i'm karishma vaswani in singapore. the headlines: welcome to bbc news. our top story: the united nations fears that hundreds of thousands are homeless in africa, says the storm that has ravaged after what the un says might be one parts of southern africa is possibly of the worst natural disasters the worst weather—related disaster to hit the southern hemisphere. ever to hit the southern hemisphere. 1.7 million people were in the direct path of cyclone idai in mozambique, zimbabwe and malawi. hundreds of thousands of people are now homeless and in desperate the really striking thing need of humanitarian help. as you walk through here is just how exhausted they are. person after person has come up the funerals have begun for some of the 50 victims of friday's to us, asking for help, wondering when aid mosque attacks in christchurch. is going to arrive. speaking to schoolchildren in the city, the prime minister said the first funerals begin that the stories of those who died in christchurch for some of the 50 people who were killed in the mosque need to keep being told. attacks last friday. i'm kasia madera in london. and this video is also in the programme: trending on bbc.com. theresa may will write to the eu a group of skiers were caught by surprise as a ridge of snow to ask for a brexit extension, collapsed under them. possibly for a few months, fortunately, no—one or maybe for up to two years. was injured in the incident in the austrian alps, but the skiers did have to be rescued. that's all. bye— bye. now on bbc news, hardtalk.

welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur. for more than seven decades, the world bank has been a pillar of an international consensus forged in washington. rich world money has been funnelled into poorer nations prepared to play by the rules set by the western overlords of multilateralism. but maybe that consensus is breaking down. the world bank is about to get a new trump—nominated president who has been sharply critical of its past activities. my guest is the current interim head of the world bank, kristalina georgieva. is she braced for turbulence ahead?

kristalina georgieva, welcome to hardtalk. thank you for having me, stephen. would you agree that this is a time of very great uncertainty for the world bank? it is a time of uncertainty for the world. we see the world economy slowing down. there are concerns around debt burdens, there are clouds because of trade. as for the world bank, we have never been in such strong financial position in our entire history. we just got the largest capital increase, 50% boost,

and that is because our shareholders, including the united states, believe that our work in the world is needed. in the end, it comes down to politics. there was a very striking financial times editorial just the other day when it became clear that donald trump's nominee, david malpass, was going to be the next president, and we'll talk about him more in a minute. the ft wrote this. "donald trump is anti—aid, he's sceptical about climate change and wants to cut china down to size." "the world bank, up until now, at least, has been in favour of aid, sees itself as central to the fight against global warming and has been in favour of lending to middle—income companies like china." you are on some sort of collision course with donald trump and his nominee. actually, we are not. let me first say that it was exactly david malpass that was charged to lead the negotiations on capital increase for the world bank. he is the one that signed on a package that includes focus

on climate change, on fragility, on gender equality, and also includes what i believe is actually right — a gradual shift of more resources of the world bank where we are needed the most, in the most vulnerable, poorer countries. but we also continue to be committed to lending to our better—off borrowers, and you would ask why. and the answer is twofold. one, financial answer. we are a bank. we cannot put all our money only in high—risk destinations, as you wouldn't want your bank to do. and, two, in better off countries, we actually learn, and we are this incredible transmission line of lessons from one place to another. our countries in africa, in the rest of the — in the poorer asia, they want us to know how things are done

in other places. well, you've gone quite deep into your investment strategy there, and i want to come back to it. but before we do that, i must stay on politics — i mean, you're a great political operator. you've been in the world bank for a long time and you know how to play the politics of the organisation. but surely, you will acknowledge there is a fundamental problem when the incoming head of the operation — that is, your boss—to—be, because you're the interim president but david malpass very soon will be the president — he has said this in the recent past. he's described the world bank he said that "multilateralism has gone substantially too far," he said that your "operations are not very efficient," that often you "are corrupt in your lending practices" "the benefits don't get to actual people in the countries on the ground." this is the guy that's going to be your boss! and this is the person who signed on our largest, in our history, capital increase. this is the same person. he does not like the way you have operated for years!

which is why we needed to spend some time and talk about what has the world bank done to be more efficient, to be more focused on where the needs are most severe? and what i would tell you from my experience is that when you are clear that you want to do more for the most vulnerable, and you have a pathway, you can demonstrate you're doing it. when you're clear that we are tightening up our belts so we can squeeze more from the resources we have, you can convince people, and this is how we convinced all our shareholders, including the us. well, you're saying all this with a smile. does it not rankle that you, a highly respected woman who's given most of your career to the world bank, couldn't be considered for the top job, the president'sjob, simply because of this rule that goes back to the mid 1940s that the world bank has to be led by a nominee of the us government? does that not stick in your... so, this is a very good question for the shareholders

of the institution. i will tell you from my perspective, i love myjob. i love myjob as chief executive, the first in the history of the world bank. and from where i come... would you not have enjoyed the opportunity to be the president of the world bank? well, i know, i have this period of time in which i could say a woman runs a world bank, and i can tell you that for somebody like me, stephen, i come from the other side of the iron curtain. i still remember in bulgaria, getting up at 4:00 in the morning to queue for milk for my daughter. to be now the person who runs the world bank, that is a very, very, very long road i have travelled very happily. yeah. good. so, there you are... so, at some point, there ought to be a woman president of the bank. we have to strive for tapping into the talent of women. and not only should there be a woman at the head of the world bank,

surely it is time to accept that this anomalous thing, which was arranged in the 1940s, that the united states would always nominate the head of the world bank, it's time for that to end. another woman who thinks so is maria jose romero, of the european network on debt and development, which works closely with the world bank and can put scrutiny on it, and she said recently, "candidates from the global south and borrower countries — not just the lenders, but the borrower countries — should now be encouraged to apply, and there must be a transparent, fair and competitive selection process." there just isn't right now and that's not acceptable. what you are talking about is important and it is for the shareholders of the bank. what they can tell you from our experience in the institution is that it is really critical for us to have all shareholders supporting us, and i am actually much more interested in keeping in this world of ours that is getting more

complicated, not less, to keep these 189 shareholders together for a common purpose. let's — alright — move on to something you have already raised, which is the strategy, the approach of the world bank. does it worry you that your own former boss, jim kim, who, of course, was appointed by barack obama, he left and it surprised everybody. did it surprise you when he announced he was off? well, it was somewhat sudden, and i can say... i'll take that as a yes. i can say thatjim kim had his motivation to do something else. he's right. well, the point i'm getting to — he left three years early, you clearly were shocked, many other people inside the world bank were too, and he seems to have left because he lost faith in the world bank's mission. he seems to have believed, towards the end, that actually he could do much more good working in private equity, and the scale of finance he could

leverage into infrastructure projects in the poorer parts of the world was much greater working in private equity. he said, "this is now the path that i'm going to make the largest impact on major global issues like climate change and the infrastructure deficit." he lost faith. and this is clearly a conversation i hope you would have withjim kim in hardtalk. let me talk about the bank and why i think it is a great institution. we have been changing with time, so we can serve the world of today and tomorrow. you look at us today, we are so different from the bank we were — even the bank ijoined in ‘93. we are much more based in the countries, very often in very dangerous environments, like in afghanistan or iraq or mali. we are much more connected with the aspirations of people in these countries and we have

an enormous role to play on global issues like climate change. and when i look at the bank, why would shareholders vote with their wallets to give us more? because the world needs an institution like the bank. if it didn't exist, we would have had to invent it. but you have so many critics now, despite what you've just said about how you're getting more money in the pot and you've got more things you can do, so many critics saying that in terms of combating inequality and targeting those living in extreme poverty, you are failing in your most basic mission. and one of the reasons is because you've become so preoccupied with persuading private equity to join you, and you have also become preoccupied with serving the needs of middle—income countries — and we have touched on it — like china and like brazil.

so, i would very respectfully take an argument in that different direction. one, we are very proud to be an institution that has contributed tremendously to reducing extreme poverty in the world and to creating more opportunities, more equality in the countries we serve. in 1990, extreme poverty was 36% of the population of this planet. today, it's less than io%. and, two, we are concentrating exactly on the countries where the numbers are still biting. we have been much more engaged on issues like making sure kids are in school, they stay there, that they have a chance in life. when i look at the programs of the world bank today, they are so much geared

towards investing in opportunities and making sure that the inequality you're talking about is being tackled. yeah, with respect, the figures from 2013 through 2016 show that the effort to reduce extreme poverty in africa stalled, and at the same time, you were putting billions and billions of dollars into china and brazil. so, the question still remains — have you got your priorities wrong? we have our priorities right. we are shifting towards the lower—income countries and also towards countries that are on the frontline of this fight against extreme poverty. let me just give you the numbers. we have now $25 billion average a year investing in the poorest countries. that is twice as much as it was only three years ago.

even in the poorest countries, according to 0xfam, according to the international trade union congress, you pursue policies which do not help the poorest, for example, you refuse to support universal benefit programmes, you're much keener on targeting benefits and on conditionality, both of which, according to 0xfam, actually do not help the poorest people in the poorest countries. let me say this, we actually do exactly the opposite. we do target those that need us the most. let me give you an example, egypt. egypt had 7% of their gdp going into energy subsidies benefiting the rich more than the poor. we engaged with egypt to shrink this to half of its size, and then the money that is available

to target education and healthcare goes to egypt, this targeting is actually right. explain this to me then. you have cited one example, egypt. let me cite you a different example, which raises worrying questions. that is kyrgyzstan. now, there is a guy called stephen kidd, who's a senior social protection specialist at a group called development pathways. he points to a leaked document from world bank staff that admitted that the policy that you favoured in kyrgyzstan, which was a targeted policy rather than a universal policy, it was, in essence, designed not to help the poorest, but actually to save the kyrgyz government money. the leak from world bank staff admitted that — "the historical evidence suggests the forces pushing for targeting are more regularly motivated by cutting entitlements bills and ensuring financial sustainability than they are by helping the poor."

we are actually are very keen to see those helping, who need that assistance the most. i am not familiar with the story you are presenting, but let me say that, of course we learn from experience. i am not saying that the bank knows it all and we are always right, and it is possible that we had the targeted problem that actually didn't do a good enough job. when we review our portfolio, and by the way, i should stress that for poverty targeting, we get higher scores among the development organisations. when we review our experience, we always say, "what is it that we need to do to learn better?" we are a learning organisation. you have just said something very important — "we like to learn from our experiences and admit our mistakes." how can that be squared with the world bank fighting

in the us courts to deny the right of those who've been damaged by world bank programmes — and i am thinking about a particular programme in india — you went to court to try to gain immunity from those poor farmers and fishermen who were protesting that the world bank—financed coal project in their region had damaged theirfarming and theirfishing. and you said, "oh, no, you cannot sue us, we are immune from any sort of legal action." first, we do not want to be outside the framework of accountability. we actually like to be accountable to the people we serve, and to our taxpayers. what on earth were your lawyers doing then? this is an ifc project, it is still in the courts. yes, let's be clear, the ifc is under the umbrella of the world bank. it is our private sector arm. absolutely. yes, it is still in the court, it is very difficult for me

to comment on a case that is still in the courts. but on the issue you bring, of course, through history, the world bank recognised that accountability makes us better. if we want to be acceptable by the world, we ought to be accountable, so we built a special panel mechanism, accountability that is not with management, it is straight with our board of directors, and we have opened ourselves to scrutiny more than any other organisation i can think of. but you're trying to close down a legal action against you by some of the poorest people, farmers and fishermen, in the gujarat province of india, and bha rat patel, the general secretary of the association of the struggle for fishworkers‘ rights, says that this case has become a major step towards holding the world bank accountable for the negative impact that their investments are having. and i welcome that. but your lawyers don't,

that's why you shut it down. it is, as i said, it is a legal case, you are putting me in a difficult area because i cannot comment on a legal case. i can only tell you that... do you think the world bank should have immunity or not? the world bank's immunities stem from our articles of agreement, but immunity doesn't mean lack of accountability. it doesn't mean we can do whatever we want, and actually, you ask me, i would love to see us always lifting the standard of accountability as we have been doing it over the last decade. i understand that you have a vast number of projects... the case would make anything that happens makes us better. let's talk about one other case. you can't be across every one, but i suspect you know this one too, because in honduras, peasant farmers have sued another institution of the world bank

over its financing of a corporation which runs vast palm oil plantations, which the local farmers say have been involved with violence, with attacks on them and their peasant farming operations, the private security forces of the palm oil operation have been accused of abuses of human rights on a systemic scale, and yet, you are still involved with the project. how can that be? again, this is a case that is in the courts, and i am really sorry that i have to say it is in the courts, i can't really comment on the case. what they can tell you is that... it feels like there is something wrong here. to quote peter dolack, an ecologist, he says, "the problem is that world bank projects leave a trail of evictions, displacements, forest destruction. this is the problem. it is true that we have had projects where we haven't done the best possible job. but it is also true that every time we learn,

we do better. i will give you an example. last week, i was in kenya visiting a project that we have been supporting since the ‘70s. it is a geothermal electricity producing plant. to build this plant, a community had to be resettled. in the process of resettlement, there were some mistakes done, the community came to our panel, we reviewed the project, we made corrections, and now when i visited the community and saw the children in a good school, the elders happy with the housing and health centre they have received... you are the interim president of the world bank. it might be a very opportune time for you to say to me that we have not been as transparent and as accountable as we need to be, and that is a challenge that david malpass,

who is about to take the job of president of the world bank, will have to address. i would have liked to say that. we have been ranked in transparency as being at the top, ranked by organisations that protect you, the british taxpayer. we have been ranked as an organisation that has significantly improved its record on transparency and accountability. i, of course, would like us to do better. there is no other way for us to justify your support as a taxpayer, but to constantly raise the bar for how we perform. and you know, it is not even about you and me. it is about people who depend on a strong institution, capable of solving the problems they face, and i am proud to be part of that institution. and i'm telling you we will do better, stephen.

noted, that is noted. now, look, we must end with one last thought about the great uncertainty that we referred to at the beginning. two big problems right now, beyond everything we have discussed, structural problems. one is the united states and china, still at risk of a very serious trade war. and another, which is in fact closer to home for me in this london studio, brexit. do you see both of those as challenging, not just for the rich world but for the wider global economy? it is creating uncertainty, uncertainty is always bad for business, bad for development. 0n trade, we need to remember that trade has served us really well. in the four decades between the ‘70s and 2010, trade increased by seven times, and victims of

conflict dropped by 94%. so, trade is good forjobs, but trade is also good for peace, it raises the opportunity cost of conflict. it is so important that we protect our functioning as an integrated world when it comes down to trade, fix the problems we have, because it is not like we are perfect, there are people who have been left behind because of structural change generated or supported by trade. 0n brexit, it is again an element of uncertainty. the british economy has proven to be more resilient than people thought some time ago, and so did the neighbourhood of europe. it is of course up to the british people to decide how they go about their country. for the rest of the world, the sooner there is clarity what would happen, the better.

i think we will have to end there, we could talk brexit for much longer, but we can't because we're out of time. kristalina georgieva, thank you for being on hardtalk. thank you very much, stephen. hello there. the most noticeable feature of the weather for the next few days will be the feel of it. it will be very mild with temperatures above the seasonal average in fact. it should be largely dry too with the higher pressure taking control. winds will be light for most away from the far north of the country.

now, the air mass is key to how it will feel for the next few days. low pressure to the north of the uk. high pressure to the south and bringing this warm air on a south—westerly wind. it is very moisture laden off the atlantic, which is why we are seeing quite a lot of cloud around, thick enough to produce light rain and drizzle early on wednesday. there could be a bit of mist and fog as well. a mild start to wednesday in places. no lower than 10 degrees for example in belfast. and through this morning we will have quite a lot of cloud around, generally light wind. i am hopeful through the afternoon we could see some good breaks appearing. across the far north—west of the uk, windy with outbreaks of rain for the northwest highlands. we could see temperatures reaching the high teens, but generally even when you have the cloud, it will feel very mild, around 13 or 1a degrees. thursday, a similar picture. quite a bit of cloud but some good holes breaking, particularly to the

east of high ground. staying very wet, though, for the north—west of scotland where it will be breezy, temperatures 11 or 12 degrees here. further south, some good spells of sunshine, we could make 16 or 17 celsius. into friday, a developing area of low pressure, which will bring a spell of gales and rain to the north of the country. further south, close to the area of higher pressure, largely fine. some sunny spells. it will be a breezy day across the board, very windy across parts of scotland with gales, 50 to 60 miles an hour gusts inland. 60 to 70 perhaps for the northern isles and the western isles, and we will also see rain spinning southwards and eastwards, tending to weaken as it does. another very mild day ahead of it, given some spells of sunshine. even where it is cloudy it will be mild. through friday evening and night, that band of cloud and rain sinks south—east, introducing cooler air. as few wintry showers pushing to the north of scotland. you can see the blue

colours invading from the north—west as we head on in towards the weekend, but it's high pressure in charge. it should be largely fine and dry, and with drier, cooler air, we could see more sunshine on saturday and sunday. notice the temperature is a little bit lower and nights will be chilly too with a touch of frost in places.