The Club of Rome earned worldwide fame in 1972 when it published its ground-breaking report on the 'Limits to Growth' which questioned the accepted economic development paradigm. At Expo 2000 in Hanover, the Club of Rome contributed important ideas to the basic concept of the World Exposition and also co-organised the last in a series of ten Global Dialogue events which discussed trends in world development. D+C talked to its President,
Ricardo Diez Hochleitner.
D+C: As President of the Club of Rome and President of the International Advisory Board you have been very much involved with developing the concept of EXPO 2000 and the Global Dialogues. I first heard you outlining these concepts at the SID conference in Santiago de Compostela in 1996, and you were very euphoric at that time. Have your expectations been matched by reality?
A: Certainly not all of them. Our hopes were proportionate to our admiration for German competence and leadership. When one dreams one is sometimes close to utopia. But you can be proud of what has been achieved. I think that Expo 2000 - with all its limitations - is a major success. A dream has come true in many respects, and it will have a lasting impact on any new world exposition. One can, of course, refer to all sorts of shortcomings, but it is really a major success. I am sorry to say I have the impression that the people in Hanover and Germany are not adequately aware of this success.
D+C: When you mention the shortcomings, here in Germany we mainly discuss the lack of visitors. What shortcomings do you see?
A: In regard to the number of visitors, we never spoke about projected figures on the part of the International Advisory Board. When we met in Sevilla at the end of Expo 1992, the managers who were trying to raise funds simply took the figures of Sevilla which were around 40 million. But you should never forget that Sevilla has a different climate, people in the south of Spain are generally outgoing, and most citizens of Sevilla and from Andalusia went almost every day to the Expo. But it is a great pity if people only refer success to visitors' figures which are more related to the financial aspects. This Expo has tangible results in terms of visitors, but the intangible results, not accountable in financial terms, are much more important. This is an aspect which must be taken very much more seriously.
D+C: We are particularly interested in the developmental impact of EXPO 2000. It does not matter whether 20 or 40 million came, if the 20 million would take something home which widened their horizon.
A: The return is first in terms of image. EXPO 2000 reflected the image of the new Germany - modernised, democratic, highly cultivated in a spirit of serving the world, trying to implement more sustainable development. We as Europeans should be proud that Germany has taken this initiative. Among the innovations in which the International Advisory Board has been giving a helping hand is the extraordinary programme of the Worldwide Projects. These projects are part of the intended global dialogue. Global dialogue happens in many fora and in many events in the world. It is not an innovation itself, but at EXPO 2000 it was conducted in a spirit of partnership between young and the old and among people from the various parts of the world and it dealt with the main issues of sustainable development. The Theme Park and the national pavilions also served this issue under the motto 'Mankind, Nature, Technology'. So all in all, EXPO 2000 marked a new phase in EXPOs on which a balance has to be drawn. A very serious systematic evaluation should be made after closing the EXPO on the many positive aspects.
The shortcomings must also be analysed. I could mention a number of things starting with one of the most successful and well executed programmes of which one would say 'this is perfect'. These are the Worldwide Projects. In the Jury selecting these projects, of which I was the Chairman, we introduced as one of the criteria to accept only those projects which were already, even if only in a very modest way, in place. You could visit those projects, you could see how they are working, modest as they may be. But I think we were wrong there, and in the future we should have a second category of projects for wonderful ideas. Our jury had to reject these ideas because they had not yet been implemented for lack of means, for lack of support from governments or NGOs and the private sector. Good ideas must be enhanced, they must also be given their credit, but we have lost them on the way - perhaps not lost forever because they are in the archives for the next EXPO in Japan in 2005. This is a serious shortcoming because we have not given these ideas the chance to become known and mobilise support for those projects.
D+C: How do you see the last of the series of ten Global Dialogues in which young leaders from around the world were asked to give their visions of the future?
A: I think the conference has a major shortcoming. It is very interesting to see the young people who have come to participate. I would have liked to see them much more numerous. I also would have liked to see our meeting taking place with Internet connections around the world to be coherent with what we are saying about the need to use new technologies. There is all this blabla which we talk about but don't implement. As President of the Club of Rome I have to say that the conclusions drawn by the young professionals which I have heard up to now are sometimes very much behind the foreward looking conclusions or the consensus we have had over 30 years in our Club of Rome debates. Most of these issues have been discussed for more than 20 years. I could give you examples where all the old adults are ahead of the young adults. In future, we should widen the participation and start with a very new language. It is not the language about what the others should do. Governments, entrepreneurs, this and that. There is also this obsession with the International Monetary Fund, but this is an institution which was established at a given point and can be changed or even closed down if we wish. As director of the World Bank, I was the first to establish investments in education in 1962, and I am very proud of it because we introduced a new approach in getting financing for education to overcome poverty in poor countries. Of course it has not been done enough and many things are still in the process of being improved, but the main issue is: the young must say what they are prepared to do. What they are not prepared to let older people and governments do? What responsibility do they take over because when we talk about human rights we have to talk at the same time about human duties and responsibilities. This is the language I expect from the young people.
D+C: The young people at this Global Dialogue have very little chance to formulate any innovative ideas because they only have a day to analyse what the older people have worked out in nine dialogues and many days of discussion. How can they be expected to come up with something original in such a short time?
A: What is important is a new spirit which can be expressed in one minute. You don't need even a day. They just have to say: stop the whole thing and start speaking a new language. What are we prepared to do. Are we willing to take over the responsibility? When I start analysing myself, I see many contradictions in my lifestyle, in my behaviour, and this is the sort of exercise I would expect the young to be prepared to undertake. The new worldwide trends have to be born from the attitudes and the actions and the behaviour of every individual. It is the sum of this, the attitudes and habits of the young - and the old of course - that will provide us with change. It will not come from the politicians and governments, because we, being ignorant and egoistic, are asking them to provide us with solutions which are approriate and adequate to our own interests, and therefore we don't expect longterm programmes from them.
D+C: Coming back to your idea of the Worldwide Projects: it is a unique idea which took the EXPO abroad to a great number of countries. Do you have any feedback from these countries on the impact which the projects have had on the public there?
A: Being a national of Spain, I can tell you of the nine projects selected in that country. These projects have been the subject of a dozen meetings and have been discussed by the press and scientists, and they have also led in some cases to partnerships with entrepreneurs for further research. Some of the projects are already implemented in a number of other countries, and all this has happened in the last year. Only a few weeks ago, I opened an exhibition for architects at the Goethe Institute in Madrid about the ecological approach of EXPO 2000 in architecture. It is really amazing to see the amount of recycling materials used in the construction of certain pavilions. The big international conference Urban 21 in Berlin was also held in connection with EXPO. In view of the fact that 80 per cent of the world population will live in cities in 2030 it is very important that these cities will consider the impact on the environment by using recycling materials. This has been a byproduct of EXPO 2000. This is why I am most enthusiastic despite its shortcomings.
D+C: The Club of Rome issued its famous report Limits to Growth in 1972.
I very well remember that at that time it came as shock, and caused a lot of people to think about a new development pattern. 28 years later this feeling is gone. Do you have the impression that what has been shown here at EXPO 2000 can lead us back to realising what you said in 1972: that we are actually at the limit?
A: Unfortunately this is not the case. But the Club of Rome was also unfair to the report. We had forgotten the human spirit and the capacity for renewal and to change the data. But on the figures, when I took over the presidency of the Club of Rome ten years ago I asked the same team - Dennis Meadows - to update the report. What it showed ten years ago was that 70 to 80 per cent of the worst of the scenarios shown in the report had taken place already. Today, I prefer not to hear another update because probably we have gone over and above those projections. According to Dennis Meadows and his colleagues we have 50 years to stop nonsense and to avoid real disaster. Others speak about 100 years. Yet, even if we have 500 years: do we have the right to condemn the world?
The EXPO 2000 is very timely in that it has taken its motto 'Humankind - Nature - Technology' after all leaders had committed themselves to the Agenda 21 at the Summit 1992 in Rio de Janeiro. One or two years later because of some economic crises people stopped all the decisions. The climate protocol of Kyoto, everything is a flop because the risks are not taken seriously. People like Al Gore who has written a wonderful book about the environment later was most careful in not overdoing it. And I don't blame them. The politicians are slaves of public opinion. We are simply at the point - and this EXPO has shown it - where we can still make the trend change. But every day which elapses is a day less for such action. I would say that the task after EXPO closes is to go ahead to impress on the leading people and the young to take enhanced responsibility. We have a major responsibility to get to the world public opinion the message of EXPO 2000. There are enough messages.
The interview was conducted at EXPO 2000 in Hanover by D+C editor Dieter Brauer.
