Thank you. Welcome to the earnings call. Appreciate you guys have a busy day today, just as we do, in fact. Anyhow welcome to Alfa Laval's call. A few introductory comments initially. First, from a macroeconomic point of view, the quarter developed and improved a bit better and a bit faster than we expected a quarter or two ago. That was true across most of the geographies and most of the Alfa Laval end markets. Clearly, this was reflected in Alfa Laval's order intake in the quarter overall. It was stable with a clear sequential growth. In fact net of all of the currency effects compared to first quarter last year. In fact, we are a few percent ahead of the pre-pandemic level of Q1 2020. I'll come back with some details on that. Despite some headwinds in terms of lower invoicing compared to last year and selected cost increases in various parts of the supply chain, margin strengthened somewhat to 17.1% in the quarter. Clearly by good productivity, by some effects of the restructuring program that is now underway, and with some continuous effects from last year's cost savings program in sales and admin. In all, in terms of demand trends, we expect that we are at the lower end of the cycle at this point in time. We are bottoming up in the Q1, to a degree Q2, and if the macroeconomic tailwinds continue as they are right now, we expect to see a strengthening of demand as the year progresses. Back with the forward-looking comments later. Let me then go to the key figures. In general, we have rather big currency effects on all of the numbers, so let me just comment that the volumes are a bit stronger than they look in the numbers net of the currency effect. Invoicing was a bit lower than expected, but within normal quarterly variations. Delivery on time continues on a high targeted level of 96, 97%, so there are no operational issues that are causing delay in the invoicing per se. In fact, we had a very strong productivity development with high run rates in a lot of our factories, especially in the transactional business, and a decrease in overall FTEs in the supply chain, supported by the restructuring programs. That helped push the margin upwards, despite the lower volumes and some challenges. We have some uneven loads in part of our factories related to areas under restructuring, and that is obviously pulling in the other direction. The EBITDA as a dollar number down versus last year, driven by lower volume, but be aware that the non-operational factors below the EBITDA result pushed in a positive direction and overall net profit and earnings per share improved a fair amount as a result of that. In terms of the divisional comments, let me start with the food and water division. We had a new strong quarter regarding order intake for the division. It was a new all-time high, and it was high in most of the end segments, while large projects in general continued to be slow in converting to firm orders. It was completely driven by transactional business. The pipeline in terms of larger projects, especially in vegetable oil, to a degree supported by the biofuel developments, is ongoing and is clear, and we had a first conversion of one of our vegetable oil projects, larger projects, in the quarter. Otherwise, as I indicated last quarter, the pipeline is fair and solid. Profitability was stable overall compared to last year, with positive effects, but also some selective negative mix effects in the quarter. Overall, plus and minus is pretty much balancing out. The Energy Division continued with clear sustainability trends driving demand at a very high level in most of the transactional businesses. The project activity remained on a low level in the Energy Division, just as it did in the Food and Water Division in the quarter. The first projects were converted to orders in the refinery and petrochemical segments during Q1, and that did to a degree drive the sequential growth of the energy division compared to Q4. Invoicing was on the low side in the quarter, as mentioned, mostly normal variations and to a degree some lower loads in specific factories related to the energy sector. Sustainability continues to drive investments into new technologies in this division. This quarter, we announced an investment into Liquid Wind, a consortium developing commercial-scale solutions for converting captured CO2 to e-methanol, green methanol, or if you like, the equivalent of green LNG. As you've seen in the quarter, the number of announcements on the sustainability area has been substantial, and you have the press releases. I will not revert to the whole list here at this time. Instead, I'd like to move over to the marine division, where ship contracting at the yard saw a sharp increase in the quarter. The data in terms of quarterly booking at the shipyards, they are updated throughout the preceding quarter. Today the final numbers are not in, but if we compare quarter 1 last year, with the numbers reported in mid-April compared to the numbers reported mid-April for the quarter 1 this year. Last year had a contracting level that was very low of around 100 vessels. This year, that equivalent number was 360. It's more than three times, so 300% increase in contracting, and driven by several ship classes, but in particular, container ships. Partly, we believe the increase in contracting is driven by ship owners converting earlier options into firm orders. It is at this point in time, options that typically are favorable in terms of cost, favorable in terms of short delivery cycles, and they would perhaps otherwise expire. The conversion of options may be a significant factor of the quarterly intake. Whether that is fully repeatable or not in the rest of the year remains to be seen. We perceive that the marine market as a whole, with positive freight rates and ship owners becoming more comfortable in the multi-fuel options available, that the contracting level may remain somewhat on a higher level this year, certainly compared to last year. The short-term order intake in Q1 was supported by clear sequential growth in environmental applications in general, and certainly in a recovery in the service business, indicating that the marine industry is returning to a more normal operating mode. The increase in contracts per se will have a limited impact on order intake, for 2021. As you know, there are typical lead times between yard contracting and firm orders booked at Alfa Laval, and we expect that to remain that way also in this cycle upturn. Some general comments regarding service. Overall, we saw a strong service quarter with sequential growth of approximately 8%. Spare parts remained fairly stable during 2020 and the pandemic. Now, in fact, all service products are growing, especially reconditioning in those areas that were negatively affected by the regulations in place during last year. To a degree, of course, this is a pent-up demand, but to a degree, it is also a return to more normal. At this time, there are still pockets of low service activity in the market, but it is mainly related to upstream oil and gas, whereas in many areas right now, we see fast growth and return to normal pandemic levels or above. Some summary comments on the order intake side. From a currency perspective, it is a bit of a complicated comparison. I just want to remind you that last year, in the first quarter, we had a positive backlog revaluation amounting to around SEK 800 million, of most of it belonging to the Marine Division. If you adjust for that and you compare in fixed interest rates, in fact, the volumes are about 2% higher than in the first quarter 2020. Normally, we don't consider comments on the backlog revaluations, but since the amount was so large last year, we made an explicit comment then, and I remind you of it now. Considering the mix change, with fewer large engineering projects in the mix coming in the orders right now, we shift towards a more transactional component business. We are seeing high factory loads in a lot of our component factories at the moment. In fact, we are at all-time high in several areas. We are in full load in several areas, and you may expect some further actions to address capacity and bottlenecks as we continue to grow into the next cycle. In terms of the geographical trends, although it's not necessarily fully obvious on the chart, in fact, both U.S. and especially China had a very own quarter. We are 7%-8% up in both markets compared to Q1 last year. The sequential growth, especially in China, is exceptionally high. It's a very healthy business condition in both markets. Both of those happen to represent our two individually biggest markets. Leaving the lower level of marine activity in many of the other Asian markets, in fact, Asia as a whole is okay. It looks a little bit weaker than it is all in all, giving, among other things, the currency effects from the marine side affecting the numbers comparability. In general, Western Europe was relatively weak compared to the rest of the world. Even in Western Europe, there were variations between countries. There were clear variations between end markets. Also in Western Europe, it was a mixed picture. Latin America, I think, stronger than you would expect given the situation in Latin America at the moment. Eastern Europe, which typically has been growing strongly except for certain quarters last year, we saw a return to solid growth, also there. All in all, the overall picture was a good rebound, a return to normality and pretty strong growth in many areas and in some of our core geographical areas. I will come back with some comments regarding the outlook later, but for now, I hand over to Jan with some further financial comments. Thank you, Tom. I'm going to start commenting on our invoicing level. We expected invoicing in Q1 to be lower than the same quarter last year, and we realized sales of SEK 9 billion in Q1, which is 15% lower than last year. Please note that we did have a large negative FX translation impact on sales. Excluding this, sales were down 7% versus last year, a bit lower than we expected, but as commented by Tom, no real operational issues behind that. With regard to sales for Q2, my outlook is as follows. I expect invoicing in Q2 to be lower than the same quarter last year, primarily driven by the reduced backlog in the Marine division and a continued negative FX translation impact. In fixed FX rate, I expect underlying invoicing volumes to be about the same as last year. Stronger invoicing volumes in Energy and Food and Water offsetting lower volumes in the Marine division. Looking at the gross margin. The gross margin came in at 38.2% in Q1, which is an increase of about 0.5% versus last year. We have a positive capital sales service mix due to the relative strong service invoicing in the quarter. However, this was offset by an overall negative product mix. The load volume impact was positive despite lower invoicing, as our factories have adapted their cost structure to the lower invoicing volumes, including the positive impact from the restructuring program, primarily impacting the Marine division in Q1. Hence, we saw a strong productivity development in the quarter. As expected, the PPV metals impact was negative in the quarter, and finally, we did see a positive FX impact on the gross profit margin in the quarter. Over to my outlook for Q2. The starting point is the 35.4% gross profit margin reported in Q2 last year. We expect a continued positive capital sales service mix in Q2, also that the negative product mix in Marine will continue into Q2. We expect a neutral load volume effect in Q2, a negative PPV metal impact due to the increased material and trade costs. We do expect a positive FX impact on the gross margin to continue into Q2. Looking at the S&A expenses. The impact from the continued lockdown situation in many countries continued into Q1, which means that our traveling costs, but also to some extent our general S&A expenses stayed on a level in the quarter. Excluding FX effects, our S&A expenses were down 6% versus last year. We expect our S&A expenses that they will gradually start to increase during the year as countries start to open up again. However, we also expect that a new way of working, including the accelerated digitalization of our workplace, is likely to continue to have a positive impact during the year. However, it's too early to quantify this impact. With regards to the restructuring program announced in December last year, the program is progressing as planned. It reduced approximately 300 FTEs so far, which represents about 50% of the total planned employee reduction in the plan. Please note that this program is primarily reducing cost of goods sold and was set up to offset the lower invoicing volumes in Marine and the upstream oil and gas part of the Energy division. Finally, as communicated earlier, we expect to book another SEK 160 million of restructuring cost in Q2, which brings the total cost of the program to approximately SEK 900 million, slightly higher than the SEK 850 million announced originally. Our Adjusted EBITDA margin came in at 17.1%, up from 16.5%, and the margin improvement was primarily driven by the high gross profit margin and the continued low overhead costs. Looking at the key figures, excluding FX effects, S&A expenses were down 6% and R&D expenses were down 2% versus last year. Net other cost and income was down SEK 102 million, excluding non-recurring items, primarily driven by lower royalty payments to our PureBallast joint venture partner, lower external commissions, and lower overhead costs in general. Financial net, excluding FX impact, was -SEK 48 million in Q1, slightly lower than last year. The FX gains losses in Q1 was a +SEK 109 million, giving a total positive financial net of SEK 143 million in Q1, versus a negative finance net of SEK 271 million last year. The main reason for the FX gains and also the FX losses last year are due to revision of cash positions in local currencies. Tax rate was 25% in the quarter, hence very close to our tax guidance of 26%. The higher EPS in Q1 was primarily explained by the positive swing in finance net year-over-year. Looking at our cash flow. Cash flow from operating activities was SEK 963 million in Q1, which is about the same as last year. Working capital was stable during the quarter and finished on about the same level as last year. Investing activities included CapEx of SEK 266 million in Q1, slightly higher than last year. Financial net paid, excluding FX impacts, was -SEK 26 million Q1. Realized FX gains losses in the quarter amounted to a +SEK 160 million, giving a total finance net paid of +SEK 90 million. This means that our cash flow came in at about SEK 800 million in Q1, slightly higher than last year, which is on a good level considering that we had a very strong cash flow in Q4. Please note that we have refinanced our RCF in April with a EUR 700 million credit facility. This facility has a maturity of five years and is the first of its kind to be launched in the Nordic region since March of last year. Looking at FX. The transaction FX on EBITDA in the quarter was a +SEK 20 million, and the translation impact was a - SEK 90 million, giving a total net negative FX impact on EBITDA of SEK 70 million in the quarter. Looking at the projection for full year 2021, we expect a slight net positive FX impact of SEK 20 million, driven by a positive transaction FX impact. The order backlog at the end of March was at SEK 19.3 billion, which is 3% lower than the same time of last year on a comparable basis. Compared to year-end 2020, the order backlog is now 7% higher expressed in fixed rates due to positive book-to-bill ratio of 114 in the quarter. The order backlog now represents 5.8 months of LTM sales. For shipment in the remaining part of 2021, the backlog amounts to SEK 14.5 billion, a reduction of 1 billion compared to the same time last year. That brings us to the sales bridge for 2021. Starting with sales of SEK 9 billion Q1. As stated in the previous slide, the backlog for shipment in the remaining part of 2021 is SEK 14.5 billion, and this adds up to a total of SEK 23.5 billion. On top of that, you will need to make your estimate on change in in-quarter orders and FX translation impact. For your reference, the total of in-quarter orders during Q2 through Q4 2020 was SEK 15.4 billion. With regards to the FX impact, it is of course very uncertain. However, using the closing rate at end of March, the estimated FX impact in 2021 would be approximately -SEK 1 billion. That brings us to the outlook statement then, and back to you, Tom. Thank you, Jan In terms of the market situation I alluded to before, I think we probably are at the bottom ring of this cycle. If we look at it divisionally going forward into the second quarter, sequentially, we expect the Food and Water division demand to be somewhat higher on the basis of a firmer large order project pipeline. We expect Energy division and the Marine division to be on about the same level. All in all, that gives a fairly stable outlook into the quarter when it comes to orders on about the same level, perhaps with some positive deviations given the situation on the Food and Water division. I think with that, I hand over for questions. Thank you very much, sir. Ladies and gentlemen, as a reminder, if you wish to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone keypad and wait for your name to be announced. Our first question for today is from the line of Max Yates from Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Thank you. Just my first question was around the Marine services business. You talked about sequential improvement, but obviously it is still on a year-over-year basis lower. Could you talk about what the remaining challenges are in this business from the pandemic and what it will take for those to be fully removed? Is it travel? Is it the shipping companies themselves hesitating? Just a bit of context around what the remaining challenges are in Marine service would be helpful. I'm not sure I have a sharp answer to your question. I think the way we looked at it is this is a rather normal rebound. I don't feel that the taps goes on. Let's put it like this. The issue was probably less in the quarter, what are the remaining hurdles and more a question of when did we see the rebound happening in the quarter? We normally don't talk too much about variations within an individual quarter, but certainly the trend was stronger towards the end of the quarter as opposed to the beginning. A degree of a bridge, whether that is a trend that is sustainable into Q2 or whether it's a bit of a pent up. I leave that open. I don't want to predict marine service specifically in Q2. If you look at the delta versus last year, the delta was certainly bigger in January than it was in March. Okay. Just a quick follow-up on the different shipping segments. You called out container ships as a particularly strong part of the Clarksons data. I was wondering if you could just firstly help us with how significant a business that is for you of your marine exposure. That would be helpful to get a feel of that. I also wondered, as we see this recovery in shipping markets, I think you've talked quite a lot about some of the new technologies, some of the waste oil recovery products that you have on ships. I just wanted to get a feel of if you think that your content per vessel as we go into this shipping up cycle could actually be larger this time round than maybe what we had seen in previous cycles, i.e., your orders for a similar amount of ships could be larger this recovery. Just any sense of that would be helpful. It becomes circular if you're going to try to break down the share of container. Remember that new contracting is a good third of our marine business overall. Within new contracting, about 70% of that is our sweet spot, as we normally call it, ship classes, which includes container tankers, product tankers, cruise, and LNG carriers to take the main ones. You end up on a fairly low level when it comes to demand. I remind you that effects from that is coming most likely earliest 2022, right? That in itself is not spiking the demands. It's a broader recovery required for the marine numbers to go up. With that said, the ship mix as it was predicted this year or anticipated and how it developed in Q1 overall is favorable when it comes to our exposure all in all. Let me leave it at that. I think from a technology point of view, there is a lot of work going on in various directions. We will see how all of that plays out. I think what is positive from our point of view right now is that at least on the basic questions of fuel options in terms of specifying ships, it tends to settle down short term on a multi-fuel mix of LNG and heavy fuel oil. That is technologies that are well known to us and that we are able to serve here and now. It doesn't put a pie in the sky for the future. It is a term trend that is somewhat favorable to us. I think for the long-term development, there is bigger uncertainties, but also a lot of excitement in terms of what may develop in the areas of ammonia, may develop in fuel cell solutions in general. We remain relatively alert when it comes to following and proactively invest in those areas. Most of that will take some time to play out. These are not fast changes that require global infrastructures and agreement to a degree, or at least consensus to a degree. I think here and now, the clear driver of change on the fuel side remains LNG and variations of heavy fuel oil. That's great. Thank you very much. Our next question is from Johan Eliason from Kepler Cheuvreux. Please go ahead. Yeah. Hi, this is Johan Eliason. While staying on the subject of marine, I noticed you mentioned that ballast water orders are up, and I guess there were some issues last year during the pandemic that might have sort of impacted the order intake on that one while the regulatory demand is still there, I guess, five years from 2019 autumn. Has there been any change to the regulatory demand for ballast water because of the pandemic, or should we expect sort of a pent-up demand coming for all ships out there to comply with this regulation within? There's no change. If I remember correctly, there was a one-year extension from five to six years. Sorry, I got an echo here, so I'm going to be quiet for a second. Okay, here we go again. Maybe somebody should mute here because I get a lot of echo. Johan. Anyhow Mute your line just while the speaker replies. Thank you. We think that the fact that PureBallast orders were quite strong was probably a bit of a pent-up demand, a bit of delay in retrofit programs because of repair yards scheduling problems. We fell a little bit short of our expectations last year, as a matter of fact, and now we were a bit more back to normality. I think you're right. I think there may have been some pandemic effects on the order intake numbers. Also, I point out that also the PureSOx orders were reasonable in the quarter. Of course, not back to the heydays, but it's still stabilizing and somewhat improved sequentially, to a level of a bit of a normality in our product portfolio, and it contributed as well in the quarter. On the ballast was a license payment. Was just that a reflection of lower deliveries during the quarter, or has there been any change to the agreement on that? No change. We stand by our agreements always. Yeah. Any change. You could have negotiated something else, obviously. Yes. Thank you. Those were my questions for now. Thank you. Our next question for today is from the line of Mattias Holmberg. Please go ahead. Thank you. In Q4, you guided for the energy demand to increase sequentially into Q1, and if I'm not mistaken, you mentioned that this would, to some extent, be driven by large orders. From the sounds of your comment, it seems like these have not really materialized. I'm just wondering if you still see these large projects in the pipeline and what the phasing of those could be, or maybe I misunderstood something here. Thank you. For the energy division specifically? Yes. I don't remember the guiding comments exactly. I don't think we were very surprised about the project pipeline and the conversion to orders in the quarter. We were, I think if anything, rather positive to the fact that we did have some large order bookings in stream areas. That's where, in fact, most projects tend to go. The upstream is capital-intensive, but normally are more on the equipment side. There were clear delays among other places in China in some large projects during the pandemic. They are not fully restarted, or at least not in our order books at this point in time. I think we have some way to go, but we took the quarter as a sign of a return to the normal CapEx plans that sits in the downstream area. It was cautious, but still positive. That's a bit, I think, our take on it. Thank you so much. Our next question is from Sven Weier from UBS. Please go ahead. Yes, good afternoon. Thanks for taking my questions. The first one, Tom, is regarding you joining the Center for Zero-Carbon Shipping from Maersk. I was just curious, what products specifically, expertise specifically, do you bring to the table there? Was just wondering, obviously the pressure on shipping will be much harder to decarbonize quicker in the next few years. Which products from you specifically would be in demand there if we exclude the zero carbon fuels, and what comes then on top later on once these fuels are available? Thank you. If I take the question broadly, we have an ambition in the marine division to be developing a toolbox for the ship owners in terms to how to address the climate impact. I think, as you allude to in your question, there's not going to be one beautiful solution happening short term. There will be transition solutions that altogether will drive fossil fuel consumption down. All of the toolbox is not announced yet. You may expect that there are further things happening. Certainly, we have a role to play when it comes to the LNG. We announced the PureCool recently, which is a methane slip problem addresser. We are definitely engaged in the ammonia as a carrier of hydrogen as a fuel, at least for the auxiliary power generation on board. The fuel cells area is another one where we will be engaged on the marine side. I think we have a lot to bring to the party. On top of that, of course, value and business ambitions that we have too, in the energy division as well as in the other areas, including marine, to be a proactive player when it comes to combat the climate challenge. Thanks for that, Tom. You sounded earlier a bit cautious whether the container ordering now is going to be followed up later with a real cycle. Is that also because you think the shipping companies are confused by these very changes and rather wait and see what happens before they order something? Was that maybe the reason why you sounded still a bit maybe skeptical whether there is a follow-up afterwards? Well, you know me. I don't like to overstate a quarter when it comes to looking into the future. I think, as I commented, there are some underlying positive trend developments in the marine industry when it comes to, well, can we have partly an aging fleet with high OpEx cost and as the oil price is returning to some sort of normality, OpEx costs are high for a number of assets. Scrapping has been at a historic low during a longer period of time. The building prices, at least for those who already sit on the options, is very attractive given where the steel prices and where the raw material prices are going. Very favorable right now to move in and utilize that as a valuable asset at this point in time. I'm not so surprised seeing the rebounds now, but of course, to go from our all-time low last year to a number that starts to look like a stable 2,000 ships per year, I think for me, that's a very big jump, given that three months ago, I wouldn't subscribe to a major growth, looking forward three months. I think we need to see another quarter and a bit of a more broad-based category growth before we can say that we are into the more stable historic average type of order pattern at somewhere 1,500, 2,000 ships per year. I'm not sure we are there. I'm not sure the quarter is corresponding to a 12-month running rate of 16, 1,700 ships. I'm not so sure. Certainly, it is a bit more positive now than it was six months ago, to a degree, three months ago. Yeah. Understood. Thank you, Tom. Maybe one follow-up for Jan, on your guidance on revenues and currency impact, maybe I misunderstood, but I think you said SEK 1 billion negative impact. Wasn't that SEK 2 billion actually, translation impact on revenues this year? Yeah, of course, we keep updating that based on the most recent rates we have. Again, it's a bit of a guessing game. Point is that we should expect this negative translation impact in 2021, exactly where that's going to land. It's going to be north of SEK 1 billion. That is the best estimate we have. North of SEK 1 billion. Okay. I think you already had almost SEK 900 million in Q1, right? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question is from Klas Bergelind from Citi Research. Please go ahead. Hi, Tom and Jan. It's Klas at Citi. The first one is on Marine. Orders are down against a very tough comp, 27% down year-over-year. I'm not sure you will answer this, Tom, but I will give it a go. At the end of the quarter and into April, could you comment at all on that year-over-year? Is it markedly better or are we trending around that level through the quarter? Are you asking about the second quarter? I'm asking about the end of the first quarter and into the second quarter, in terms of the year-over-year against the 27% you had in the whole first quarter. Year- to- date for the Q1. Yeah. Either year-to-date and can back it out, or if you have the April number, would be excellent. You're a very optimistic person. Okay. No comment. That was my comment. Klas, just one comment. If you consider this order backlog revalue you had last year, the big positive impact, if you back that out, the order intake in Marine Q1 is down 16%. No, that I know. I'm thinking about the underlying momentum into April. Obviously, I know that that's the case, but also into April. Yeah, I guess you leave it at that guidance is for unchanged demand quarter on quarter ex revaluation. Yeah. Okay. That is clear. I had to give it a go. One for you, Jan, on the energy margin. It seems like there's some FX effects from hedges in there on energy. Obviously, you have the impact from the drop-through on lower revenues, but it seems like the underlying margin would have been better ex on hedges. I can see that that is offset on operations and other. Is that at all true? You didn't mention that during the presentation. I would say when you look at the energy margin in the quarter, I think there's three things negatively impacting that, and I think Tom commented on them. It is the volume impact, which has impacted given some, let's say, uneven load in some of the factories. I would say, in addition to that, some pressure on the material and trade side. I think those are the three really reasons impacting the energy margins. On the operations and other, I would simply say this was really an impact of lower general overhead cost in the quarter, but also that the footprint cost in Q1 was very low, below the normal level we would expect the footprint cost. To come in considering the programs that we have running on the operational side. Okay. No, I was under the impression from speaking with you earlier today that you had some FX effects in there as well. Okay. My final question is on green energy you're offering from across energy storage, carbon capture, hydrogen, data centers, and so forth. It's a small business today, but still moving in the right direction. Where among those technologies do you see the biggest opportunity over the next 12 to 24 months? Obviously, in food and water, you have the vegetable oil, biofuel side that is seeing momentum, but I'm also keen to understand on the pure energy side better. Yeah. It's a good question. It's somewhat difficult. I appreciate you don't ask it as a quarterly question, but as an 18-month question, but it's still a very short period of time when our products are still in the lab. I would feel that the commercial pipeline, in terms of where customers are going, is probably mostly here and now related to larger engines, and fuel/heat exchange applications related to high-temperature fuel cells. Those are clearly going to come, and we are clearly going to be a player in that area. I'm not ready to start to sketch any numbers on it. I think that is, in my mind, the most here-and-now related issue. The second one is probably potentially the buildup of the hydrogen infrastructure, that will require transportation and storage of low-temperature hydrogen in liquid state. Just as for LNG, a lot of our energy solutions are needed to manage those temperatures and energy demands in an efficient way. In my mind, those two seem to be reasonably reliable development projects, if you like, with a time horizon, at least to start to see the pickup of the curve within the time period that you are mentioning. Okay. Thank you. Our next question is from the line of Madhavendra Singh from Bank of America. Please go ahead. Yes. Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. Couple of questions. Firstly, on Food and Water division, 15% organic growth looks very strong. Is it to assume that all the various end markets within that, they have all come back to normal operational level right now, or was there any particular segment which actually performed much stronger? Secondly, on just following up on the Marine division number, you earlier expected the recovery to happen only somewhere around second half. Is that all still your view that Marine recovery can really expect only after second half of this year? Thank you. The food end market, I think it's fair to say that those numbers wouldn't happen without broad-based recovery. While we have variations in it, I'm not sure how helpful it is. The biotech side remains strong. The protein side remains strong. The ethanol starch business remains strong, and the veg oil was strong. That leaves more of a flattish businesses in brewery, which I think given the circumstances that that industry has been in, was a rather good number. Dairy, which also remains, let's say, on a fairly stable level. There you have about the end market situation in the food and water market. I don't want to predict Marine demand quarter by quarter. I think it came in perhaps a little bit better than what most people expected in the quarter. We expect to remain on approximately that level in Q2 given the contracting levels we see, and to some degree, our own product launches and development. We should estimate that that is about the bottom level for this cycle, if the trends continue. Let's see where the contracting goes, and as I mentioned a couple of times, the lead times between contracting and firm orders to Alfa Laval would indicate that the impact from contracting is reasonably limited during 2021, and we should rather expect an effect if it comes in 2022. Great. Thank you very much. Your next question is from Lars Brorson from Barclays. Please go ahead. Oh, great. Hey. Hi, Tom. Yeah. Lars here. Three questions, Tom, if I can. One on your outlook, one on Marine margins, and one back on Food & Water. Sorry, I missed it if you said it. What was your divisional demand outlook, please? I heard flat in Marine. Just clarifying it's flat for the other two divisions as well. To that, Tom, anything you can say regionally? You've got a big exposure in emerging markets outside of China. Wonder what you're seeing in places like India and Brazil, with COVID resurging. Is there any real impact on your business there from the standpoint, I guess partly, on your Food & Water business? The outlook statement was somewhat better in the Food & Water, and stable for the two other divisions. I would, in terms of color, add that any uncertainty to those statements tends to be related a little bit to what happens with the larger orders. As I indicated a number of times, it's not that the pipeline is empty, it's that the pipeline has been slower to convert. We feel it's alive and healthy, and some effects perhaps will be visible in the Food & Water division in the second quarter. That's the basis for our outlook. We are in a typical situation where the short cycle business picks up before the long cycle business. That's exactly what we are seeing, and our judgment on how that will play out is the basis for the Q2 outlook statement. I think that's being as transparent as I can be in terms of our estimation. When it comes to emerging markets, I understand your question, to some degree, I would say it is a bit of a surprising situation. If you look across those markets, both Latin America and India showed significant strength in the quarter. Of course, both of those geographic regions tend to be strongly influenced by the food and water division. The answer is no, we don't see the negative effect on the business. On the contrary, I think after a year, last year, we start to see some pent-up demands that needs to be converted into orders, and I expect that's a little bit what we've seen in Q1. Thank you, Tom. To the answer on food and water, if I can just clarify the better outlook for Q2, and indeed maybe just further out in 2021. Is that strength coming through in the end markets you flagged earlier, biotech, protein, ethanol, veg oil? Are we starting to see a bit of movement around brewery and dairy? I guess brewery fairly depressed last year. Is that starting to show some signs of life? Well, we actually had a healthy brewer business throughout. It hasn't been a growth business, but been stable on an okay level. I'd be a bit cautious in terms of our predictive, because it was surprisingly strong. I think, let's see where it goes. I think larger side, and that's typically, as you know, sometimes when we have bigger announcements, like we had in Mexico a couple of years ago, that influences heavily what happens in the brewery segment specifically. In general, the activity level is good in the division, and we see the large order pipeline firming up a little bit as time goes by. In that sense, as I said, I think what we see is a business cycle upturn, where short cycle comes first, and the long cycle takes a little bit longer time. I think that goes across if you look at ethanol, protein, and veg oil, they tend to be relatively influenced by large orders as well. That's where we go in and do plant constructions and the like. That's helpful, Tom. Finally, if I just can, on marine margins for this year, I think you and I have done a pretty decent job in terms of resetting market expectations for the first quarter. For the full year, I still see market expectations for your marine division sitting just shy of 17%, which I'm struggling a little bit with. I guess that would require a meaningful swing back over the next few quarters from the 15% in Q1. I appreciate there's a bit of seasonality, but you've got an environmental mix that should be somewhat adverse. You've got some cost inflation coming back. Wonder whether you can give a little bit of color around how you see marine margins at these levels. Maybe Jan will comment on the margin developments? Yeah. I think we've been pretty clear on the outlook for marine. The backlog contains less of PureSOx volumes, it contains less of pumping volumes. On the other hand, they have taken pretty quick and firm actions on the restructuring side over the last year, having some positive impacts already here in Q1. Again, at the end of the day, they are suffering from a different backlog than they had a year ago. That will come through during the year, that's clear. Okay. It sounds like you feel comfortable that Q1 has marked the trough. I don't think we give outlook statement for specific divisions here on the margin side. I'm just saying we did open the year with a different backlog mix than we had earlier, and that will come through during the year, just as we guided for Q1. I don't want to give more specific comments than that, Lars. Understood. Yeah. Thank you very much. Thanks, guys. Thank you. All right. We are starting reaching the end of our hour. Should we go with two more questions? Of course. Yep. The next is from Robert Davies from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Yes, thank you for taking my question. I'd just be interested in terms of the ongoing restructuring program that you've announced, just when you look forward over the next one to two years, is there more you can do in terms of footprint consolidation or further headcount reduction or movement of manufacturing capacity across your footprint at the moment? Is there still more to do, or do you feel pretty comfortable in terms of where you're at the moment? Thank you. Yeah. The work never ends, of course. There are some footprint programs moving into 2022 and to a degree, 2023. I would say they are backed up to a degree by organic growth plans. They are not necessarily just a standalone shutdown or so forth. In that sense and in the sense of the ongoing work with automation, which is starting to become attractive to us on a different level, the modern robot technology offering a lot more opportunities in manufacturing than the traditional pick-and-place robots. We see a fairly interesting technology development ongoing. If you stretch this two, three years from now, I think I may start to see some productivity gains in that area as well. I don't think it's going to be a binary event restructuring thing. I think we're in a good position now to, in a fairly reasonable footprint, to drive volumes, productivity, automation, and efficiency. I think we laid the foundation. We are not necessarily completed. I see. Thank you. My second question was just around the comment you made on marine, around the yard contracting increasing. How much visibility do you get on the different sort of vessel categories within that? Do you just get feedback that it's just broad-based activity that's picking up? Do you get to tell whether it's the different categories are sort of stronger or weaker? I'd just be curious to know kind of how close you are in terms of that feedback loop in terms of seeing the different vessel categories get better or worse. Thank you. Well, the numbers for the different categories are disclosed at the end of the quarter, so you can see them in the statistics if you use Clarksons or something like that. In that sense, after the fact, those numbers becomes clear. We of course have a certain visibility on ongoing contracting at the yards independently from Clarksons or any other reports on the issue. It happens that we are ahead of the curve. Obviously, in this instance, we were not, because three months ago in the earnings call, I didn't necessarily see the pickup coming. At least I didn't predict it wasn't so long ago. My capacity as forecaster is maybe put in a little bit of doubt at this moment in time, at least I preferred caution to over-optimism. You'll find the categories, they are fairly clearly disclosed, and with the caveat that they will be updated another month or two. You will see the existing report on 361 ships will probably climb above 400 for the first quarter by the time the updates are complete. I see. In your discussions, there's nothing to indicate that you've seen an uptick outside of container ships more broadly? Well, there's been some growth in other areas, too. I think it's not isolated in any shape or form. The reason I have an element of optimism compared to the 30-year low that's been swimming around in for a period of time, is the fact that the global trade has returned to a fairly significant growth. Of course, that growth is driving not only container freight, but it does drive freight in all areas, in all ship classes, except necessarily then cruise, which will be on its own recovery leg. I think there are some grounds for an optimism, not on the level that we saw in Q1, but in terms of it taking a portion. I think that is to be expected, and I think that's within the forecast right now that we will see a reasonable number coming in for the year. Great. Thank you very much. Okay, we go on the last. Of course. Yep. Our final question for today is from Karl Bokvist from ABG. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good afternoon. Two questions. First on HVAC&R, I was just interested in hearing, is there any particular area where you're seeing stronger demand, such as any particular region or category, air conditioning versus heat pumps, for example? Yeah, there are variations, but I think the heat pump market is very strong. If I would point to anything, that's probably the one. Overall, the whole HVAC area, including air conditioning, is going well, driven by the same trends of refrigerants, energy efficiency and all that. I think we are in the middle of a process where we also see an element of regulatory change driving demand structurally in these areas. All right, thank you. Then just a broader question on your marine product portfolio. I think you mentioned it before that you're quite structurally content with the portfolio that you have. Just out of curiosity anyway, do you see any kind of product category that you would find interesting that you might not feel would be the best way of developing internally, i.e., something you might be interested in looking at externally? Also then, sorry, just a follow-up also on your outlook for Aalborg. I think with the product portfolio that it has, it should be quite favorable for all products outside of the engine room, so to say. Let me start with your last question. I think to a degree, you're right, both fuel options, LNG, and other trends will favor, I think, the offering we have in the marine boiler business. I think structurally, they are reasonably positioned at this point in time. They also had, by the way both sequentially and year-on-year, a rather solid order intake. We're on a good track with that. It's difficult for me to be precise and transparent on extension on the product range. I think I indicated to you already early in the call that we are working on a toolbox for the ship owners in terms of how to combat climate impact from shipping. We are not there yet. I think part of that is development work. Part of that is partnerships with other firms. There may be some components of M&A in that as well. We are certainly working in the pipeline in all three of those areas, and our job is not completed. I hope part of that will clarify during the year, and the part of that may take a little bit longer time. It is a dynamic situation for us in the marine industry. Yes, there's been some risks and downside related to the reduced demand in environmental after the retrofit boom and maybe some concerns on heavy fuel oil as the main fuel on board. I think when we look long term on what we can do and will do in the future fuel options and climate challenges, we see, I think, more upside than downside in terms of how we will develop the division going forward. I will keep your question in the back of your head, and I hope that gradually we can give some answers to it that is a bit more crystal clear than what I'm saying right now. Understood. Thank you. Thank you very much. With that, thank you very much for your interest. I know you had a busy day. You ended up with the most interesting call, I'm sure. Thanks for your interest, and speak to you in a quarter. Bye-bye.