 I thank you again for the invitation to speak here. This is a really fascinating debate for us as a company, and I wanted to start just by outlining just very briefly why does this matter for SAB Miller. I then wanted to look at one or two examples of how within our own industry the resource nexus plays out. I wanted to finish up with looking at some of the wider questions about the policy environment within which we as businesses operate. But firstly that question, why does this matter to a business like SAB Miller? Who are we for those of you who don't know us? We are one of the world's largest brewing companies. I was delighted with Carlson's example there about the brewing, and I think we'll come back on to that question of resource efficiency in brewing a little bit, very shortly. We operate across six continents, so it's a very large company now. But it emerged from the developing world, so the SAB and SAB Miller is South African breweries. That's where we started. And I think some people in the United States say, oh yes, you South African breweries, the ones that Miller took over. Actually it was kind of the other way round, which is an interesting story. We're now listed on the London Stock Exchange, a very large company, but we've built up all of our greatest strengths in terms of operations in what we call the Global South. So Sub-Saharan Africa in Latin America and in Asia are our heartlands and still remain that in terms of contribution to our business. And that's very interesting in terms of how the resource nexus plays out in those settings. But the starting point for this is beer itself. Beer is a very locally produced product. It's too heavy to be traded very much. It's too heavy to transport very far. So that gives us an interesting characteristic as a business or as a set of businesses. We are national businesses in each country. It's produced and consumed very locally. So not only our production facilities, but our customers and our suppliers tend to all be from the same communities or the same countries. And that gives a very interesting characteristic to a business like ours, because it means that you cannot in a sense trade your way out of problems. You've got to manage issues like the resource nexus locally in every setting. They are, to a certain extent, independent in each of the settings that we face. And, of course, each of those settings faces these different resource constraints in very, very different ways. So the constraints in a lush part of South America like Colombia, for example, very, very different from some of the constraints in some of the Sub-Saharan, the arid countries Sub-Saharan Africa that we also work in. So our success is very closely tied as well to the communities and the countries within which we operate. And that's the reason why I think people sometimes pose the idea that there's a kind of trade-off between shareholders' interests and the interests of the countries and communities within which you're operating. For us to thrive, the emerging economies in which we're based have to thrive. And for those countries to thrive, and for our businesses to thrive, we have to manage these long-term shared resources, like food production and water and energy production, in a way that works for us as a business over future decades, not just for a quick profit at all. Beer production, in a sense, plays out very neatly in a quite simplified way, some of these connections between food, water and energy. And I'll touch on those in some of the examples, just a few, how we're managing those. So the starting point is, of course, water for us. It's very interesting hearing Carl say that the whole environment debate five years ago was about climate change and energy. For us, of course, the starting point is water because beer requires large volumes of very good quality, stable supplies of water wherever we produce it. And that's true in rich countries near the rainforests of South America, as it is true of very arid countries, including Australia and parts of Sub-Saharan Africa. So securing our water supplies is clearly a fundamental business imperative. But you can't do that in isolation because of all those reasons that I pointed out about us being deeply rooted in the local communities and countries within which we operate. So that water, of course, is at least more vital for the communities that are our neighbours than it is even to us as a business. And managing that shared risk, those absolutely vital needs for fresh, safe drinking water, is really important to us. And I'll give just one or two examples of how we think about doing that, because I think those examples are important at a national level as well. On the energy side, again, it's obviously very closely linked, energy and water to us, because the more water we save in our processes, the more energy we save. If you think what brewing involves, it involves taking large volumes of water up almost to boiling point and then cooling them down to drinking point. And that involves huge amounts of energy. And the more water you use in the process, the more energy you're using. So for us as a business, those two are completely inseparable. And when we set targets for resource efficiency, those two things track each other very closely. And setting our engineers the tasks of reducing water use in terms of efficiency automatically drags down our carbon and energy use as well. So they are tied together for us as a business. But I think the whole interesting thing about the nexus debate in public policy is the realisation of the many ways in which at national levels in businesses for whom it's not so obvious. These are very closely linked together. And then, of course, food and agriculture. So we are a business that is based on agricultural raw materials as well as water. And then you think about the competition for land or the future use of land in a world as Carl has outlined of at least nine billion people. And we have to manage very carefully the use of that land because, again, ultimately beer is a very important product to us and to many people. But safe food, safe water is something that is going to trump our need for those resources unless we manage those trade-offs extremely carefully. So one of the ways that we're doing that is to begin sourcing increasingly locally, tied into our business model of being very local in terms of our production. And to think about therefore shifting the basis of some of the crops that we use. So brewing traditionally uses barley as its main grain for producing the alcohol within the beer. We've started, for example, in Mozambique looking at and effectively operationalising the use of cassava from thousands of small holders. So cassava is a root. It's like a sweet potato. It's a root that is pretty good for calories but not very nutritious beyond the calories that it offers. It's quite easily grown and there's often a surplus even in a country like Mozambique. But there's virtually no market for it until now because it goes to waste within about 24 hours of pulling it out of the ground. So we found ways of brewing beer using cassava instead of barley. And it's a good quality clear beer that we can sell at a slightly lower price because cassava is cheaper than barley is. But the beauty of this is it involves us with, I think, some 5,000 or so local small holders who become our suppliers of that. It's a local crop so it saves us from the currency risk of importing barley from elsewhere. It's a local crop that's adapted to local conditions so it's going to do better under climate change. It allows us to grow the livelihoods and the farming practices of those local small holders. But crucially, by giving a market to what was just a subsistence crop, we're enabling many of those small holders to have an income for the first time. And not just to have to grow cassava that's not that great as a set of nutrients and to start to diversify their diets. So with the money that they gain by selling us some of their cassava, they can start to diversify their families' diets so there can be a win-win there for a company that's using a food crop for brewing can actually increase the food security by increasing the livelihoods and incomes of those small holder families. I think those kind of win-wins are what we're going to have to increasingly look for as we face the increasing resource and population pressures that Carl outlined so clearly. So just briefly on just a few more examples of our responses. The first one is starting again with Carl's major point about resource efficiency. This is at the heart of our operations. And again, there's no charitable instinct here being frankly about it. Although there is a moral imperative and we need to get this right for the future of the planet, at the same time there's a very strong profit imperative for us in getting this right. For me that's a very helpful synchrony in the sense of where you have the profit motive aligned with the good of the planet. This is the way in which we release all the ingenuity and the creativity of our engineers. We have thousands of technical specialists, the people who know our brewing processes inside out, who much of their lives focuses on squeezing more out of less every year improving the efficiency of those operations because of course that improves their bottom line and they're rewarded accordingly. But this works for us particularly in terms of water efficiency because it improves the efficiency of those plants as well in terms of water use. So if I give you the example of Yatla brewery, this is in Australia. So a thirsty country Australia particularly for RBS. It's also quite a dry country and Yatla brewery which is in southeast Queensland is in a particularly water stressed area. Now the interesting thing about that is that very water stress has driven the ingenuity of our engineers there to unparallel heights frankly. So you remember Karl talked about a few years ago the typical brewing in Belgium required about 7 litres of water to produce 1 litre of beer. In Yatla the guys have got it down to 2.2 litres of water for every litre of beer and that's world class efficiency there. But of course that's in response to that very tight resource constraint. So it's quite interesting the price mechanism and the resource constraint mechanism work together to drive that ingenuity to new heights. But of course some of the learnings from that in a global business like ours can be transferred to other parts of the world. So we're seeking to drive down the efficiency in many other places through learning from what we've achieved in Yatla there. The other major point Karl touched on there which was of interest to us is that closed circular economy or closed loop production. And beer is interesting in a sense because just in its own right it's already quite a long way towards that and we're trying to push this all the way to being a form of closed loop production. So if you think about beer the major byproducts are things like yeast multipliers as you brew the beer. So we sell a lot of yeast onto food companies who can use that. The spent grain is sold on almost everywhere as animal feed. So those massive, those major components of our waste are things that have a value for us and we don't use the word waste. We have products, good quality beer and we have byproducts that we also sell and that give us profit. But that's an important part of the circular economy. Now to squeeze the last in some places 5% of the waste is what we're trying to squeeze out of the system. So in some places our breweries are 95% efficient. They only send 5% to waste. Getting that last 5% out is of course the most difficult challenge. So I visited our road brewery which is the largest brewery in the southern hemisphere. It's on the northern outskirts of Johannesburg. I was there in July. And one of the ways we've done that is to treat the effluent. So the organic waste that's coming out in liquid form that's not possible to sell on for cattle feed. We've started turning that into biogas. So South Africa is a classic case of a country that is resource rich in one area, energy, but that's through coal that we need to clearly reduce the use of coal there. But it's very, very water scarce. So the more you can purify and return water to the system, the better. Now to cut back our coal use in heating the water, we have developed a complete new biogas boiler at that huge brewery that's using the biogas that's generated from our organic liquid residues that comes out of the brewing process. So that's about 85% methane. And that's again gas that's a carbon greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide. We use it for firing up the power generation element of that brewery there. And it's displaced a significant part of the coal that we used to use there. So that's a part of closed-loop production using what was waste to power our breweries there. I also visited in May, we have a one sugar plantation on the planet in Honduras called Azernosa. And I visited that as part of a certification programme that's using its environmental and social standards. And the most striking thing there is they produce about 72,000 tonnes of sugar a year, which is obviously its main purpose, but they're also effectively a power station. They produce 18 megawatts of clean energy for that country, Honduras' power supply, simply through the clean use as a fuel, a biofuel effectively, of what would be waste. So these are the off cuts from the sugar cane, the foliage that doesn't have much sugar in it, is used to generate clean power. And that's not biofuel that displaced food, that is biofuel from waste products, woody foliage waste products from sugar production there. So again, this is a sense in which we are increasingly getting to the point where I think we can start to think about the word waste itself as being a kind of quaint concept from the past. Increasingly, companies will come under the resource pressure, the prices of commodities rise, and we find new ways of generating value from waste. And that's how you realise that ultimate dream of a completely circular economy in closed-loop production. My final example is what I call managing shared risk. And I'll just give you a couple of stories, one from Bogota, one from Idaho, of how we're thinking about managing the shared risk of these shared resources that we share with the communities and countries in which we operate. And as I just tell these two brief stories, I'd like you to keep in the back of your minds the story you're almost certainly familiar with, the parable, if you like, of the tragedy of the commons. So I think you probably know this one. It started with the idea that on a shared common land where you have individual small farmers able to graze their cattle for free, there would inevitably over time evolve a tragedy in which even though it's in all of their interests collectively to manage that ground and to make sure it's still fertile and not to overuse it. For any one farmer, there's a huge incentive to keep putting more cattle on there in order to increase his or her productivity. And gradually each of those acting in isolation increases the number of cattle and you degrade the land and ultimately the land fails for everyone. So that old parable of the tragedy of the commons is something that's quite helpful in thinking about our shared resources both at national level and even globally. So just think how are we trying to tackle what's perceived as a paradox, the inability to get enough collaboration together to manage that risk of shared resources. Let me give a couple of examples. So Bogota, the capital of Colombia, we have a brewery there. We found a few years ago that our water price we were being charged by the Bogota water utility was going up substantially and that's obviously a problem for us just in terms of the bottom line. We went up discussions with the utility and found that that reflected a genuine increase in their costs that was being driven by increasing sediment coming down the river into Bogota that was making the water treatment facilities more expensive to manage. And where was that sediment coming from? It was coming from local farms, small holders, small farmers, mostly cattle farmers, further up the river that were increasingly clearing the forest and the foliage there, other vegetation, in order to expand what were quite, frankly, quite inefficient cattle farming up there. So this is a classic example of the water food dimension of the nexus and again there was a win-win here. So we got together with Nature Conservancy and the local government, and as SAV Miller we put up some money for a small water fund to support the start-up costs for some of those farmers in, frankly, one of the simplest interventions was buying better quality cattle and helping them improve the production processes. So they could generate more milk with fewer cattle and on less land. And just simple intervention that enabled them to generate more income through more efficient processes allowed them to clear less of the vegetation there. This allowed the water in the river to become less silted up. Over time it's extraordinary saving that was realised by the water authority there. So the water authority in Bogota saved four million US dollars a year out of that intervention. So clearly it's paid for itself and a significant part of that cost saving was passed on to us as a business there. So that's a classic win-win that worked in the short term. Frankly we do things like that even when there isn't an immediate cost saving because we as a business have to make sure that we have water not just for next year but we have water for 20, 30 years into the future. We're in this for the long game. So those kind of interventions where you solve a fundamental problem with the river shed are absolutely vital in terms of managing the shared risk, the risk we share in terms of water supply with the communities there. My final example was from Idaho. So a very different setting in the United States. And again this one is looking at the simple water energy nexus within our production processes. It started with getting our own house in order. So we developed a showcase barley farm in the Silver Creek Valley. Within two years we'd saved about 10 million hectorliters. I should have done the calculation in terms of Olympic swimming pools for you but it's an absolutely vast number. It's about 10 million large barrels of water were saved in two years there. The interesting thing there is that just the simple pumping of that water the saving of the pumping cuts the farm energy use by more than half. So that was an enormous saving for us as a business. But in terms of the cost of the energy was actually what we saved in terms of money there. Now again instead of just doing that as a business we've also tried to multiply that up with the local farmers there. So by supporting with relatively small amounts of cash injections just supporting the shift, the wholesale shift from flood irrigation to drip irrigation. Those farmers have saved about 75% of their water use. So again that's good for the farmers because we're all paying for water in these kind of settings. It's very vital for us because we depend on that water as much as the farmers depend on that water and unless we find win-win ways of dramatically reducing our collective water use and we do our bit in the brewery and the farmers are doing their bit with a small capital injection we've given them we're not going to be able to have enough water to go round for all of us. But just coming back to that example of the tragedy of the commons in a sense it shows ways that it's frankly the same as the old prisoner's dilemma story. But the prisoner's dilemma story is different from this because it involves no communication between the two prisoners that are in different rooms so they each do the worst thing for themselves under pressure from their interrogators. In this situation we can set up ways of collaborating, we can set up ways of communicating and therefore solving those problems. So let me finish just very briefly on the policy points. I think as Carl started with energy has often been seen as the ultimate constraint for many economies. For us as a business the water pops up as being the major one but they're very very closely connected as I suggested. I think the interesting thing for us is we can't solve all of those things by the kind of interventions on shared risk. We operate within national environments in which the policy is matter to us as well. So the political pressures to prioritise one dimension of the nexus such as energy production at the expense of the others are something that are very important for us to overcome I think. The final point on policy is that in almost every setting tough trade-offs are needed and many of those countries in which we operate have very fewer degrees of freedom than the richer countries in which many of us live. So if you think for example in sub-Saharan Africa you've only got one or two different choices in terms of some of your development pathways. We have many ways of managing those trade-offs and one of the important possible conclusions from some research that we're doing on policy on the nexus is that managing these trade-offs on as broad a geographical scale as possible can help to think about that. So if you think about Peru it's got desert on one side of the country it's got rainforest on the other. Manage nationally you're much better off than managing those separately. How can we get countries to collaborate in managing those trade-offs is a question I'll leave perhaps for the Q&A. Thank you for your time.