Confusing the Agenda?

Jonathan Smith, Golf Environment Europe

Using correct and consistent terminology is a key aspect of any sectors effort to address environmental issues.

If we don’t talk accurately about environmental issues or use internationally recognised terms to describe internationally recognised concepts and issues, we are not going to get far in identifying and then addressing the real environmental and sustainability agendas.

A few recent events have reinforced this point – conferences that GEE has attended where both delegates and presenters have been applying the wrong terms in the wrong ways. All this does is serve to add confusion to an already complex subject.

We should all, GEE included, take care over the terms we use and how we use them. Banding terminology about, or misrepresenting important terms and concepts, does not help generate awareness, understanding or resultant action.

By way of an example of the value of clarity of terms, I attended the STRI Disturbance Theory Workshop in Harrogate in January. What an excellent session – superbly led by Richard Windows, Henry Bechelet and Megan Hood. It really helped explain the relationships between the underpinning theory of ‘Comparative Plant Ecology’, as part of an Integrated Pest and Disease Management methodology to lead to environmentally responsible turf-grass management.

We hope to feature more on both Disturbance Theory and IPM in future issues of FOReUM. As a starter, we hope Ruth Mann’s overview of IPM in this issue, is of interest.