businesses' strategic plans. Let me now hand you back to George. Thank you very much, John. We're now gonna turn to the aspects of biodiversity that are most relevant to ABF businesses. We've always understood the connection between ecosystem health and business performance. Protecting ecosystems isn't simply a matter of compliance. It's not self-consciously good or responsible or something we do to create nice photographs for the annual report. It is, I think, innate to who we are, how we work, and how we create value. The large majority of our revenues are derived from what we and our suppliers grow and harvest from the soil, including cotton, the primary fiber within the garments sold by Primark. Our commitment to ecosystem protection is fundamental to our long-term existence as a company. In this section of our presentation, we will cover the three biodiversity themes that are most material for the group. We'll talk about our programs designed to protect ecosystems and ensure sustainable soil quality and health. We'll talk about our stewardship of water resources, and then we'll talk about our efforts to reduce and, where possible, eliminate single-use plastic packaging. As with our action on climate change, when addressing ecosystem challenges, it's essential to focus resources and expertise where the risks are most acute and consequential. These are the three areas where we can make the greatest difference within our own businesses and where we have the greatest potential to influence outcomes across the supply chain. There are many other biodiversity factors beyond these topics, of course, and our overall ESG agenda is broader than these three. We think it's more helpful to give you some detailed insights into the areas that matter most for the group rather than run through the entirety of our ESG program. We will, of course, gladly answer any questions you may have on other topics when we turn to Q&A. I'd like now to hand you over to David Webster. David is Director of Sustainability and External Affairs at U.K. Grocery, leading the ESG programs within one of our largest business divisions. He will be presenting today on behalf of ABF as a group, drawing on his experience implementing programs to protect ecosystems and enhance biodiversity. David. Thank you, George. Let me begin with some context on how we seek to maximize soil quality and health and protect ecosystems. Our businesses and our suppliers grow and harvest crops in a very wide range of agricultural environments where the interventions required to promote sustainability vary considerably. Our ambition is to strengthen the resilience and efficiency of our agricultural supply chains to ensure that crop yields and quality meet consumer need. In parallel, we seek wherever possible to sustain the local habitats and ecosystems that are essential for ABF today and into the future too. For our businesses, the food chain is tangible and visible. Many of our farm suppliers are located close to our own operations and in some cases involve personal relationships that go back many years. If the ecosystems upon which our businesses depend are being damaged, it is manifestly in our interest to stop that from happening. We're closely following the development of the new biodiversity framework proposed by the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures. We're also tracking the progress of the UN Global Biodiversity Framework under discussion at COP15 in Kunming. We think there's already a good degree of alignment between our approach and the foundational principles within those two draft frameworks. It's often assumed that conventional farming practices achieve efficiency at the expense of the environment. That does not have to be the case. It all depends upon the context. Agricultural science and technology determine food security outcomes for billions of people. They're also central to efforts to decarbonize farming. It's important to seek the right balance between food production efficiency and environmental stewardship. Both are equally important. I'm now going to share some brief examples demonstrating our broader approach to working with suppliers to protect ecosystem services and promote regenerative farming practices in our supply chains. First, an example from the U.K. Jordans Cereals was one of the first brands in the U.K. to differentiate on the basis of its values and has supported wildlife in its U.K. farm supply chain since 1985. The Jordans Farm Partnership was set up six years ago in its current form. Contracted farmers within the partnership are paid a premium for their grain. In return, they agree to manage at least 10% of their land for the benefit of wildlife. That proportion is now an average of 17% of the total farmland managed under the partnership of around 15,000 ha. That's a total farm area equivalent to around 8% of the total U.K. farmland used to grow oats. We've taken a similar approach in the almond industry in California. Jordans supports the Seeds for Bees program, which provides wildflower seeds for ground cover in almond orchards. The ground cover provides forage for pollinators and boosts soil health and water infiltration to improve crop resilience. Jordans Cereals' contribution to the Seeds for Bees program provides ground cover that's equivalent to the total acreage of orchards supplying the business with almonds. Where our businesses are dependent upon market pricing for competitiveness but also have close links to a specific supply chain, we aim to inform and influence agricultural sustainability standards for the sector as a whole. Allied Mills is one of the U.K.'s largest millers, producing flour from wheat grown across the U.K. Under the Allied Mills Wheat Sustainability Supply project, a select group of farmers supplying Allied Mills adopt agricultural techniques that improve soil quality and health and land use practices that support wildlife. The project was developed in a partnership with Frontier, ABF's joint venture business, and as with the Jordans Farm Partnership, the farmers receive a premium grain price in return. The project stipulates crop rotation and minimal tillage to build up organic matter within the soil and increase fertility. Farmers must also establish a recognized stewardship scheme with at least 5% of farmland managed for wildlife habitats. The project is designed to enhance the U.K. wheat industry's broader understanding of sustainable farm management practices. It's relatively new, and we're only in the initial stages of capturing and analyzing the data, but the early indications are positive. Similarly, Westmill is a major supplier of rice to the U.K. market, much of which is grown in India and Pakistan. The business is now working with a key supplier in Pakistan to embed the supply chain standards defined in the Sustainable Rice Platform established under the United Nations Environment Program. Rice cultivation is water-intensive. It's also estimated to account for around 10% of global methane emissions produced by bacteria in the soil of flooded rice paddies. Better irrigation techniques can significantly reduce those emissions. Westmill supplier provides on-farm training in sustainable farming techniques designed to reduce water consumption and minimize pesticide use within an integrated farm management approach. In the most recent assessment in 2020, Westmill found that the program reduced water consumption by 25% and on-farm greenhouse gas emissions by 48%. Importantly, the program also increased yields by 20% and net incomes for farmers by 38%. Westmill is now helping scale up the program by supporting efforts to double the number of farmers involved from 600 to 1,200. The goal is to ensure that at least 20% of all rice purchased by Westmill is grown to Sustainable Rice Platform standards by 2024. Westmill is also considering expanding the program into Thailand. In other areas that are also relevant from a biodiversity perspective, but where we have less direct capacity to influence the supply chain, we seek to be active partners within multi-stakeholder initiatives. We work closely with peers and other parties to develop and support best practice approaches. Let's take palm oil, for example. We're a much smaller purchaser than many other global food businesses, accounting for just 0.07% of total global volumes purchased each year. Most of those volumes are palm oil fractions or derivatives that are used in food ingredients. Therefore, we can best bring about change as part of a collective effort. The group has been a member of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil for more than a decade, and our U.K. grocery businesses all use 100% physically certified sustainable palm inputs. Similarly, most of the soya we buy is purchased by AB Agri, and again, the proportion of global volumes is very small, around 0.18% of the total. AB Agri has committed to eliminating deforestation across its soya supply chain by 2025 as an active member of the U.K. Roundtable on Sustainable Soya. Around 80% of the soya AB Agri already buys in the U.K. is now certified as being zero deforestation. Cocoa is another example. Our largest purchaser is Ovaltine. The business is a member of the World Cocoa Foundation, and all cocoa bought by Ovaltine in Europe is now 100% UTZ-certified. ABF businesses were also among the founders of the Ethical Tea Partnership and the Sustainable Rice Platform and are also represented at board level on the cross-industry Sustainable Agriculture Initiative Platform. Let me now turn to our approach to water resource management across our own operations. AB Sugar accounts for the majority of water usage across the group, almost all of which relates to crop irrigation within Illovo. Across ABF as a whole, 97% of water is abstracted from surface water sources such as rivers and lakes, and 75% of total water use arises from rain-fed and irrigated crops. Illovo has a long-standing performance improvement program focused on optimizing water use. The business takes a strategic approach to water efficiency across its estate with continuous investments in enhanced irrigation systems. Around 82% of the Illovo sugarcane estate is irrigated, with the remainder being rain-fed. Illovo is also developing enhanced data analytics tools to monitor water usage throughout the value chain. Early indications are that this new technology could reduce water loss through leakage by up to 9% and increase crop yields by up to 3 tons per hectare using the same net water volumes. AB Sugar is targeting a 30% reduction in water usage by 2030, and Illovo is central to that ambition. Here are some insights from the field in Malawi. Here at Illovo Sugar Africa, we operate across six countries and strive to increase our water efficiency and reduce water losses through our water stewardship programs. It starts in our mills. With sugarcane being more than 70% water, we capture this within our sugar-making process for processing, steam, and power generation before recycling back for irrigation. This recycled water is then diverted for use in irrigation and other purposes where possible. We then have over 77,000 hectares of sugarcane grown, and we're focused on maintaining water canals around our sugarcane estates to minimize evaporation, installed flow meters to improve monitoring of water used for irrigation, created boreholes to reduce reliance on municipal water, deployed drip technologies including drip line and sprinkler, raised awareness about water conservation through community campaigns, and there are more. Today we're at Nchalo Sugar Estate in southern Malawi, which is more than 12,000 ha. Water is critical for our sugarcane crop to grow. Rainfall plays an important role, but we also need to irrigate, as our crop needs about 10 mL of water every day. Over the past five years, we have invested in all our irrigation systems, but in particular focused on drip irrigation. New drip technology enables us to use every drop of water onto the crop. We currently have 2,000 hectares drip irrigated, which is 15% of our estates. We are also reducing water losses during transportation to irrigation systems by introducing a mobile app. This app provides data at your fingertips to inform decisions on when and how to apply water, movement of water, and identifying leakages that need fixing, all based on real-time data. This mobile app solution was the winning idea from the Innovate Irrigation Challenge launched in 2019 by AB Sugar. Our ambition across the Illovo Group is to conserve water, ensure more crop per drop, and be more efficient in producing more with less reliance on natural resources. The other business I'd like to highlight is AB Mauri, the group's yeast and bakery ingredients business. Yeast production relies on water that is used in production and then treated and returned to the environment. Over the last 12 years, the business has developed and implemented a comprehensive strategy to enhance the quality and effectiveness in its water treatment processes, investing more than GBP 75 million since 2010 to ensure that its plants meet or exceed all regulatory requirements. The business is steadily increasing its rate of treated water recycled back into ecosystems. For every 5 L used, just under 4 L now flow back into water courses after processing. Let's hear from the AB Mauri team directly. AB Mauri is ABF's yeast and bakery ingredients business. This is AB Mauri's plant in the city of Hull in England, where we produce yeast for the bakery and the distillers markets. Water plays a critical role in the production of yeast. It is the medium in which yeast cells live, grow, and reproduce. After growing and harvesting the yeast, it is vitally important that we treat the used water so it can be safely returned to the environment. Over many years, AB Mauri has invested in developing these water treatment technologies to improve our industry environmental impacts and to drive a high degree of water circularity. These technologies include biological water treatment, water evaporation, and reverse osmosis. Here in this yeast plant in Hull, we use biological water treatment, which makes use of bacteria to improve water quality. The main process step is called anaerobic digestion. This same technology is used by our plants in Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, and Spain. In our plants in Turkey, India, Italy, and China, we use water evaporation and reverse osmosis technologies. Not only do these processes improve water quality, but they also generate co-products, biogas in the case of biological water treatment, which we use in a combined heat and power engine to produce approximately 40% of the electricity and hot water required to run the yeast plant. This is a great example of how technology not only help us with water stewardship, but also generates a renewable energy source, helping us to reduce our environmental impact. In the final stage of our presentation today, we're going to cover plastic and packaging. We fully recognize the harmful effects of plastic waste on ecosystems. We also recognize that plastic packaging plays a vital role within the food industry in keeping food products safe. Wherever possible, we're removing unnecessary and problematic plastic packaging. Where there's currently no viable alternative to plastic packaging, we're increasing our use of recycled content and support the principle of circularity. To that end, we're increasing the recyclability of our packaging materials wherever we can. However, as I'll explain in a moment, there also remain barriers within the global recycling sector, some of which are beyond our direct control. Here's an overview of the packaging materials used across all of ABF's businesses. Paper is the main packaging material across the group, followed by plastic and glass. We also use wood, steel, aluminum, and a number of other different materials. We're a very small scale purchaser of plastic in global terms. Total volumes are around 48,000 tons a year. For context, global single-use plastic volumes are estimated at around 130 million tons a year. That said, we're clear on the need for action on our part. Primark is the largest user of plastic packaging across ABF, followed by our U.K. Grocery division, ACH, who produce Mazola oil, AB Sugar, and GWF in Australia, who produce grocery products. Within U.K. Grocery, more than 1/3 of all plastic packaging is used within Allied Bakeries, followed by AB World Foods. Primark's goal is to eliminate all single-use plastic by 2027. Our U.K. Grocery businesses are signatories to the WRAP U.K. Plastics Pact commitment. I'll come back to Primark and U.K. grocery in a moment. While it's important that businesses like ABF take action to address the issues of plastics damaging the environment, we also need much higher levels of collection and recycling than is currently available today. There are several challenges to overcome. Globally, municipal recycling collection rates are far too low. Even plastic that can easily be recycled often ends up discarded as waste because collection schemes are ineffective or in many developing markets do not exist at all. There's also a supply-side barrier to circularity. Our food businesses need packaging that is certified to food grade standards. Most recycled plastics processed via conventional mechanical methods are not food safe. As a result, there isn't enough material available and demand outstrips supply in many countries. The type of plastic used is also important. Flexible polymers used to protect food are often not collected for recycling, even if they are technically recyclable, like our bread bags. New chemical recycling technologies that break down flexible polymers to a molecular level to create food-safe packaging are now available, but not yet at scale in all countries, including the U.K. That's why we support a number of multi-stakeholder initiatives across the value chain. I'll now take you through some brief examples to illustrate how we're taking action within some of our biggest businesses. In our last session in September, we talked about Primark's program to eliminate single-use plastic by 2027. Hangers account for around 2/3 of total plastic volumes used within Primark. The business is moving to a reuse model and is also switching to cardboard for certain product categories. Hangers will be made from 100% recycled content, as will on-product poly packaging. To date, Primark has removed more than 500 million units of single-use plastic from the business. Our U.K. Grocery business is signatories to the U.K. Plastics Pact. This aims to create a circular economy for packaging by ensuring that 100% of plastics used are reusable, recyclable or compostable by 2025. The pact also focuses on eliminating the use of problematic plastics and incorporating recycled content into packaging. Our grocery businesses are also researching alternative packaging formats. However, for some product categories, non-plastic alternatives are either not viable from a food safety perspective or have other negative environmental consequences. There are a lot of trade-offs that need to be considered. Our ambition is to work in partnership across the grocery value chain towards creating a closed loop for food packaging. More than 82% of U.K. Grocery plastic packaging is now either widely recycled or can easily be recycled where collection and facilities exist, and our businesses are also focused on increasing the use of recycled content in its packaging. For example, Allied Mills has launched new plastic packaging for one of its Kingsmill bread lines in the U.K., incorporating 30% recycled content made from a chemically recycled polymer. This is an important innovation, and it's the first of its kind at scale in the world. We'd use more of this material if we could, but there are significant supply side constraints. Similarly, AB World Foods removed the PVC tray from their poppadom packaging to help eliminate problematic plastic from their supply chain in line with this commitment. This one initiative alone removes about 590 tons of PVC a year. That's around 7% of total plastic volumes used across the U.K. grocery as a whole. There's another similar example from Australia and New Zealand. GWF Tip Top Bakery business is targeting 100% recyclable, reusable or compostable packaging within the next three years. In November last year, Tip Top began to replace the little tags on bread bags that keep the loaf fresh. The tags are made from plastic. Now they're made from recycled cardboard. That one simple change will take more than 400 million small plastic items out of circulation. Taking action on plastic is often an incremental process, working through dozens of different products, pack designs and production processes, one by one to look for alternatives. Success comes from the accumulation of numerous changes, each delivered as quickly as possible and in some cases, through innovative new approaches. I've given you a brief insight into a handful of current programs, but there are more underway beyond these, and we look forward to updating you on the outcomes in the future. Now over to George to conclude the session. Thank you, Katharine. We've shared a lot of information with you today, but there are a few points I'd like to emphasize before we take a short break and then reconvene for Q&A with investors and analysts. There is a lot of activity underway across the group to decarbonize today with specific and costed plans to 2030 and a clear intent beyond that to reach net zero by 2050, if not sooner. We've presented the most salient examples to you today, but there is a lot more in progress beyond the businesses that we've highlighted. We also see an important role for our businesses to help others reduce their carbon emissions, in many cases, materially so. We hope you now understand the interconnected nature of our businesses with some other industries and in some cases with each other. All of what we do is underpinned by a deeply held belief that waste is never waste. It's a valuable commodity, an approach which is both environmentally and commercially efficient. Most importantly, we consider responsible and enduring stewardship of natural resources to be the ultimate source of so much of the value that we create as a business. Finally, to bring all of this together, here's a view from the sharp end, on the farm. Our Jordans Farm Partnership encapsulates much of what we've talked about this afternoon. We'll hear some insights from the people who put these principles into practice. We'll take a short break before moving on to Q&A. I'm the fourth generation on this farm. When I was in my early teens, the hedges were cut very short. Every ditch was dug out, but that's actually very valuable habitat. The idea that healthy food needs to be grown in a healthy environment has been part of the Jordans DNA from the very start, and for decades we've been working with our farmers to create wildlife rich and friendly habitats. The Jordans Farm Partnership is a pioneering collaboration between ourselves, The Wildlife Trusts, LEAF, and the Prince's Countryside Fund to focus on sustainability across our entire U.K. farm supply chain. It is a holistic approach to sustainability across the partners, and it's one that we're really proud of. We've cultivated up this plot here specifically to help the woodlarks breed. I've heard three males singing this morning. That's really good news. Habitat management is challenging. The farmer needs to actually provide those habitats. They're sown habitats. Pollen and nectar plots, wild bird food plots, hedgerows, they need to be looked after with as much care really as the crops. We've got this plot where we're trying to provide as much food as we can for pollinators, all the bugs. See the clovers and things. That'll be up to here. Yeah. I had always felt that if nature is doing well around us, then we're probably doing something right for the crops we're growing. There's no reason that we can't have conservation going on right next to efficient food production. The LEAF Marque provides a management framework to achieve a high standard of soil health, decarbonization, water quality, while also boosting productivity and benefiting the environment. If we're wanting to reverse the declines in biodiversity, then it's a long-term commitment. I'm fortunate in that what I do, I absolutely love. This time of year is actually a good time to see tadpoles. That's always a good sign of a nice healthy pond. I have worked with The Prince's Countryside Fund, mentoring some students. Farming has huge challenges. The important thing is to educate the next generation so that there is more awareness of habitat and sustainability. I love seeing the seasons. I've seen the farm grow and looking for ways that we can improve the environment that we're in and the business we want to drive forward. Fabi, welcome back. You've got the instructions there. Can I just add to it that if you're in the room here, grab the microphone. We'll hear you in the room, but not online. If you grab the microphone and maybe say your name and the institution that you are representing. At that point, we'll take our first question here in the room. Thank you. It's Anne Critchlow from Société Générale. I've got two questions, please. One on Primark and one on food. You've said today that margin guidance from the Primark Cares program does not change versus last September. With pressure building from input costs and the sustainability program progressing, do you think there's downside risk to consensus margins for Primark? Then in food, very similarly, how could the input cost inflation that you flagged back at the first-half results recently, together with the sustainability programs that you have, perhaps impact the margin in the years to come? Thank you. Great. Thank you very much, Anne. I think probably why don't I start off by at least trying to answer that. Let me take Primark first of all. You remember that back in September, we gave you a lot of detail on Primark Cares and really there were three main pillars there. It was about planet, people and product. Let me take each one and maybe just see what have been the effects of the inflation that we're seeing since September to now on those. Let me take planet first of all. You remember that the very big target in there was a reduction in carbon emissions across the three scopes by 2030. Now, a very big part of that was obviously working with our suppliers in reducing their carbon emissions. I think I dare suggest that probably with the rise in energy prices, it's very likely that suppliers will want to get on with trying to manage out probably very expensive energy in there. I think probably on the carbon reduction, these higher prices are actually working for us. In people terms, there are obviously a number of subsets to each pillar. Probably the main one there is working towards our suppliers paying their workers a living wage by 2030. Our guidance, I think, already recognized the need for wage increases that were real, so in other words, above inflation. I think really in those terms, on a relative basis, I don't think there's really too much of a change there. Let me come on to product. I think there are a number of substitutions that we were looking. I mean, not least getting rid of the plastic hangers and going to a reinforced cardboard substitute. It was the net of mitigation that I think was a key there. I think the industries supplying Primark, I think will probably evolve as different products are required by them. I think net-net, I think it's probably important that I think at this stage I wouldn't change the guidance around Primark Cares. Let's just talk about food for a moment. The big one I think, which should have been, I hope, is a pleasant surprise for people, you know, attending this, is the message given by Avishay Gal. I thought it was very powerful. You know, the economic opportunities of the transition to net zero, I think came through very strongly, and I hope you agree with that. I think that really is a positive in terms of margins going forward. We may talk later about some of the things that we will do because of inflation and the current environment we're in. I think what we'll see is probably more resilience built into our supply chains. That resilience, I think will come at some cost, but I don't think it's material. Overall, I think I would combine the two. That's the question. Thank you. I think Warwick Okines is here. Thank you. We're missing you, Clive. We'll come back to you. Thank you. Warwick Okines from BNP Paribas Exane. You touched on these in your presentation and mentioned it just now, but I've got two questions about the weather, please. First, do you think weather volatility will be a driver of incremental inflation, adding to the Ukraine and Covid inflation that we're already seeing? Second, should we expect greater volatility in group profitability from environmental changes, environmental conditions changing? Do we think there'll be an impact on group profitability? Great. I think that's a great question. Clearly environmental volatility is a direct consequence of climate change. George, what's your view about? Yeah. Does that feed through to earnings? I think we have to adapt our supply chains to the likely reality of weather volatility. We have to make them more robust. We have to have more sources of supply, if we can't rely so year in, year out on the same one. We can do that. We learned that those lessons through COVID, as well. I don't think more generally that weather volatility need necessarily flow through to earnings volatility. I think you do need to adapt. I think that there was just a couple of things to add. You've seen through the TCFD work we've done out to 2030 that actually the model impacts aren't that great in the big bits of the business, and I think that is reassuring. I think the second thing to say about weather volatility is that, perhaps because we've been involved in Africa for a number of years and we've been in Australia for a long time, we've lived with weather volatility in those, in both those markets. The Australian weather systems have always been unpredictable. You go back 200 years there, that they've moved around a lot. I can show you just loads of pictures and videos of extreme weather events in Australia. Floods, fires, plagues of mice, everything. We've learned to live with it. Australia's learned to live with it. We've learned to live with it. Just to pick up a point that John made about sort of potential things that we need to change, though. I think we do need multiple sourcing if we're able to find it. And maybe that comes at an added cost. Shouldn't, but might. We need, I think, a little bit less just in time in the system. That again, I think was a lesson through COVID. A little bit more stock, a little bit more spare capacity, I think is a good idea. Then whatever we can do to think about things that build resilience, all really important. There is a tremendous commercial opportunity if you're the only person who can supply. We've seen that for a few times in the last six months in particular. I think it's well worthwhile, us getting into a place where we mightn't be the very slickest supply chain, but we will be the most resilient. Great. Thanks, Warwick. Shall we take the next one? Clive. Clive here. Yeah. Thank you. Clive Black from Shore Capital. Three questions. First of all, one for maybe for George, just in terms of, has food security been repriced? And is there a contradiction perhaps between environmental goals and feeding people? Secondly, around soil health, what programs do you have to measure soil health? Because if you kinda don't measure it's puzzling as to where you wanna be and how you get there. And then lastly, you gave us a lot of 2030 targets. Where do you expect sustainable rice to be in 2030? 'Cause I think it was 2024 you put on your slide. Thank you. Great. Thanks, Clive. George, do you want to take food security first? Yeah. I mean, I think we've been reminded in the last three years, and most recently from Ukraine, that food security must be, well, for me, the most important goal of policymakers. That while we transition agriculture and food supply chains to a more sustainable world, we have to balance that with the need to feed everyone. The biggest... Has it been repriced? I don't know, but it certainly, you know, the loss of Odesa is a huge problem that will take resolving. It'll and I think we'll see that reverberating for two, three years. I was pleased to see the Governor, Bank of England yesterday, talking about agricultural prices remaining higher or being higher than they'd expected and remaining higher for longer. I think he's absolutely right. For me, alongside the unquestioned environmental improvements that the whole industry needs to make, must be balanced the need to feed people abundantly and affordably. Yeah. Great. Thanks, George. Shall we move on to soil health? I might suggest that it's both Katharine and David that might want to come in here. I think it was Clive asking about measures for that. Mm. Katharine, do you want to kick that off for us? Yes. I think, you know, biodiversity, as you can see, there's some sort of significant piece of work within the group that's been going on for a long time, of which one is the Jordans Farm Partnership, which I defer to David on that. But there are other parts of the group. For example, the cotton program, which we talked about in September, the next evolution of that is gonna be focused on biodiversity. Part of that will be around soil health. Part of it will be around, you know, more regenerative techniques beyond what we're already doing. That's also around, you know, how do we actually keep this sort of integrity of soil in place, and it prevents soil erosion through planting trees and things like that. I think it's fair to say that it is a complex area and measurement and how we do it and the implications of different geographies, different types of farming techniques. The sort of actual culture of what's there is going to be very different. We're putting a lot of effort into working out what that measurement should look like so that we can make sure that we are doing things as effectively as possible and planning what that program will look like. We've got a pilot running on that cotton program now in three different countries, looking at all the elements of biodiversity and what are the practices that are gonna work. We're starting to see already, you know, different countries have got more of an appetite to do different things, so I think this is a really good example of where things are not. You know, we're not gonna be able to show results immediately. It's a longer-term ambition really to improve biodiversity, but we're, you know, really focused on what that measurement looks like. David, I don't know if you want to talk. You've got the longer running programs in the grocery group. Yeah. I'm very happy to. Thank you, Clive, and I think it's a very good question 'cause I think you're absolutely right. The measurement is the key baseline point at which we can then assess whether our interventions are effective or not. I know, obviously we have got the Jordans Farm Partnership and that is a very interesting model. I mean, when we first built that, it is a partnership. It's structured because we realized at that point that we needed multiple different intervention bodies to come together to put frameworks around sort of the farm sustainability elements, the biodiversity delivery elements, and then the sort of social factors which are underpinning agriculture in the U.K., and we turned at that point to the LEAF Marque standard within the Jordans Farm Partnership model. More broadly, there's a very active debate underway within the U.K. now in particular around measuring soil carbon sequestration. How do we do that? What does that look like? How do we start to set the baselines against which intervention can be judged? That's still quite active. If I looked at one, another ABF joint venture business, Frontier, they have 13 dedicated farm trial programs running, looking specifically around soil quality, soil carbon measurement. My experience from working on biodiversity factors sort of 10, 15 years ago was that if you start to look towards the outcomes of that process, it can get quite complicated quite quickly because obviously different farms are on different types of soil and therefore the measurements on the farms will vary quite considerably. I think there is a piece of thinking which we need to allow to evolve around what measurement actually needs to look like. I would say in parallel to that, I mean, and I think the Allied Mills project speaks to this, that we know generally speaking, what type of interventions are likely to be effective, and we're edging in on that. I think we can even though the soil measurement frameworks are under development, we can still in parallel start to run programs which are looking at things like min-till, cover cropping, et cetera, which on an agricultural supply context in the U.K. in particular, I think we know will make a positive difference even as we're edging in on the precise management approaches. I don't know, Paul, if you wanted to say anything from a sugar perspective specifically. No. I mean, actually we launched at the National Farmers' Union Conference in February a joint venture with the NFU and the British Beet Research Organisation to look at pretty much exactly what Clive just asked about. It's a very good question from my perspective. We will work with the farmers. We are investing in bits of kit which sit over sugar beet in particular fields and work out the amount of carbon that is being pulled into the sugar beet actually, 'cause we extract quite a lot of carbon from the environment through our plants and then what's also emitted. Then exactly as David says, we'll work together to try and understand what farm practices help the carbon efficiency of our soils. Our farmers are clearly very interested in doing that. Their soil is their livelihood and we'll work with them and we're making investments now to make sure that we get the data so that we can look at the inputs, measure them through an online carbon calculator, and then you can track the effects of the programs that we're running 'cause you're right, the data's essential. Then rice, I think, David. Mm-hmm. Hmm. Who's gonna take that one? David, I think. Yes. Okay. Yes, I think it is. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thanks again, Clive. The Westmill program currently runs out to 2024 and I think this speaks to the point that George made right at the beginning, which we've got targets which we have in place within the short term. I haven't asked them about what they're intending to do beyond 2024. What I would say is their commitment to the SRP, the Sustainable Rice Platform, is very deep. They're certainly working very closely with their supplier in Pakistan to expand that program. I can't imagine for one moment that they would pull back from doing that work. I think the Sustainable Rice Platform in itself is very important strategically when one considers the impact of rice as a global agricultural commodity. I would hope that we will be playing our part, and I'm pretty sure we will be playing our part towards driving greater sustainability within rice farming over that period to 2030 as well. Do you think? Thanks very much, David. Okay, shall we take another question? Yeah, this gentleman here. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, it's Nick Coulter from Citi. Yeah. Could I just ask about the sourcing footprint of Primark? I think you identified Bangladesh as a little over 20%, but I'd be curious on the remaining country footprints, please. I guess follow up to that, how might that evolve in the future given you kind of referenced security and those sort of considerations? Thank you. Okay. Thanks very much. Paul, I think I'll pass that to you if you'd like to. Sure ...cover off, sourcing for Primark. Thank you, John. Roughly, just under half of all goods are sourced out of China at the moment. Then you've got just over 20%. Coming out of Bangladesh. Then you've got India, Turkey, and various other Southeast Asian operations. That's really the footprint. There's very little closer to home. You know, we pulled out of Leicester nearly a decade ago. So there's very little close to home, but it's always under review. It moves. It moves with seasons, and it moves with product category. It remains constantly under review. If I could just add one other thought. A free trade deal with India that removed tariffs on garments coming from that country would be the biggest contributor to security in our supply chain available to us. It would make all sorts of new decisions available to us. Okay. Thank you. Should we take the next question? Yeah, Richard. Richard Chamberlain. Thank you. Richard Chamberlain, RBC. Could I ask a couple first of all what progress are you making in terms of the Primark Cares campaign in terms of sort of marketing it more effectively in the mainland European markets? I think that's been one of the aims over the last few years. Second, George, I think in your opening remarks you said that you felt that ABF needed government support or sort of help from various third parties to fulfill some of its environmental objectives. I just wondered what specifically you were referring to there, what sort of support you would like to see. Thank you. Great. George, I think I'm gonna give you the first one as well. Just progress on Primark Cares. Launched last September as a consumer-facing thing, program. Really good resonance across all markets. Probably less so in the States, but it's smaller. I think we would look at it now and think that maybe we need to target some of the communications a little bit more closely. We're saying a lot of different things. Where we've measured impact, the first impact is among our own staff. Really big changes in their attitude to us in terms of our environmental commitments, and that's really important. You know, there are 70,000-80,000 of them. Trying to discern what people's state of mind is in other North European countries as they come out of COVID is very difficult. I think we're going to wait a little while longer before we go really trying to find out what people's attitudes are. We are right now also increasing resources that we're dedicating to the communications on Primark Cares. Actually on all sort of outgoing communications from the company. We can now do it with this new website being rolled out across all European markets by September. We'll be much better placed to be much more targeted in those sort of communications as well. Lots more to come. What was I referring to in government support? It's their direction of travel on energy really. You know, we get to a certain point in British Sugar, which is the big energy user, and we need to know whether we're gonna be electrifying our factories' processes as the next step or using green hydrogen or maybe carbon capture or storage. None of those three are in our gift. Mm. The selection of one or the other one. Yeah. Will determine what we do next. That's what I had in mind first and foremost. Great. Thanks, George. There was a cluster of hands over here. Yes, this gentleman here. Yeah, please. Thank you. Hi. Marcus Villert, BMO Global Asset Management. We're now part of Columbia Threadneedle Investments. Thank you very much for the presentation today. I just wonder if you could give a bit more details on the role of reducing pesticides. Neonicotinoids obviously key topic as usual. Be interesting to hear more about the task force there in terms of reducing that, now that the emergency authorizations are coming to an end. If I may tag on one question about Bangladesh, I think the scenario analysis, their physical risk was really interesting. Yeah. I was wondering if you could just give detail of the scope of that analysis, whether that consisted of the whole system in terms of factories, warehouses, transportation links, worker accommodations, et cetera, that might be affected by floodings? Great. Okay. Thank you very much. There was a general question about pesticides, but then one on neonics in particular. Paul, do you want to Sure. Take neonics then first then. At British Sugar, we definitely want to step away from neonics to take that specific example of that particular pesticide or set of pesticides. But I also lived through the 2020 crop, when farmers saw an average crop decline of 25%, and some of them saw up to 80% of their crops wiped out, which left them losing cash on our crop, and really a lot of financial distress across the U.K. It also meant that I had to import some sugar to fill the gap because we have a U.K. market position, which we needed to fill. I think you need to get the balance between moving away from those pesticides at the right pace, so that you don't leave those parts of our economy too exposed. I think if you looked at neonics on sugar beet in particular, the way that we apply it, uniquely in Europe, I think in the world, is that because we want to reduce the use of it, we only apply it as a seed treatment within an encapsulated seed pellet. So it cannot get to air, it cannot get to water sources from there. It's precision drilled to within, you know, millimeters through a field, and we only apply that seed treatment if the weather pattern in the previous winter has been such that we know that aphids are flying and the disease is there. So there is a husbandry and governance process that we've put around the use of neonics, which I think is worth just highlighting is extraordinary. You know, the government have allowed us an emergency authorization this year because we had a very mild winter, but we know that that isn't going to last forever, and we're being as cautious and careful as we can. Now, to answer your question, what are we doing about it? A whole range of stuff. We're working with, again, a range of partners, with farmers, with a PhD, scientists with the BBRO. We're looking at different cover crops, looking at crops which are attractive to aphids so that they don't bite our plants. We're looking at working with our seed breeders to make sure that they're coming up with new varieties. In fact, we've got some varieties already coming through which are resistant to the three Virus Yellows complexes. We're looking also at different sprays which are not neonics, and we've got some progress there to report too. Actually I am quite excited by new breeding techniques. The government in the U.K. has just put forward as part of the Queen's Speech a bill to look at allowing us to use gene editing techniques, which will enable us to breed out the use of sprays, the use of all sorts of carbon actually intensive product processes on farm. I think that can only be a good thing. I think that's good for the U.K. farming. That's something that we're investing directly at British Sugar in to make sure that we can find out how to turn off the part of the plant's genetic code that makes it vulnerable to Virus Yellows. Great, Paul. Thank you. Katharine, I think I'm gonna ask you a question. If you have a question online, please raise your hand virtually in the platform. more generally about pesticides. Yeah, pesticides. I thought you were gonna ask me about Bangladesh then. Oh, no. Well, I'll come on to that next. Yes. Yeah. So- Paul Kenward, I might come back to you on the data on that one. Fine, yeah. Just be prepared on that one. Yeah. I mean, for you know, the Primark business, one of the key elements of the program that we're running at an agricultural level in terms of cotton is the use of chemical pesticides or fertilizers and a real focus on how we can shift away from using chemical pesticides and fertilizers into more natural opportunities. The farmers have you know, accessibility to things like cow dung that can be used as a pesticide or a fertilizer. There's different opportunities, particularly with different trees. There's a particular tree called a neem tree, where you can use the oil as a pesticide as well. That actually, the neem tree is one of the trees that we're using as part of our pilot, for, you know, not only to protect, to support more, shade cover for animals as part of the sort of how do we start to help the farmers think about how they deal with higher temperatures, but also soil erosion. Again, you can use neem oil, as a fertilizer. We've done a huge amount of work on that, and one of the reasons that the incomes, particularly in the group that we looked at in India, had a 200% increase in income was because they were using much less in the way of chemical pesticides for fertilizers that they were having to pay for. You know, they're using things that were at hand. You know, that has been a big focus, but it's now we continue doing that, but how do we think sort of more widely what's the next stage? What's the next evolution from that? Thank you. Paul, do you want to maybe add something to that? No, I was just talking about TCFD, if you- Oh, do you want to? Yeah. Do you want to move on to that? I don't think I can beat a neem tree. Yeah. I think with that in mind, let's move on, 'cause actually the question is very good in the- Yeah in the sense that. It is. Look, everything's low-lying there. Yeah. You're asking about the I do. You know, accommodation for the employees and then also. That's true. you know, we had thoughts about getting the goods out and obviously to the ports. Paul. Yeah, no, I mean, it's a good question. Marcus, we've done the factory sites, so we've done over 150 factory sites, 178 factory sites. We've done the consolidation centers, and we've done the existing and new port. The next step is then to go and look at the impact on workers. You'd look at the hostels and that. If the hostels were in the factory sites, that'd be obviously looked at already. But if the hostels were separate from the factory sites, then that's the next step. That's the sort of the nitty-gritty of the answer to- Just to be specific, what we've shown and talked to you about today is coastal flooding. Part of the sort of ongoing work, we're looking at riverine flooding as well. As Paul's just said, you know, a third sort of piece of work will be the impact weather as well. Obviously, you know, as we in due course will be doing more reporting around those specific things too. I mean, one thing that struck me about the work is obviously it's a huge area. Maybe you were surprised by the percentage that was affected. I think that the breadth of the supply chain for Primark or indeed many of our businesses obviously has to be the strength there. You know, I think the likelihood of just all of it being, you know, either flooded or affected by some severe weather events is probably that's unlikely. That really was for me a real learning in terms of the resilience of the supply chain there. Thank you. Are there any other que- Yeah, please. All right. No, I'll go for this lady in the middle here, please. Go ahead. Thank you. Right. Hi. Zoë de Spoelberch here from EOS at Federated Hermes. Right. We have three somewhat related questions. The first is ABF intending on reporting more about its impact and dependencies on ecosystem services and in particular on Primark's? The second is, will ABF be reporting in line with the TNFD once the final version is completed? The third is, has there been any intention to commit to net positive impact on biodiversity? Thank you. Thank you for those. Right. You know, Kathryn, I'm going to go to you on reporting. Yeah. I think that was the first part and the second part of the question. Yeah. Thanks. I'll take turn next. On reporting, I think what we've tried to do in the last year is start to put a lot more information onto the website. We did relaunch the website, more reporting. For those of you that maybe have just thought about us just doing an annual sort of responsibility report, there's also some thematic ESG insights on different things like water, climate change. I'd kind of urge you to have a look at that. We will continue to build from that work that we launched last year with our annual reporting at the end of the year to make sure that we can keep you as up to date as possible with the work that we're doing. Obviously, you know, the three sessions that we've done over the last 18 months has been, you know, an important step in us trying to make sure that we're communicating as much of the work we're doing as possible. Great. By the way, don't underestimate the amount of work that is needed in an organization as diverse as ours. I mean, there's really quite a lot of time and effort will be taken over that. We take it very seriously. Net positive. The TNFD reporting, I think we are, as David said, closely watching what's happening with the frameworks around sort of biodiversity and ecosystems. I think we've got a lot of work that's been done over many years that will help put us in a good position and, you know, we will report as we feel, you know, is gonna be helpful to our key stakeholders. In terms of net positive impact, I think again, you know, we've talked a little bit about the sort of measurement and evaluation of things like ecosystems and biodiversity. It is really complex. If I think about the work that we've been doing in developing the pilot programs for the cotton product, we probably started that work sort of four years ago with the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership to work out what the metrics should be as part of their natural capital group, and we're still kind of refining that and working on that. I think, can I sit here today and say we're gonna make a net positive impact? I think again, as with all these things, we've got a very diverse portfolio of businesses. There's gonna be material areas that are different across different parts of the group, so I don't think we'll be in a position to say that. Are we looking carefully in each of the businesses at where we have an impact and where we can make a difference? Yes, we are. Right. Just on the net positive piece, just briefly, we actually looked at it for Jordans about, I'm going to say 10 years ago, eight, 10 years ago, when it was first a concept that first came out because of the work that the business had done around biodiversity over many years. The conclusion which we came to was that it needs to be you need to be quite clear on what you mean by it before you'd be prepared to take a public stand behind it, because the last thing we want to be accused of is greenwashing or taking a position which is not actually based in fact. Now, I think I'd just reiterate what Kathryn's saying. As all of these data sets start to come into play, then you start to get the granularity where you can make a more objective assessment about how you relativize, if that's even a word, how you make a relative point around the scale of the impact that you're having. But certainly, I would hope that as that starts to come through, we do start to look at it on some of our businesses, 'cause I think we've got a very good story to tell. If that helps convey that to a broader audience, then absolutely I would suggest on a business by business basis, we should be looking at it. Great. Okay. Thanks for that, David. Please, we'll take your question. Hi. Thanks. Thanks for holding today's briefing. I'm Eli from Lansdowne Partners. I think last year you discussed quite a lot of the challenge around sourcing cotton from China as it relates to the various issues around Xinjiang cotton. From memory last year, there was some discussion around the bits of progress going through in order to kind of, you know, improve and manage the traceability, I guess. Yeah. ... or the- Yeah you know how to understand and look at this issue. Any update there would be really interesting. No, great. Okay. Paul, I think it's. Yeah. I think we've been very clear that we have. Yeah We're not able to do any due diligence in the Xinjiang region. We have stopped, as a result, we've stopped sourcing. We have no factories that we sourced clothes from. We stopped sourcing cotton from the Xinjiang region. We've got traceability in place to ensure that is the case. When you look at the Primark Sustainable Cotton Programme, of course, you then know where the cotton is coming from. A big proportion of our cotton, a growing proportion of our cotton is literally going to be traced from farm all the way through to shop. I think that it continues to be progress in relation to that program as we indicated. Great. Thank you. Hi, I'm Emma from EOS at Federated Hermes, and I just had a question on the materials. What you're doing with cotton is great, and I was wondering if you were gonna apply the traceability and sustainability aspect of your cotton initiative to other materials in your articles. Thank you. Okay. Great. Well, thank you. Well, Katharine, why don't you go. Yeah. You go first on this one. Absolutely. I'm sure Paul will join in. Well, cotton's given us a great kind of since we've been doing it nearly 10 years, it's given us lots of great experience. I think the move of some of our other fabrics. Other key fabrics other than cotton would be things like polyester and nylon. We've been working really hard to sort of optimize the opportunity we've got to move to more recycled synthetic fibers like polyester and nylon. Part of the purchasing of those materials and it being recycled is having sort of a chain of custody so that we can be confident that they are what they say they are. There's an element of traceability we get because of that, because we're using more recycled fibers and fabrics. I think that's been the key focus for us, and those are, by far and away, our biggest materials that we use. We've got an online question, so if we can go to that please. Our online question comes from Anubhav Malhotra. Go ahead. Hi, team. I have a couple of questions. Firstly, George talked about diversifying sourcing as a general rule to fight future climate change. What are your thoughts about bringing apparel sourcing closer to home? I mean, what's stopping you from doing that at the moment? Do you think the capacity not exist at all for your scale, or the specialization does not exist in some of the categories that you work in? Any views on that would be appreciated. The second one, have you seen the rest of the apparel industry share your enthusiasm about environmental ESG concerns in general, what you're talking about at the moment today? Thank you. Okay, thanks. Why don't we hit the first part of the question. Sourcing closer to home, George. I think certainly I'd like to see food production grow in the U.K. It was the most reliable part of our- Yeah ... food supply chain during COVID. Again, that needs to be balanced against improving biodiversity standards and decarbonizing. I think as the Jordans Farm Partnership is demonstrating, you can have both. Within clothing, I think we're always going to be, well, for foreseeable future, dependent on countries with large labor pools, China, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan in particular. They do a great job for us. They have tremendous expertise alongside the labor pools, and I don't think that we'll be bringing much clothing manufacturing- Yeah back into Europe or closer anytime soon. George, why don't you pass over to you for some concluding remarks? We hope that you now have a deeper insight into the consequences, the range and depth of the environmental programs that are underway across the group. We've had three presentations in the last year. We'll keep on sharing information both on our website and in our regular updates to investors. In November, we'll cover all that we've talked about today, and I hope a great deal more. We look forward to continuing the engagement with you all. It's great that a lot of you, that you all in this room came and joined us, and that those online attended online as well. Thank you all very much, and see you again soon. Thank you.