 Thank you. Thank you. I think identify yourself. Maybe I may be able to keep the questions to the next two. Other quality. EPA general press agency. Thank you for taking my question. As far as I understand, my question is regarding the designation of IA inspectors to Iran. As far as I understand, most of the core team of the experienced Iran specialists on your roster have been decimated by Iran's decision. So to what extent does have Iran's actions that lowered your ability to or take capacity to carry out meaningful and professional inspections in Iran? Thank you for the question. Let's take a serious blow to our capacity to do that. We of course continue. Of course we continue. But they have targeted inspectors who have a lot of experience in particular in enrichment and in other capacities. It takes a long time to prepare inspectors to have them the necessary amount to perform their work. We continue doing that. But it has it has constituted a a very negative development and a very serious blow to our ability to do our job to the best possible level. Yeah, it has. But we continue and we hope to reverse this decision as you perhaps know. Thanks DG, turn up in Tyrone with Bloomberg News. In your 2-2-3-1 report you mentioned specifically that the agency has not been able to verify Iran's total enriched uranium stockpile precisely any given day. And my question is that's a pretty serious accusation and it would suggest that there's a violation of the agreement. If that is the case why isn't that reported in the actual safeguards and if it's not a safeguards violation why are you including it in the report? Well, I agree with the first part of what you say quite obviously because you were quoting. I think your conclusion goes a bit too far that does not in itself constitute a violation but there have been problems. Just to confirm there's no violation but why are you not then able to verify the amount of material that's like your central job? No, we are doing that on occasion and in certain facilities there have been some problems or deficits but we are able it's not like we are not able we are inspecting all the graph facilities. Yes, I can confirm that. Hello, how are you? Thank you so much. I have two questions. Your recent report to the Board of Governors appears shorter than the last, the previous one. For example, you didn't mention about the quantity of enriched uranium in FTFP or no update on the EMD devices. Is this a message for warning to the Board of Governors to make a proper decision? Second question is, while according to the joint statement on 4th March between you and Iranian officials, the inspections on Iran facilities must be increased but it appears that Iran is imposing restrictions. Does the agency have the permanent access to the Iran facilities or not? Well, a number of things. What you refer to on the format and the length of the report is more a matter of clarity. On the contrary, you would say we are helping the Board. We noted that some of the reports were a bit confusing with many different amounts and information which, while being important, were not as clear as we wanted in focusing on the most important aspects that we wanted to report. It's a change of layout but not a problem in terms or a restriction in terms of the information we are giving. What you say, for example, about amounts in different facilities is something which we consider not to be important to be in the report because it's movement is very small amounts of material among the different facilities which, in any case, is captured in the general overall report. Also, in consultation with some of the member states, we were getting lots of questions and we came to the conclusion that it was a bit confusing. Frankly, it's a minor issue. Your second question is there are restrictions, of course, in the sense that Iran has ceased to implement lots of aspects and nuclear related obligations under the JCPOA and it's not implementing mutually agreed additional measures under the joint statement of March 4. When it comes to the CSA, when it comes to the comprehensive safeguard agreement we do implement it in full. Thank you. A couple of questions if I may. First of all, back to the de-designation of inspectors, I was hoping we could get a little more clarity on the numbers perhaps because we've had there was the statement you issued when you first were notified of this. It was a bit awkward, it was something like a third of the most experienced core of your inspectors. It seems to me what we're dealing with here is enrichment specialists who are on the Iran team and have a lot of experience with Iran so what proportion of those people of that team has now been removed just to give a clear sense of what's going on. Secondly, on the joint statement there's no progress at all on the joint statement. Do you regret suggesting agreeing to and announcing an agreement that was so vague that there were many, many questions about it at the time and that you said yourself at the time would be subject to future negotiations. Was that a mistake? Given that at the time it removed pressure on Iran and basically meant that there wasn't a resolution meeting which has since pretty much become an impossibility for other reasons. Yeah, on the issue of the de-designation I think and I think you François you quoted yourself it's a good number of people we don't want to get into specific numbers of our names for obvious confidentiality reasons but when we say it's a third of the most experienced core group it gives you an idea and in my answer in my previous answer I aimed at that it's not a small thing it's something which is affecting our work while not preventing it as I was saying it's really meaningful it's not a detail. This is why I have chosen as you may have noted to go public with it and to be very, very firm and to engage with Iran and to tell them what I believe this is completely uncalled for this is completely illogical and I have said and I say to you in the same way I've said this to them we have engaged I should say the Vice President has replied to me and we are having a conversation on these issues or perhaps we can improve the situation. Regarding the joint statement I would never regret trying to find solutions never, ever and let's not forget that the joint statement the joint declaration has started to be implemented what we are alluding to is the fact that it has been frozen by Iran as of in relative terms May we were able to reinstall a good number of cameras we also reconnected some online measuring equipment all of them now is EMD it's the same basically we have been able to calibrate them we have been able to service the cameras so all of that I think is important so by no means this document when you really it has a number of commitments for as long as Iran does not go back on them they must work with me on the implementation of the statement Iran I would not regurgitate what Iran has been saying maybe you should ask them but they consider that for them to be more cooperative other things should happen which exceed the IEA thank you very much I just want to ask a different area as you know right now ongoing war in Middle East between Israel and how much of Gaza from Israel it's like they trade the people of Gaza using the nuclear weapons actually it was every time discussion about the Israeli capacity be Israel has a nuclear weapon or not but after that this discussion increased I would ask your point of view what do you think about it are you concerned and the second question because of the current situation would you ask or call the Israeli authorities to accept safeguard agreements and to be part of parties I would start with the last part of your question because it's the easiest I've already had not only myself the General Conference the Board of Governors I think have been repeated calls for all countries in the Middle East and this includes Israel to join the NPT and to open all their nuclear facilities to comprehensive safeguards inspections and this is very clear so I don't need to do now I can do it now for you and I repeat every country in the Middle East should be a party to the NPT which is the most successful treaty in arms control and operation in history so we have to do this the other thing in general and I will not elude your question I think you know me by now I always answer everything you ask me but you also know that I don't like to comment on some other people's comments which may include what you refer to but let me say one thing which is very very clear I think in the world in general there is a wide agreement on the fact that a nuclear war cannot be won and therefore should never be fought and any loose talk about using nuclear weapons is at best unacceptable I think I answer your question Thank you very much for the questions Please come to the side with Efe a question related to your nuclear industry in your home country with you President has announced a cut in the public investment in general terms research and investigation also he denies the human origin of the climate change the question is climate change how these political views could affect the development of the nuclear industry in Argentina taking this sector that needs not only the financial support from the state but also the control and also the fight to tackle climate change thank you thank you very much irrespective of the fact that it's my home country my approach is the same regarding views and opinions from high officials presidents or heads of government Javier Millay has won the elections he's the elected president so we will see what he does when he assumes office I will be in Buenos Aires in December so perhaps I will have an opportunity to talk to him and to get an impression of what he intends to do on that he's not the president yet you're not especially worried about what will happen thinking whether he views on this the position of the I don't think as a candidate he has referred to the nuclear plan in Argentina which you said is in general public investment but like I said I shouldn't be having opinions on national matters of internal policies when it comes to my own country and other countries I interact with heads of government on issues of mutual interest and as I said I hope to be having a conversation with him perhaps in December if he has time to see me any other questions Hi D.G. Markusil from the NICA I have a question regarding the regulatory budget the regular budget and the outstanding contributions which have gone down quite a bit since the general conference but are still quite high and I was interested how much of an impact does this have on the agency and have those countries that are reluctant with their contributions approached you and voiced any reasons for why they delay their contributions or is there anything with regard to the agency it has been a very serious matter this is why I came to you you remember we discussed that in my last press conference and of course before doing that I went to the board of governors because we were really running out of money which have not happened in such a dimension to this agency since the 1990s I believe or even earlier so ever since that happened there were a few mitigation measures that were taking some countries paid some money even advanced contributions corresponding to next year because I think many many countries care a lot about this organization and keeping it functioning because of what we do around the world the situation is slightly better now I think we will make it to the end of the year there will be some impact on the activities in particular in the technical cooperation program in the first part of the year perhaps due to these delays but I hope that by the end of the year we will have received all access contributions but I was very very concerned I asked the governors just now in the morning to make you know every possible effort so that we do not have to see a situation like this ever again. Sorry I'm playing completely different. Has Saudi Arabia now informed you of its plan to rescind its small quantities and switch to a CSA? They informed me orally the minister of energy indicated that to me orally and I'm going to be continuing discussions with them I might be visiting the country soon. Orally that's it. Orally, yes. Back to Iran the Iranian nuclear chief Islamic today said that Iran is pushing ahead with building its second nuclear power plant in southwest of the country and in the coming days the groundwork for the main reactor building would be started. Has Iran informed you adequately about its, has Iran been informing you adequately about its plans with this nuclear power plant because they have been trying to understand they have not been implementing all their you know usual information requirements? Yeah we don't, we haven't seen problems with regards to this facility or planned facility the issues in the jargon we call 3.1 refer more to other types of facilities as you know more sensitive facilities but not to a civilian nuclear power plant. Although sometimes you know what happens is that countries announce plans to build nuclear power plants and you know that's a bit. And until until they do it there are some administrative delays but we don't see that thing as a source of concern Thank you very much for your interest Thank you