that figure was much higher amongst minorities. cyndy botts is the author of the report. the stories were absolutely horrific, and it goes to show that the culture in cricket is rotten. an inquest has concluded that nicola bulley drowned after accidentally falling into cold water. ms bulley went missing while walking her dog by the river wyre in lancashire. her death sparked conspiracy theories on social media, which her family has criticised. some other stories revenge porn laws in england and wales are getting tougher. changes today mean prosecutors don't have to prove there was intent to cause distress. deepfake porn is also being criminalised for the first time and singer lewis capaldi says he's taking a break from touring

to adjust to the impact of his tourette�*s diagnosis. and another celeb is buying a football club. that's right. stormzy is set to buy his hometown club, afc croydon, as part of a trio that includes footballer wilfried zaha. time now for 10 seconds of a slice of history. this painting was found in the ancient city of pompeii. now, it might look like a pizza, but experts say pizza didn't exist when this was done. so who knows? you're all caught up now. see you later. this is bbc news. we'll have the headlines and all the main news stories for you at the top of the hour as newsday continues straight after hardtalk.

welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur. back in 2015, world leaders pledged to speed up cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in a bid to stop our planet warming by more than 1.5 degrees over pre—industrial levels. most climate scientists now believe that threshold will be crossed, and soon. as a result, many millions of people around the world face potentially life—threatening climate—related disruption. my guest is patrick verkooijen, founder of the global center on adaptation. is his focus on making the world climate change—resilient an admission that the battle to cut emissions has been lost?

patrick verkooijen, welcome to hardtalk. thank you, stephen. now, you are all about adaptation. your global center on adaptation is sending a clear message to the world that it is time to make particularly the most vulnerable parts of the world resilient to the impacts of climate change. does that mean you've basically accepted we've lost the battle to curb emissions and prevent the worst of climate change? thank you so much, stephen. we need to adapt to a warmer climate. we now see that we have already in the threshold of 1.2 celsius. investing in adaptation is not defeat, stephen. it's defence. it makes economic sense to invest in climate adaptation but at the same time we also need to lower our carbon footprint, so we need to have these two ideas in our heads and invest in both areas.

lower our carbon footprint and adapt to a changing climate. so do both at once, but you know, as well as i do, because you worked at world bank and you've been in this game a long time, you know the political decisions are all about making tough choices. they are about defining priorities. do you sense that there needs to be a shift of priorities towards this idea of adaptation? adaptation has been and is still the poor cousin of the climate debate. not enough financial resources are being put on the table to adapt our world, notjust even in the global south but also in the united states, we see the forest fires earlier this month from canada, the droughts in the horn of africa, the heatwaves across the globe. we have to invest. and the good thing, stephen, is, the good news, it makes economic sense.

why? because a global commission on adaptation led by bill gates, kristalina georgieva, and ban ki—moon, former secretary—general of united nations, they've said, well, if the world was to invest $1.7 trillion in climate adaptation before 2030, the net economic benefit is us$7.1 trillion, so it's not only the right thing to do, stephen, it's the smart thing to do. i do want to unpick some of those figures with you and look particularly at the case of adaptation and the return you would get for adaptation policies in africa. i want to go into that, but before i do that, just one general point about human psychology. do you think there is not a danger that if you essentially say to the world there are ways in which we can learn to live with significant climate change, you actually give something of a license to the polluters to continue to believe they can continue the emissions

of greenhouse gases. it gives them something of a pass. well, not really, i would think, because there is no way to adapt ourselves out of the climate breakdown. we still have to reduce drastically our carbon emissions sooner rather than later. but recognising this, even if we were to live up to the 1.5 degrees celsius target, which you mentioned, stephen, and we are not on track, we see already the climate catastrophe around us so we simply have to adapt on the changes of today which will get much worse tomorrow. let's now begin to unpick some of those figures that you began to give me. the bottom line seems clear. for years, actually, the rich world, the industrialised world, has been making promises about the degree to which it is prepared to provide financial support and assistance to the most vulnerable emerging economies when it comes to climate change impact, and coping with them.

the promises have been made, up to $100 billion a year was supposed to be transferred but those promises have not been kept. why? indeed, it is shameful that these promises have not been kept yet. $100 billion was supposed to flow from the global north to the global south. the world hasn't delivered on that, the rich world hasn't delivered on that, and the argument is that, well, these are actually very complicated times economically. exactly. slow growth, high inflation, cost of living, multiple crises, but the reality is this — the world has to come together, come united on this agenda because it is in the interest also of the global north that the whole world adapts to the climate crisis because it's simply connected. in essence, you're a sort of climate lobbyist of sorts and you must appreciate

that at a time of, well, the ukraine war, which has had major impacts on the global economy, a sort of food—cost crisis around the world which, again, is partly a result of the ukraine war, and the long—term after—effects of the covid pandemic, this is a terrible time to be telling taxpayers in the industrialised world that they are going to have to accept fronting up and paying for this massive adaptation programme that you want to see in the emerging economies. indeed, so we have a covid crisis, we have a conflict crisis, as you mentioned, from ukraine, and there is on top of that, a climate crisis. the reality is is that the climate adaptation agenda, in essence, as lord nicholas stern indicated, it is a growth agenda, it is a jobs agenda, so it is a smart economics to invest because the return on investments are much higher than the cost of bringing them to the table. can you verify that?

i mean, you say financing adaptation is 90% more cost—effective than paying for the increasingly frequent disaster responses that we have to indulge in, everything from forest fires to flooding and hurricane relief. you say it's so obvious, but how can you actually prove that? let me just give you an example from the field. recently i was in makueni. where is that? in kenya. when you sit with a farmer who is using drought—tolerant crops, amidst the worst drought in the last a0 years, and what you see when these sort of new technologies are used, you see that the yield is going up, not down, so that farmer is in a position to bring food to the table, even amidst this climate emergency, so the 500 million smallholder farmers in the world, these solutions from makueni needs to be brought to the rest of africa.

in fact, to the rest of the world. is there also a degree to which you are using a fear factor in your arguments for paying for adaptation? because i notice your recent statements, you are putting and more emphasis on the degree to which you see a mass displacement of people, a mass migration from the most vulnerable parts of the world, which you say will be introducing new levels of economic crisis and chaos to the industrialised world. is migration sort of a card that you hold to frighten people? it's not to frighten, it's not a card to hold but it's a reality on the ground. the world bank figures are very clear. let's take central america and mexico. it is expected if climate adaptation of agriculture systems, infrastructure systems, other measures are not being put in place, millions of people from central america and mexico will go up north

to the united states so expect this flow of migrants to become a wave perhaps, evena tsunami. that's the reality. and to avoid that — the flipside, stephen — to avoid that, it is very important to invest in the drivers of this migration. it seems a particular focus of yours is africa, you are working on a particular africa adaptation fund. you say that, and the un backs this up, that africa needs to raise, and i think this is right, an average of roughly $120 billion—something a year to adapt to the already happening impacts of global warming, and currently they are receiving just $28 billion of that needed $124 billion. it seems to me that the message isn't cutting through. so how are you, as the chief of a big lobby organisation, going to change that? well, the message isn't

getting through yet, because 8 of the 10 most vulnerable nations in the world indeed are in africa. africa has not caused this climate breakdown — less than 4% of greenhouse gas emissions are from the african continent — but these african leaders, they have united, they have put on the table the largest, boldest programme on adaptation. indeed, the africa adaptation acceleration programme. stephen, well, $25 billion needs to be capitalised by the next five years, we're going to put in half of it, which they have done, and reached out to the global north, to the rich nations. now it is your turn to partner with us, to dance with us and put your other half on the table. so you staged a summit before the sharm el—sheikh cop meeting last year, to try and encourage western leaders to support this african adaptation fund. how much tangible support,

real cash, did you get? so in the billions already. in the first 2a months of this programme, $5.2 billion has been invested on the ground, which means food on the table in african households, which means resilient infrastructure. we already established the need is for $124 billion per year. $5 billion, sorry to use an analogy that involves water, but is a drop in the bucket. and hence more needs to be done and hence that is why it is so important that the international financial architecture will be made fit for purpose in the coming years. that is now a moment of truth in the coming months. in fact, president macron, prime minister modi are convening sort of a process to make the international financial system work for all of us. do you think there is a particular problem

in convincing western leaders, and let's face it, most of them are elected politicians who work on 4— or 5—year election cycles, convincing them that they need to persuade their voters, their taxpayers, that they are going to have to come up with significant sums of money to invest in, for example, more resilient food production systems in africa, betterflood defences, all those sorts of things which your organisation is committed to but which i dare say taxpayers in hard—pressed economies in the west may not be convinced should be a priority. the same taxpayers in the west are also experiencing that the climate emergency, climate breakdown... that's why they want it dealt with in their countries, not necessarily in africa. at the same time, these same taxpayers are very invested in migration streams, in trade flows. trade flows, supply chains are being disrupted as we speak because of the climate emergency, so the idea that we can just solve this

problem in splendid isolation, i think, is wrong. we are connected in this, we are unified in this and hence, the resources has to flow, starting with the reform of the world bank system itself. we focused this conversation on what the west can come up with and provide. how much do you care about china and how much are you believing now that you and others need to be putting on china too to come up with adaptation resources because china, let us not forget, is now the second biggest economy in the world, but is also responsible for one—third of all current greenhouse gas emissions. well, there is no solution, stephen, without china and united states, by all that fact, to move forward on the climate agenda. the two largest emitters in the world have to come together and find a unified pathway forward. well, they signed an agreement on this only two years ago in glasgow that they work individually, jointly

and with other countries to really address the climate crisis but china, like every other nation, is struggling with decarbonising in its economy while at the same time... of course it is, and it's still building substantial numbers of... coal—fired plants, and they should phase that out, as they are committed to do but, at the same time, so they are investing heavily in renewables, in wind power and solar power, and that is exactly the sort of direction of travel, china needs to move forward, is moving forward, and needs to do more, has more ambition. but that increased ambition, stephen, applies to all nations in the world — that is why the climate summit at the end of this year is such an important moment because it gives us a picture how far off track we are in terms of the climate takedown, in terms of the actions to solve this and, at the same time, it has to identify the priority areas which you started off with — and climate adaptation should be front and centre. i'm sure you are familiar

with the law of unintended consequences. isn't there a grave danger that if you get your way and you funnel vast new financial resources into some of the world's most vulnerable countries when it comes to climate change that you are going to exacerbate a whole host of problems, ranging from enhancing or exacerbating social and economic injustices to actually playing into new levels of corruption? so, where are these resources going? let's take bangladesh. 1970, 50 years ago cyclone bhola came to harness into bangladesh. 500,000 people died. why? it did not have an early warning system. now, 2019, a similar cyclone came to bangladesh. only 12 people died. that is very practical solutions on adaptation which basically saves lives and saves livelihood.

thisjust makes economic sense, it makes... well, interesting you mention bangladesh — i believe your global centre's involved in some of the efforts in bangladesh to improve flood defences. now, a study from the research and world developmentjournal in 2021 looked at some of these bangladeshi projects and actually discovered that they were having counter—productive effects. they left millions of people dependent on unmaintained, ill—suited infrastructure — and actually, in some cases, appeared to encourage more development in areas which were still at high risk of flooding. so, i was recently in bangladesh. where was i? in mongla. what is mongla? mongla is the second largest port city in the southern part of bangladesh. what was i doing there? i met with local communities, women groups. they fled their homes and houses because of the incoming floods, because of saltwater intrusion and they came, they migrated to mongla. yes, their situation was very

desperate and very — the services were not there — but stephen, the important point is... crosstalk. ..these same women — but in comment to your question — these same women, they come up with a people's adaptation plan. they know best what type of intervention should be needed but what is important, stephen, talking about finance, these people's adaptation plans carried by these women groups need to be funded, and that's where the international finance institutions need to come to the table, to fund these bottom—up processes. the perspectives of local communities living on the frontlines are being brought into the equation of solutions. yeah. i mean. what is not to like? you say local people know best but actually, it seems indigenous and local peoples in many development — adaptation developments — have actually lost out. take a couple of examples. in sao tome, a project to make farming methods more resilient was only offered to those who actually owned land. it made the landless people in that society even more marginalised. in vietnam, a hydroelectric

dam and forest project which was meant to regulate floods in lowland areas was found to be counter—productive for for the mountain people who lived above the dam, who were more vulnerable to climate impacts as a result. this means that some of the work you are doing and the money you are investing is actually harming the people you're trying to help! and hence, stephen, it's so important to standardise what is good adaptation, what counters adaptation, which euro, dollar, pound flows to adaptation is truly going into these standards. the multilateral development banks have these standards and the rest of the world should simply adopt these standards into their sort of accounting and transparency. but with all due respect, you are an outsider who looks in on these communities. lisa schipper, a climate researcher at the university of oxford, says by imposing foreign systems and technologies on indigenous and vulnerable people, it is easy to perpetuate

inequalities. would you accept she has got a point? she's got a point, and that's — and the point is this, that's exactly why we need to turn the table and get these local communities much more integrated in the decision—making, and that's precisely what we do with this africa adaptation acceleration program. local communities are at the heart of the solution. kenya, mukuru — the largest slum in nairobi. these — these citizens are basically living on the frontlines. they, again, came up with a plan and the financing is flowing to what their priority is. what's not to like, stephen? well, you make it sound as though it's all going swimmingly. the truth is transparency international last year wrote a report on corruption and climate finance and they concluded that the world has witnessed seen a vast increase in climate

funding, yet the effectiveness of what this funding can achieve is threatened by corruption which finds fertile ground when vast sums of money are involved. you want these vast sums of money. you cannot tell me you can root out the corruption that often goes with those vast sums of money? at the same time — of course, i mean, the world needs these vast sums of money but not as a sunk cost. but again, as an investment. crosstalk. no, but — but my point is... and your point is about how are these resources being spent? that's exactly why we more transparency, more accountability in the global financial system. that's exactly what is needed. just not in large pots of money, which we should, but at the same time also think about — rethink systems, finance flow,

indicators of success. so, if i may say so, so easy to say, so difficult to achieve. so, you know, apart from everything else you're trying to do with this adaptation programme, you're now telling me that you're going to improve governance, you're going to root out corruption, you're going to get rid of the rotten apples in these countries that you are engaging with. how on earth are you going to do that? stephen, as i have learned from those living on the frontlines in africa, there is no shortcut to the top of a palm tree. you have to put the hard work in. get the basics in place in terms of planning, in terms of where are the risks, but also in terms of the transformation of financing flow. i mean, it is a whole—of—society effort. it's certainly not an international organisation which i happen to lead from rotterdam which will, let's say, solve the world's problem. we are contributing, we are facilitating as a solutions broker but it's a whole system approach which needs to take place. is this going to be easy? no. is it going to be possible? yes — and so, we should. you've been around international institutions, including the world bank, for long enough to know that multilateral institutions and the global political system we have, frankly, appears not able to truly get to grips

with the scale of this climate emergency. and that is exactly why, stephen, this bridgetown agenda, which we're dancing around in our conversations to day... sorry, that's jargon — what is the...? jar — mia mottley, prime minister of barbados, last year, said, "well, actually, the world bank, "the bretton woods institutions were established 80 years ago. "well, at that time, the world was vastly different "than it is today, let alone a couple of years ago "or a couple of years after us, so these "institutions have to adjust." what needs to happen? well, these climate—vulnerable nations have huge debts. the world bank has to step in. and mia mottley has a point, stephen, because what she did was very smart, because she said, "every "new debt which we take on as barbados, in our debt deal, we will say, �*0nce a natural disaster

strikes, we suspend payment of our debt." "that'is negotiated." secondly, she said, "well, actually, the world bank needs "to change because who has access to concessional finance, "to the grounds of the world bank system? "not all countries, and it needs to be more." lastly, "the world bank needs to grow — needs "to grow its balance sheet by bringing in the private "sector," so — and the interesting thing, stephen, is it's notjust mia mottley, it's notjust the global south but now also the global north, led by president macron, are unified behind this sort of re—shift in the direction of travel, so the bridgetown initiative, de facto, stephen, is the new bretton woods moment we had 80 years ago. so, you are saying, in a word, that you believe there are ways in which we humans can find ways to successfully avert climate catastrophe? so, i don't want to come across as being naive and overly optimistic. i, of course, see there

is an abundance of challenges and a scarcity of time but that doesn't mean that we have zero solutions and no time left. all right. the point is let's get on with it. patrick verkooijen, it's been a pleasure. thank you for being on hardtalk. thank you so much. hello there. it looks like today will be the warmest day of the week, feeling quite humid, especially across england and wales, and it's across england and wales where we should tend to stay dry for much of the day. but there will be a band of rain pushing in across scotland and northern ireland that will continue its journey eastwards during tonight. so, we're in this wedge of warm and humid air, especially for england and wales. this cold front, though,

will be pushing rain initially into northern ireland and then into scotland as we run through the day and behind it, it'll turn brighter, but there'll be some cooler, fresher air here and the rain will tend to ease down as it pushes its way eastwards. but much of england and wales will stay rather cloudy, generally dry, bar the odd heavy shower and some glimmers of brightness here and there. but it will be warm and muggy, 22 to 25 degrees here. but the mid to high teens, further north and west where it brightens up behind the rain band. but through wednesday night, it looks like that rain band then starts to pepper up as it reaches the midlands, southern and eastern england. so send the rain may turn out to be heavy by the end of the night. and again, it'll be quite a warm, muggy night in the south east corner, much cooler and fresher further north and west. this is the pressure chart for thursday. there's that weather front, very slow to clear from the south east. so, it could be quite a wet day here.

but elsewhere, it's brighter — starts bright, sunshine around. one or two showers will develop as the cloud bubbles up mainly across the north and west of scotland. in the south—east, i think, for much of the day. in fact, some very welcome rain here. of course, temperatures are lower across the board, away from the very far south—east. we're looking at 15 to 18 in the north and the west, 20 to 22 for much of england and wales. for friday, though, another set of weather fronts start to spread down across the country thanks to low pressure. so it'll tend to stay quite cloudy and damp, but more isobars on the charts, too. so a breezier day to come on friday, especially around irish sea coast across scotland and northern ireland. it's here where we'll see most of the rain, the heaviest of the rain. but we also some patchy rain pushing into western england and wales. further east, you are tending to stay dry with variable cloud, maybe some glimmers of brightness which could push temperatures up to 22 degrees. otherwise for most, it's the mid to high teens, so feeling fairly fresh for the time of year. into the weekend, low pressure continues to bring sunshine and showers mainly to the north and the west of the country. better chance of staying drier

and a little bit warmer �*welcome to newsday, reporting live from singapore, i'm karishma vaswani. the headlines. reasserting his authority, vladimir putin thinks his troops. in what he calls the civil war the leader of belarus alexander confirms that the wagoner boss prigozhin is in �*boss and in infiltration �* boss prigozhin is in wagoner boss prigozhin is in his country following the mutiny on saturday. his country following the mutiny on

and in infiltration