D+C Development and Cooperation (No. 6, November/December 2000,
p. 8 - 12)

Whereas official development agencies like the GTZ and the Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) have given high notes to the developmental impact of EXPO 2000, many NGOs have taken a more critical view. EXPO-Watch, an office established by One-World initiatives in Germany and the advocacy organisation GERMANWATCH, draws a rather negative balance.

After Germany in 1990 got the nod to organise the EXPO 2000 world exhibition, the organisers searched frantically for a motto for it. In 1992 they came up with 'Humankind-Nature-Technology' in order, they said, to "give the idea of the world exhibition on the threshold of the new millennium a new quality". They said they were expressly linking the exhibition to Agenda 21 adopted at the UN environment and development summit in Rio de Janeiro of that year because it gave EXPO 2000 "the unique opportunity during the years leading up to the exhibition in Hanover to assume a leading role in the follow-up process of the UNCED". But they failed to realise this chance.

At this world exhibition, nothing less than the issues of the future of humankind were to be discussed and paths to solutions pointed out. According to the organisers' concept of 1992, the focus was to be on the problems of the developing countries and strategies to overcome the North-South conflict.

In December 1995 the EXPO company decided to use Agenda 21 as the binding basis in terms of content for developing the exhibition's theme. All participating countries were obliged to align their presentations on that theme and submit their ideas for it. It was a novelty in the history of world exhibitions.

EXPO and Agenda 21

For background, Agenda 21 contains in 40 chapters policy statements and recommendations for sustainable development, including the interaction of the environment and development and taking account of ecological, social and economic aspects. Besides the 'traditional' actors of government and industry, the document named in particular women, youth, indigenous peoples, NGOs, municipalities, trade unions, the academic world and farmers as implementors of the central concept of sustainable development. Grassroots approaches to solutions were to be developed with these actors. The special responsibility of the industrialised nations, as well as social values, were to be emphasised, and the principle of providing for the future acknowledged worldwide.

By committing itself to Agenda 21, EXPO placed itself from the start in a bind from which there was no escape. Even eight years after Rio, almost all of the countries taking part in the exhibition lacked convincing activities for implementing the document. In addition, its central concept of sustainable development was reduced to conventional environmental protection measures or to empty phrases. What should the countries have presented at EXPO in relation to Agenda 21? What should have been the standards? Looking for criteria from the EXPO organisers was futile.

If one believes the EXPO press releases, Agenda 21 really did play a central role in almost all its sectors. Whether it was country presentations, the Theme Park, current activities or concepts for follow-up use - Agenda 21 and ideas for sustainable development were omnipresent. But they were presented in truncated form and as minimum demands. It was a matter of "saving energy, taking action against acid rain, protecting threatened species, putting a stop to illegal waste transports" and "increasing people's awareness by upbringing, education and campaigns". Those who were not satisfied with this interpretation of Agenda 21and insist that sustainable development must not be reduced to protecting the soil, water and air, but that a fundamental reorientation of the entire social and industrial system is needed, were absolutely disappointed by EXPO 2000.

Except for the 'Global Dialogue' series, the countries taking part in EXPO reduced Agenda 21 and the concept of sustainability almost wholly and misleadingly to the basic proposition that "natural resources such as wood should be consumed only as fast as they can grow again". That is a definition which enables the measures arising from it to be integrated in the environmental protection sector without problems. So the thinking stops at empty phrases in relation to sustainability. Almost all environmental protection groups and many NGOs in development cooperation had taken their decisions about participation in EXPO well ahead of it. They presented themselves and their strategies on sustainable development, which go much further than the environmental protection sector, either not at all or only indirectly at the exhibition. They saw no chance of showing their ideas alongside the presentations of industry, some of which were financed with millions of deutschmarks.

The country presentations

Obliged to conform to the basic idea of Agenda 21, the participating countries had to present drafts of their planned presentations in the run-up to EXPO 2000. But what a country 'exhibited' was in the end left for itself to decide. So the presentations ranged from a better class of tourism market to self-assured self-presentation and demonstrations of achievements. Germany gave a bad example up front with an ambitious parade of its accomplishments and an extensive cultural programme in the 10th anniversary year of German reunification - which was not entirely in the sense of Agenda 21. But EXPO 2000 sanctions for disregarding the exhibition's central theme were unthinkable.

More than 170 countries and organisations took part, a record international representation at a world exhibition. The big turnout was certainly due to the German government's DM 100 million programme to promote the developing countries' participation. The Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and the German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) gave them advice and support from the initial planning stage in an effort to anchor the aspects of sustainability in their project examples at many places in the EXPO area. About 100 developing and reform countries were given such assistance.

The government's contribution was plain to see. All promoted countries at EXPO were recognisable by the BMZ's One World logo, designed especially for the exhibition. But their presentations also stood out for other things. Many of them did better in implementing the EXPO theme than some industrialised nations. Worthy of special mention in this respect were the joint presentations by more than 40 countries in the Africa Hall, by Central America and the Caribbean countries, and by the South Pacific Forum. In the age of globalisation, the joint presentation of problems and possible solutions to them appeared the only suitable way to portray them at EXPO and point the way to the future. It was doubtful, however, if this kind of presentation could have been made without the BMZ's financial contribution.

Frequently, the aim of the countries of the South and East was finally to escape for once from the label of being burdened with endless problems and show a different face to the world. This motive also matched the motto of the Africa Hall, "The Gift of Africa", with which the African countries presented themselves to their visitors. Their unique joint concept was among EXPO's most popular presentations, pleasing both the visitors and exhibitors. Two presentations on the topics of 'Desertification' and 'Water', staged in a good form and not overloaded with multimedia, offered visitors more than merely the usual tourism promotion.

But every country, of course, presented its best side at EXPO. As a journalist from Central America rightly commented: "Why should Honduras of all countries present itself with the topic of natural disasters?", as the GTZ had suggested. "Every industrial nation can portray this topic better." But the latter's presentations also avoided showing the more problematical sides of their societies. The developing countries in fact could have taught the industrialised nations a lesson about using innovative forms of presentation and abiding by the EXPO theme.

Reliable statistics on visitors were difficult to come by. The Africa Hall, for example, recorded no numbers. So only approximate figures are available. The GTZ estimates that at least 3.5 million visitors were attracted by the colourful displays in the Africa Hall. In general, the halls were not so well visited as the individual country pavilions. But that does not necessarily say anything about the quality of the content and presentations. After early difficulties, the exhibitors were apparently quite satisfied. Besides the occasional business contacts made by one or another country, there was above a positive response to the joint activities of the supporting programme in the Africa Hall. This is where many different kinds of contacts were made.

Theme Park

In contrast to the individual country presentations, the Theme Park addressed overarching problems of our times and differed from other exhibitions in general by its basic principle of participation. Martin Roth, head of the park, said: "EXPO invited from around the world private persons, NGOs, companies, and science and research institutions to take part with concrete questions on the future and realistic suggestions for solutions to current problems." The design and implementation of the contributions, however, was in the hands of the EXPO company. The cooperation was not always the best, so some partners and NGOs pulled out very early on. The participants also had to bear the costs of their contributions. So it is not surprising that almost all the Theme Park sectors were dominated by wealthy companies, which put their stamp on the exhibition, and that industry's "suggestions for solutions" were in the foreground. EXPO critics spoke of a huge industry show with entertainment value. Organisations such as Bread for the World, VENRO and the German Environment Foundation were held up as show labels to highlight the broad range of the participants. They also provided meaningful and thoughtful contributions which could have broadened the horizon of the visitors. But there remains the question to what extent they were noticed. A positive note to underline is that the BMZ gave grants to poorer organisations in the so-called Third World to help them participate. The world partners of EXPO, all of them strong corporations, got much more favorable terms, though.

How industry's dominance was reflected in the exhibits was shown by the example of the Theme Park's 'Humanity' sector. The chemicals industry invested DM 22 million in that show, presenting itself with the motto 'Life is Chemistry'. Visitors were warmed up for the theme in a waiting area under a big, futuristic railway station. Eight computer-controlled trains drove them through a huge, 280 metre-long tube which ran at a height of 2.5 metres through the hall. They were shown what chemistry had already done for people's lives, and what challenges the industry faced in the next century. A combination of classic theatrical set elements, state-of-the-art multimedia and laser technology, temperature and wind effects, and smells delivered an experience affecting all senses. The chemicals industry's aim was to prove its competence in providing solutions for the problems of our Earth and portray its achievements for humanity.

The same hall housed Amnesty International and VENRO, the association of more than 100 German NGOs. That meant more NGOs were represented in this Theme Park sector than in 10 others together. The theme of Amnesty International was positioned strategically in the hall's exit area, thus delivering the final message of that exhibition sector. The theme of 'torture, an unsolved problem of our century' was conveyed to visitors by depicting the fate of individual people. Visitors also had the opportunity to call personally for the release of non-violent political prisoners. The fact that the EXPO organisers removed from the presentation overnight a contribution on torture in Turkey helped Amnesty International achieve additional public awareness of the problem. Nevertheless, against the heavyweight presence by which industry dominated the Theme Park and offered its options for solutions, the few presentations of the NGOs remained little more than fig leaves.

Projects Around the World

The Projects Around the World programme was something new in the history of world exhibitions. Ahead of EXPO 2000, the organisers said: "By means of the worldwide projects, an EXPO will take place globally for the first time, and pioneering ideas on sustainable development will be presented worldwide. The themes of the selected international projects range from questions of sustainable forest management and future energy supply to social issues and urban and rural development. Developmental themes are a special focal point. In particular, the programme is to include appropriately in the world exhibition both the capability and the problems of the developing countries in order to promote the partner-like dialogue of the groups of this One World."

As feared by critics from the beginning, not all theme sectors were given equal coverage. The environment, knowledge and basic needs were well represented, humanity and health held a middle-ground position, while energy, work, food and mobility were given below-average treatment.

The Projects Around the World could seen at various locations in the EXPO grounds, such as in the country pavilions, in the Global House and in the Theme Park. But only half of the total of 487 recognised international projects were represented at EXPO. The rest were based in countries around the world, inaccessible to most EXPO visitors.

The EXPO organisers called the worldwide projects 'The Network of Good Ideas'. With some exceptions, the examples presented, embedded in the framework of Agenda 21's comprehensive approach and thus tied to it, offered ideas on sustainable development and delivered an important starting point and building block for responsible action. They also showed that self-responsible action was possible throughout the world and with disparate means. But they did not show that isolated approaches to solutions often remain ineffective if they are not followed by comprehensive structural reforms at all levels of social activity.

Summing up: EXPO 2000 -
an opportunity for
development policy?

"The offer of developmental themes at EXPO is overwhelming," the BMZ and GTZ noted in their 'One World Guide' - and they were right. Without that contribution, the theme of sustainability at EXPO would have looked forlorn, and the aspect of development would once again have been missing entirely from implementation of the goals of Agenda 21. But not even the German government's DM 100 million commitment was able to make EXPO 2000 a major event in terms of those goals. As described, there was a lack of seriousness in implementation, a lack of structures for integrating poorer NGOs, and a lack of the once-promised participation by the people. Above all, there was also a lack of tying-in and feedback of the forces at various levels that have long made efforts to implement Agenda 21's goals. True, by means of the Global Dialogue series EXPO 2000 sought to initiate a discussion on the exhibition's major themes. But also here, the question arises of what impacts these forums will have on the debate outside EXPO on important topics such as poverty reduction, the debt relief campaigns, the climate, and the policies of the IMF and World Bank.

The number of visitors to EXPO was far below the originally projected total of 40 million. Promotion that was either lacking, began too late or was bad, and an indecisive straddle between a fun event and substantial content contributed much to that result. But the great majority of the visitors were thrilled by it. At least, that is what the organisers said, and the response in the general media was similar. To what extent the visitors retained something from the projects or their content is difficult to say. The GTZ carried out an opinion poll that was to give information on that point after EXPO ended. The EXPO Watch Office, set up in Hanover by German development initiatives to keep a critical eye on the exhibition, organised numerous guided tours and talks on EXPO. The participants were mostly people in the development field, and their reactions to the exhibition were not entirely positive. Their expectations with regard to implementation Agenda 21 were usually disappointed.

It is to be feared that Agenda 21 concepts and the ideal of sustainable development will suffer a further 'flattening-out' in the wake of EXPO. Those who protect the environment, save water and energy and eat healthy food are far from acting 'sustainably' in the sense of a comprehensive reorientation of society aligned on new models. And because EXPO presented these concepts in reduced form, it fostered the shortcomings in the current state of knowledge and level of debate on Agenda 21. So EXPO 2000 was nothing more than what many previous world exhibitions have been: a mirror on the world.