Issue link: http://read.dmtmag.com/i/62071
s the industry pushes for greater environmental and economic sustainability, operators are debating the value and effectiveness of certification programs. At first there was skepticism. Then came cheers. Now, the pendulum isn t quite sure which way to swing. When Audubon International launched its Cooperative Sanctuary Program for golf courses 20 years ago this past May, it was the first of its kind. Since then, a number of other organizations have entered the certification game. The most notable newcomer is the Golf Environmental Organization (GEO), a non-profit based in North Berwick, Scotland. Given that the GEO is starting to make some noise (the firm worked with organizers of the 2010 Ryder Cup to lower the event s environmental impact) and one of Audubon s programs is now being sponsored by one of the largest chemical companies in the world, it s worth examining these programs to answer two questions: accountability is infrequent. Perhaps more importantly, the reality is that golf course operators only get out what they re willing to put in. Audubon International (AI), the most nationalized environmental certification body for golf courses in the United States, has sparked its share of controversy since its founding in 1991. Though it has no affiliation with the National Audubon Society, some have accused AI of being named to imply a connection to the esteemed organization and, thus, bestow on its member courses an undeserved advantage with permitting and public relations. AI founder and President, Ron Dodson, who previously worked for the National Audubon Society, successfully defended his use of the name in court. A judge ruled, somewhat inexplicably, that the names National Audubon Society and Audubon International would not confuse consumers into thinking the organizations were related. 1. Are they truly doing good things for the environment? 2. Are they doing good things for the golf courses investing the time and money to become certified? The answer is neither. And both. More accurately, it depends. These less-than-concrete answers aren t simply the product of wildly divergent opinions about the program themselves, although they certainly exist. Rather, they re grounded in the fact that there are multiple program types within each organization (each with its own merits or lack thereof), compliance is largely self- directed, measurement is inexact, and But in what may be a more damaging blow to its credibility, the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program (ACSP) began accepting sponsorships from chemical companies. Two recent examples: A reception at the 2011 Golf Industry Show to celebrate ACSP s 20th anniversary was ST. ANDREWS TRUST HAS MADE THE MOVE TO FOLLOWING GEO S CERTIFICATION PROCESS certifying body, it calls into question the reasons behind that entitys stances. Are they flexible on chemicals because they re truly not that bad for the environment, or is it because the organization depends on chemical company funding to stay in business? All this aside, AI has merit. The ACSP has enrolled 2265 courses, 721 of which have achieved certified status. That s a lot of golf courses that, at worst, are more conscious of their impact on the environment and, at best, are significantly reducing it. Existing golf courses pay $200 annually to participate in the ACSP (the Audubon Signature Program, which is reserved for courses in the development stage, begins at $9,500). After an initial, self-directed evaluation and environmental improvement plan is submitted to ACSP, the organization makes recommendations on how the course can meet its goals. Then, through self-collected data and photographs submitted to ACSP, the course is certified (or not) based on adherence to those goals. Most courses require 24 to 35 months to become certified, and they re required to recertify every two years. co-sponsored by Harrell s, a Lakeland, Florida-based producer of fertilizers and distributor of chemicals and grass seed. In May, DuPont Professional Products announced it, too, was sponsoring the ACSP. Ostensibly, these types of alliances could be viewed as partnerships between entities that are trying to work together for a common good. After all, most chemical manufacturers advocate prudent use of inputs and offer best practices to help operators work to that end. The problem is, the minute a company that derives profits from the sale of these types of products is allowed to sponsor any enviro- If Aububon International is the driving force for golf course environmentalism in the U.S., the GEO, whose program launched in 2009, holds the title in Europe. But it appears to be turning heads stateside, too. For one thing, the GEO prides itself on being a non-governmental organization. While it has support from an impressive group of partners, including the European Golf Course Owners Association, the European Tour, the R&A, the European Golf Association and The Ryder Cup, the firm hasn t ostensibly forged alliances that, as one golf course owner who spoke on the condition of anonymity, might compromise its integrity surrounding sound environmental causes. What s more, one golf course consultant described GEO s program as ACSP on steroids, referring to the organization s more holistic approach and stringent standards. Whereas Audubon s ACSP is essentially an environmentally friendly program focussed on wildlife and habitat, chemical use, reduction and safety, water conservation and quality, outreach and education, GEO s is a program of sustainability that covers the entire facility, ranging from grounds to the clubhouse to the food-and- beverage operation. Currently, there are only 42 GEO certified facilities worldwide, including two in the United States, but hundreds more are working toward certification. For most courses, this takes anywhere from one month to one year. Unlike the ACSP, golf courses can get started for free on the GEO Web site (it s also a self-directed program initially). Only when an on-site evaluation is requested (every three years) does the $250 certification fee apply. The checklist- based evaluation is conducted by one of GEO s trained verifiers. The cost-paid directly to the verifier, not GEO — is based on the complexity of the golf facility, but typically costs approximately $1500 (plus travel costs) for a standard, 18- hole course. Whether golf courses participate in the ACSP, GEO or both, at the end of the days, they re responsible for filling out their own report cards. So it s safe to ask, are they truly effecting positive environmental changes? Again, it depend on who you ask. As far as ACSP goes, some operators think it s environmentally light, focussing more on how many wildlife habitats a course has on its property as opposed to reducing pesticides, herbicides, and other known and Continued On Page 16