Hello everyone. Welcome to UPM Q1 2026 results webcast.

I'm Massimo Reynaudo, I'm the CEO of UPM. Here with me is Tapio Korpeinen, the CFO.

We had a good start of the year. Despite the fact that geopolitics continued to introduce new uncertainties, we delivered solid results during the quarter.

The Q1 comparable EBIT was €274 million with an EBIT margin of 10.8%, in line with last year. Our decarbonization solutions achieved an excellent performance, and our advanced materials businesses continued to show steady and resilient performance.

Fibres improved its performance compared to the previous quarter. Our diversified business portfolio and the global spread of our activities served us well in this volatile environment.

As an example of the strength of our business model and strategy, the recent Middle East crisis brought challenges and opportunities in equal number. Looking ahead, our work continues with a disciplined focus on improving competitiveness and performance while executing transformative portfolio projects.

Today, we announced a demerger plan concerning the separation of UPM Plywood into a new independent listed company. Beside that, the preparation for the planned graphic paper joint venture with Sappi continued and continues, and we expect the definitive agreement to be signed during the first half of this year, and to conclude the process by the end of the year subject to merger control approvals.

I will share some more about these two initiatives shortly, but first let me walk you through the main facts and achievements of the quarter, business by business. We start today with Decarbonization Solutions, and in there, the UPM Energy business achieved its best Q1 results ever, with a comparable EBIT of €100 million.

Differently from what one may think, this performance is not depending by the general global or European energy crisis, but is influenced by Finnish-specific factors. Some are of seasonal nature and other are structural.

When it comes to the seasonal component, in Q1, the electricity consumption in Finland reached an all-time record, supported by a cold winter. This resulted in high energy prices during the quarter.

The winter being over now, prices have moderated from the peaks. This effect is seasonal in the sense that is influenced by meteorological patterns of the different seasons, but it lays over a structural change in the market.

If we talk about the structural component, there is a general year-on-year increase of the energy consumption due to the electrification of the economy and to the installation in Finland of data centers, which is now happening at scale, and green industries, which are more of a future prospects. Because of this, electricity consumption in Finland is expected to grow significantly over the next years, at a pace in between 4% and 7% year-on-year, which means that in 2030, the energy consumption will be somewhere between 20 up to 45% higher than it is now.

In a market where demand will grow faster than new production can be added, we are in a unique position to generate value. This transition requires, in fact, three things to happen at pace: locations where to install data centers or these projects, grid connections to fit them with energy, and finally, baseload CO2-free energy.

When it comes to locations and grid connections, we have prepared a portfolio of suitable industrial sites with existing or close-by connections. This is important as site readiness speeds up permitting and construction.

As for energy, we can offer 12 TWh of clean baseload power through PPAs. If market conditions will make it relevant, we will also be able to add additional renewable power.

We have been developing a pipeline of potential wind and solar power for an extra generation up to 1 GW, ready to be built earliest in 2027, as said, if the market condition will make it a good investment. The Energy business has been run in an excellent way during many years under Tapio's leadership.

Given the number of opportunities developing in this area, we will establish a new Executive Vice President position fully dedicated to developing this business further, and to take the lead of this business over from Tapio in due time. Now, looking at next-generation renewables, biofuels continue to improve performance and posted strong Q1 results.

You may remember we turned this business around and back to profitability last year. It is now back to good profitability thanks to our work to improve the cost base, supported by a good demand for renewable fuels and prices boosted by the increasing fossil fuel price recently.

Talking next about biochemicals, and Leuna specifically, the ramp-up activities are proceeding as planned, and the production of industrial sugars and lignin is ongoing. The production of renewable functional fillers will start soon, to move next to the production of glycols.

At that point, we will have reached the stage of integrated production. The demand of our biochemical products is robust and the sales pipeline is solid, too.

I also anticipate that in October, we will have the official inauguration of the site, and trust we will be organizing for site visits later on if you'll be interested. Now, on Advanced Material businesses, we continue to deliver resilient performance.

Deliveries both of adhesive materials and specialty materials increased from the previous quarter. Markets in Europe and Asia were solid, whereas the US market was softer.

As an example, the label materials demand grew 2% year-on-year in Europe, but decreased 2% year-on-year in North America. Adhesive materials in this environment continue to take actions to sharpen competitiveness while creating new growth avenues.

It is investing to expand coating capabilities in US, to expand in high-margin segments there, while investing in higher growth regions in Asia. The latest expansion that was announced was a new terminal in Delhi.

This will be the second terminal in the country beside the already operational one in Mumbai. Specialty materials growth plans are someway similar, as they aim to grow in high-margin markets with new high-margin products.

About this specifically, the business continue to accelerate its barrier paper product development pipeline, and this is for the replacement of plastic or multilayered products in consumers applications like food or pharma. Just to give you an idea of the level of activity in this space, the business initiated more than 70 new pilot projects with customers in 2026 alone.

A relevant feature of the specialty material business is that we have enough capacity available to support a sizable growth in this segment with no need of large-scale investments. On fibres now.

On the global pulp markets, in Q1, the demand for hardwood pulp was generally robust, while the demand for softwood pulp was softer. The Fibre business improved its underlying performance from the previous quarter in both platforms, North and South, supported by an increase of deliveries and a slight increase of the average prices compared to Q4.

Fibres South reported a comparable EBIT of €85 million, or 21% of sales in the quarter. As discussed earlier, we expect a further cost reductions over this and next year.

Moving to Fibres North, in Finland, pulpwood market prices stabilized in Q1. They were about 30% lower than last year.

In Q1, we also started to realize a decline in wood cost. Fibres North comparable EBIT came in at €34 million, or 7% of sales.

To our communication paper business now. The graphic paper demand in Europe decreased by 4% year-on-year, and in North America it decreased even further.

In a context of challenging paper markets and high energy prices, our communication paper business delivered solid results. Our paper deliveries increased from the previous quarter, and fixed cost decreased following the closures in 2025.

Energy cost increased, but the business succeeded well in optimizing its energy consumption in these volatile energy markets. When it comes to our plywood business, markets were stable in Q1.

Demand has been strong in liquid natural gas shipping segment. It has been good in industrial end-use applications and soft in construction-related end-use segments.

In this situation, the plywood business continued to perform well, and the result improved from last year. Talking more specifically about this business, we have announced today a demerger plan to separate UPM Plywood into a new independent listed company, as I said before.

The new company will be named Wisa Group, leveraging its trusted and well-known product brand. The plan is to list the new company on Nasdaq Helsinki.

We believe this operation will create a long-term value for the UPM shareholders. Our UPM Plywood is a strong business with a proven ability to perform in different market conditions.

It supplies high value-added end-use segments, has efficient production platform, well-established commercial model, and a strong customer partnership. Separating the plywood business will reinforce its future prospect.

As an independent company, Wisa Group will be able to pursue own strategic priorities and growth opportunities with increased focus and required agility. At the same time, this simplifies and focuses the UPM business portfolio, too.

The demerger plan is subject to a shareholder approval in an Extraordinary General Meeting that will be held by early September at the latest. The planned completion date is 31st of October 2026, and the first day of trading for Wisa Group will be November the 2nd.

Now, I talked briefly about Communication Paper and their performance, but let's talk now about the future of this business, and the preparations continue at full speed for the planned graphic paper joint venture. As a reminder, we're planning an independent graphic paper company owned in equal parts by UPM and Sappi, which would include all of UPM Communication Paper and Sappi's graphic paper business in Europe.

The transaction would create a more efficient, adaptable, and sustainable graphic paper business. It will create also a structurally competitive cost base and supply security for the European and global customers.

For UPM, the transaction would have a positive impact on profit margins and balance sheet. Yesterday, the European Commission announced the opening of a Phase II investigation.

This is not unexpected, to the point that we have indicated earlier on and back in December that we were assuming closure of this deal by the end of this year, pending the necessary approvals. The Phase II investigation means that the Commission requires more time to investigate the joint venture.

We have openly engaged with the Commission these last months, and we will continue to work with them during the rest of the process. As said, the definitive agreement are expected to be signed during the first part of this year, and the closing of the deal is expected to take place by the end of the year.

Now, with these two portfolio initiatives about Plywood and Communication Paper, we aim to change the profile of the company, increasing its growth potential and margins. The largest potential of the new UPM is in decarbonization solutions.

Here, we have some unique positions. In Energy, we have what data centers and large industrial green investments are looking for: sites, grid connections, baseload CO2-free energy.

In next-generation renewables, with biofuels and biochemicals, we have built positions with unique combinations of feedstocks and innovative IPR-supported technologies to serve markets where both regulations and consumer demand will or are already boosting demand. The recent disruptions in Middle East have also demonstrated the importance of these products, not only for environmental reasons and to reduce emissions, but also for the possibility to reduce the dependency from oil-based equivalents.

In Advanced Materials, we have strong global positions on markets that normally grow faster ahead of GDP and low cyclicality and volatility. Here, we seek predictable, profitable, capital-efficient growth, as said earlier on, in high-margin products or high-growth regions.

Both development and innovation here play an important role. We want to develop distinctive solution for end-use segments that want to move beyond plastic.

Finally, in Renewable Fibres, we have one of the most efficient cash engines in the industry. Fibres South is the world-class low-cost platform with further cost optimization and CapEx-efficient debottlenecking ahead.

In Fibres North, we continue to work on cost and fibres differentiation to accelerate performance and cash generation. The new UPM will have an attractive portfolio focused on these three segments: Decarbonization Solutions, Advanced Materials, and Renewable Fibres.

All these businesses operate in growing markets and will accelerate their growth by amplifying our global reach. As it is visible on the chart on the right, growth on this perimeter is not just a future ambition.

These businesses have shown a strong track record of realized growth above GDP during the last years already. We'll just accelerate it with a sharper focus and targeted investments.

Given the scale of the changes ongoing and the number of initiatives we are working on, you may have seen we have created a new position of EVP Transformation that will help us in the transition from the current to the new setup as seamlessly and effectively. I'll hand it over now to Tapio for more comments on the results.

Thank you, Massimo. Here we have, again, the key figures.

First quarter sales was €2,505 million, down by 5% last year. Comparable EBIT €274 million, also down by 5% year-on-year.

In terms of EBIT margin, steady compared to the first quarter last year. This is a good result given that in the first quarter, we were in a world before the globally applied US tariffs, and also before significant changes in currency rates, particularly US dollar.

Operating cash flow for the quarter was €89 million. I would make a couple of notes on cash flow.

First, looking back at the end of last year in the fourth quarter, operating cash flow was €720 million, including €416 million working capital release. As I stated then, partly this was seasonal, but to large part due to actions that we have taken to improve our working capital efficiency.

Now, working capital increased by €192 million in the first quarter compared to €112 million increase in the first quarter last year. Included in the working capital in this quarter, the initial margin requirements of the energy hedges tied up about €60 million more than in the first quarter last year.

This is related to higher share of futures contracts that we have made in hedging, including also price movement affecting that in the market. The rest of the working capital tied up is seasonal in nature and in line what is typical looking at the past years in the first quarter.

This means that the structural improvements in the working capital efficiency that we took in the last year have stayed in place. Further, the first quarter cash flow was temporarily affected by timing of cash flow impact of earlier one-off type items such as restructuring charges, where we have made provisions and now we see the cash flow impact in the cash flow statement.

Still looking at full year 2025, we successfully reduced working capital by €391 million, and looking forward to this year, we continue to work on further reducing working capital during 2026 beyond this seasonal fluctuations. As a final note, as we have guided, investments were low and hence free cash flow was positive, even in a quarter with temporarily low operating cash flow.

Then here on the left-hand side, you see the first quarter EBIT comparison to the first quarter last year. Sales prices decreased compared with last year, particularly in fibres and communication papers.

On group level, this was offset by lower variable and fixed costs. Changes in currencies had a negative impact.

The end result was a 5% decrease in EBIT with unchanged EBIT margin, as mentioned. On the right-hand side, you can see the development compared with the fourth quarter last year.

Here, sales prices increased, particularly for energy and also biofuels. This was more than offset by higher variable costs.

However, the change in variable costs shown here include the energy refunds booked in the fourth quarter, so that explains a meaningful part of that negative comparison to the fourth quarter. Part of the price benefit here was seasonally driven by the cold winter, but all of the variable cost increase is also seasonable due this effect of the energy refunds.

Volumes increased slightly. Fixed costs decreased more meaningfully by €63 million.

Part of this, again, is related to the maintenance in first quarter. Part of it is seasonal and part of it is structural, related to restructuring.

The big negative bar Other is mostly related to the fair value increases of forest assets, which, again, were booked in the comparison quarter four. Then, to the guidance and outlook, which are unchanged.

Of course, the new conflict in the Middle East has increased uncertainty in the business environment. Given our portfolio, this presents risks, but also presents some opportunities for our businesses.

Due to this situation, we are heading towards a period of higher inflation, and therefore margin protection will be a priority for us. Again, particularly when it comes to impacts on energy costs, our geographic position gives us some resilience here in terms of energy costs and prices in Finland, where we have seen a moderation after the cold winter months.

Again, less connected to the impact of the Middle East situation on energy inputs. In the second quarter, the Pietarsaari pulp mill and Olkiluoto 1 and 2 nuclear power plants will have their maintenance shutdowns, and the total impact of the maintenance during the second quarter will be a €55 to €60 million increase in euros compared to the first quarter.

Our net debt came down slightly during the first quarter to €2,962 million. Net debt to EBITDA ratio remained at around 2.3 times, and we will continue to work on reducing our leverage to within our policy of 2 times net debt to EBITDA.

I already mentioned the investments, which are at a low level, boosting free cash flow. The major investment cycle is over.

Here we see the guidance for investments including maintenance investments during this year. Also looking forward, we can grow in the near term with a relatively low level of CapEx.

I'll hand over here to Massimo for some summary notes.

Thank you, Tapio. Very very quickly, just want to recall some key points.

Q1 was a good start of the year. Our diversified portfolio and global reach have ensured performance in a volatile situation.

We stay focused on performance, cash generation, and margin protection in an environment that has turned inflationary. Meanwhile, we continue to press ahead with transformative initiatives.

Today, we announced the demerger plan for Plywood. We are moving into the Phase II investigation for the graphic paper joint venture, which is a step ahead that we were expecting.

These two initiatives, when completed successfully, will change the profile of the company, increasing its growth potential and margin. This is the roadmap we keep on following and executing with discipline.

With this, I conclude this part and let's open up for questions.

Yes. Hi everyone, it's Johannes here from Stockholm.

I have a question on UPM Uruguay. Appreciate very much that you now disclose numbers on Fibres North and Fibres South.

We can see that the costs were roughly €331 per ton in Uruguay Q1. Can you elaborate on the magnitude that you foresee of further cost reduction per ton in Uruguay?

You alluded to that in the call there, Massimo. Thank you.

Yes, it's correct. We have indicated 2 2 times 25, but just to be clear, we said in last year that we have achieved a $25 per ton cost reduction, that was in 2025, and we have indicated the confidence of achieving another reduction in the similar scale, $25 per ton across this year and next year.

This is, let's say, through optimizations, all the rest staying equal.

That's very helpful. Also, I have also a question on Leuna.

If you can give us some idea about the earnings impact or earnings delta. Could you indicate now in the end of the ramp-up phase what type of temporary costs you are running with, and how quickly you will see the earnings impact from turning basically commercial?

Thank you.

We have sort of indicated earlier on a kind of a six-month basis where we are in biofuels and biochemicals that are included in the Other segment. Will give that, I would say, in July when we next come out with the second quarter result.

Of course, you can see in the Other segment indication that the biofuels business, as said, has improved, I would say, quite well, and we do have some additional cost now in Leuna as the ramp-up is proceeding and depreciations come in, but we'll give more disclosure then in July on that.

Fair enough. Looking forward to that.

Thank you.

Hi, thank you for taking my questions. My first one would be on the pulp side of things.

If you could help us quantify the impact on profitability in the first quarter, especially for the Fibres North division, that would be great. How much of the expected profitability increase from the lower pulpwood prices in the Nordic region has already been captured in the first quarter, and what are the expectations for the coming quarters?

Then my second question is on the energy front. There has been speaking a lot about the potential growth in power consumption from the data center investments that are expected for Finland.

I just wanted to understand exactly how you plan to capture the benefits of that move, right? Will you invest more and capture more of that through volumes, or do you expect that to translate into higher prices until more capacity comes online?

Then kind of a follow-up to that is do you expect that the supply-demand for energy to be in balanced, and is it not possible that new investments by other players come online in the coming years as well to also try and capture such a large increase in energy demand that we expect? Thank you very much.

Okay.

Look, I'll start answering the question about energy, giving some comments, but then we have the energy expert here being Tapio, I will let him to complement on that. As commented earlier on, there is an expectation of significant growth year-on-year.

When I indicate or I mention a range before between 20 to 45% increase potentially the next five five years. The range is big, but even if you take the bottom of the range, that growth is massive if you consider that over the last decade there's been no growth or potentially even some decline.

This growth is mostly driven by this investment in data centers. Now, the consumption will come in rather fast and in steps.

The probability that supply will catch up at the same time or at the same pace is low. It doesn't mean that the new capacity can't be activated.

I've just commented that we have been working and prepared some readiness to expand our capacity if the condition will require. At this specific point in time, the low energy prices and the volatility of them are not and have not been encouraged any large-scale investment.

There is not much really in the pipeline. Based on these considerations, there is the belief that the supply-demand balance will evolve in a direction that prices will grow compared to the current base, and this is an element of value increase or capture that we see through price.

Then another element is around, let's say, potential supply, power purchase agreement and energy supply agreement with these investments coming in. This is a new developing opportunity in the market.

We don't want to speculate right now too much about that, but there is surely a significant level of activity around that. Then depending on the type of profile, duration, and so on, that is another element that can lead to additional value creation.

As said, I let Tapio to complement on this, and maybe also to comment on the first question about pulpwood cost.

Maybe the thing that I would add to Massimo's comments on energy is that the supply-demand imbalance is a reality today already from time to time, and that's what you in a sense saw in the beginning of this year, in January, February, because as we have energy system now here in the Nordic countries which is quite weather-dependent, and in the meantime, as mentioned earlier by Massimo, we see a structural change on the power consumption side. Power consumption has been on the increase.

When the reality is that during not only the short term, but actually in the kind of scope of several years, there is no new capacity of scale coming to the market, there's only weather-dependent energy generation that is possible to add to the market, then these periods of imbalance which we saw now in the beginning of the year, they will be with us, welcome to the new energy market. It's not only that you wait for another cold winter, they can happen equally well in summertime, because this situation where a high-pressure front sits on top of the Nordic area have become and will become more frequent because of the climate change that is happening.

Because of that, we believe that the value of capacity of our energy will increase, and also the value for the new power consumers, whether it's data centers or in the future green industries, in being able to secure the capacity and the supply will increase, and will be an important sort of factor for their ability to invest in this area. We have an offering for that.

Then maybe your question on impact on Fibres North of the pulpwood prices, as you remember, from the peak of last summer, pulpwood price in Finland has come down by 30% or a bit more. That is partly the reason why we do have improvement in Fibres North included in the numbers now result reported for the first quarter.

Since that sort of change has happened during the six months of last year, and also because there is a delay on top of that how quickly that change sort of flows to the bottom line, then it was still only a part of that total change in market price for pulpwood.

Massimo and Tapio, thank you very much for the answers.

Thank you, Gabriel.

Morning, folks. Thanks for taking my question.

Your comments seemed to really focus on this data center demand growth tailwind, but I'm just conscious that you're saying that the supply side, there's not really much in the pipeline, the market seems like it could tighten. When you're thinking about your forward planning and these projections, are you not concerned about the impact that energy price inflation might have, especially politically and regulatory, and that could maybe actually be a roadblock to getting some of these data center approvals?

That is definitely a factor. Look, if we talk data centers, for example, there is a rather large pipeline of projects.

Some are still in some investigation phase, but some are in a construction phase, or have been decided as investments, they will be coming on stream in any circumstance, I would say. We see debates happening in other parts, but so far, this has not been a limiting factor for investments here.

Maybe to that, of course, let's say time will tell what the political decision or discussion will be, but the Nordic situation and Finnish situation is a bit different than what you see elsewhere in the world, because now we have a market that is already saturated by wind and solar. There is no room to add, because the solar and wind, in this kind of current situation, cannibalizes its own profitability, unless you have a PPA in place.

Now, you need to have demand coming to the market so that further investments in the increased energy production through wind and solar, because no other way in scale is available in the shorter term. You need to have demand coming to the market.

In that sense, to be able to continue on this road that we have chosen here in the Nordics and Finland in particular to create a power system that is emission-free, you need to also have some new consumption coming in, and that's how to sort of take the whole system forward. I would expect that decision makers also on the political side will understand that we have publicised quite a big pipeline of possible investments in green energy, we in Finland, not UPM, which is kind of standing still because the demand needs to come.

Understood. If I understand correctly, you're saying that some of these data center projects could use currently spilled or curtailed renewable generation, and maybe turn that into a baseload stream maybe through some storage investments.

Is that the right way to think about it?

Let's say then storage investments is another possibility, but it can be a kind of feature of the solution, but with today's technology still is let's say not enough in capacity to be the solution. What I'm saying in a sense that, again, if the demand comes, and in that way, we can take the energy system forward, then of course, storage can be part of it.

Data centers also come with investments on storage and power generation for the sort of peak load and so on, needs to be a combination.

Understood. That's very helpful context.

Thank you. If I could maybe just squeeze in one more, can I just get a sense of your softwood sales mix between Europe and export markets over the last quarter, and I guess how you're seeing the European softwood market balance given that inventories are a bit elevated?

Okay. It's a very specific question, I wouldn't be able to argument about it at this point in time to be frank, or beyond what we said before, that when it comes to demand and what we have observed is demand being relatively robust for hardwood, and being definitely robust in Europe, because you were talking Europe, and being softer, well it looks like playing with word, but it was softer with softwood a bit across the world.

I would not be able on the spot to argument to the level of detail you have asked.

Understood. Thank you, Massimo and team.

Appreciate your time.

You're welcome. Thank you, Reinhardt.

Hello. Good afternoon, and thank you for the presentation.

Three questions from my side, I'll take them one at a time. Coming back to the guidance, you had a strong Q1 EBIT, but you have maintained your H1 EBIT guidance, suggesting a Q2 that is far weaker, at least at the lower half of the guidance range.

What would bring us down to these levels, especially as the first month is already behind us, and is there the lack of change in guidance just your embedded conservatism, and we should expect to be at the upper end? I'll stop here for the first one.

Yes, maybe a quick comment on that. Let's say, again, the upper end is €525 million, let's say there is room for improvement there compared to last year, for instance.

If you remember that the first half of last year was €413 million. Then, of course, now thinking about the second quarter, what was mentioned in the comments here earlier already that we do have maintenance taking place both in the Energy business and in the Pietarsaari mill in the pulp business, part of Fibres here in Finland, €55 to €60 million impact compared to Q1.

Also as mentioned, we have seen already in the month of March this kind of spring seasonality in a sense coming in in the Energy business, in that sense, compared to the first quarter, we typically see lower prices on the average and impact of that in the second quarter as well.

Thank you for that. That's very clear.

A second question, turning to Fibres. We've seen a strong run in hardwood pulp prices so far this year, and now we're hearing about the buyers' resistance in China, just as logistics costs are proving a headwind over the past month or two.

My question here is that what's your sense on the increase in freight that we've seen at this point versus the beginning of the year from Uruguay to Asia? Do you anticipate that at least for hardwood market fundamentals are strong enough to support a pass-through by higher pricing over the next couple of months?

Okay.

Look, it's a question with two parts. One is about logistics cost and the other is about market situation, whether it's or it will be robust enough to support further price increases.

That is an open question, and I would say we don't know more than anybody else and we don't want to speculate. Surely, I would say what will happen in the Middle East will directly or indirectly weight on consumers' mood and ultimately influence demand, because at the end of the day, that's what drives consumption.

Until now, as said earlier on, we have seen a rather robust demand, and that has supported price increases that we have seen. This is the second part of your question.

When it comes to the specific impact of the logistics cost from Uruguay, I wouldn't be able to tell about that what is the scale of it specifically. This is what gives me the possibility to broaden up a little bit what they said before, that the Middle East crisis is opening up both challenges and opportunities in the same scale.

These logistics cost may be a challenge of some scale, of some magnitude for some businesses, but actually they may also turn into a tailwind for other businesses, because what we have seen is that on the back of increased logistics cost from Asia to other parts of the world, and for example to Europe, or disruption in terms of container availability and so on, we have seen in certain markets that the flow of goods has at least diminished. We have seen also in certain market segments that European customers, for example, have shifted from, let's say, price opportunities on import from Asia to supply security from local sourcing.

Quantifying the effect of all these elements is a difficult exercise, but there is surely a balancing or more than a balancing effect across our portfolio. Equally, another dimension of where the Middle East crisis has turned into a tailwind for some of our businesses, well, we've talked earlier on about biofuels.

The biofuel prices are built by having a premium over fossil prices, and when fossil-based, let's say, product prices go up, the biofuel prices go up accordingly. The same logic apply or will apply to our biochemical products, because the prices of the fossil equivalents of what we will, let's say, replace have gone up significantly.

It's much broader answer than the question you have asked, but hopefully it helps you to get a bit of a color around what we said before around the resilience of our portfolio.

It does, Massimo. Thank you very much for that.

Just a last question around the graphic paper JV. Sounds from your comments that the Phase II investigation did not really come as a surprise to you.

With that in mind, is it fair to assume that the targeted synergies of €100 million are still pretty much intact, even if you have to offer up some remedies to get the deal over the line?

I would say that you're right into say that our, let's say, confidence in the positive conclusion of this process remains intact. You're right in saying that we were expecting the move into Phase II because it is rather a normal step.

We're talking about a really large-scale project, and with scale goes complexity. You have to think that we have filed the case the 19th of March, and the probability for all the implications of this case to be clarified between 19th of March and 28th of April was not just realistic.

By this standpoint, we were expecting this, it's kind of normal in this type of situations. We have been working very openly with merger control authorities until now, and we'll continue to do so in the months to come.

Now, when it comes to the synergies, nothing has changed on that side compared to our original assumptions, hence also the number has not changed, nor we want to go at this point in time into speculate about remedies.

Perfect. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Morning, gents. A couple of questions on biochemicals and biofuels, if I may, starting with biochemicals.

Just to get a feel for the earnings trajectory, you've previously flagged for increased costs in the initial ramp-up at Leuna. Are costs going to increase further in the second compared to the first quarter?

Are you taking on additional depreciation? It looks that way to me in the second compared to the first quarter.

Are you also seeing an increased burden on the EBITDA level in biochemicals still?

Maybe if I'll comment on that, won't go into EBIT and EBITDA or any other detailed lines as such, but overall, like we have said, these kind of costs, of course, as the ramp-up proceeds, they are on the increase until then we start to get, in a sense, the impact of more significant revenue in. To your question, for the EBIT impact, likely to still be sort of heavier in the second quarter to comparison to the first quarter.

Sorry, I have a pretty bad line. You're expecting a weaker EBIT in the second compared to the first quarter on the biochemicals, is that right?

Yes, that will be a,

let's say,

like said, heavier load on the EBIT of this Other segment compared to the first quarter.

Perfect, thanks. Then equally on biofuels, you've previously been talking about easing input costs, and now we have this much improved market situation.

When you guide for the second quarter, what assumptions are you building in in terms of biofuels developments? Have you seen a stabilization of costs, or is that trending in any direction?

Is it fair to assume that the strong markets that we have seen recently were only taking effect rather late in the first quarter?

Let's separate the two things. When it cost and prices, well, again, we don't go too much into speculating about the future, but the situation in the Middle East is still locked, and until it will stay locked, the situation will stay as it is in terms of supply balance situation.

That supply balance situation will not ease the day after the situation is unlocked. I believe we all have access to the same public information around the fact that the supply situation will not normalize for months.

Beyond that, we don't go speculating about prices, but it's difficult to imagine a normalization of the situation quickly. When it comes to cost here, I just would like to use the opportunity to say that when it comes to the biofuels we do produce, I don't mean we are unique, but surely we are unique in our scale for the type of feedstock we utilize, which is crude tall oil.

We're not utilizing other feedstock like used cooking oil or animal fat or other type of feedstock which are utilized by more producers, and therefore in a situation of a surge of demand can end up under more stress. The reason why we have this different feedstock, it's also because we have some specific technology and IPR on it that allows us to be competitive with this feedstock to levels that the others that maybe be willing or could be considering to use the feedstock don't have it.

What will happen to cost in the future, we'll see it next, but our specific situation shelters us a little bit to pressure on feedstock cost that may happen in other segment of the markets with utilizing a different feedstock, more in demand.

Sure, appreciate that. Then just one detail question on your maintenance cost guidance for the second quarter, you say €55 to €60 million.

How much of that is in the Fibres division, please?

No split on that, but let's say, of course, bigger part is in the Fibres division.

Great. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

We have also used the time available for this call. Thank you all for the participation and for the questions, and I look forward to meet you again in one quarter.

Have a nice day.