ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
–
THE CASE STUDY OF
OSHWAL ACADEMY
PRIMARY SCHOOL, NAIROBI
KENYA
BY SHAH PARITA SURESHCHANDRA
SUPERVISED BY:
DR. F. MWAURA
DR. J. MORONGE


Definition
In this study:
EA is a documented, objective, systematic way

systematic examination of interactions between an
operation and its surroundings – ICC

a total assessment of the nature and extent of any harm
or detriment caused to, or the risk of any possible harm
or detriment which may be caused to, any beneficial use
made by any segment of the environment by any
industrial process or activity, waste, substance (including
any chemical substance) or noise” (GoA 1988-89)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defined an
environmental audit as “a systematic, documented,
periodic and objective review by regulated entities of
facility operations and practices related to meeting
environmental requirements”
ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT
 Relatively
a new concept in developing world
 Origination – USA - EPA
 Ideas found in Bruntland Commission+ Ehrlich
 Rio Agenda 21 – Principle 16
 Kenya – EMCA Sections 68+69- NEMA
- Environmental (Impact
Assessment and Audit) Regulations –
31+41
ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT

Why do an EA?
Benefits (Kenya – EMCA)
- resource conservation
- environmental health and safety
- helps in planning
- financial
- compliance with laws
- environmental awareness
- operational efficiency
ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT IN
KENYAN CONTEXT
 Annually
– initial audit + follow ups
 External
auditor/self
 Education
 Overall
– EMCA -Schedule 2, Section F
follow up of audits – poor
YEAR
SECTOR
ENVIRONMENTAL
AUDITS RECEIVED
2004
Education
2
2005
Education
31
2006
Education
18
2007
Education
14
STATEMENT OF THE RESEARCH
PROBLEM
 Is
EA a tool of resource conservation?
 Is
EA done yearly?
 Is
Syllabi more environmental oriented?
OBJECTIVES

To comply with Environmental laws of Kenya

To see if 2005 audits have been complied with

Minimize wastage and provide tools for waste
minimization

Improving the environment further
HYPOTHESES

1. There is no relationship between paper
wastage in school and number of children per
year.

2. There is no difference between water
wastage through normal taps and press on
taps.

3. There is no relationship in energy
conservation between different year groups in
Oshwal Academy Primary School.
JUSTIFICATION AND
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
 MDGs
and universal education + syllabus
incorporating environment
 Must do an EA annually
 Resource conservation
- forests + paper
- water + scarcity
- water + taps
- electricity + conservation
 Reusing, recycling, reducing and repairing
LITERATURE REVIEW

Tolba and El Kholy (1992) –An environmental
audit measures the relative accuracy of the
prediction of impacts and their management
through mitigation and compensation”.

Gege (1997) – 5% reduction in costs

Lethmathe and Doost (2000) –correct
accounting + costs of environmental related
flows of materials and energy.

INTOSAI WGEA 2007 + Tolba and El Kholy
(1992) – EA address issues that are physical in
nature and specific to a particular site e.g. field
observations and photographs.

Njuguna (2007) if environmental audits will not
be done, results will be:“when the forest is gone, the great reservoir of
moisture stored up in its vegetable mould is
evaporated and the returns only in deluge of rain
to wash away the parched dust into which the
mould has been converted….”

(Glasson, Therivel and Chadwick 2005) – Some
audits-“best practice” models.
Examples of Environmental Audits
in Western Institutions

University of Pennsylvania – Environmental
Auditors agree to Ben Franklin’s (1898)
statement – “An ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure”.

University of Sussex – EA has helped the
university have an EMP + reduce costs
Professor Gordon Conway – former Vice
Chancellor (HEFCE 1998)

Income from recycling has brought savings +
reduced financial costs. Helen Tompkins,
Graham School (HEFCE 1998)
Examples of Environmental Audits
in the Developing World

fairly new concept

Tolba 1984 – fear and skepticism

Ananda (2004) - Sri Lanka – Environmental
audit training needs man power, training and
monetary facilities.

Uganda – Environmental auditing systems in
1995, Kenya in 2003 but Kenya ahead.
The Case of Kenya

1992 Rio Summit

Wamukoya and Situma 2003 - Development of
National Environmental Action Plans –
National Environmental Action Plan for the
Period 1994 – 1999
National Environmental Action Plan for the
Period 1999 – 2003
EMCA 1999
Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit)
Regulations 2003
1.
2.
3.
4.

NEMA
 Kenya’s educational institutions - 56,679
registered
 Mwangi (2008) - Initial EA done by few –
YEAR
2004
2005
2006
2007
TOTAL
FIGURES
18
77
37
32
164
Critical Review of Environmental Audits

INTOSAI (2000) – difficulties of EA - significant
gaps in implementation and legislation.

Guterl and Sheridan (2008) - reliability of data
and lack of detailed information.

Volokh (1997) – Case of Colorado based Coors
Brewing Company in 1992.

NEMA + lack of officers
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
UTILIZATION OF KEY INPUTS IN SCHOOLS
e.g.
Paper
Water
Electricity
(The way inputs are used can cause
environmental problems.)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
High costs of electricity
Generation of waste paper
Generation of waste water
Air pollution
Excessive use of non-renewable
resources like petrol
Reduced costs for
schools
RESOURCE DEGRADATION
Loss of forests
Generation of waste water
Air pollution
Physical degradation
Noise pollution
NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT
BENEFITS FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT
Resource conservation
Compliance with laws
Efficiency in usage of materials
Reduced waste
Awareness creation
DESCRIPTION OF AUDIT SITE
OSHWAL ACADEMY PRIMARY SCHOOL
 Location
 Direction
from city centre
 Size – physical
 Function
 Neighbourhood
MAP SHOWING LOCATION OF THE SCHOOL
OSHWAL
ACADEMY PR.
School’s appearance
The School’s old block
The school’s new block
School set up

Started in 1978

In 1978 students only 28, today 995 students

Exam body in till 1984 – CPE

1985 -1987 – KCPE

1987 - 2001 – CPE

2001 till date - BNC
The School Lay Out
Special Education
Library for years 1, 2 and 3
A classroom
A computer lab
The School Lay Out
The Swimming Pool
Play area for Reception class
The School field - Athletics
The full view of the School field
Sanitary Facilities
FACILITY
BOYS
GIRLS
STAFF
TOTAL
Toilets
24
24
9
57
Wash-hand
basins
24
24
9
57
Showers
12
8
4
24
METHODOLOGY

Responses obtained from staff, students,
neighbours through questionnaires, interviews
and general discussions

Primary sources – the school and neighbourood

Secondary sources – audit report of
2005,Environmental Legal Framework like
EMCA, authored books, thesis, journals

Data collection for primary data – mixed
probability sampling
Data Collection
POPULATION
NO. OF UNITS
PER
NO. OF UNITS
IN THE
COMPONENT
SAMPLE
Office Staff
4
1
Teaching Staff
109
27
Support Staff
15
3
TOTAL
128
31
Year 4
148
15
Year 5
127
13
Year 6
128
13
TOTAL
403
41
COMPONENTS



Students – Simple
random – hat method
Staff - Simple random
– hat method
Neighbours systematic random –
evry 5th house
STAFF
STUDENTS
Primary Data



Student responses
Staff responses
Neighbourhood responses

Measurements and recordings

Camera

Observation – burning vegetation, protective clothing,
traffic

Water quality testing
Questionnaires
Water

Two types of taps –press-on and normal


Run off rate - press-on, 1 litre in 10 sec.
Run off rate – normal, 470 ml in 10 sec.
Press-on tap at its maximum
Normal tap at its maximum
Regulatory Framework
A. Environmental Management and Coordination Act
1999
B. Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit)
Regulation 2003
C. Environmental Management and Coordination (Water
Quality)
Regulations of 2006
D. Environmental Management and Coordination (Waste
Management) Regulations of 2006
E. Water Act of 2002
F. Building Code of 2000
Regulatory Framework
G. 
The Occupational Safety and Health Act
H. Public Health Act
I. Factory Act
J. Employment Act
K. Legal Notice No 296 of 1996
L. Work Injury Benefits Act (2007)
Regulatory Framework
M. The Local Government Act
N. The Penal Code
O. Physical Planning Act 1996
P. Energy Policy and Energy Act
Q. Vision 2030
R. CCN By-Laws
Data Processing

Checking all questionnaires

Closed ended compiled in their list

Open ended compiled according to categories
Data Analysis

Descriptive – dispersion, tools e.g. graphs, cross
tabulation, percentages, frequencies, means

Inferential – chi-square
– spearman’s rank correlation
– student t-test

SPSS Statistical Package

Excel Program
General Rules
 If
calculated value is greater than the
tabulated value, the null hypothesis was
rejected.
 In
all tests, degree of significance - 95% (α
= 0.05).
Limitations
 Limited
to one area
 Screening
 Most
and control of collected data
measurements at nominal level- use
of non-parametric tests.
FINDINGS
 This






was done in areas of
Water
Electricity
Paper
Safety and security
Transport
Emergency preparedness
Water Use

Carried on for one
week

Intervals of one hour

Run off collected in
both taps – all
washrooms

Equipment

Data recordings
hourly
Run-off collected in basin
Measuring equipment
SUM AND MEAN OF WATER WASTAGE FOR BOTH PRESS-ON AND NORMAL TAPS
1200
1000
800
WASTAGE (LITRES)
600
400
200
0
PRESS ON TAPS
NORMAL TAPS
SUM
1071.3
171.9
MEAN
27.47
4.41
Monday
Water wastage for all five days
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
More Water Wastage Findings
and class cross tabulation –
females more playful
 Gender
Gender=female
Gender=male
Do you like playing
with press-on taps
in the wash rooms?
6
Do you like playing
with press-on taps
in the wash rooms?
6
no
5
no
5
yes
4
Count
Count
4
yes
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
4
5
Class
6
4
5
Class
6
Water Use Results

There is no difference between water wastage
through normal taps and press on taps –
Student t-test



Calculated t = 12.973
Critical t
= 1.960 (df = 38)
Result – null hypothesis rejected, alternative
accepted.
Water Sources

3 sources –
 Alpine
 NCC – kitchen
 Borehole – boarding, Zero B
Storage tank, then tap
Goes to the filter, then Zero B
Chemical tests done – signs of problems
Water Test Results
Water Samples
Chemical
Name
WHO
Recommendation
s
Alpine
Kitchen
boarding
School
kitchen
Borehole
Zero B
pH
6.5-8.5
8.2
8.0
8.1
8.1
8.2
Manganese,
mg/l
0.4
0.4
0
0
0
0
Fluorides,
mg/l
1.5
0.23
0.17
3.62
3.8
1.96
Iron
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
chlorides,
mg/l
600
15
17
44
45
47
Electricity

60 computers + old version
 Incoming
natural light in class– 74.2%
(23/31)
 Generator
 Energy
+ diesel
conservation
Energy Conservation

Records of lights off – break, lunch after school
(questionnaire, observation)
YEAR
(STANDARD)
NO OF
CHILDREN
WHO
SWITCHED
LIGHTS
OFF
% OF
CHILDREN
WHO
SWITCHED
LIGHTS
OFF (%)
NO OF
CHILDRE
N WHO
DID NOT
SWITCH
LIGHTS
OFF
% OF
CHILDREN
WHO DID
NOT
SWITCH
LIGHTS
OFF (%)
TOTAL
6
12
92.31
1
7.69
13
5
5
38.5
8
61.5
13
4
14
93.33
1
6.67
15
TOTAL
31
74.7%
10
23.4%
41
.
Lights on when children not there
Energy conservation results

There is no relationship in energy conservation
between different year groups in Oshwal
Academy Primary School.– Chi-square

Calculated value = 14.249

Critical value
= 5.991 (df = 2)


Result – null hypothesis rejected, alternative
accepted.
Observed difference not by chance
Awareness Creation
Types of environmental awareness creation by staff in school
30
25
Number of Staff
20
15
10
5
0
Environment club
Curriculum delivery
Assembly Talks
Yes
28
21
22
No
3
10
9
Type of Awareness
Conservation label
in a class
Thus students should be encouraged to
join the environmental club.
Future Action
Solar Power
Paper
Number of Children and Paper Wastage
160
Results since
2005
4500
140
4000
120
3500
100
3000
80
2500
2000
60
Paper (gms)

Paper wastage
high
No. Children

5000
1500
40
1000
20
500
0
0
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
Year
Number of Children
Paper wastage(gms)
NB. Two scale graph used to get good comparison.
Paper wastage in relation to number of
students from 2005 to 2008
YEAR
4500
2005
2006
2007
4000
2008
PAPERWASTAGE
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
NOOFCHILDREN
r² = 0.121 – not best fit relationship.
No of students not good measurement as relationship is not linear.
Relationship between class and
paper wastage
CLASS
NO OF
CHILDREN
DAY 1
(WASTE
IN GM)
DAY 2
(WASTE
IN GM)
DAY 3
(WASTE
IN GM)
MEAN
Year 4
150
3300
2800
3300
63
Year 5
127
1800
1600
2000
42.52
Year 6
128
1900
2100
1500
42.97
Paper wastage results

There is no relationship between paper wastage
in school and number of children per year –
Spearman's Rank Correlation.

After Spearman’s Rank Correlation, student ttest was used to test the observed.
 Calculated value = 6.314011
 Tabulated value = 2.056 (df = 26)

Result – null hypothesis rejected, alternative
accepted.
Recycling of paper and plastic
waste
YEAR
COST OF
EXERCISE
BOOKS
(KSH)
SELL OF
NEWSPAPERS
(KSH)
SELL OF
PLASTICS
(KSH)
DIFFERENCE
(KSH)
%
SAVINGS
20052006
247418
-
-
-
-
20062007
238013
-
-
-
-
20072008
218400
14160
73953
88116
40.35%
Safety and health - Cleanliness
Maintenance of the garden by the
support staff
Burning of vegetation in the school
compound
Safety and health – Tree pruning
Tree which was leaning toward the
school building cut
The height of the tree as it was being
cut (the picture is put in order to justify
that it was tall, thus becoming bent
and being a risk hazard)
Safety and health – Protective
Clothing
An Ideal Bin staff wearing gloves while cleaning a corridor wall
Afforestation and reafforestation
Tree planting in the school field on
environment day
Tree planting done in the
Kabagare forest of the Aberdares
by children and staff of Oshwal
Academy Primary School.
Transport
The 25 seater school bus
Traffic problems
Traffic jam in the neighbourhood after
school
Emergency preparedness

Fire – 25 extinguishers

Fire drills + trained staff

Exits

Regular checking of
equipment

First aid
Fire extinguisher in the first floor
of the new block
CONCLUSION

Initial audit report released late from NEMA

External auditor – didn’t meet expectations of
2005 audit

Management – need to get acquainted with
environmental laws

Compliance status on laws
Recommendations
 Water


–
change of press-on taps
Quality of water – filters (get sponsors)
 Energy




–
energy saving bulbs
Energy efficiency
Conservation and awareness
Solar array

Paper




Awareness
Reusing both sides
Recycling
Frequent trips to recycling factories

Tree planting and care of trees

Waste management –
•
•
no burning
Compost pit
 Transport


Big, efficient school buses
Transport system (discourage private
transport + coordination with parents)
 Emergency


preparedness
Disaster preparedness like security
Inserting smoke alarms
 Environmental
Management Plan