2011
Sustainable Campus Group Summary Report
Australian Tertiary Education Sector
Summary Sustainability Report
Monash Sustainability Institute
~1~
© Sustainable Campus Group 2011
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements: The SCG reporting process 2011 was facilitated by Stephen Derrick, Belinda
Towns and Benjamin Meyer at the Monash Sustainability Institute.
Participating Institutions .............................................................................................................. 3
Published by the Monash Sustainability Institute (MSI)
Monash University, VIC 3800 Australia
T: +61 3 990 59875
E: enquiries@msi.monash.edu.au
W: www.monash.edu/research/sustainability-institute
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3
1.1 Reporting Methodology ........................................................................................................... 3
Sustainability in the Australian Tertiary Education Sector .............................................................. 3
2.1 Institutional Commitment ........................................................................................................ 4
DISCLAIMER:
Monash University disclaims all liability for any error, loss or consequence which may arise from
relying on any information in this publication.
2.2 Transport ................................................................................................................................. 5
2.3 Energy and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions ......................................................................... 6
2.4 Buildings ................................................................................................................................... 9
2.5 Information Technology (IT) .................................................................................................... 9
2.6 Education for Sustainability (EfS) ............................................................................................. 9
Cover photograph
Solar panels at Central Institute of Technology, Western Australia
2.7 Waste and Recycling .............................................................................................................. 10
2.8 Purchasing .............................................................................................................................. 12
2.9 Water ..................................................................................................................................... 12
This report has been printed on 100% recycled content paper
~2~
Participating Institutions
Introduction
NSW
This is the second report of the nation-wide Sustainable Campus Group (SCG) and it showcases the
2010 environmental performance of SCG members.
Charles Sturt University
TAFE NSW – Sydney Institute
NT
Charles Darwin University
QLD
Brisbane North Institute of TAFE (BNIT)
Sunshine Coast Institute of TAFE
SA
The SCG is a national environmental sustainability reporting initiative begun in Victoria in 2006. In
2009 membership was opened to tertiary education institutions Australia wide. SCG members
consist of universities and TAFE institutes that are working to improve their environmental
performance and choose to report publicly on their progress. Sharing this information creates a
constructive climate for positive change in tertiary education and stimulates improved effort
among peer institutions.
The full SCG report can be found online at http://www.monash.edu/research/sustainabilityinstitute/scg/, together with more information about the SCG and all past reports.
1.1 Reporting Methodology
Flinders University of South Australia
VIC
Box Hill Institute of TAFE
Chisholm Institute of TAFE
Deakin University
Gordon Institute of TAFE
This sector Sustainability Report is a self-reporting initiative and SCG has not verified or audited
the data submitted. All members were given the opportunity to review the draft findings of this
report and the data before publication.
The data provided by the participants was analysed on a total institution basis (that is, the total of
all campuses included by the institution). To allow comparisons between institutions of very
different sizes, most results were first standardised either by each institution’s total staff and
students (full-time equivalent (FTE) staff and equivalent full-time student loads (EFTSL)) or by its
building gross floor area (GFA - in square metres).
Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE (GoTAFE)
Kangan Institute of TAFE
Monash University
Sunraysia Institute of TAFE (Suni TAFE)
WA
Central Institute of Technology (Central)
Murdoch University
Sustainability in the Australian Tertiary Education Sector
Results are a snapshot of measuring and reporting at each institution and do not necessarily reveal
the full picture of sustainability work and management. There are currently 16 members of the
SCG, representing 25 per cent of the sector’s equivalent full-time student load (EFTSL) in Australia.
The approach of this report is to create a collaborative environment for engaging the tertiary
education sector in measuring, monitoring and reducing its collective environmental footprint and
improving its sustainability performance. A snap shot of performance can be seen in table 1,
below. This table is based on data from 14 current SCG Members that provided relevant
information for the 2009 and 2010 years. If data was not provided it is indicated with a ‘na’ (not
available).
This table shows that institutions have grown their student and staff numbers and floor area, but
have managed to reduce relative water consumption and net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
~3~
Encouragingly, energy consumption has not increased at the same rate as the growth in student
and staff numbers and floor area.
sustainability performance of suppliers. These may be considered within the influence of an
institution, but not under its direct control.
Tertiary Institutions can vary greatly from one to another. Some are located in the CBD, others in
suburban or rural areas and some provide residential accommodation for students; some teaching
is conducted mainly in classrooms while others will require workshops, laboratories, research
facilities, and agricultural land etc. These variations should be kept in mind when reading this
report.
Also, as so much of the focus of environmental impacts has been on those associated with
buildings and grounds there have been fewer resources to concentrate on other areas of
responsibility within institutions. For example, areas such as Socially Responsible Investment may
be the responsibility of the finance department, or green purchasing which may be the
responsibility of the procurement department, or green IT etc. As seen in the report the sector is
aware of these issues and some steps have been taken to reduce their impact, such as $22.75
million of green purchasing in 2010 and seven members running behaviour change programs
specifically related to Green IT. These will be areas of greater focus in future.
Indicator
Value in 2009 Value in 2010 % Change
Institutional Commitment
Average number of Staff in environmental improvement roles (FTE) per 1000 students
na
0.15
Number of institutions that ran cultural change/green office programs
na
11
Number of institutions with an Environmental Management System (EMS)
na
Student and Staff numbers (Effective Full Time Student Load + Full Time Equivalent)
Gross Floor Area (GFA) meters squared (m²)
4
199,851
210,449
5.3%
2,050,628
2,097,117
2.3%
Energy and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
Total facility energy consumption (Gigajoules)
Average percentage of total green electricity consumption
(total green electricity consumption (kWh)/ total electricity consumption (kWh))
Total Net facility and automotive emissions (tonnes CO2-e)
1,441,644
1,463,507
1.5%
7.44%
7.49%
0.65%
299,887
318,547
6.2%
Net facility GHG emissions per head (tonnes CO2-e/(EFTSL + staff FTE))
1.46
1.45
-1.04%
Net facility GHG emissions per GFA m² (tonnes CO2-e/(GFA m²))
0.14
0.12
0.15
0.14
1.77%
Automotive emissions (owned and leased) per head (tonnes CO2-e/staff FTE)
16.9%
Water
Mains water purchased per head (kilolitres/(EFTSL + staff FTE))
Mains water purchased per GFA m² (kilolitres/GFA m² )
5.3
4.9
-6.5%
0.53
0.51
-4.01%
68.8
67.8
-1.4%
6.7
6.8
1.53%
21.8%
23.4%
7.7%
Waste
Waste to landfill per head (kilograms/(EFTSL + staff FTE))
Waste to landfill per GFA m² (kilograms/GFA m² )
Percentage of waste diverted from landfill (recycled)
Table 1 – Snapshot of Sustainability Performance Indicators for 14 SCG Members in 2009 and 2010
Operations based environmental impacts such as energy and water consumption, GHG emissions
and waste have been the focus of the sector for several years and efforts in these areas are quite
advanced. This is evidenced by decreases on 2009 figures (per EFTSL/FTE) of mains water use
(down 6.5%), waste (down 1.4%) and GHG emissions (down 1.04%) and by an increase in energy
consumption of only 1.5 per cent despite increases in student numbers of 5.3 per cent and GFA of
2.3 per cent. The impacts directly related to the operation and maintenance of buildings and
grounds are usually the responsibility of one department within an institution. These direct
impacts on the environment are relatively easy to measure and monitor.
Other areas within operations are not as well as advanced when it comes to measuring,
monitoring and reducing the environmental impacts. There are several reasons for this.
Environmental impacts that are not under the direct control of the institution are difficult to affect
and measure, such as how students and staff travel to and from work every day and the
Academically, large positive environmental impacts can be made through teaching, training and
research. Impacts on students’ behaviours once they leave an institution and enter the workforce
are extremely difficult to measure. However the efforts made to ensure they are exposed to the
knowledge and learning necessary to help reduce their impact are within the powers of the sector
to deliver and measure. This is another emerging area of concern for the sector and more
resources will be directed this way in future. It is apparent that government support and
encouragement for Education for Sustainability (EfS) (i.e. the Green Skills Agreement) does have
an impact, as it has in the TAFE sector which is more advanced than the university sector in
imbedding EfS in 2010. Six TAFE members but only one university member had a strategy or plan
in 2010 for implementing EfS.
2.1 Institutional Commitment
Measuring institutional commitment to sustainability is an attempt to show how well
sustainability initiatives are funded, integrated and supported by an institution. Figure 1 shows
which institutions had programs in place in 2010. These are indicated by the green boxes. White
boxes mean there was no program in place in 2010 and ‘na’ indicates that there was no response
to this question.
Environment committees (or equivalent), policies, strategies and plans are common in the sector.
Less common are engagement programs for staff and students and Environmental Management
Systems (EMS). The integration of other aspects of sustainability such as including criteria in
building lease agreements, master planning and investment are also areas for improvement.
The Chart 1 shows the number (FTE) of staff employed to work on operational environmental
programs at each institution for each 1,000 students (EFTSL). Four respondents do not have a
dedicated staff resource for sustainability initiatives.
~4~
Institutional Commitment
Environmental Committee
Environmental Policy
Environmental Strategy
Environmental Plan
Staff Engagement Programs
Student Engagement Programs
Socially Responsible Investment Funds
EMS
Green Leases
Sustainability Principals in Master Planning
Biodiversity Policy
Policy to Plant Native Trees
i
FE
Un ni tute
TA te
e
t
te
t
n
s
U
i
i
u
u
u
w t st
tit
tit i ni oa
tit
ar tur In ni Uni on
ns
ns U n U C
ns
ll I r al les Dles S olm in U ers or d FE an I ash ochhine AFEey I
i
x H IT nt ar ar ish ak nd e G T A ng on urd ns niT dn
Bo BN Ce Ch Ch Ch De Fli Th Go Ka M M Su Su Sy
na
na
Example of Good Practice - Student Engagement
Monash University’s Footprints was one of five entries to receive a Highly Commended in
the Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability Green Gown Awards for Student
Initiatives and Campaigns. For more information about the Footprints program go to:
http://www.fsd.monash.edu.au/environmental-sustainability/monash-footprints
na
na
na
2.2 Transport
na
na
na
The table below shows initiatives in place to reduce the environmental impact of travel such us
encouraging staff and students to walk, cycle or use public transport rather than driving to and
from, and between, campuses. As seen in Figure 2 commitment to reduce the indirect
environmental impact of transport (non-business travel) varied among members: five had a
committee, taskforce or working group dedicated to sustainable transport and four ran an
awareness campaign to encourage alternatives to vehicle use. Almost all members utilised video
conferencing. Finally, most members had behaviour change programs to help increase the use of
sustainable transport modes.
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Figure 1 – Examples of Commitment to Environmental Improvement at each Institute
2010 Total Number of Staff (FTE) Employed in Sustainability
Improvement Roles per 1000 EFTSL
TAFE NSW - Sydney Institute
Transport
Committee
Behaviour Change Initiatives
Initiatives to Reduce Air Travel
Campaign to Promote Alternative Transport
Video Conferencing Facilities Available
Sunraysia Institute of TAFE
Sunshine Coast Institute of TAFE
Murdoch University
Monash University
Kangan Institute of TAFE
Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE
Gordon Institute of TAFE
i
FE
Un ni tute
TA te
e
e
t
t
t
n
s
U i
u
u
u
w i t st
tit
tit i ni oa
tit
ar tur In ni Uni on
ns
ns U n U C
ns
li l I r al les Dles S olm in U ers or d FE an I ash ochhine AFEey I
x H IT nt ar ar ish ak nd e G T A ng on urd ns niT dn
Bo BN Ce Ch Ch Ch De Fli Th Go Ka M M Su Su Sy
Figure 2 – Institutional Commitment to Reduce the Environmental Impact of Transport by Institution
Flinders University of South Australia
Deakin University
Chisholm Institute of TAFE
Example of Good Practice – Sustainable Transport
The James Gormley Bike Arrival Station at Monash University Clayton Campus provides
amenities for cyclists such as change rooms, showers and security. On average 70-80 cyclists
use the BAS each day. For further information go to:
http://fsd.monash.edu.au/environmental-sustainability/bike-arrival-station-news
Charles Sturt University
Charles Darwin University
Central Institute of Technology
Brisbane North Institute of TAFE
Box Hill Institute of TAFE
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
Total Number of Staff (FTE) Employed in Sustainability Improvement Roles per 1000 EFTSL
Chart 1 – Number of Staff (Full-time Equivalent) Employed in Sustainability Improvement Roles, per 1,000
Equivalent Full-time Student Load in 2010
~5~
2.3 Energy and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
The majority of energy consumption at Australian tertiary institutions is used in buildings for
heating, cooling, and air handling. Energy consumed on campus for running buildings and
infrastructure is referred to in this report as facilities energy. The majority of facilities energy is
electricity and natural gas. As electricity in Australia is largely generated from burning coal, most
of the GHG emissions at tertiary institutes can be directly linked with its use in buildings. For both
indicators, TAFEs have the lowest energy consumption by a significant margin. This difference is
likely to reflect the more energy-intensive research facilities and laboratories in universities.
Some electricity purchased is GreenPower which is sourced from renewable energy, and therefore
reduces overall GHG emissions. Several SCG members also generate renewable energy-on
campus. Only institutes that purchased GreenPower in 2010 are listed in Chart 2, below. In 2010
all Government departments and agencies in Victoria were required to purchase 10 per cent
GreenPower increasing to 25 per cent in July 2010. This was not the case in other states and
territories. Subsequent to a change of Government in Victoria this requirement to purchase
GreenPower is no longer in effect.
Members reported a total facilities energy use of 1,773,465 gigajoules (GJ) for 2010. This total
included all sources of stationary energy generation, including grid electricity, purchased green
electricity, on-site renewable generation, natural gas and diesel oil. Electricity accounted for 59.8%
(58.6% in 2009) of all energy use and non-transport natural gas was 36.2% (36% in 2009).
Charts 3 and 4 show each institutions’ facilities energy consumption per head and per floor area as
well as sector averages. As Chart 3 shows, universities reported much higher energy use relative to
TAFEs, being more than three times higher in 2010. However the difference between TAFEs and
universities is not as marked when energy use is considered per floor area as Chart 4 shows.
Charts 5 and 6 show net GHG emissions per head and per floor area for each institution and sector
averages. Consistent with the energy use data, universities show significantly higher emissions per
head than TAFEs – by a factor of more than three, even after carbon offsets have been taken into
account. This differential is much less marked when the comparison is made using floor area.
E
i
AF
Un i te
t T ute
te
n t Un titu
s
i
u
i
s
w
tit i n oa
tit
ar tur In ni Uni on
ns
ns U n U C
ns
ll I r al les Dles S olm in U ers or d FE an I ash ochhine AFEey I
i
x H IT nt ar ar ish ak nd e G T A ng on urd ns niT dn
Bo BN Ce Ch Ch Ch De Fli Th Go Ka M M Su Su Sy
e
ut
tit
Energy
Committee
Behaviour Change Initiatives
Energy Audits
Reduction Target
Action Plan to Reduce Electricity Use
Target to Purchase GreenPower
Figure 3 – Institutional Commitment to Energy and GHG Reduction by Institution
GreenPower as a Percentage of Total Electricity
Consumption
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
% Purchased 15.0%
2009
2010
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Figure 3 shows the programs and initiatives that each institution had in place in 2010 to reduce
energy and GHG emissions.
Example of Good Practice - Renewable Energy
Central Institute of Technology (CIT) has the largest solar array in the Perth CBD and one of
the largest in the Western Australia. For more information about the solar array and how it
will be used for teaching see:
http://www.central.wa.edu.au/ABOUTUS/SUSTAINABILITY/Pages/Central%27sSolarCity.aspx
Chart 2 – Percentage of Electricity Consumption that was GreenPower in 2009 and 2010. Only Institutions that
purchased GreenPower are listed in chart.
~6~
Facility Energy Consumption per Institution (GJ/(EFTSL+FTE))
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
GJ
8.00
6.00
2009
4.00
2010
2.00
0.00
na
na
Chart 3 – Facility Energy Consumption per Institution and Sector Averages (Gigajoules per Equivalent Full-time Student Unit and Full Time Equivalent Staff)
Facility Energy Consumption per Institution (GJ/GFA m²)
1.20
1.00
0.80
GJ
0.60
0.40
2009
0.20
0.00
2010
na
na
Chart 4 – Facility Energy Consumption per Institution and Sector Averages (Gigajoules per Gross Floor Area in Metres Squared)
~7~
Facility GHG Emissions Net of Offsets per Institution
(Tonnes CO2e/(EFTSL+FTE))
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
Tonnes CO2 e
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
2009
na
na
2010
-0.50
Chart 5 – Facility GHG Emissions Net of Offsets per Institution and Sector Averages (Tonnes of CO2-e per Equivalent Full-time Student Load and Full-time Equivalent Staff)
Facility GHG Emissions Net of Offsets per Institution
(Tonnes CO2e/GFA m²)
0.25
0.20
0.15
Tonnes CO2 e 0.10
0.05
2009
0.00
na
na
2010
-0.05
Chart 6 – Facility GHG Emissions Net of Offsets per Institution and Sector Averages (Tonnes of CO2-e per Gross Floor Area in Metres Squared)
~8~
conferencing and lecture downloads. Figure 4 shows some of the initiatives institutes use to
reduce the environmental impact of IT.
2.4 Buildings
SCG Members were asked to self assess how well sustainability was integrated into the building
process at various levels, from the planning and procurement processes to the leadership and
support provided by senior management, as well as the reporting processes to ensure sustainable
buildings were the most desired outcome. Chart 7 illustrates these responses. Each of the four
categories could score a maximum of 25 per cent and the best total score would be 100 per cent.
When averaged, the lowest score was for Project Procurement processes (8.2 %), such as selecting
appropriate consultants and contractors and setting environmental targets. The highest average
score was for ongoing Facilities Management processes (11.2 %), such as staff environmental
programs and utilities metering. Integration of sustainability criteria into the building process is
an area with room for much improvement across the sector.
Integration of Sustainability in New Buildings
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
Box Hill Institute of TAFE
Green IT
Committee
Behaviour Change Initiatives
Auto Installation of Low Energy Settings
Auto Installation of Double Sided Printing
i
FE
TA te
Un ni tute
e
e
t
t
t
n
s
U i
u
u
u
w i t st
tit
tit i ni oa
tit
ar tur In ni Uni on
ns
ns U n U C
ns
li l I r al les Dles S olm in U ers or d FE an I ash ochhine AFEey I
x H IT nt ar ar ish ak nd e G T A ng on urd ns niT dn
Bo BN Ce Ch Ch Ch De Fli Th Go Ka M M Su Su Sy
Figure 4 – Institutional Commitment to Reducing the Environmental Impact of IT
Example of Good Practice – EfS and Green IT
Box Hill Institute was the winner in the category of Sustainability and Green IT at the
Victorian iAwards for the development of the Vocational Graduate Certificate in ICT
Sustainability. http://www.bhtafe.edu.au/news/Pages/Sustainability-Success.aspx
Brisbane North Institute of TAFE
Central Institute of Technology
Charles Darwin University
Charles Sturt University
Strategic Planning
Chisholm Institute of TAFE
Deakin University
Project Procurement
Flinders University of South Australia
Gordon Institute of TAFE
Facilities Management
Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE
Example of Good Practice – Green IT
Sydney Institute of TAFE won the Hewlett Packard (HP) 2010 Eco Solutions Award Australia
for reduction of paper use, power consumption, staff time, printing costs and number of
printing devices. Further information available at:
https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/media/downloads/about-us/l4s/l4s_i_sydney.pdf
Leadership
Kangan Institute of TAFE
Monash University
2.6 Education for Sustainability (EfS)
Murdoch University
Although universities and TAFEs have large day-to-day environmental impacts by far the greatest
contribution they can make to sustainability is to educate students to understand and apply
sustainability principles in all that they do: in their work, careers, communities and society.
Sunshine Coast Institute of TAFE
Sunraysia Institute of TAFE
TAFE NSW - Sydney Institute
0
20
40
60
80
100
Frequency of integration in each stage of the process (%)
Chart 7 – Integration of Sustainability into each Process of Building Planning, Construction and Use, for each
SCG Member in 2010
2.5 Information Technology (IT)
Information Technology (IT) is an area that can have a large impact on sustainability in the
workplace. Electricity and paper consumption can be reduced by including the appropriate criteria
when purchasing IT equipment, electronic waste can be re-used and recycled rather than going to
landfill and the technology itself can be used to reduce travel and paper, such as video
EfS has a long way to go before it can be considered embedded in universities, however senior
management is beginning to show an interest in delivering strategic approaches to support EfS at
their institutes. Senior management commitment and support is crucial to the success of EfS at
any institute. Aspects of the progression of EfS can be seen in Figure 5.
TAFEs have better performance than universities when it comes to embedding sustainability in
their education and training packages. The Green Skills Agreement, which is an agreement
between the Australian Government and state and territory governments to “build the capacity of
the vocational education and training sector to deliver the skills for sustainability required in the
workplace” mandated that Australian TAFEs review their training packages for any gaps in their
skills for sustainability by the end of March 2010 (COAG 2009). Many TAFE courses and subjects
~9~
have been updated to embed sustainability content and TAFEs have supported staff to attend
relevant training and education programs.
i
FE
Un i te
TA te
t
te
n t Un titu
s
i
u
i a
it i
s
w
itu
s
ar Stur In ni Uni don Inst Un h Une Co E Inst
n
I
D
U
m
s r E
h c n F
l
l
ill
r a les les o in er o F an as o hi A ey
x H IT nt ar ar ish ak nd e G T A ng on urd ns niT dn
Bo BN Ce Ch Ch Ch De Fli Th Go Ka M M Su Su Sy
e
ut
tit
FE
EfS
Committee
Strategy or Plan for Implementing EfS
Environment Subject Required to Graduate
Sustainability in Orientation
EfS Engagement in Annual Staff Evaluation
i
A
Un i te
t T ute
te
te
n t Un titu
i
u
t
tu ni ni oa s
i
w ur Ins i ni n
ti
t
r
tit
s
a t
n U o
n
ns U U C
ns
li l I r al les Dles S olm in U ers or d FE an I ash ochhine AFEey I
x H IT nt ar ar ish ak nd e G T A ng on urd ns niT dn
Bo BN Ce Ch Ch Ch De Fli Th Go Ka M M Su Su Sy
na
na
na
na
na
na
Waste & Recycling
Committee
Behaviour Change Initiatives
Target to Reduce Waste to Landfill
Waste Measurement Capabilities
Figure 6 – Institutional Commitment to Reduce Environmental Impact of Waste and Recycling
2010 Proportion of Waste Stations
with Recycling Facilities
Figure 5 – Institutional Commitment to Education for Sustainability
Example of Good Practice – EfS
Box Hill Institute’s Green Trades Skills Hub: http://www.bhtafe.edu.au/news/Pages/greentrade-skills-hub-open.aspx
Example of Good Practice – EfS
The Gordon Culinary School incorporates sustainable cooking practices and has documented
a Lifecycle Approach to Sustainable Service which can be found at:
http://www.thegordon.edu.au/News%20and%20Events/Publications/Publications/The%20G
ordon%20sustainability%20case%20study%20LOW%20RES.pdf
na
External
All
TAFE
University
Internal
2.7 Waste and Recycling
Waste is a large environmental impact of the sector and waste infrastructure is highly visible.
Public recycling and waste stations can be used to demonstrate to staff and students that an
institute takes responsibility for its impacts. The most visible aspects of waste are recycling
stations and landfill bins on campuses (see Chart 8).
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Chart 8 - Percentage of Internal and External Waste Bins accompanied by Recycling Facilities in 2010
It should be noted that waste and recycling measurement is based on certain assumptions which
vary according to waste management providers and institutions, such as volume of waste based
on weight and composition. In 2010, SCG members sent over 22,000 tonnes of waste to landfill
and reported recycling over 4,800 tonnes. Initiatives to reduce waste at each institution can be
seen in Figure 6.
The proportion of recycling to total waste did not differ significantly between universities and
TAFEs. Charts 9 and 10 show the details for each institute and also the averages for universities
and TAFEs as separate groups. On average, universities sent more waste to landfill per head and
recycled more than for TAFEs for both 2009 and 2010. When this is compared to waste per floor
area, the situation is reversed.
~ 10 ~
Waste Generation per Institution (kg/(EFTSL+FTE))
450
400
350
300
kg/(EFTSL+FTE)
250
200
150
100
50
0
na
na
Recycling 2009
Recycling 2010
Waste to Landfill 2009
Waste to Landfill 2010
Chart 9 – Waste Generation and Recycling per Institution for 2009 and 2010 (kilograms per Equivalent Full-time Student Load and Full-time Equivalent Staff)
Waste Generation per Institution (kg/GFA m²)
50
45
40
35
30
kg/GFA m² 25
20
15
10
5
0
na
na
Recycling 2009
Recycling 2010
Waste to Landfill 2009
Waste to Landfill 2010
Chart 10 – Waste Generation and Recycling per Institution for 2009 and 2010 (kilograms per Gross Floor Area metres squared)
~ 11 ~
2.8 Purchasing
2.9 Water
Green purchasing means selecting environmentally preferable products from environmentally
responsible suppliers. It is an area where institutions have great influence and responsibility even
though suppliers and manufacturers are ultimately responsible for impacts. Common examples of
environmentally and socially responsible procurement in the sector are recycled content copy
paper and paper towel, and Fair Trade tea and coffee (see Chart 11). Other examples include
recycled and recyclable office furniture and equipment. Green procurement can be extended to
on-campus vendors by providing them with leases only if they agree to sell environmentally and
socially responsible products. Green leases can be used to help achieve this.
Tertiary education institutions are often large water users. Areas of high water consumption
include grounds maintenance, cooling towers, student residences, laboratories, on-campus
agriculture and other areas of teaching, training and research.
Total Copy Paper Purchased 2010
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
Reams
100,000
SCG members used a total of 2,303,642 kL of water during 2010 from several sources including
mains, bore and rain water. For those members that provided both 2009 and 2010 data, a four per
cent decrease in the proportion of mains water consumed was noted, from 1,015,222 kL (96% of
total 2009 water consumption) to 1,004,001 kL (92% of total 2010 water consumption).
Charts 12 and 13 show water use by institute and sector averages for 2009 and 2010. The averages
for universities in 2010 are much higher due to three universities reporting 2010 water
consumption but not 2009 consumption. This needs to be taken into account when looking at
these charts. If the 2010 water consumption of these universities is left aside, between 2009 and
2010 water use decreased at universities by head and by floor area and increased slightly at TAFEs
by head and floor area.
Initiatives to reduce mains water consumption have long been in place in many institutions. Figure
8 shows that the majority of SCG Members were subject to water restrictions in 2010. Twelve
institutes harvest rain or surface water, ten have behaviour change initiatives in place to
encourage reduced water use and four conducted water audits in 2010.
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Other
50 - 99% Recycled
100% Recycled
Plantation
Chart 11 – Total Copy Paper Purchased (reams of A4 equivalent) in 2010 by Institution
Figure 7 shows which institution had these green procurement initiatives. Seven institutes
provided green procurement training for staff, and four incorporated environmental
considerations into purchasing in 2010. Green procurement is an area of growing concern and
there is need for improvement within the sector.
Water
Committee
Behaviour Change Initiatives
Reduction Target
Subject to Water Restrictions
Collect Rain or Surface Water
Conduct Water Audits
i
FE
TA te
Un ni tute
e
e
t
t
t
n
s
U i
u
u
u
w i t st
tit
tit i ni oa
tit
ar tur In ni Uni on
ns
ns U n U C
ns
li l I r al les Dles S olm in U ers or d FE an I ash ochhine AFEey I
x H IT nt ar ar ish ak nd e G T A ng on urd ns niT dn
Bo BN Ce Ch Ch Ch De Fli Th Go Ka M M Su Su Sy
na
na
Figure 8 – Institutional Commitment to Reducing Mains Water Consumption
i
FE
Un i te
TA te
e
t
t
n t Un titu
s
i
u
u
s
w
tit i ni oa
tit
ar tur In ni Uni on
ns
ns U n U C
ns
li l I r al les Dles S olm in U ers or d FE an I ash ochhine AFEey I
x H IT nt ar ar ish ak nd e G T A ng on urd ns niT dn
Bo BN Ce Ch Ch Ch De Fli Th Go Ka M M Su Su Sy
e
ut
tit
Green Procurement
Committee
Behaviour Change Initiatives
Staff Specially Employed/Receive Training
Incorporate Environmental Considerations
Figure 7 – Institutional Commitment to Green Procurement
~ 12 ~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Water Consumption per Institution (kL/(EFTSL + FTE))
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61
60
50
40
kL/ (EFTSL+FTE) 30
20
10
0
na
na
na
Box Hill
Brisbane
Central
Charles
Charles Chisholm
Deakin
Flinders
Gordon Goulburn
Kangan
Monash Murdoch Sunshine Sunraysia TAFE NSW
Institute of North
Institute of Darwin
Sturt
Institute of University University Institute of Ovens Institute of University University
Institute of - Sydney
Coast
TAFE
TAFE
TAFE
Institute
Institute of Technology University University
TAFE
of South
Institute of
TAFE
Institute of
TAFE
Australia
TAFE
TAFE
Mains water purchased 2009
Licensed Surface Water Collection (Rivers, Streams etc.) 2009
blah
Licensed Ground Water Extraction (Bore Water) (kL) 2009
Rainwater Collected & Used 2009
Runoff Collected & Used 2009
Mains water purchased 2010
Licensed Surface Water Collection (Rivers, Streams etc.) 2010
Runoff Collected & Used 2010
University
Average
TAFE
Average
Sector
Average
Licensed Ground Water Extraction (Bore Water) 2010
Rainwater Collected & Used 2010
Chart 12 – Water Consumption per Institution and by Sector (kilolitres per Equivalent Full-time Student Load and Full-time Equivalent staff) for 2009 and 2010
Water Consumption per Institution (kL/GFA m²)
4
1.2
3.5
1
3
0.8
2.5
kL/GFA m²
2
0.6
1.5
0.4
1
0.2
0.5
0
na
na
na
0
Box Hill
Central
Charles
Charles
Chisholm
Deakin
Gordon Goulburn
Kangan
Monash Murdoch Sunshine Sunraysia TAFE NSW
Brisbane
Flinders
Institute of
North
Institute of Darwin
Sturt
Institute of University University Institute of Ovens Institute of University University
Coast
Institute of - Sydney
TAFE
Institute of Technology University University
TAFE
of South
TAFE
Institute of
TAFE
Institute of
TAFE
Institute
TAFE
Australia
TAFE
TAFE
Mains water purchased 2009
Licensed Surface Water Collection (Rivers, Streams etc.) 2009
blah
Licensed Ground Water Extraction (Bore Water) (kL) 2009
Rainwater Collected & Used 2009
Runoff Collected & Used 2009
Mains water purchased 2010
Licensed Surface Water Collection (Rivers, Streams etc.) 2010
Runoff Collected & Used 2010
University
Average
TAFE
Average
Sector
Average
Licensed Ground Water Extraction (Bore Water) 2010
Rainwater Collected & Used 2010
Chart 13 – Water Consumption per Institution and by Sector (kilolitres per Gross Floor Area Metres Squared for 2009 and 2010
~ 13 ~