A report presented to the Department of
Information Systems at the University of
Cape Town for the course INF3011F.
By The Lumias ES:
Aziza Makiwane, Chantal Yang, Ngonidzashe Choga
& Mbongeni Ncube
Carbon
Footprint
Project Report
Water, E-Waste and Hazardous Waste
1
Executive Summary
In 1990 the University of Cape Town signed the Talloires Declaration and in doing
so started the journey towards becoming a more sustainable and environmentally
conscious institution. In 2001 the university recommitted itself to the
aforementioned declaration but it wasn't until 2009 that real, definitive action was
taken. In 2009, Properties and Services listed 10 prioritized sustainability actions
that needed to be addressed in order for the university to truly be considered an
institution dedicated to green issues and sustainability. Since then, the university
has been making significant progress by implementing various projects, the most
recent of which is the 2014 Carbon Footprinting Project conducted by the
Information Systems Department.
This particular report addresses the scope 3, indirect emissions of water, e-waste
and hazardous waste. Due to the small significance of water treatment on carbon
emissions, wastewater has not been included in this report even though it falls
under the category of water and only water supply will be covered. The report
identifies business opportunities that will be gained from trying to measure and
possibly reduce the university's carbon footprint (such as the decrease of costs due
to more efficient use of resources such as water) and project objectives. Project
stakeholders were identified with the use of a context diagram and included
parties such as the Information Systems Department, the Energy and Research
Centre and Properties and Services. After this, individual stakeholders (the main
ones which were identified as Andre Theys, Sandra Rippon and Gwamaka
Mwalemba) were identified via a stakeholder analysis matrix where the level of
interest and level of influence of these individuals was assessed. Once this was
done, obstacles that may hinder the progress of the project were identified and a
risk assessment was conducted in order to mitigate and manage risks. All the risks
assessed (team conflict, provision of incorrect data, etc.) were considered to be
moderate to high with most of them being possible and probable.
i
Before the carbon footprint for 2013 can be calculated for the categories of Water,
E-waste and Hazardous Waste, it is necessary that data be collected and analysed.
The data collection process was mostly conducted via email and with the help of
Sandra Rippon and while contact was made with the data holders, detailed
information about the total annual figures provided could not be obtained.
An analysis of data revealed that all university campuses and residences except
Graduate School of Business (GSB) consumed 336 498 kl of water in 2013. The
Graduate School of Business consumed 13 873.14kl in the same year with the grand
total for water supply therefore being 350 371.14 kl. GHG emissions on water were
produced using 2 emission factors, Defra (for comparative reasons) and a Life
Cycle Assessment (LCA) emission factor more appropriate to the South African
context researched by the University Of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN) (Friedrich et al.,
2007). Using the Defra emission factor (which included water supply and water
treatment), total GHG emissions for water was 368 800.66 kgCO2e/pa for the year
2013. Using the UKZN emission factor, the total GHG emission for was 324
093.3045 kgCO2e/pa. A comparison to 2012 data in terms of both water
consumption and the calculated GHG emission could not be made due to the
suspected exclusion of residence water for 2013.
GHG Totals(KGCO2e)
Water Emission Comparisons
474367.3837
324093.3045
2012
2013
YEAR
Graph E1: Bar Graph showing GHG emissions due to water.
For 2013, e-waste from Properties and Services was 7722 kgs while e-Waste from
ICTs was 2566kgs making total e-waste 10 288 kgs. Using the e-waste emission
ii
factor of 21.0, total GHG emissions for e-waste was calculated to be 216
048 kgCO2e/pa. Although an emission factor had not been established in 2013, a
calculation was done on the 2012 for comparative purposes using the emission
factor provided in 2014 coming to total of 136 395 kgCO2e/pa. From this, it can be
seen that emissions from e-waste increased from 2012 to 2013.
GHG Totals(KGCO2e)
eWaste Emission Comparisons
216048
136395
2012
2013
YEAR
Graph E2: Bar Graph showing GHG emissions due to water.
In terms of Hazardous waste, 2013 had the lowest recording of hazardous waste
since 2010. Unfortunately at the present, there isn't an emission factor for
hazardous waste and therefore emissions from hazardous waste could not be
calculated.
Once the carbon footprint for water, e-waste and hazardous waste had been
analysed and assessed, project limitations and challenges were discussed. Project
limitations were categorised into two categories, team level (task delegation,
schedule compatibility, conflict) and deliverable level (data availability, data
processing, scope creep, etc.). After this, various recommendations were made
about data collection, the project and reducing carbon emissions.
iii
Recommendations concerning sustainable data collection suggested use of a
spreadsheet for water supply to be used by data holders. Various advantages for
use of the spreadsheet were mentioned including improving the quality of the
report and possible ease of use of transferring data from the spreadsheet into a
database.
Recommendations concerning the project related to improving the report
process for subsequent years allowing for more accurate results in carbon footprint
calculations and increasing student awareness and participation in the project
outside of the IS department.
Lastly, recommendations were made on how the university can reduce its carbon
footprint with suggestions such as retrofitting water conservative appliances,
buying electronics for longevity of use to reduce e-waste and looking into research
for a hazardous waste emission factor.
iv
Contents
Project Conceptualisation ................................................................................... 1
Introduction and Background............................................................................. 1
Project Category ........................................................................................... 4
Situation of Concern and Problem Statement ......................................................... 6
Business Opportunities .................................................................................... 7
Project Objectives ......................................................................................... 8
Context Diagram and Stakeholder Analysis ............................................................ 9
Project Risks ............................................................................................... 13
Project Scheduling ........................................................................................ 17
Project Breakdown Structure......................................................................... 18
Work Breakdown Structure ........................................................................... 19
Gant Chart ............................................................................................... 20
Data Collection and Analysis ............................................................................... 22
Data Collection ............................................................................................ 22
Data Analysis ............................................................................................... 24
Water Supply ............................................................................................ 24
E-Waste .................................................................................................. 27
Hazardous Waste ....................................................................................... 29
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 30
Carbon Footprint Calculation .............................................................................. 31
What is a carbon footprint? .............................................................................. 31
Emission Factors ........................................................................................... 32
2013 Carbon Footprint Calculations .................................................................... 35
E-Waste .................................................................................................. 35
Water Supply ............................................................................................ 35
Benchmarking and 2012 Carbon Footprint Calculations ............................................ 36
E-Waste .................................................................................................. 36
Water ..................................................................................................... 36
Conclusions ................................................................................................. 37
Project Challenges and Limitations ....................................................................... 38
Team Level ................................................................................................. 38
Deliverable Level .......................................................................................... 39
Recommendations for Data Collection ................................................................... 41
v
Project Recommendations .................................................................................. 44
Short term (In the next 2 months)...................................................................... 44
Long term (6 months and above) ....................................................................... 44
Recommendations for the Reduction of Carbon Footprints ........................................... 46
Water ....................................................................................................... 46
E-Waste ..................................................................................................... 47
Hazardous Waste .......................................................................................... 48
Reference List ................................................................................................ 49
Appendix A– Infographic .................................................................................... 50
vi
Project Conceptualisation
Introduction and Background
As a leading tertiary institute in Africa in both teaching and research, the
University of Cape Town has an obligation to address social and developmental
issues of which climate change is a part of. In recent years, global warming has
become a reality and any institution that claims to be future oriented has had to
deal with this issue of environmental sustainability.
Thus, the University Of Cape Town has taken it upon itself to act accordingly by
initiating a carbon footprinting project to measure the greenhouse gas emissions of
the university. Carbon footprinting tracking and analysis will allow the university
not only to formulate effective mitigation strategies to limit emissions but ensure
that the University of Cape Town becomes an eco-friendly and sustainable
institution fitting of the International Sustainable Campus Network with which it is
affiliated.
Since 1990, UCT has made the following commitments to environmental and
sustainability issues:

1990 - International Talloires Declaration signed by VC Saunders.
Stated that the university would commit to participating in environmental
awareness activities and create policies. Further stated that UCT would set
aside resources and carry out research to achieve this goal.

2001 - Recommitment to the implementation of Talloires by VC Ndebele.
Recommitment of the university to the International Talloires Declaration.
Obligation to the declaration, lead to the future development of the Green
Campus Policy Framework.

2008 - Green Campus Policy Framework adopted by UCT Council and
Senate.
Growing interest in sustainability led to the formation of the student-lead,
volunteer organisation Green Campus Initiative in 2007.
1

2009 - Green Campus Action Plan developed by Properties and Services.
Released by Properties and services, listed 10 prioritized sustainability
actions in the categories of energy, water, indoor environmental quality,
solid waste, carbon emissions, transport, construction, landscaping,
biodiversity and institutional changes.

2012 ISCN-GULF Sustainable Campus Charter signed by VC Price.
Charter’s mission: “To provide a global forum to support leading colleges,
universities and corporate campuses.”

2012 First Report submitted in terms of the ISCN-GULF Sustainable
Campus Charter.
Included the baseline carbon footprint as reported in 2009.
In taking steps to meet these proposals, the university has implemented various
projects each with different individuals at the helm and varied goals but with the
ultimate aim of collecting data on the university’s carbon footprint. The latest of
these projects was carried out by third year Information Systems students in 2013
using 2012 data. Data for 2007 was also collected in 2008 by a Master’s Degree
candidate and used to set the initial benchmark. It was against these figures that
data from 2012 was reviewed.
The main aim of the Carbon Footprinting Project overall, is to collect data which
will be used to monitor how UCT as an organisation and tertiary institution is
fairing in sustainability issues and reducing its carbon footprint. Once the accurate
collection and collation of data has been established, future plans can be made to
design, develop and implement a system that will measure and monitor the
university’s carbon footprint.
This report will focus on the collection and analysis of data concerned with water,
e-waste and hazardous waste where a proposed spreadsheet used for the future
collection of data will be presented. Using researched carbon emission factors, the
carbon footprint of each of these three categories will be established for the year
2
2013 and compared to previous years. After this, challenges and limitations related
to the collection of data will be discussed before making recommendations on
maintaining sustainable data collection and addressing issues of data availability.
Lastly, suggestions will be made on how to improve the project in future before
making recommendations on how the university may decrease its carbon footprint.
3
Project Category
In order to gain an understanding of the assigned categories and their scope,
enquiries were made with several individuals including Sandra Rippon and Geoff
Perrott (Water), Charl Souma (E-Waste from ICTs) and Brett Roden (E-Waste from
Properties and Services and Hazardous Waste). The following is an explanation of
these categories based on information given by these individuals. All three
categories form a part of “Scope 3: Other indirect Emissions” in terms of the GHG
Protocol – an optional reporting category that allows for the reporting of indirect
emissions other than electricity which is covered in Scope 2 (Rippon, 2013).

Electronic Waste:
E-Waste (electronic waste) refers to electronics or equipment that contains
electronic components which the university will be looking to dispose of.
This is measured in kilograms and is divided into 3 categories; small,
medium and large dependent on the size of the item.
Properties and Services deal with e-waste older than 5 years and outsource
disposal services with a company based in Paarl that collects the e-waste
when sufficient amounts have been accumulated. Therefore, e-waste is
collected at irregular intervals.
Items younger than 5 years are handled by ICTS and form part of a recycling
process in which recycled parts are used to service a 5 year warranty on
items purchased through ICTS for UCT staff. At present, there are two ewaste systems running simultaneously. Despite having the two e-waste
systems in place, there is still room for improvement in terms of re-use as
not all re-useable waste is retrieved from items before it is collected by
the e-Waste service providers.

Hazardous Waste:
Chemical waste refers to the different chemical based waste streams
generated by the various UCT departments. According to Brett Roden,
chemical waste had to be separated from healthcare risk waste due to the
different service providers needed to process this waste. The
4
university's Chemical Waste is both treated and disposed at a High Hazard
(H: H) waste facility.
Healthcare risk waste on the other hand is made up of a number of waste
streams including anatomical, infectious, sharps and waste pharmaceuticals,
all of which require a specific treatment process that involves heat. The
service provider used by ICTs makes use of incineration where the final ash
is disposed of at Vissershok.

Water:
This refers to water supply and water consumption of the university. The
university's water consumption is measured through different onsite
meters provided by the local municipality. The Student Housing Department
handles bills associated with residences
and Properties and Services Department compiles the data that is related to
the rest of the university's campuses (Green Inc. Group, 2013). At present,
the figures collected from these meters are put in complicated spreadsheets
making the analysis and interpretation of figures a difficult task.
Wastewater and water treatment would also be included in this category.
However, as this is not a significant Scope 3 Emission and is arguably not an
emission source which the university has a significant influence and control
over, has been excluded from the report.
5
Situation of Concern and Problem Statement
There are many problems encountered in any business or organisation and “going
green” is one problem that many businesses are having to deal with the increasing
prominence of climate change. As a result, the University of Cape Town is looking
to calculate its carbon footprint in order to reduce its carbon emissions. That being
said, there are various obstacles disrupting the flow of this process.
Lack of a robust, methodical way of collecting and collating data is a persistent
problem along with inconsistent formatting of data. Data holders may not always
be willing to release information or provide relevant detailed information and
breakdowns. Furthermore, the format that the data is received in is often unclear
and unreadable. This not only makes interpreting data difficult but leads to further
difficulties establishing an accurate carbon footprint and comparing data from year
to year. As result, the progress of the university in reducing its carbon footprint
become problematic to measure and gauge.
6
Business Opportunities
Measuring a carbon footprint may have many advantages for an institution such as
UCT. The following are some of the main advantages:

Opportunity for UCT to cut down on future costs by minimising its carbon
footprint - due to the new regulation to be brought about in 2016, a R120
per ton tax on carbon emissions above a 60 percent threshold will be
charged.

Opportunity to develop an information system for monitoring the
universities carbon footprint more precisely. This would allow the university
to identify relevant areas of concern and more efficiently focus efforts in
these areas to reduce emissions and therefore costs. In relation to the
topics of water, e-waste and hazardous waste, this would be the reduction
of water costs to the university and allow for greater opportunity of
recycling.

There is an opportunity for the university to increase its philanthropic
endeavours and image via the donating of e-waste to less privileged
communities/schools etc.

Opportunity for UCT to improve its image comparatively against other
universities as a leading tertiary institution.

Opportunity for innovation and research as an effective way of calculating
an emission for hazardous waste is needed.

If the university were to become more sustainable, there is increased
opportunity of getting outside funding and investment. Investors are
increasingly becoming aware of the positive impacts of sustainability and are
therefore more likely to invest in “green” organisations.
7
Project Objectives
The objective of the project in its entirety is to create and compile a carbon
footprint report for 2013. More specifically as this is a relatively new undertaking
at the University of Cape Town, there is a push to “create more transparency and
efficiency throughout the entire exercise of collecting compiling and reporting on
university’s carbon footprint”. This objective will help with the collection of data
as this is going to become a yearly activity.
As a group doing water, e-waste and hazardous waste our project objectives are as
follows:

To find an efficient and effective way for the university to compile data
that will help in the calculation of the carbon footprint and in the
realization of trends from year to year.

To help establish the University of Cape Town as a leader in mitigating
climate change and in green initiatives.

To help the university record accurate amounts for water consumption, ewaste and hazardous waste and present this data in spreadsheets with a
clear, readable format that will aid in future data collection.

To review data from previous years identifying any anomalies and gaps in
order to allow for accurate year to year benchmarking.

To calculate the University of Cape Town’s carbon footprint for the year
2013 in the categories of water, e-waste and hazardous waste using
established carbon emission factors if available.

Recommend a way forward after the data has been collected and
analysed against data from previous years in terms of reducing water
consumption and electronic and hazardous waste.

Recommend a better way for the data holders to present and collect the
needed data for calculations of data emissions.
8
Context Diagram and Stakeholder Analysis
A context diagram is a high level diagram used to determine the scope of the
project and identify the various parties involved in the project.
In the case of the Carbon Footprint Project, the following organisational
stakeholders were identified:

Properties and Services

Energy Research Center

Staff and Support Staff

ISCN – International Sustainable Campus Network

The South African Government

ICTs

Information Systems Department
Figure 1. presents an overview of the organisational stakeholders mentioned above
and demonstrates the way in which these parties are influenced by and will
influence the project.
Figure 1: Context Diagram for 2014 Carbon Footprint Project
9
Once the general parties involved in the project have been identified, individual
stakeholders from these organisations can be analysed in detail using a stakeholder
analysis matrix. Table 1. demonstrates this in relation to the 2014 Carbon
Footprinting Project.
10
Table 1: Stakeholder Analysis for 2014 Carbon Footprinting Project
Organisation
Role in Project
Unique Facts about
Stakeholder
Level
of
Interest
Department of
Information
Systems, University
of Cape Town
INF3011F course
convenor/Project
coordinator and
sponsor
Very
High
High – Communicates
project information to
students, manages project
teams.
Independent
Sustainability
Consultant to
Properties and
Service at the
University of Cape
Town
Project
stakeholder,
consultant and
advisor
Course convenor and
lecturer for INF3011F.
Provides project
guidelines and sets
deliverable due dates.
Marks project report.
Has knowledge of data
holders and data and
methodology for
various areas based
on previous 2012
Carbon Footprint
Report.
Very
High
Properties and
Services, University
of Cape Town
Project
stakeholder and
sponsor
Interested in creating
more transparency
and efficiency when it
comes to data
collection and project
report compilation.
Very
High
Very High – Compiles final
2013 Carbon Footprinting
Report using student
project reports.
Makes recommendations to
management and
suggestions for future
projects.
Very High – Executive
director at UCT Properties
and Services. Determines
annual project renewal and
if properties and services
works with the Department
of Information Systems.
Able to influence data
holders.
Max Price
University of Cape
Town
Project
stakeholder but
not directly
involved
High
Fahmza Jaffar
Properties and
Data holder for all
Vice chancellor of the
university. Signed a
charter committing the
university to providing
regular updates on
meeting environmental
objectives such as
carbon footprinting.
Finance manager at
Gwamaka
Mwalemba
Sandra Rippon
Andre Theys
Medium
Level of Influence
High – Submits 2013
Carbon Footprint report to
ISCN. Makes executive
decisions concerning the
university and may possibly
influence the way in which
the carbon footprinting
project is conducted.
High – Provides data to for
Suggestions on
Managing Relationship
Communication occurs
only when necessary.
Correspondence via email
or after class to setup
meetings or clarify project
structure related queries.
Communication occurs
only when necessary but
primary correspondent for
clarification of queries
related to carbon footprint
calculation and concerns
of analysis of data. CC in
emails to data holders.
Communication occurs
only when necessary –
should be rare.
Correspondence via
email, input into specific
project area not required.
CC in emails if contacting
data holders.
Communication not
necessary.
Communication occurs
11
Services, University
of Cape Town
water data except
Graduate School
of Business
Rayner
Canning and
Charlene Paris
Graduate School of
Business Finance
Department,
University of Cape
Town
Data holders for
water data for the
Graduate School
of Business
Brett Roden
Properties and
Services,
University of Cape
Town
Data holder for
hazardous waste
and e-waste
Charl Souma
ICTS, University of
Cape Town
Data holder for ewaste
UCT. Responsible for
all finances of the
university. Has access
to water supply figures
from municipal water
bills for all campuses
except GSB.
Finance Manager and
Finance Officer at
GSB. Has access to
water supply figures
from municipal water
bills for GSB.
Environmental Risk
Officer at Properties
and Services. Has
knowledge of
Customer Relations
and Service Level
Management
Consultant at ICTS.
Medium
Medium
Medium
use in report. The
accuracy, clarity and detail
of data provided, all
influence the quality of the
final report.
only when necessary and
via email. Tone of
messages should be
professional and polite.
High – Provides data to for
use in report. The
accuracy, clarity and detail
of data provided, all
influence the quality of the
final report.
High – Provides data to for
use in report. The
accuracy, clarity and detail
of data provided, all
influence the quality of the
final report.
Communication occurs
only when necessary and
via email. Tone of
messages should be
professional and polite.
High – Provides data to for
use in report. The
accuracy, clarity and detail
of data provided, all
influence the quality of the
final report.
Communication occurs
only when necessary and
via email. Tone of
messages should be
professional and polite.
Communication occurs
only when necessary and
via email. Tone of
messages should be
professional and polite.
12
Project Risks
The following table represents the risk assessment for potential and actual risks
identified before and while working on the project compilation (Table 2.).
There are 6 main risks identified and described below which are split into the
following 8 categories:
 Description: The explanation of risk stated.
 Probability: The likelihood of the risk stated where 1 is highly unlikely and
10 is certain.
 Impact: The effect of the occurrence of the risk to the project.
 Triggers: The causes of the risk stated.
 Consequences: These are the costs of the risks realization.
 Mitigation Strategies: These are the solutions required to manage and
reduce the risk during its occurrence.
 Contingencies: These are solutions to prevent the risk from reaching
fruition.
It should be noted that the underlined words in the ‘Triggers’ section of the table
represents the participants responsible/associated with the risk in question.
13
Table 2: Risk Matrix for 2014 Carbon Footprint Project
RISK
DESCRIPTIO
N
PROBABILIT
Y
(1-10)
IMPAC
T
(1-10)
FACTOR
(%)
The varying
compilation of
project data
into a
complete
report
7
8
42
Poor definition
of project
quality
requirements
7
8
42
3 Time delays
Incorrect time
estimations
and resource
availability
4
6
4 Poor project
Lack of
student effort
in collecting
and compiling
accurate and
valuable data/
little
knowledge
and research
5
8
1 Inconsistent
integration of
project
2 Out of scope
report
quality
TRIGGERS
CONSEQUENCE
S
MITIGATION
STRATEGIES
CONTINGENCIE
S
Each Project team
member doing
separate part of
project with no one
standardizing
information of
collective document
Misunderstanding of
project specifications
by project team
Incoherent
document
presented
Continual group
meetings to
update sections of
work and inform
members
Do final editing
before handing in
the complete
report
Irrelevant solutions
and analysis given
to project
requirement
Check finished
product with
peers of other
project teams and
lecturers
Before embarking
on data collection
and analysis,
define scope and
communicate with
qualified project
managers
24
Poor time allocation
by project teams and
schedule variances
by stakeholders and
project teams
Project extensions/
incomplete project
data at original
stated time
Draw timetable/
calendar plan for
tasks to be
completed
40
Underestimation of
importance of
project, lack of
project investigation
of data, estimated/
miscalculated figures
used, and poor
analysis of
information by
Low quality and
unreliable
document
Restructure tasks
to be completed
according to time
given to complete
tasks in order to
at least get as
much task
completion in
given time
Do comparison of
project with other
previously
completed
projects and
modify project to
fit a common
standard
State project data
to be collected,
reproof with
relevant sources,
at every step
verify accuracy of
course followed
14
5 Team
conflict
6 Incorrect
Data
collection
of project
Dysfunctional
conflictinterpersonal
(relational)
disagreements
based on
personality
clashes
Functional
conflictdifferences in
working ideas
based on
courses of
project action
Incorrect
methods of
procurement
for data or
incorrect data
received from
data collectors
5
8
40
3
8
24
project team
Dysfunctional
conflict-Project team
members having
different
characteristics that
are disliked by others
Functional conflictmoderate different
levels of knowledge
to problem solving or
solution finding by
each project team
member
Misinformation of
project needs or
methodology to be
followed
Unproductive
working
environment or no
progress made in
project- incomplete
project
Dysfunctional
conflictFace-to-face
meetings/ at most
avoidance till
project is
complete or
enforce project
completion
Functional
conflict- expand
resources to
incorporate
additional
information of
ideas, come to a
compromise of
two separate
ideas
Dysfunctional
conflict- separate
tasks to be done
by different
members of
project team
based on different
qualities or
strengths of
members
Functional
conflict- use
difference in ideas
to explore all
routes of
implementation
and find best
methods
(generate team
creativity)
Incorrect data in
report, inoperable
information for
project use
Communication
with lecturers with
information
collected and
methodology
followed
Previous project
review, task
defining and
procedure
definition
15
As part of the risk analysis process, each of the above risks were first analysed
according to the below risk quadrant. Table 3. serves as a summary for the above
table with the numbers in table 3 corresponding to the situations mentioned in
Table 2.
Table 3: Summary Risk matrix for 2014 Carbon Footprint Report
Key:
16
Project Scheduling
The following charts will give us a holistic picture of all deliverables and all steps
that need to be taken to bring these deliverables to fruition. Each of these steps
is necessary thus following the protocol described in this section is necessary.
We have also given leeway error of around 10% thus the dates are not absolute but
instead things can be changed around to ensure that the project is completed in
reasonable time. The last portion of this section (Gantt Chart) has the absolute
dates and it is critical to adhere to these to ensure effective time management.
17
Project Breakdown Structure
Figure 2: Project Breakdown Structure for 2014 Carbon Footprint Project
18
Work Breakdown Structure
This diagram is used to illustrate tasks that need to be completed to achieve all deliverables mentioned in the previous section.
Figure 3: Work Breakdown Structure for 2014 Carbon Footprint Project
19
Gant Chart
This section has been broken down into multiple documents and
explanations to allow for holistic approach and ease of use. This will ensure
that all steps that need to be taken can be easily followed.
The tasks have been broken into four phases. These may overlap at times
based on the steps that are being undertaken, however, it is necessary to
have concurrent steps as not doing so would result in the project time being
increased. The four phases are conceptualization, implementation,
realization and reflection. The general time frame will be as follows:
Figure 4: Gant Chart Overview for 2014 Carbon Footprint Project.
While Figure 4. gives an overall view of the timeframe for the Carbon
Footprint project, there is little detail. Figure 5. presents a more detailed
time frame with tasks included. Having an understanding of the tasks that
need to be undertaken and allocating time to these tasks will help ensure
that the project is completed within the specified time frame.
20
Figure 5: Detailed Gant Chart for 2014 Carbon Footprint Project.
21
Data Collection and Analysis
Before the carbon footprint for 2013 can be calculated for the categories of Water,
E-waste and Hazardous Waste, it is necessary that data be collected and analysed.
In this section, the data collection process will be explained starting with the
identification of data holders before describing the way in which data was
obtained. After this, an analysis of the data is done where data collected from
2012 is reviewed and compared to those figures received in 2013. A summary of
the findings of the analysis will then be presented.
Data Collection
Data for 2013 was collected largely with the help of Sandra Rippon, Independent
Sustainability Consultant to Properties and Service with Sandra being the median
between data holders and the project team. The main form of communication
used to contact Sandra and data holder was via email with the email addresses of
data holders being found through the University of Cape Town’s White Pages online
staff directory.
Initially, a table of all data holders for the 2014 Carbon Footprinting Project was
provided by Gwamaka Mwalemba from which the relevant individuals were
identified (Table 4.).
Table 4: Data holders for Water, E-Waste and Hazardous Waste.
Category
Contact
Department
Properties and Services:
Finance Manager
GSB Finance Department:
Finance Manager and
Finance Officer.
Water: All except GSB
Fahmza Jaffar
Water: GSB
Rayner Canning,
Charlene Paris
Hazardous Waste:
Medical/Chemical
& E-Waste (Properties and
Services)
Brett Roden
Properties and Services:
Environmental Risk Officer
E-Waste
Charl Souma
ICTS: Customer Relations and
Service Level Management
Consultant
A single spreadsheet was provided by Sandra Rippon containing the annual figures
for the year 2013 for the various categories. This was uploaded as a resource onto
22
the “Sustainable UCT” Vula tab. This served as the primary source of data for this
report and covered the following categories:

“Water: All except GSB” - Water supply for all campuses except the
Graduate School of Business.

“Water: GSB” - Water supply for the Graduate School of Business.

“E-Waste via P&S” - E-Waste collected via Properties and Services.

“E-Waste via ICTs” – E-Waste collected via ICTs.

“Hazardous Waste: Medical/Chemical” – Hazardous Waste which consist of
Healthcare Risk Waste and Chemical Waste.
But while this spreadsheet contained total annual figures for water (split between
all water and water from the Graduate School of Business for administrative
reasons), e-waste and hazardous waste, a further breakdown of the water figures
were not available. Due to the inconsistent way in which e-waste is collected by
ICTs and Properties and Services and the lack of an emission factor for hazardous
waste, detailed information about how these total figures are obtained is not
necessary.
The lack of a breakdown for the category of water supply was confirmed with
Sandra Rippon via email who had said she had requested this information from
data holders but had yet to receive the raw data. As a result, an attempt was
made to contact the data holders directly via email but complete breakdowns
detailing how the figures for water supply concerning all campuses and residences
and the Graduate school of Business, could not be obtained (although data for
upper campus and medical school was obtained from Senior Finance Officer at
Properties and Services, Sandiswa Ndlebe after emailing Fahmza Jaffar). That
being said, without the complete set of data for all campuses and all residences,
this data is rendered insignificant and therefore has been excluded from the
report.
23
Data Analysis
As detailed breakdowns of data for the categories water, e-waste and hazardous
waste could either not be obtained or were deemed unnecessary, data analysis
took place mostly in the form of a year by year comparison up until 2013 using
figures from previous years from student reports from 2013. A comparison could
not be made to 2007 data in the 2009 University of Cape Town Carbon Footprint
Report (Letete, Mungwe, Guma, & Marquard, 2010) conducted by the Energy
Research Centre as these categories were not covered in the report at the time.
Water Supply
Data for 2013 water supply was provided by Andre Theys from Properties and
Services while 2012 figures were sourced from an email from Sandra Rippon (Table
5.).
The reason that this data from Sandra Rippon was used instead of those figures
from the electricity and water project report of the Green Inc. Group (2013) is
that the total water consumption figure across all campuses and residences of 528
088.71kl for 2012 appears to be anomalistic. Despite the detailed breakdown in the
report by campus and residence, figures from the Graduate School of Business
appear to have been excluded from the report with no mention of the 46%
allocation of water due to sharing of the water meter with Breakwater Lodge.
Furthermore, even without this calculation, the total of 528 088.71kl does not
match with the calculated total of those figures provided in the email:
Water
(All except GSB)
Water
(GSB)
Water
Residences
287 776.62kl + 27 930.40kl + 212 205kl = 527 912.02kl
On even closer inspection, if one calculates the value for residences from the
report, once again, this does not correlate with water residence figures provided
in the email from Sandra Rippon:
Water for
Residences
(Student Report)
43 620.47m3 + 12 864.09m3 + 161 378.84m3 = 217 863.4kl
Water for
Residences (Email)
≠
212 205kl
Where 1m3= 1kl
24
Due to these inconsistencies, the figures provided by Sandra Rippon will be used
for 2012. Table 5. demonstrates a new total for 2012 making use of the
aforementioned data.
Table 5 – Table showing Water Supply Data for the years 2012 and 2013.
Water – GSB excl.
Water
Total
Breakwater Lodge (kl)*
Residences (kl)
2012
27 930.40 x 0.46 =
212 205
512 829.604
12 847.984kl
2013
336 498
30 159 x 0.46 =
N/A
350 371.14
13 873.14kl
*As one meter is used to measure water for both the Graduate School of Business and
Year
Water - All
except GSB (kl)
287 776.62
Breakwater Lodge hotel which accommodates tourists, 46% of the given figure has been
allocated to the Graduate School of Business for water supply.
Initially, when 2013 water figures were received from Andre Theys, it was assumed
that water from residences was included in the “Water – All except GSB” figure.
On closer inspection however, this is unlikely as it would mean that overall water
consumption would have decreased by some 200 000kl – a figure which residence
water contributed approximately 42% to overall water consumption in 2012.
Clarification of this matter was not received before the writing of this report.
Therefore, it has been assumed that water supply to residences is not included in
the “Water – All except GSB” figure and that this data is missing for the year 2013.
Due to this missing data, a year vs year comparison for total water consumption
cannot be made between 2012 and 2013 – to disregard such a large portion of data
would lead to gross distortions of results.
It can be observed however, that water usage at the Graduate School of Business
and on all UCT campuses (other than the Graduate School of Business) increased
from 2012 to 2013 with the “Water – All except GSB” having increased by up to 17%
and “Water GSB excl. Breakwater Lodge” having increased by approximately 10% (
(Figure 6).
25
Water Supply for 2012-2013
600000
Amount of Water (kl)
500000
212 205
400000
13 873.14
300000
Water - Residences (kl)
12 847.984
200000
336 498
287 776.62
Water - GSB excl.
Breakwater Lodge (kl)
Water - All except GSB
(kl)
100000
0
2012
2013
Year
Figure 6: Bar Graph showing water supply for UCT.
26
E-Waste
2013 data for e-waste was provided by Brett Roden from Properties and Services
and Charl Souma from ICTs. Data from previous for the period of 2010-2012 was
sourced from the solid waste and paper consumption student project report
(Namumba, Mathemera, Jegede, Tshiani, & Mlombo, 2013). Data collected from
both ICTs and Properties and Services is presented in Table 6 and Figure 7. A
further breakdown of the 2013 e-waste figure received by ICTs is illustrated in
Table 7.
Table 6: Table showing the amount E-waste received by Properties and Services and ICTs for the
years 2010 -2013.
Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
E-Waste via Properties and
Services (kgs)
6565
5970
6495
7722
E-Waste via
ICTs(kgs)
N/A
N/A
N/A
2566
Total (kgs)
6565
5970
6495
10 288
Table 7: Table showing the amount of E-Waste Collected by ICTs in 2013.
Date
13 March 2013
24 July 2013
16 September 2013
1 November 2013
Total:
E-Waste Received (kgs)
877
922
247
520
2566
A comparison of figures from previous years to 2013 is difficult in that in the 2013
student project report which dealt with e-waste (Namumba et al., 2013), it was
not made clear whether the e-waste data presented for 2010, 2011 and 2012 was a
cumulative total of figures received from both Properties and Services and ICTs or
just Properties and Services. Given the similar range of figures for 2010 – 2013, it is
has been assumed the figures for 2010, 2011 and 2012 are from Properties and
Services. If this is the case, the amount of e-waste received by Properties and
Services has increased from 2010 – 2013 with an approximate increase of up to 18%
since 2010. Additional, e-waste was also collected from ICTs, bringing the total
amount of e-waste for 2013 to 10 288kgs.
27
E-Waste 2010 - 2013
Amount of E-Waste (kgs)
12,000
10 288
10,000
2566
8,000
6,000
4,000
E-Waste via ICTS (kgs)
6,565
5,970
6,495
2010
2011
2012
7,722
E-Waste via P&S (kgs)
2,000
0
2013
Year
Figure 7: Bar Graph showing the amount of E-Waste received by Properties and Services and ICTs
for the years 2010 – 2013.
28
Hazardous Waste
Hazardous Waste data for 2013 was provided by Brett Roden from Properties and
Services. Data for 2012 was obtained from the 2013 student project report on solid
waste and paper consumption (Namumba et al., 2013). This is presented in Table
8 and Figure 8 below.
As previously mentioned, hazardous waste consists of healthcare risk waste
measured in kilograms (kgs) and chemical waste which is measured in (l). It should
be noted that adding the two together to form a total figure for Hazardous Waste
is erroneous as the two are not equitable (mass vs volume).
Table 8: Table showing the amount of Healthcare Risk Waste and Chemical Waste for the years
2011-2013.
Year
Healthcare Risk Waste (kg)
Chemical Waste (l)
2011
2012
2013
41 403.40
36 232.98
33 158
39 534
51 612
29 130
From Figure 8 and Table 8, it can be seen that from 2011 to 2013, both healthcare
risk waste and chemical waste have decreased in quantity. According the student
project report on solid waste (Namumba et. al, 2013), the high figure for chemical
waste in 2012 (most noticeably illustrated in Figure _), was due to the removal of
unwanted chemicals after the retirement of staff.
Hazardous Waste 2011-2013
Healthcare Risk Waste (kgs)
Chemical Waste (l)
51,612
41,403.4039,534
2011
36,232.98
2012
Year
33,158
29,130
2013
Figure 8: Bar Graph showing Hazardous Waste for the years 2011-2013.
29
Conclusion
A summary of the data analysis for the categories of water, e-waste and hazardous waste are
as follows:

Water supply demand increased from 2012 to 2013 on all UCT campuses (residences
not included) including the Graduate School of Business by approximately 17% and 10%
respectively.

A comparison of the overall water usage from 2012 to 2013 could not be made due to
the exclusion of residence water data.

E-Waste collected by Properties and Services increased from 2010 to 2013 by up to
18%.

Healthcare Risk Waste decreased by approximately 20% from 2011 to 2013.

Chemical Waste decreased by approximately 25% from 2011 to 2013.
30
Carbon Footprint Calculation
What is a carbon footprint?
A carbon footprint is the exclusive summation of the amount of carbon dioxide
emissions that are directly or indirectly caused by an activity or accumulated over
the life cycle of a product or service. This footprint can be small scale (e.g. by an
individual) or large scale (e.g. by multinational companies, governments, etc.).
The footprint will be expressed in carbon equivalents represented by “CO2e”
(Wiedmann and Minx, 2007).
There are eighteen viable greenhouse gases, however, of these 18, only the
following six are considered for carbon accounting under the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 1997):
 Carbon dioxide(CO2)
 Sulphur hexafluoride( SF6)
 Methane(CH4)
 Nitrous Oxide(N2O)
 Hydro fluorocarbons (HFCs)
 Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
The other twelve gases are regulated with other stipulations (IPCC, 1990; UNFCCC,
1997).
The 2014 Carbon Footprinting Project therefore deals with the report and
calculation of the Carbon Footprint of the University of Cape Town in three areas:

Scope 1: Direct Emissions from Owned/Controlled Operations

Scope 2: Indirect Emissions from the Use of Purchased Electricity

Scope 3: Other indirect Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The carbon footprint for water, e-waste and hazardous waste (all Scope 3
emissions) of the university will be calculated.
31
Emission Factors
The emission factors that are used, and indeed, the overall methodology for
calculating the carbon footprint, subscribe to the GHG Protocol which has been
deemed fit for organizations and tertiary institutions alike.
The emission factors used to calculate carbon footprints in this report originate
from the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) with the
exception of the water supply emission. This has been done because the Defra
supplied emission factors of 0.3441kg CO2e (due to water supply) and the 0.7085kg
CO2e (due to treatment) are not entirely accurate in a South African context due
to the way in which the Defra emission factor is based mainly on electricity used to
pump water to homes in the UK which differs from South Africa (that being said,
we will still use these figures later in this paper to compare with the previous
years’ studies).
An alternative emission factor more accurate to the South African context was
supplied with the help of Geoff Perrot from GCX Africa. This factor is based off a
Water Life cycle Assessment paper from the University of KwaZulu-Natal
(Friedrich, Pillay, & Buckley, 2007) and is therefore an LCA emission factor
consisting of several processes:

Abstraction of raw water

Treatment of raw water

Distribution of potable water

Collection of waste water

Treatment of wastewater (primary and secondary)
This is illustrated in Figure 9 of “Table 6”.
32
Figure 9: Table excerpt from The Life Cycle Assement paper from the University of KwaZulu-Natal (Friedrich et. al, 2007).
After converting the global warming potential figures across all categories from
scientific notation to normal numbers, the following calculation demonstrates how
the figure of 0.925 kg CO2e is achieved:
0.088+ 0.194+ 0.287+ 0.107+ 0.249 = 0.925 kg CO2e
While this is figure is somewhat conservative, it is adequate for use. Therefore it is
recommend that this emission factor of 0.925 kg CO2e be used be used for all
future studies when calculating the GHG emissions of water supply.
In terms of e-waste, at the time of the 2013 Carbon Footprinting Project which
used data from 2012, there was no emission factor for e-waste. This year however,
an emission factor for E-waste has been provided by the UK Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).
E-Waste is generally categorized into three sections based on the type as size of
what is being disposed. It is important to highlight that all categories of waste
(large, mixed and small) all have the same emission factor of 21.0 kg CO2e (or
16.58 kg CO2e) and the only variation in this number is based on whether the ewaste is open loop (21.0) or disposed of in a landfill (16.58). For this study, the
33
emission factor 21.0 kg CO2e will be used as the assumption is made that all ewaste will be classified under open loop.
At present, no emission factor has been found for hazardous waste. Therefore the
carbon footprint of hazardous waste cannot be calculated.
All emission factors are summarized in the following table:
Source
E-Waste
Emission
Factor (kg
CO2e )
21.0
Hazardous waste
Water Supply and Treatment
(pre-2014)
Water Supply (post-2014)
N/A
0.3441 &
0.7085
0.925
To Note
Used on 2013 data and recommended for use in
future studies
No valid emission factor yet
Used to compare previous year data, should be
discontinued
Used on 2013 data and recommended for use in
future studies
34
2013 Carbon Footprint Calculations
E-Waste:
o E-Waste via Properties and Services: 7722kg
o E-Waste from ICTs: 2566kg
o Total e-waste for 2013: 7722kg + 2566kg = 10288kg.
Total GHG Emissions on e-waste given by:
10 288 x 21.0 = 216 048 kgCO2e/pa
Water Supply:
o All except GSB: 336 498kl
o GSB campus: 30 159kl
o GSB excluding Breakwater Lodge: 30 159kl * 0.46 = 13 873.14kl
o Total water: 336 498 + 13 873.14 = 350371.14kl
Total GHG Emissions on water given by:
Water Supply
Water Treatment
(350 371.14 * 0.3441) + (350371.14 * 0.7085) = 368 800.66 kgCO2e/pa
(OLD)
Total GHG Emissions on water supply given by:
350371.14 x 0.925= 324 093.3045 kgCO2e/pa
(NEW)
NOTE: For comparative purposes the GHG calculation using the old emission
factors from DEFRA is shown above and annotated as (OLD). This figure is purely
for comparison and should only be noted this year.
35
Benchmarking and 2012 Carbon Footprint Calculations
The data from 2012 can be used for comparison and allow the university to track
its progress in the reducing its carbon footprint.
When the 2012 data was summarized in a report last year, Defra had not come up
with emission factors for e-waste. However, now that these figures are available
they can be used for comparison purposes.
E-Waste:
E-Waste total for 2012 given by:
6495kg
Total GHG Emissions on e-Waste emissions given by:
6495kg x 21.0 = 136 395 kgCO2e
Water:
In 2012 a different emission factor was utilized in calculating the GHG
produced by water. In order to allow continuity and easy transition, the
data from 2012 will be recalculated using the new emission factor. For
comparison purposes, we propose that the 2013 data is also calculated using
the previous methodology however this is purely for comparison and should
not be carried on in future studies. Instead, the emission factor of 0.925
should be used for future calculations for reasons mentioned in the previous
section. The old (referenced as (OLD)) method involved accounting for the
emission factors of supplying the water and also the emission factor of
treating said water. The calculations for this are shown below:
Water total for 2012 given by:
512 829.604kl
Total GHG Emissions on water given by:
Water Supply
Water Treatment
(512 829.604 x 0.3441) + (512 829.604 x 0.7085) = 539 804.44 kgCO2e/pa
(OLD)
36
Total GHG Emissions on water supply given by:
512 829.604 x 0.925 = 474 367.3837 kgCO2e/pa
(NEW)
Conclusions
It is clear after comparing the results that GHG produced due to e-waste has
increased by almost 38% from 2012 to 2013. This can be attributed to several
things although one major conclusion that can be drawn is that the 2013 figure
involves better collection with more comprehensive data and includes data from
both Properties and Services and data from ICTs as opposed to just Properties and
Services which was assumed for 2012 as mentioned previously in the Data Analysis
section.
The carbon footprint with regards to water saw a dramatic decline. The drop
between 2012 and 2013 was almost 32%. As noted in the data analysis section
however, it is suspected that the 2013 data is incomplete and might be missing
figures from the satellite campuses and residences. As a result, a comparison
between 2012 and 2013 cannot be made in terms of emissions and it cannot
definitively be said there was a decrease in emissions for 2013. That being said
though, it is likely that emissions for 2013 would have increased due to the
increase in water usage as seen in the previous section of data analysis.
A comparison of UCT’s Carbon Footprint (for the categories of water supply and ewaste) to other universities was attempted however relevant figures could not be
found from Southern Hemisphere institutions especially South African ones.
37
Project Challenges and Limitations
Challenges are essentially experiences/incidents that occurred during the project
that made it difficult to complete tasks concerned with the project. With regards
to this project, the main challenges and limitations the project team faced can be
split into two categories. The first category are challenges faced at a team level
while the second category describes problems faced at a project deliverable
level.
Team Level

Delegating tasks:
Tasks had to be redistributed several times as time progressed. This was
mainly because after working on the business case and doing the reflexive
practice exercise, strengths and weaknesses became visible and thus tasks
had to be redistributed accordingly. This however, worked to the project
team’s advantage and has led to the optimisation of skills allowing for the
delivery of a robust final report.

Different schedules:
Because each member of the team has other interests and obligations,
meeting up became a constant challenge and synchronizing all team
members to meet at the same became increasingly difficult. It is also
because of this reason that some of the team members were unable to
attend some key meetings, workshops, etc.

Conflict resolution:
As with any team effort, conflicts arose over time as team members failed
to deliver or simply misunderstood the task they were meant to perform.
However because of the reflexive exercise and open communication this
challenge was not as profound and all conflicts were dealt with easily.

Consistency:
This meant ensuring that at every level, all team members were up-to-date
with what was currently taking place with regards to the project. It also
38
entailed constant communication to ensure information would
not be recapitulated. Consistency problems also covered key aspects such as
ensuring the document was seamless and maintained the same level of
clarity throughout. This was difficult and required us to constantly revise
and update the document.
Deliverable Level

Understanding the problem:
Although several resources were put in place on time, some clarity was
needed to allow the project team to fully understand what was expected of
in terms of deliverables. However after conversing with Mr. Geoff Perrot,
Sandra Rippon and Gwamaka Mwalemba, all concerns were addressed and
issues clarified accordingly.

External sources and data holders:
Contacting some of the data holders proved to be impossible as they had
other commitments and failed to reply to some of our requests timeously.
Furthermore, communication between data holders and the project team
was not always clear with different parties interpreting things differently.
An example of this is that requests for data that were made and the data
received back in accordance was not entirely what the project team
expected- what the project team had understood would be received and
what data holders had provided was not the same. Contacting
Mr. Thapelo Letete to clarify why water was not included in his 2007 report
was also attempted but this could not be done.

Data processing:
Most received was not of the detailed format expected. A good example is
the data on water consumption where one total figure was given with no
breakdowns whatsoever. While this makes carbon footprint calculations
easy, the analysis and processing of data is limited and recommendations for
reducing the carbon footprint are generalised and cannot be adequately
39
focused. Furthermore, without a detailed and transparent breakdown of the
total figures provided, it cannot be ascertained whether this total figure
within itself is correct or not. It is possible that total figures may have been
skewed by one or two months by an unforeseeable event such as a burst
pipe.

Scope confusion:
At some point during the compilation of the report, there was a slight scope
creep issue. Data for ink cartridges was given to the project team to process
and resulted in the overlap of scope with another project team. This
problem had to be resolved amicably via clarifications from
Gwamaka Mwalemba and Sandra Rippon. Eventually, this data was passed on
to the relevant team dealing with solid waste.
40
Recommendations for Data Collection
One of the main objectives of this project exercise was to find an efficient and
reliable way of collecting and collating data. There are a few issues that have to
be addressed before recommendations are given in terms of the data collection of
water for 2013:
1. Only one figure was provided for the university's water consumption.
2. No breakdown was received for the different university campuses and
residences.
3. No monthly break down of consumption.
With these in mind, the first recommendation would be that greater transparency
be created with regard to how the total annual figures for different project
categories were obtained, i.e., provision of more detailed information in
categories where this information is available. In the case of water, this would be
in the form of monthly spreadsheets in which the quantity from various meters is
made available such as what was seen in the Green Inc. Group (2013) Project
Report on electricity and water consumption. Furthermore, this data should be
made available at conception of the project so that rather than collection, more
time can be focused on analysing and understanding the data. This leads not only
to a better quality report but also to more accurate carbon footprint calculations
and better recommendations for addressing carbon footprint reduction. With the
data described above, water consumption trends will be able to be monitored in
terms of different campuses and monthly (consumption of water during warmer
months differs from colder ones) and yearly peaks.
To aid in the collection of data in terms of water supply, the following spreadsheet
(Table 9.) has been proposed for use by data holders and represents the ideal way
in which data would like to be received for analysis purposes. As detailed data was
not received for 2013, the data presented in the spreadsheet is purely dummy
data.
41
It is suggested that rather than having the raw data be given to students and
project teams to interpret, that it first go through an initial formatting process
carried out by data holders who understand this data. The proposed spreadsheet
presents both residence and campus data in a single spreadsheet and allows for
the recording of accumulative monthly tallies of water consumption so that the
way in which the total annual figure was calculated is easily noticeable.
Furthermore, as mentioned previously, this spreadsheet would also allow for the
monitoring of trends across campuses and different months. Lastly, it should be
noted that should this spreadsheet be adopted for use, that it may easily be used
as input in a database if a system is created in future.
In terms of e-waste, both Properties and Services and ICTs have e-waste collection
systems though the two operate independently. As a result of this, not all reusable
material would be retrieved from machines before e-waste collection takes place
which is often irregular. In order to address this, it is suggested that e-waste from
both ICTs and Properties and Services be stored in a central area with secure
storage. This would allow ICTs to evaluate all items before storage and allow for a
greater volume of electronics to be collected thereby ensuring a more regular
interval of collection.
42
Table 9: Proposed spreadsheet to be used by data holders to record water supply*.
Year:
2013
Campus
Meter
Number
Jan
Feb
March
April
May
June
July
Augus
t
Septembe
r
Octobe
r
Novembe
r
Decembe
r
Total
Amount
(kl)
GSB
Baxter
College
House
Graca Machel
Forest Hill
N/A
N/A
700783
75
100
91
83
76
82
73
72
86
86
81
89
79
90
88
77
91
87
75
97
83
71
97
89
70
100
87
73
72
72
90
70
98
78
82
98
930
1028
1050
N/A
BOXM250/123
599
70
83
83
100
86
77
93
89
74
90
96
71
78
87
89
83
81
90
99
90
84
80
99
77
1032
1017
Hiddingh
Killindini
Kopano
Liesbeeck
Leo Marquad
Hall
N/A
94052897
N/A
9758949
94049135/239
6493
98
76
100
91
73
87
83
84
81
89
90
87
81
71
72
98
75
74
87
95
76
79
100
92
96
72
79
84
80
98
87
81
81
73
85
70
94
82
78
85
74
91
95
86
75
95
85
96
77
98
84
99
89
97
83
99
74
79
70
78
1030
1003
1045
983
1027
Main Campus
Sports
Centre
Tugwell
Woolsack
N/A
M
79
81
90
77
94
77
91
81
99
73
71
78
94
70
97
100
73
86
93
83
95
98
97
88
1073
992
2396493
801966
95
95
89
74
88
94
87
78
94
100
89
82
98
96
94
83
73
82
88
70
84
82
75
89
1054
1025
1207
1178
1148
1204
1230
1155
1185
1212
1163
1191
1233
1183
14289
Grand total
(kl)
*Note: As a detailed breakdown of water supply was not received for the year 2013, the data presented above is for illustrative
purposes.
43
Project Recommendations
These recommendations are specific to the project implementation on how to
improve the report process for subsequent years allowing for more accurate results
in carbon footprint calculations, better quality project reports and increased
awareness of students outside the IS department who directly have an impact on
the amount of emissions produced in the various categories. Recommendations
are broken into 2 sections – short term and long term recommendations which
are presented as goals.
Short term (In the next 2 months)

Implement a standard spreadsheet in which data holders can input
information on a monthly basis all in one clear, easily readable format.

Appoint overall task managers who will ensure that all data submissions for
the various departments and sections are submitted on time, in the
provided format and on a monthly basis.

Measure the size, number and prices of machines disposed of as e-waste in
order to get a more accurate measurement and allow for the categorisation
of waste into small, medium or large.
Long term (6 months and above)

Create a central database for stakeholder interaction and data handling to
ensure accuracy. Alternatively, a short term solution would be using to use
Google Docs to allow for transparent collaboration and collection of data Google Docs allows many users to update a single spreadsheet (which will
contain input spaces for each data holder) simultaneously from varying end
points.
44

Deploy digital meters for water for each building on a campus and
residential level to ensure more precise and accurate calculations and
better mitigation strategies.

Every term, students should be informed about ways to keep the campus
green and their role in green awareness. A small course should possibly be
incorporated.

Have more student interactive campaigns to raise awareness on campus.
Green Week only happens for one week of all the weeks students are
present on campus whereas the effects of the environmental damage caused
by people spans to centuries ahead of the present. To ensure that
environmental awareness is not a once-off endeavour, campaigns should
happen every term.

The Information Systems Department should be given the report in two parts
where the first part is to verify the carbon factor calculations done by each
team and the second, is the full report with the revised calculations. This
ensures that the reports submitted to the department contain the correct
results and are consistent with the data provided by data holders.
45
Recommendations for the Reduction of Carbon
Footprints
In the previous years’ project report analysis and compilation, the carbon
emissions of e-waste and hazardous waste had not been calculated due to the
absence of carbon emission factors for these categories. For this particular report,
only the carbon emission factor for e-waste and water were used in calculating the
emissions for the report and hence the recommendations for these sections are
based on values calculated in this report.
Water
While it could not definitively be said that carbon emissions decreased or
increased from 2012 – 2013 due to gaps in data, from the analysis of data it can be
said that water consumption increased from 2012 to 2013. Therefore, the following
recommendations seek both to reduce consumption and allow for more accurate
collection of data.

Built-in meters for each building (on campus and residences):
Water values used for emission factor calculations were estimates of a huge
body of water consumption sources. This decreases the level of accuracy in
the data and hence level of confidence in overall report of figures. To
improve on this, an alternative solution would be to add meters for each
building both on campuses and residences in order to get more complete
and accurate data. This will further assist the university in identifying the
buildings that use up the most water and with this result, in comparison
with the average population in each building (particularly residences) and
building size, identification can be made of adequate use or overuse of
water. Furthermore mitigation strategies can be adopted to reduce usage.

Irrigation System:
In 2013, it was proposed that data for irrigation systems within and
around UCT be made available to get a fuller picture of water usage by the
university. This would help in seeing if further systems should be put in
46
place and help in assisting with gardening within the necessary areas on
campus.

Retrofitting the appliances and fixtures: This means upgrading the
appliances and systems in each building which will optimise the usage of
water in each building.
This is done by upgrading fixtures such as toilets, urinals, waterless faucets,
shower heads and service sinks – all of which have certain standards that
must be met in order to be considered water conservative. Therefore, it is
suggested that the university enlist a plumbing consultant to guide the
university on affordable, but up-to-standard appliances that should be used
and how they should be installed into various buildings.
E-Waste

System and Appliance upgrades: To reduce the disposal of electronics, it is
suggested that quality devices and appliances be installed for longevity of
use in the next batch of technological upgrades (including computers,
vending machines, microwaves, etc.).

Disposal of machines: Rather than disposing of old machines, it is suggested
that technological hardware devices that are still usable be donated to
schools or institutions that may need them.
47
Hazardous Waste:
The results for hazardous waste still don’t contain an emission factor which makes
it difficult to draw up mitigation strategies.

Collection: The collection of this data should be done on a regular basis to
get more figures in a year in order to form some kind of comparison with
other results that are obtained in that year. Results should also be
categorized into its respective buildings to clearly see which buildings
dispose of the most chemical based waste streams and the healthcare risk
waste.

Research: Further research on the carbon emission factor for hazardous
waste should be conducted.
Other than measuring the universities carbon footprint, another method of
assessment for tracking the universities sustainability goals is that of
the BREEAM system (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment
Methodology). This is used by some international institutions to uphold a standard
of building sustainability worldwide and serves as a criteria assessment for raising
mindfulness amongst property owners or occupants utilising sustainability tactics.
BREEAM evaluates energy and water use, health and wellbeing, pollution,
transport, materials, waste, ecology and management processes and gives a rating
for the assessed building. This assessment could help as quantification for progress
made or yet to be made by the university.
48
Reference List

Friedrich, E., Pillay, S., & Buckley, C. (2007). The use of LCA in the water
industry and the case for an environmental performance indicator. Water
SA, 443-452.

Green Inc. Group. (2013). Project Report: Analysis of the Carbon
Footprint At UCT: Focus On Electricity & Water Consumption As Sources.
Cape Town: University of Cape Town.

IPCC (1990). Climate change: The IPCC scientific assessment. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.

Letete, T., Mungwe, N., Guma, M., & Marquard, A. (2010). University of
Cape Town Carbon Footprint. Cape Town: Energy Research Centre.

Namumba, M., Mathemera, F., Jegede, G., Tshiani, V., & Mlombo, A.
(2013). Solid Waste and Paper Consumption Report. Cape Town: University
of Cape Town.

Rippon, S. (2013). University of Cape Town Carbon Footprint Report 2012.
Cape Town: Energy Research Centre, UCT.

UNFCCC (1997). The Kyoto Protocol to the Convention on Climate Change. Bonn,
UNFCCC Secretariat

Wiedmann, T. and J. Minx (2007). A definition of ‘Carbon footprint’. Durham, ISAResearch and Consulting.
49
Appendix A– Infographic
Figure 10: Infographic demonstrating the decrease in water supply emissions from 2012 to 2013.
50