Hello, everyone, and welcome to Stora Enso's third quarter 2024 results presentation. Thank you for joining us today. I'm Hans Sohlström, the President and CEO of Stora Enso, and I'm here with our CFO, Seppo Parvi. Today's presentation is titled Continued Growth and Earnings Improvement. We will guide you through our performance and share insights into our outlook for the fourth quarter. We will also address any questions you might have towards the end, so now let's shift focus to the key highlights of the quarter. We achieved a continued profit improvement compared to the same period last year, primarily driven by price increases and ongoing cost-saving actions, and we are encouraged to report an increase in our Adjusted EBIT for the fourth consecutive quarter. Notably, our packaging materials, biomaterials, and forest segments have performed well, contributing positively to our result. However, we recognize the challenges faced by our packaging solution and wood product segments and are focusing on navigating the weak markets in both segments. In October, our focus was clear: to take decisive actions that would solidify our financial standing and retain the value of our assets. Although we achieved a reduction in our net debt to EBITDA ratio, we still remain above our target of 2.0. We have therefore decided to sell approximately 12% of our forest assets in Sweden. In total, our Swedish forest assets cover 1.4 million hectares with a value of EUR 6.3 billion. In addition to strengthening our balance sheet, it would also underscore and expose the economic value and resilience of our forest holding. Regarding the Beihai packaging board production site, after thorough review and negotiations, we decided to retain our Beihai site and forestry business, recognizing that the value in owning these assets is higher than the achievable selling price. We are confident that Stora Enso is the best position to continue operating the site going forward, and given the recent global cost escalation of wood and logistics, the relative cost competitiveness of the Beihai site has improved. This choice aligns with our long-term strategic goals, and our commitment to maintaining the global leadership in fiber-based packaging market is firm. We believe in the long-term value of this asset and its potential to support our core operations without requiring significant capital expenditure mid-term. The Beihai site will be developed through a continued focus on operational excellence, cost optimization, and product development. By optimizing the product mix at Beihai, we are not just maintaining, but enhancing our position, especially in the Asia-Pacific market. Let's move to our Q3 result and the contributing factors in more detail. Our value creation programs, focused on sourcing, operational, and commercial efficiencies, are making progress across all divisions. Group sales increased by 6%, or EUR 134 million, reaching nearly EUR 2.3 billion. This growth was driven by higher prices in all divisions except Packaging Solutions and increased deliveries, particularly in packaging materials. However, these gains were only partly offset by the negative impact of structural changes, such as the closure of the De Hoop board unit in the Netherlands and the Sunila pulp production site in Finland. Group adjusted EBIT increased to EUR 175 million, up from EUR 21 million last year, meaning our highest operational EBIT since the first quarter of 2023, and the adjusted EBIT margin rose to 8% from 1% last year. This improvement was driven by the higher top line that more than offset the higher fiber costs. Cash flow from operations amounted to EUR 271 million, and cash flow after investing activities was EUR 4 million, sustaining reduced operating working capital levels. Let's delve deeper into the key factors that influenced the adjusted EBIT. As mentioned earlier, the group's adjusted EBIT increased significantly to EUR 175 million from EUR 21 million last year. We can see on this chart that this growth from the higher sales prices and, as mentioned earlier, increased deliveries in packaging materials improved profitability by 99 million EUR. However, fiber costs, mainly from wood, reduced margins and profitability by 80 million EUR. Other variable cost categories improved, adding EUR 60 million to Adjusted EBIT. Fixed costs also came down by EUR 30 million, despite increased maintenance costs for biomaterials, and here we can see the impact from the value creation programs. Now, let's take a closer look at the division, starting with packaging materials. The quarter showed strong performance with high operating rates and positive outcome from the profit improvement program. Sales rose by 11%, or EUR 112 million, reaching EUR 1.169 billion. The results were driven by higher volumes and significant increased containerboard prices. Furthermore, the consumer board prices increases were successfully applied to renewed contracts, which, important to note, represents only a small portion of the total volume. Demand remained stable, but ordering flow across all segments weakened in the third quarter due to challenges in market recovery caused by slow retail trade growth. Adjusted EBIT grew by EUR 107 million- EUR 73 million, driven by improved top line and lower fixed costs, and adjusted EBIT margin increased to 7%. Elevated fiber cost was offset by reductions in energy, chemicals, and other variable costs. Now, continuing with the Packaging Solutions division, where we continue to navigate through challenging market conditions. The division's performance remains burdened by substantial margin pressure due to market overcapacity. Consequently, sales declined by 2%, to EUR 262 million, primarily because of lower pricing levels, though volume saw a minor improvement. Adjusted EBIT fell by EUR 21 million to a negative EUR 6 million. The profitability of the division suffered significantly due to higher margin pressure, stemming from difficulties in passing through the sequential increased containerboard costs. Additionally, the ramp-up of the new corrugated packaging site in the Netherlands burdened the result. These factors collectively underscore the considerable challenges the division encounters in sustaining profitability in the current market conditions. Let's take a look at the Biomaterials division. In Biomaterials, overall pulp demand weakened during the low season and due to new market capacity being ramped up. Global inventories rose above the five-year average. Sales increased by 10%, or by EUR 36 million- EUR 380 million, primarily driven by higher sales prices, although sequentially, pulp prices fell across all grades and markets. Deliveries decreased due to weaker demand and planned annual maintenance shuts. Adjusted EBIT increased by EUR 39 million- EUR 43 million. Adjusted EBIT margin increased to 11% from 1% last year. Profitability improved, thanks to higher sales prices, although this was partly offset by increased planned annual maintenance costs and higher fiber costs. Shifting focus to the Wood Products division, we were impacted by continued low demand. Wood Products struggled with continued weak markets and low construction activity, but sawn wood saw slight increases in volumes and prices. Building activity remained low, keeping demand for cross-laminated timber and laminated veneer lumber down. Sales rose by 3% or EUR 9 million, reaching EUR 359 million. Adjusted EBIT improved by EUR 19 million to a negative EUR 2 million, thanks to higher volumes and prices, reduced fixed costs, and one-off insurance compensation of EUR 10 million, which offset increased raw material costs. Ongoing cost-saving measures helped to improve the results. Now, let's have a look at the Forest Division that continued its strong performance also this quarter. The Forest Division experienced continued high demand for all wood assortment in the Nordics. Sales saw a significant increase of 30% or EUR 161 million, to a total of EUR 695 million. This was primarily driven by higher volumes and rising wood prices, both year-on-year and quarter on quarter. The third quarter Adjusted EBIT reached a record high, increasing by EUR 22 millio- EUR 81 million EUR. This reflects the strong operational performance of the group's forest assets and wood supply. The value of our total forest assets remains stable at EUR 1.8 billion, equivalent to EUR 11.11 per share. I will now hand over to Seppo to go through details of some key financials. Over to you, Seppo. Thank you, Hans, and let's start with the net debt to EBITDA ratio and operating working capital slide. Profit improvement program initiated during the first quarter this year set an adjusted EBIT improvement target of EUR 120 million. Full impact is expected to be visible from the beginning of next year, 2025. In addition to this, our value creation actions aimed at reducing variable costs in the medium and long term have shown significant progress. These efforts have contributed to improved earnings, cash flow, and improving our leverage ratio. Notably, we have improved our net debt to adjusted EBITDA ratio quarter on quarter to 3.1 now, although it remains above our target ratio of 2.0. Operating working capital improved compared to last year and stayed consistent with the previous quarter. To further strengthen our financial position, we are planning to sell, and we are preparing to sell approximately 13% of our forest assets in Sweden. This sale is anticipated to reduce both debt and further enhance and enhance the balance sheet. Then let's move to next slide and look at the long-term financial targets. The current business environment is impacting our ability to meet all long-term financial targets. However, encouragingly, we are seeing recovery in some financial targets. As Hans previously stated, we are executing measures to reinforce our business for current requirements, while also planning for continuous improvements and future competitiveness. As mentioned earlier, sequentially, we have improved our net debt to Adjusted EBITDA ratio. However, we are still behind year-on-year. Except for Forest Division, all divisions are still below our return on capital targets. In regard to this year's dividend, our board is evaluating the possible second payout, and will make a decision by the end of this quarter. Now back to Hans for an overview on sustainability goals and market outlook. Thank you, Seppo. Our growth is underpinned by sustainability, which serves as both a strategic enabler and a competitive edge. We are committed to achieving our ambitious sustainability goals, focusing on climate change, circularity, and biodiversity. In terms of climate change, we are enhancing energy efficiency, transitioning to renewable energy sources, and increasing our use of non-fossil electricity. These efforts have led to a 49% reduction in production emissions since 2019. Building on this progress, we are targeting net zero carbon emissions by 2040. In circularity, we have reached 94% recyclability of our products and are aiming for 100% by 2030. Stora Enso remains fully committed to the long-term target to achieve a net positive impact on biodiversity in its own forests and plantations by 2050 through active biodiversity management. After the environmental incident in Finland in August, Stora Enso has, and continues to introduce robust measures to prevent similar events from happening ever again. Now, moving on to the sequential market and business outlook for the fourth quarter. I will now cover the market and business outlook for the rest of this year. Stora Enso anticipates that the gradual market recovery will slow down from the third to the fourth quarter, which is expected to adversely impact our fourth quarter's profits. Additionally, we face ongoing market volatility, including high inflation and potential labor strikes, and continued high wood costs, which may affect demand and pricing through year-end. With that as a background, I will now comment on the outlook per division, starting with our largest division, Packaging Materials. The fourth quarter is typically a low season in the division. Here, we expect to face challenges with reduced volumes due to weaker demand and our annual maintenance shutdowns. We will see the impact of price increases in consumer board and containerboard. However, the average price across the division will be lower. This is due to product mix, with a higher portion of lower-priced containerboard compared to the higher-priced consumer board products, as we are having shutdowns in our big consumer board mills. High wood costs continue to be a primary concern, and a weak ordering flow from the third quarter makes our outlook for the fourth quarter uncertain. Market demand in Packaging Solutions segment remains unpredictable and volatile, influenced by weekly fluctuations and overcapacity. In Western Europe, we anticipate a sequential decline in volumes due to seasonal effects, with no significant uplift expected from peak periods. Margin growth is constrained by ongoing expenses related to increased containerboard prices and ramp-up of the new corrugated site in De Lier in the Netherlands. This site will be the world's largest corrugated box site when up and running. In Biomaterials, demand will vary across regions and segments, but on average, it is expected to remain unchanged in the division quarter on quarter. In China, we anticipate a rise in demand due to lower inventories, favorable seasonal demand, and lower prices. In Europe, demand for certain paper products is expected to weaken slightly, although demand for fluff pulp is projected to remain stable. Wood price is expected to be higher in the Nordics, while expected to be high in the Nordics, continuing on a high level, while chemical prices are expected to stabilize. In Wood Products, we expect an increase in demand for classic sawn products and heating pellets driven by seasonal factors. Demand for our building solutions is also expected to drive higher volumes. While raw material costs are expected to remain in line with the third quarter this year, elevated wood costs are anticipated to continue with a year-on-year increase, and finally, our Forest division, we expect the wood market to remain constrained in the Baltic Rim due to shortage, driven by increased demand for industrial wood. We expect a continuation of our robust and sustainable financial performance into the fourth quarter. We also anticipate that general cost inflation, particularly affecting logistics and harvesting costs, will impact the fourth quarter. With this outlook, I will move to the key takes and how we are building a stronger future. To recap, our third quarter of 2024 has shown solid performance and decision-making to ensure financial stability and growth. Our actions are focused on improving profits, competitiveness, and cash flow. Our value creation programs have delivered significant variable cost reductions, contributing to operational and financial performance across divisions. Now, this year's profit improvement program is on track to deliver on its target of EUR 120 million in fixed cost savings by 2025. We have decided to sell approximately 12% of our 1.4 million hectares of Swedish forest assets, which are valued at EUR 6.3 billion, to strengthen our balance sheet. After a thorough review and negotiations, we decided to retain our Beihai site and forestry business, recognizing that the value of these assets in our own use exceeds the achievable selling price. Furthermore, we are well on track to deliver on our guidance and expect our full year 2024 adjusted EBIT to be significantly higher, meaning plus 50% in amount than the EUR 342 million in 2023. Before we conclude, I want to recognize our CFO, Seppo Parvi, who will be departing at the end of this month to pursue new opportunities. Seppo has made significant contributions to Stora Enso over the past 10 years, and we are truly grateful for his dedication and impact. We wish you, Seppo, all the best for your future endeavors. Thank you, Seppo, for your commitment and for your valuable service. Thank you for your attention, and now we are ready to take your questions. Thanks, Hans. If you would like to ask a question, please use the raise hand function at the bottom of your Zoom screen. Or if you have dialed in, please press star nine. Please only ask max two questions at a time. If you wish to ask more than two questions, please rejoin the queue. We will pause for a moment to allow questioners to enter the queue. Our first question comes from Ephrem Ravi at Citigroup. Please unmute your line and ask a question. Thank you. I'll use my quota of two questions wisely, I hope. Firstly, on Beihai packaging, you said kind of your proceeds were... or potential proceeds were less than what you value them. Could you put some numbers around it in terms of what you thought the value was and what the offers on the table was, so that we can get a sense as to how much the value uplift, you know, from that decision, has been? And secondly, on the sale of the Swedish forest assets, the market price of forest assets, I mean, according to Ludvig & Co, has been declining, et cetera. And so the quick question on that is that is it the appropriate time to sell these assets? Again, what's the timing of those assets? You've announced an intention, but do you have a timeframe by which you hope to close this transaction? Thank you. Thank you, Ephrem. So first on Beihai, no, we don't disclose any numbers on this. But what I can say is that, you know, since 2022, the operating environment has changed. Also, China is the world's largest liquid packaging board market. And we really see that, and liquid packaging board from Beihai is by far the best quality liquid packaging board in China and in Asia. And we clearly see that retaining Beihai has an importance, has a great value. We are the best owner for this asset, compared to, you know, the potential prices we could have got for the asset. So we are maximizing shareholder value through this decision. And I would add that, like said earlier, we are not in a financial situation that we would need to sell it for any price. And like we said earlier, that if we don't get the price we want, we are not gonna move ahead, and that's why we came to this conclusion. And regarding the forest assets, there is lots of inbound interest in forest assets. So based on the ongoing negotiations and indications from many participants, there is a lot of interest for this asset. Do you have a timing for when you would hope to close? Also here, we take the time needed, you know, to maximize value. So as in the case of Beihai, also here, the value achieved is much more important than, let's say, the timing. Thank you. Our next question comes from Pallav Mittal at Barclays. Please unmute your line and ask your question. Hi, good morning. So a question on the packaging material, specifically on the consumer board segment. So destocking is now largely over, and you are highlighting weaker demand going into Q4, but you are also adding a lot of capacity, FBB capacity next year. So how should we think about pricing and margins, when the environment is so challenging? Yes, thank you, Pallav. Well, first of all, I mean, we have increased prices throughout the year in container board, but also in consumer board. And also, other competitors in this segment have announced price increases, as you know, from public sources. When we are referring to the outlook, some weakening of the board market, we're referring to the fourth quarter. Our new 700 and 50,000 ton annual capacity consumer board line comes on stream during the beginning of next year. And we still expect a gradual improvement of demand in for our board grades. You know that our board demand is very much driven by consumer spending and consumer confidence. With declining interest rates, declining inflation rates, we expect that will also drive the continued recovery of demand in consumer board grades. And also important to note is that this 750,000 tons is not gonna be on market on day one. It takes some time to ramp up the machine and all that, so. But when it comes to phasing of the ramp-up, we come back to that later once we are at the ramp-up stage. Yeah, the capacity corresponds to about two years of, let's say, trend growth for consumer board. ... Sure. Thank you. So the second question I have is on forest valuation. In June and July, we saw some reports saying that the transaction prices in 2024 are down mid-single digit, 5%-6% in Sweden. I know that you reevaluate only twice a year, but how should we think about transaction prices in Sweden? Like we have said earlier, first of all, when it comes to valuation of our forest in the balance sheet, we use three-year moving average. Of course, how that moves also depends on how the sort of earlier data has been moving compared to where the market is today. Another thing is that, of course, prices move a bit different in different parts of Sweden as well. There are certain regionalization on the wood market and the or forest market, and then depending also where the deals have been, that has an effect on the statistics. Thank you. Our next question comes from Andrew Jones at UBS. Please unmute your line and ask your question. Hi, gents. Just on the forest sale again, I'm just curious what sort of buyer you're looking for and a bit more detail on how you plan to do this sale. When you say a 12% stake, are we talking about certain chunks of the forest, or are we talking about 12% of the holding company? And given in the past, we've had SCA pushing the idea to us that these transaction values are, you know, if you do it in the corporate space, there's usually a corporate premium on those levels. So are you expecting to sell your, you know, your stake at a premium to what we're looking at in the book? You know, I mean, can you just talk to your expectations, maybe not around absolute price, but how you think about that price relative to, you know, what we see in the book value? Thanks. If I start, first of all, at this stage, we are not commenting on the deal structure. That's something we come back to later. It's that we are now, like I said, in a process to divest 12% of the forest land in Sweden, but we don't go more into details now. Yeah, thank you, Andrew, for the question. And, I mean, we don't comment on the expected sales price. But what you said about, let's say, the premiums for corporate deals, I guess that is publicly available information that there is some kind of a premium when there is corporate deals. But as said, we don't take stands, and we don't comment on the expected price in relation to our book value. Understood. And, my second question is just on that, on the Chinese asset. Can you give us an idea for the nine-month profitability of that mill? I mean, is it... I mean, is it EBITDA break even? Is it positive? Is it negative? And, you know, obviously, given the capacity build-out we're seeing in China on the consumer board side, I'm curious if you see that situation improving into next year. But it seems like operating rates are very low, and there's more capacity coming. Like, how do you see that turning around in the future? I can't comment the Chinese market, but when it comes to profitability of single mills and units in our company, we do not comment those. We are on division level as we also report to the market. Yes, and as stated before, we are happy to keep the asset, and we feel that it's absolutely the right decision. Beihai is producing the by far best liquid packaging board quality in the market, so we are really aiming at that highest end segment with the highest quality requirements. And I think that's how we can... And when it comes to the market, the Chinese market, there is overcapacity in folded box board, but we aim to increase the amount of liquid packaging board in the mix at Beihai. So that's really the edge of our strategy in Beihai. Mm-hmm. Okay. Of course, the latest stimulus efforts in China can also and seem to have some positive impact on the economic development and consumer confidence in China. Yeah, understood. Thank you very much. Our next question comes from Charlie Muir-Sands at BNP Paribas Exane. Please unmute your line and ask your question. Good morning. Thank you very much for taking my questions, and best wishes to you, Seppo, for the future. I've got some questions on the packaging material segment. Can you just clarify, you mentioned that a couple of, well, or a fraction of your consumer board, you'd already been able to reprice, but I guess it's the minority, 'cause it's mainly a contract business. How much of the share of that business will come up for repricing in Q1 of next year? And on Oulu, I appreciate you're going to revert to us on the ramp up nearer the time, but do you anticipate that making an EBIT level positive profit contribution next year? Thank you. ... Yeah, thank you, Charlie. So when it comes to the Oulu 750 ramp up, we will come back to the guidance later during next year. And second question was about the contract renewals- Yeah in packaging materials. And typically- Repricing, yeah Majority of the contracts are renewed end of the year, sort of Q4, Q1. When it comes to share of the volume, that's something we don't comment, but typically, those are, as you know, annual contracts and more limited volumes are in two or three year contracts. So a significant part is- Thank you ... is gonna come through now during the coming months. Very clear. And just a follow-up on your comment about the board considering paying the second tranche of the dividend. Can you just share what are the key criteria which you think they're likely to consider in this regard? Because it strikes me as a little bit strange to be, on the one hand, selling long-term fixed assets, on the other hand, you know, paying out more cash to shareholders when you're trying to strengthen the balance sheet. Yes. So, Charlie, of course, there is a mandate, an authorization from the AGM to the board to make such a decision on a second dividend payout, latest by the end of this year. There are no criteria disclosed around this, so that is a decision the board will look into then, later this year. Thank you very much. Our next question comes from Lars Kjellberg at Stifel. Please unmute your line and ask your question. Thank you for taking my questions. Coming back a bit to the wood situation in connection with the startup of Oulu. I mean, it's a very challenging market, as you described it. Right now, weakening demand, et cetera, and in the midst of that, you're starting up a very significant new supply addition. Would you even consider to delay that startup just to make right away for it as things start to clear a bit on the demand front? The other topic is, of course, you know, structurally high wood costs in the Nordic region in totality, in Finland especially, and you're adding another wood-consuming asset into the mix. And UPM at the Capital Markets Day commented, you know, structural wood cost issues require structural remedies. That seems to be the case. So what are you thinking about to offset the incremental wood consumption at Oulu? How do you- how do we do that? Or is that not a consideration that you're taking, or any other step you may take to make way for the Oulu machine and wood consumption that's coming with it? Yeah. Thank you, Lars. So, with the Oulu 750 consumer board line, the wood consumption will increase about 1 million cubic meters per year in that region. And we are not considering any delay. We will start up when we are ready. We have a lot of capital tied up into the asset, and therefore, we need to start get payback on that capital as soon as possible. It should also be noted that when we look at the recipes of this Oulu 750 new consumer board line, there is a significant amount also of eucalyptus pulp, which will go into the furnish, about 250,000 tons per year. So also in that respect, it is taken into account in the total. You know, in the recipe and the recipe optimization and the total cost structure for this folded box board and the other products that will be produced on the line. And we are confident that this line will be, you know, the most cost-efficient or at least one of the clearly most cost-efficient consumer board lines globally with this modern technology, size and with the furnish setup. And then when it comes to your question about the. Yes, the wood market in Finland and the Nordics, the Baltic Rim area is tight. However, when you look at the wood paying capability, you know, the more expensive the higher added value products you produce and integrate, the better is your wood paying capability, because the share of wood costs is lower, the more expensive the product is. And consumer board, like folded box board, to be produced there in this Oulu 750 facility, actually has the best wood paying capability, because the price point of these products is over the cycle almost twice as high as for instance market pulp or papers. Clearly, the share of wood cost is smaller, and therefore, also, you know, when you produce in a cost-efficient way with economies of scale, integrated with integrated pulp, as well as then also, mechanical Wood Products to sawmilling to support with chips and dust, you can basically have the best wood paying capability with consumer board, and that is exactly what we aim to do there in Oulu. ... And also, I would add that we have very strong wood sourcing organization in that part of Finland that will also support us when we're ramping up the mill, and also important to note is that in general, overall competitiveness of Oulu adding this 750,000 tons capacity on top of the existing capacity will obviously improve the total competitiveness of the unit as well, which will then be visible in the figures. Yeah. Let's remember we had a large printing paper facility there in Oulu, which was closed down in that region. And thus, we have very good established a wood sourcing organization and contacts to wood forest owners and sellers from that time. Just one follow-up, if I may. I mean, you are, of course, adding substantial capacity in what now is an oversupplied market. And with the logic you just said about you can pay more for wood, of course, as it's a high-priced product. Going upstream, so to speak, on the pulp side, that would be less relevant. So given the challenges in pulp, would that be where you would consider anything to shut down? You did shut down Sunila now, of course, right. Are you thinking any other structural measures to ease that pressure again? No, we don't, we don't have any plans of any, any further shutdowns. As you said, you know, we, we just recently shut down the Sunila pulp mill. Okay, thanks. Our next question comes from Cole Hathorn at Jefferies. Please unmute your line and ask your question. Good morning. Thanks for taking the question. It's a little bit of a follow-up on Lars, and also related to the Beihai decision not to dispose. My understanding was that you would post that Beihai disposal, if you had done it, been able to optimize your production mix, and it would help you ramp up that consumer board mill a bit faster and place some volumes. I do agree that demand hopefully is a structural downturn rather. Sorry, cyclical downturn rather than structural, but wood costs are higher, and we do have overcapacity. Is it not better at this stage to, you know, reduce fixed costs, close some, packaging materials capacity, be it containerboard or folding boxboard, and improve operating rates on your entire mill system, and improve your mix, which you talk about being much higher margin, enabling you to focus on those better products? You know, do you need to kind of revisit that strategy review that you did last year on your asset base, because things have changed quite a bit? Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Cole, for the question. Well, yes, you are right. I mean, when we started the divestiture process in 2022, there was a, you know, an idea of doing that, after the divestment of Beihai, to do that kind of an optimization, and to serve Chinese and Asian liquid packaging board customers from Sweden and Finland. However, the operating environment has changed quite significantly since then. Wood costs have moved up significantly in the Nordics, which also improves the relative competitiveness of Beihai in the high-end liquid packaging board grades, where, as said before, Beihai is the clear leader and actually the only asset in China and Asia for producing this high liquid packaging board quality. Yes, and of course, as a function of that, we revisit our asset optimization, and that is something that we are continuously looking into. I do agree with the comment that you know, you need to look into how do you maximize the total profitability, the total EBITDA generation and EBIT generation of your available assets, depending on what is the demand, what is the sales outlook. That is certainly something we continuously look into, and I don't want to exclude any potential scenarios for the future, but we don't have currently any plans to shut down any capacity. And also, like we have said earlier, we are targeting not only European market, but also North American market, where we believe that we are in a good cost position, quality position to get some volumes also, and additional volumes. The folded box board from Oulu is providing a 20%-30% yield advantage actually, compared to domestic U.S. competing grades and much better quality properties, optical properties, you know, strength properties, folding properties, and so forth. So- Mm-hmm ... so there is a significant part of the Oulu 750 sales, which is directed to the North American market. And then maybe just as a follow-up, we've seen Germany recycled containerboard prices move a little bit lower in October, but the cost dynamics are quite different to virgin containerboard, and the entire industry is talking about value over volume. Do you have any thoughts on whether there could be a divergence between the virgin prices and the recycled prices? And, you know, while I can just to confirm on Oulu, you know, you've talked about low-cost machine, but- ... Am I right to think that it also improves the cost per ton of the existing production at that site, just because you absorb greater fixed cost per ton there? Thank you. Yeah. Yes, absolutely right you are, Cole. Starting up this second huge line there in Oulu will improve also the cost efficiency of the existing Kraftliner machine there in Oulu. Absolutely, exactly according to the logic you described. And when it comes to the decoupling of recycled fiber-based testliner and Kraftliner, yeah, I mean, historically, you can see that there is a variance between these. And it is true, we have heard about some spot offers in the market for recycled containerboard, which are somewhat on a lower level than previously. However, is that then temporarily, or is it more like that remains to be seen? Thank you. Our next question comes from Patrick Mann at Bank of America. Please unmute your line and ask your question. Thank you very much, and thank you for the presentation. I just want to go back to the strategic decision to sell a portion of the forest. Can you just maybe talk us through the reasoning here? I mean, I think Lars touched on it when he said, "You know, we've got high wood costs," and now you're becoming sort of less integrated into wood. I mean, how did you decide on 12%? And is the idea here, as well, you know, as well as to reduce leverage, to get people to appreciate that this is an asset which can be monetized, and potentially get it into your share price rating, or is it really just about deleveraging? So, yeah, and then maybe how you selected the 12%. I mean, is this about areas where you feel that you'll be able to get wood supply contracts at a reasonable price or at good volume? Or I think in general, just talk us through the strategic planning around the sale and why that amount and why now. Thank you. Yes, thank you very much. So first of all, the 12% that is selected there is representative for our forest ownership in Sweden, so it is fully representative. And when it comes to the reasoning here, it's twofold. It is debt reduction as a key driver here, but it is also, you know, exposing the value of forest to really, you know, expose what is, let's say, a true representative value of our forest holdings. And then we are also looking into a long-term wood supply agreement with the new owner of the assets. So it's almost like, you know, you know, eating the cake and keeping it at the same time, as we will continue getting wood from this new entity. What I also can say is that, as said earlier, we don't disclose profitabilities of our mills, but what we can say is certainly that divesting forest, you know, has a much smaller marginal impact on EBITDA compared to, for instance, divesting Beihai. So, if you think about the net debt to EBITDA impact, we get a clearly higher impact from a forest deal. I mean, just to push a little bit further on that then, strategically, if it's getting your cake and eating it, too, why stop at 12%? Why own any of the forest, right? These are our current plans, and this is what we have disclosed and published. Okay. Thank you very much. Our next question comes from James Perry at Citi. Please unmute your line and ask your question. Morning. Thanks for the presentation. Sorry to keep coming back to the forest sale. But are you able to share with us to where exactly in Sweden the forest you're selling is, or is it holdings scattered all over the country? And secondly, on Packaging Solutions, as you said, margins seem to have been pressured for some time here on the overcapacity, even as paper packaging demand has returned a bit. I know it's difficult to quantify, but just how far removed are we from dynamics that would allow you to reach your 15% return target? And is there any prospect of reaching that level even in the next few years, do you think? Maybe I take the forest question first, and before handing over to Hans. The forest we own is here now in central Sweden, and the area we are talking here is, of course, in that region where we have our ownership. Yes, and so it's basically Värmland, Dalarna, that part of Sweden in the central part, where we have the main part of our forest ownership. So this 12% is representative for our total forest ownership in Sweden. And then, you know, this was the assignment I got. If you read the announcement news when I took over as CEO in September of last year, our chairman of the board said that my job is to reach our financial targets. So that's what we are working on in a very systematic way, and we are getting there. We are getting closer all the time, and that's what we are. That's what we're working on. ... Our next question comes from Charlie Muir-Sands at BNP Paribas Exane. Please unmute your line and ask your question. Thanks. I just have one follow-up question. Just wondered how much of the 120 million fixed cost saving program was already visible in Q3 or will be visible in totality in 2024? Appreciate it's gonna be fully visible in 2025. I just wanna double count the year-on-year benefit you're anticipating on receiving there. Thank you. Yeah. Without going too much into detail, there's very, very small parties visible this year. Like I said, we started the program early this year. We finalized union negotiations end of Q2, and then we are now in the implementation phase. So, like I said, it's fair to assume that much majority material part is coming for next year, starting from beginning of the year, like I said earlier. Many thanks. Our next question comes from Andrew Jones at UBS. Please unmute your line and ask your question. Hi, gents. Just with regard to the accounting concerns that you've put some press releases out on, I'm just curious about the motivation behind those, you know, delayed payments at the end of the quarters. You know, is that something that you regret, given the, you know, given the sort of, I guess, hit to the company's reputation that came from that? Or do you think it was kind of a necessity because of pressure maybe from credit agencies and so forth, that, you know, if you hadn't done that, we may have seen some sort of credit rating agency-related downgrade. I guess, was it a necessity, or was it a, you know, or was it something that you really regret given the reputational hit? Thanks. I mean, if you look at the totality and the volume in question here, like we said, this was in total on average EUR 70 million, end of Q2 and in Q3. Like always, working capital actions, profit improvement actions, et cetera, they come from number of actions, and this was one of those. If you look at this as a single action, it's relatively small and not material in any significant way, so this would not be or would not have been any triggering point when it comes to rating or similar things. Also important to note is that we had no financial covenants. There was no typical financial covenant could be connected to. Or it affected the EBITDA ratio, and in that sense, also no triggering points, points that one would need to be worried about. Yeah, I want to emphasize what Seppo said here. It's the EUR 70 million represents about 6% of our annual operative cash flow. And in fact, the impact was neutral in Q3 because, you know, it was done in Q2, so it had a certain positive cash flows impact there. But as it had been. And it's a transfer of cash flow between the quarters, as you know, and because it was done in Q3 another time, it means that the impact was neutral because it had been done in Q2. And now we have clearly said that now it is stopped. We don't do it anymore. So, on the full year, there is a neutral impact out of this. I do want to underline that, you know, payment statistics is public information in Sweden, so anyone can go in and check, you know, the payment accuracy of payments, delays of payments in Sweden from Bolagsverket, and if you go in there and you make research, you will notice that in fact Stora Enso is not a poor payer. In fact, we are quite a good payer when it comes to payment accuracy. That's the public information available in Sweden, but of course, as we have stated also now with hindsight, you know, thinking about the headlines of this and the potential impact on our brand and reputation, you know, we took, you know, cash flow optimization one step too far. That's clear. Okay. That's clear. Thank you. Our last question comes from Cole Hathorn at Jefferies. Please unmute your line and ask your question. Thanks for taking the follow-up. I'd just like to have questions on the market trends in Packaging Solutions. I was just surprised to call out a bit of seasonal weakness there. Normally, we have kind of the Black Friday and the Christmas boost, and I'm just wondering, is this more your De Jong Packaging specific items, where they're kind of more skewed to food that's impacting that? Just anything you can call out on the dynamics there on that packaging solution box volumes. And then in Wood Products, you talked about a improvement in sawn wood. And again, normally we just have a bit of a softer winter period, so I'm just wondering if there's something I'm missing on the sawn wood side. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Cole. Well, yes, you are right regarding Packaging Solutions. So, it's mainly. The result is burdened by the ramp up of the De Lier site in De Jong. It's a EUR 200 million investment in total that we have been ramping up now throughout this year, and the ramp up is continuing. As said, that site with the old factory and the new factory, that site, when ramped up, will be the world's largest, the world's most efficient corrugated box plant. The world's most efficient and largest. But this former De Jong, so the De Lier site, BU West of Europe, as we call it, is serving to a large extent the vegetable business. Flower, vegetables, food segment, and they're basically, you know, the season is, there is seasonal weakness right now, combined then with the ramp up ongoing. Regarding sawn wood, I mean, there has been some price increases taking place, and there has been some improved demand here in Q3. But still, let's say, the construction market continues to suffer, as we know. I mean, there is no major uptick in construction market, in building permits, and so forth. So that still remains to be seen, when we can see the construction market really coming back and moving up. It could also be happening very quickly then when construction restarts again, because there is, of course, now a lot of pent-up demand around new buildings and construction. When it comes to Black Week and Christmas, and our reference in the outlook, but we mean, obviously, there is sort of a peak, but because of the soft retail market and consumer behavior, we don't expect similar uplift or peak in the demand as there would have been in the normal year, if you can say it that way. Right? That's what we were... What was the say, what was the purpose of the message there. Thank you. Oh. Next question. There are no further questions. I shall now pass back to Hans Sohlström and Seppo Parvi for closing remarks. Thank you very much. Thank you all for joining in, and thank you for your good questions and your interest. You can clearly see we are totally determined to improve the profitability of this company. Q3 was the fourth consecutive quarter-on-quarter improvement year, and we are also committed to reduce the debt burden. Q3 was the second consecutive quarter of reduced net debt to EBITDA. We're continuing to focus on those items we can affect, so cost efficiency, competitiveness, and we are doing great progress in our value capture programs, value capture work throughout the whole organization. So we are fully determined to deliver shareholder value. Thank you very much, and have a good day.