Thank you, Ulla. Good afternoon, everyone, also on my behalf. Welcome to Stora Enso full year 2020 and Q4 conference call. We are running this call now for an hour. I will hand it over for our CEO, Annica Bresky. Annica, please go ahead. Thank you very much. A lot of welcome to our call today. I'm very satisfied with the quarter that we have behind us. We deliver a steady performance as a result of our own action. As you know, we have an unprecedented year behind us. I'm happy that we have been able to protect our people's health, run our operations without major disturbances, and serve our customers through a year that has been quite exceptional for all of us. If we look at our results, our sales and operational EBIT decreased by 11% compared to a year ago. If we exclude paper, we had a 3% decline. Sequentially, I'm happy to see that our sales actually increased by 4% compared to quarter three. This shows that our main businesses are performing well, and I can see signs of improvement going on. Our operational EBIT was EUR 118 million, down largely in line with 2019. We have to remember this is a maintenance-heavy quarter, where we also had the conversion of Oulu, which we finalized. From that perspective, coming back to pre-corona levels is a stellar performance. We can see a clear improvement to our base businesses excluding paper from EUR 80 million to EUR 122 million, which is more than 50% improvement. Our operational EBIT decreased to 5.5% and excluding paper to 7.3%. There are signs of recovery in our results. Our cash flow from operations landed at EUR 436 million and after investment at EUR 223 million. Here we have to remember that we had a positive effect from an extraordinary dividend and capital repayment from Bergvik Skog amounting at EUR 223 million last year. Net debt to operational EBITDA landed at 2.3, slightly above our target of two times, but we have managed to reduce our debt by EUR 300 million. Our operational return on capital employed, excluding our forest division, landed at 4.6%. Our board is proposing a dividend of EUR 0.30 per share for AGM decisions. This is in line with the dividend payout of 2019. All in all, I can say that we see signs of recovery of our businesses, and this has been a steady performance coming back to pre-corona levels. Moving on now, if we look at what are the main drivers for our result, we can see, of course, a decline in sales prices and volumes, which are the biggest effect during the quarter. Through our own actions, cost savings, and good management in our company, we have been able to mitigate that decline. As you also know, we have through the year worked with the revaluation of our forest asset, and now we have moved over to market transaction-based fair valuation applied to our Swedish forest assets. With that, we end up at a fair value of EUR 7.3 billion, which is slightly above the higher area of the interval that we communicated earlier this year. This shows the fair value of the assets that we have, and from now on, we will continue with this transparent communication towards all of you. Our other forest assets are based on discounting cash flow methodology still. Tornator, Montes del Plata, Veracel, and Guangxi in total have a fair value of EUR 1.7 billion. Our Swedish forest assets fair value is EUR 5.6 billion, which is both biological assets and land assets. With that, we can conclude that we are one of the largest global forest owners, and this is a very good position to have. Innovation and new products all start from our renewable materials, and here you can see a comparison of us with other peer companies in the Nordics. We also enable a stable dividend. Our proposal is EUR 0.3 per share. The dividend proposal is unchanged compared to 2019. Our policy, as we communicated in the last Capital Markets Day, is to pay stable dividends linked to the long-term performance and to have a 50% EPS excluding fair valuation over the cycle. It is important to have a perspective of over the cycle when we distribute dividends. This is the proposal from the board. As I said, we see positive signs of market recovery. Our performance in packaging material continues to be strong, stable demand for consumer board. We see improving market conditions for containerboard. We had a very good result for our packaging materials division. Strong e-commerce demand supports corrugated packaging. We also had the second-best quarter four for our wood products division. Very strong performance there. High demand for wood products solutions, both building solutions and traditional sawlogs. Here we can see that it is mainly the U.S. market and the European market that have been driving that development. Continued strong and stable performance for Forest. We have good harvesting conditions and a stable supply of sawn logs. We can also see improving market conditions for Biomaterials. As you know, the last year was a challenging year from pricing perspective. We started with very high inventories for market pulp globally. At the end of the year, we have a much more balanced supply and demand. The inventories have come down to normal levels globally, and we see that the Chinese recovery is proceeding, demand is expected to increase going forward. These are positive signs for our biomaterials division going forward. Last but not least, as you are all aware, paper is in a structural decline, and has been already before the pandemic. We can see that the demand decline continues, and the structural overcapacity is there in all the paper grades. This market continues to be challenging. Here I come to our own actions and the importance of those. Paper has delivered a strong cash flow, coming back to the levels that we were before the pandemic. That comes down to very good cost management, making sure that the mills stay competitive, and also having a very good working capital management. We have a high intensity in our strategy execution. Oulu Mill conversion to kraftliner is finalized, and we are in the startup phase. Our pulp mill is producing pulp, and we are starting up the board machine. This is a very good step in our transformation forward into growth areas of packaging materials. We are conducting the feasibility study at Skoghall, as you are aware, which will be finished in Q4 this year, and up for decision by the board. We decided on an EUR 80 million investment in our Imatra mills to strengthen the wood handling and the competitive position of our integrate in Imatra. That will be finalized by Q3 2022. We also chose to accelerate the innovation performance of lignin and our platform in Sunila by investing EUR 14 million to enable better operations and granulations in the packaging plant of lignin. We made a decision in CLT in production is direct, that is progressing according to plan. Contracts for construction are ongoing, the startup is planned in Q3 2022. During Q4, we also divested non-core forest assets in the southern parts of Sweden for EUR 90 million. We also decided on a closure of our U.S.-based Virdia operations. This is a small pilot plan that we have had over the years, where we see it is no longer part of our core innovation platform. Unfortunately, we had to make the decision to close that during this year. We are collaborating with our customers in order to enable circular economy and a circular bioeconomy. We are conducting with Tetra Pak a study on expanding the possibility to use used beverage cartons in recycling in Ostrołęka mill. This is a true testimony that we really want to be the leaders in this area in enabling the circular bioeconomy. Last but not least, we are continuing our ramp-up of formed fiber food service boards to replace plastic, commercialized together with our wholesaler, Tingstad. That is clearly available on the market and has rendered a lot of interest. With that, I hand over to you, Seppo, to go through the financials in more detail. Thank you, Annica. I will start with the key figures from the report that we have published today. First of all, top-line sales, like Annica already mentioned, was down 11% year-on-year. Sequentially, compared to Q3, sales were up 3.6%. Operating EBITDA margin was 12.7%, and EBIT margin 5.5%. Earnings per share basic for the quarter, EUR 0.30. Look at the EPS excluding fair valuation, so the base for the dividend policy and full year figure, we were at EUR 0.45. Operational return on capital employed excluding forest was 4.6%. Cash flow from operations at EUR 436 million. There compared to last year, you should notice and remember that there was this significant EUR 230 million extraordinary dividend from Bergvik Skog relating to the ownership restructuring done earlier. In that sense, I think it's fair to say that our cash flow was strong for the quarter, and it was supported by working capital reduction. Working capital is actually at record low levels, and that is, I think, very encouraging news. We have been working a year and a half to reduce the working capital. We start to be at the targeted levels. Net debt to LTM operational EBITDA was 2.3. Shortly comment on our profit protection program, where we are coming to final year. Like I said earlier, we are now expecting to close the program during 2021. In Q4, we achieved EUR 70 million continuous savings, and on top of that, EUR 5 million one-time savings. We expect additional savings of EUR 80 million during this year that has started now. Starting with the divisions, and first looking at packaging materials, where strong performance continues. Also in containerboard business, market conditions are improving. Sales decreased slightly to EUR 759 million. That is due to clearly lower containerboard prices during the quarter compared to year before, and close of the small packaging paper machine at Imatra Mills in Finland had also an effect. That was partly mitigated by higher pulp sales and containerboard demand. Operational EBIT increased by EUR 10 million. This is, I think, a good achievement, keeping in mind that the result includes conversion costs of Oulu EUR 27 million. Result was supported by clearly lower variable costs, especially pulp, chemicals, and energy, and lower containerboard prices and lower containerboard volumes had an effect. Good news is that market situation in China has continued to improve. Operational return on capital improved to 9.2% during the quarter. Moving to packaging solutions division, where solid result was visible, and it was supported by strong e-commerce demand, like also earlier during the year. Sales decreased by 6%. There was visible lower corrugated box prices in Europe, mainly due to decreased raw material prices and also negative sales FX effect. We had slightly higher European corrugated deliveries. Operational EBIT, that remained flat at EUR 10 million, reflection of lower sales, but also lower containerboard and fixed costs. It's good to remember that in packaging solution division, we have the new businesses included, that is biocomposites, formed fiber, and box, and that has a negative impact on operational EBIT, as they are in the startup and development phase. Operational return on capital remains stable at 16.2%. In biomaterials, market conditions are improving, but the result in Q4 was burdened by plant maintenance works. Sales decreased by 8% and was EUR 314 million due to lower pulp deliveries, mainly due to autumn deliveries the year for the comparison period, and negative sales FX. Operational EBIT was flat at negative EUR 12 million. Result was negatively impacted from total volumes affected by maintenance and slightly lower prices. We had also clearly lower variable costs, especially for wood chemicals and energy supporting the result. Operational return on capital at a low level for the quarter, actually negative 2.1%. Wood Products division, where we had exceptionally strong Q4. Sales decreased by 4%. That was a result of structural changes at the Pfarrkirchen, Uimaharju, and Kitee sawmills. That was partly offset by slightly better prices and mix for Classic Sawn and LVL and U.S. market. Operational EBIT increased by EUR 19 million to EUR 33 million. That was second highest Q4 ever so far. That is thanks to higher sales prices and especially good cost control improving profitability. Operational return on capital increased and was clearly above the long-term target of 20%. That was 23.5% for the quarter. Moving to Forest division, where strong and stable performance continued. Sales decreased by 5% due to lower wood prices, and that was partly offset by increased wood deliveries, especially in Sweden. Operational EBIT increased by EUR 10 million to record high Q4 level of EUR 41 million. There we had also positive effects from Tornator wind power project that together with increased efficiency in Finnish wood sourcing unit improved profitability significantly. Operational return on capital employed remained above long-term target at 3.8%. Paper, the challenging market conditions continue, but we are very happy about the strong cash flow generation during the Q4. Sales decreased by 31% due to continued accelerated structural demand in the case of decline and global overcapacity situation. That is placing additional pressure on prices in all paper grades. Oulu mill conversion discontinuation of paper production there decreased sales by EUR 50 million. Operational EBIT decreased by EUR 49 million to negative EUR 5 million. There we saw clearly lower prices and total impact of the volumes. Partly offset by lower costs and activities related to discontinuation of paper production at Oulu mill had a EUR 5 million negative impact as indicated already. Like I said, very strong good cash flow. Cash flow after investing activities to sales ratio was at 10.3%, which is clearly above the long-term target, and that is thanks to very good working capital management by the division. Looking at the development of the long-term financial targets. There I will concentrate on full-year figures as I have been already commenting quarterly figures in the case of divisions. Dividend, like Annica already mentioned, proposal is EUR 0.30 a share. Look at other figures, growth for the year, that was -8.7% due to the effects of the COVID-19 spreading around and having an effect in the global economy. Debt to operational EBIT at 2.3, moving the right direction from the peak during the year, but still above the targeted maximum 2.0. Debt-to-equity at 33% and operational return on capital employed excluding forest for the full year at 7%. Look at the divisions, both packaging divisions, both Packaging Materials and Packaging Solutions, about 14% level. That is below the targeted 20% and 25% levels, but quite strong taking into account the business environment. Biomaterials roughly at zero, 0.4%, and Wood Products for full year at 19.1%, so not far away from the targeted 20% level, and Forest division at 3.9% above the target of 3.5%. Like I said, Paper cash flow for the quarter Q4 was 10.3%, but due to the challenges of the previous quarters, full-year cash flow was 1.6%. With that, I hand back over to you, Annica. Thank you, Seppo. We are resuming our outlook with an annual approach. What we see, as I said, is signs of improvement, and we do expect an operational EBIT in 2021 to be higher than in 2020. We can see expectations of economic recovery, provided that the COVID-19 vaccination progresses successfully and we are managing the uncertainties in our surrounding environment. We do see that the demand of our products remained mixed. We have strong demand in our Packaging, Wood Products, and we see improvement in Biomaterials, stable outlook for our Forest division, but our Paper division is challenged. The Oulu ramp-up is going according to plan. We estimate approximately EUR 20 million negative impact on operational EBIT in Q1, and approximately between EUR 45 million-EUR 50 million total negative impact on operational EBIT for our Packaging Materials for the full year. Design capacity is predicted to be reached by end of Q2, and the full final commercialization of the full product portfolio by end of 2021. We estimate to reach operational EBITDA breakeven in Q1 2022. Our profit protection program will be concluded during this year, and we estimate approximately EUR 80 million of cost savings for this year, and we continue to focus on cash flow generation. Also, we are giving an outlook and a comparison on the full maintenance impact quarter by quarter, and as you can see, our estimation for quarter one this year is EUR 105 million of total impact. That includes both volumes and costs in comparison to Q1 2020. That was EUR 98 million. All in all, if we conclude, we are back in line with where we were 2019 before the corona happened in Q4. We have a steady performance, it is largely a result of our own actions. We see signs of recovery. Our sales has increased sequentially quarter-on-quarter, and market conditions are improving for our containerboard products. They are staying stable in demand for our consumer board and for biomaterials. We have cost reductions and they are visible. They are seen in our P&L, and our Oulu Mill conversion is finalized and is in the startup phase. We have divested non-core forest land in Sweden for EUR 90 million, and this highlights also the value that our forests have. The total forest asset fair value is EUR 7.3 billion, and our dividend proposal is EUR 0.3 per share, to be decided at the upcoming AGM. With that, we open up for your questions. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll now begin the question and answer session. If you'd like to ask a question, please press star and one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. You can cancel your request at any time by pressing the hash key. Your first question is from the line of Robin Santavirta of Carnegie. Please go ahead. Related to your paper business, when I look at the capacity, the machine park you have and the current deliveries and perhaps the outlook for this year, it seems as the operating rate with this machine park will remain low, below 80% by outreach. What is the sort of plan in this division for you guys? Is it to continue with this machine park, to do something substantial in terms of cutting, simply closing capacity or any potential for divestment or consolidation in the paper industry? That's the first question. Thanks. Thank you for the question. I think we're all aware that there is an overcapacity in Europe, 6.5 million tons, approximately 10% overcapacity. This means that structural changes will need to happen on the paper market. We believe that there is a new baseline established now after the pandemic. If we look at our own assets, our strategy has been the same over all time. We make sure that we have the most competitive assets, and we drive cash flow, which we proved also now in Q4. We evaluate constantly, if we can convert a mill, such as we did in Varkaus and Oulu, into other grades. If we don't see any good opportunities that fit our own business portfolio, then we divest, and we have done several of those. As a last option, if there are no good opportunities, then unfortunately we have to close down capacity, such as we did in Hylte decision that we took last year, where we closed down one machine and the deinking plant. This is our strategy all along, and that is what we are working on. All right. Thank you. Related to the containerboard business, where you had the startup cost of ramping up Oulu in Q4. I think you guided for EUR 30 million-40 million costs in the containerboard segment, and EUR 5 million-10 million costs in the paper business. Where did you land? I was just looking at the containerboard EBITDA, which seems quite strong in relation to that EUR 30 million-40 million costs booked in that, or guided for that division. Where did you land on those cost trends? Maybe what's sort of behind the strength of the containerboard profitability? Seppo here. Maybe I can take this one. Like I mentioned in my presentation, effect on packaging materials operational EBIT from Oulu conversion was EUR 27 million. Slightly below the low end of the range we gave. We said EUR 30 million-EUR 40 million. On paper, the effect was EUR 5 million, there also at the low end of the range. We are, of course, positive, and I think it shows the good work done in both divisions on these projects. It's challenging to keep guidance and exact figures, as you can imagine, especially under the uncertainties with COVID-19 when it comes to conversion. I think we are very happy and proud of the work done by both teams, and I think that's a reflection of the result there. If we look at the containerboard market, we can see positive signs. We saw that already in Q4. The inventory levels, they came down, and we could see push for price increases. E-commerce and the use of boxes within e-commerce has clearly been one of the main drivers here, and we have, of course, benefited on that. Yes. Thank you. Then just finally on China, it seems as after this summer, the activity levels there have been quite strong, based on statistics, especially carton board or packaging demand and pricing has improved and is improving. Is this something that is supporting your operations there, and particularly in terms of Beihai? Because I can see ivory board or folding box price is surging there. Is that positive for Beihai, or how does the pricing dynamics for what Beihai sells work in China? Yes, there is a good development in China. It is recovering. It's affecting not only our packaging business, but also our biomaterials business going forward with improved demand levels there and the balancing of the inventories. For Beihai specifically, yes, the consolidation of the folding boxboard market by the big players and the push-up of prices there is impacting positively our mill there. Any comments on Beihai profitability at this stage? Close to targeted level or far below still? I'm sorry, but we are not able to comment on individual mills' performance. I understand. Thank you very much. That was very much. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question is from the line of Alexander Berglund from Bank of America. Please go ahead. Alexander, are you on the phone? Thank you very much. Hope everyone's doing well. Three questions from my side. Can you hear me? Hello? Yes, I can hear you. Can you hear me? Yes. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can hear you, Alex. We can hear you. Oh, perfect. Okay. Great. Now, hope you're doing well. No, that's great. Perfect. Three questions from my side. The first one is specifically on price, if I may. Starting with graphic paper, one of your peers talked about the mid-single-digit decline into the first half on their graphic paper portfolio. If there's anything you can comment there on what you have seen potential price declines in graphic paper. Similarly, on consumer board, we talked a little bit about Beihai now, but do you see any potential to increase consumer board prices into 2021? Finally, also, wood products. You mentioned it was strong. SCA talked about a 10% increase into first quarter on their wood products. I know it's not the same thing, but just if it's possible to give any color on pricing on these three grades, and then I have some follow-ups on forest and cost inflation. Yeah. As you know, we don't comment on prices moving forward, but what I can say is that I do agree that there is a high price pressure for paper, also for quarter one. It continues to be the area where we need to constantly evaluate the competitiveness of our assets and also take cost reductions to be able to mitigate. If we look long term and structural, the price decline has been between 5% and 6% annually. The new levels now that are on the market, they can only be corrected if structural changes are happening on the market. If the overcapacity is reduced, otherwise, I think we will need to live with these levels for quite some time on the prices for paper. Regarding consumer board prices, here, as you know, big part of the portfolio is fixed contracts, long-term contracts. I would say that for a big part of that portfolio, it's stable, and then we have annual contracts in the folding boxboard area where we are negotiating, and of course, I cannot comment on future price increases in that area. We take into account, of course, the development in pulp prices when we do our negotiations. Regarding wood products, the price increases we have seen during Q4 have been in all regions, and especially strong in U.S., but also in Europe. The imbalance in demand, the strong demand, especially in U.S., we expect to continue. We have a positive outlook for the quarter, but I cannot go into specifics regarding the prices. Okay, thanks. Moving on to costs and thinking about cost inflation. Is there anything you can comment on what you're seeing on wood pulp, chemicals? Is there any kind of headache on logistics? Also, if you can remind us on your recycled fiber exposure, so how much you're buying of ONP and OCC on an annual basis, because it seems like those prices are going up. If you remind me of the first question that you asked, you said the supply chain and variable cost. We do not see any kind of major impact there in supply chain during 2020, since there has been a lot of changes of supplies due to COVID. We have had increased cost in logistics that we have mitigated by other actions through our Profit Protection Program. We don't have any major challenges there as we see it moving forward. On your recycled fiber purchases. Yes if you can just remind us how many tons it was. Yes. We have 2.2 million tons of recycled paper, and OCC 700,000 tons, so altogether 2 million tons. Thank you very much. Final question, I'll try to keep it short here. Forest, you came out in a bit more than your guided range. Any comment on that? Then also, to help us with our modeling here, how often are you going to revalue? Is it any specific statistics that you will be looking at that we perhaps could follow? Also, are you doing a three-year average like some of your peers, or are you just using the latest annual data on forest prices? Thank you. On transaction prices. Yeah, thank you. First of all, if you look at the final fair valuation, EUR 7.3 billion compared to the range that we gave, EUR 6.5 billion-7.0 billion, the main driver was Swedish crown foreign exchange rate development. As it is a big asset, so changes there play quite a significant role there. Obviously, we are also fine-tuning data based on the further work, the main reason was the foreign exchange rates. We plan to do the revaluation twice a year, some checking obviously quarterly, main valuation twice a year, so Q2 and Q4. We use three-year averages as seems to be the market practice, also looking at our competitors and others following the same method. Thank you very much. Those were my questions. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question is from the line of Mikael Doepel of UBS. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody. Just a couple of questions. First, on the graphic paper market, have you seen any improvements in the demand trends now going into 2021? We did see a sequential improvement in the trends back half of last year into Q4, still fairly weak, but still improving trends. Have you seen that trend continuing into January this year? I think you previously said that you do expect some sort of a bounce back in volumes this year. Is this still your assumption or has it changed in any way? What we can see moving forward is that there are no real bounce backs in demand. I don't remember saying that we will see a bounce back. What we have communicated before is that we see that this is a step change, that we see the shift into new ways of communication through digitalization. People are reading fewer magazines. They are not buying newspapers as much. In offices, we do not print on copied paper as much. I believe that there has been an establishment of a new baseline, and the structural decline that we have had historically will probably continue from this baseline. Since the overcapacity is so big, I have not seen, and we have not seen any major kind of demand improvements moving forward. Okay. You assume that this year as well, demand will continue to decline? That is what we see so far. Okay, good. In terms of the carton board business, and I was just looking at the volumes trends in that specific segment, and I was wondering if you could help me understand the trends we saw there in 2019 and 2020. I think you had declining volumes more or less in each quarter there, despite the fact that, I guess, folding boxboard and liquid packaging board markets were either growing or stable in both years. So I was wondering if you could explain a bit what's happening there. Within the segments, there are many different end uses. The end uses that have been strong have been, for instance, pharmaceutical, food packaging for homes, like our liquid board and so on. There are also end uses that have gone weaker, like cosmetics, like food service board. Everything used for on-the-go food and in restaurants, naturally impacted by the pandemic. We believe that this is a temporary decline in those end uses, and as societies come back to a more normal ways of operation, that business is going to bounce back, and we see positive signs of that as societies are opening up. Of course, this is the explanation behind that. Some end uses have been stronger and some end uses a little bit weaker, even in packaging materials. Okay, good. Just finally on the cost side of things, I think you mentioned that you had a temporary cost savings in 2020. Was it EUR 85 million? Seppo can correct me if I'm wrong, but something along those lines. Will that come back in 2021, do you believe, or do you have some further measures in place to keep that away? If you think about then overall variable cost or inputs cost going into this year, what would be your guess of how that's going to pan out? Are we going to see inflationary or deflationary trends for the year? Yes, thank you. Oh, I can comment on a large scale, Seppo, and you can go into details if you want. If we look at the distribution between variable and fixed costs, approximately 40% is fixed costs and 60% is variable costs. Of course, variable costs are dependent on what is happening on the market. That is something that might change if there is a very strong market recovery and depending on how we negotiate our contracts. The fixed cost savings have been something that is not dependent on the market as such, but under our control. We expect to keep that. We have reduced by 2,000 people in Stora Enso over last year. This is something that we are constantly working with becoming more efficient. Yes, when it comes to these one-time savings, it is of course something that we expect to come back, and that's why we have separated the savings reporting as well, those one-time savings away from continuous savings in order not to mislead the market. Obviously, there will be some additional smaller amount of one-time savings this year. Like I mentioned in Q1, it was EUR 5 million in Q4. On top of this EUR 80 million, some relatively small one-time savings still. It's something that is coming back. Obviously, we mitigate those with continuous improvement actions outside the profit protection program. Full year profit protection program for this year, we expect some EUR 80 million continuous savings on top of what has been already implemented. Okay, in terms of the variable cost, I mean, in chemicals, logistics, energy, wood, what do you see overall trends in going into this year? Well, I would say in general that cost pressures are not very high. There are of course, some differences between different type of costs, like Annica mentioned, logistics, where there has been challenges to get some containers occasionally. Okay. Logs also on the wood side. Okay. That's clear. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Lars Kjellberg of Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Thank you. I just want to come back a bit to the outlook, Annica. You, of course, mentioned that you expect an improvement in 2021. Can you give us any color on the respective segments? Of course, you mentioned some positive trends in the beginning of the year, but when you evaluate the whole year, what are you seeing? Equally, if you can give us any short-term views on the first quarter, considering that we're still sort of fighting the pandemic in big scale. Are you seeing any meaningful impacts of that in the first quarter? Also if I could just ask on the biomaterials, it was quite a bit weaker than I had expected. Did you have an unusually difficult maintenance cycle, that caused those costs to be really elevated? On the maintenance costs, you highlighted, of course, now in your presentation, pretty high numbers for every quarter. I think last year you mentioned you had no maintenance, and I can tell from your report today that you are not having any mills taken down for maintenance. I just wanted to understand what the EUR 105 million represents that you are saying for the first quarter, because I can't see any mills going down. If you can allude to that. If I take the maintenance question first, Annica. You have to remember that we have smaller maintenance continuously. When we prefer that there's major maintenance and shutdowns. There are sort of smaller maintenance works going on also during Q1, but no major ones. The figure, it might look high, but you have to remember earlier we have been only communicating the difference sequentially or year-over-year. It is matching basically, look at the differences. This is just that we wanted to give the full figures that has been sometimes asked by you or your colleagues. Just to keep you more informative. To be clear, that does not include any Oulu related cost? No, that is an investment. Yeah. Got it. Thank you. Adding on what Seppo is saying on maintenance, the annual maintenance shuts of the pulp mill. Those are the ones that we have in Q3 and Q4 normally, and those are the ones that are the biggest ones. As Seppo said, there is continuous maintenance done all year round for our 60 sites. By doing in this way, we show you more transparently the effect, so it makes it easier for you to see. Remind me of your first question. Yeah. On the biomaterial. Well, there was two. Yeah. Yeah. We do not have any pulp mill shutdowns during Q1. Those are normally the challenging ones if I have to say so. Shutting down a pulp mill and especially as it has been in Q4, in - 20 or 30 degrees, and with COVID, with all the precautions that we have to take is of course a huge exercise. Biomaterials has been impacted by tougher conditions for performing maintenance shuts during this year compared to a normal year. This is one of the reasons for Biomaterials results. I just wanted to see if we can get any more color on the outlook and anything on Q1 specifically. Well, if we look at Q1, we will continue to have a difficult situation on paper, that goes without saying. For packaging, we have stable conditions. For consumer board, we see improvement. We see stronger demand for folding boxboard, especially in China. What we see in pulp side is that there is support for improved prices, if we look at the demand that we see. For wood products, the market continues to be strong in construction despite the pandemic. Here we think that it is a continuous strong performance for wood products. Forest stays stable in the returns. There are good harvesting conditions for forest. Got it. Two more questions, just quick ones. The CapEx levels continue to look relatively elevated. Seppo, if you can allude to if there's any particularly large projects that we should think of. I would've assumed that numbers to go down to in the EUR 500s, but you're well above that. Also, if maybe Annica could think how you think about the recent flurry of investments in pulp mills in China, considering that you abstained from doing the same in Beihai. Yes, if I start with the CapEx, there's nothing extraordinary on top of what we have told earlier. There is, of course, some leftovers from Oulu investments still. You have to remember that in 2020, due to COVID-19 hitting during Q1, we started to limit CapEx last year. That meant that some projects were delayed from 2020 to 2021 in order to safeguard the cash flow. That is probably why you see a bit higher figure this year than you would have seen otherwise. Other than that, nothing extraordinary as such. Got it. Thank you. Regarding pulp mills in China, I do not comment on that. What I can say is that there is not a lot of wood availability in China. Having plantations and managing them is something that is not evident in China. How the profitability of the pulp mills in China is, that is not something that I have any insight on. Appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question is from the line of Justin Jordan of Exane. Please go ahead. Thank you, and good afternoon, everyone. I've got three completely separate questions. Firstly on pulp, I appreciate you don't comment on pricing, I wouldn't expect you to, but clearly Stora Enso is a major global supplier of market pulp. I'm just trying to understand the delivery times between, let's say, a dissolving pulp customer supplied from Finland to Europe somewhere, will be very different to, I don't know, a Chinese tissue maker supplied from Veracel. Can you just think about across the entire portfolio of Stora Enso market pulp sales, what's the typical time delay, as it were, between agreeing a price for pulp or contracting, for example, today on January 29th or something, to actual delivery? The reason for asking that question is clearly if we think about rising pulp prices in 2021, when do they start feeding through to rising Biomaterial EBIT, as it were? That's my first question. Well, from the point that you start seeing price increases, it usually takes about a quarter before you see it in your results. Thanks, Annica. Secondly, one for Seppo on FX. Clearly you've been diligently hedging for many years, but on page 33 and 34, you've got some details of hedging for 2021. I'm thinking particularly about movements recently in the U.S. dollar versus euro, where how does that hedge actually work in practice? Have you hedged the same percentage for every quarter in 2021, or does that roll down as we go through the quarters in 2021? Yeah, of course, on average, our policy is to hedge about 50% of the coming 12 months cash flow. Obviously the hedging ratio is higher for the shorter term periods than longer term because of the uncertainty with the longer term cash flows. There's some difference between the period or inside the 12-month period. Okay. My final question. Of course, depending a bit on the market situation, we are not, of course, exactly at 50%. We can vary, say plus minus 10% roughly around that point. Sometimes even more. 50% is quite fair for your modeling purposes if you want to do that. Okay. Thank you, Seppo. I guess one final question for Annica. On the announcement you made this morning with Tetra Pak. Can you give us some more color as to potentially what sort of volumes you could be talking about reusing here within the Ostrołęka mill? I suppose what proportion of the furnish could be coming from liquid packaging board as opposed to potentially OCC for that mill? We are in a starting phase. This is a feasibility study. We have done trials in both Ostrołęka with used beverage carton and then, of course, also in Langerbrugge with taking back cup stock. Our ambition is really to be part of the solution of enabling a bioeconomy based on recycled materials. We are still in early stages of this feasibility study. We will have to come back on how big amount that we can actually do in Ostrołęka. It's too early to say. All right. Best of luck with it. We have to trial and develop that. Our ambition is to be as present in the Central European market that we would be able to take back significant volumes of the used beverage carton in Europe, in Ostrołęka. We have to come back on exactly the levels when we have done our study. Great. Just to follow up, sorry, what's the technical difficulty? Is it separating the various materials that are used in liquid packaging board? Would it mean separating out the polymer and the aluminum from the actual paperboard? What is the sort of technical challenges that the feasibility study is examining? Actually, the technology already exists. We used to have a mill in Barcelona many times ago where you did this separation. It is exactly. It is about separating the different materials and making sure that the different product streams can use and be upcycled. The fiber will be used in the Ostrołęka mill and the other fractions of the materials like the polyaluminum will be finding other end uses. This is the collaboration that we're doing to develop that business model together with Tetra Pak. Technically. Great It is not challenging to do. The technology exists. It is more about how you optimize it in the individual mill setting so that it works. That's why I cannot tell you exactly how much of the total furnish, because we have to trial that, and that is the work we are doing this year. Okay. Thank you, Annica. Thank you. Okay, now we take the final question from Harri Taittonen, Nordea. Please, moderator, go ahead. All right. Thanks for taking it. I'll only make one question in that case to keep it short. I noticed in the Q4 statement you mentioned that in the forest division, the division benefits apart from the efficiency, but also the wind power project. Just wondering, was that related to the sort of divestment then, or is it something that kind of continues? What was behind that? In general, are you looking into that kind of activity in Finland or in the Swedish forest to kind of develop that sort of a business in the future? Thank you. Yes, it's related to Tornator first of all, in Finland, where they have been participating, now participating in various wind power projects. As an example, it's one way to create more value from the forest land that we have. That when you participate, you realize this kind of one time for the project one time, but it's sort of continuous work. There might be other projects in the pipeline later, and then you book the benefit from that once you make the deals and arrangements. It's important part of the forest development and economy and management, that's one parameter as well in the forest valuation. Right. Yes. Complementing on Seppo here, of course which projects within wind power are profitable or not are dependent on the prices of electrical prices and so on. As big landowners, we always have discussions with wind power owners, and wanting them to collaborate with us on this if they see opportunities for our land. Of course, there's rental income from these projects going forward. Okay. Good. Interesting. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for everyone for good questions and good discussions. I'm very sorry that we have to now end the call, and we still had some questions in line, but I will take them over the phone then later. Annica, to you for final words. Yes. Thank you so much. A lot of good questions as always. All in all, we have a steady performance in Q4. We see signs of improvement. We can say that our main businesses, packaging divisions, the wood products, our forest, they are delivering good results, and have a positive outlook. We have a positive outlook for our pulp business. For paper, we continue to generate strong cash flow and take actions needed as the market adapts to a new level of demand. With that, I thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.