 Thank you, Fredrik, just very briefly, I think what's important is to listen to your questions. As you know we have the opening session of the board where I gave an introduction to my two reports. So just simply to say good morning and open the floor. I'm in your hands. Thank you very much. Francois Murphy from Reuters, IDG. Three months ago here you called a press conference that essentially diffused the tensions over a resolution of the last board meeting and you said you were starting a new dialogue with Iran to address these open safeguards issues and that you hoped significant progress could be reported to the board this time and you also hoped that this issue could be put to rest once and for all. And when you were sort of asked skeptical questions about that you told us that you are an eternal optimist so are you perhaps a bit less of an optimist now about this issue in Iran? Well what I don't know about the optimist or not I can say that first of all my expectations about this process of course were not met. It's very clear. I was expecting this this focus process as I as I called it at that time to allow us to make clear progress towards clarification of all these issues and this has not happened. There have been meetings this I have to of course confirm there have been meetings and I should also for objectivity's sake I should say that the Iranian government has reiterated its will to engage and to cooperate and to provide answers but they haven't done that so far. So I hope this may change but as we speak we haven't had any concrete progress on any of the issues. I have a couple questions but maybe you can come back to me after. DG Grossi you're aware in 2015 immediately after the JCPOA was agreed there was a side agreement with Director General Amano who went to the hotel Kohlberg and signed a plan of action to resolve the PMD issue. Are you prepared to do a similar side agreement or can you categorically today eliminate the possibility of signing some secondary agreement with Iran should the JCP be revived because it's simply going to take too long to resolve these issues? Well there's a lot of speculation about that and linkages being made as you say including recalling things from the past on how the IEA Iran the JCPOA partners dealt with some of the issues in the past. On this thing I want to be clear one thing has nothing to do with the other only in one respect and this is not related to nuclear material it has to do with trust. This is where everything you do with any country is interconnected. If you are going to put faith and trust on declarations, on statements, on intentions and also from the other side on their probing ambitions well there has to be trust and for me the road to trust goes through information, clarification, inspections and transparency full transparency. I think that we need to make a clear distinction between what so this is as far as the interconnection goes for me but we have to make a clear distinction between a negotiation which is very important of course taking place downtown where countries are exploring if and when to go back to the JCPOA and what we are doing that has to do with Iran's obligations under the NPT and the CSA that they have signed with the agency. So I think and we try to make this distinction very clear one thing does not exonerate you from the other and vice versa. Which is a brief follow-up on the issue of trust because you've had some very direct statements in the press recently I think about the FT last week HAU. Are you intentionally trying to put yourself into the middle of these negotiations which are on a second track because that's the appearance from the outside? The IAEA is not only in the middle is at the center of the safeguards process and is according to the mandate which is given to us by the parties to a specific agreement is the guarantor of the other one. So we are there I mean it's not because of my efforts or my intention to be at the center stage or whatever that we have to be at a certain place. So what we need to be is extremely clear. I think the times require extreme clarity on what is really going on lest we move forward without a strong foundation. In the JCPOA area or in our traditional safeguards mutual commitments with Iran. This is Ahmad Samadi from Iran International TV. Yes some diplomats have claimed the Board of Governors will not react to your report and there will not be a resolution on Iran. I want to know your exact idea about this. Well my duty more than my idea is to report to the board and to say exactly as I was telling Mr Tyrone just now what is going on not elaborate or speculate or might have been or will there be. What is going on now and this is what what what we do we put at the disposal of the governors the information and then they draw their conclusions and push for resolutions or discussions or dealt or deal with this in the way that they see fit. Hello Digi from Press TV. We got information from the Iranian mission that Mr Salih he sent you a letter and in that letter he said that he welcomes the IAEA's readiness to work with Iran actively on the safeguards related issues and we seriously expect this interaction to be to practical results without delay. First of all can you tell us about the significance of this letter is this going to change what you've been doing from this day on and if there have been three months of discussions technical discussions underway but nothing has been achieved what has been happening then in these technical discussions. Well thank you there are two questions what you say the significance of the letter is self-evident this is the vice president of the Islamic Republic of Iran this is the president of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran so it couldn't be more authoritative and important. So I think I mentioned it in one of the previous my answers to one of the previous questions I think it is important to recognize that Iran is not telling us that they don't want to engage or that they don't want to talk and it's very important that Dr. Saleh reiterates that I welcome this but at the same time talk must lead to conclusions and this is the point I'm trying to make engaging is the prerequisite but the prerequisite for something and this something needs to be clarified what is really behind all the findings that we have put on the table. So my hope is that these expressions of goodwill will be substantiated and will be underpinned by concrete deliverables so to speak. Hi DG. Hi. Hi Turkish news agency. If I may I want to ask your point of view about the ongoing talks Vienna talks I know I know you don't like the speculations I know that if they are agreed a final agreement what kind of deal waiting for us. I remember you speak in the European Parliament and it was also you speak if you spoke about this issue and you said last two years a lot of things happened therefore we need some kind of housekeeping and in this direction you said something therefore I just want to ask it's the final agreement or this deal turned back before the decision of US or it is something new and if they are agreed you're on turn back the additional protocol. Thank you. Well what you are referring to goes to the heart of what they are talking about there. So I think it would be interesting to see what they the negotiators have to say because what you're talking about is precisely this issue that they themselves have called the sequencing. What comes first it's the United States lifting sanctions is Iran stopping some of the activities so all of this in itself is the subject of a very complex negotiation. So my impression and I think on this you may be as informed as I am my impression is that they are moving into a decisive phase of these of these talks and we wish them well the agency will be there to support them as it has been for all this time. Did you just follow up on what you were saying about how you expressions of good intent from Iran are nice but you need to see results in these talks. When you announced this new dialogue with Iran it averted a resolution against Iran being at least submitted to the board. This time around there is no resolution being submitted to the board. Now I know that officially you will say that it's up to member states to decide what action they want to take and that you're not the one who deals with resolutions but you do take a view on this and if your end point is that Iran needs to deliver then that would suggest that you feel pressure should be placed on Iran to deliver. So do you feel that the board is putting enough pressure on Iran to deliver the answers that you're calling for. I think what is going on is serious. I said it and in this there is no value judgment or criticism on the decisions of a member state but it is serious because we have a country that has a very developed and ambitious nuclear program which is enriching at very high levels enriching uranium at very high levels very close to weapon grade so when I say these things I'm simply describing a reality so we need to be aware of this reality and this is behind my concern. Of course the board made it a year ago it echoed my concern. This time it's up to them as you said you were saying what I was going to say which is natural because the board it's master of its own procedures naturally but they have in front of them a DG who is concerned let them do whatever they feel is appropriate and also Iran because I'm telling them in all frankness I'm concerned this we need to you are entitled to do this but you have to give explanations and you have to be faithful to the process of safeguards otherwise trust will not be re-established and I think this is a very important thing that needs to be borne in mind in mind by all concerned. Hi good afternoon DG Setsuko and Aki from Nippon television network just to follow up on the discussion going on on Iran you have mentioned in various interviews that the IAEA and Iran reflecting what is going to be discussed in downtown would have to come up with a different procedure for the safeguarding of the agreement itself and it goes to the many of the concerns of the R&Ds which the knowledge cannot be taken away unless you really take the people out how are now that the things has advanced so much more than some of the statement that you've made that time how concerned are you and how far are you involved actually with the people downtown in nailing down the details of how IAEA is is going to be involved in a different way this time because situation is different thank you yes well there are different aspects in what you are mentioning all very important the first set of ideas I may say so when you refer to my previous statements about R&D having advanced and activities themselves having advanced have to do with my ideas early in the year in the sense that we would need to have some actions before we could return to anything and I think the process that you are witnessing proves that that was necessary and the complexity and the laborious negotiations ongoing on both sides prove that that we have a new reality when it comes to the program which has advanced in all these areas that were initially forbidden by the JCPOA so the parties to the agreement must come to an agreement on what is to be done there regarding the the interaction of course as you know we are not party to the negotiation but of course we are being consulted regularly because all the necessary let's put it this way all the necessary actions in terms of possible returns which will mean reductions and limitations will have to be verifiable and this is extremely complex in particular in the new circumstances so we are giving our advice our technical advice on how to get to this level of verifiability under a new arrangement that they are working on so we are following them and trying to support all the participants in this in this regard but it's a highly technical process and conversation indeed just to follow up on that are you happy with the progress that you're making with this that is the requirement in the discussion are you sort of feeling quite well I can say that we speak freely to them and we tell them in all honesty what we believe is is technically sustainable and what is not so we give them our advice and I can say that since we do it openly and to all of them this is always well received because we are there to really provide a guarantee that will be such otherwise it will be yeah without real meaning or sense hello thank you very much hello so the the last time I think the language that you used around this process was that you were hoping it was going to break the am pass and just saying it hasn't delivered the results that were expected are there any other processes or any other mechanisms that you think the agency itself from your side could bring to bear or is it just up to the board of governors because I suppose if you're waiting for them to react and to take the next steps then you don't really have an observer might say there's there's not really much left for you no no well you know I think you heard me say before that in these cases diplomacy must always continue we must never say there's no more possibility to move forward because there's always is there always is I'm sorry there always is room for agreement in this particular case and I don't need the board to tell me that I can continue this is my responsibility it's my right but also my obligation because this has to do I will I want to remind everybody this has to do with the completeness and the correctness of what Iran has been informing the agency now and in the past so this is my job of course the board from time to time will react and this is what you have been asking me about are the reacting is it is this enough is this not enough well I won't get into that I think the the facts are there and they have the value of its own weight okay just to follow up on the reality bit on location number two uranium metal disc I mean you've known in your predecessors have reported natural uranium under safeguards in the past in Iran why is a natural uranium disc such a clear and present danger that you're alerting the public to that is more than 20 years old what's what can you can you walk us through why this particular item is of such concern of course well first of all there is something that at the risk of being repetitive I would say if there is indication of an activity which could have been undeclared you have to declare it and you have to say what was going on there so it's not a matter that it's good to do or nice to have or perhaps you know if you have time you have to do it and of course uranium metal has different applications you know it very well it could be for different things with with with with perfectly legitimate uses but it could also be for other uses so until we are very clear on what we are talking about we are not going to stop asking the questions this is why so whether it's real it's real present is present where it's a danger or not it's not something that we can say today I hope not there's nothing that indicates that there is a danger but it's something that needs to be answered there is no way around this there is no way around this so Digi you're the extension to the agreement the understanding you have with Iran expires in two and a half weeks yeah so we're unlikely to get a chance to speak to you before then so um do you have any sense of how realistic it is to think that you might extend uh that agreement again so how doable is that well I think it's becoming increasingly difficult as you have seen um you remember I had you waiting and I apologize again for that on a Sunday uh and and and it was a very long conversation and it took us a long time to come to an understanding which is an understanding that as as you have seen consists of some decisions being taken not a joint statement or an agreement of a wider nature as it had been in February so I can see this space you know narrowing down I don't want to predict I don't know where we are going to be in in in a couple of weeks from now it's a it's a very short time you may have noticed that as well um so um when when when we when we get there we will have to deal with I certainly hope that be it ideally through the agreement the wider general agreement that it's been worked on downtown or uh by some other means we are not going to see our um activities our inspection capacities curtailed anymore because of everything I've said in my reports and today with you because this matters because what's going on is serious we have to be aware of this and we cannot limit and continue to curtail the ability of the inspectors to inspect and at the same time pretend that there is trust so this is very clear for everybody and for me sorry to jump on a different topic about the Fukushima treated water release Japanese government hasn't still decided yet but there has been quite a lot of request from the neighboring countries in going you know having the IAEA's involvement and I suppose that the one is the experts visit to Japan perhaps or some kind of observation by the third party and at the numbering uh the constellation of the members who are going to take part in evaluating would uh would have to be international I suppose but also partial I suppose uh can you kind of well yes thank you for the question it's very important and it shows the the indispensable nature of the work the IEA can perform when requested because here we have a matter that that is is of course a very delicate one uh Japan has a problem there that needs to be solved in one way or another but of course uh come to play a number of legal environmental scientific considerations that have to do not only with the with the neighboring countries that have expressed publicly serious concerns about this but also the the the Japanese society as you know better than myself I was there in Fukushima discussing with the fishermen discussing with the journalists so I know that there is a lot of anxiety about this and this was at the at the basis of my discussions with the Japanese government by saying that again trust it's the issue of trust if we want if you want to do this in a way that will get the indispensable credibility it doesn't it's not enough to do it on your own you can't do it you have all the technology you have all the means Japan is a is a country with endowed with with all the excellences in in the world but you need something else and this else is the IEA so the operation that we are agreeing with with Japan is one where the IAEA will be there before during and after the process of control discharges into the sea and I have come up with the initiative to bolster this to strengthen this IAEA task force if you will with a group of distinguished international experts well known by their publications public activity in the field of radio protection real experts top notch experts from a number of countries including in particular including from the countries that have been more vocal in expressing this this concern so in this way we are ensuring two things first that the process is an IAEA process like in safeguards we we don't take sides we are impartial we look at a reality and we describe what is in this glass of water nothing more nothing less and secondly we we make it even more I would say probing and and excellent in its quality by involving a group of well known experts you know in the area of radio protection like it like in any other area people more or less know each other they work in in the united nation scientific committee on the effects of ionizing radiation they work in the international committee of radiological protection I mean there are all these fora where the best experts including from the United States from China from the Republic of Korea from the Southeast Asia in general from the Pacific Islands from all these parts of the world they have knowledge about these things so I'm inviting them to be part of this process thereby hopefully when this starts giving the international community elements again to be able to determine that these these charges do not have you know negative effects on the on the environment it's it's a complex process we are starting work now for something that will take place actually maybe in one year and a half two years until it starts so there will be plenty of time to prepare the teams to consult intensively with countries and with Japan itself just to follow up on the question that I was asking about the technical discussions yes because you were saying when the discussions began that this is a process that you decided to work on a focused process are you suggesting that this process has not worked now or is it moving in the right direction and is going to continue what's what stage is it in now we we must continue there's no other there's no other choice we must continue as you know you were citing letter from vice president they were they were proposing some dates we told them it's too late I mean we are in this kind of dialogue trying to incentivate a faster a faster process so we will continue thank you very much and we will be seeing each other bilaterally if you need have a nice afternoon thank you very much