Rio Tinto Group ($RIO)

Good afternoon to everyone here in Perth, and good morning to all of those joining us from London, and welcome also if you are tuning in virtually. As Chair of Rio Tinto, I have the privilege of welcoming you to our 2026 Annual General Meetings. This year, in keeping with our focus of embedding stronger, sharper and simpler ways of working across the business, we are holding the Rio Tinto plc and the Rio Tinto Limited AGMs contemporaneously. Our meetings are linked audiovisually, so all shareholders can participate in a joint discussion as provided for under Rio Tinto plc's Articles of Association and Rio Tinto Limited's constitution. As you know, AGMs are an opportunity for open conversations and for deepening understanding. They allow us as a Board to hear from you and to respond to the topics you are interested in. And next year, our directors will be present in person at the plc AGM in London with a limited AGM held contemporaneously in Australia. And we plan to continue this arrangement for future AGMs with our directors alternating their physical attendance annually. This naturally builds on our regular engagement with investors throughout the year. In fact, over the last 2 months, I've met personally with shareholders representing more than 1/4 of Rio Tinto plc's issued capital and 1/3 of Rio Tinto Limited's issued capital. With that in mind, I'm looking forward to facilitating our conversations today as Chair of both meetings in London and here in Perth. I would also like to welcome Josh David, one of our General Counsels in London, who is supporting the Rio Tinto plc meeting there. Hopefully, you will see London on the screens, and they're obviously seeing us on the screen, so we have some sense of being together. So I'd like to begin our meeting by acknowledging the Wadjuk people of the Nunga Nation on whose traditional lands I'm speaking from today. And I pay my respects to all traditional owners and indigenous people who host our operations around the world. I'm very pleased to introduce Robin Collard to perform a welcome to country. Robin is a Nunga woman from the Wadjuk and Ballaradong groups, and she is joined by her nephew, Josh Kelly, a Nunga man who will perform for us on the Dig.

Hello, and welcome, men, women, brothers, sisters and leaders who have come here today to meet on the land of the Wadjuk people. We are here in Boroo, the traditional and first name for Per. And we then see the beautiful Madagara, the river crossing where our ancestors would cross the river. We come around past Terrceen Island on the Durbalagan, the Swan River, and we see a place called Kings Park. Kumba a, Denim Bo, know it by many names, but it is our home at the top of the hill, the place at the top of the hill and the place when you stand, you can see a long way. We then travel down to Walula, Fremantle home of Wileich Eagle before we cross the ocean to Wodjima, home of Maka. We then travel down to the Durbalnara, the Coburn Sown before we come in there to Wala, the Bibra Lake region. We then travel to Jalgara, the Canning River, the place of many Jerrit trees. And then we see the beautiful Caramunda, the Black Hills, the Darling Ranges. And we come to Mandun, the place of many trees around Midland and Gilford before we go up to Juala,urlu,ongolu, Boy, from the north to the south, the east to the west. This is the land of Wjueople. Our ancestors have walked this land for many thousands of years. They've left their footprints in the waters and in the sands, sitting around the campfire sharing food and water and telling the many, many stories of this land. We stand on the shoulders of our ancestors. They've kept our language alive, our stories, our cultures, Three things that are very important for Nars, our connection to family, our connection to the land and our connection to our language and knowledge, stories and our artwork. This is who we are. And we think about the stories of Wale, the rainbow circuit that stands alongside this spirituality of the scriptures.

Thank you, Robin and Josh, for that welcome and for opening our AGM. Before we move in today's meeting, I would like to acknowledge a matter of great sorl, the deaths of 3 colleagues over the last year. Mohammad Kamara, who lost his life at Simandou last August, a colleague at Simandou in February, whose family requested his name be kept private and Brian Coneelli at Kennecott in March. Each leaves families and friends and teammates, and we hold all those affected by these tragedies in our thoughts. As a Board and as a business, we have a clear focus and an accountability. Fatalities must be eliminated and everyone must go home safe every day. We've asked Simon to assure and ensure that we apply the lessons learned and make the changes needed to our business, and he will talk shortly about the actions being taken. But first, I ask for a moment of silence as we remember our 3 colleagues. Thank you, everyone, for taking that moment. I will now introduce the members of our Board who are here with us today. Joc O'Rourke, Narri Woods; Sharon Thorne, Senior Independent Director of Rio Tinto plc and Chair of our Audit and Risk Committee; Peter Cunningham, our CFO; Simon Trott, our CEO; Diano Dalla Valle, Chair of our Sustainability Committee; Ben Wyatt, Senior Independent Director of Rio Tinto Limited and Chair of our People and Remuneration Committee; Jennifer Nason; Susan Lloyd-Hurwitz; and Tim Payne, our Australian Company Secretary. We also have with us Graham Hogg from KPMG in the room. I want to wave, who's here in Perth and who is Rio Tinto Limited's lead audit partner. I also want to say a special welcome to Sam Walsh, one of our former CEOs at Rio because we also stand on the shoulders of many leaders before. To make today's proceedings as efficient as possible, I will now declare that voting on all resolutions is open. As usual, resolutions will be decided by poll. This Board brings together deep experience across mining, capital markets, global business and governance. In August, our newest member, Simon Trott, succeeded Jakob Stausholm as CEO. Jakob rebuilt trust and laid the foundations for Rio Tinto's strategic and cultural growth, and the Board is deeply grateful for his contributions. We are proud to have appointed an internal successor of Simon's caliber. He is a CEO who knows this business and mining inside out, but who also challenges our orthodoxies. He's working at pace to achieve our ambition of becoming the most valued metals and mining business, supported by an incredibly strong leadership team. And he's doing so in a fast-changing external environment. You need only look at your phone, turn on your TV or read the paper to see the complex and uncertain world that we are operating in. And while change is constant, one truth is clear. As volatility and fragmentation increase, nations are focusing ever more intensely on minerals and metals. And they are moving with urgency to secure supply for next-generation industries, electrification and the energy transition. Whether it's copper for AI data centers, lithium for batteries, aluminum for advanced manufacturing or iron ore for fast-growing cities, demand is increasing. And it also remains to bring challenges on the supply side to meet that increasing demand. Rio Tinto is made for this moment because whatever the future holds, the world is only going to need more of the materials that we provide. And our global diversified portfolio and world-class project execution capability position us strongly for these opportunities ahead. While this environment requires us to move at pace and with conviction, it also demands a long-term view and a consistent approach. And this is exactly what our strategy is designed to deliver. It's based on a winning formula for growth and returns. It starts with our world-class assets in key future-facing commodities operated through 3 strong businesses: iron ore, copper and aluminum and lithium. And it's grounded in disciplined capital allocation and operational excellence in best-in-class project execution, in strong partnerships with governments and other organizations and in a deep commitment to social license. Crucially, this formula is delivering performance as we returned USD 6.5 billion to you, our shareholders, maintaining a 60% payout for the 10th consecutive year. As a Board, our focus is on maximizing Rio's potential. Under Simon's leadership, we are embedding stronger, sharper and simpler ways of working across the business and concentrating our people and resources on the areas that drive the greatest value while unlocking our portfolio's full strength. It won't have escaped you or your notice, I hope, that our share price has moved significantly since our last meeting. This is, of course, just one indicator of the long-term value that we are creating. And to me, this reflects not only favorable market conditions and rising demand for what we do, but also a growing belief in the way that we are delivering. I've seen that delivery in action during my 18 visits to our global sites and offices over the last year as we reached many of our major project milestones. I saw at Oyu Tolgoi in Mongolia, how we are ramping up production from an ore body more than 1,300 meters underground. All the major infrastructure is now in place, and we are already achieving record copper results. In Guinea, Sharon, Dean and I joined Simon to mark the start of operations at Simandou, less than 2 years after major construction began. Simandou not only unlocks a new source of high-grade iron ore with more than 620 kilometers of multi-use railway and world-class port facilities. It also shows what is possible through partnership, bringing together Rio Tinto with the government of Guinea, Chinalco, Bau and WCS to achieve the extraordinary. And in Argentina, in December, the Board and I saw how we are scaling up production of high-quality battery-grade lithium carbonate, positioning our portfolio for the energy transition. These are just a few examples of the projects driving our growth. and they show mining at its best, delivering returns for our shareholders and lasting value for communities through genuine partnerships, which create real tangible local benefits. Take Simandou, which could grow Guinea's GDP by up to 55% by 2030. Oyu Tolgoi, which supports around 20,000 jobs, both directly and through the supply chain or Argentina, where we are now the largest lithium mining employer in the country. Every time I visit one of our sites, I'm reminded of the journey of partnership that starts well before a single tonne of ore is produced to ensure our projects deliver value beyond the mine gates. Last June, when we opened the Western Range iron ore mine in the Pilbara with our partner, Bau, what stayed with me was not only the milestone itself, but how it was achieved. Working in partnership with the Inawongga people, we made changes to our mine design to protect and preserve significant cultural heritage values. While many of our relationships with indigenous and land connected groups around the world are strong, we know, in some cases, we still have work to do. Our priority is to listen carefully, engage early and continue to build trust through our actions with co-management playing a central role. I've had the privilege of spending time with various groups, including the BoroguntiGaruma and Binigura people in the Pilbara. The co-management agreement we signed last May with the PKKP Aboriginal Corporation formalizes how we work together to protect and manage cultural heritage while providing greater certainty for both the BoruguntiGuruma and Binigura people and Rio Tinto. Sustainability and social license go hand-in-hand and are core to our priorities. Creating shared value also means protecting and respecting the natural environment and fragile ecosystems where we operate, treating them with the utmost care. Equally, we believe that reducing emissions is not only the right thing to do, it actually strengthens our business and improves returns. Last year, we delivered a 14% reduction in Scope 1 and 2 emissions, and we expect further progress as our renewable energy contracts and agreements for the Boyne smelter in Queensland take effect. Finally, some words about our people. They are at the heart of how we live our purpose of finding better ways to provide the materials the world needs. And our progress is built on their talent and their expertise and their commitment to operational excellence. As a Board, we are striving to create an environment where colleagues can contribute and perform at their best, where teams are empowered to solve problems and where safety and productivity go hand-in-hand. What we hear from our people when we visit our sites and offices shapes our ongoing work to strengthen our culture and build a more engaged and diverse business, fostering these conditions for new ideas, better decisions, stronger performance and higher returns. So I hope today you have a sense of our direction as well as the strong momentum that is building across our business. I'm very optimistic about Rio Tinto's future. We have great people, world-class assets in the right commodities and a clear strategy. And importantly, we have a tremendous opportunity. That is our winning formula, and it gives me absolute confidence in our ability to deliver both growth and returns for our shareholders over the long term and to create lasting value for our stakeholders. Thank you very much for listening, and I'll now hand over to our CEO, Simon Trott.

Thank you very much, Dom, and a very warm welcome to all of you here in Perth, and of course, those of us joining us from London and also online. Robin and Josh, thank you for the welcome earlier, and I would also like to acknowledge the traditional owners on the land on which we meet today and pay my respects to their elders past and present. On safety, Dom has spoken about the 3 fatalities at our site since our last meeting. Our colleagues there show we are not where we need to be on safety, which is the foundation of our business. As a leadership team, we are focused on understanding what has happened, learning the lessons and being clear about what must change. We are renewing our focus on the critical controls for safety risks in our business. So they are clearly understood, consistently applied and personally owned by all of us as leaders. This work is never done, and we will continue to do everything in our power to ensure that we protect our people whose incredible capability and expertise drive this business forward. In the 26 years I've been here at Rio Tinto, I know that when we are at our best, we are extraordinary. And my objective is to make sure the whole company delivers at that level every day in a world where demand for the materials we produce is growing. That is why when I stepped into this role, I set Rio a mission to become the most valued metals and mining business. for you, our shareholders, for the people we work and partner with and for the communities around us. We are making strong progress towards achieving this. And as you've already heard, we have a winning formula for growth and returns. Let me unpack this. We have the right assets in the right commodities and each of our businesses, iron ore, copper and aluminum and lithium delivers value in their own right. We operate the world's leading iron ore business, combining unparalleled scale in the Pilbara, an integrated system in Canada and high-grade growth from Simandou. In copper, we are a leading low-cost producer at scale. And in aluminum, we are the largest integrated producer in the Western world. While in lithium, we are building a leading position globally as a Tier 1 producer with a strong pipeline of opportunities. Our growth is underpinned by best-in-class project execution, reflected in some of the outstanding project achievements Dom highlighted earlier. And when I visit our sites, I'm struck by the job our people do in some of the world's toughest environments to do mining in the right way while delivering on time and on budget. Within each of our businesses, we are lifting performance and driving operational excellence. We are doing that by making sure everyone can work in a way that is stronger, sharper and simpler. That means clearer priorities, more disciplined execution, faster decision-making and less complexity. all of which lifts returns. This work is already translating into results. We have now fully implemented the first USD 650 million of annual productivity benefits as promised with substantially more underway. At the same time, within each business, we are strengthening capital discipline. Every dollar must compete for value, must deliver value. Every project must compete for capital. And as we're doing that, we are targeting the release of $5 billion to $10 billion of cash from our asset base to further drive returns. Across each of our 3 businesses, our scale gives us the firepower to reinvest in the next generation of projects. And the relationships we're building with both communities and governments that host us lay the foundations for shared value, helping us grow together and shape what comes next. Increasingly, as Simandou shows, our partnerships are unlocking outcomes once beyond our reach, combining our strengths and sharing risk to create value in ways none of us could have achieved alone. Our winning formula is delivering growth today and the proof is in our performance. In 2025, we increased our copper equivalent production by 8%, driven by record output in both copper and bauxite. And these robust figures flowed through into our results with EBITDA up 9% to $25.4 billion and underlying earnings at $10.9 billion. As Dom mentioned, we have returned 60% of that to you, our shareholders. We are well positioned for the future with industry-leading 3% compound annual growth to the end of this decade. And as we deliver Simandou, Olu Tolgoi and 4 major replacement mines in the Pilbara, together with the lithium projects. Beyond all this, we have a strong pipeline of opportunities to extend growth well into the 2030s, particularly in copper, including Resolution in Arizona and Newton leaching Ventures and projects like Nueva-Cobre in Chile. So our winning formula is clear, an unmatched mix of the right assets in the right commodities, 3 world-class businesses that are each driving value through operational excellence, disciplined capital allocation and outstanding project execution. with a focus on social license and productive partnerships that position us for the future. This is a formula that is taking us towards becoming the most valued metals and mining business. And I am convinced it will deliver strong returns and many more years of growth. Now back to you, Dom.

Thank you, Simon. We will now move to the meeting's formal business. The notice of meeting containing the text of each resolution to be put to the meetings were published on our website and were made available on March 20, and I will take them as read. We will deal with resolutions 1 to 17 on both notices under the joint electric procedure and Rio Tinto Limited and Rio Tinto plc shareholders will both cast their votes on these resolutions. Resolution 18 in the Rio Tinto Limited Notice of Meeting will be voted on by Rio Tinto Limited shareholders only. Resolutions 18 to 21 in the Rio Tinto plc Notice of Meeting will be voted on by Rio Tinto plc shareholders only. Your directors are unanimously of the opinion that all resolutions proposed in these notices are in the best interest of all shareholders and of Rio Tinto as a whole. Accordingly, we recommend that you vote in favor of all resolutions. In a moment, we will give our shareholders the opportunity to ask questions on matters relevant to the business of the meetings. I should remind you that only shareholders, their representatives or proxy holders are entitled to ask a question. For those shareholders and proxy holders attending in person in Perth and London, please raise your hand if you'd like to ask a question, and you will be invited to the microphone. Before asking your question, please state your name and if you represent an organization, its name. All shareholders and proxy holders attending virtually can submit written questions or ask them via the audio facility on the Lumi platform. So we can answer as many questions as possible. Please keep your comments short and to the point, and I will discourage follow-up questions. If we receive several questions on the same topic, we may group them together and provide one response to try and keep things moving smoothly and avoid repetition. I'd now like to take the first question from the audience in Perth, and then I'm going to move to London and then to the online platforms, and I'll try and circle through that process over the course of the next 1.5 hours. So if we could see if there's any questions from Perth, I see number one.

Good afternoon, Chair. My name is Louis Kent. I'm the Sector Strategies Leader at ACCR. We work alongside institutional investors focusing on long-term shareholder value and the decarbonization of high-emitting sectors, including mining and steel, which we consider to be in the interest of all shareholders. We appreciate our engagement with Rio Tinto. I have 2 questions, one on iron ore and one on operational decarbonization. Would you like them one at a time? Or should I read them both?

Why don't you read them both?

Yes. Firstly, Rio Tinto's recent disclosures emphasize continued investment in expanding and sustaining its iron ore system, particularly in the Pilbara, which remains the core of the company's earnings, alongside significant investments in projects such as Simandou. Progress on low emissions iron-making remains only at pilot scale. Could you comment on the strategy for Pilbara ore in a future low-emission steel system? How is the Board overseeing risk to long-term value in the Pilbara? And what concrete actions are being taken this decade to ensure these assets remain competitive as green steel demand grows? And the second question. Over the past decade, Australia's gas production has doubled and the gas industry claims that the continued pursuit of large gas projects will bring down prices for Australian manufacturing. However, rather than bring down the cost to consumers, wholesale gas prices on Australia's East Coast have roughly quadrupled. Right now, the gas industry continues to pursue some of the largest proposed gas projects in Australia's history, claiming it will bring down prices for Australian manufacturing and that they have the interest of manufacturers at heart. However, Rio Tinto's investment decisions and disclosures point to a structural decline in reliance on fossil fuels to ensure economic longevity. Is it Rio's view that long-term gas reliance is not in the interest of the business and that Rio Tinto is doing all it can to decarbonize operations and remove reliance on gas as soon as possible?

Thank you very much for your questions. I'm going to try and answer at one level and then may call on Matt Holcz to jump in as well. I think on the iron ore side, as you said, we continue to invest heavily, and we will continue to invest heavily. We see a lot of demand for steel over the coming decades, and Pilbara is going to remain a very important part of that. We are also working with our customers, primarily in China, but also in joint venture with some of our competitors to look for ways to try and advance green steel manufacturing side of things. And we also have some experiments going on in Canada with IOC on that front. So that does -- that is an important area that we're working with, and we want to work particularly with our customers on that. On the gas situation that you talked about, we have -- as you mentioned, I think we are doing a lot on the decarbonization, the targets that we've set overall as a company to reduce Scope 1 and 2 by 50% in 2030 and to be net zero by 2050 is pretty aggressive. And we're doing that in all the key areas. Aluminum is a big part of that on decarbonizing, looking for renewable power for our smelters, but also doing everything we can in the Pilbara on looking again for alternates, whether that be solar power and other ways to be able to drive it. I might turn to Matt if you could get more specific.

Great. Thanks for your question, and I'll probably just touch on the lower emissions pathways, first of all. So in terms of our Pilbara business. I guess we're really focusing on partnerships. So here locally, as you referenced, we've got a partnership with Calix on ZESI technology, looking at a pathway to green steel and also the Neo smelt joint venture in partnership with Woodside, with BHP, with BlueScope and others. And again, we'll be building facilities here just south of Perth. We're also doing a lot of work in the Pilbara with our customers, looking at our product mix and looking at different ways for them to be able to reduce their emissions downstream as well, including cromatization. In terms of ISC, as Don touched on, I think the key part about that project is we do produce pellets, which are a very important feed into low emissions pathways in terms of steel. And you touched on Simandou as well. Probably the point that I would share there, particularly when we get lower down in the ore body is our ability to access really high-grade material that will be suitable for direct reduction as well. So that's a summary of our focus areas on low emissions pathways. Thank you.

Thank you. Matt and again, what we might -- if I don't do a good job of it because you'll hopefully get to see some of the executive team, but that's Matt Holcz, who leads iron ore after taking over from Simon. I'm going to go to London, and then I'm going to go online. I'm partly saying this out loud, so the online is ready. It's a call coming in from Madagascar, which sometimes the connection is not great. So on Madagascar, please be ready after the London one, we'll go to you next. So Jeff, if we could go to London for the next question.

Good morning from London. I hope you can hear me. My name is Stephen Power. I'm from the [indiscernible] in Britain, which is a Catholic church religious order with provinces around the world. We've engaged with Rio for the last 3, possibly 4 years coming to AGMs. And particularly on the issues to Madagascar, I might leave some of that to the next caller. We are considering divesting from the company because of several issues that we found problematic. -- just to name 1 or 2, the engagement on with Madagascar for these years have been over water and water supply. However, our company spokesman have been very polite in responding to our questions and invitations to meetings. However, key information on water reports have regularly come late without detail required and not at all concern the water contamination remain and conflict around the mine has not -- has yet to be resolved. Siemen Dill which much quoted a very big investment by your own assessment necessarily involves considerable ecological damage and displacement of people. This is in the context of fragile government. The arrangements with the government there are very fragile and the outcome of that is unknown. We talked about scope emissions. Scope 3, let's talk if we can, of Scope 3 emissions, which however much is reported, seem very unlikely to be subject to realistic targets, mostly because of the iron ore processing in China. So it's coming from a broad assessment of mining from a document we put together and launched earlier a few months ago, Catholic approaches to mining, which will become launched in Rome a few months ago, and this will become more better known, I think, in the future. So my question is really to comment on any of those issues because of our concern for our present investment.

Thank you very much for your question. And I think there are 3 parts to it. And I think they were quite clear. One is Madagascar. -- second is Simandou. And I think then I believe it was around Scope 3 and how we think about dealing with Scope 3. On Madagascar, this is an area where we've focused a lot of time. I visited Madagascar myself. We are very focused not only in terms of water quality, but also the flows of water because with storms and so forth, as you know, there can be surges. And we've just released a recent water quality report. We actually have external groups that assess that, and they've just been made available. The fourth, in fact, QMM water report was released in April. And just to be specific about it, the results are remaining very consistent with previous years. I'm just reading from this, water quality upstream and downstream of QMM's authorized release point is comparable with all of the regulated metals consistently below laboratory limits of detection, and we'll continue to do that. We've also invested a fair bit in trying to manage the significant flows that occur during storm surges and so forth. So we recognize the issues that are very much focused on that. In terms of Simandou, ensuring that we build those projects in a very ESG-compliant way has been a core part of what we've done. And in fact, the IFC has been a core investor with us. I would point to one of the Article 6, I think it is in terms of the setup, looking at Mark Davies on this one. We follow on that. And that includes everything from the environment, from water there in Simandou to the people that are involved, the communities to the Western Chimpanze and to elephants there, all of those stakeholders who I may call it, are taken into -- very much into the design and the process as we've gone through it. And again, we could go into that in more detail if you'd like with Mark Davies is here. On Scope 3, as you said, we do not have Scope 3 targets. I'd just be very blunt about that. It's not something we believe we can control. And we've had many discussions with our investors about it. That doesn't mean we don't care about it that we aren't involved. You heard Matt talking about some of the things we're trying to do with our customers and actually even with some of our competitors on doing green steel, if you will. But it's something that we believe we should -- you should measure the output of what we do, so they don't -- they can sound like very good things, but you can never measure it. And we are focused on Scope 1 and 2 primarily with very specific measures. We are also -- we are doing some things, for example, on the supply side, which is in Scope 3 with our shipping. But we do not have targets on Scope 3 because we don't believe we can actually deliver and measure the results from that. So I hope that gives a bit of an overview. And maybe in subsequent ones, we can get deeper. What I'd like to do is go online. I think it's Eddie Velmila. Eddie, do you want to give it a shot?

ladies and gentlemen, member of the Board of Director and General Management of Rio Tinto. My name is Vuma, I represent the [indiscernible] of the communities of [indiscernible . Let me be clear. After more than 15 years of KM presence,' no longer at the stage of promises. We are at the stage of results or the [indiscernible] it is clear on the ground the local remains. Market access is blocked for local or consented but water and the environment per -- as the MM social responsibility program has not alien visible. It's transformation has the local leader decision and on resection is at least reality. So let's ask the real question, where are the correct positive impact for local people after tickets of Rio Tinto chairman in [indiscernible]. The problem isn't technical, it's system commitments exist as they are not enforced, they are more transparent and they have not gone are -- in so, the system may be working for PMM but not for our communities. So different meter question, is entity ready to share the value creates here or with this continue mining operation where profits are concerted for total but the negative impacts are borne by the communities. So different meter question, is entity ready to share the value creates here or with this continue mining operation where profits are concerted for total but the negative impacts are borne by the communities. As it is, the current CM model is not enable and it will no longer be accepted. We are not asking for the decision of the best. We demand immediate changes -- our demand are clear. We want to commitment and a clear time line for Bonito to deliver. One, total transparency we season of redeemed contract and CSL and debts and independent monitoring mechanism to measure resumed. Two, economic justice, generality given to local recruitment, whereas it access to markets for local businesses to a boater health and the environment, deletes independent impact assessment and analysis. The gross health monitoring application of the poly fair pace principle because the health of the population is not negotiable. We want this commitment not in 5 years, but now [indiscernible] firm, we are not against mining, but we had just mining was tested development was infusion when we work distribution. In conclusion, we are not against development, not against resource expectation, but we demand that it be if it transparence and beneficial to our development that excludes the population is not development. Well, that does not benefit the community is energy business. We demand immediate change, concrete, measurable and sustainable actions are by a monitoring system companies of a local technical commission and social position. Then as matter of [indiscernible] the signed by an independent organization. Credit is for this per box.

Thank you, Eddie. I think that was very clear. By the way, I won't try and repeat it, but I think the first line was after 15 years, we're not at the stage of promises. And I think there were -- you were pushing on the notion of what's the local community benefit that you want to see water and health and sort of independent, I think, oversight in terms of where we are were sort of the messages. So first of all, thank you for putting those out so clearly. I'm going to make a couple of comments, a bold bar. I might just ask if you might also want to jump in as well. But the first thing I would say is that we are very much committed to wanting to be supporting the community. Obviously, that comes from direct employment and indirect employment, about 1,700 people are employed there. As you know, in Fort Delfin, we provide the power for the city with the solar power and now the wind side of things. And we've also committed to $100 million over the next number of years to support communities in there. And I know there's been some tension as to who gets what, where, but that's a commitment that we want to make. Bold, I don't know if you want to add anything or edit or say I've got it something wrong...

Thank you very much for the question, and we do take our social license very seriously, in particular, being a good neighbor. And since we got into QMM, we have invested over $1 billion and a very large program, of course, was making sure that we built a port access that provides necessary emergency but as well export routes for the products that are made in Madagascar. Secondly, of course, with the original power plant as well as now the new renewable energy plant, we do supply power into the city of Vodafone, which is an inhabit with about 80,000 people. In addition, of course, in the original days, we have built a water treatment plant, and we are working with Jorama, which is the local electricity and water utility to distribute the water to the communities -- we are going through a $1.4 million water treatment infrastructure rehabilitation program with them. And I think, Chairman, you have alluded to the $100 million program that we have committed to after the renegotiation of the investment agreement in 2023. So -- but of course, we want to improve and want to find ways to improve local content and local suppliers. So I'd be happy to engage further on this topic, what else we could do in terms of procurement of local services. Thank you.

Thanks, Bold. And thanks again, Eddie. I'm now going to go back to Perth, and then we'll go to London and then to the Lumi system 4.

Welcome to Perth. I'm Tracy. I'm a West Australian shareholder. How does the Board assure itself that Rio Tinto is maintaining sufficient senior geoscience capability and upfront geological knowledge development to manage geological risk and protect long-term shareholder value, particularly in the context of ongoing productivity and organizational changes across the group. What indicators or assurance mechanisms does the Board rely on to assure that geological uncertainty is not being deferred in a way that increases future operational, capital or value risk. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Great question. And again, I may draw on Matt Holcz to come in. But I think, first of all, on the -- ensuring that the focus of resources is on there, I think that Simon's initiatives now and actually moving more of our resources to where the assets are, the capabilities, the risk management, you just mentioned the geotech capabilities and so forth, not being in London and in the center, but actually in the field has been reinforcing that push. In fact, we had a safety share this morning from someone in that area based here, very experienced person, Allison, on that side. So I think that's very much on there. I think the second in terms of the Board, this is in the -- we think about critical risks and looking at Sharon and the Audit and Risk Committee. We do do regular reviews of a whole range of risks. There are -- the geotechnical side of things is something that is looked at. Mark Davies comes in regularly to speak to the Board. We've arrayed the various different sites that we're operating in, which are quite a considerable number on the spectrum in terms of where we think the risks are. So the Board does have that oversight as well as having expertise on the Board, mining expertise that also helps. But Matt, do you want to.

Maybe I'll take it. Because it's exactly the right question. I do worry about the interest and focus of the mining and the number of graduates that are coming through technical disciplines. And there's work we can do around that. If I lift it up, though, I think we do need to do a better job around articulating the amazing job and career opportunities you have in mining. And if you think about a business like the Pilbara, it's got all the aspects that people should want to work in from some of the highest technology through to some of the technical disciplines and roles all the way through our business. And I think we can really inspire people to come and join us.

Good recruiting on that people. Yes. Can we shift to London?

Good morning from London. My name is Laura O'Shea, and I represent the Climate Action 100 Investor Group, speaking on behalf of interested investors. Before I jump into the question, I'd just like to acknowledge that you have already touched on some of these areas in formal questions. So apologies for any repetition. We'd like to thank the Board for its continued commitment to net zero by 2050 and for the progress made in decarbonizing Rio Tinto's operation and value chain to date, not to mention the expansion of the transition materials business. This time last year, 93% of shareholders supported the 2025 Climate Action plan. However, a number of developments over the past 12 months when viewed together have led some investors to question whether the focus on decarbonization is being reduced. These include changes to climate governance, the remuneration weighting, delays to steel decarbonization technologies and reduced capital guidance to 2030. While each of these changes may be reasonable in isolation, in aggregate, they raised a few questions about delivery. Please could the Board outline how it expects to deliver its 2030 targets and the key execution risks it's managing in this context?

Thank you very much for your question. I would just say at the outset, as I was saying before, we're very committed to the targets that we set, again, to reduce -- we reduce our Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 15% in 2025. We hit 14%, 50% in 2030 and net zero in 2030 and 2050. We're also doing things to be nature positive, which we could also talk about. But we're very committed. And one thing I feel very strongly about is there's a lot of talk out there about what people do that Rio Tinto is actually doing things on that front. And we feel very confident about being able to deliver on the 50% reduction. We've done significant investments, and I'm looking at Jerome on the aluminum side, if you think about what we're doing at Boeing, 2.8 gigawatts renewable, it's the single largest conversion from coal power to renewable power. And by the way, it's in the shareholders' interest to be driving that. That is a major initiative, which will move us there. I also just -- I want -- I'm going to rattle off just for a few things because I feel quite fired up by this. I don't go carried away, but a few of them. So I mentioned the Gladstone repowering program, which is very significant on a global scale in terms of what we're doing. There's the Pilbara Renewables and electrification program. Matt talked a little bit about that, but that's on solar, wind, battery storage, transmission upgrades. Electric smelting program, the iron ore steel partnerships and looking for the development of electric smelting technology. This is actually getting into, as I mentioned, Scope 3, even though we don't have a target for it. ELYSIS zero carbon aluminum smelting, major investments that we're making on that front in the Saine in Quebec. The Evolus biocarbon project to replace fossil carbon inputs and aluminum processing. Kennacott renewable diesel conversion. This is in Utah, a renewable electricity procurement program in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Madagascar and the United States. And I could shut off because I could go on. But I just want to say there is a -- these are clear initiatives that are there -- in terms of the -- there was a stiff adjustment. We lowered the decarb from 15% to 10%, and we raised the safety number on it, just given where we are. Simon felt that, and we fully endorse that. And that actually is going to -- it's, in a sense, tough luck for management because they're going to deliver on the decarb. They're not going to get that. So it's going to be harder because we've got to focus on that. So it's not about less emphasis. It's about the focus on safety, and we will deliver that side of it. I mentioned before the set of management initiatives that Simon is driving to put more of our resources to where the assets are. And that actually, we believe, will accelerate and reinforce the decarbonization. It's not taking away from the overall effort. It's focusing it. So I think hopefully, it gives you a bit of a sense of that we're committed -- we actually think it makes us perform better as a business. So it's in our interest to do it, and we will continue to drive that forward. Can we go for an online question? is Morgan ticket or...

Thank you, Chair. I hope you can hear me. So I have a question. Look, over the past decade, Australia's gas production has doubled, but rather than bringing down the cost to consumers, wholesale gas prices on Australia's East Coast have actually quadrupled. Clearly, supply is not the solution to bring down cost. But right now, the gas industry continues to pursue some of the largest proposed gas projects in Australia's history, claiming it will bring down prices for Australian manufacturing and really saying that it has the interest of manufacturers at heart. However, Rio Tinto's investment decisions and disclosures even quite recently, point to a structural decline in the reliance of fossil fuels and a shift towards more renewable uptake. Is it Rio's view that long-term gas reliance is not in the interest of the business and that Rio Tinto is doing all it can to decarbonize its operations, move its reliance on gas and that this is coming from a place of economic rationality rather than just altrism.

Thank you, Matt. So let me try and answer it. I'm not going to get too much into the gas side, but maybe talk about how we -- gas per se, but look at how we think about it. As you said, Rio Tinto right now is more reliant on natural gas in our operations, and we think we're going to need that for the medium term. But I think as you are implying, fossil fuels are becoming increasingly expensive. And I think the Iran war is just putting a magnifying glass around that. And so electrification and fuel switching underpinned by renewable and electricity is something that we want to drive towards. As you said, it's actually in the business interest to try and do it. And just to give you an example, we're commissioning a hydrogen calcination pilot at the Yarwun aluminum refinery to try and demonstrate the viability of replacing natural gas. We're also building new solar and partnering with traditional owner groups on that front to try and replace gas as much as we can. But obviously, there are some limits to the technology we're pushing it. So we are trying to be as aggressive as we can on that front. I don't know, Simon, if you want to.

No, I think that sums it up. Dom, there are aggressive targets, and we're making good progress. And we're decarbonizing our business as it makes good commercial sense.

Okay. Thank you very much, Matt, on that. I think we'll go online, as I mentioned. And I think we have Karen Adams, if you can hear us.

Yes. Thanks, Dom. My name is Karen Adams. I'm the Legal Director at the Human Rights Law Center in Melbourne. We represent communities in Boganbale and Papua New Guinea living with major ongoing environmental and social devastation caused by Rio Tinto's former Panguna mine. For the benefit of those unfamiliar with the situation, Panguna was a copper and gold mine formerly owned by Rio Tinto operated by its subsidiary, BCL. And over the time of its operation, over 1 billion tonnes of mine waste tailings was directly disposed into the local rivers, causing massive environmental and social impacts for local indigenous communities. The environmental damage caused by the mine was so substantial that ultimately caused the social uprising that forced the mine's abandonment. And Rio Tinto divested from the mine in 2016 without any cleanup or remediation of the site having been undertaken. Four years ago, in response to a legal complaint brought by communities about the massive problems that they're still experiencing, Rio Tinto agreed to fund an independent environmental and human rights impact assessment of the Panguna mine. And in December 2024, the results of the first phase of that impact assessment were released, finding major environmental, social and human rights impact in every domain that have been assessed, including some life-threatening risks to local people from collapsing levies and infrastructure, chemicals left by the mining operation and in particular, from mine-related flooding. Rio Tinto committed at that time to working with all stakeholders to establish a remedy fund to address these impacts and to advancing work as the first priority to address the most serious risks and impacts identified. And while some important steps have been undertaken since then, work on the ground has been very slow to progress and the remedy fund is nowhere near yet set up. As you know, in mid-April, Boganville was hit by Cyclone Maya, which has further heightened many of the risks and impacts that communities are facing. And in particular, a section of the main levy, which had already been highlighted as a major risk in the impact assessment is now predicted to collapse within the coming days, potentially causing serious injury or fatalities to people living or working nearby. My 2 questions to the company. Firstly, is Rio Tinto committed to mobilizing its full expertise and resources to accelerate action to prevent loss of life in the Panguna area? And will the company now commit to some clear time frames for the establishment of a remedy fund to ensure that the site can be properly remediated and risks to public health and safety addressed.

Thank you very much, Karen, and it was very good to catch up with you yesterday in Perth with Simon and Isabelle. I'm going to get to you 2 questions. One thing I just do want to clarify is the background. If you recall, Rio Tinto through BCL was operating in Panguna, but basically during the civil war that essentially had to evacuate under extreme circumstances. And so Rio Tinto has not been there since on it. We are very much committed to trying to work to a remedy. We -- as you mentioned, we've also been funding and supporting some basic cleanup work that has been underway in there. And as we work with the autonomous Boganville government, we also work with the BCL to try and figure out what the remedy is that we'll continue to do that. We also just -- I think we should acknowledge the devastation that's occurred with the cyclone, which we feel very badly about. And I think [ Theionila, ] I hope I'm pronouncing your name properly again. Theioniila also joined as a community representative in the group just talking about what is happening there. And we will continue to do everything that we can to help. We have to work through other people because we're not on the ground. And as you know, we have some engineers who are trying to help with the levies, where I know there are people that are living in those places on near unstable walls and so forth, and we'll continue to do everything we can. We're very committed on that front to helping. So on your first point, we are committed. I'll let Simon jump in, too, if he wants to on this. And we are also committed, as we said to you yesterday, again, as a leadership group in working with the roundtable to figure out what the remedy will be and how we can actually get things to happen on the ground.

We continue to work and committed to the process that we aligned behind working with the roundtable. It was good catching up yesterday, Karen, hearing some of the impacts on the ground following the passage of the cyclone and providing some support and certainly looking at what we can facilitate in terms of working with others to try and alleviate some of those immediate conditions.

Simon? I'm going to go to Perth, and then I'm not sure who to go to, like if you guys just yell or tell me maybe I'll go -- when we go to Perth, I'll go 1, 2, 4, but I'll just do 1 for now, and we'll go to London. So just remind me of that after.

Chairman, John Campbell, representing Australian Shareholders' Association. I've got proxies for about 420-odd shareholders and 0.5 million shares. First of all, a question on the procedure in the meeting. The -- normally, in Australian company meetings, the proxies are shown to shareholders before they vote their shares. I don't think that's happened last year. And I'm just asking if it can be shown -- if we can see the proxies this year, please.

Yes. Thank you, and thanks for your engagement actually earlier to on a number of different topics. But just on the proxies, it's not Rio Tinto's practice to disclose proxy voting positions at the AGM prior to the relevant poll being conducted. And this approach reflects our DLC structure where most AGM resolutions were joint decision matters that were voted by shareholders in London and in Australia. And I guess the third aspect to it is that we think that it's important following -- on the U.K. side that voting be conducted in a live process. The disclosing of proxy positions in advance of a poll is seen as influencing the decision. And that's why we do it that way. You may not like that, but that's why we follow that.

I understand. I've got 2 questions and a statement on remuneration. Would you like me to do them all 3 of them?

I generally wanted to just have one at a time, but go for out on this occasion, please.

Okay. First of all, you report in the annual report an internal -- a material internal control weakness in relation to an acquisition. I assume that's Arcadian. And the weakness was reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission in the U.S. under the legislation there. I wonder if you could give us an idea of the nature of that problem, whether it was a spread sheeting issue or something similar or -- and also whether you're expecting any repercussions from the SEC.

Do you want to ask your second question as well? You can make it.

Certainly, we discussed -- and thank you for the time you gave us. We discussed the potential merger with Glencore and the fact that you now have a period during which you -- as a moratorium on further negotiations. Our concerns related to the inappropriate nature of some of their assets that you'd be perhaps acquiring also to the gearing. And since then, I've read an article by a journalist called Joe Aston, who has made allegations of bribery corruption, tax evasion, et cetera. I just sort of seek your assurance that it's not going to be top of the agenda at the very least in August.

And then your statement?

The statement is -- well, it's in 2 parts. Firstly, directors' shareholdings. I'm concerned that the level of directors' shareholding the minimum level that the company has set is somewhat below the minimum level of directors' fees. We'd like to see a set of the actual level of directors' fees, including committee fees. And in particular, we note that the recently appointed Chair of the People and Remuneration Committee, Benoit, his shareholding is less than -- well less than the minimum. And I think that's setting a bit of a poor example for that situation. I'd like to see that rectify. On the remuneration generally, we're voting against all 3 of the resolutions on remuneration. The one on termination benefits being because we always do, the ASA has a policy of voting against that. We think that the -- if you're going to remunerate a leading executive that more than the statutory maximum, then shareholders should be given the opportunity to review that decision and look at the remuneration elements that are being offered. The other 2 resolutions relating to the remuneration report, we have 3 objections to that. First of all, we'd like to see the short-term incentive measured against actual reported profits and net profit after tax rather than underlying measures because we think the executives should take responsibility for impairments and other write-offs that would otherwise be reflected in or removed from underlying profits. We'd like to see the LTI appraisal, the long-term incentive appraisal period extended from 3 years to at least 4 in view of the long-term nature of the decisions that are going behind that incentive, the mining decisions are often much longer than 4 years, but we'd like to see 4 years as a minimum. And the other aspect of it is that we don't like to see such a large multiple applied to the long-term incentive that you're using a 5x multiple for base pay as the maximum for LTI. And that seems to us excessive. Mr. Trott's remuneration comes out at about USD 15 million on that basis for 2026. over 5 years, that would be well over AUD 100 million. So we just think that it's excessive by all measures, and I'm not wanting to deny the money because I'm sure that shareholders will very much benefit from the resulting improvement in the share price. But we just think it's excessive and unnecessary.

Okay. Thank you. Let me try and answer some of those. I think there are 3 buckets. I'll deal with the deficiency issue. It might shift Glencore to you, Simon. And then I'll make a couple of comments on the the shareholdings of Board members. And then in terms of the LTIP, maybe Ben, go to you, if that's okay. First, on the deficiency, I'm saying this with our auditor, Graham Hogg in the room. That was a control deficiency relating to a highly technical accounting process. It was a process to get an input to an input of a process. We assess the carrying value. It was around Arcadium of the lithium business and are very satisfied that it's not impaired on that. So there's no issue whatsoever with that. And again, that was audited by KPMG. I might also just point out, if you're worried about that, we got some criticism when we bought Arcadium. I think the lithium carbonate price was $11. I'll note that today, it's around $23 -- and again, I don't want to predict how prices move, but we should just reflect on that element. So no issue whatsoever with the -- on any impairment on the valuation. We're very, very happy with that acquisition. On Glencore?

Sure. And thank you for the question, John. So we laid out at the Capital Markets Day in December last year, our plan for taking the business forward, and you heard some of the out earnings for that today. We're making good progress against that plan, there's a significant value uplift as we continue to deliver it. We should always be asking ourselves, can we add further value to that base case, if you like, and hence, the discussions that we had with Glencore. We really wanted to test a number of different pieces and see whether there was value we could add through that combination. And ultimately, as we announced, we formed the view that we could not see value in that combination from those discussions for Rio Tinto shareholders and hence, the announcement to withdraw from those discussions. And so our focus remains very much on delivery of the plan that we laid out at capital markets and that we've talked about today.

Just on the shareholdings, I think all the Board members, except Ben, have met the criteria, which is at the base level. I would argue that Ben is well on the way to doing it. There's been restrictions in the last while, actually because of discussions like and others since the annual reports come in. I know Ben has done that and is well on the way to it. And I just want to say something about Ben. We are very, very lucky to have Ben Wyatt as a Board member, and I think shareholders should be very happy with that. So I just want to say that. Thank you, Ben. The other thing I just want to mention on the -- we'll get a bit into the LTIP and so forth because there was quite some detail you laid out there. And as you know, there's a policy vote coming up. So we'll have conversations on that side. But I do think it's important as a global company that we need to benchmark other global companies when we think about our remuneration. And we are sitting right now at or very close to record high share prices and the management team is not benefiting from that like I think they should on it, to your point there. And so we want to look at that, and we're going to do it properly, and we're not going to go crazy on it. But we have to look at the benchmarks that are out there because we have a terrific leadership team leading a global business in very volatile and complex times. But Ben, over to you.

Yes. Mr. Campbell, thank you. I consider myself duly reprimanded. But if I can just emphasize the points made by Dominic, I will, within the 5 years required, assure that I have the appropriate shareholding. And that's my attempt at a plucky defense. Next year, if I'm not there, you can bring this up with me again. In respect to your 3 questions more broadly around the STI and the LTI. I'll answer them all in one go, if you like. So in 2024, there was -- the shareholders approved an increase from 4x to 5x the base salary. And that was after about a decade of no increases to the long-term performance. And that's always done on a very strong benchmarking, both in respect of executives in Australia in the U.K. and more broadly with peer groups. And we do need to be mindful with our executives, how we pay them and how we benchmark them. We don't try to be the highest payer in the world. We certainly don't try and compare ourselves to some who pay particularly high. We want to be competitive so that we can both attract and incentivize our executive team. The comments you made around 3 to 4 years noted, we had a good conversation on that the other night. Most companies on the ASX and the LSE still have a 3-year performance test period at Rio Tinto. So we have that plus a 2-year lock. So executives don't get access to those shares for 5 years. But we've got a vote in 2027, and we'll consider that point around that 3- to 4-year performance period as we move through '26. And one final point I want to make on the long-term incentive. I assure you, Simon didn't get USD 15 million in 2026. And there's a couple of reasons for that despite actually strong absolute total shareholder return. That's because we compare ourselves for that vesting with a range of companies on 2 different benchmarks. One, the S&P, about 2/3 weighting on the S&P, which has 150 companies and 1/3 on the MSCI, which has about 1,600 companies. And that's particularly difficult because to get a threshold payment that is just to achieve threshold, you do need to be in the top half of that. So you need to be about 800 companies on one and about 75 on the other. And to get to maximum, you have to be in the top quarter. That simply wasn't the case. So in the 2024 and the 2025 performance period, the LTI vested at 12% and this year invested at 0. So the LTI despite strong absolute TSR returns because of who we compare ourselves with, we're just not paying at all at 0 and the committee did not make a decision to exercise its discretion to amend that. So as we move into 2027, we do need to be mindful, and I've foreshadowed this in my letter in the annual report, we do need to make sure that we have an appropriate LTI scheme that benchmarks well. We don't need -- we're not looking to lead the sector, but certainly to be competitive, but also an appropriate peer group and appropriate measure that incentivizes our executive team.

Thank you, Ben. So now we flip to London, and then we'll go on the screen. London?

Hello. I'm Roger Featherstone, President of the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition from Tucson, Arizona in the United States. I'm here to ask a question about your proposed Resolution Copper project that would destroy Oak Flat, a native American sacred site that is a recreational and ecological haven. At last year's AGM, I asked you if you would stand by international human rights, transparency and biodiversity protocols or would you take the low road and cozy up to our government's weakened standards. Your actions have spoken volumes in the last year. Your decision to merge your company's AGMs has the effect of curtailing the ability of shareholders to sit face-to-face and ask you questions. I've attended your London AGMs for a dozen years. I've met with every one of your CEOs since Tom Albanes. Yet this year, your new CEO has refused to meet. This says a lot about your accountability. It gets much worse. On Friday, March 13, less than 60 days ago, the U.S. government in a shady unprecedented and illegal maneuver gave you the deed to Oak Flat. At least for now, you own a native American sacred site. To be clear, you now own the land upon which people go to worship. Your plan is to destroy Oak Flat. The U.S. government has determined that Oak Flat in the surrounding area is sacred. The U.S. Forest Service and the Ninth Circuit Court has determined that you will destroy Oak Flat. You have done this without the basic fiduciary due diligence of conducting a feasibility study you need to even make a decision whether the project is feasible. Because Arizona is in the worst drought we faced in 1,200 years, we don't have enough water for both your mine project and our communities in the environment. And because the project is not technically and economically viable, if you write a feasibility study that is truly impartial, comprehensive and accurate, the only conclusion will be that you should not proceed with that project. The question I've asked you until I'm blue in the face is when will you abandon the Resolution Copper project and leave Oak Flat? And for the first time, when will you give Oak Flat back to its rightful owners? And I'm sure I'll have a follow-up.

Thank you, Roger, for your comments and questions. As you know, and I think that Simon feels exactly the same way, we're very keen to meet. We're in London beyond AGM meetings, and we also travel to the U.S. and other parts. So we can definitely follow up on that side. I think as you well know, we have been around resolution for about 22 years. It was 2004. We have been following the U.S. court processes all the way through, and we defer to the court systems. And I know that there have been various groups that have not wanted us to do various things. We've just gone through the legal -- we've gone through the legal process in pretty well every single court that is available in the United States on that. We've been -- you and others have pushed us to be there. We've been there. We've gone through it. So we had approval on that front. The last 3 administrations now have approved that we do it. So we did that land exchange. And again, I might go to Katie Jackson for some more specifics on that. So I see a little bit of a different story than how you are portraying it. As you know, there are a number of tribes that are across the different lands that are there, and we've been having a lot of engagement with them over time. We've actually co-developed a cultural heritage management plan, and that includes co-management of the resolution private lands and a complete physical avoidance of key ancestral lands, specifically Apache Leap, which contains some of the most extensive ancestral sites, as you've mentioned. The Oak Flat, I'm just going to be specific on this, the Oak Flat campground, recreational roads and climbing areas and the private land in the area will remain open for the foreseeable future in terms exactly in line with the land exchange. And to ensure continued access and on-the-ground stewardship, the campground will be managed by our wins contracting a company owned by a San Carlos Apache Tribal member, which will oversee campground maintenance facilities and road access. So we're very much committed to doing things properly. I could go on on the water front, where we also believe and as does the Department of Forestry, how we are looking at water usage also with the town of Superior. This is something that's very important for us, and we believe that we can run one of the lowest water using copper mines, certainly in the Arizona area, but one of the lowest in the world. So there's a range of initiatives that we're taking. We are following the legal processes. It's been a long, long process. And we -- as you said, people have pushed us because of the size and scale of the copper that's there that could provide 25% of the U.S. copper needs. But we've just said we are going to follow the process. We are not going to do anything unless we have the permission, which we then received. So that would be my initial comment. You mentioned you wanted to have a follow-up. So please just one more, I'll give you. And since you've flown all the way to London, and we're not there to see you in person, one more question, and then I may get Katie to follow up on it.

Let me do that when Katie has her response.

Ask a question now, please.

It was a follow-up. The question would be -- let me just say this. Slavery was legal in the United States for a long time, and slave owners followed the legal process. Just because you can do something legally, while you put your fingers on the scale, while you lobby for land exchanges, while you tip the courts in your favor doesn't make it right.

Katie, do you want to make any commentary?

The only thing I'd add is just, Roger, to thank you for coming and asking questions and being present in London. I'm sorry that we couldn't meet with you there this week, but we have extended the opportunity to meet with our Head of Growth and Development, Adam Burley, who was down there. And then also, I think our team at site who do engage with you are also very keen to have you there to take your questions. I would just echo some of Dom's comments. I think, in particular, this project has gone through one of the most rigorous consultation processes of any project at this stage of development. And I think we have made changes to the mine plan and changes to the land exchange on the basis of the feedback that we've heard from the communities and the tribes. And in fact, we've reduced the acreage of the land exchange by 830 acres. So we have been engaged in a very long and extensive consultation with all of our communities. I think just the only other points to make are around the water supply. We recognize that water is scarce. But as our environmental impact statement has demonstrated the forestry service have emphasized that there is adequate supply for all the uses foreseen for 100 years. But we are very committed to making this one of the lowest, if not the lowest copper mining consumers from a water perspective. So we are committed. So thank you for your questions.

Thank you again, Roger. We'll follow up specifically again just on getting the meeting to get it together and so forth with Simon and myself, if you'd like. I'd like to go online to the Lumi system. There's a pre-submitted question, which I'm just going to read. Is that all right, Tim? And it's -- just give you heads up. It's coming your way, Graham, on the KPMG side. It's from Mr. Stephen David Mayne. question for the auditor on Resolution 15. And it may be worth mentioning what Resolution 15 is, Graham, when you respond. KPMG replaced PwC as our auditor at the beginning of 2020. When is the next competitive tender for the audit due to be held? Also, could our new audit signing partner, Perth-based Graham Hogg, outline how he has found the handover from Adrian King, the outgoing KPMG partner who signed the full year accounts in February this year. How involved has Graham been in past audits? And what was the process through which he was selected to be the new signing partner? The Chairman said he visited 18 RO sites around the world over the past 12 months. How many sites is Graham Hogg likely to visit as audit signing partner over the next 12 months? And how many has he visited in the past? Sharon?

If I could start the response, and then I will just ask Graham to comment on the site visits he's had. So -- the audit did change hands to KPMG in 2020. And the next competitive tender will be for the year ending 2030. We have to review and select auditors every 10 years. But every 20, we definitely have to change. At the 10-year point, we can just review and we could determine that we would stay with KPMG, but that is something that the Audit and Risk Committee will be going through in due course, likely to be in 2028, early '29 to get that decision made. Just to clarify, Adrian King, who is also here, has been doing the sustainability assurance work. He was not the audit partner. Trevor, who is here, was Graham's predecessor, and Graham actually did the work for 2025. So he's already been the audit partner for this year on Limited. We also have an audit partner in London, who is responsible for the plc side. So it's a dual signing process. Hoggy, would you like to comment on sort of your experience of site visits because I know that you go around the business and ensure that you understand it.

Thank you, Sharon, and thank you for clarifying a few of those points. And thank you, Mr. Mayne, for the question to the auditors. I appreciate that you've taken an interest in the audit. Just to clarify also, so as lead partners, we are required to rotate after 5 years, hence, the rotation from Trevor to myself over the last year. In terms of the process that we undertake, there's a detailed process we go through internally at KPMG to make sure that we are selecting and putting forward the right candidate through to management and ultimately, the Audit Committee to make sure that they are comfortable with who we're putting forward. And as part of that process, I did get to meet with several management and several of the Board in an interview like process in terms of the handover. What happened through 2024 with Trevor is I shadowed him towards the end of his last year just to make sure that I was getting that understanding of the company and making sure I understood the key positions, which have been signed off in 2024. I had no involvement at all in the 2024 audit and took that up from 1st of January '25. And as you said, Sharon, audited in 2025. As part of our risk assessment over financial reporting, I do get out to the sites, and I was fortunate enough to date to be at over 8 of your sites, including some of your significant ones, [indiscernible], the Pilbara region and some of your aluminum assets. Also spending time at some of your functions in Singapore, Montreal and also in London as ultimately responsible for the audit with my joint partner. What have I missed there, Mr. Chair?

Thank you not usual we have -- you get called on like that, but thank you for being willing to do that. I now want to go to London, and I think it's 2, and then we'll go -- sorry, to Perth, #2, and then we'll go to London, sorry, 2 here in Perth.

Okay. So today, I stand here authorized by my Red River [ Gurma ] Elders to talk about water and what has been happening on our country. My name is Jason Masters. I am a proud Road River Gurma man, and I speak on behalf of my Road River Gurma people. Two years ago, at your Brisbane AGM, we stood before this Board and teed with you about pleaded with you to stop the sustainable -- sorry, the unsustainable water abstraction of Bungaroo Creek, abstraction that is killing our country. Since then, Rio Tinto has acknowledged these impacts are now not sustainable and has progressed with a desalination plant, now nearly completion. But we're here to make it clear, it is not enough. It will not stop our country from dying if Rio Tinto continues its groundwater obstruction. In the 2 years since -- in the 2 years since we first addressed this Board, groundwater levels across our country have continued to fall. Permanent water holes have died, they're gone. One of them is Yara. This is a place where my grandmother was born, a sacred permanent water pool that held water through every drought our old people can remember, now dry for the first time in living memory. Even after heavy rainfall from Cyclone Narel, it remains dry today. Along the Bungaroo Creek and [ Jimawada ] Creek, great stands of river gums have died. These trees that stood when our grandparents were born are gone. They cannot be bought back. Rio Tinto will say that a desalination plant solves this. It does not. You will continue to extract groundwater from the Bungaroo aquifer after it is operational. This is only a partial solution to one ball field while another ball field continues to drain the same aquifer system. Your southern cutback license for Mesa J allows abstraction of up to 30 gigaliters per year with no public commitment to reduce it. This is only the beginning. Rio Tinto also plans to mine our sacred Bungaroo and [ Jemawot ] Creek. We sat with our old people when they told Rio Tinto very clearly that they did not consent to mining to these -- at these sacred places. Before they pass, they've told us, we must protect country. We have told Rio Tinto repeatedly since Duke and Gorge, no means never. Our position has not changed. It cannot change and will not change. So today, I have 3 questions. Question one, restoration. A sacred water hole has died. River gums have are dead. -- groundwater levels continue to fall. What is your specific plan with clear dates to stop all abstraction from the Bungaroo coastal water supply and allow our country to recover? Question two, irreversible impact. Ministerial Statement 1141 prohibits water abstraction that causes irreversible impacts to the Road River and the Jimawada Creek ecosystems. What does the Board define as irreversible impact and explain this, why are the death of long-lived river gums and the dying of Yara not enough for you to stop abstraction. And the last question is around consent. After Dukan Gorge, this Board committed to a values-driven approach and to free prior informed consent. The Road River-Gurama people oppose mining the Bungaroo and Jimawota, always have, always will. Will this Board commit today that Rio Tinto will not mine these areas without our free prior and informed consent? This is a moment of truth. A yes, today shows you have learned from Dukan Gorge, a no or silence tells our people, your shareholders and the world that nothing has changed. Thank you.

Thank you, Jason, for your comments and also your 3 questions that you've given to us. I also want to thank you for the time that you and Kelly and Anthony spent with Matt and Katie and I on Monday, where you were outlining this. As you know, we're in pretty serious discussions on all the different elements of how we can possibly work together as we go forward. And there's a number of different components to that, which we're keen to pursue. And again, I might draw on Matt on this as well. I would just say, first of all, I think we did listen from the Brisbane session in terms of the commitment on the desalinization. We're doing everything we can to try and get water back into the system and that is well underway to do it. We totally recognize the challenges that are there. But as you heard us talking about on Monday, we're looking for all different ways where we can just reduce dramatically the use of water from that aquifer. In terms of the irreversible impact and damage, that's something, too, we are very keen to discuss with you what we can do to try and help deal with that as part of the overall agreement. And then third, around the sacred lands. I think we've made a lot of progress in that discussion and what that means from -- and especially from your April 29 letter to us, which is a very powerful note in setting out what is most important to you. But Matt, Holcz, do you want to add anything to that?

Thanks for your question, Jason. And also, I acknowledge that you've come here today to represent your people as well. So thank you for that. I just want to start by building on the conversation that we had earlier this week to recognize those issues. And I very much understand in terms of water, it's not just a resource, it's life, and it has a very deep cultural and environmental impact. And certainly, we have done a lot of work to reduce our abstraction and with the desalination plant coming online in the second half of the year, that will further reduce the abstraction as well. But I also commit to making sure that we engage in very transparent conversations with the Road River Gourma people on how we are going to go forward with a sustainable approach. Also acknowledge that government will need to be involved in those conversations as well as that aquifer also supplies local communities as well. But in terms of that ongoing dialogue, you certainly have our commitment that we want to work towards a solution there. And I also just want to reference your point on the Bunger cultural precinct, the importance of your people, not just in terms of environment, but particularly in terms of culture. You've made your position there very clear, and we certainly acknowledge that position as well. But thank you again for your question.

Thanks again, and Jason also for coming here. I'm now going to switch to London, and then we'll go and look what's on the Lumi system. So London?

Hello. My name is Richard Soli. I'm a shareholder, and I have questions about the company's lithium operations in Chile. Rio Tinto's planned lithium mining at the Salar de Maricunga in Chile's Atacama desert poses severe threats to the Colla indigenous people. These questions are from the National Council of Coller Peoples. Given that Atacama is an area of extreme water stress, where life and the ecosystems of the salt flats depend on limited aquifers, what concrete, measurable and independently verifiable assurances can Rio Tinto provide that its current or future operations will not extract fossil water or continue to deplete our territory. In international forums, Rio Tinto projects an image of leadership in sustainability. But in the Atacama desert, we can see how our biodiversity is under threat. How does Rio Tinto justify this double standard? And what direct and transparent mechanism will the company put in place to enable the Colla people to demand genuine regress for the socio environmental damage inflicted on our territory? And finally, with regard to Rio Tinto's investments in Chile and specifically the consortium currently being formed by Codelco for lithium mining in the Maricunga salt flat, is Rio Tinto aware that the location of its project works is threatening one of the country's most important sites for the nesting of flaminges, which are classified as vulnerable by the International Union for the conservation of nature? What specific measures is Rio Tinto taking to ensure the protection of ecosystems housing protected species?

Thank you very much for your question and comments, Mr. Soli. I just want to clarify for everyone or be more specific about where this area is in Chile. The Salar de Mericanga and Salares Alto and Aidas lithium projects are both early-stage developments. They're led by CADELCO and Enami, respectively. They are at an early stage, and there are ongoing studies to figure out what the development option should be. We are working there, as you mentioned, with our partners, CODELCO and Enami, and are very aware of the sensitive environments where these projects are proposed to be built, especially in terms of water use, the Flamingo that you mentioned, the impacts on the Salar and the -- also on the local communities. through the many conversations that our team has had with community members and the local stakeholders, we recognize that there's a lot of trust and expectations that are being put on Rio to develop these projects responsibly. I would just point out that we were selected for being involved in this based on our technological and operational know-how. The work that we are doing on DLE and other ways of reducing water in the extraction of lithium, we are seen as leading edge on that, and we are very committed to building, again, a strong respectable partnership there. I don't know, Jerome, if you want to add anything to that, Jerome Pecresse, who leads our aluminum and lithium business.

Thank you, Chairman. I don't have a lot to add, but I mean, to confirm what you say, we do not have lithium operations in Chile today and the joint venture or partnerships that you mentioned have not even been technically formed. So this is at the stage of studies. We clearly are well aware of the consideration we brought forward and are looking at if these projects happen, how we minimize the impact on the environment. As a data point to echo what the Chairman said, when we do projects in lithium in Argentina today with our latest technology, we have reduced by a factor of 2 the amount of process water that we use for lithium extraction. And we continue to work to improve from one project to the other our lithium extraction technology and work on the ability to reinject the brines as much as we can, which we know is a critical consideration for the Chile project, which, again, as of today, are purely at the stage of project.

Thank you. I'm now going to go on the Lumi system, and we have a question from Mr. Dan. It's a presubmitted question. I'm just going to read it. How is diversity in the workforce a strength? I think there's some skepticism I pick up in that question that he's laying out. And I would say that we think that diversity of thinking is essential for good problem solving and good problem solving is important for being able to generate results, which is in the shareholder interest. So having diverse thinking and being open to other people's ideas wherever they may come from is actually important to the fundamentals of the business. So this is important for how we do our business, and that's why it's very strongly emphasized in our culture. I'm going to now go to -- back to Perth. I think I'm planning if people go crazy on me here that we're going to close up in 10 minutes from now. I think there's -- I'm just sensing where the questions are because I give us like the 10-minute warning, if you will, as we go through it. So we'll go to Perth, then if there's any questions in London, and then we'll go back online. And there's 2 that are online. I see. Yvonne, I hear you on the phone, and I think it's Harry Ashman. But Perth?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Dom. Glad to hear Rio are addressing the hydrogen for the future. With advent of green hydrogen being available from BP Refinery Kwinada site in WA here in 2027, according to Premier Cook, will Rio be providing platinum required to drive FCEV vehicles, which give zero pollution as distinct from EV that are not zero pollution. I've got 2 other questions. Next one is, has Rio given consideration to geothermal green-based power, the largest in Australia is under construction in North Perth intended for completion in June 2026. The last one is Will the following possibly resolve Angalu issue, native people, originally designed and developed in Denmark. Osmotic Power now is in operation in Japan, driven by variation in the density of seawater brine generating green-based power to drive a desalination plant. That's all that I have, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. We may need to try and recruit you into our technology group. for the ideas. Thank you for those questions. And I'm probably -- I'm giving you a heads up, Mark Davies, I go to you. But I see 3 areas green hydrogen and the opportunities in green hydrogen, geothermal-based power, and there's something happening in North Perth on that front. And I think it's osmatic power to do with seed brine, but I honestly don't know what that is, but I think that's what it is. But maybe anyone does know Mark will know that. So Mark...

Thank you. So great question. And I think that offer to come and advise us on the new ideas is great. So on the geothermal, look, when we look for renewable power options, we tend to look at all options. And actually, we do use a little bit of geothermal power in the mix in New Zealand today, but it is very much location dependent. It depends on having hot rocks at the right depth. And so it's just one of the options that we consider. In terms of the Osmotic power, that's pretty early stage. Once again, I would say we tend to look at what is the best option. And when you look at the scale of our business, it's actually what can we actually -- we tend to try to buy what is readily available. And actually, the markets today, solar with batteries or wind with batteries actually works really well in a lot of our context. And so when we're looking at new options, that tends to fit with where our assets are located. But we do try to keep an eye. We have a team that has been looking at all these new emerging options. We tend to buy in more when they're commercially available rather than at very early stage. Thank you.

Thank you. Maybe we can follow up to in the [indiscernible] after on some of the other dimensions. Joff, I'm going to London. I'm not sure if there are any more questions from London.

No, Dom, I think we don't have any further questions in London. Thanks.

Thank you. Perth, and then I'm going to go to the 2 remaining online questions.

My name is Mayer. I'm from the Mineral Policy Institute. And I just wanted to take this opportunity with the full Board here in Perth to speak a little bit about the Ranger Uranium mine, which has been one of the longest-standing issues for Rio in Australia. The Ranger Uranium Mine sits within the Kakadu World Heritage listed National Park, and we'd like to thank and acknowledge Rio's response and commitment to finance the rehabilitation of that mine. It's one that is both an important commitment. It's one that is a legal requirement. And it's one that Rio, I think, will be long judged on the outcomes there. So I just want to acknowledge that commitment. I also actually had a question from a group in Serbia, again about a lithium mine where the community has had some long-held resistance to the proposed lithium mine there because of water, nature and impact to the agricultural community. And I suppose the question really, and I think it stems from the response in the mines in Robe River. We heard about the Oak Flat proposal. We've heard about resistance in Chile and hearing about resistance in Madagascar and in Serbia. And I suppose the question to the Board really is mines in Boganville and Ranger, where there was no consent a long time ago when those mines were formed, a lot has changed. What is Rio's view and position on how to treat concepts internationally on free prime informed consent? And how does the Board respond to long-held community resistance because of concerns around border environment and impacts to local economy and industry.

Thank you. Let me just start with a couple of things on it. First, on Ranger, as you mentioned, our ERA, I just want to reiterate again, and we've said that every single Board meeting that I've had the chance to be at is that I'm going to make this statement to make this very, very clear. We acknowledge and respect the Mirror people's long-standing and intergenerational opposition to the development of Jabaluca, and we want to particularly call out the leadership of [ Yvonne Margarula, ] who I've had the chance to meet personally, a wonderful woman, and I can understand the stress she's in. We are not and do not want to mine. We've made that very clear. And we're obviously -- the legal process is moving through it, but it's absolutely clear our view on how we feel on that. As it relates to Yadar, you will have noticed that, that's on care and maintenance. It's a terrific lithium asset, but we're not focused on that. We're focused in Argentina, in particular, Quebec and other parts of the world, but that's on care and maintenance. I also just want to clarify something back to the Boganville. That was not as though there was not permission. Remember what happened, there was a civil war. We were running for the hills to get out. That's why there's no people that were there. And so that's not -- I think it's very important. We have the facts on the table on this. And just on the -- in terms of getting consent, we are very much adhere to wanting to work with communities before we were able to do anything at all. And that's why as I go back to resolution, that's been 22 years in that process. We didn't front-run push way the scales. We were in the hands of the local tribes where we had many discussions of what was going on and the legal system. And that's something that we're committed to, and I hope you will see that with some of the examples I've just mentioned where we don't do things. So I hope that gives you a bit of a sense. I'm going to shift then to the 2 remaining questions, which are online. Yvonne, I'll take -- I think you're on audio, and then we'll go to Harry Ashman on audio. So Yvonne, over to you.

Thank you, Mr. Dom. Can you hear me okay?

Very well.

So my name is Ivon Ringo. I'm an individual shareholder working with Civil Society in Madagascar. Mr. Barton, you've told me in the past that there are different interpretations to water data at QMM Madagascar. I agree. And in fact, it is really hard to come to consensus on water analysis when Rio Tinto withholds important data. And I'm speaking here of the independent water studies by WRG and WSP that you promised to your shareholders and civil society at your AGM between 2022 and 2025 and in dialogue. These reports relate to fish deaths that followed 2 QMM tailings dam failures in 2022. you've not honored the promises and instead of full transparency, the QMM 2025 water report that you mentioned earlier shares only selected summary findings apparently from the first WSP water sampling. But we cannot and have no way to interpret these findings because neither the raw data nor the actual external providers report that clearly you now have have been made available. This is not transparency. It's another broken promise. The executives who made the transparency commitments on these reports have left Rio Tinto and there's no successor appointed to address this accountability matter. Nevertheless, I'm speaking to the Board now who has a duty to communities and shareholders to ensure that transparency is fulfilled. The Board must be aware, should be concerned as should Rio investors that this transparency is lacking and that it seems QMM chooses what to share openly. And by that, I'm talking about it chooses its own baseline data and from a contaminated period, it never uses pre-mining water data in its analysis. The report that we mentioned that you've mentioned highlights positive results and Rio Tinto and QMM emphasize, as we've done today, fiscal investments in Anushi while downplaying or distracting from worrisome issues such as in terms of the water, high conductivity that exceeds Malagasi regulatory limits, that QMM has no long-term solution to managing the toxic waste floodge from the new treatment plant or will say exactly what's in it, but there's still 1 million cubic meters of untreated water being released by QMM with no data to tell us that, that impact that there is still nothing to explain the 2022 fish test, which was, in fact, the whole purpose of the WRG and WSP studies. This situation is not conducive to consensus. This is not transparency. And however much other data you share, this is highly selective management and selective is biased. It is not scientific. The Malagasi people have been waiting for answers on this and many other things, as you heard earlier, for a long time, and there are pages of unanswered technical questions I can testify about the water management at QMM. But today, I'm asking the Board simply yes, no, will you commit today to release the WRG and WSP reports as we promised to shareholders and within 30 days. It's a yes, no answer. And if no, what is the reason for continued withholding and lack of transparency on these studies and reports? And who in Rio Tinto senior management is now accountable for decisions related to transparency reporting and community accountability at QMM because I can get an answer from nobody, including at the highest level. We can -- when can we expect -- this is my second question, when can we expect full written, not verbal, complete scientific explanations and answers to questions posed about the waste management at the new treatment plant as have been previously and repeatedly requested, including the EIA, which no one has seen yet and is a prerequisite for changes to the QMM project. And thirdly, importantly, what is the status of the strategic review of QMM, including any potential sale of the operation? How will the Board reconcile a possible change of ownership of QMM with these and multiple other unmet transparency and reporting as well as other social and environmental commitments to the Madagascar communities?

Thank you, Ivar. And I may ask Bold to come in on this as well. The first is that on the water usage, we have released the reports. I'm not aware of us hiding anything. I would -- not to be provocative to you, I sometimes get the sense because you've had many of these conversations if the data doesn't come out the way you like, that concerns you. And I'm just going to say, let's look at the data together. I'll ask Bold about that. Bold Baatar, by the way, is the executive who's in charge that has been made public because as you said, this asset is something that we are wondering whether we're the best owner of. We still own it. It's still -- we're serving customers. We're focused on having good relationships in the community and with our employees and so forth. Nothing has happened in terms of a sale or move, but it's that as well as our Bor business, we've mentioned that we just want to look at is whether we're the best owners of that asset, but there's full commitment, all the investments we will continue to operate on. And I might point out that the employee group in QMM happens to be one of the most actually engaged groups in the entire Rio Tinto system, just to give you a sense of the leadership commitment on that. But Bold, do you want to make any comments?

Thank you, Yvon, and I had the pleasure of meeting you in the past when I run the Energy Minerals Product Group. And so looking forward to engaging with you again on this very important topic. And I also want to thank you. Thanks for your challenges. We actually did a lot of work since 2022 and the last number of years in improving and monitoring water quality. And as you know, according to the World Health Organization, the water downstream and upstream poses no radiation contamination as you have described. And we actually engaged based on your recommendation, JBSNG, which is an Australian water company that sent these samples to Australia for an independent review and in '24 and '25 -- in '23 and '24, they have found no evidence of any water contamination based on the '19 through '22 period. Of course, then we also monitor on an ongoing basis with 2 other companies called Envy and WSP that monitoring the water quality for other heavy metals. And out of the 12, we're in compliance. And you're absolutely correct to point out that in one of them in alumina, we had breaches, and we are looking to remediate. And over the last 3 years, we actually improved the water treatment up to 70% on the emergency release. So definitely, a lot of progress has been made in the last 4 years and I also want to acknowledge you have pointed those challenges out, and we are working. We're not perfect yet, but we're also very keen to engage with you what other information you're seeking for because the teams are absolutely working with the communities to make sure the water is monitored as well with the members of the communities to make sure that we are not contaminating the floor on [indiscernible].

Thank you very much, Bold. So the last question is from Harry Ashman. Harry, can you hear us okay?

I can hear you. Can you hear me?

Very well.

Excellent. So thank you for the chance to speak. I'm Harry Ashman. I represent Rebeco. We're a global asset manager. We're actually asking this question on behalf of interested investors with about GBP 2.5 trillion in assets under management. Many of them are members of the Nature Action 100 engagement initiative. We pre-submitted this question, but I thought it would be better to ask it live for the benefit of everyone listening. We really appreciate the constructive and insightful engagement we've had with your environment team, and we support their efforts. However, Rio Tinto's water targets expired in 2023, and it's quite clear that a new approach to issues like this hazardous waste stakeholder engagement on nature is really sorely needed. However, the release of an updated nature strategy has been delayed several times. It's clear, especially from questions today that regulators and host communities see the environmental impacts of current and potential mine sites as a vital part of your license to operate. And as the company seeks to grow transition minerals production in particular, demonstrating a robust approach to nature is key to enabling that growth. So the question is fairly simple. When can investors and stakeholders expect an updated nature strategy to be released? And can the Board provide clarity on its level of scope and ambition, please?

Thank you very much, Harry, for the questions and also the pushes and engagement with our environmental team. We've actually outlined the approach in our annual report for 2025. As I mentioned, we've moved from group or centralized targets to site-based asset targets, and we're going to report against these annually, and they'll be on the website. You won't have to wait to the annual report to come out. You can see it. It's much like our water report, which is online on every one of our sites that gives an update in terms of usage and so forth. This move from a one central target to the product groups is again, part of this strategy and new management approach that Simon has been pushing and where we're putting resources more towards where the assets are versus having them in the center. And we think it's going to drive more durable long-term impact in these areas. So we think it's actually going to deliver more on the nature side of things. I'd also say that this -- the approach that we're taking is very much aligned with commitments that we outlined in the -- and we've agreed to in the ICMM nature position statement. So we remain very much committed. It's just how we're doing it is going to be done, we think, a little bit differently and more focused on where the assets are. So if I haven't answered you exactly right, let's please again, as with others, follow up, and we're happy to talk some more on it. With that, I'm going to say that we're finished with the questions. I don't see any questions in Perth. There are none in London, and there are no more online. So I just want to thank everyone for doing this. I hope it's been okay in London and online. We can see you closely from here. I hope you can see us. I hope we've had a very good discussion. There's been a lot of input, many things we need to follow up on. And again, if there are any questions that you have afterwards to, please send them into us, and we'll -- we can try and respond to that. So it's now time for us to take a poll on the resolutions. Many of you have already voted by proxy. And if so, you don't need to vote again. I'd like to ask shareholders and proxy holders attending the meeting in person in Perth and London, who are eligible to vote to submit your votes using the handsets. If you have any difficulty, one of our attendants can assist. And if you're attending online, you should complete your votes now through the Lumi platform. The polls will close approximately 5 minutes after the end of the meeting. Christopher Dedrick from Computershare Investor Services has been appointed as the returning officer for the poll for Rio Tinto Limited, and Computershare U.K. will act as the scrutineer of the Rio Tinto plc poll. The poll results will be announced as soon as possible after the meetings and will be posted on the Rio Tinto website. So that brings us to the end of the proceedings. And on behalf of the Board, I'd like to thank you all for your participation and continued support. I hope those of you in Perth will join my fellow directors and members of the executive team for some refreshments in the foyer. And for those of you in London, please enjoy a light lunch. And I now declare the meetings closed. Thank you very much.