|
On
Course for Change A
report on the Conference organised by the R & A Golf Course Advisory Panel,
held at St Andrews, 3rd - 4th February 2000. This
excellent conference was called by the R & A to consider six major topics
that will affect the future of the game of golf namely, climatic change; water;
planning; chemicals; levels of play; and the environment. The
speakers in general were informative, and at times provocative, all of which stimulated
good healthy debate both in and out of the conference hall. The presentations
were excellent, the conference well organised, and most delegates departed much
wiser and more thoughtful than when they arrived. Furthermore, it highlighted
to the R & A their need to become more involved with these issues. Tim Taylor,
Chairman of the R & A Golf Course Advisory Panel, confirmed that the R &
A were happy to progress this suggestion. The
conference, chaired by Michael Barratt, was opened by the R & A Captain, Sir
Michael Bonallack. His opening remarks referred to the history of the Old Course,
Tom Morris’s principle remedy for most problems of “sand and more sand, and leave
the rest to nature”, and the formation of the Golf Course Advisory Panel. He
stated that the conference had been set up to identify the facts of the six issues,
listed above, as opposed to the theoretical views and stressed that audience participation
was to be an essential part, (as it proved to be). Climatic
Change Professor
John Pethick, Dept Marine Science, University of Newcastle, set the scene by provocatively
suggesting that Royal Melbourne may be the sort of course that we needed to adopt,
- manicured and with drought resistant trees (cork). However, links courses are
the antiques of golf and central to the way we think about the game, they are
also the most valuable. He therefore suggested that we should go with the change
and try to adjust our courses to suit. He acknow-ledged that coastal erosion
presented the biggest problem to links courses, including those within estuary
mouths. Dr Mike
Hume, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, gave a detailed presentation
on climatic predictions. The planet is warmer now than it has been for the last
1000 years with records showing the warmest period being in the last decade.
Cold winter days are now far fewer than 50-100 years ago; there is an increase
in winter rainfall; and there has been a 10-20 cm rise in sea level over the
last century. The
reasons for these changes is the ‘greenhouse effect’. This is a natural phenomenon
and an essential part of our human existence. However, by emitting more and more
carbon, and methane, it is changing the balance. Cyclical theories have been
tested and examined, i.e. solar activity and volcanic eruptions, and the conclusion
is that the warming cannot be accounted for by either. The most significant cause
is the increase in ‘greenhouse gases’ through human activities. This increase
is likely to give rise to the following effects : a
warming of between 1 and 3 degrees C over the next century; more
frequent hot summers; more
hot day and evaporation losses; wetter
winters; more
intense winter rainfall; and more
frequent risk of high storm sea surges. It
is interesting to note that today’s emissions are predicted to last 50-100 years,
therefore any long-term reduction will be very slow. The rise in sea level is
predicted to have an even longer commitment before its reversal has any effect. Dr
Hume was asked how he could convince the sceptics of this climatic change. He
responded that they must have their head in the sand if they do not believe that
change will occur. The projections shown were their best assessments, nobody
can determine the rate of change and regional variability is huge. Dr
Peter Carey, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, advised of the following effects
of climatic change on flora and fauna. The
rare lizard orchid, found only in the South East (e.g. on Royal St George’s GC),
is likely to move northwards. Swallows
are arriving earlier. Trees
are coming into leaf earlier. Worms
will be less of a problem in summer as they will dig deep but they will become
more active in winter, encouraging moles. Rats
will also become more active in winter. Wasps
will emerge earlier and be more numerous. Slugs
will be active for longer periods. Deer
will suffer for lack of forage in the dry summers and fewer fawns will survive
the wetter winters. There
will be an increase in reptiles, grasshoppers and other insects. There
will be a late summer hay yield and grass will grow longer and for longer periods,
possibly throughout the winter. More
wild flowers will colonise gaps in the grass and likewise weeds. Woodlands
will be affected by severe wind-blows. There will be more shade in spring. Certain
deciduous trees, i.e. beech and ash, will be adversely affected by the dryer conditions.
Heathland trees
and bracken will become more prolific. Heather
may need to be restocked and Heather Beetle will increase. Ponds
will be prone to dry up and algae bloom will occur more frequently. In
order to overcome these effects there will need to be a change in the course management
regime, such as : There
will need to be more winter cutting when the ground is wet and a need to kill
off injurious weeds. More
drought resistant grasses and grasses resistant to water-logging will need to
used. Tree planting
will need to be designed to minimise the effect of wind-blows. Mature trees may
even need irrigation. Fire
and pest control measures will need to be introduced. There
were three questions for Dr Carey, one concerned the over-protective attitude
of English Nature towards the development or extension of courses into wild areas.
Dr Carey believed that because links are so rare that there is a good case for
them to be managed by a Golf Club under a written agreement. Following another
question, Dr Keith Daff from English Nature suggested that they would be prepared
to re-examine their position in relation to golf courses particularly if the R
& A became involved in these issues. The future of the environment would
seem to be one of ‘managed land in partnership’. Professor
John Pethick considered the consequences of coastal erosion and the rise in sea
level in relation to links courses. He stated (somewhat alamingly) that “Courses
will not erode away but will move their position”. The sea level around the UK
will not rise uniformly due to the land tilt in favour of Scotland as the ice
cap melts. At present the average cliff erosion is 1 m/year and is predicted
to increase to 1.3 m/year. As regard to links courses he stated that “The more
mobile the dune the better the management”, and proceeded to demonstrate this
graphically, thus implying that nature should be left to take its course. Thus,
links on open courses will retreat and links on estuaries will migrate, e.g. Royal
West Norfolk and the Eden respectively. All coastal courses will suffer from
a rise in sea level unless we understand the process involved when alternative
layouts can be sought. He believed Golf Clubs must therefore allow for forward
planning and adopt a more flexible approach. There
were eight questions directed at Professor Pethick, most were related to short-term
solutions, often using stone armour, to protect our heritage courses but whilst
he agreed that short-term solutions will give temporary relief, he considered
that it was like throwing money into the sea. The use of stone armour will often
change the movement of the coastline for the worst, if any armour is contemplated
he recommended the use of stone gabions which uses smaller rocks that in time
dissipate into the coastline without changing its structure. He was adamant that
only by letting nature take its course and adapting courses to new coastal profiles
can any long-term solution be achieved. This
is clearly unacceptable to most Golf Clubs as they do not have the resources for
a programme of managed retreat and without financial backing from Government sources
the long-term future of our traditional links courses looks grim. There was during
this session a call for the R & A to collate a register of problems and their
solutions, to prepare a list of approved Consultants, and for them to become more
involved. The R & A responded by naming Mike Schofield as their Advisory
Panel member who will be responsible for these issues. Water Rob
Westcott, National Water Demand Centre, Environment Agency, explored ways of making
the best of whatever water supply was currently available. The Environment Agency
(EA) is only responsible for England and Wales. Golf Clubs had to be viewed as
one section in a competitive market, it is therefore essential that each Club
sets up its own water audit to assess where efficiency savings can be made. Two-thirds
of all courses use mains water for irrigation. This could be cut off in a drought,
it is expensive and of an unnecessarily high standard. Supplies from abstraction
are more suitable and much cheaper. The EA favours winter abstraction and is
less expensive, however, all water abstractions and storage need a licence. The
licensing system is under review and in future all abstraction licences will be
time-limited. Clubs were asked to consider the re-use and recycling of effluent
and also water efficiency within the clubhouse. De-salination is not likely to
be an option for the time being on grounds of cost. Rob
Westcott was questioned on how long the golf industry has to get their act together.
He advised that the EA had to establish a reasonable need before a decision could
be made. Golf Clubs are only being looked at as part of the equation, all other
industries are similarly affected. Ian
Fox, Head of Hydrology, Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), explained
the abstraction arrangements for Scotland. There is no abstraction licensing
system in Scotland yet there is evidence of over-abstraction in places. The EU
Water Framework Directive is likely to be implemented by the end of 2000, with
legislation in place within three years. This will introduce a form of statutory
catchment management that will be based on three river basins and managed by SEPA.
This is likely to lead to licences being necessary for abstraction in Scotland
and it would be wise to consider plans for water storage now in order to exploit
the higher flows in the winter periods. Robin
Hume and Adrian Mortram, irrigation consultant and engineer, considered ways to
increase efficiency. This was summed up by Robin Hume as audit, assess action
plan, and implementation. Adrian Mortram looked at the irrigation system and
its operation and use. He suggested the system be examined for increased efficiency
by examining sprinkler spacing, flows and pressures; sprinkler overflows; pipework
integrity and water storage; the pumping system; and method of control - a PC
based system with graphics was recommended. He also recommended the following
efficiency measures for its operation and use : the time of application (preferably
at night); its application rate and intensity; and the amount to be applied.
This amount is critical to the rooting depth and needs to be carefully considered
in relation to the soil structure. During
questions it was pointed out that we had to conserve water as a valuable resource
and that this often created environmental objections. Robin Hume stated that
the need for winter storage had been proved and that this conflict of interest
needs to be sorted. Environmentally these water bodies are is not very attractive,
but they are very necessary. In another question he also extolled the benefits
of weather stations for greenkeepers, particularly in the future where greater
control of water will become essential. Paul
Birchall, Area Water Resource Team Leader, Environment Agency, advised on the
work of the Resource Team, its assessment of groundwater in various areas and
the effect that any change in this resource is likely to have on the environment
- rare species in particular. Water is precious and limited so the message is:
“Do not use tomorrow’s water today”. The effective use of water is good course
management. Make every drop count. During
questions Paul Birchall confirmed the need for each Club to prepare a water audit. Planning Donald
Steel and Tom Mackenzie, golf course architects, pointed out that many of our
great courses could not have been built today as they would not comply with safety
aspects in relation to roads and footpaths. There are now so many planning restrictions
that we are in danger of entering the ‘never, never land’, but it is still easier
to gain a planning permission for a golf course in Scotland than anywhere else
in the world - here they are seen as beneficial and a catalyst for tourism. There
has been an evolution in planning applications in the UK since 1980 from the red
line to the environmental impact study with a management agreement. In future
projects must prove their worth. They considered the comparison of existing courses
with new and what ‘traditional’ actually means. Donald Steel welcomed more involvement
from the R & A, both on research and in providing an international database.
Their message was to unite and get back to the real world before it is too late. During
questions they recommended, in any discussions with the local authorities, to
never to give up, for a sensible discussion and dialogue will generally be the
result. This was confirmed by one of the delegates who was himself a planning
officer, but he stressed that the golf course should not be the means of obtaining
a planning permission for a housing development. Chemicals Lauren
Town, Council Member, British Agrochemical Association, put her case for the use
of chemicals on golf courses as a means of integrated pest management. She initially
threw us all off guard by stating that “Pesticides should be used only as a last
resort in any management programme”. All pesticides have to be registered and
receive MAFF approval unlike some of the current bio-chemical treatments. It
was her belief that TV images give a false impression, all golfers want an aesthetic
appearance at a reasonable cost that is environmentally friendly. This creates
many pressures on greenkeepers. She stated that the benefits of pesticides are
proven, effective and economic and that it costs even more to be environmentally
friendly. Mark
Davis, Pesticides Trust, presented the opposing view. He stated that all pesticides
are designed to be toxic and are intentionally dispersed into the environment.
In general they all have adverse effects, some are acutely toxic (i.e. poisonous)
and others can have long-term health effects (i.e. carcinogenic). Greenkeepers
should be aware that they do not always stay where they have been sprayed. Better
pest management is therefore needed to minimise their use. First identify if
there is a pest problem. Next, consider physical controls, this may initially
require higher investment, then consider supplementary controls. Organic management
will eliminate the use of chemicals. In
answer to a question on the eradication of leather jackets without the use of
pesticides he advised greenkeepers to analyse the situation to determine the extent
of the problem then consider alternatives before using pesticides, e.g. cover
greens to bring leather jackets to the surface, then leave them to the birds.
Michael Barratt
debated these two differing opinions with the speakers and LT restated that you
must first look at alternatives before using pesticides, but all pesticides are
safe when used as directed. MD disagreed because there was a lack of knowledge
available to the general public. MB pressed LT to give course managers an assurance
that pesticides were safe, which she confirmed within the limits of their knowledge.
MD was accused of scare-mongering but he did not think so, for many chemicals
that have been in use for 30-40 years have not been tested to today’s standards.
MB then queried whether it was possible to manage golf courses organically. MD
stated that some courses were being organically managed at present but it is a
change of culture that has to be developed over a long period. The final word
was from LT who welcomed an open and fair debate based on sound scientific information. Jim
Snow, USGA described the American practice in the use of chemicals and their effective
management. He advocated a reduction in water and pesticide use on golf courses.
Most golf courses are over-watered without technical assistance and the movement
of pesticides varies with the soil. For example, with leaching there is 10% in
pure sand, 3% in sand/peat and 0.5% in loam/sand. Potential leaching can be reduced
by slow release fertilisers. So also a lighter and more frequent application
of water. Pesticides that are more soluble will leach at a faster rate and this
can be increased significantly by the presence of earthworms. Greenkepers should
beware of run-off and allow buffer zones between water bodies and treated areas.
The biggest threat to the environment is probably from pesticide nutrient run-off.
This can be kept to a minimum with understanding and care. He believed that ignorance
and complacency poses the greatest threat to course managers and golf courses.
The USGA have a great deal of information on their web site www.usga.org that
can be browsed by all. (Indeed, one of the delegates present confirmed to us
its value.) During
question time one delegate felt that it was up to the environmental bodies to
lower the public’s expectations of the future. In this aspect, Jim Snow considered
that the golfing organisations should do a lot more. Richard
Minton, Sales Manager, Scotts, examined EU legislation. He doubted that courses
could be maintained to the high standards of today without the use of pesticides.
The sales and manufacture of pesticides are heavily regulated and there are seven
new EU Directives in the pipeline. The only one that affects the golf industry
is 91/414/EC and any product that is not in Annex 1 of this Directive will be
banned. At present only one substance has gained Annex 1 status ! Labelling
of all products will in future be better controlled, however, for products used
in minor markets, e.g. the golf industry, the labels will not be fully detailed,
so the information available for greenkeepers will be limited. It was Richard
Minton’s belief that chemical free golf courses would lead to a drop in standards
and a drop in winter golf on inland courses. During
question time RM confirmed that only 3% of pesticide sales were used in amenity
turf compared with 97% used in gardens and agriculture. Regrettably chemicals
sold in garden products do not have the same standard of control. On the question
of undertaking research into the bio-chemical products, the chemical companies
are keen to develop these products but there is no data at present to investigate
claims made, they are however looking into it. Levels
of Play George
Brown, Golf Course and Estates Manager, Turnberry, presented his experience at
this Club. Turnberry has 35-40 ins of rain each year (Loch Lomond 100 ins) and
an average yearly play of 45,000 rounds. Current levels of play need irrigation
to keep the grass alive. It is a must for links courses but it has to be carefully
and correctly used. The more compaction there is, the more aeration is required,
aeration being the key - 3/4 tines for fairways and 1/2 tines for greens. Pathways
should also be aerated. Close mowing and compaction is the biggest problem to
greens, consider aerating half a green at a time to avoid disruption or nine greens
one year and the other nine next. Slit fairways regularly. George Brown slits
his once a month throughout the year and uses the Hydrojet twice yearly (he has
a bigger budget than most). Top dress fairways with a light peat mixture to retain
moisture. His message : ‘The greenkeeper should be part of the management team’. The
absolute necessity for the use of soft spikes was raised at question time and
GB did not support the theory. He considered them dangerous particularly in wet
and frosty weather, and most particularly where they are used on wooden bridges.
He favoured rubber dimples. Jeff
Perris, STRI, considered the implications of increased usage. Some good design
points to spread wear were given and a suggestion that we may need to consider
the development of winter and summer courses. He also suggested the consideration
of root zone reinforcement materials, perennial rye grass for tees, the use of
cultivars with ability to withstand wear, the correct use of machinery and the
use and effect of soft spikes, (UK research is still awaited). His message :
‘The key factor in relation to wear is moisture control’`. One
delegate suggested that the STRI should promote trial sites of turf grasses throughout
the UK to define the regional differences. JP advised that this was done initially
but it was found that there was insufficient regional variation for it to be justified. Environment David
Stubbs, formerly of the EGA Ecology Unit, was interviewed by Michael Barratt on
the role of golf within the Committed to Green Foundation. MB opened the interview
by asking why Golf Clubs should take any notice of the interfering ‘greenies’
? DS stated that there were a lot of issues at stake and professional people
needed to be engaged for advice. The purpose of the environmental management
of golf is its harmony with nature. MB then asked who was funding the new Foundation.
DS advised that the R & A, the European Golf Association and the European
Tour, who funded the Ecology Unit were still backing the Foundation but other
sources of income needed to be generated from a wider base. They were currently
talking to the Professional Football Association ! MB queried the concept of
the Foundation. DS advised that it was a voluntary study programme to promote
environmental good practice in the management of golf courses and he suggested
for further details Clubs could send for details or refer to their web site www.committedtogreen.org
(see GCS July 1999, page 10). During
the question time Clubs present, that had taken this on board, expressed to the
delegates the benefits that they had achieved using this voluntary programme.
Likewise Jonathan Smith of the Scottish Wildlife Trust, now associated with the
Foundation, gave an account of their own initiative The Golf Bag (see GCS August
1999, page 18). He advised that over 50% of Scottish Clubs had approached the
Wildlife Trust for assistance and they have helped prepare their environmental
programmes. From the floor, there was strong opposition to other sports being
brought into the Foundation, it was felt that golf was big enough to stand alone.
However, a Belgian delegate stated that there was a key role missing in England,
that of Ecology Officer. He further stated that the Foundation gives greenkeepers
a chance to re-evaluate their own position. Golf in Europe is still a small game
with a negative image, and it is important that other sports are included for
the golf to gain creditability. DS responded by saying that funding offered by
the golf industry would be used for golf alone. Closing
Remarks Michael
Meacher, Minister for the Environment, advised that his role was concerned with
the question of climate change; sustainable development; GM crops; chemical strategy;
waste management; and water management. On planning issues the industry was affected
by policy programme guidance note No. 17 which states : ‘Where golf course proposals
are likely to have a significant effect, an environmental impact assessment will
be necessary; and in green belts major construction will not be permitted’.
On water, he referred to the Water Summit and the ten point plan to reduce the
current 1/3 loss of all supplies by leakage. He also alluded to the new time
limits on licences for abstraction, see above. On pesticides, he advised that
all pesticides are controlled by a strict regime so that they give no unacceptable
risk to the environment. He added that research into non-chemical pesticides
for use in amenity areas is in progress. Michael
Barratt asked when the 1000 untested chemicals in use were likely to be tested.
MM advised that a voluntary agreement had been reached to carry out tests on 1200
chemicals in high use by 2004. The real problem is with bio-accumulation. MB
stated that there was a feeling that the environmental lobby was over-shadowing
us all by over-regulation. MM responded that the Government will, if they can,
get by using a voluntary agreement in preference to regulating for it - the EU
have played a significant part. MB asked if he would agree to negotiate outside
the rules to overcome problems. MM agreed to this suggestion. Golf Clubs should
first talk to all persons concerned and if that does not prevail, write to the
top at the Environment Agency, their MP or to himself. He now has a new chairman
appointed to deal with such issues, Sir John Harman. Other questions from the
floor raised de-salination plants - very expensive and unlikely to be justified
on cost benefit terms; the right to roam - this will not be extended to golf
courses; the use of GM grasses - not in this country yet but the Government would
be very interested in any research being conducted into non-herbicide control
and pest control; and his thoughts on dissemination of best practice in the longer-term
- very supportive of this action. The
conference was a major success and the R & A must be applauded for their actions
in bringing these subjects to the forefront of the industry. There is much work
still to be done but with the backing of the R & A the delegates left the
conference with the knowledge that they now have a worthy body willing to support
them. For the record, there were 170 plus delegates in attendance comprising
an astonishing 14 nationalities, including the UK. | 
