‘The delusion of balance’ in planning

Press, 10 February 1982, Page 20

‘The delusion of balance’ in planning

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington

The wish of the Government to alter the terms of reference under which the Commission for the Environment works, because of dissatisfaction with its work, is only the latest move in a longstanding situation; it certainly will not be the last move. Although there has been a lot of public comment and criticism of the Government's actions as "stifling criticism," that misunderstands the nature of the conflict. The Commission for the Environment and other environmental agencies. whether within the public service or operating within the community as vehicles for the protest of concerned agencies, exist in the mind of the Government to provide “balance” between the needs of development and conservation. Agencies opposed to development or. at least, concerned to modify it are tolerated by the Government in the interests of "balance" even though the Government itself is committed to development.

Thus, the Government seeks submissions from private conservation groups on issues involving native forests, wild and scenic rivers, the needs of native fauna and flora for their own habitat and to be protected. and other issues. The Government also wants its own agencies to audit development projects, although it has fallen out with the Commission over the Commission’s inclusion of economic issues in its environmental auditing.

The Government is committed to "balance.” It sees this as the only way to ensure that all needs are considered before development projects are embarked upon. It recalls its loss of popularity over the Lake Manapouri issue a decade ago when it was seen to be too

exclusively in favour of development against the needs of conservation.

Without "balance" there are winners and losers. In economic terms, there can only ever be one winner, but the Government is keen to minimise the losers in any situation, even if this also means minimising the winners in situations where it would like to see a maximised winner. This is a political decision by the Government, reflected to a greater or lesser degree by other political entities and governments overseas to meet exactly the same dilemma.

The logic of this decision to achieve "balance." however, has tended to obscure that it is a nonsense. If genuine "balance” is achieved then no-one will win; everyone will lose to a greater or lesser degree. This may be acceptable to everyone. but it means that tinkering with the system to achieve belter "balance" — which is how the Government explains its intentions towards the Commission for the Environment — will not make any significant impact on the failure of the "balancing" system to satisfy those involved.

In theoretical terms:— The price of progress is the loss of some values in the pursuit of others. Thus, while "balance" may try to maximise all values to the greatest degree possible, the decision to maximise some values must inevitably minimise others. The only room for manoeuvre is over to what extent.

The failure of the "balance" system to provide anyone (particularly the Government) with what they want has caused a recent graduate from the University of Canterbury — Mr Martin O’Connor — to investi-

gate what he calls "the delusions of balance." He presented some of his work to the annual conference of the Sociologists’ Association of Australia and New Zealand held recently in Christchurch. Mr O'Connor says that while it is unfortunate that losses must occur, most people accept this as being just the waxthings are. They will admit that it is impossible, according to conventional economics, to maximise more than one value at a time. They even assert that this "fact” demonstrates the fundamental importance of economics in helping to determine what that one value should be. From this point the debate arises as to which values ought to be maximised — money values, production, houses, exports and receipts, conservation and ecological values, are just some of the more popular. The desire for "balance" is a political response to competing values. But Mr O’Connor considers there is no rational basis for determining the "balance." that the whole notion of "balance" is a planning delusion, and that it is motivated by a childlike wish to have all the wins without having any losses. In the situation of development and conservation in New Zealand, this means having development without losing environmental values. Fear of loss just as much as the pursuit of profits motivates those operating in the “balance" system. Somehow, achieving ’ a "balance" has come to mean having profits with no losses, which is not possible if a genuine "balance" occurs. In fact, a genuine “balance" is not what those using the system want, and hence the Government’s dissatisfaction with it. The result is what Mr O'Connor sees . as “an in-

coherent and self-confounding planning ideology" being employed in increasingly wide arenas, but that all that has been achieved is a sense of the continuing cascade of losses and threats of loss.

The notion of “balance" only perpetuates instead of resolves this cascade of problems and conflicts because it is not possible to achieve “balance" or the appearance of "balance" to make people happy. He thinks the whole concept of trying to achieve “balance" needs to be scrapped if this “exercise in futility ” is not to continue.

Even at best, an acceptable “balance" can only provide a momentary pause in the conflict between values of development and conservation. The next move will lead to new perspectives over costs.

impacts and losses. Hence what Mr O’Connor calls the “cascade effect" where one "balance" only leads on inexorably to seeking a new "balance" and so on. The Government may step in and say in any situation that a “balance" has been achieved, ’but that only acts to solidify a very fluid situation, toithe dissatisfaction of many of those involved.

It was during the 1960 s that the view first became widely popular in New Zealand that growth-orientated planning was neglecting environmental and ecological concerns. The system of "balance" was the result of this concern that the system was not "balanced" enough. But today it is the system whereby “balance" is achieved that seems to be giving the headaches. It has

become as important as the need to achieve "balance." Mr O’Connor believes that either New Zealand continues to muddle along with the “balance" system, with all its contradictions and futilities, spending more and more time tinkering with the system itself. or devise a new planning methodology. Certainly, he sees radical thinking required. But. of course, finding fault is a lot easier than finding a new system. The old system of “balance” is likely to continue. Whatever its faults, it is acceptable to most of the people using it. They seem prepared to tinker with it but go on using it. A wider understanding of just why it is so imperfect might help those operating within it and doing the tinkering to do so more effectively.