This is just a really quick blog about a small point that came up during the first panel discussion this morning at the Natural Capital Initiative summit.
Terminology.
It's such an important factor in the whole discussion of natural capital and ecosystem services. One of the panel said that he used different terms merely to avoid repetition. Terms like ecosystem services, natural capital, natural environment, environment systems, nature and many others are used regularly and interchangeably although in a dictionary they would all have different meanings.
Is it important? Is it an issue? It's difficult to tell as it only comes to light in direct questions or when a problem occurs.
The idea of an external glossary was brought up, which I think is an excellent idea, for identifying what the terms mean within different contexts. Though the point was also brought up that we need to focus our time on solving the issues rather than being hung up on the terms we use to get there. Two sides to everything, as usual.
But what if clearing up the definitions elucidates the solving of issues, saving both time and money.
In my survey one of the questions was 'at which temporal scale do you work?' most of the participants said they work at a 'medium term'. When asked to identify what they thought 'medium term' meant there were responses ranging from 1-50 years. So everyone thinks they are working at the same time scales, thus there are no mismatches or problems. But that is not the reality.
Is it not worse that the problems don't get identified because we don't know they're there?
I thought this was just going to be a super short blog. But I really do have a passion for terminology and clarity.
I'll blog more about the actual summit over the weekend.
No comments:
Post a Comment