Good morning. Welcome to the ForFarmers Strategy 2025 update. My name is Jeroen van Setten. I will be your host for the morning. With me we have from ForFarmers, Roeland Tjebbes, the CFO, and Pieter Wolleswinkel, the COO. Over there, Rob Kiers, Director M&A and Integration, and has led the strategy project. There you have Nick Major, who is the Corporate Affairs Director and is the lead for ESG project from the group. First we will have an introduction around the table, asking questions and giving some insights into the strategy update for you. In the second section, we will open the floor to you for any questions that you may have. What I would like to start off with is strategy update 2025. However, before we go into that revised strategy, maybe a short reflection on the absence of Chris Deen, the CEO. How is he doing? He's recovering, so that is good news. Obviously it's unfortunate how it has developed, but we're happy that he's working and can work on his recovery. Yeah, that's good to hear. Yesterday, I think the day before yesterday, we saw an announcement. Yes Of a new CEO joining, Theo Spierings. Yeah. We are glad obviously that this speed that the announcement of Theo came with. Yeah, he is nominated to be CEO, where we need a extraordinary shareholders meeting probably in January, where they probably, hopefully, will be appointed as CEO. Yeah, we're very glad that he's coming, yeah. You probably seen in the press release, he has a big experience in the agri sector at large, but especially of course in the dairy industry at Friesland Foods and Fonterra. Of course, with his current company, he also understands the dynamics of the agricultural world. Yeah, we're very glad that he's coming. Yeah. Does it mean we're gonna get an update of the updated strategy? No. He has, of course, seen highlights of the strategy. He embraces that, he understands the way forward, and his task is to execute the strategy. He will not come with new insights or whatsoever. Maybe to add to that, don't forget that also Chris, of course, at that time was already in the midst of helping out on the strategy and also he embraces the strategy as we have it today because part of it, of course, was also discussed with him and he put input into it. Yeah. I think it's also good to add to that we have been working also already in the past month on the parts of the project that we will explain today as an example. We are planning a joint venture in the U.K. with 2Agriculture. We have been able to make progress already in the past months. On progress over the past months, you decided to review the strategy not even halfway down the road. Why was this necessary? I know you've explained it before, but please reiterate why it was absolutely necessary to do this now. We recognized end of last year that several trends partly already recognized, but others did come together that were more pronounced and more intensive than we anticipated. If you look at the sustainability agenda, it was quite clear to us that the demand for an improvement of the sustainability of the agricultural sector was going at a higher pace. We also saw a consolidation of farmers at a higher pace than anticipated. We did see a tightening of the labor market. We did not foresee that in our Build to Grow strategy, but we recognized that having the people on board is such a vital part in the coming period. We emphasized also on that one. Lastly, but definitely not least, was also the volatility, the hyperinflation and the volatility of the raw material markets. These points made us come to the decision that it was time for a revision of the strategy. Does this mean that, when you presented the original strategy of 2020, that you couldn't foresee these trends? Were they not visible at that point in time? Yeah. Don't forget, this was in COVID times. The launch of the strategy was in September 2020, and I remember it was in the room next door, and I hear myself talking, and we said, "Well, we think that COVID would end by the end of December." We were based on OECD figures and other figures, Rabobank and other figures that there would be growth in compound feed going forward in the markets we're in. This was before the whole acceleration of the Green Deal and what Pieter was saying on hyperinflation, which is now happening, but also the energy price we had, the impact of African swine fever in Europe, which led to, let's say, closure of China. Yeah, that was not to be foreseen at that time in our strategy and also not in our financials. I think maybe to point out as well, I know that some of the analysts picked it up that it was hard for us to reach our own set target at that moment because of all these externalities happening. Our way to deal with it, we're not making it our own inflicted target, so to say. Yeah, that's also a reason to say, "Okay, the assumptions have changed. Let's renew or revitalize or, how to say it, renew our strategy. You announced this one year ago. Yes. Why did it take the time it took? One year later. Yeah. We said at the start already we want the new CEO to be part of it and to embrace it and to deal with it. Yoram left in April, and then already we started with the strategy. We had a consultant in and, of course, we already started working. If we wanted to go faster, it could have gone faster. We said, "No, we need Chris on board. We need Chris to help out." Chris went sick, and we had, yeah, kind of a vacuum. Okay, what will happen? Yeah, that's why it took longer than expected. Yeah, we're here now. Any business and parts of the business that demonstrated resilience in these significant times? Yeah, definitely. I can give you two examples on that, Jeroen. The first example for me would be dairy in the Netherlands. We have been very successful over the past years. We're able to maintain our volumes, and it's maybe a surprising one, because if you re-read the newspapers and all the discussions about nitrogen, you might have the impression that there's no cow left in the Netherlands. Well, that's clearly not the case. I'm very pleased with the team and the performance that they've showed. The second example is a business unit that we don't mention every day. It's Pavo, our equine business, where we outperformed a market that is still growing. Very big compliments to the colleagues of that business unit. I can give you several examples where we did show a very resilient result. Still we need to look forward and what will happen. Yeah. Rob, can I ask you to give some clear insights in? Yes. Into some of the review reasons? Yes, you can. Yeah. Basically what we've just heard, we summarize these trends into four main buckets. During this morning, we will get back to what each bucket means for our strategic choices. As it is with trends, they can have a positive influence, but they can also put some pressure on certain elements of the business. We set four main trends. The first one, I think it's very clear if you read the newspapers every day, that agriculture at large is getting more and more focused to increase sustainability. We see this in numerous aspects, one of them being the Green Deal, getting more and more clear on what that means to the market and to our company. Secondly, also, let's say, changing consumer patterns. Animal protein next to vegetable protein. This is a trend that impacts our business in multiple ways, but also provides opportunities. The second trend we clearly see, which has been ongoing for a longer time, is increased raw material prices and increased energy prices. Not only the increase in the absolute amount of the price increases is relevant, but especially also the volatility, which influence the market and our business. The Ukraine crisis has, of course, put extra focus on this, and it has even accelerated this trend. The effect on us as ForFarmers, but also the effect on the industry, is that it's becoming more difficult, let's say, to pass on these increases to the market. The third trend, which has been something which is not new, this has been ongoing for many, many years in most of the markets that we're at, is less farmers but bigger farmers. Consolidation but also vertical integration and more working into the chain has accelerated over the years. We do expect that that will accelerate going forward. Which also means that, let's say, working together in the chain is becoming more and more important. I think the animal welfare concepts now adopted for chickens in the Netherlands are a clear example how something like that can accelerate and how that provides, let's say, opportunities for us but also has impact. The last trend, which sort of started when COVID was around, when there was a major reshuffle of labor, this, let's say, sort of continued afterwards with labor shortages, labor price increases, which of course have an effect on us. We had clear examples where it was difficult for instance to get drivers. This also has a clear effect on the sector, right? Less and less labor available to do the work, which provides opportunities for digitalization, robot milking, et cetera, et cetera. I think overall, all these four trends focus and have an impact on agriculture at large and therefore also on ForFarmers. Most of our markets, because of this, are not growing anymore, which also leads to overcapacity, and in the end, leads to pressure on our results, like Roeland explained in the group. Thank you. From looking at these four key trends, isn't the really crucial one, agriculture sector needs to become more sustainable? Isn't that what it's all about, Roeland? Yeah, whether it's all about, I think it's an important, it's a prominent one, I would say. I don't know whether it's the only one, but I understand what you're saying. Let's face it, we as a company have a mission, and it's called For the Future of Farming. I think that we want to fuel that even more than we've done in the past. As sustainability or ESG at large was part of our Build to Grow strategy, was in the heart of our values. I think going forward, we want to fuel it a bit more. I think given these trends, we got to learn, yeah, as always, that For the Future of Farming, we play essential role in this whole value chain. Our customers, our clients give a purpose to animal proteins by use of stuff we as a human cannot digest. Probably today we also hear from Nick that there's a role for us to play over there. In essence, if you talk about sustainability and a future of farming, it's all about putting food on the table. That's also part of sustainable business. And, um, the way we look at it, I would say that sustainability is, and ESG or For the Future of Farming is not only about ecological... Uh, uh, sorry. It's It's not only about, uh, ecologically, but it's also about, uh, the economics, eh? It's also have a decent return for ourself, but also for, uh, for our farmers, huh? That, that, uh, fu- for the future farmer is only... is bigger than, uh, than, uh, than those two. I think that's very clear. The sustainable solutions, that is a vital part, and we want to bring that to the next level, but there's more. We will choose for a more local orientation, from group orientation to a local orientation. We will explicitly look how we can differentiate in the markets and the segments that we are active in. We will also look at really make sure that in such a dynamic period, we supply good feed for a very competitive price in the markets that we serve. Also in addition to what Rob said, we see that moving towards an integrated approach is also an opportunity for us to play that role and to make sure we enhance that establishment of supply chain integration. Those things will be high on our agenda for the coming period. Okay. This applies to all the different markets? I mean, what you see is required in the Netherlands, does it also apply to Poland or the U.K.? How do you play that out? Yeah. Especially if we say we move to a local orientation, that by itself already says we will look very specific in all the markets that we are in, how we can differentiate. There are some overarching themes, yeah. Really make sure we are competitive is one, really make sure that the sustainable solutions are brought to the next level is one. By this approach, we combine our group know-how, our group competencies with really make sure we have a specific approach in the countries that we serve. Yeah. Thank you. Rob, could you please elaborate on the strategic principles of ForFarmers? Yeah. We have selected five strategic principles which are the base of our strategy. Each one of them, I will explain briefly, but also later today we will elaborate more on what this exactly means. The first one, like already said, is closer to the farmer. What does that mean, right? Over and over we see that the trends we impact before, our business impacted in different ways in different countries and in different species, right? Ruminants in the Netherlands behaves in a different way than ruminants in the U.K. It is therefore extremely important that we have the accountability and the local approach in the countries, huh. That's why we say local is in the lead in executing the strategy. More ownership, more accountability at the countries, but also at our specific companies like Pavo, like Reudink. That also entails, let's say, a shift more from group to local. However, we still believe ForFarmers as a group has a lot to offer, right? Where we can achieve synergies, for instance, in procurement, we will, of course, still leverage those. Where we see we have the need to have governance or policies in place, of course, we will still do that. Last but not least, we are still one company and we believe that with good strong values and good strong way of working, we can even achieve better results. Overall, it will mean more shift and more accountability to the local teams that we have compared to today. The second one is related to that, right? Because if you have local more in the lead, that also acknowledges that markets behave in a different way, huh. Some species are growing in certain countries, some have more focus on sustainability, others have more focus on price at a certain moment. We see that we need differentiated approaches in all our markets. This, let's say, closer to the farmer allows us to give that space and to make sure that we have differentiated product offerings, let's say in different markets which accommodate the market needs at a certain time. Not one size fits all, but tailored to what's happening in a local market more and more. The other one mentioned quite a lot, and we'll spend some more attention on that today with Nick as well, is the sustainable solution. I mean, like said, one of the major trends is that more and more focus will be on sustainable agriculture, both from an economy way. We still believe farmers need to make money. We need to make money. That is extremely important. Also, of course, to do that in a more sustainable way from an ecological perspective. Very important pillar of our new strategy. Can we do that alone? No. We need to work together in the value chain. Where before, let's say predominantly, of course, we are a feed company focusing on the farmers, we do believe there is a role to play, let's say, in the value chain, and we have very good examples of that. For instance, in the Netherlands, but also our anticipated merger with 2Agriculture is providing this, let's say, route to market to a more integrated view on the supply chain. That's very important. The last pillar, not unimportant, it is our base, yeah, is to provide good feed at a competitive price. We don't take that lightly. In the end, to be competitive, we need to make sure that we enhance what we're already doing. We have very good feed. We have very good advice. We're very good at providing performance, but that has to come with a competitive price. That will remain the base of ForFarmers. The name of the company is ForFarmers. Which of these strategic pillars fits best with the needs of farmers? I think they all five do, but if you make me choose, I can pick out. I took it. Yeah, you did. I noticed that, Jeroen. If I can pick out two, especially that local approach. The agility that is necessary in the coming period, that is what our farmers ask. If prices move, milk price, meat prices, we need to adjust our feeding concepts in line with their needs. By taking this direction in the five countries that we currently serve, this is the right approach to make progress. I also would like to pick out, because also personally proud on what we achieved, take out the part on the enhancement of the supply chain integration. In the past two years, we've seen a rapid change of the broiler industry in the Netherlands. We were able to do the acquisition of De Hoop. We were able to connect very well with the two large slaughterhouses in the Netherlands, and by that, we could make sure that our farmers were able to supply the broilers in the chain that they believe is good for them to work with a particular slaughterhouse, but to also work with ForFarmers. Two examples that for me stand out in what Rob just explained. For me, the differentiation stands out. Could you give some insights in what should we understand of the scope of kinds of offers that you have to have in place to demonstrate the differences between on the one side and the other side of the spectrum of farming needs? Let's take the example what Rob already indicated, if you look at dairy as an example. In the Netherlands, we are very well able to, with our Total Feed approach, to supply what they need to connect, for example, also with FrieslandCampina on the sustainability agenda that they have on the agenda. A very specific approach for the Netherlands. If you look at the U.K. market, different type of markets, very price sensitive, then you should adjust your offering. The know-how that we have on a group level is broad. In both concepts, you can use the know-how as you have it to have a specific approach in the countries. As an example on this one, this is how we believe we can differentiate and win in the markets that we are active. Yeah. Roeland, for you, what would be key to these five principles? You will probably say all five, but nevertheless. All five, Jeroen. No, yeah, I think that, like I said, like we are saying, they are of course all important, but what stands out for me is also that we can use and leverage our innovative power. We have, I would say as being the one of the frontrunners in Europe when it comes to, we are the market leader. We have the capability, we have the scale, also we have the R&D department with our NIC, Nutritional Innovation Centre, to pull it off. I would say coming up with new innovative, sustainable solutions for our farmers is in the heart of these principles. Yeah. Yeah. Nick, we have you to elaborate on some of these concepts. Yeah. Thank you, Jeroen. Yeah. I think, yeah, as we've already heard, really, I think it's very clear to us that these sort of societal pressures and concerns are here to stay. I mean, not only in the policy piece that Roeland's already mentioned, but for us, we increasingly get questions and requests from value chain partners, from processors and retailers, given where we are in the supply chain. We intend to build on our existing Going Circular approach, which has served us well, I think, over the last two or three years. We're gonna be proactive in responding to these issues. I think, you know, address them head-on where we have a role to play. Again, as has been mentioned, really work with our value chain partners, the processors, the retailers. I think crucially, yeah, we have to, given our mission, you know, stand side by side with our farmers and help them make this transition to more sustainable farming practices. Again, trying to ensure that we create value for everyone up and down the supply chain. You know, and I think to that degree, I think this is also about commercialization of ESG or sustainability. I I think that's an inherent part of what we're doing. The issues that we've mentioned, they tend to break down into two key ones, really. The first is reducing the environmental impact of livestock production, and the second is animal welfare. Of course, we have a role to play in both. We've listed a number of them here. Reducing carbon footprint is always on the list. I'll come back to that in a moment. Deforestation-free is a big issue given our use of soya, in particularly as a key feed material. Using non-human-edible raw materials or sourcing regional or local raw materials are the sorts of issues that tend to come up when we're talking to processors and retailers. Nick, can you give an example of a non-human edible material? Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. We, as an industry, we, I mean, in a way, we're founded on the basis of using by-products and co-products from the human food, drinks, distillery industry. I mean, you know, wheat flour or distillers' grains or even a sunflower meal, you know, or rapeseed meal. I mean, you know, no one grows oilseed rape to produce meal. You know, they use it to produce oil. Yeah. We are the user of the by-product. That doesn't go into the food chain. That goes into the feed chain. You know, I think, you know, this is sort of where livestock farming and the feed industry, you know, fits into sustainable food systems by using these co-products and by-products. Former foodstuffs is another one. On the carbon footprint, it's worth pointing out that on average, nearly half of the carbon footprint of livestock production comes from the feed. If you're producing broiler chickens, 80% of the environmental footprint is from the feed. I think as nutritionists, you know, we have both the means and the obligation to meet these challenges. In supporting our farmers, as we've mentioned, we're gonna take some further steps. In addition to the concepts that I've already mentioned, we'll look to invest and increase in the use of alternative raw materials. The main pressure on us is finding alternative protein sources, alternatives to reduce our reliance on soy. These obviously range from the novel. I mean, everybody likes to talk about insects and algae, but obviously, it also extends to the more mainline raw materials. A good example of where that's already started, really, is the use of processed animal protein, which was reauthorized for use within the E.U. last year, and we're already using that in poultry diets in the Netherlands and Germany. A classic circular, non-human edible feed material. Another example is to build on our already strong position in co-products and residual flows. Jeroen, as you've already mentioned, that focus on non-human. Effectively, you know, we're not competing for land that should be growing food for human consumption rather than growing materials for livestock. We report on this. We've been quite transparent on this in our annual report you've seen over the last two or three years. We've reported on the percentage of non-human edible raw materials that we include in our diets. We don't include Poland for technical reasons at the moment, but at group level it's 64%. We're running at that sort of number, and that's using a definition from the FAO, so a reasonably robust definition. Finally, I think to ensure that, you know, we do really give focus to this area, we're gonna set up a dedicated organization, which will include a number of existing activities as well as the new ones that I've mentioned. I hope that provides a sort of flavor of the next steps that we're going to take. I'm sure there'll be further examples and discussion of this as we go throughout the presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Five principles. Strategy update. How did you go about this? Did you start with a completely blank sheet? It was only two years ago that you had the previous strategy presented. No, we did not. We said the assumptions of our strategy were wrong, and that's why we need to revitalize that or to look at it again. This is a strategic review and not a complete strategy. That by definition tells that a lot of stuff that remain and because there are a lot of goodies in our strategy we want to keep and to leverage. I will not pick all of them on this slide. For example, M&A we will talk about later. For example, focus on growth. There are a lot of value pockets, so to say, which are growing. We have our Reudink business as an example, which is growing and has an answer to the questions raised by the E.U. when it comes to the Green Deal. Pavo already talked about by Pieter on the equine business, which is stable growing as well. We announced the merger, it's still to be approved, but the merger with in the U.K., sorry, to be announced. There are pockets of growth where we can still focus on, and that's here to stay. Another one may be nutritional innovation. We have an obligation being the, like I said, one of the biggest in Europe to come up with new applications for our customers to improve their feed conversion ratio, to improve the quality of milk, to have better eggs. All of it will come out of our nutritional power. Nutritional innovation is here to stay. Going forward, we will bless you. We will talk about our R&D perspective for what will change, but the nutritional innovation is here to stay. Yeah, Going Circular, I think Nick showed it on the previous slide, but also with the graph on there, is here to stay. The use of byproducts, the use of co-products is one of the elements in the current strategy, which will stay for sure. Okay. What is changing? What did you do differently? Yeah, there are quite a lot, huh? Let's start with the first one. I think that we touched upon it briefly. Back to basic. That means, for example, more of the local business, but it's also about simplicity and focus. Simplicity when it comes to dealing with our operations, looking at processes, looking at the way we work together. That also has to do with going forward with what do you do central, what do you do locally? We want to make that more simple, more clear to everybody. We also want to focus, as an example, innovation, like I said, on nutritional part will be there, but we want to focus our new innovation power more on the sustainability items, which we just discussed and just what Nick pointed out. We also want to focus our digital power. In, let's say, the Build to Grow, we were more or less boiling the ocean too much. We want to focus. We want to have it more simple. We want to look at the ease of use for our customers when it comes to ordering, when it comes to applications which they can use, for example, to monitor the performance of our feed, and that's where we will focus on. The closer to the customer, I think that what we tried to tell this morning, and I think it's not only on the Total Feed. People are like in the swine industry nowadays, where there is more stress in the world, you want to come with a more simpler, more straightforward product instead of a full-blown product. That will help in local, in the lead as well. They understand the need and the urge of the clients much more than from a central perspective. I mean, looking at these, a couple of things I notice. One is back to basics and simple is right at the top. Yeah. Is that intentional? Is it just coincidence because it starts with a B? Why do you put it on the business? Yeah. I think it's vital. We are, let's not go around it, in a low margin business. That makes us forced to really stick to the basics and really look where we can make the difference with. I think especially in Build to Grow, you call it boiling the ocean, high-tech technology. That is the question, is that the role ForFarmers? I believe to really go back to the basic process, the core of what we do, will increase our success and ability to win. It's not a coincidence, and it does not have. It's out there for a reason. Yeah. Yeah. It does not have to do with the alphabet, Jeroen. No. The bullet further streamline and adjust organization, is this a euphemism for downsizing? What do you mean with further streamlining the organization? Yeah. I think it's not about downsizing. It's more right-sizing the company and putting our departments in the right direction. If we are talking about going more local, then of course something will happen to some of the central functions because some work might be gone more locally. That will impact some of our departments for sure. I think it's more right-sizing, making sure that everybody does what he should or should be doing. It's not downsizing by definition, Jeroen. No. Local in the Lead is an important part of the update that you're giving. You started there last year. How is it working in practice, and how will it continue to work in practice? That's a question for you, Piet. Is it working? Yes, it is working. As an example, we appointed a German Managing Director after years of a COO that took care of multiple countries, and you see that this gives a much better connection with the local organization, with the farmers, with the network. Yes, it is working, and that is confirmed by these type of examples. How will it work? Once again, want to emphasize, yeah, local in the lead, but it is about the connection with the group. ForFarmers is the umbrella, and we will emphasize on that flexibility. As Roeland indicated, the nutritional innovation, that is a vital role to roll out across the countries, but give it a local orientation. We will work also together with the Executive Team on this to make sure we are going to make progress. Yeah. Can you take us through the different operations country by country? Yes, sure I can. First, the Netherlands, obviously very important for the company, and we see that there's a lot going on in the Netherlands and also in the coming years there will be a lot going on. We also recognize clear chances, some we already mentioned in a different perspective when you think about Reudink or organic business, but especially also the co-products mentioned several times. Again, that is not coincidence. Take the swine industry, a lot of discussions, we see a decline of the herd. Nevertheless, at the home mixing farms, they use a lot of the co-products explained by Nick. We have a lot of know-how on this topic, and we also have a business, so we can combine know-how with business, and that is how we like it. Poultry, I already explained, we are strengthening our position in the transition towards the welfare of broilers. Dairy, we have a strong Total Feed approach that especially in the coming years with the nitrogen discussion, we feel very comfortable to play a vital role at a farmer's level, but also in the national discussion. We are in close contact with the farmers organization together, also with some of our competitors, to really make sure we look at the overarching theme, our mission For the Future of Farming. With that, we feel comfortable about the approach we are taking in the Netherlands. Because in the Netherlands there's quite some concerns both regarding farming and from farmers themselves, do you feel that you're offering a perspective for the farmers here? What is happening? What are you offering to them? Definitely. It's on an every day making sure the farmer makes improvement on the economic side, but also on the ecological side. We have the know-how to make the transition that will happen in this sector. Yeah. I feel very confident about that. Yeah. We see in the Netherlands, is this similar or different from some of the other operations? Belgium, our southern neighbors. Yeah. Uh, several teams are the same. Uh, we see in, uh, Belgium also, um, uh, the nitrogen discussion is playing a role. We see a decline of the pig industry. Uh, we foresee also a smaller decline in the dairy industry. So the similarities are there, but that also offers an opportunity to use the know-how in the Netherlands, for example, also in the dairy industry in, uh, in Belgium. And with that, we are able to increase our market, uh, share. But there are definitely several, um, uh, overarching teams. Okay. Germany? Germany- Huge market. Yeah. Is it? You can almost say Germany does not exist if you see the size of the countries and the regional differences. As example, the east of Germany, we have a strong position at the large dairy farms with the robot milking, the home mixing, a region where the know-how we have can be used very well to increase our position. In the north of Germany, we're focusing strongly on the layer industry. We have a differentiating offering. We are supporting the farmers with their ag contracts, and that helps them to connect better with us as a company, but also in the chain they are active in. In the west of Germany, we have our joint venture with the family Thesing, very much focused on dairy. Again, the know-how as we have it can be used to increase our market share in that region. Again, even on a country level, we already say we take that local approach. Even in such a country, you need to take an even deeper level on the regional level to make sure you are successful. 'Cause you've mentioned that, for instance, German management strengthened locally in the lead. Any suggestions and directions already coming from Germany in their local in the lead role, where to invest or where to focus on? Yeah. Several examples already given, but I think especially Germany is a market where you need to respond quickly. I had the pleasure to work three and a half years in the north of Germany myself. From week to week, from month to month, you really need to make sure, yeah, you look what are the market prices doing, what is the feed offering that is needed in such a situation. Yeah. We're making steps on that one. One country to the east, Poland. Yeah. Quite a difference. We're strongly focusing on the broiler industry, a growing segment over the past years. We still see much opportunities for growth, both organically, but it's still a relatively fragmented market. Also a further consolidation is expected in that country. We want to play a role in that. It always takes two to tango. We are very aware of that. The focus on the organic growth will be very strongly as well over the coming years. This is also, especially in the broiler industry, our European know-how nutritionally in the chain will support us very much in Poland as well. Okay. On the concept of tango, in the U.K., a tango has been announced. Yeah. You're right. So- Yeah, yeah. Any update on the JV, the announced JV? Yeah. We announced it. We will join forces with 2Agriculture, and we are now still waiting for approval. Hopefully by the end of this year, we get approvals in. We are very, let's say, enthusiastic about this joint venture with 2Agriculture. You might know that the owner of 2Agriculture is also the owner of 2 Sisters Food Group, which is a large food processor in the U.K. and close to our principals. They're working together in the value chain, obviously will happen in the U.K. with that matter. From that part, if you look at the principals local in the lead with differentiation, that's also on the slide. We will have in the ruminant sector different perspectives on how to deal with our clients. We will differentiate within robot milking or with large herds versus small herds. Differentiation is happening. Value chain integration is happening. What's also important, what we see in the U.K. is that sustainability, which is big in the Netherlands and big in, let's say, continental Europe, is also big on the agenda in the U.K. Especially from the retailer side, the push on getting sustainable products, sustainable solutions into the supermarkets is quite high. That's why it's, for us, it's great that we can leverage our knowledge and work together with 2Agriculture to pull it off. Looking forward to the CMA, the authorities tell us that we can push on. This means that we're also venturing into the topic of M&A. Yes. Rob, in a minute, will give some more background to it. You mentioned before two additional countries. That has now been dropped. Yes. What has been some of the argumentation behind it, and what will you continue to look for? Yeah. Now, we will continue to do M&A. Yeah. I would say that if you ask me, it will be threefold. We are in five home countries, and we want to be part of the mergers which are happening or the consolidation which is happening. As an example, joining forces with 2Agriculture, but also the investment of De Hoop we did two years ago, and we want to be part of it. In some of our home markets, and it's not a secret, we want to grow in Poland. We are number four in Poland. Poland is also a market where we want to do M&A, and like I said, it's not a big secret. Part of what's happening in our five countries, that is part of our strategy going forward. We also want to diversify and look at opportunities outside of our five home countries, and it could very well be that we grow to with two countries, but it's not a strategic pillar anymore. If it happens, it will happen, but it's not a direction from a strategic perspective. We want to grow as a company, and it could very well be outside of the five countries we're in. The last pillar, I would say, there are three. The last one is that we want to diversify into other product offerings. We discussed a bit on Pavo, which is a nice opportunity to invest in or look at alternative raw materials. It's a bit broader than only the compound feed angle. That's our view on M&A going forward. Yeah. Maybe Rob. Yeah, Rob, can you add to that? Yes, I think Roeland already did a very good introduction. Thank you. Of the M&A strategy. It is about indeed a couple of important pillars, right? The first reason to do M&A in our home countries is to capture synergies, which is then largely about consolidating and increasing market share, let's say, in the markets that we're currently in. Is that a goal per se to just increase market share? No, it's not, right? It should fit, huh. Just buying and buying just for the sake of being last man standing, that's not a principle we believe in. There needs to be a good reason and a good fit, eh, from a cultural perspective between the companies that we would buy. Let's say creating synergies in our home countries is still an important goal from an M&A perspective. The second thing is about close to our strategic principle is to differentiate in local product market combinations. If we are able to find companies or products which would help us to strengthen a certain offering to the market, we would be very open and very keen to do that, huh? An example is an acquisition we did two years ago in Germany with Mühldorfer for our Pavo business. This was a very specific product offering, which we did not have before, that strengthened our Pavo business, huh? This could go beyond feed as well to just see, okay, what do we need in order to serve the needs of our farmers or our customers? Could we buy something which will enhance that product offering in a certain market? The last reason to do M&A is to diversify, right? Because we are, as we explained before, largely in markets which are not growing today, which means we have to, and we will diversify ourselves. Diversification can go into many different directions. One is geographically, like Roeland already explained. That could be a sixth or a seventh country, but it's not a goal per se. Diversification from a regional perspective could very well fit, but it could also be indeed to diversify in product offerings or in different segments like the co-products we mentioned before or other alternative raw material pillars. Synergies, diversification, and let's say enhancing our offering to the market would be the three main goals we could reach by doing M&As. What did we learn in the last couple of years when doing M&A is that buying for simply the sake of buying is not working, right? I think that's a common known theme not only for ForFarmers, but I think for many companies and for many industries. We capture that with the phrase cultural fit. What do we mean? It means that we will make a very good assessment that the company we're buying with or we're merging with does fit the ForFarmers DNA. In the end, it needs to be one plus one is three. If that's not the case, we're probably destroying value. Good example is De Hoop, a family company, but a very professional family company, which there, the one and one was really three and that worked very well. Cultural fit both from a company perspective, does this company really add to ForFarmers and do we really add value to them? Also if we would enter a new country from a country perspective, that goes with risk appetite, risk awareness, and for instance, can we leverage the capabilities, values, and know-hows that we have, and can we apply that into a new country that we will enter? Pieter, what can farmers expect in terms of benefits for them from these M&A agenda points? Yeah, I think Rob already indicated the De Hoop acquisition we did early year 2021. ForFarmers had a lot of nutritional know-how. De Hoop had a lot of nutritional know-how. Bringing that together gave us, convinced of that, the best offering for the farmers, the best technical results. As an example, but again, going back to what I said earlier, also our position in the chain strengthens and our farmers can go in that flow in the chain. Two examples what farmers can benefit out of these our acquisitions. Okay. Moving from the harder side of M&A to maybe the softer side of values. You mentioned in your press release the PROUD values that you put forward could be considered something more for internal rather than in the press release. Nevertheless, you decided to specifically enter this into your press release. Yeah. Please elaborate why this is so important to you. Yeah. I think, well, if you look at the left-hand side on the top over there, you can hardly see it, but now it says, "Proud to be ForFarmers." We always had the slogan, "Proud to be a farmer." Now it's Proud to be ForFarmers because what we learned during this strategy process that our values are very important for people to work with. Don't forget that it's not to be taken lightly, I would say. That a lot of people we work with are very passionate about farming and are passionate about For the Future of Farming, but also passionate to be at ForFarmers. Those values will lead the way, I would say, in order to execute our strategy. We discussed it last week, and it's a kind of a slogan which is quite known that culture eats strategy for breakfast. I truly believe in that. If we want to change the company only with a strategy and forget about our values and forget about our culture, we will not deliver. From our side, I would say this is important for our people to live up to and to understand what we want from each other, and that's why we stipulate it much more, and that's why we make it more important as well in our press release that people are proud to be at ForFarmers. Yeah. Pieter, for you? Absolutely. It's all about why do people work for our beautiful company, yeah? They have passion to work in this industry, to work with their colleagues, and especially to work with farmers. Responsible, we have a journey to make, and we want to express together with our employees that we can play a vital role in that journey, and we are responsible for that. Open-minded. We need to think broad to come to the best solution. We do it together, united, but also to deliver. We stand for a promise, and that needs to come out. Also as a company, we have a lot of potential in the chain that we are active in, and we want to deliver on that part. PROUD brings it together, and we see a lot of enthusiasm coming at our people for this word. It's definitely more than just a word, and that's why you want to have your values for. Well, let's look at the D of deliver. Ultimately, you aim for an underlying EBIT of at least 10% by 2025. Yes. Do you think that's attractive enough? How did you get there? What does this tell us? Yeah. Yeah. I would say it's of course attractive, otherwise we wouldn't put it in our strategy. Maybe to highlight, yeah? We came of this, let's say, more long-term vision and refrain from EBITDA targets at the short term. It's like we said at I believe at the beginning of this meeting, if you look at geopolitics, if you look at macroeconomics, there's a lot of stuff happening. The volatility and the unpredictability of what's happening around us is just so huge that it's, for us, hard to put a number to it. We think it's more prudent and maybe even irresponsible to put out the target for the next month or the next quarter or the next year if you take this all into account. Even yesterday, and I believe today it was in the financial papers, Rabobank came with a report that volatility is here to stay, also next year. They also point out that there will be more geopolitical elements for next year. That's why we refrain from the EBITDA target. We truly believe that this at least 10% in three years' time is a target which is, of course, reachable. Don't forget, we have a lot of figures in when building this strategy, yeah? There's a lot of ambition in our strategy as well. The question is, do we foresee all the uncertainties going forward? The answer to that is of course no. Yeah, and also maybe good to highlight our policy, our dividend policy is still here, yeah? 40%-60% of our underlying net profit is to be paid, at least that's the policy, to pay out to shareholders going forward. No guidance anymore on any other elements except for ROACE for the time being? Yes, because like I said, we think it's irresponsible and more prudent to stick to these targets, yeah. Hopefully peace will come in 2023 or sooner. Does it mean that the fog will become more clearer and you're able to give more guidance in the future? Let's say we cross that bridge when we get there, Jeroen. I mean, we don't know what's happening in this challenging world. It's not only geopolitics, it's also about macroeconomics, it's about climate, it's about animal diseases. We cross that bridge when we get there, Jeroen, I would say. Ambitious enough? Not ambitious enough? I mean, the 10% is a figure that you do give. Yeah. What's your perception there? Yeah. It's, like I said, at least 10%. If you look at our half-year figures, we're at 8.5%-8.4% on ROACE on EBIT. There is a step up. Well, we talked about challenging markets, declining volumes here and there in some of our home markets. It's a good enough ambition target, I would say, going forward. Pieter, more definition of success that you want to put forward? Yeah, I feel extremely confident on also to go with Roeland on delivering this, but it goes further as just the financials. It is also towards customers to really make sure we deliver that what we promise on farm. For our employees, we talked already about the PROUD to really make sure they believe in our mission For the Future of Farming, but also that they see us as the company where they can develop themselves and we see we are attractive as a company for that, for people to join. The environment, lower the carbon footprint, increase our position further in organic farming next to the financial promise that we are making today. We come to the end of this first section with a final question. Three numbers tend to stand out around the sector and the business. That's the number 2025. That's a date really. The date 2030 and even 2050. Looking at 2050, will farming still exist? If so, will ForFarmers still exist and have a role to play, looking at the long run? 30 years is a long period to think ahead. I'd like to take a different direction to your question. If I go back 30 years, that was 1992, if I'm correct. I was 15 years old. I was working at the farm with my parents. If I see the progress that we have made as an industry on welfare, on the quality, look at the quality of feed nowadays, the technical performance, that is the chain that we are in. That is the dynamics, the power of the chain that we are in. If I think back 30 years and then think forward 30 years, I'm extremely confident that we are in the right place as ForFarmers, for our farmers to really make sure that in 30 years there are still farmers in the Netherlands that do what they have been doing so greatly over the past 100 years. Roeland, 2050, it's a long way. Yeah, I don't dare to say no because there are farmers in the room. Uh-huh. No, for sure. I think that in essence we discussed it a bit today, we need to put food on the table. I think our farmers at large have the willingness and the eagerness to do that. Animal protein, like discussed by Nick as well, there is a place for animal protein besides let's say the more plant-based proteins. If you want to have a sustainable future, you need farming, and farming is there to stay. Completely agree with the young Pieter that farming will be there for the future, for sure. Thank you very much. Any final remarks from you? No, yeah, I think that if you're trying to boil it down what the essence is of our strategy, it's about local in the lead. It's about differentiation of our product market combinations or species country combinations. ESG at the heart, M&A is here to stay, and we believe in the future of farming and Proud to be ForFarmers. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, would you have any questions? I ask you to just raise your hands, and I can pick rather than jumping to the microphone and get somebody else out of your way. You have a question, I will go with you first. Please go to the microphone. Yeah. State your name, your organization that you represent, and the question or questions that you have, and perhaps also who you would like to answer. Yes. Good morning. My name is Eric Wilmer, ABN AMRO. I have a few questions, and I'll ask them one by one. First, you mentioned that your local teams will be leading. I was wondering how you basically look at this in the context of the previous procurement issues you've seen in the past in the Netherlands and in Germany and how you basically cater for this. Thank you. That's the first question. Yeah, I pick this one. Okay, cool. Yeah, go. Good point. Local in the lead, but it's all within boundaries. We have policies in place. We have. Guidelines. Yeah, guidelines in place. That will not change. We have learned from our mistakes in the past. We changed our policy on raw materials. What we want to try to achieve is not that locally they decide by themselves, but they feel accountable and are accountable. There's also a, let's say, joining of forces between what's happening on central and what's happening on the local level. There are some hygiene factors like parts of the procurement, parts of finance. You have to do VAT anyway. You cannot decide that by yourself. Hygiene factors will be there to stay. Procurement, for sure, when it comes to the boundaries and when it comes to the use, for example, of derivatives or whatsoever, that still be a central thing. Okay, that's clear. Thanks very much for that. A question on, I think recently there was an announcement that basically at COP27, there was an announcement that methane emissions will be monitored on a global basis. Obviously, I think the ruminant sector is a big contributor to that as well. You mentioned in the past technology as being a solution for these issues. This is a general question. I mean, I haven't seen it today in the presentation. Could you talk a little bit about technology being a solution as a response to what we've seen in terms of this headline? Yeah. Yeah, I understand your question. I think the unique position that ForFarmers has is that we supply 25,000 farmers every day, and that is where we can differentiate with. Also due to the size, we can connect very well with large technology-driven companies. If you go to your example of methane, it's a topic with Cargill. DSM are focusing strongly on the innovative solutions, additives that will support reducing it. It is our role to make sure we apply it in the right way at a farmer's level. This is how we look at our role. Still within the frame of back to basic, but to connect very well with these type of companies to make the progress that we achieve. I don't see ourself as the company to develop a new product to reduce methane. This is how we see our position in the chain. Okay, that's very clear. I had a question on the Netherlands specifically. I mean, obviously this, at least that's my understanding, this is a cash generative market for you with also quite some ruminants exposure. We're heading into a recession, and meat is typically the sector that, well, basically gets a hit, and I guess the favor then goes to poultry. Still talking about the Netherlands and ruminants, how would this impact your margins? I know this is a little bit off-topic perhaps, but I did think about it when I saw the Netherlands slide. Yeah. Yeah. No, at this point in time, the milk prices to dairy farmers in the room. If I now talk to a dairy farm and ask, "How are things going?" They say, "Well, all right." We have a very good milk price, and that is good. That gives us the space to invest also with nutritional concepts. That can change over time, especially in a period of hyperinflation. We've seen over the past 10, 20, 30 years that the Dutch dairy farmers were always very good to play that role at the world market price. On that, I don't foresee a strong effect of the hyperinflation on the size of the milk production and the herd size in the Netherlands. It's quite clear that legislation in the coming years, to my opinion, will play a more pronounced role in this. Okay, perfect. Basically sticking to the profitability topic. I mean, as mentioned, the EBITDA target is basically, let's say, dropped. Does this imply that the announced plans that you had, that they come at a cost? Basically, I mean, obviously you mentioned the macroeconomic environment and animal disease and et cetera. Is it also the read-through from this, that the plans that you've presented, that they basically come at a cost? No, that's not what we want to point out. It's purely to do with macroeconomics and, well, the stuff we discussed, animal diseases and geopolitics. It's not that we have other reasons to not give guidance on EBITDA. Don't forget, there are EBITDA targets, but we don't give guidance on it. Internally, we have a lot of KPIs which we keep on tracking, and we will not only look at EBITDA or EBIT or ROACE. Of course, there are. When you talk about reorg, let's say a new organizational design and transformation of the company, there could be some redundancy costs, obviously. It's not the reason for us to refrain from a EBITDA guidance. Okay. I had a question on the decentralization that you mentioned. Is this something that you feel pressured by your competition, maybe because you've lost market share in certain markets, and for that reason you feel that you have to decentralize from what you're currently doing? Yeah, that is not an easy question. Obviously, we look to our competition and we look to where we stand and the aspired market shares. We just noticed ourself that taking such a local approach leads to more success. Jeroen asked me for an example. I gave an example that, for example, in Germany, where we do see that by taking that approach, we are more successful or better able to be agile in a dynamic environment. It's also proven by ourself that this direction is at this point in time the right thing to do. Okay. Moving on to my last question, and I have more, but I'll leave room for others. On the alternative raw materials, how are your competitors looking at this? Is this something that you can basically team up as a sector? Yeah. What are they doing? Combining the ecologic and the economic part also is, for us, relevant. Partly, we look at this from a business perspective where we see it is an opportunity to differentiate, it is an opportunity to earn money with. On the other side, especially from a developing point of view, we team up with chain partners, but even with competitors in some innovative projects to make sure we are making progress as a chain. We look at it from two directions. Let's be very clear, and I want to express that also today, that we see sustainability also as a chance to earn more money as a company. Okay. That was helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to give you the floor. Good morning. My name is Fernand De Boer from Degroof Petercam. Thank you for the presentations. A couple of questions. First, maybe the financial one. In your assumption to get better in ROACE to above 10%, what are the major drivers behind that? Because you can reduce your capital employed, but if you are going to make acquisitions, which you are still looking for, that's going to be up again and also most of the time quite dilutive. Could you give a little bit more idea about that? Yeah. The second thing, and this is pre-tax. In your calculations, what is at this moment your own WACC? Yeah. Because at the end of the day, I think 10% for your company is still on the very low side, what you should do given the current WACC calculations in my assumptions. That's one thing. The second one is on management. You recently announced the appointment of Theo for one year. Is there a chance that he stays longer? What I'm still puzzled about, you work with the COO. Today, I was not aware of it, maybe I missed it, but that you appointed a country manager for Germany. Why do you need a kind of, yeah, Operating Officer, COO? Why not become the CEO? Maybe that's more for the Supervisory Board, not so directly towards you. It's a question why not appoint one of you as CEO instead of going again by an interim? You made a remark about the Future of Farming, and that you actually said, "We have made in 30 years, yeah, so much progress, so we are there to stay." I'm now 57, I have never seen so much pressure on farming, social, from governments, from all kinds of things, as before. Maybe you need much more drastic actions than what we see here today from going actually, from my view, from global or from, yeah, to local. Yeah, I think that's about it at the moment. Thank you. Yep. Shall I start with the ROACE? Start with the WACC. Now, the 10% ROACE target, of course, yeah, it's based on two things, the EBIT and the capital employed. The main driver for this will be EBITDA or EBIT in that matter. Of course, depending on raw materials going forward, we can see what's happening to our working capital levels. As we are aware, this year it increased and last year as well because of higher raw materials. Working capital is there. The main driver in our strategy going forward is not that we look at capital employed. Of course, we will, like always, but the main driver should be and will be EBITDA and EBIT, so from a margin perspective. Yeah, I have multiple discussions with our so-called WACC team because there are, as you are aware, a lot of reasons and methods to look at your weighted average cost of capital. I would say ours is now between around 7%-7.5%, which we calculate with. Of course, depending on what interest will do and what markets will do, of course, that will change. I don't have to explain to you. That's the answer on that. Yeah, on Theo, I think that, like you said yourself, it's maybe more a question also for our Supervisory Board. I know that the Supervisory Board had a profile which they came up with, of course, after they learned that Chris would not return. They had the willingness to have a fast successor to Chris. I think Theo met both of these elements, profile and speed. I believe he has his own company, yeah, so he also wants to go back to that, I believe so. He has the ability and the willingness and the ambition to stay for a year. The question on the CEO or COO, yeah, I cannot judge that indeed. I think the way we have been working as a company over the last couple of years was always with a statutory board of three, with a CEO, COO, and a CFO. I think that worked out perfectly. I can imagine that also our Supervisory Board is thinking that that is a good way forward and that there is a CEO, COO focusing on the biggest operation. Well, you always need a CFO. You are now moving back to a German Country Manager. Yeah, because we want to import. Yeah, we have to have that on the recording. You are now moving back to a structure of more local country managers, where you even actually said they're splitting up Germany in different regions. Yeah. So- There were multiple COOs out of which one was part of the supervisory, other supervisor. He would have liked that. The statutory board. At this point in time, that's me. I have a double role. I'm also the Managing Director of the Netherlands and of the affiliated companies like Reudink and Pavo. I also see my role in connecting the stakeholders as we have it. We have as a company, quite some stakeholders. Bringing that all together is what I see as my role at this point in time. It's also about making sure on a commercial approach, making sure the innovation agenda is brought forward to the countries. That is where I zoom in on, and to my opinion, that is working quite well towards the future as well. Okay. Maybe then one other question. Can we still answer the question? Yeah. Okay. I'm waiting. On the 2050, the question you raised. Should it entail more because pressures are so high? Yeah. The pressure is high, but there always has been a lot of pressure on the industry. If you look at the broiler industry as an example, where we had the discussion on Plofkip 10 years ago, everybody faced a lot of pressure as the industry, the sector came up with a solution and is now shining. It's always been there. In the current environment, the visibility is stronger than ever before. Your question was always also are we then doing enough? It's a journey that all players have a responsibility to play in. We as a company, the farmers, all the chain partners, the government, and bringing that together is a journey where the pace is quite difficult to anticipate. For us, it's vital that we can go with all the speeds that can happen. If we go from left to right tomorrow, we should be ready with our factories, with the raw materials as we have it, with the advice that we give it. We need the consumer to go with it. We need the government with clear policies. Our role is to be adaptive in this environment, and that also comes out in this strategy. Okay. Thank you. One final question from you. Yeah, okay, I'll stop. Maybe on the presentation of Nick, did I understand correctly that you're going to have a kind of dedicated sustainability team? That's right. For us, it's vital to show to our employees, show to customers, show to the world that sustainability is not a threat for us, but a chance. That's why we want to bring our sustainability activities together. That's organic farming, that's our business unit focusing on the co-products, but that's also the activity to focus more on chain initiatives. To work with processors, to work with retailers on innovative, sustainable concepts. That's why we want to bring that together, and over the coming months we'll communicate further how that will look. It's vital to show we have focus on that also in our investments. Okay. Because previous time, I remember you had dedicated teams for marketing, I believe, for innovation. They are still there? They are still there. Now you also have a dedicated team for sustainability. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Who would like to have the floor? Yes, please, you. Hi, Jacques-Henri Gaulard from Kepler Cheuvreux. Thanks for your presentation and taking my questions. I guess maybe firstly on sustainability, something I have issue with conceptualizing or your role in the value chain. It's very hard to make sustainability efforts because, you know, on the one hand, you have the sourcing part, which is out of your hands to a certain degree, and then, you know, all emissions happen on farm level. I'm kind of, yeah, struggling to see where you really make the biggest strides, because I don't hear that you cut soy as a sourcing material. Does that mean we're mainly talking about growing the biological concepts or increased use of co-products? Because this is already at quite a high level. Mm. Where specifically is the farmer's demand when we talk about sustainability? Can you give a bit more light on that as well? You wanna kick off that one, Nick? Yeah, I'm happy to. Yeah, I think I go back to some sort of underlying numbers. As I mentioned earlier on, so when you look at the emissions from the environmental footprint of livestock production, just on average, just under half comes from the feed that the animals consume. I'll come back to that in a moment. When it's broilers, it's 80%. There's no way that you can reduce the environmental impact of broiler production without involving us as feed producers. I think that's the key, if you like, that's the key issue for us. We come back about how we do that in up and down the value chain. When you look at the environmental footprint of delivering feed to a farmer, 90% of our environmental footprint is the raw materials we use. With that classic scope three, 90%+, our own scope one, scope two is the rest. Mm. 5% or 6%. Actually, yeah, I would emphasize the role that we have in our raw material chain. I wouldn't agree that we have no responsibility there or control there. I mean, ultimately, we are the purchaser of the raw materials. When it does come to things like deforestation, for example, there's a whole load on the social pillar as well. On the environmental pillar, yeah, we do ask more and more questions. We have a deeper dive with our raw material suppliers about where the raw materials are coming from. Because in order to understand the environmental footprint, the deforestation risk, we need to know, A, which country they've come from. If it's from the U.S., then no problem. If it's from Argentina or Brazil, okay, well, whereabouts in Argentina or Brazil? Because there may not be a problem either, but in some areas clearly there are. Mm. I think when it comes to the farmer element, as we've mentioned all along, actually, as far as the farmer is concerned, most of those pressures are coming through the contracts and relationship they have, first of all, with the processor, which we have a, you know, quite a good relationship, and then obviously for the retailer, and then onto the consumer. The retailers are interpreting the policy pull and the consumer pull, NGOs, et cetera, and that ends up with a farmer being asked, "Can you find out where your soya comes from, you know, from your feed supplier? Mm. I think if you take all of those things, and if you take something like deforestation, you mentioned soya, I mean, we haven't said that we're, you know, taking soya out may be one option. If you talk about deforestation-free as a concept, there are three or four different ways of achieving that. I mean, there are certification schemes which are, you know, quite common. You can move up the chain-of-custody model, you know, towards sort of mass-balance type or physical-flow systems. There's a certification scheme. You can decide to source your soya from areas which are deforestation-free, so there's no risk. You can formulate diets with low amounts of soya or no soya at all. One of the things that we have been doing as part of putting these concepts together is on a formulation basis, yes, we can formulate diets without soya. The point about raising those three or four different ways of achieving, say, deforestation-free, is that Processor A may have their definition of what deforestation-free means as far as they're concerned. What claims do they want to make? Processor B might have a different approach and might want to tackle it in a slightly different way. I think our role is to be flexible, to listen to the requirements of the processor and retailer, and then as nutritionists then, yeah, do our bit and work out, yeah, which of those levers we can pull. Yeah. How do we bring that then in the chain? What is our role in the chain? A good example is this week, Albert Heijn came out with a press release where they also indicated on the footprint and that comes from animal feed and options. Options like co-products, options like deforestation. That is our position in the chain to start up these discussions, to participate in these discussions and to say, just like Nick said, option A, B, C, or D, what shall we do to strengthen on one side from a carbon footprint point of view this chain, but also to make sure it is economical, viable towards the future. That's how we see our role in that. Okay, thanks. That was very clear and extensive answer. Thanks. Maybe secondly, can we get a little bit more granularity on the sort of responsibilities you'll be transferring over to the localized teams? I understand that sourcing is one element that stays central, at least within very clear set boundaries. I'm assuming that they will be in charge of pricing or was it already the case? The product offering will also be determined at a local level, right? Yeah. At this point in time, we are in a project to further define that. The example that you give indeed to make sure that the offering, so how innovation is applied in a country that has moved already in a local orientation. Over the coming months, we will finalize that and also start to execute that within the company, how we will transfer the responsibilities. Okay, thanks. No further questions for me. Thanks. Thank you. Yes. Bart van der Weide of FHO Capital. You present here today more modest financial expectations. Shareholders have faced material losses. Maybe equally important, the farmers are facing very difficult market circumstances. My question is, has the Supervisory Board also reflected these circumstances in the total salary offer they made to the incoming CEO? I also ask that because I think that if you look at the salary offers they made in the past, that was already quite sizable, in my view, for a company where the cooperation still has a very important role to play. Additionally, you today present here a strategy where the local management team will be into the lead. Yeah. Thank you for your question. I have a very straightforward answer, I don't know. These are indeed important questions which we can raise to the Supervisory Board. I don't know about the package. It will be published going forward, the package when we organize the extraordinary meeting. Yeah, there is a remuneration policy which you talked about the salary of the previous CEO. I think there's a remuneration policy which is in place that has been approved by the shareholders all of the time. Yeah, your perception I cannot comment on that. I think we are within the boundaries of the remuneration policy, and I think that the Supervisory Board is using that. Going forward with the extraordinary meeting of shareholders which we will organize for the appointment of Theo, of course, the remuneration will be published. I was not part of that. Other questions from the room? Yes, sir. Go ahead. Maarten Verbeek, the IDEA! When addressing all the markets, more or less every market, there was an overcapacity of feed production. At the same time, you stated we want to do M&A, we should have a filter fit. Should we more or less conclude that your intention stated in 2020 maybe to make acquisitions outside Europe is from the table? Shouldn't you just be focusing on the countries you're active in at this moment? Because what I just mentioned, there are sufficient problems to deal with. Yeah, yes and no, huh? Because you heard our M&A strategy. In some of the countries we're in, we are already market leader. For example, take the Netherlands, we are market leader and we only will be part of certain part of the consolidation like we've done with De Hoop and there are value pockets or areas which we want to grow and can grow. By definition, it will not be that we beat the consolidator by ourselves. Others, like you are aware, also consolidating the Dutch industry. There, like I said, also in Poland, where we are hoping to do acquisitions, or the U.K. where we have joined forces with 2Agriculture. That is not first and foremost, but it's one of the pillars. Given our headroom, given also the ability to do M&A, we also learned over the last couple of years. You talked about tango, but takes two to tango. Sometimes we have the willingness and the headroom to do an acquisition, but the others don't, and then we don't come to a deal. That's why we also want to grow outside of the countries we're in and be looking at other countries than only the five we're in. Just to come back quickly regarding outside Europe. Outside the five countries. Okay. Secondly, merger has been introduced in this new press release. We have seen you announce merger in the U.K. with 2Agriculture. When we talk about merger, are you just talking about merger on a business level or country level, or could this also imply on a group level? To start with your merger is not for the first time in press release. We always talk about M&A, and I think the first time we wrote it out now with mergers and acquisitions. M&A has always been in the heart of the company. When we talk about M&A, we mean M&A, and that's mergers at large and acquisitions at large. That's about it. As always, we refrain from countries or specifics and targets we have on M&A. M&A was there and will be there. It could also be on a group level. We have all kinds of opportunities, so that could be at a group level, could be at a local level. You have seen the strategy, and we want to be part of the, let's say, the mergers and acquisitions in the countries we're in. Well, what we just discussed. That's the strategy going forward. Yeah. You also mentioned that you want to bring more focus into the company, pockets of growth, et cetera. Are there also activities or businesses which have felt out of focus, i.e., could potentially be divested? I would say in all the country plans, opportunities to strengthen our position, and that is where we will focus on at this point in time. That is our focus, and we believe that can bring us forward. Okay. Lastly, you will refrain from providing guidances on an annual basis. What then still gives you the confidence to provide, and I can understand it with all the geopolitical situation, raw material price, energy, et cetera, et cetera, what gives you the confidence to provide a guidance for 2025? Yeah. It's, I mean, it's to do with ambition and to do with showing that there is a long-term targets which we are focusing on. We have the confidence that there's at least two sides of the equation on, you said it yourself, on capital employed and on ROACE. Of course, sorry, on EBIT. Of course, when disaster happens, we will maybe might not make it. We have the ambition. Also when we look at our projections internally, we think that we are comfortable with the growth we are foreseeing. That's why we put a target out there for the next three years. Yeah. Thank you. Any other questions that we should have in this room? If not, I would like to thank each and everyone here, and we will now end this meeting. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.