this is bbc news. the headlines: pope francis has been taken to hospital in rome where he's being treated for a respiratory infection. the vatican has said the pontiff, who's 86, had been struggling with breathing difficulties, and would spend a few days receiving treatment, but he had not contracted covid. the united nations general assembly has adopted a resolution asking the world's highest court to define countries�* obligations to combat climate change. delegates said they hope the vote, which is not legally binding, will drive countries to take stronger measures and clarify international law. prosecutors in mexico say they have identified eight suspects in connection with the deadly fire at a detention centre

close to the us border. the decision came after footage emerged that appeared to show detention centre officials doing nothing to evacuate migrants during the fire. now on bbc news, it's hardtalk with sarah montague. welcome to hardtalk. i'm sarah montague. close to 50 million people around the world are close to famine, a number that is rising because of war and the effects of climate change. it's the job of the world food program to feed them. my guest today, david beasley, has been running the organisation for the past six years and, in that time, has more than doubled the money it raises. and yet, as he admits, the numbers starving have only got worse and worse. he's about to move on. so, what did his time at the

top of the world's largest aid agency teach him about one of the greatest problems mankind faces — how to ensure no—one dies of hunger? david beasley, welcome to hardtalk. thank you, sarah. now, you have said that when you took on the job six years ago, you thought you could put the world food program out of business because you could solve world hunger. at that time, there were 80 million who you described as marching towards starvation. and yet, the figure now,

who you would classify in that way, is 350 million. was it ever solvable or is it just an impossiblejob? sure it was, and it is. unfortunately, when i took this role, as you said, i thought we could put the world food program out of business. there were 80 million people in extreme hunger. there was no reason, with all the wealth and all the technology, we couldn't do that. but what happened? we had war after war. then climate shocks on top of that, then covid with the economic devastation. and now, of course, we got the breadbasket of the world — ukraine. and so, we havejust compiled, on top of one devastation to another. now we're facing 350 million people that literally don't know where their next meal is coming from, marching towards starvation. and it breaks my heart that we have not been able to end world hunger because i still believe we can do that. what, even now, you think it's possible to end world hunger? i do. if we end the wars, there's no question, even with climate shocks, we can do it. but we've got to end

the wars and we've got to change our approach long—term, with regards to how we address extreme hunger in many of the troubled countries around the world. ok, but you're talking about... i mean, you're making it sound sort of like something that's very eminently doable. we've got to end the wars, we've got to... even if it was one war, the ukraine war, as things stand, is it just going to get worse? yeah, at this stage, i would say it is going to get worse. and when you look at the last few years, when i took the role, 80 million people, and then itjumped to 135 before covid, and that was because of war and climate shocks. then covid comes along and it goes from 135 million to 276 million. that's pre—ukraine. and the economic devastation from supply chain disruption, etc, from covid, as well as debt and then the ukraine war, with pricing of food and fuel and inflation and devaluation of the currency, we're now at 345, 350 million people. and so, here's what's really to put in context. 200 years ago, when there was only 1.1 billion people on planet earth,

you had about 95% of the people in poverty or extreme poverty around the world. well, we've reduced that to less than 10%, but now we're going backwards. so we built systems that really are addressing poverty and hunger. now, tell that to the 10% that we're not reaching, and we can reach them, we can improve the systems to reach them, and we must do so. but right now, sarah, we're going backwards for the first time in hundreds of years. 0k. well, let's talk about the emergency of the ukraine war at the moment, because there has been the black sea grain deal, which has just been extended by president putin, which allows food out of ukraine — only for 60 days it's been extended for. now, that presumably has made a huge difference. is there any justification, though, for russia's position that they'll only extend it

for 60 days and only if russia can export more of its grain and fertiliser? no, there's nojustification for that at all, in my opinion. in fact, when the war started and everybody in the world was focused on the eastern military front, i was zeroed in on the 0desa port region saying, "look, "if you don't open up these ports, we're going to have a globalfood crisis around the world, "on top of what we've just experienced with covid "and climate shocks and war in other places "around the world." so, i was saying you've got to open up these ports because ukraine alone grows enough food to feed 400 million people. and we were exporting over five million metric tons per month through those ports, so it was critical to get those ports open, which is why early in this military campaign, i went down to 0desa and tweeted to putin saying, "you will bring famine to the rest of the world "if you don't open up these ports."

ok, but... and we were able... but one of the problems is russia also is responsible forfeeding huge parts of the world. and they argue that their grain and fertiliser is blocked when it shouldn't be, because it's not meant to be affected by sanctions. but it is, and president putin says that sanctions are to blame for the food security in the global south. does he have a point about that? well, everything is involved and engaged with the problems we're having on food security. and i think what we've seen in this context of war with regards to ukraine, it was like fuel on top of a fire. and that's what we're facing. and i've said to leaders around the world, i don't care if you love or hate russia, but you've got to have their food and you've got to have their fertilizer because the entire world is at risk right now. this is no time to play with food and fertilizer, so we must move these supplies, which is why we've been pushing for sanctions relief, they'll assure that food supplies move around the world. and i know many countries like the united states and france have worked with us to make certain these supplies move, but the more must be done. this is a complex area

and it's politically driven. but right now, the humanitarian dire consequences of the poorest of the poor are at stake and it is going to get worse in the next 12 months. ok, you say it's politically driven, the eu commission president, ursula von der leyen, describes it as a cold, callous and calculated siege by president putin on some of the most vulnerable countries and people in the world, with food becoming part of the kremlin�*s arsenal of terror. is she right? has russia weaponised food? well, three things. number one, they need to end the war. that's the best thing that could happen. number two, make certain that fertilizers and food can flow in and out of ukraine as well as the whole entire black sea region. so, we've got our issues here, there's no question about it. and the pressure needs to be brought to bear on everyone involved in this conflict, and especially russia, to allow the foods to flow... but do you think...? ..and allow the farmers to get into the fields because... let me say this very clearly, because ukraine doesn't have the fertilizers it needs, it can't get in the fields

that it needs to produce the amount of food that's necessary around the world. ok, but do you think russia sees food as a weapon? that's a good question. i'd have to give that some real deep thought, but i don't think there's any doubt that, in this context, it truly has impacted the food security situation around the world. 0k, you're loathe to go there because of what the politics of it and what it might mean. yeah, i mean, i've been pretty clear about russia opening up the ports. that's been very clear from my point. we're a united nations organisation and i've been pretty strong and pretty tough in this area, but at the same time, we have to work with all sides to move supplies, but...being very clear, russia needs to help us move these grains, allow us to move everything food related and fertilizers out of the port as well as the rest of the world. and the greatest effect, is it being felt by africa when you look at what's happening there? the poorest of the poor countries are impacted the most, and now we're

talking about africa. you're talking about a continent, over a billion people. 70% of all the food that's consumed in africa is grown... ..produced by smallholderfarmers. the smallholder farmers can't afford the fertilizers if they can get them, so we're looking at a significant decrease of food production by the smallholder farmers in africa. this is a continent, quite frankly, that ought to be feeding the rest of the world, but for a whole myriad of reasons, compounded by the fact that many countries in africa depend upon russian food, russian fertilizer and exports... ..imports from the rest of the world. right, so, they are the collateral damage in this. they also seem to be bearing the brunt of climate change. is that a fair assessment? yeah, it's a very, very fair and a very accurate assessment, and i can give you example after example. for example, like somalia — five rainy seasons, back—to—back, didn't show up. we go into the sahel region, for example,

where you've gotjust, drought, flash flooding, and the people literally are starving to death. and you compound that with the war, you compound that with fuel costs, food costs, lack of availability... you can see that many of these nations here are very vulnerable, and particularly, like, in the sahel, where you've got isis and al-qaeda, you've got boko haram, and in somalia, you've got al—shabab, who exploit these types of situations. and that's why we must be in there to help stabilise these regions. and we've got solutions, far... while the world deals with mitigation of climate, we've got to have adaptation for these countries to survive in the interim, and we've got solutions for that. ok, i'm going to come on to the solution shortly. i just still want to look at the drivers for this, and one of them, i know your own director of climate change, says, gernot laganda, he said that climate is pushing the aid system beyond the point where it can deal with the runaway train.

what did he mean by that? well, for example, the number of people just in the last couple of years, two years ago, 30 million people were displaced because of climate alone, and that number's only going to get worse and worse. when you look, regardless of your views of climate change, what's caused it, and i can assure you what we see in the results of a changing climate, of the number of incidents around the world, we're seeing it first—hand. and let me give you an example. in the sahel, in niger alone, where, if, when historically, if we just come in and provide food, you'll be doing that for another 1,000 years. charity is not the long—term solution. but when we come in and do resilience programmes, putting down water wells, rehabilitating the land and water canals, these types of systems, the amount of aid that's needed drops dramatically. and for example, last year, just in niger, 80% of the villages that we implemented resilience programmes did not need

humanitarian support when the ukraine—russia shock took place. and that literally was 500,000 people that didn't need aid. do the math. that's about 30, $40 million that we save by putting down resilience programmes. and they were able to survive with. .. in fact, more than survive, and some of them were able to thrive, and i can give you incredible... 0k, well, we'll come back to that. but you're in a situation where, as we say, the numbers havejust got intense, the demand is huge. and you're in the position of having to make choices. you're, what. .. i mean, you said, "we're taking away from the hungry to feed the starving." how do you decide who gets fed and therefore survives? well, several factors. number one, our donors, where we receive the money from and how they direct the money in general. then, number two, we have a classification system of the most vulnerable to the least vulnerable, ipc level five,

four, three, etc. now, you know, the un use that lingo and nobody knows what you're talking about. i use terms like famine, knocking on famine's door, marching to starvation, on the brink of starvation. and so, right now, as you and i talked about earlier, we've now got 345—350 million people marching to starvation. out of that, 50 million in about 50 countries, give or take, are knocking on famine's door. so, obviously, that 50 million has got to get food, otherwise they clearly will die. so, one of three things will happen in this situation. 0ne, you will have starvation death — famine. two, you will have a destabilisation of the nations. three, you will have mass migration. and i can assure you that it's 1,000 times more expensive not to go in and help these people at a time like this. sure, sure, but at the moment, the world food program are making decisions, and whatever classification system you use, where,

for example, at the moment, you're cutting rations to the rohingya refugees in bangladesh because you're short of money and their monthly allowance is going down to $10 per person, cut byjust under a fifth when you've already got children in those camps who are stunted and underweight, ijust wonder — and i take your point that it's how much you can raise from donor countries, to some extent, they do — but that's also based on the decisions that you make as to who lives and. ..effectively who lives and who dies. no, you know, i had someone said to me one day, "you've got the greatest job on the planet, "saving the lives of millions of people every day." and i said, "i do, i really do." but i want to tell you something that will bother you. i don't go to bed at night thinking about the children we save, i go to bed at night heartbroken about the children we couldn't save, and we don't have enough money, sarah, we have to choose which children eat, which children don't eat,

which children live, which children die. and so, our classification system, we reach the most vulnerable first, when we don't have enough money. and you think about the fact there's $400 trillion worth of wealth on planet earth a day. how in the name of god can we be in this situation where we don't have enough food to feed hungry children? and let me add right here, because you were mentioning the rohingya, in afghanistan right now, we literally just cut 4 million people in ipc level four. in other words, they're knocking on famine's door. 50% rations. syria, we're running out of money there. i can go on and on where we're running out of money. short—term crisis, but we need long—term solutions, which include, of course, ending wars. you've done this for six years. does it weigh heavily on you, those sorts of choices? it does. it really does. it's heartbreaking when i go... and, you know, ithink one of the most difficult questions i've ever been asked is, "how do you stay positive?" you know, when you're at the headquarters or the un meetings or capitals,

that's not where you get fired up. when you're out there in the field and you see children come from behind the war—rubbled building, coming out ofjust misery, and you see the little smile on their face, that's what gives you hope, cos that's my little sister, my little brother, and that's what it's all about and that's what fires you up. you just can't give up on humanity. you can't give up on those little children. they're not numbers. they're children with names. indeed, but when you're talking about the solutions... i mean, you're obviously... i think it's, what, $23 billion you're trying to raise this year, so much more than in previous years. the us special envoy for global food security, cary fowler, said, "the ranks of the food insecure are growing faster "than our ability to provide humanitarian assistance. "we can't get out of this crisis by supplying food aid." i mean, is there a point where you have to say, "look, there's no point raising more money to feed starving, "we need to do things differently"? well, i think there's two things. you've still got

to provide support in the immediate interim. there's no doubt about that, because i can assure you, like we saw in syria and other places — take central south america and the united states or the syrian crisis, and germany did a very simple study — failure to address the syrian refugee crisis early on, you ended up, just in germany, with a million refugees over a five—year period, $125 billion, that 70 euros per day. whereas we can support a syrian in syria for. . .50 cents per day. and guess what? the syrian doesn't want to leave home, but if you don't have food, you don't have peace. in south america, a study that showed, for example, children at the us border, at a cost of $3,750 a week per child, pershelter, $60 million a week, versus $1 to $2 with resilience programmes so that farmers and families can grow their own food versus just handing out food.

so, short term, we've got to stop the bleeding because it will cost 1,000 times more, because i get that question, sarah, you can imagine, why should i send money, you know, from the united states or germany down to chad or guatemala when i've got education... funding...? but you have... the answer is... yeah. ok, but you have also said it's critical that pressure be brought to bear on the host nations, that they themselves take ownership of their own issues, almost suggesting that some conditionality be attached to the aid and that, possibly, you don't have the flexibility to do that. you've got a myriad of scenarios there, and each country's different, whether it be a marshall—style plan for every country because there should be expectations with regards to countries. now, one of the things i also add to donor countries is that in many of the places, regardless of the leadership in a nation, at least it provides food security so that people can take care of themselves and not be so vulnerable to

the politics of their nation. and if people can grow their own food, take care of themselves, then they're less vulnerable to the bad leaders, the dictators, etc, etc. ok, so... because african governments, back in 2003, promised that they'd spend 10% of their budgets on agriculture and rural development, there's actually only two countries that have met that target 20 years on. you don't feel that it's necessary to have some sort of conditions put on the host nations? cos that's what you seem to be implying previously. well, yeah. what i've done, meeting with leaders, and when you've got limited amount of money, is that with a donor nation, when you've got limited dollars, like we do right now, which countries can you be the most strategic and most effective with your aid? obviously, we don't have enough money, so which countries are willing to work with us so we can reach the most children, the most families possible? and i think we've got to turn up the pressure on everybody with regards to where we are right now. 0k. what about china's role here? because the united states

has been very critical of what they say is hoarding. others might suggest it's stockpiling. james o'brien, head of the us state department's office of sanctions coordination, says it's a very active buyer of grain and, in fact, the department of agriculture, the us department of agriculture suggests it's got 69% of the world's maize reserves, 60% of its rice, 51% of its wheat. can...just even releasing that would push prices down. should it be doing that to alleviate world hunger? yeah, i think china holds somewhere between 50—60% of the world's wheat and grain. united states, for example, holds about 6%. and with the world food crisis that we're facing right now, particularly with the poorest of the poor not able to afford the food at the pricing level that it is right now, which is why we thought the black sea grain initiative was so important to alleviate commodity pressure, to bring the pricing down, and it's still at a ten—year high. so, china, in my opinion, needs to be doing more. the three things there, sarah — number one, i certainly

appreciate what china has done to end a grave amount of hunger in their own country. amazing success story. number two, they need to step up on the humanitarian development side. let me just give an example. in 2022, the united states, on average, gave the world food programme $22 per person. the united states population is about 332 million people. that was 7.4 billion that we receive from the united states, the world's largest economy. the number two largest economy in the world is china. well, 1.4 billion. we received a little less than one cent per person at $11 million. so china needs to do more in the international realm of things. they need to be more engaged in the multilateral context. the united states leads in this, other countries do a greatjob. but in my opinion, china needs to be more of a team player for the world at a time like this. we're talking about where responsibility lies. does the responsibility also lie with rich people?

oh, yeah, you know... you know how i've been very clear about that. particularly with covid, when the average billionaire, their net worth increase was, like, $5 billion a day. it's incredible. incredible. the average net worth increase for billionaires was about $5 billion a day, so... i'm not asking the billionaires to charitably resolve all these issues, while we have a short—term phenomenon. i want them to engage in the game, with all their technology and all their expertise, intelligence... engage with us. let's end hunger around the world. nothing's more important than ending hunger for the people around the world at a time like this. and we are in a world population of about 8 billion. what do you think it's going to be when we have 10 billion? we're struggling now... and... so, if we can... has any philanthropist responded to your call, when you ended up in a spat with elon musk? he chuckles well... some of them have engaged,

not necessarily with us. some of them have engaged with us, not to the level, the degree i want. right... 0ur private sector donations have gone from about 20, 30 million to about 500 million. but the needs are so great, as you can imagine, we need their engagement. now, what about you? six years at the top of this organisation, you go, but i... you're not... i imagine you're going to return to us politics. that's what's been suggested. is that your plan? i... last week, my daughter had our third grandchild, a little girl. and i'm looking forward to going home and... ..relaxing for at least a few weeks, or a couple of months, and we'll see, to take a break and really think about what's next. i don't know yet. we'll see. but i presume that a return to republican politics in the us is what... ah. he chuckles who knows? i don't know if i'll return to politics. i definitely will return

to helping people and, quite frankly, i'm really upset with both parties in america right now. i think the democrats and republicans, while they come together on food aid, and that is a beautiful thing, just last week, when i was in washington, meeting with the democrat and republican leaders, both ends of pennsylvania avenue might be fighting on everything, but when it comes to food security, they come together, and that's a beautiful thing. david... david? yeah. david beasley, thank you for coming on hardtalk. thank you. hello there. there's still some more rain to come through the rest of this week. at least it has turned milder.

on wednesday, temperatures reached 16 degrees in northern ireland, and in southwest france, 30 degrees on wednesday. this early spring warmth is going to come to an end as we change the month, we change the weather. temperatures will drop, but it should be turning drier. the overnight heavy rain across england and wales, the last of it clearing away from northern england early in the morning. and then we're going to find sunny spells, but showers will develop quite widely, some of them heavy with some hail and thunder, particularly central and eastern parts of england. still got a southwesterly breeze, it's still mild, may well be a little bit warmer than it was on wednesday in scotland, and before those heavy showers arrive, 17 degrees is possible in eastern england. those heavy showers do fade away quickly in the evening but only because it's going to get wet and windy here from the southwest. we've got this area of low pressure, quite a deep one. that's going to track across southern parts of the uk, strengthening the winds overnight, bringing some heavy rain to england and wales as well. the winds could be gusting, 50, 60mph or more in the south coast of england, perhaps into south wales. the winds do gradually

ease down on friday. the rain continues across these southern areas. could see some rain coming back towards northern ireland, the rest of the uk seeing a few showers, but probably a lot of cloud coming in on that easterly breeze from off the north sea. temperatures are going to be lower. top number this time — 14 degrees, and that's more likely in sheltered western parts of scotland. heading into the weekend, the start of april, and it continues to cool down a bit. but it should be turning drier as the weekend goes on with more sunshine. that area of low pressure will move away, we're going to be stuck with that weather front for a while. that gets cooled off by pressure rising during the second half of the weekend. first half of the weekend, though, sees a lot of cloud around, and we've still got some patchy rain across northern ireland, wales into southern england, maybe a few showers coming in from off the north sea on a chilly breeze. not going to feel very warm at all i think on saturday across eastern scotland and the northeast of england and typical temperatures are going to be 11 or 12 celsius. second half of the weekend, there's not much rain left over, just this band of cloud

and we should see some drier air coming in this time. that will hopefully mean more in the way of sunshine. the winds will be a bit lighter as well, but still temperatures below average, typically 10 to 13 celsius.

this is bbc news with the latest headlines for viewers in the uk and around the world. i'm victoria valentine. a nobel peace prize winner, accuses russia of using state propaganda to promote the use of nuclear weapons. translation: two generations have lived without the threat of nuclear war. but this is over. will putin press the nuclear button or won't you? who knows. no—one knows this. no—one knows this. the vatican says pope francis is spending a few days in hospital — to be treated for a respiratory infection. king charles is in germany on his first state visit as monarch. he praises germans for their extraordinary hospitality. plans to cut greenhouse gasses and give the uk the cheapest

electricity in europe by 2050 are set out by the government.