27/05/2014 Newsnight

The leaders of the European Union are meeting tonight in the aftermath

of an election which saw many of their citizens blow the institution

a resounding raspberry. But are they listening? Well, you would like to

think so, but there are signs tonight that plenty want to carry on

regardless. Popular capitalism is a crusade, a crusade to franchise the

many in the economic life of Britain. Oh yes? Does capitalism

have to be like this? Is there another way, way to find of creating

an inclusive capitalism? The boss of John Lewis believes so.

Got a million to invest? Why not buy Tracey Emin's bed? We will talk to

her about the nuttiness of the art market and whether she has got any

better at making the bed. And Justin Rowlatt joins the

Brazilian forces taking measures to try protecting indigenous peoples

from the predations of the modern world. The officers decide there is

only one thing for it. She is going to burn it down.

Oh dear, what do we do now? It would have been a delight to see the 28

elected leaders of the European Union and their associated

functionaries gathered beneath a banner like that tonight, when they

met for their free dinner in Brussel, to discuss what the

weekend's elections mean. David Cameron said they meant that people

felt the EU was "too big, too bossy, too interfering", which seems pretty

accurate. But these are the very people who made it big, bossy and

interfering, and what are they going to do about it now? Mark Urban is in

Brussels. Do you think the implications of the

vote have sunk in? Well, the thing is, different implications are

sinking in indifferent international members. For the UK and France it is

very clear what happened, there was an earthquake of right-wing US

scepticism. In Spain and Greece, it was clear what happened, it was a

left-wing rejection of authority that rocked the system, of

austerity, I beg your pardon. In countries like Italy and the

Netherlands, there was a far lesser turnout for Eurosceptic parties than

some of the incumbents had feared even a couple of months ago. Instead

of having an awkward squad in the European Parliament of up to 200

Eurosceptics, as someone suggesting that polls might, if they came true,

deliver, by this point would be considerably less. What's more, you

have this different national awkward squads, some on the far left, summer

fascist, who will find it hard to agree about anything. Instead of a

coherent Eurosceptic block, I think we are looking at a much harder

Parliament to manage, but one which some people think because of that

can still be managed. Is there really a sensible business as usual

there? I think because of that feeling, that perhaps even this can

be got through, there are extraordinary things going on here.

These are the things which normally happen after European election. You

get an election of a new chairman of commission, the civil service, the

real Eurocrats that people on the right in the UK like to excoriate.

That happens with a lot of close right in the UK like to excoriate.

door meetings. The person who ends up taking over

door meetings. The person who ends current favourite is a Luxembourg

politician, is not some who was elected on Sunday, it is someone who

is chosen in these backroom meetings and we are told that these can

expect to go on for several weeks, while the

expect to go on for several weeks, parliamentary caucuses haggle over

who should parliamentary caucuses haggle over

attempt to get some serious change between the relationship between

this country and Europe? He is trying to exert influence including

over the choice of who runs the European Commission next. He had his

loose alliance of parties including the Dutch, the Swedes and the Danes,

who were working with him to try and open up some of these areas and say

that member countries should be able to take more of their so-called

competencies or powers, if you like. We see for example, the Dutch, not

under the same pressure from Euro sceptics as they thought they might

be, in these elections, will they still be so keen on that? One thing

is the shore, Mr Cameron still still be so keen on that? One thing

the backing of the Swedish Prime Minister.

I think the situation in the United Kingdom is one of the most important

to attend two for the coming five-year period. For Sweden it is

of the utmost importance that Britain stays inside the European

Union and we also take into account the situation we

mandate for the incoming commission. Britain where we now formulate a

Now, in pushing that case, Mr Cameron, the

have to convince a disparate and disunited Europe

have to convince a disparate and when they will find it so

have to convince a disparate and gain consensus. That is the mountain

that David Cameron has declined. Thanks, Mark.

One thing the Eurosceptic voters do have in common is they do not seem

to like the EU as it is. What are the chances of reform? Chris Cook

reports. Where should the EU go next? The

weekend's European Parliament election results may be focusing

some minds. Eurosceptics did very well. Ministers now have

some minds. Eurosceptics did very big post-election decision. Who

should lead the Commission, the executive of the

EU? But what chance is there David Cameron getting his way, pushing

through his plans for reform and renegotiation? We need an approach

that recognises that Europe should concentrate on what matters, and

growth and jobs and not try to do so much. We need an approach that

recognises that much. We need an approach that

big, too much. We need an approach that

David Cameron is keen to block the favourite to be European Commission

President, this man, Jean-Claude Junker. But is because Britain --

David Cameron wants to be negotiate Britain's terms. On one hand David

Cameron wants to see a European union which does less, a slimmed

down European Union. On the other hand, you have shone Claude Junker,

the frontrunner for European Commission president who wants to

see more centralisation and more Brussels. Reform of any kind will be

tough. There is not a consensus of what Europe should be. An EU poll

from last year found that while more than 70% of people in Luxembourg,

Malta and Germany consider themselves to be EU citizens, the

equivalent number was only 40% in Greece and the UK. There is also

great variation in what people worry about. I think there are 28 kinds of

unhappiness and that is what these elections tell us. There are groups

of the unhappy. There is British and Danish unhappiness, North European

liberals outside the euro zone. There are the Germans who are

unhappy because they feel they have to pay for these profligate

southerners. And most of all, there are the debtor countries in the euro

zone who feel unhappy because of these austerity policies imposed on

them. That number is borne out by the polls. The number of citizens

who are pro EU has fallen. This has strengthened the case for reform in

the EU. They do not strengthen the case for Cameron's renegotiation.

Everyone now sees we have to inform the EU to make it deliver better,

deliver jobs, deliver more economic growth, meet these discontents,

across the whole European continent. Renegotiate not --

renegotiation on your hand, means delivering specific shopping list

for Britain for Cameron's backbenchers and UKIP voters. The

sooner we leave, the better. But more Eurosceptics in the European

Parliament might actually strengthen Cameron's hand. These elections

which have seen a record number of anti-EU parties will I think serve

as a wake-up call. If we do not go for reform, eventually, voters might

throw the baby out with the bath water and go for the anti-EU

parties. If it is not Cameron, it is the pen and that is a strong

argument. Keep an eye out on who the new European Commission president

is. It is a first hint about whether the EU is going to he'd David

Cameron's call for reform. Joining me now is Sir Malcolm

Rifkind, the former Foreign Secretary and from Brussels Ska

Keller, the leader of the Greens in the European Parliament and

candidate for European Commission president.

Let me start with you, Sir Malcolm. Do you think these elections

strengthen or weaken David Cameron's negotiations issue? In the

short term it is quite a blow to have Nigel Farage do so well. But

the more I think about it, in a curious way, it may make his job

easier. The single most important thing I have heard in the last 24

hours has been for President Hollande of France. His reaction was

the European Union will have to withdraw from certain things it

needn't be doing in the first place. Today, he repeated that. If he is

serious, if France now believes that has to be less involvement in the

European Union in matters which are not crucial, that are done uniformly

throughout Europe, that a huge ally for the United Kingdom. We know that

Angela Merkel is very anxious that the United Kingdom should be

accommodated in some way. I do not want to overdo it but that has to be

a serious possibility that for different reasons, the three major

countries recognise the need for some change. It is a problem because

we do not know what David Cameron is after. It would be quite foolish for

him to spell that out at the moment. The negotiation cannot begin and be

completed by our general election. You cannot start a negotiation when

the people you are negotiating with no it is not certain you will even

be in government a year from now. There is nothing to stop you doing

that. This is an international negotiation. It is not an internal

British matter. If you were to succeed, neither Britain nor any

other country will reveal its bottom line prematurely. That is not the

way you conduct an international mugger station. I am not asking you

to tell us, but do you know what he is likely to try? I can guess. The

crucial point is what my Conservative colleagues have to

recognise, or indeed anyone who supports a renegotiation, is any

negotiation at the end of the day involves compromise. The most

successful negotiation does not mean one side gets 100% and everyone else

gets nothing. The key will be to identify things that make a real

difference to the United Kingdom, like getting rid of the working time

directive, protecting London as a European financial centre, and a

range of issues of that kind which will benefit the United Kingdom

without other countries that have to agree to that having to explain to

their electors why some real harm has been done to their interests. It

can be done but it requires deft diplomatic skills.

Cigar Keller, these election results are pretty wholesale repudiation of

your idea of your -- we have had a great success. When

you look at the Tories, they have not had a great success. Cameron is

not at all clear of what he means with reform. You cannot say reform

this, reform that. You have to be clear what should be reformed in

which way because these elections, like all elections, you have to pick

your cards on the top of the table. Top of the pile in the UK's UKIP and

in France it is Front National. We've seen Euro-sceptic countries

also in the Netherlands. Euro-sceptic parties are not the

only ones who've been winning in some countries, even though

unfortunately not everybody seems to have noticed that there is a broad

array and rage of parties. We've seen very different election

results. The Greens have been doing very well. That's for a reason. We

are obviously advocating for reform but we say what sort of reform we

want, what sort of Europe we want, what jobs we are aiming for, where

to put more investments in green energy, things that have benefitted

the UK and would benefit the UK even more if it were to be done. We are

not just coming empty slogans. But isn't it the case that in these

circumstances it would be a brave man or woman who would say the

chances of a renegotiation of the relationship between member states

are higher now? Isn't it much more likely that the European Union will

say what we have we hold and we'll stay where we are for now, thank you

very much? We have a European Parliament with different political

parties. They have had all their chances in the campaign to say which

Europe they want and to campaign for their ideas. I do think we still

have plurality in this Parliament, that's good, but if you want to say

you want to renegotiate a contract you have to say which direction it

should go and make that clear. We can only negotiate if it is clear

what each side wants. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, you are going to need to

give people in this country, in order to head off what's clearly a

big upswell of opinion, a pretty clear idea of the direction of

travel at least. Absolutely right. The fundamental objective, and it is

not just the United Kingdom but Sweden, Denmark, the Dutch have

themselves said the days of ever closer union are behind us. It looks

as though it may be France as well. We are talking of a sizeable bloc,

including two of the three largest countries in the European Union

talking the language of reform. That means a crucial necessity of showing

that the European Union is only about doing the things jointly which

have to be done jointly. Each member state is a democratic country. There

is no need for the kind of interference in a whole range of

social policy, employment policy, economic policy that can better be

done by national Governments directly answerable to their own

electorate. Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Ska Keller, thank you both.

Has there ever been a time when capitalism hasn't been said by

someone or other to be in crisis? But now it's not just Marxists

predicting its inevitable collapse, but ardent capitalists themselves

worrying about whether there might be some other way of running the

thing. Today, a constellation of big-heads - Bill Clinton, Christine

Largarde of the IMF, even Prince Charles - wrung their hands and gave

us the benefit of their ideas on something called inclusive

capitalism, which they hope may be a way of arresting what seems to be a

constantly widening gap between rich and poor. The Governor of the Bank

of England was there too, warning tonight of the dangers of what he

called "unchecked market fundamentalism". Here's Katie

Razzall. Has capitalism ever been less

popular, as discontent spreads, financial crisis and a rise in

inequality have been grist financial crisis and a rise in

mill for those who argue that the free market as we know it has had

its day. This kind of social unrest in part

explains the inclusive capitalism conference in London today. Bill

Clinton, Prince Charles, the Bank of England Governor and the head of the

IMF all talking about why capitalism needs to be renewed. Their audience

- investors who hold a third of the world's assets, $30 trillion worth.

The numbers are striking. If you take the 85 wealthiest people in the

world, they can all fit in a double-decker bus, right? They have

more amongst themselves than half the population of the world. The

poorest half of course. But that's 3. 5 billion people. Not that those

85 people would ever likely travel by double-decker bus, but in the

City of London today capitalism was under scrutiny by the capitalists.

People have fought for years to define it for their political ends.

On paper, this definition of an economic system which uses wealth to

produce goods sounds fairly anodyne, but when trust is lost, it is a

wake-up call, as the conference heard today. Bank bail-outs,

unemployment and recession have all contributed to a sense of them and

us. British politicians have tried to tap in to the popular belief that

capitalism needs rewiring. I call for a new popular capitalism. Are

you on the side of the wealth creators or the estate strippers?

The producers or the predators? Not everyone accepts premise of today's

conference - that capitalism needs some work. You create the sense that

where the wealth have gone wrong recently it is something to do with

the economic system. I don't believe capitalism has broken down. I think

these things are driven by some of the events of the financial crisis

and what's happened since. By and large those can be characterised of

failures of regulation not market processes. But making capitalism

more inclusive was the agenda, taking in as opposed to excluding or

leaving out. I was only too pleased to go over and arrange for him to

open his first account. The world's moved on since the days of the

trusty bank manager who knew your name. But the excesses of the

banking industry were under fire today. Reforms have been too slow,

said Christine Lagarde, in part because the sector has fought them.

Within the last few hours Mark Carney gave his critique of

capitalism. After he said his number one priority is addressing the issue

of banks that are too big to fail. Six years after Lehman Brothers we

are still talking about it. It is not that it is low on the priority

list. It is that at the top of the priority list and authorities are

truly working to ensure, as much as possible, that that has happened. So

why are the bank Governor and some of the world's biggests so

interested in inclusive capitalism? Perhaps because they know that

inequality can lead to instability, anathema to capitalism. And the last

thing they want is another banking crash.

Joining me now are Sir Charlie Mayfield, chairman of the John Lewis

Partnership, and Zanny Minton Beddoes, economics editor of The

Economist. Is this way of conducting capital inch, do you think,

sustainable? Which way of capitalism? The non-inclusive? I

think by definition not. I don't think it's in crisis. There wasn't a

sense of immediate crisis at this gathering today, a huge gathering of

some $30 trillion... There were loads of wealthy people there. There

were. I think a powerful one is that it is no long they are the rising

tide is raising all boats. The rise in inequality means that people at

the top are doing incredibly well and lots of people further down are

not. To the the traditional idea that when an economy grew and there

was growth, that no longer is so much the case. But capitalism,

hasn't it Sir Charlie Mayfield, always depended on inequality? So

there was a recognition today that capital capitalism doesn't mean

equality. That some inequality is inevitable. And indeed necessary.

But there can also be a point you reach when it is excessive and the

point that was made repeatedly today is a lot of people are feeling that

it has got no a stage where income and equality has reached levels that

are concerning. I do think that's a worry. Another feature is that

technology is changing the way the job market is working. On the one

hand there are some people doing very well as a result of technology.

They are able to do a lot more than before and be paid more for it. But

there are middle order jobs that used to be good paying jobs which

have been replaced by technology. The risk is we are seeing a

workplace that's changing shape. People talk about the hollowing out

of the workplace. Those two things together I think create a situation

which is worrying. And needs to be addressed. And they are related. One

of the reasons that the inequality is widening is because of the change

in technology, which is rewarding people with the skills to useta

technology. The mid-skilled level jobs are being automated away. I

think the challenge is, how do you equip people with the skills that

they need to rots per in this fast-changing environment? That's

where Sir Charlie is doing lots of interesting stuff. Do you think

about education, do you think about training? Can waffle about

inclusiveness but there are concrete issues to be addressed. There is a

lot of waffle. What would inclusive capitalism look like in a way that

we can recognise as different. My definition is that the rising tide,

that prosperity raises all boats. It doesn't mean absolutely equality,

you need some inequality, but workers gaining as well as

shareholders, and everyone is improving somewhat. What is the John

Lewis mod Snell That's different to a lot of other businesses in a sense

that we are owner by people in the business. So you don't have

shareholders? We have shareholders but they work in the business.

90,000 people in the business own the company. The interesting thing

about the partnership is it was founded less than 100 years ago, but

as a response to perceived inequality of capitalism.

Essentially it was saying let's have labour employing capital rather than

the other way around. But that isn't a model you can apply everywhere is

it? No, I do think there is an opportunity for employee ownership,

and perhaps more than that for different forms of ownership to play

a bigger part in our economy. We've become very focused on the PLC,

which will always be I'm sure the predominant form, but not the only

one. The way it has worked in most market economies like ours in the

past has been that business does what it does, and Government does

what it can to aten wait some of the consequences of these disparities.

And there was a long term view that business is business and government

is government. To a degree that's right. A lot of what's going on now

is thinking about what should government be doing differently? It

is not government be doing differently? It

government is better, far from it. And what should business be doing

differently? This advir tore, if you wanted a concrete definition of

inclusive capitalism, he called it CEO, the conduct of business,

education and training and ownership. I think education and

training is central. We've got this unbelievably faction-changing world.

It is changing as dramatically as it was in the first Industrial

Revolution. And yet we have no radical change do our education

system. We haven't radically rethought training. We have a

generation of skills that they need to succeed. What would you like

Government to do? First of all, we should acknowledge from today is

that was business people coming together. There were no serving

politician there is at all. That's a recognition by business people that

business needs to play a bigger part. What I would like to see from

Government is on the one hand in principle the Government can play a

bigger role of acting as convenor. There are ways it can engage with

business people and others to solve these big challenges. An example of

that would be education. You've seen over the last ten or 15 years most

successful businesses have completely re-engineered the way

they operate. You are seeing now that working lifetimes are going to

be at least 20% longer and the innovation cycle is turn turning

longer than than before. And yet we still take the view that education

takes place between 5 and 21. I want a greater Porosity between the world

of business and education. There are lots of opportunities for that to

happen at lots of different levels. Thank you both very much indeed.

The hundreds of girls kidnapped in Nigeria are no closer to rescue

tonight. The Nigerian Army claimed this morning it knew where they are,

and just wasn't recovering them because of the risk a liberation

mission would pose to them. But tonight the BBC has discovered this

may be a long way from the truth. Boko Haram, the organisation which

wants to impose a medieval Islamic caliphate in Nigeria and which

seized them, meanwhile continues its murderous campaign, with more

attacks today. A body count by the Reuters news agency reckons that

almost 500 people have been killed since the girls were abducted. The

BBC's security correspondent, Frank Gardner, is here. Do they have any

idea where these girls are? Only very roughly, Jeremy. Everybody I've

spoken to says they don't have the precise location. Let's look at the

map. There's Nigeria, there's Abuja the capital, the girls were taken

from Chibok in the north-east corner. They've been taken it is

believed to the north of there to a forest. That's an area twice the

size of Rwanda, 16 times size of London. So saying they know where

the girls are is a bit of a moveable fierce. They've been sending drones

over, satellite planes and spy planes. The girls have been split up

into groups. Some are being held under ground in caves. A hostage

rescue would be suicidal and result in a blood bath, which is why the

Nigerian military is saying, rightly, that's not on the cards for

now. Have there been any attempts that negotiations? You have the

president, Goodluck Jonathan saying we are not going to accede to their

demands, but we have heard they came very close to deal which got

scuppered at the last minute that they were going to release 50 of the

girls which is a start, in exchange for 100 Boko Haram amp is in is.

That got scuppered. We learnt tonight there was a DVD that proves

the girls are live. If that is true and there is no way of corroborating

it, that is extremely important. The fundamental principles of kidnap and

ransom negotiations are, you establish proof of life, are the

girls alive and well, and proof of ownership. Are the people you are

talking to the people holding them? If you have got that, you have the

basis of negotiation. That is the only way the girls will get out of

there alive. Thank you. And so to bed.

Few artworks have divided opinion as drastically as Tracey Emin's My

Bed, made or rather un-made 16 years ago in her Waterloo council flat. Of

course, it is just a bed and a grubby one at that. But it also

expresses a state of mind and expresses the life of Warman who has

made her personal history the stuff of her art. It is a period piece,

one of the most celebrated examples of a time when the and font terrible

of the Young British artists could scandalised by ideas. Charles

Saatchi, who made so much of the art scene, is willing to part with it if

you should happen to have a few hundred thousand pounds burning a

hole in your pocket. Tracey Emin is here now. It was a good few years

ago you made that bed or produced that piece. 16 years ago, a long

time. What does it mean to you now? This morning I was installing it.

What is shocking is everything from the bed is kept in little tiny

plastic bags and it is all out on a chess table and it is like a frenzy

lab. As I am opening everything it is half like a crime scene and half

like a diary. Nearly everything I am touching is 1 million miles away

from me now. It is like a time capsule of my life really. I found

it a really sad thing to see that bed. It was a bed occupied by

someone, and I think you were unhappy at the time, when two? I was

very unhappy but also, that period of my life, was highs and lows. So

when you see the bed, how odd that it is preserved, such a mess is

preserved so precisely. It is funny. As an artist, when you're young and

unknown, there is no way you ever thinking your heart that it will

stay around forever or for a long time. And especially something like

the bed which is so serial, it is throwaway things, things which

should still not be existing. When I first the bed in Japan, this is

something most people don't know, the Japanese customs people would

not allow it in to Tokyo or the airport. We had to prove that I was

an artist, that I was alive, that was the other thing. They wanted to

know if I was still alive. I think it was Nixon wrote at the Tate and

the British Council had to send letters saying I was a living artist

in Britain -- Nick Sirota. Why did they not wanted in? I did not have

time for transport and I had all of the stuff around the bed inside the

suitcases. All the old condom 's and fag ends? Yes, all in bags but

inside the suitcases so they were going to destroy the suitcases. Of

course it was a great call celebre, and various people got very hot

under the collar screaming this is not art. What did you think when you

heard that? I just screamed louder and said, yes it is, it is my art.

With being an artist, if you have true conviction about what you're

doing and you are doing it for the right reasons, no one can take that

away from you. I proved that with the bed, just the testimony of time,

the fact that it is still here, it has become more iconic, it is more

seminal, it has more presents now than it did then. Then people

thought I was a silly young thing doing a shocking piece of art. When

you actually see it now, like this morning, I'm not saying you saw my

bed this morning or anything like that, or anyone else for that

matter! But the bed, it looks very sweet and almost harmless in a way.

Now it is definitely middle-aged. It is middle-aged and it needs to be

somewhere where it is preserved. Does it remind you of a part of your

life which is very distant. Guess, you can say that again. When I was

going through that different thing, there are condoms, contraceptive

pills, cigarettes, vodka, tiny underwear, all of those things which

are to do with being a girl and coming through some kind of

transition, going through something, some cathartic state. I

do not live like that any more. Now you wear enormous knickers expat

this bed is now worth a fortune. Isn't that odd? Some people think it

is probably a joke that it is worth that much and some people probably

think it is worth more. It depends what our perception of art is, what

is important, what our values are. The bed I think is iconic, it is

seminal and it did make a splash in art history. I do not know how long

for but at the moment it is still there. How much did Charles Saatchi

by four? 150,000. Now it is being talked about as going for a million.

You will not see any of that increase presumably? No. What you

feel? I am quite philosophical about my work being sold on. Charles has

looked after it. I know he adored it. If he does sell it, all of that

money will be used to buy more art and create an educational programme

and I think that is a useful thing. I think that is really positive. I

have always had the attitude that if someone buys my art, they might

literally only to resell it, but I will always own the idea and the

essence of it and it truly is mine. No one can ever take that away from

me. That is why I am on the programme tonight talking to you and

talking about my bed. Tracey Emin, thank you very much. Thank you.

talking about my bed. Tracey Emin, The World Cup begins in just over a

fortnight, much to The World Cup begins in just over a

various parts of the population of Brazil, who think grotesque amounts

have been spent on the preparations. The government sees the competition

as a way to celebrate its great economic growth. The flip side of

all of that, is all the stories of destruction in the Amazon rainforest

and the obliteration of the ways of life of indigenous people living

there. As Justin Rowlatt has discovered, this is a problem the

government knows it needs to be seen to be tackling.

government knows it needs to be seen We are flying over the edge of the

Amazon. We are flying over the edge of the

spotted an illegal sawmill. The team is led by Officer

Gonsalves. This raid is part of huge operation including the Brazilian

army, air force and military police. It is a first in the history of

Brazil. It is called operation Awa and stopping illegal logging is part

of it. The key objective is to save an entire tribe, the Awa. The agents

find some incriminating evidence, the account books. Look at this.

They have got the total value, 4700 Riaus and there is a fee here, 202

pay the police. This year, Brazil is hosting the World Cup. In 2016, it

will stage the Olympics. These events have helped drive a building

boom creating a massive demand for timber. They have made the forest

reserves of the indigenous people like the Awa, even more attractive

to loggers. The offices decided there is only one thing for it.

An officer from Brazil's indigenous peoples Department is taking me into

the Awa's reserve. The Awa live in the last islands of

forest left in this region. They may be near to the edge of the jungle

but they are one of the most isolated communities on earth. Many

Awa grew up without any outside contact -- contact with the outside

world. Many small groups still live completely separately. He says they

are in an area now where they know there are uncontacted people. There

may be 40 or 50 people here. There is a spider web of tracks in the

forest. They know the loggers are here as well. The loggers are

rapidly destroying the remaining forest, putting the 350 or so Awa in

such peril that they have been described as the most endangered

tribe on the planet. I first met the tribe four years ago. Last time I

was here, they took me on a hunt. I am not going to dress like that!

They are one of the few hunter gatherer tribes left in the Amazon.

With so much of the forest gone, the hunt leader wanted to show me how

hard it is to find food. I am back to find out how the Awa

are getting on. It is amazing to come back. I never thought I would,

actually. Hello, I remember you. Do you remember me? We came here

before. For years and, if anything, the Awa's plight has only deepened.

They tell me these days you can sometimes hear loggers chainsaws

from the village. Many of the adults here grew up in uncontacted

communities. They say they have been fleeing the loggers ever since they

were children and with good reason. This man says loggers have been

known to kill indigenous people when they encounter them in the forest.

Not only do loggers destroy habitats, they open up the forest

with tracks bringing in settlers who clear the land. That is why this

operation has to be on such a large scale.

They have to evict the 400 farming families who illegally occupy the

Awa's land. All of these people will be moved out of the town and they

have come here to ask how their preparations are going, whether they

need help with transport, and the idea is these guys will be given

another plot of land somewhere else in Brazil where they can farm. Some

families have been here for 18 years. Naturally, they are sad to

leave.