Good morning to everyone here in London and around the world. My name is Simon Thompson. I'm the Chairman of Rio Tinto, and it's my pleasure to welcome you to our 2021 annual general meeting for Rio Tinto PLC. Due to COVID-19 restrictions here in England, we're holding a hybrid meeting this year, but I'm pleased to welcome in person here in London, Sam Laidlaw, Senior Independent Director for Rio Tinto PLC and Chairman of our Remuneration Committee, Peter Cunningham, our Interim Chief Financial Officer, and Steve Allen, our Group Company Secretary. I'm also pleased to welcome all the other members of the Rio Tinto board who are joining us remotely. Jakob Stausholm, our Chief Executive, who's currently in Australia. Megan Clark, Chair of our Sustainability Committee. Michael L'Estrange, Hinda Gharbi, Simon Henry, who's Chair of our Audit Committee, Simon McKeon, who's the Senior Independent Director for Rio Tinto Limited, Jennifer Nason, and Ngaire Woods. The notice of meeting containing the text of each resolution was published on our website and posted to shareholders on the 8th of March. Copies are available within the Documents tab on the Lumi platform through which you are watching this meeting. A guide to asking and submitting questions should also be on the display on the platform. I can confirm that we have a quorum of shareholders physically present. The poll for voting on the resolutions is now open, and it will remain open for about 15 minutes after the conclusion of the meeting. Given that we are, for all intents and purposes, running this meeting virtually and mindful of the issues that can sometimes arise with connectivity, we have pre-recorded introductory remarks from myself, Jakob, and Sam Laidlaw, as well as a short video. Could we play those recordings now, please? In every company's history, there are moments that change it forever. The destruction of the Juukan rock shelters had global repercussions. Our company will never be the same. The blast has obviously had a really significant impact on the general public, PKKP, and other stakeholders, as well as our teams. Through respect, we will build a better company because we'll build trust again. If we can respect everyone that we work with, including the traditional owners on the land in which we operate, we will regain and rebuild our reputation and come back to be better. Our core values relate to integrity, safety, and respect, and they're integral to Indigenous Australians' values and also how we engage with the land. Janet Brockman, our actions have significance, and we have to get this right. One of the changes we've seen since last year is people are actually asking questions about the cultural significant sites that are close to their areas of work. There's a thirst for learning, and I can actually feel that working through the organization in many ways and showing itself in our leadership. When the Juukan event happened, it actually really significantly affected me. I felt personally responsible. Since we've had that event, we've had that more heightened sense of awareness for the team on the ground. If they see something that's not right, we stop the job. The first step was to get the heritage maps on the walls to understand a little bit about what's going on. The next step, what we really want to do, is to get the stories on the wall for the heritage sites in which they're working in. People are really keen to understand more about it. They're ready to listen. It'll make a better workplace because people actually then have a sense of responsibility and a sense of ownership of what's happening in the area. What we're seeing at the moment is people are approaching the areas of cultural significance in the same way they would approach safety, looking at it as a hazard, and then what are the effective controls to address that hazard. We know that doing things the safest way is the most efficient way. We know that our safety culture has grown our productivity and our production. What I'm looking forward to is being able to put culture in the same position, being able to know that respect for traditional owners grows our productivity, grows our position, and grows our business. We have been working with the traditional owners in a co-management approach, and long-term, that's the perfect solution because we are listening to each other now more than ever. Taking our learnings home from site and educating our family to have them know and understand what happened, and then have the education around heritage and what that means and the significance of it up on-site, I think will benefit us and future generations that come into mining as well. It might be my kids up here one day. Over the last nine months after reviewing more than 1,300 heritage sites, we have removed more than 54 million tons from our plan. That is de-risking our business and making sure that we're protecting and preserving sites of importance to Traditional Owners and to the general Australian public. Every contract we sign is more than just a contract. It provides so much more than that. It provides leaders and inspiration for families, communities, and children to look up to and follow the journey. I'm optimistic we will learn from this. We have a lot of opportunity to make things better. When we have more indigenous leaders in this company, we will understand the host communities like we never have before. When we understand the host communities in that way, we will drive really deep relationships and connections. Those deep relationships and connections will drive value for our company and the communities in which we operate. I started this business 20 years ago, and I was proud to wear the shirt. I was proud to tell my parents and my friends and family where I worked. Last year, we lost a lot of that pride, and it drives me that we're going to regain it. We're going to have employees proud to wear the shirt again, and it's what's going to drive us to be better and to see success in the future. 2020 was a challenging year for everyone, but it was a particularly difficult year for Rio Tinto, and it was also a year of sharp contrasts. Our response to the COVID-19 pandemic was outstanding. As the virus threatened lives and livelihoods around the world, the entire group mobilized to safeguard our employees, contractors, and local communities, and to keep all our managed operations worldwide running safely and smoothly. This resilient operational performance coincided with a period of high iron ore prices, in part because of supply disruptions elsewhere in the industry. Which in turn resulted in strong financial performance with underlying earnings of $12.4 billion and free cash flow of $9.4 billion. The strength and resilience of our business enabled us to protect thousands of jobs across our supply chain and to continue to pay taxes and royalties to governments and dividends to you, our shareholders, when many other companies were forced to cut back. Our total economic contribution, including payments to employees, suppliers, governments, and shareholders, amounted to $47 billion, including $8.4 billion in taxes and royalties. We were able to further strengthen our balance sheet with net debt at year-end of $0.7 billion. In view of this robust operational and financial performance, the board is recommending a final dividend of $3.09 per share and a special dividend of $0.93 per share, taking total dividends declared to shareholders for the year to $9 billion. Given all the changes and uncertainty created by the pandemic, it would have been easy to lose focus on safety. I'm very proud of the team for delivering a second successive year with zero fatalities. We also made significant progress with our climate change strategy, providing greater detail on how we intend to meet our Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions reduction targets, and setting out the objectives of our partnerships with customers and others to reduce Scope 3 emissions arising in the aluminum and steel value chains. In recognition of the importance of urgent action by business, governments, consumers, and investors to tackle climate change, we are one of the first companies to commit to put our 2021 climate change report to an advisory vote at our annual general meetings next year. This Say on Climate will give shareholders the opportunity to express their views on our overall climate change strategy and implementation. However, all of these achievements were overshadowed by events at the Juukan Gorge in Western Australia in May last year. The destruction of the Juukan rock shelters was a breach of both our values as a company and of the trust placed in us by the Puutu Kunti, Kurrama, and Pinikura people and other traditional owners of the lands on which our business operates. Last year, Megan Clark and I visited the Juukan Gorge with the elders of the PKKP. The visit was my first opportunity to apologize in person and to see and feel their sadness and pain firsthand. In three weeks' time, Megan and I will be going back to visit the PKKP to review the progress that we've made on the remedy process and rebuilding the trust that has been lost. As Chairman of your company, I am ultimately accountable for the failings that led to the tragic events at Juukan Gorge. I will not be seeking re-election at the AGMs next year. I will use my remaining time with Rio Tinto to provide continuity and support to our new Chief Executive, Jakob Stausholm, and the new executive team, and to oversee the implementation of the recommendations of the board review and the parliamentary inquiry to ensure that the destruction of a site of such exceptional cultural significance never happens again at a Rio Tinto operation. Last year, we welcomed three new directors, Hinda Gharbi, Jennifer Nason, and Ngaire Woods, and the board has already benefited from their insights and expertise. We also appointed Simon McKeon to the new role of Senior Independent Director of Rio Tinto Limited to enhance board engagement in Australia. At the end of the year, I was delighted to announce the appointment of Jakob as our new Chief Executive. As expected, Jakob has moved fast to appoint his new executive team, and I feel confident that we have the right people in the right jobs to deliver our strategy and to implement all the necessary changes in our risk management, governance, work culture, and relationships following the Juukan tragedy. David Constable retired from the board at year-end, and Michael L'Estrange will retire at the conclusion of the Australian AGM. I would like to thank both for their wise counsel and outstanding contribution to the board. As a consequence of these changes, we have four board searches currently underway, including for my successor as Chair and Jakob's successor as CFO. As we look to 2021, Rio Tinto remains an exceptionally strong business with outstanding people, world-class assets, and a resilient balance sheet. After a period of profound change at all levels in the organization, 2021 is all about stability and execution, recommitting to our purpose of producing essential materials in a way that creates value for all our stakeholders, safeguards the environment, and respects our host countries and communities. There is an absolute determination to learn the lessons from Juukan Gorge, to rebuild trust with the traditional owners of the lands where we operate, and to reestablish Rio Tinto as a leader in social and community performance. I'm convinced that Rio Tinto will emerge from this crisis a better, a stronger, and a more caring company. Thank you. Thank you, Simon, and good morning. Good evening from Australia. I would like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land where I'm presenting from today, the Whadjuk Noongar people. I would also like to acknowledge and pay my respect to all traditional owners and Indigenous people that host Rio Tinto's operations around the world. 2020 was for Rio Tinto a year of extremes. It had its dark days, most notably our destruction of the ancient rock shelters at Juukan Gorge, a terrible chapter in our history. Perhaps this cannot be said enough, so let me say it again. The rock shelters at Juukan Gorge should not have been touched. We're so sorry. The destruction severely damaged many of our relationships, including that with the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people, for whom it was devastating and a significant breach of trust. I visited Juukan Gorge earlier this year and expressed my deep regret for the damage we caused. I witnessed and felt firsthand the pain we have inflicted, and I will never forget that. The work we had to do at Juukan Gorge is beyond the remediation at the site. I am convinced that we must also work in partnership with traditional owners in Australia, Native Americans in the United States, and Indigenous people in Canada and elsewhere to secure our shared future. We must focus on real engagement with our communities, understanding their felt experience, and never forgetting that in so many places, we are guests on their land. We must respect our hosts and our partners and work with them to understand their priorities and concerns and minimize our impacts. Over the last few months, I've had the privilege of meeting many people, both internally and externally, who care deeply about Rio Tinto. The open and honest conversations and feedback they have provided gives me confidence that together we can rebuild Rio Tinto, become a company that we can all be proud of every day. Last year, we also had to learn to live with COVID-19, and I'm very proud of how we adapted to the pandemic. I want to thank and congratulate all of our employees and contractors on the resilience they demonstrated and continue to demonstrate. It was a very challenging year for all of us. I'm also proud that we delivered another year with zero fatalities, because nothing is more important than safety. Our financial performance in 2020 was incredibly strong. We delivered underlying EBITDA of $23.9 billion and a return on capital employed of 27%. We generated free cash flow of $9.4 billion after paying $8.4 billion in taxes and royalties and investing $6.2 billion in growth and sustaining capital expenditure. With net debt of less than $1 billion, our balance sheet further strengthened. As you heard Simon say, we also advanced our actions on climate change by setting new Scope 3 goals. Rio Tinto has many strengths, but we must also ensure consistency and improve in certain areas. First, simply put, Rio Tinto must be the best operator. Our 2020 operational performance was good despite the disruption of COVID-19, but there are opportunities to improve the consistency of our performance. Second, I firmly believe that the foundation for our business is impeccable ESG credentials. Thirdly, we must excel in development, from identifying opportunities to maturing and developing them. We must do this to build our portfolio for the next decade and beyond. I know we can do it by leveraging our expertise and maintaining an absolute commitment to capital discipline. We will only consider opportunities that create value. Finally, we must also step up our external engagement and become a more outward-looking company which is more in tune with society. This is our social license to operate. It is judged by others, and it is essential for our long-term success. All of us are determined to learn and heal from the events of 2020, to strengthen our culture and see Rio Tinto emerge even stronger. We have a long road ahead of us, and I'm not underestimating the time and effort this will take. We now have a new executive committee in place with our new Chief People Officer joining us earlier this week. Almost all of the team are new in their positions, and the transition is progressing well. Together, we will now drive this journey. Today's annual general meeting is an important part of this journey. It provides not only the opportunity to speak, but more importantly, a chance for all of us to carefully listen to each other. Your company, my company, our company, Rio Tinto, is an amazing company, is full of great people, has an extraordinary history, and in my view, an exciting future ahead. I look forward to continuing to engage with our employees, our partners, our stakeholders, and all of you, our shareholders, on this journey. Thank you. 2020 was a challenging year for many organizations and one of the most challenging in Rio Tinto's history. The destruction of the Juukan Gorge rock shelters on the land of the PKKP people in Australia should not have happened and does not reflect our values as a company. We, as your board, understand that given the circumstances which led to the destruction of the rock shelters, executive pay outcomes are a sensitive and contentious point for many stakeholders. The loss of cultural heritage was tragic, and many have understandably sought to allocate appropriate accountability and responsibility. Following the publication of the board's review on the 24th of August 2020, it became clear that a number of stakeholders felt that the financial penalties alone that were applied to the Chief Executive, the Chief Executive of Iron Ore, and the Group Executive of Corporate Relations were insufficient, and that to rebuild relationships with Traditional Owners and other stakeholders, changes of leadership were required to move the company forward. In agreeing that the three executives should leave Rio Tinto, the board was obliged to consider the following. There was no deliberate act or omission to act by the three executives. There was no compliance failure, as all authorizations had been received from the Government of Western Australia. There was no fraud, malfeasance, or cover-up, which would have resulted in immediate dismissal and forfeiture of all unvested awards. There was, however, a critical risk assessment failure going back many years. This failure can be partially attributed to the three executives who failed to recognize and remediate systemic weaknesses in the heritage risk management process. After the destruction of the rock shelters, the executive leadership team failed to apologize unconditionally and respond with sufficient empathy towards the PKKP and to recognize the gravity of what had happened within the wider societal context. Some have suggested that the failure of the three executives to respond appropriately should have resulted in the forfeiture of all outstanding remuneration. The board understands this sensitivity and deeply regrets the destruction of the rock shelters and the slow and initially insufficiently sensitive response of the company. Given these considerations, as well as various market precedents, the board concluded that it was not in a position to legally terminate the three executives for cause and forfeit all outstanding remuneration. Instead, it was more appropriate that the three executives' employment be terminated by mutual agreement, acknowledging the potential adverse effect that this may have on their longer-term careers. As such, while acknowledging the gravity of events at Juukan Gorge, the penalties applied to the responsible executives were, in the best view of the board, the most that could durably be applied and legally defended in light of the extent of the executives' ultimate accountability for Juukan Gorge, especially when taking into account relevant market precedents and the fact that the employees were forfeiting their employment. Following the application of malus for the events at Juukan Gorge, the 2020 short-term incentive plan outcomes for J.S. Jacques, Chris Salisbury, and Simone Niven were nil. In addition to this sanction for Mr. Jacques, estimated at over GBP 1.7 million, a further malus adjustment of GBP 1 million was applied to Mr. Jacques' long-term incentive plan. During 2020, in accordance with our triennial policy cycle, the Remuneration Committee reviewed our remuneration policy. There's no significant change proposed to the overall design. The policy does need to be brought up to date and incorporate the lessons learned from the Juukan Gorge tragedy, as well as aligning certain aspects more closely to shareholders and broader stakeholder expectations. Under the proposed new policy, we intend to introduce ESG measures into the short-term incentive plan by reducing the individual performance component from 30% to 15%, with 15% now allocated to ESG moving forward. When taken together with the already 20% already allocated for safety, 35% of the short-term incentive plan now covers broader ESG metrics. We've also removed the 1.2 multiplier on short-term incentive plans for executive directors, and we've reduced pension benefits to 14% of base salary to align with the retirement benefits provided to other employees across the group. We've also, importantly, introduced a specific ability to apply malus and clawback if in the future there is a material impact on our social license to operate. Notwithstanding the unprecedented challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the group's overall performance was very strong. Rio Tinto achieved its second successive fatality-free year, an outstanding achievement in our history. Short-term incentive plan financial and safety targets set for 2020 were either exceeded or met, except for flexed underlying earnings, which fell just short of target, resulting in a combined payout of 76% of maximum for those two components. The estimated vesting for the 2016 Long-Term Incentive Plan Award, combining the two TSR and earnings before interest and tax margin portions, is 66.7% of maximum. The TSR vesting outcome underlines the group's strong overall performance during the five-year period and the shareholder experience over that timeframe, with just under half of the vesting value attributable to share price appreciation. The final vesting outcome of the 2016 award will be known at the end of May with the assessment of the EBIT margin measure. As always, I welcome shareholder feedback and comments on the 2020 Remuneration Report. Thank you, Jakob and Sam. I'd now like to proceed to the Q&A session by inviting questions from shareholders on any matters relevant to the business of the meeting. If you have not already submitted a question and would like to do so, you may submit questions through the Lumi platform or by calling the teleconference number provided. If you're asking your question in person, please state your name and if you represent an organization, the name of your organization before proceeding with your question. We also have a number of pre-submitted questions. To allow us to answer as many questions as possible, please keep your comments short and to the point. Let's start with one of the pre-submitted questions. Thank you. Our first question comes from Market Forces. Rio Tinto's Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions are reported as 519 million tons in its 2020 climate report. To put this in perspective, the total greenhouse gas emissions of the U.K. were 455 million tons in 2019. I hope the board appreciates shareholders' concerns that this exposure could become a massive liability if carbon pricing and decarbonization pass on costs or force customers who cannot decarbonize out of business. Rio Tinto's annual report has four goals to address Scope 3 emissions that don't really address what is a serious looming liability. At no point does the report clarify the extent to which the board is prepared to expose Rio Tinto to the liability of Scope 3 emissions in future. What is the degree of liability Rio Tinto is prepared to be exposed to in terms of emissions in millions of tons per annum, or as a proportion of underlying EBITDA in 2025, 2030 and 2040? Well, thank you for that question. It's obviously a very important issue, but I do think the question is somewhat misleading because if there is a liability for carbon pricing, the polluter pays principle will apply. In other words, the company that is actually directly responsible for the Scope 1 emissions will pay the carbon price. As you correctly point out, Rio Tinto's Scope 1 emissions are actually relatively low. Of course, we've been working very hard to reduce those. We've achieved reductions of over 46% since 2008. I think the Scope 3 emissions that the question refers to relate largely to the direct emissions of our customers, and the majority of those come from steel mills in China and Korea and Japan. Importantly, during 2020, all three of those countries committed to a national target of achieving net zero by 2050 in the case of Japan and Korea, and carbon neutrality by 2060 in the case of China. That plays well into the partnerships that we've established with our customers in those countries, which are focused on R&D projects, which will help them to achieve the greenhouse gas reductions that have now been set by their governments. Now, if the governments of those countries do indeed adopt carbon pricing as a way of incentivizing investment in low-carbon technologies, the steel mills will have to pass on some or all of that cost to their customers, and that will have an impact on the cost of steel. Actually, since steel is often a relatively small proportion of the total cost of an end product, the cost to customers may be quite limited. For example, the Energy Transitions Commission have calculated that the cost of net-zero steel would add about 2% to the price of a new electric vehicle, and that's not a large increase, and indeed, many customers, I think, would be willing to pay a premium for a green product which contained zero carbon steel. As we look at this, the implications of transitioning to net-zero steel are that they will have to apply new technologies. There are feasible ways of doing that, either by using hydrogen as a reductant or potentially using CCS. If the route that is chosen is to use hydrogen, the impact of that would clearly be a reduction in demand for coking coal, and that's precisely why we sold our coal operations in 2018. There are technologically feasible ways to produce zero-carbon steel. They're not unduly expensive, and we don't think that they will materially impact demand for steel because there really are no alternatives to steel, no low-carbon alternatives to steel in many applications. In fact, our climate change report, which we published earlier this year, sets out a number of scenarios, and the one where our portfolio performs best is the one where governments do indeed adopt proactive climate change policies, such as carbon pricing. We absolutely recognize the urgent need to work with our customers to reduce Scope 3 emissions, but we don't accept that this represents a liability for Rio Tinto. In fact, we see this as an opportunity. Could we have the next question, please? Thank you. Our next question comes from Bat-Oriel Batulga. Rio Tinto documents state that from 2017 onwards, Oyu Tolgoi will face water shortages, but the transfer of water from the Orkhon River through the Orkhon-Gobi project is out of the question due to its impact as well as its cost. The World Bank project has continued consultations and encouraged the Gobi population to demand the transfer of water to replace depleted resources. We are hearing from local communities that the Orkhon-Gobi project is still being discussed. This involves construction of a 1,000-km water pipeline and water extraction project that will kill the Orkhon River, which is an important ecological feature in the valley, itself a protected UN heritage site. What is your plan B for the water for the mine? Is it, in fact, the Orkhon-Gobi project? Thanks very much for that question. The short answer is no. Oyu Tolgoi actually uses water which is from a large, deep, brackish aquifer, which was discovered by our geologists as part of the project. It doesn't use surface water for its operations. This brackish aquifer is not possible, but it is appropriate. We can use it within our processes. The best estimates that we have at the moment indicate that Oyu Tolgoi will consume about 20% of that aquifer during the entire life of the project. There are sufficient deep underground water resources to safely meet the needs of the project. The project itself is extremely water efficient. It consumes about 30% of the water consumed by similar mines around the world. Oyu Tolgoi is not part of the Orkhon-Gobi project. We understand that's a Government of Mongolia project supported by the World Bank. We certainly have no need of that water because we have adequate licensed supply from our own aquifer. Could we take another question? Thank you. The next question comes from Henry Muñoz, Chair of the Concerned Citizens and Retired Miners Coalition. I've lived in Superior, Arizona, all my life. I've had 23 years underground mining experience working at the Magma Mine at Oak Flat until the 1982 closure and at the BHP San Manuel block cave mine for 14 years. With my experience with block cave mining, I know the devastating effects your proposed mine would have on my town and the region. Your proposal would destroy the surface of Oak Flat and both drain and pollute the deep aquifers around Superior and the water supply of farmers and residents of the valley of East Phoenix. Based on my experience with block caving in Arizona, the depth of this deposit and the problems you have with building your block cave at Oyu Tolgoi, your design will not work. If you destroy Oak Flat, you destroy our town's chance to build a recreation-based, sustainable economy. Will you abandon the project so that we may enjoy Oak Flat and prosper for many generations to come? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Muñoz, for the question. I know that we've had a number of pre-submitted questions on Resolution. It probably makes sense if you could read out the other question as well, then I'll try and answer both because they do overlap to some extent. Okay. Unfortunately, we will have to answer them separately. Can I start by just explaining why Resolution is important? It's important because under any scenario, the only way we can tackle climate change is by unprecedented level in investment in renewables and electrification. That will require a substantial increase in the production and use of copper. The Resolution Mine has the potential to supply 25% of the United States' demand for copper. It is potentially, if the project is developed, an extremely important part of helping the United States to make the transition to a low-carbon economy. Everybody agrees that copper is essential to tackle climate change. The question is: where is that copper going to come from? Of course, all mines have an impact on the environment and they have an impact on local communities, and all mines are controversial. I think compared to many of the alternatives, Resolution has the potential to be a relatively low-impact mine. I say that because it is located within the Copper Triangle in Arizona, which is an area that has a legacy of mining dating back well over a century. In fact, the project itself sits within the footprint of an existing mine. The project is also broadly supported by many of the local communities. The mayors of all of the towns within the Copper Triangle have written to President Biden indicating their support for this project. Has the governor of Arizona. One of the reasons, of course, that there is that level of support within the local community and the state is because the project, if it goes ahead, is likely to create an economic contribution to Arizona of about $60 billion over the life of the mine. That will be in the form of well-paid jobs in communities which currently have low income and relatively high unemployment rates, including, of course, some Native American communities. There have already been 11 years of consultations on this project. The land swap agreement, which will enable us to conduct a detailed feasibility study on the project, was put into law by the Obama administration seven years ago in 2014. That was subject to a detailed environmental impact assessment and consultation process managed by the U.S. government through the U.S. Forest Services. During that seven-year period, there have been 550 documented consultations with communities, business leaders, Native American tribes, NGOs, as well as county, state, and federal government. If the land swap agreement is approved, we still need to do the feasibility study. As part of that study, we would continue to engage, not least with the 11 Native American tribes that have historic associations with this part of Arizona. Now, of those tribes, nine are broadly supportive of the project. Indeed, we introduced during the EIS consultations, a number of changes to the design of the project to accommodate some of their concerns. For example, we transferred Apache Leap into a special management area. Apache Leap is a culturally significant site for a number of the Native American tribes that have historic associations with this region of Arizona. We also carved out the Ga'an Canyon from the land swap package. Again, this is a site which has both cultural and biodiversity significance. Two of the tribes, the San Carlos Apache and the White Mountain Apache, oppose the project. That is because Oak Flat, which sits within the land exchange package, is a culturally significant site for both tribes. It's also, I have to say, a very beautiful place, which is used by rock climbers and mountain bikers and hikers. As part of the feasibility study, we really want to engage with the San Carlos and the White Mountain Apache. We want to really understand the significance of the site to them, and we want to work with them to address any concerns, really understand their concerns and see whether we can identify measures to address them, as well as working with them and indeed all of the other tribes that have historic associations with this region to try to protect their customs and traditions. Maybe I should stop there, and we'll take the other question later on Resolution. Could we have a question from the line? I'll see whether there are any questions on the line. There aren't any questions currently on the line, so we will proceed to the next written question. Thank you. The next written question comes from Yvonne Orengo, Director of the Andrew Lees Trust. You say that your company won't be the same after Juukan Gorge. Why is Rio Tinto QMM currently telling communities and stakeholders in Madagascar that elevated levels of uranium in water downstream of the QMM mine, 50 x higher than the WHO safe drinking water limit in some places, is all naturally occurring? You have no evidence to make the claim, and it contradicts existing data, including QMM's, that shows QMM is contaminating waterways with elevated heavy metals and uranium in its discharge waters. Why do you continue to obfuscate the findings and mislead traditional communities and your shareholders? How does this build trust? Yes, thanks. Thanks, Yvonne, for the question. For the benefit of shareholders who may not be familiar with QMM in Madagascar, this is a mineral sands project. The mineral sands that we mine there have a low level of naturally occurring radiation. Now, when we mine those sands, we do not add any chemicals. Nothing is added during the processing apart from water. However, the process of dredging the sand does indeed result in some of the sand and other sediment being accumulated in the water so that it's in suspension in the water. We maintain the water table of the mining ponds below the level of the water in the external environment so that water cannot flow from the ponds into the external environment. Periodically, we do have to release water from the mines into the environment. Before we do that, we transfer that water into settling ponds so that any sediment that may be in suspension settles out of the water, and then we release the water into the environment and at the same time sample it to make sure that the quality of water going into the environment is at least as good as the water upstream of the mine. We have had a whole series of reviews of this. We've had third-party audits in 2001, 2012, 2014, 2018, and we are at the moment in the middle of a fifth independent study by JBS&G, a very well-known consultancy. Unfortunately, that has been delayed slightly because of COVID, which has prevented them from going out and taking samples that were required. We are trying to progress with that study, and we will, of course, publicize it and share that once it has been peer-reviewed. Yvonne is correct in saying there have been temporary exceedances in the quality of the water which has been released to the environment. There were exceedances in aluminum and in cadmium. For that reason, we have, again, stepped up our water management program. We have a team working on this, drawing on expertise from around the group to make sure that we do not have a recurrence of those exceedances. We've also, of course, shared all of the sampling of the water quality with ALT and indeed with a broad range of other stakeholders and on our international advisory panel who help us with these issues, but also local communities, mayors, governments, CSOs, and so on. That five-year set of data was released. We will continue to work hard to improve the quality of our water management on-site and ensure that we do not have exceedances of the water that is released to the environment. Can we just check whether there are any calls on the line? Any questions on the line? There currently are no questions on the telephone. Still none on the line. Okay. Let's move to the next pre-submitted then question, please. We have two corollary questions in relation to QMM here from Ketakandriana Rafitoson. When it comes to the rural poor of the Anosy Region in Southern Madagascar, those very people targeted to be lifted out of poverty by the presence of the QMM mine, villagers tell us that their water has been polluted and degraded over the last 10 years since the QMM mine started its operation. Local people are reliant on natural water resources for survival. All existing water data and studies point to the contamination and the detrimental effect of QMM operations on local waterways and water quality of the region. How does Rio Tinto QMM explain and justify its reluctance and delay to address safe water drinking levels? When will Rio Tinto concede the QMM mine is contaminating waterways around the mine and provide safe drinking water to the affected communities made up of poor fisher folk and rural producers living on less than $1.5 dollars a day? Why the delay? The second question reads: Why have we been researching the QMM’s mine contamination of local waterways in Anosy for over four years with the help of an expert hydrologist and also a radioactivity specialist? I want Rio Tinto to explain why QMM is insisting to the affected communities and civil society, and why Rio Tinto tells its shareholders that it uses no chemicals for extraction at the QMM mine, only water. It leads with this when asked to answer questions about QMM’s contamination of water with elevated levels of uranium, lead, cadmium, and aluminum. Why is Rio Tinto not explicitly admitting what they know? That QMM's extraction processes causes the elevated levels of uranium and heavy metals in its mining pond, and discharge waste waters that are subject of the inquiry. Why is the company apparently trying to take advantage of the lack of scientific understanding of the situation in its audiences to divert attention from the facts, our concerns about water contamination, and our demands for safe drinking water? Yeah. Thanks for both of those questions. I think I've partially answered the second question in my response to Yvonne earlier. To be clear, we are not trying to confuse people at all. We are trying to be as transparent as we can be, and that's why we have this very active engagement with local community, with the mayors, with CSOs, to try and ensure that they do understand the precautions that we are taking and the work that we're doing and continue to do on improving our water management. As I mentioned earlier, the data from the water discharge points did indeed show elevated levels of aluminum and cadmium. It did not show elevated levels of uranium and lead. I do acknowledge, we do acknowledge that there is genuinely a problem across the whole of southern Madagascar in relation to access to fresh water. To be clear, that's partly a function of the drought that the area's been suffering, but it's also a function of the very high rate of population growth, with a 3% population growth in that part of Madagascar. The population doubles roughly every 20 years. Certainly in terms of access to fresh water, that is exacerbated by slash and burn agriculture, which impacts the quality of the steep, the watersheds, the water that's flowing into the rivers. There's no question that across the region, there are endemic health risks from waterborne diseases. We do acknowledge the issue around access to fresh water. When the mine was built, we did invest together with the World Bank, to improve water access and sanitation in Fort Dauphin area, including putting 20 wells into local communities and improving their waste disposal and sewage treatment to try and ensure that the waters are not contaminated. QMM continues to provide technical support to the government to improve access to potable water in the Fort Dauphin area and into rural municipalities that neighbor the mine. I would say that this issue, the impact of slash and burn agriculture, and the lack of access to fresh water, the high population growth, these are all associated with poverty. The mine is certainly not going to solve all of the problems of southern Madagascar. What it has done is create 2,000 extremely well-paid jobs. 80,000 people in the local community have access to power provided by the utilities on the mine. As I say, we are providing technical support to the local municipalities and the government as they seek to improve access to water within Fort Dauphin and the other municipalities that are close to our mine. We will continue to very much focus on this area. Can we just check once again whether there are any questions on the telephone lines? The next question is a telephone question. Operator, next question, please. Yes, the next question comes from the line of Andrew Hickman. Please ask your question. Hello, Mr. Chairman. This is Andrew Hickman. I've come to AGMs regularly for many years now. You may remember, I almost always ask about the Grasberg mine in West Papua, just north of where the company destroyed Juukan Gorge. I want to ask this question, again, because we've been in correspondence, and I received a letter from your representative in June. I was asking, and have been asking for many years, about responsibility for the destruction and the destructive legacy of the Grasberg mine. I think I wanted to ask this question in person. I have actually submitted the question again in writing, but I wanted to ask it in person. In the context of what you've been saying about your Juukan Gorge. You've been very clear about the fact that the company has failed or that the company executives have failed in certain respects. You've talked about being guests on the land and the lands where you operate, and you've even said sorry. Those same issues apply to what you have been doing and you've been responsible for at Grasberg for many years. We know that you've now exited Grasberg. My question is quite a simple one. Putting aside any questions of the legal or financial reputational risk, do you recognize a moral responsibility for your actions? Do you recognize that those moral responsibilities do not stop just with a legal clause on a contract or a check? Can you now say sorry for the destruction and the legacy of destruction that Rio Tinto has caused in West Papua? Thank you. Thanks, Andrew. I do indeed recall that you've asked this or similar questions at many previous AGMs. Just to give the background here, Rio Tinto was never actually a shareholder in Grasberg, and we were certainly not managers of Grasberg. What we had was a metal strip that entitled Rio Tinto to a proportion of production above an agreed level. Andrew, you on many previous AGMs encouraged us to divest from Grasberg because of your concerns about the mine. Indeed, we did sell our rights in 2018. As part of that process, we did not assume any continuing liabilities post-divestment. That's not hiding behind contracts. We didn't walk away from our liabilities. We sold them to a company owned by the Indonesian government. They, of course, were fully aware of all of the issues surrounding the mine when they entered into that transaction with them. The reason that they did that was because the government of Indonesia has said for many, many years that it was its ambition to increase its ownership interest in the Grasberg mine, which is an operating mine and which they continue to regard as a strategic national asset. That is the background to our exit from Grasberg. Can we see if there are any other questions on the line? There are no further questions on the line at this point. We will go to the next written question, which comes from Counselor Doug McMurdo, Chair of the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum, a group of 82 local authority pension funds and seven pooled companies that have come together to promote corporate responsibility in the interests of long-term shareholder value. The question concerns human rights. Working closely with mining companies over the past couple of years, I've noticed there is very little reporting by companies on the financial impacts of their social failures. Rio Tinto's 2020 annual report suggests on page 344 in footnote T that there has been a reduction of iron ore reserves of around 54 million tons in the wake of Juukan Gorge. Is that correct? In light of this figure and other operational, reputational, and legal impacts of Juukan Gorge, what do you estimate the financial impacts to be of Rio Tinto and its investors? Would you be willing to report on the financial impact of Rio Tinto's social challenges in future reporting? Thanks, Doug, for that question. Of course, we've had a number of conversations over the past few months about Juukan. Yes, the number that you refer to there is correct. As part of our new Integrated Heritage Management Plan, we have gone back to review all of the heritage sites that we manage, obviously starting with those that are potentially going to be impacted by our operations over the next two years. As it said, I think in the introductory video, we have reviewed now just under 2,000 heritage sites as part of this process. We have ranked them, first of all, according to their significance, making sure we do have a very thorough understanding of their significance. Secondly, ensuring that we do have the free prior informed consent of the traditional owners for any impacts that there may be on those sites. Thirdly, by just ranking them by the degree of that impact, which obviously varies depending upon how close the site is to the mine. Wherever there is any doubt about either the significance of the site or our confidence that we have the consent of landowners, we've taken the precautionary principle of reclassifying those sites from clear to mining back to protected. As a consequence of that, we have sterilized, as you said in your question, 54 million tons of ore. That's really just by creating buffer zones around sites where we are not absolutely certain that we understand the significance or have consent for impacts. To put that 54 million tons in context, our overall reserve position in the Pilbara is about 3 billion tons, and our overall resource position is about 24 billion tons. The 54 million tons of ore that has been sterilized is a relatively modest proportion of our total reserves and resources. The impact of those precautionary actions is reflected in our production guidance for next year. The impact is minimal because we have the flexibility to mine elsewhere. It's very hard to put a number on the cost of all of the social programs that we have underway, and it's very hard to put a precise cost on the Integrated Heritage Management Plan that we have put in place and all of the other improvements that we have made to our risk management, and governance processes. All of those, it's quite hard to actually single out the impact of those, because frankly, they are things that we should be doing in any event. There is, so far as I'm aware, no legal cost associated with Juukan because, sadly the Aboriginal Heritage Act, which is currently being reformed, of course. It was approved under that act. Now we all recognize that Rio Tinto should have gone well beyond the minimum requirements of the law here and prevented the destruction of this site. There is unlikely to be a legal liability associated with this. Of course, we still don't know at this stage what the impact will be of the reformed Aboriginal Heritage Act when that is brought in. At the moment, all of our production guidance that we have provided includes our best estimate of the impact of ensuring that we never have a repeat of Juukan Gorge. Can we just check the telephone lines and see whether we have any other questions there? No further questions on the lines at this time. The next four questions concerns the Jadar Project. The first two are from Marija Alimpić, and the second two are from Aleksandra Velimanović from Earth Thrive. Do Rio Tinto shareholders know that the Drina is an international trans-boundary river that flows into a rich marsh ecosystem, which is currently in the process of being legally protected? How can Rio Tinto shareholders guarantee that groundwater and surface water pollution will not occur? How do you plan to ensure the preservation, cultural, and spiritual use for future generations of the significant archaeological, historical, and religious heritage spanning at least 3,500 years? In particular, the Bronze Age site in the planned mining area and the important church and graveyard in the projected direct impact zone. What are your exact plans to protect the rich biodiversity and natural landscapes in the Jadar mine site area, as it is situated in a key water basin and close to an area with international and national protected animals and plants? Why did you initiate the elaboration of the spatial plan to the Serbian Ministry of Construction, Transport, and Infrastructure in December 2016, years before you had the information about the project, such as the ore reserve declaration, the planned lifetime of the mine, the water use for the technical process, and the exact location and volumes of the tailings storage facilities? Thank you for that question. Look, I'm going to pass that question over to Jakob in Perth because Jakob has visited Jadar, and unfortunately, I haven't had the opportunity to do that yet. Jakob, why don't you take that one? Thank you very much for the questions. They're all highly relevant and it's questions that we are working very hard on getting full answers to. Let me give you an update to all of them. First of all, we discovered the significant lithium and boron deposit, Jadar, in Serbia in 2004. Since then, we have spent several hundred million dollars on progressing studies of all kinds of nature. Right now, we're in the middle of progressing the feasibility study while we, in parallel, are progressing the environmental impact study. I don't have full answers to you yet on a couple of the questions, as we will get that when we finalize this. What you can say, first of all, on the river, there will be no impact to the river that was mentioned before. We will discharge only water-treated water into the Jadar River and not into the other. Our analysis indicates that there should be no impact on the river in case of water-treated disposal into the Jadar River. On your other question, I can assure you that we will be following the highest standard when it comes to cultural heritage management, ongoing impact assessments, and project designs to ensure that there will be no adverse impact on cultural heritage. On your third question, with regards to why we were progressing, how we can give assurance that this will have no impact. I have to say to you right now, we are in the middle of finalizing the environmental impact study. When we have finalized that, we will share it openly with you. We are not going to take any decisions on progressing the project before we have assessed ourself and satisfied that it is meeting the highest ESG standards that we set for this project. I am very enthusiastic about the project. I believe that we will be able to find a solution that meets all the consideration based on the questions here. We will learn more about that in the course of the year. I encourage you for further consultations when we can present more information ahead of a decision whether to sanction the project or not, which we anticipate will happen towards the end of this year. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks, Jakob. Can we just check the lines again to see if there are any other questions coming in on the telephone lines? No questions on the telephone lines at present. The next written question comes from Andrew Whitmore. In 2020, communities in Bougainville filed a human rights complaint against Rio Tinto in Australia about the legacy of the vast amount of mine waste left behind by the company's Panguna Mine, from which Rio Tinto divested in 2016. The communities report that tailings have blocked parts of the river, causing widespread flooding of their lands, water pollution, and destruction of their livelihoods and sacred sites. They've called on the company to fund an independent human rights and environmental assessment to identify risks posed by the mine and contribute to an independent fund to address the impacts on local people and assist with the cleanup. Given Rio Tinto's recent commitments to ensure that it leaves a positive legacy, to learn from its mistakes, and rebuild trust with indigenous peoples impacted by its operations, will the company now publicly commit to fund an impact assessment of Panguna and address the devastating problems left by the mine? Thanks Andrew for that question. Again, perhaps for the benefit of shareholders who are not familiar with the history of Bougainville, Panguna was a mine that was owned and operated by Bougainville Copper, which was a listed company in Australia in which CRA had a 54% shareholding. Production at the mine started in 1972. It continued until the civil war in Bougainville resulted in the operations being suspended in 1989. At that point, all BCL personnel were evacuated from the site. The civil war continued for about nine years after the suspension of the mine. The civil war came to an end in 1998. Even after the war ended, the security situation in Bougainville was such that BCL was not able to resume the operations of the mine. The mine was never closed. The mine was suspended in 1989, more than 30 years ago. No Rio Tinto personnel have had access to the mine since then. To be clear, BCL didn't walk away from Bougainville. It was in effect expropriated because of the civil war. The Human Rights Law Centre has made allegations that Rio Tinto is in breach of OECD guidelines and UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and has filed a complaint with the Australian National Contact Point. We absolutely acknowledge their concerns and the concerns expressed by you, Andrew, about the human rights and environmental issues in Bougainville. We take those allegations very seriously. We are taking all the necessary steps to assess any involvement that Rio Tinto may have had in these adverse impacts. I think what is very clear to us is that any lasting solution to this very complex legacy issue really does require the engagement of all stakeholders, and that obviously must include all of the local communities, the Autonomous Bougainville Government, the Government of Papua New Guinea, BCL, and others. We do hope that the Australian National Contact Point will help to clarify this very complex history of Bougainville, and we are working with other stakeholders to try and find a mutually agreed and lasting solution. Those discussions are actively ongoing as we speak. Can we check the lines to see whether there are any questions coming in on the call? Nothing on the lines at present. All right. Let's take another pre-submitted one then. The next question is from Sukhgerel Dugersuren. It's an additional question on Oyu Tolgoi. At Oyu Tolgoi, members of the affected communities are concerned about the lack of assessments of the impacts of land subsidence on their pastures and general living environment. There are also worries about the subsidence potentially affecting the stability of the massive tailing ponds. The current cost overruns have been caused by land instability. Will you conduct an analysis of alternative mining technologies to replace the controversial block caving method? Do you plan to carry out an environmental and social impact assessment that will include the impacts of the alleged new land instability on block caving, land subsidence, and potential failing of tailings facilities in the unstable zone? Yes. Thanks for that question. Just to put this in context, the subsidence that we are anticipating from Oyu Tolgoi will impact about 400 hectares of land out of our total license area of about 8,500 hectares. The subsidence will be well within the mine fence and a long way away from any land use by the community. Obviously the tailings and indeed all of the other surface facilities around the mine were all designed and built at a safe distance away from that area of subsidence. The environmental and social impact assessment that we carried out as part of the approval process for Oyu Tolgoi evaluated that subsidence impact. We will continue to monitor that throughout the life of the mine very closely. It always formed the basis of the consultations that we had, both with the government of Mongolia and indeed the local communities. It is all contained within the mine fence and will not impact community grazing lands. Can we just check the lines again? Any questions there? No questions on the lines at present. We'll proceed to the next written question. Thank you. Which is a follow-up question from Councilor Doug McMurdo. Thank you for the ongoing engagement with the Climate Action 100+ engagement group, which includes the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum. I'd also like to thank you for agreeing to vote at both 2020 AGMs on climate reporting in line with the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. Could you share with us what your contribution as a FTSE 100 company is to the anticipated steel and aluminum global value chain work to be highlighted at COP26 in Glasgow? Yeah. Thanks for that question, Doug. We are in active contact with the COP26 high-level champions leader. As you know, the planning for COP26 is still fairly fluid, but we're actually engaged in a number of discussions at the moment both with government and with industry associations and others on how we can constructively participate in the conference in Glasgow, which we do see as an extremely important step towards confronting the challenge of climate change. Jakob is attending a CEO-level meeting with the U.K. government, which is planned in May. I am a commissioner on the Energy Transitions Commission and the ETC is certainly very much involved in planning for COP26. We are involved with their Mission Possible Partnership on Net-Z ero Steel Initiative. We are also talking to for example, the Aluminium Stewardship Initiative, about how we can, again, as an aluminum industry, collectively contribute to COP26. There is a lot of activity going on, a lot of planning. It is still relatively fluid. We hope that we'll be in a position to provide a bit more detail on that over the coming months. Can we check the lines? Thank you. The next question is a telephone question. Operator. Thank you. Yes. The question comes from the line of Andrew Hickman. Please ask your question. Thanks, Jason. Please allow me to do a brief follow-up question to my previous question about Grasberg. The reason I'm following it up is I really don't think that you answered the question, and I'll try and make it as simple as possible. It's an ethical question. Perhaps the best way to illustrate it is to ask you if you had sold your operations in Juukan Gorge, would you not be saying sorry? The relevance here is although you have sold your operations at Grasberg, you are failing to take responsibility and I'm asking you an ethical question. The company prides itself on being a responsible member of the community. Can you not see that there is a responsibility for what has happened at Grasberg beyond the life of the mine itself and beyond your involvement in that mine? Thank you. Thanks, Andrew. Look to be clear, where we are responsible, even if we have not operated the mine then we absolutely take that responsibility. An example would be the Holden Mine in the U.S. that we inherited when we acquired Alcan. In fact, I think originally Holden was owned by Pechiney, so it goes back through the chain a long way. This is a mine which I think closed in the 1950s, if I'm not mistaken. Certainly Rio Tinto never operated it. By virtue of acquiring Alcan, we were responsible for the closure of that mine, and we closed that mine at a cost of roughly $500 million. In the case of Grasberg is an operating mine. It's a very long-life mine. It has many years of production ahead of it. Freeport continues to be the operator of Grasberg as they have been. They discover, develop and operate the mine. We have sold the rights that we had, the metal strip that I referred to earlier, to a company owned by the government of Indonesia. As I said earlier, the basis of that sale, and indeed the price that we received, recognized that the state-owned company in Indonesia would take over our responsibilities for any closure and rehabilitation, and other costs going forward. In any event, this is not a legacy mine. This is a very active mine, which employs many people and is a significant taxpayer in Indonesia, and one which the government, again, as I mentioned earlier, has always been clear about its ambition to increase its shareholding, and we were able to facilitate that. Could we check whether there are any other calls queued on the telephone lines? At present, there are no questions on the line, so we will move to the next written question, which is from Roger Featherstone, Director of the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition. Resolution Copper's plans to destroy Oak Flat will fail. Moving forward with this experiment is bad enough, but destroying Oak Flat, a sacred recreational and ecological haven, is beyond reason. After you blew up the sacred rock shelters at Juukan Gorge, you promised it would never happen again. If your words mean anything, you have no choice but to abandon the project. You would suck our water dry to export unfinished concentrate abroad during a decades-long drought, with projected water shortages starting next year. You would devastate a people's culture and religion. You would destroy a valley with a mountain of toxic tailings that would cover the City of London 5 ft deep. The project will use the same amount of water that would supply Tempe, Arizona, with 180,000 residents. Would you deprive Arizona of $500 million of revenue earmarked for educating our future students? Will you keep your word and leave Arizona alone? Yes. Thanks, Roger, for the question. Obviously I gave quite a lot of background information on Resolution when I answered the question from Mr. Muñoz. To address a couple of the specifics in your question on water. If the project goes ahead and again, just to repeat, at this stage, what we are discussing is a land swap agreement excuse me, which would enable us to conduct a full feasibility study on the project. If that takes place, the project were to proceed and that is many, many years off because we have to do the feasibility study. Again, as I mentioned earlier, we have to absolutely continue with our consultations with all interests and affected parties, not least with the Native American tribes that have historical associations with the area. In particular with the San Carlos and the White Mountain Apache, both of whom regard Oak Flat as a sacred site. If it does go ahead, the water will actually represent a pretty small percentage of the total consumption in Arizona. As part of the Environmental Impact Assessment carried out by the U.S. government through the U.S. Forest Services, there was a tremendous amount of work done with regulators to ensure that there would be an adequate supply for both the project and indeed all the other future development plans that there are for that region of Arizona, which is clearly a region that does suffer from water scarcity. For that reason, the mine is designed, like Oyu Tolgoi, to be highly water efficient. All of the analysis that we have done and that the U.S. Forest Services have done has been independently reviewed by third-party experts, as disclosed in the environmental impact study, which was put out for consultation last year and which is now being reviewed by the Biden administration. If and when the mine goes into production, obviously all of the ground and surface water impacts of the mine would be monitored. That monitoring would be shared with the federal and state agencies to ensure compliance with all the relevant standards and legislation. There has been a huge amount of work done on water. Tailings, of course, another major issue for any copper project, any copper sulfide project. There again, a tremendous amount of work has been done on both the design of the tailings facility, but also its location, where we changed the location of the tailings to avoid encroaching on national forest land. We have very deliberately, of course, applied all of the lessons from the tailings disasters that we've seen in Brazil to the design of the Resolution tailings, which will embrace the very best standards of tailings management. Of course, you raised Juukan, again, I should emphasize that all of the lessons that we have learned from Juukan are also being applied to Resolution, that we very much want to engage with the San Carlos and the White Mountain Apache in particular, but all of the 11 Native American tribes that have historic associations with this part of Arizona. We have already redesigned the project to avoid Apache Leap, which is significant to, I think, five or six tribes. We've removed Ga'an Canyon from the land package as well because of its cultural and indeed biodiversity significance. We very much want to engage and work with all of the Native American tribes to understand their concerns about this project, to see whether we are able to take measures that address those concerns, and continue to work with them to try and preserve their customs and traditions. There is a lot of work still to be done on this. We welcome the current review of the land swap agreement by the Biden administration. We do think that is just another important step in making sure that if we proceed with this project, that we do have the support of the majority of the interested and affected parties. Can we check the telephone lines? Currently no further questions on the telephone line. We'll proceed to the next written question, which comes from Felicia Olney. There have been lots of groveling apologies for the Juukan Gorge rock shelter debacle, but I still don't understand how you allowed it to happen. Yeah. I think the best way to answer that question is to refer you to the board review, which is published and available on our website. It does run to, I think, about 18 or so pages, which goes through all of the root causes of the tragic events at Juukan and our response to that. Rather than talk about the causes, perhaps we should focus on what we are doing about it and the steps that we are taking to ensure that it never happens again. Megan, I'm going to actually pass this to you in a moment, but let me just very quickly summarize some of the steps that we are taking there. We are in discussions with the PKKP, and Megan and I are going to visit them again in three weeks' time to discuss progress on the remedy process with them. We have declared a moratorium on mining around the Juukan Gorge. We are working again with the PKKP, very much involved in monitoring all of the things that we're doing on-site to try and rehabilitate the rock shelters. We think we can certainly rehabilitate one, and potentially allow safe access to it, and we will certainly do whatever we can to remediate to the other, as well as revegetating the gorge and recreate, so far as possible, a sense of place there. The artifacts that were recovered from the rock shelters during the three archaeological surveys have now been transferred to a purpose-built facility for storage, and we're in discussions again with the PKKP about a permanent keeping place or cultural center to have those artifacts. We are well advanced on negotiations with the PKKP and other groups about modernizing our agreements. In particular, to remove any confidentiality clauses that they may contain or any restrictions on the ability of traditional owners to apply statutory rights on heritage protection. We have said that subject to the consent of traditional owners, we would be very happy to make those agreements public, so that again, we increase transparency around the nature of the agreements we have with the owners of the land where we operate. We've changed responsibility for the relationships with the communities from a function to the product groups. They now have primary ownership of that relationship, and we're ensuring that we are training all of our frontline operators to make sure they have the skills and indeed the access to the subject matter experts that they need to support good decision-making. I talked earlier about the Integrated Heritage Management Plan, which has resulted in the sterilization of about 54 million tons of ore in order to make sure that we do have appropriate buffer zones around sites. We've also invested $50 million in a program to accelerate the career development of Indigenous Australians. On the video earlier, you saw Brad Welsh talk about the importance of making sure that we have a more diverse leadership team to really give Indigenous Australians a louder voice. Not just in our local communities, but within our operations as we step up our social performance in this area. What else should I mention? The Indigenous Advisory Group. This, I think, is a really important step that we are, again, in order to really make sure that we have coaches and mentors for our senior managers who can help them navigate their way through the renegotiation agreements with the traditional owners. We are setting up an Indigenous Advisory Group. That, I think, also has the advantage of providing a completely separate channel of communication directly to the board if they are hearing or are feeling concerned that our activities locally on the ground are not consistent with the policies that are being set by the group. Megan, can I pass over to you? Because obviously, you are the person who is primarily responsible in your role as chair of the SASCO in overseeing the implementation of all of the recommendations that were set out on the board review and indeed, the parliamentary inquiry. Thank you very much, Simon, and thank you, Felicia, for the question. Simon has outlined many of the changes and actions that are already being put in place. Let me just cover two areas, how we're improving our governance and oversight, but also how we're going to verify that we have the right behaviors on the ground, the right culture on the ground, and that those changes are being effective. If we just look firstly at the governance. Our operating and governance structure for our communities and social performance has been strengthened, and it now mirrors our safety operating model, one that is working extremely well throughout the organization. What we have in place to make sure that we're living up to our standards, which, Felicia, in this case, at Juukan Gorge, we did not live up to our standards. We have three lines of defense. Sitting at the foundation of that are our standards and our guidance. It's not enough just to have the right standards. As we've seen, they must be applied consistently on the ground. The Sustainability Committee undertakes deep dives to look at these standards and make sure they're being lived at our businesses and that we're building true partnerships with our traditional owners and communities and First Nations people. There's a couple of very important changes that we've made to that first line of defense, which is at our operations. Simon has mentioned the integration of our heritage considerations into the mine planning, and that's done through the Integrated Heritage Management Plan. Secondly, that the primary responsibility for the relationship with the traditional owners now sits with the asset general manager. The traditional owners have told us that they want direct dialogue with those who control the mine plan and the shovels. Sitting above that line of defense at the operations is what we call our second level of assurance, and this will be covered by our area of expertise. We've put together a new area of expertise in communities and social performance, and we've just appointed a new leader. What's important here is that that brings in experts from our risk area. It brings in subject matter experts to support the businesses. The Sustainability Committee will do deep dives into the effectiveness of the area of expertise on a regular basis. At this level, we have internal audit. This is a way for our internal team to check and verify what's happening on the ground and that our standards are being applied, and that reports directly to the committee. Thirdly, our third line of defense is actually to bring independent audits in and bring that outside in view to look at what we're doing, and this is very important. We've strengthened all of those areas around community and social performance. You might ask the question is, how do we make sure that those changes are effective on the ground and we have the right culture and behaviors? There's a few things that we will do there. At every one of our meetings, we are making sure that we have effective management and controls over those community risks. We're reviewing, as Simon mentioned, the progress on the implementation of the recommendations of the parliamentary inquiry and our own board review. We're also receiving an update from our iron ore business team on their progress with this reform and the remedy aspects. We have requested and are now receiving updates on an audit of our global community and social performance risks. The Integrated Heritage Management Plan also allows now for immediate escalation of approvals relating to areas of high priority or high significance. That brings in CEO-level approval and if necessary, all the way up to the board. To date, no approvals have needed to be escalated because we have had action on the ground and review of, as Simon said, well over 1,000 heritage sites. As well as receiving these reports, we're using other channels to ensure that the measures we're undertaking are meeting the expectations of the Traditional Owners. Regular site visits. As Simon mentioned, he and I visited the Juukan Gorge and really saw firsthand the hurt that had been caused and put our personal apologies to the Gooniyandi, Gunditjmara, and Pinikura people. As Chair of the Sustainability Committee, I will also be returning to the Pilbara to check that we're meeting those expectations. In fact, I go next week, and Simon and Jakob will be part of some of those visits. We're also putting together, as Simon mentioned, the Indigenous Advisory Group. Certainly, if invited, I will attend that as an observer. It's not just that we're looking at what's been recommended in the parliamentary inquiry, but we're also looking to take those lessons globally. We will look to integrate that Integrated Heritage Management Plan and implement that across as appropriate, implement that globally, and we'll oversee that at our committee. As I said, we'll also oversee this audit of our global CSP risk. Keep you and other stakeholders up to date, Felicia, we will together with the traditional owners, and we'll report progress on this reform, and we'll do that when we report some of our financial results. Thank you. Thanks very much, Megan. Can we check the lines again? Thank you. Our next question is a telephone question. Operator, next question, please. Yes. Next question comes from the line of Yvonne Orengo. Please ask your question. Yes. Forgive me a follow-up question, Mr. Thompson, about Madagascar and the QMM mine and water quality. I just want to point out to you and to all of the shareholders that we're getting the same answers to the questions we've been asking since 2019, despite significant amount of studies and data that have been provided to you, which show that there is a serious concern and cause for concern about water quality around QMM mine and its operation. Let's be clear. There is no evidence that you have been able to provide yet over more than two years to show that the QMM settling ponds are effective at removing solids. For example, heavy metals and uranium. Let's also be clear what that means. The health impacts, for example, of uranium, kidney damage, neurological development, multiple illnesses, lead, development of children's brains that can have a generational impact. Let's also be clear, this is not about general access to water in the region. It's nothing to do with tavy and slash and burn agriculture, drought, or population growth. It's specifically related to QMM contamination of waterways. However, given the poverty in the region that you refer to and all the other challenges the poor of the region are facing, I repeat Ms. Rafitoson's question: how can Rio Tinto justify not providing safe drinking water to the affected communities? Thank you. Yvonne, look, I absolutely accept that we haven't made as much progress on this over the last 12 months as you and we hoped. That, of course, as you well know, is because of the pandemic. We did listen to you and indeed other NGOs when you raised these concerns with us. We did, as a result of those discussions, launch that fifth study of water quality and radiation risk. We did that in December 2019, and we made some progress on it before the pandemic struck. Sadly, not as much as we would have wished. As you know, that process has been delayed. Now we are getting back on track with the sampling. Again, as I said earlier, we will make sure that this further study on this question will be peer-reviewed. It will be public. Of course, we will share it as we have done, and indeed all the other monitoring data that we have with our external advisory group, with the local communities, the mayors, government, and CSOs. This is a continuing dialogue, and I know, Yvonne, that you have a meeting, or maybe you've had a meeting already with Sinead, who's taking over responsibility for this area. We will continue to keep you very much up to date with progress on that important study. We recognize we have to do more work here to make absolutely sure that we address the concerns that you raise. Can we check the telephone lines? We have no further questions on the telephone line. These are our final two written questions, which come from Philip Clark. How many shareholders have joined this virtual meeting? How does this compare with the numbers of attendees at the normal physical meeting? Congratulations on achieving a second year without a fatality and a sharp reduction in the all-injury frequency rate. What can you do to further improve from here? Can you share the reasons for your success stories across the industry in order to raise safety more widely? Great. Thank you, Mr. Clark, for those questions. Steve Allen, our Company Secretary, has just passed me a little piece of paper saying that we apparently currently have 35 shareholders on the line. Typically, when we have a physical meeting, in London, we would expect to have 150- 200 shareholders present. It is significantly lower. It may well be that there are other people listening in, that appears to be the number of shareholders that we have. On the safety point, Jakob, I'm going to pass that over to you, to talk about the further steps that we can take to improve our safety. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you very much for the nice words, Mr. Philip Clark. I'm also very proud of what the organization have delivered last year, in terms of safety performance. I'm always a bit humble about it because you're never better than tomorrow, and we are managing safety risks every day. What do I believe is the reason for the strong performance of Rio Tinto? I've worked in a number of other companies as well. What I see in Rio Tinto is very, very deeply in our values, safety. It's really in the hearts and in the minds. I think the performance we have here is good, is very good. I would say to you as well, as a leadership team, we are committed to do better, and we believe we can do better. We are working very hard on what we call our safety maturity models, and we have clear plans how to further improve from here. We also want to be very transparent about it, and anything we can do to support the industry, amongst others, through the ICMM, we are always happy to do so. It is only in our interest to improve safety performance, not just in Rio Tinto, but across the industry. By the way, we are also learning from other industries. It's not enough to learn from within the industry. In fact, what we are trying to take us to the next step is exactly by looking at best practices in other industries. Thank you very much for the question. Thanks. Thanks very much, Jakob. Do we have any questions? Nothing on the line. We have a final pre-submitted question, is that right? No further questions. No further questions. Well, look, in that case, thank you very much indeed for all of your questions. We will now move to the formal business of the meeting. Many of you have already sent in your proxy cards and therefore do not need to vote today. If you have not voted, you are eligible to do so and have not appointed a proxy, you should complete your votes through the Lumi platform now. If you have any difficulty, please refer to page 13 of the notice of meeting for full instructions. Voting will close approximately 15 minutes after the end of this meeting. The results of the shareholder votes on resolutions one to 17, which are dealt with under the joint electorate procedure with Rio Tinto Limited, will be published after the Rio Tinto Limited AGM in Australia, which is on Thursday, the 6th of May. The results of the shareholder votes on resolutions 18- 22 will be announced as soon as possible after this meeting and will also be posted on our website. On behalf of the Board, I'd like to thank our shareholders for their participation today, and I declare the meeting closed.