Sustainable Campus Group

Australian Tertiary Education Sector Sustainability Report 2011 September 2011

2

© Sustainable Campus Group 2011

Acknowledgements: The SCG reporting process 2011 was facilitated by Stephen Derrick, Belinda Towns and Benjamin Meyer at the Monash Sustainability Institute.

Published by the Monash Sustainability Institute (MSI) Monash University, VIC 3800 Australia T: +61 3 990 59323 E: enquiries@msi.monash.edu.au W: www.monash.edu/research/sustainability-institute

DISCLAIMER: Monash University disclaims all liability for any error, loss or consequence which may arise from relying on any information in this publication.

3

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Participating Institutions .............................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Reporting Methodology ............................................................................................................... 4

Sustainability in the Australian Tertiary Education Sector .............................................................. 5 2.1 Institutional Commitment ............................................................................................................ 6 2.2 Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions ...................................................... 7 2.3 Transport .................................................................................................................................... 10 2.4 Waste and Recycling ................................................................................................................... 11 2.5 Water .......................................................................................................................................... 14 2.6 Buildings ..................................................................................................................................... 15 2.7 Purchasing .................................................................................................................................. 17 2.8 Information Technology (IT) ....................................................................................................... 19 2.9 Education for Sustainability (EfS) ............................................................................................... 20

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 21

References ................................................................................................................................. 22

Appendix 1 - Data Completeness ................................................................................................. 23 Table A 1.1 Ranked data completeness for selected sections of the workbook .............................. 23

Appendix 2 – Data by Institution ................................................................................................. 24 Table A 2.1 Staff, Students and Gross Floor Area by Institution ...................................................... 24 Table A 2.2 Institutional Commitment to Environmental Policies Indicator .................................... 24 Table A 2.3 Facilities Energy Consumption ....................................................................................... 24 Table A 2.4 GHG Emissions by Facilities, Air Travel and Automotive Travel by Institution.............. 24 Table A 2.5 Mains Water Purchased (Per Capita and Gross Floor Area) by Institution ................... 24 Table A 2.6 Waste to Landfill (Per Capita and Gross Floor Area) by Institution ............................... 24

4

Introduction

In March 2010, the Sustainable Campus Group (SCG) and Monash Sustainability Institute (MSI) launched the first nation-wide assessment of sustainability in the tertiary education sector in Australia. This is the second nation-wide SCG report and it showcases the 2010 environmental performance of SCG members.

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. The SCG also facilitates professional networking and encourages ‘green’ campus best practice.

SCG’s main annual activity is the sustainability reporting project. The SCG reports make the environmental sustainability performance of participating member institutions publicly available and accessible. Sharing this information creates a constructive climate for positive change in tertiary education. It showcases best practice among leading institutions and stimulates improved effort among peer institutions. It is recognised that institutional peer pressure can be a catalyst for senior management to commit to sustainability.

1.1 Participating Institutions

NSW Vic Charles Sturt University Box Hill Institute of TAFE TAFE NSW - Sydney Institute Chisholm Institute of TAFE Deakin University NT Gordon Institute of TAFE Charles Darwin University Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE Kangan Institute of TAFE QLD Monash University Brisbane North Institute of TAFE Sunraysia Institute of TAFE Sunshine Coast Institute of TAFE WA SA Central Institute of Technology Flinders University of South Australia Murdoch University

1.2 Reporting Methodology

SCG provides its member institutions with the SCG Workbook, which is a data management and reporting instrument. Each year the workbook is revised and expanded through further consultation with experts and member institutions. To avoid duplication of data collection for members, the SCG Workbook reporting tool is aligned where possible with existing Australian regulations and standards, such as National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) framework and other reporting instruments.

5

The modules collected both quantitative and qualitative data on different aspects of sustainability. All qualitative sections contained questions on systems to support sustainability (such as policies, strategies, plans, committees and staff) and on sustainability targets.

Member institutions were given 6–8 weeks to complete as much of the Workbook as they could with their 2010 data before returning a copy to the SCG for use in this report. As this Sector Sustainability Report is a self-reporting initiative, SCG did not verify or audit the data submitted in the SCG Workbooks. Data was accepted as provided, except in cases where it appeared obviously incorrect. In such cases SCG liaised with the members to correct the data. Appendix 1 contains a table of Data Completeness which shows how many member institutions completed each section of the workbook for 2009 and 2010 and therefore how complete the data sets are. All members were given the opportunity to review the draft findings of this report before publication.

The data provided by the participants was analysed on a total institution basis (that is, the total of all campuses). To allow comparisons between institutions of very different sizes, most of the results reported here were first standardised either by each institution’s total students and staff (equivalent full-time student load (EFTSL) and full-time equivalent (FTE) staff) or by its building gross floor area (GFA - in square metres). The EFTSL, FTE, GFA and other data are reported by each institution are provided in detail in Appendix 2. Note: Throughout the main body of the report, all of the charts and figures are shown on a ‘like with like’ basis. That is, all 2009 data are for the same group of members that reported in 2010 (see section 1.1 Participating Institutions). With two exceptions (institutions that were not members in 2009 and did not report 2009 data), the data set is complete. The tables in Appendix 2 include data from all of the members that reported in 2009. This complete set is provided to enable a broader range of comparisons.

Sustainability in the Australian Tertiary Education Sector

This section reports on and discusses the sector averages for 2010 and 2009 data provided by the 2011 SCG member institutions (see section 1.1 Participating Institutions). Institutional-level data is provided in Appendix 2. Results are a snapshot of measuring and reporting at each institution and do not necessarily reveal the full picture of sustainability work and management at each institution. The approach of this report is not to ‘name and shame’ but rather 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 2009 and 2010 data from 14 current SCG Members that provided relevant information for 2009 and 2010. 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. Encouragingly, energy consumption has not increased at the same rate as the growth in student and staff numbers and floor area.

Tertiary Institutes can vary greatly from one another. Some are located in the CBD, others in suburban or rural areas and some provide residential accommodation for students. This has an impact on land use, transport access and resource use, for example. Other variations include the type of training, teaching and research that is conducted on the campus. Some is conducted mainly in classrooms while others will require workshops, laboratories, and agricultural land etc. These variations should be kept

6

in mind when looking at the results in this report. SCG membership for this Report was 16, down from 27 in 2009. Nevertheless, SCG Members for 2011 represent 25 per cent of total EFTSL for Australia, so the results are representative of the sector as a whole.

Table 1 – Snapshot of Sustainability Performance Indicators by 14 SCG Members in 2009 and 2010

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. This is measured in a quantifiable manner so that results can be monitored and compared to other institutes. Measures used include number and types of committees and the level of management represented on these committees; number of staff (FTE) employed to work on sustainability programs; the existence of relevant staff training and performance reward programs; and sustainability considerations in strategies, targets and contracts. Chart one shows the number of staff employed (FTE) to work on operational environmental programs at each institute, for every 1,000 students (EFTSL). Individual Member data can be found in Appendix 2, table 2.2.

Other topics include sustainable catering, socially responsible investments, environmentally responsible campus master plans, biodiversity on campus and green leases for tenants to build environmentally responsible behaviour into lessees’ contracts. Four SCG Members had money invested in Socially Responsible Investment funds and none used green leases for tenants. Seven institutions had sustainability principles included in campus master planning and very few institutes had sustainable catering principles. Two institutions contractually required on campus caterers to use re-usable/recyclable/biodegradable packaging. No institutions contractually required on-campus caterers to source foods locally and only one contractually required caterers to provide seasonal menus. Eight institutions provided vegetarian and culturally sensitive meals on campus.

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 4

Student and Staff numbers (Effective Full Time Student Load + Full Time Equivalent) 199,851 210,449 5.3%

Gross Floor Area (GFA) meters squared (m²) 2,050,628 2,097,117 2.3%

Energy and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

Total facil ities energy consumption (Gigajoules) 1,441,644 1,463,507 1.5%Average percentage of total green electrcity consumption (total green electricty consumption (kWh)/ total electricity consumption (kWh)) 7.44% 7.49% 0.65%

Net facil ities and automotive emissions (tonnes CO2-e) 299,887 318,547 6.2%

Net facil ities GHG emissions per head (tonnes CO2-e/(EFTSL + staff FTE)) 1.46 1.45 -1.04%

Automotive emissions (owned and leased) per head (tonnes CO2-e/staff FTE) 0.12 0.14 16.9%

Water

Mains water purchased per head (kilolitres/(EFTSL + staff FTE)) 5.3 4.9 -6.5%

Waste

Waste to landfil l per head (kilograms/(EFTSL + staff FTE)) 68.8 67.8 -1.4%

Percentage of waste diverted from landfil l (recycled) 21.8% 23.4% 7.7%

7

Chart 1 – Average Number of Staff (FTE) Employed in Sustainability Roles, per 1,000 Students (Equivalent Full-time Student Load) in 2010

Biodiversity was slightly better addressed at an institutional level as six members had a biodiversity policy, plan, strategy, committee, working group or taskforce and five had a policy to plant native and indigenous plants on their campuses.

2.2 Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

The majority of energy consumption at Australian tertiary education institutions is for building management; the big energy consumers are often 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 maintaining buildings. GHG emissions from Members’ facilities energy consisted of at least 80 per cent of all their GHG emissions (from facilities, vehicular travel and air travel). The percentage of GHG emissions from facilities energy is higher at institutes with less vehicular and air travel.

The focus on facilities energy consumption is understandable as it accounts for a very large component of institution operating costs. It therefore follows that there are significant opportunities for saving energy and costs. There is also an increasing requirement for some institutions to report energy consumption and/or emissions. For example, some of the larger institutions already have to report under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act. This focus is reflected by both the comprehensiveness of the data reported by the participants and by the large number of policies and targets they held in relation to this area, such as 100 per cent of all 15 respondents to this question reporting a target to reduce energy consumption and/or GHG emissions. Additionally, two thirds of members reported commitments to increase the proportion of accredited GreenPower purchases. Other SCG Members conducted energy audits to identify areas where savings could be made: five had a committee, working group or task force dedicated to reducing energy consumption and GHG emissions, and nine ran behavioural change programs to encourage staff and students to reduce energy use.

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

2009

2010

Average FTE Employed

Average Number of Staff (FTE) Employed in Sustainbility Roles per 1000 Students (EFTSL)

Average

TAFE

University

8

Members reported a total facilities energy consumption of 1,773,465 gigajoules (GJ) for 2010. This total included all sources of stationary energy generation, including grid electricity, purchased GreenPower, on-site renewable generation, natural gas and diesel oil. Electricity accounted for 59.8 per cent (58.6 per cent in 2009) of all energy consumption and non-transport natural gas was 36.2 per cent (36 per cent in 2009).

Charts 2 and 3 show the university and TAFE averages for facilities energy consumption per head and per floor area. As Chart 2 shows, universities reported much higher energy consumption per head relative to TAFEs, being more than three times higher in 2010.

Chart 2 – Facilities Energy Consumption in Gigajoules (GJ) per Equivalent Fulltime Student Load (EFTSL) plus Full-time Equivalent Staff (FTE) for 2009 and 2010

However the difference between TAFEs and universities is not as marked when energy consumption is considered per floor area as chart 3 shows.

Chart 3 - Facilities Energy Consumption in Gigajoules (GJ) per Gross Floor Area (GFA) in metres squared (m2) for 2009 and 2010

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

University TAFE All

GJ

Institution type

Facilities Energy Consumption/Head (GJ/(EFTSL+FTE))

2009

2010

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

University TAFE All

GJ

Institution type

Facilities Energy Consumption/Floor Area (GJ/GFA m²)

2009

2010

9

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 (see chart 4 for percentages of GreenPower purchased at each institute) which is sourced from renewable energy, and therefore reduces overall GHG emissions. Several SCG member institutes generate renewable energy-on campus. Some use this energy directly on-campus and others feed it into the grid. Figure 1 shows the solar panel array at Murdoch University which is used to provide power for the library. Eight SCG members also purchased emission offsets. Some of these are general offsets, whilst others specifically offset the emissions from their vehicle fleet.

Figure 1 - Solar Panels being Installed on the Library Roof at Murdoch University, bringing the University’s Total Electricity Production from On-site Solar Panels to 56kW; enough to Power 45 Houses.

Chart 4 shows the percentage of GreenPower purchased of the total electricity purchased for each member. 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.

Chart 4 – Percentage of Electricity Purchased that is GreenPower, for each SCG Member in 2009 and 2010

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

% Purchased

Proportion of GreenPower Purchased

2009

2010

10

2.3 Transport

The environmental impact of transport falls into two main categories: direct and indirect. Direct impacts generally include transport conducted as part of operating an organisation, such as air travel and vehicles for staff use whether they be owned or leased by the institute. SCG Members were given

the opportunity to report their energy consumption for vehicles as well as their air travel. This data was then used to calculate resulting GHG emissions. As only seven Members reported air travel for both 2009 and 2010; GHG emissions from air travel are not displayed. No members had a program to reduce air travel.

For TAFE members, automotive travel net emissions per FTE are slightly higher than emissions from air travel and are at a level comparable with universities. University staff undertake a much higher level of air travel which is related to their research programs, conference attendance and operation of international campuses.

Figure 2 - Monash University's Bike Share Program

The indirect impact of transport at tertiary institutions includes staff and students travelling to

and from campuses. Indirect impacts are difficult to measure and have not been included in this report. Rather SCG members were given the opportunity to report on initiatives they have 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. Commitment to reduce the indirect environmental impact of transport 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 (see chart 5). Almost all members utilised video conferencing. Finally, most members had programs to increase sustainable transport modes.

For example, Monash University has a bike share program to encourage students to cycle rather than drive around their largest campus (see figure 2), and Deakin University successfully lobbied the Victoria Government for two additional bus services that run every twenty minutes in peak periods to the Melbourne Burwood campus, which have eased congestion and encouraged commuter use (see figure 3).

Figure 3 - One of the two Public Transport Buses that now serve the Deakin University campus, on site

11

Chart 5 - Percentage of Respondents with Listed Sustainable Transport Initiatives in 2010

2.4 Waste and Recycling

Waste is a large environmental impact of the sector. It is often one of the first programs that institutes work on when they develop an environmental plan. Waste infrastructure is highly visible and public recycling and waste stations can be used to demonstrate to students and staff that an institute takes responsibility for its impacts. The most visible aspects of waste are recycling stations (see figure 4) and landfill bins on campuses. Chart 6 shows what percentage of internal and external waste bins also had recycling bins accompanying them. Less visible is the waste generated from building construction, grounds maintenance and teaching spaces such as laboratories and workshops. Both types of waste can be monitored and measured, however Members more commonly reported quantities of visible waste from recycling and landfill stations found in buildings and public areas on campus. The proportion of recycling to total waste is shown in charts 7 and 8.

Chart 6 - Percentage of Internal and External Waste Bins accompanied by Recycling Facilities in 2010

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

University

TAFE

All

% of Positive Responses

Sustainable Transport Indicators

Video Conferencing Facilities Available

Awareness Campaign to Encourgage Alternative Vehicle Use

Committee to Develop Sustainable Transport Initiatives

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Internal

External

Proportion of Waste Stations with Recycling Facilities

All

TAFE

University

12

Recycling recorded by SCG Members included paper, cans, bottles and recyclable take-away containers. Some Members have contracts with their waste management contractors to provide data on recycling rates and composition of waste to landfill and others use physical audits to determine amounts. It should be noted that waste and recycling measurement is based on certain assumptions which vary according to waste management providers and institutions. For example if waste is counted by volume (numbers of wheelie bins collected) and then converted to weight, assumptions are made regarding how full the wheelie bins are when collected and what the composition of the waste/recycling was so that a volume to weight converter can be applied.

Chart 7 - Proportion of Recycling (1,651 tonnes) to Waste to Landfill (5,416 tonnes) at Universities in 2010

Chart 8 - Proportion of Recycling (1,691 tonnes) to Waste to Landfill (8,858 tonnes) at TAFE Institutions in 2010

The waste and recycling module asked the institutions for data on the amount and composition of waste they sent to landfill and the amount of waste recycled or composted. It also asked them about the institutional support systems for waste reduction and recycling, such as waste audits, waste reduction campaigns, and prevalence of recycling stations: ten institutes had waste committees; nine had a target to reduce waste and/or increase recycling; 12 included the provision of waste collection

77%

23%

2010 University Waste and Recycling Proportions

Total Waste to Landfill (tonnes)

Total Waste Recycled (tonnes)

84%

16%

2010 TAFE Waste and Recycling Proportions

Total Waste to Landfill (tonnes)

Total Waste Recycled (tonnes)

13

data in their waste management contracts and 11 had allocated staff time to reducing the environmental impact of waste. Finally, across all the members on average 51% of internal waste stations and 43% of external waste stations had recycling components, as depicted in chart 6.

Figure 4 - Recycling Station at Charles Darwin University

In 2010, SCG members sent over 22,000 tonnes of waste to landfill and reported recycling over 4,800 tonnes. The proportions sent to landfill and recycled did not differ significantly between universities and TAFEs as shown in charts 7 and 8.

Charts 9 and 10 below provide details per head and per floor area. Universities sent more waste to landfill per head and recycled more than for TAFEs for both 2009 and 2010 as shown in chart 9.

Chart 9 – Total Waste to Landfill and Recycled in kilograms (kg) per Equivalent Full-time Student Load (EFTSL) plus Full-time Equivalent Staff (FTE) for 2009 and 2010

As can be seen in chart 10, when this is compared to waste per floor area, the situation is reversed as TAFEs sent more waste to landfill and recycled more than universities on this measure.

01020304050607080

University TAFEs All

Mass (kg)

Institution type

Total Waste to Landfill and Recycled/Head(kg/(EFTSL+ FTE))

to landfill 2009

to landfill 2010

recycled 2009

recycled 2010

14

Chart 10 – Total Waste to Landfill and Recycled in kilograms (kg) per Gross Floor Area (GFA) in metres squared (m2) for 2009 and 2010

2.5 Water

Tertiary education institutes 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. For example, figure 5 shows rain water tanks at Sydney institute used to provide water for Fire Services and Plumbing training. Water reduction has long been a focus for the sector often due to water restrictions and availability of water. As well as reduction initiatives, sources of non-mains water have been developed, such as rainwater tanks, bores and dams.

Figure 5 - An array of Water Tanks at Sydney Institute’s Randwick College used to collect Water for Fire Services Training and Dampening the Sand Pit for Plumbing Training

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). 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. This is illustrated in charts 11 and 12.

Commitment to reducing water use was evident amongst members: 10 had a committee, taskforce or working group dedicated to water reduction; 10 had reduction targets; 10 were regulated by water

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

University TAFEs All

Mass (kg)

Institution type

Total Waste to Landfill and Recycled/Floor Area (kg/GFA m2)

to landfill 2009

to landfill 2010

recycled 2009

recycled 2010

15

restrictions; 10 conducted a behavioural change program for staff and students to encourage water reduction; 11 collected rain water and 3 conducted water audits to identify water saving measures and technology. One of the SCG Members had a grey water system (unmetered) and none had black water systems. Reliance on potable mains water is still high.

Chart 11 –Mains Water Purchased in kilolitres (kL) per Equivalent Full-time Student Load (EFTSL) plus Full-time Equivalent Staff (FTE) for 2009 and 2010

Chart 12 – Mains Water Purchased in kilolitres (kL) per Gross Floor Area (GFA) in metres squared (m2) for 2009 and 2010

2.6 Buildings

Buildings have both a long lasting and immediate impact on the environment. The construction of a building has an immediate impact with regard to existing biodiversity on site, building materials and the waste created during the construction process. The long lasting environmental impacts are largely

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

University TAFE All

Mains Water Purchased (kL)

Institution type

Mains Water Purchased/Head(kL/(EFTSL+ FTE))

2009

2010

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

University TAFE All

Mains Water Purchased (kL)

Institution type

Mains Water Purchased/Floor Area(kL/GFA m2)

2009

2010

16

influenced by the amount of energy and water a building requires for heating, ventilation, cooling and occupant usage, such as lighting and IT equipment. Sustainable buildings are designed to have a much lower impact on the environment and use technologies such as double glazed windows, night cooling and rain water harvesting to reduce on-going energy and water consumption. Many buildings in the sector are not sustainable as they are old buildings and /or they have not had a sustainable retrofit. An example of a sustainable building at Central Institute of Technology is in figure 6.

SCG Members were given the opportunity to report on how much of the GFA retrofitted was sustainable; either by their own internal assessment or according to an externally accredited assessment such as the Green Building Council of Australia, and responses to this question was high. A total of 37,944 m2 of new GFA was added during the year by Members. One Member recorded a new building of 1,900 m2 (GFA) that was accredited 4 Stars according to the National Australian Built Environment Rating System (NABERS). Other new buildings and retrofits may operate as sustainable spaces even if they were not externally accredited.

Figure 6 - New Sustainable Building at Central Institute of Technology’s Perth Campus

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 13 below highlights these responses. Each of the four categories could score a maximum of 25 per cent and the best 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.

17

Chart 13 – Integration of Sustainability into each Process of Building Planning, Construction and Use, for each SCG Member in 2010

2.7 Purchasing

Green purchasing means selecting environmentally preferable products from environmentally responsible suppliers. According to ECO-Buy ‘environmentally preferable products (and services) are those that are less damaging to human health and the environment than comparable or competing products that serve the same purpose.’

Green products and services can include high recycled content office furniture or green cleaning services. Green criteria can be used to assess suppliers, such as ensuring that an environmentally responsible company is engaged to provide staff recruitment, telecommunication or marketing services. Environmental considerations can be given a weighting for tender proposals and tendering organisations can be required to complete environmental assessment criteria. On-campus vendors can be contractually obliged to provide environmentally responsible packaging and organic Fairtrade produce. Contracts with these criteria can also form part of a green lease (see 2.1 Institutional Commitment for more information about green leases). Very few of the practices above have been implemented within the tertiary education sector, although it is a growing are of concern and interest for the Sector.

SCG Members were given the opportunity to provide data on green purchasing such as the dollar value of procurement that had environmental criteria applied to it, the number of staff trained in green procurement, the average weighting given to environmental considerations across all procurement and the existence of green procurement targets. Seven members had provided green purchasing

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Box Hill Institute of TAFE

Brisbane North Institute of TAFE

Central Institute of Technology

Charles Darwin University

Charles Sturt University

Chisholm Institute of TAFE

Deakin University

Flinders University of South Australia

Gordon Institute of TAFE

Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE

Kangan Institute of TAFE

Monash University

Murdoch University

Sunshine Coast Institute of TAFE

Sunraysia Institute of TAFE

TAFE NSW - Sydney Institute

Frequency of integration in each stage of the process (%)

Integration of Sustainability in New Buildings

Strategic Planning

Project Procurement

Facilities Management

Leadership

18

training for procurement staff in 2010 and all members responded to this question. The average weighting given to environmental considerations, from the six members that responded to this question, was 13% and the average dollar value was $22.75 million.

Quantitative data on some items were collected. These are items that members and stakeholders, such as students, have deemed to be important, such as a commitment to purchasing Fairtrade tea and coffee for staff tea rooms (chart 14) and recycled content copy paper (chart 15).

Chart 14 – Proportion of Fairtrade Tea & Coffee Purchased vs. Total Tea & Coffee Purchased in 2010

Data shown in chart 14 is representative of the seven institutions that provided data in 2010 and as can be seen, Fairtrade tea and coffee purchased is nine per cent (485 kilograms) of non-Fairtrade tea and coffee purchased (4,918 kilograms). Data shown in chart 15 is representative of the 14 institutions that provided data for this section.

Chart 15 – Total Copy Paper Purchased (reams of A4 equivalent) in 2010 by Institution

91%

9%

Proportion of Fairtrade Tea & Coffee vs. Tea & Coffee Purchased

Tea & Coffee (kg)

Tea & Coffee Fairtrade (kg)

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

Reams

Total Copy Paper Purchased 2010

Other 50 - 99% Recycled 100% Recycled Plantation

19

2.8 Information Technology (IT)

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 conferencing and lecture downloads. Other criteria for IT equipment have been developed by EPEAT, a resource for environmentally preferable IT equipment which several members use when making purchasing decisions.

Chart 16 shows data collected on green IT for this report. This included the existence of behaviour change programs and green IT committees. Additionally results from surveys regarding the automatic installation of low energy and low paper use options in all IT equipment are included.

TAFEs show a better performance than universities however this may be due to the higher number of participating TAFE members.

Chart 16 – Percentage of Respondents with Listed Green IT Initiatives in 2010

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

University

TAFE

All

% of Positive Responses

Institution Type

Green IT Performance Indicators

Behaviour Change Programs Auto Installation of Double Sided Printing

Auto Installation of Low Energy Settings Committee for monitoring and improving IT Practices

20

2.9 Education for Sustainability (EfS)

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.

Figure 7 - “Little Red” Murdoch University’s endangered baby Forest Red-tailed Black Cockatoo with students Neil Goldsborough, Robin Scott, Adjunct Professor Ron Johnstone and Environmental Program Manager Caroline Minton.

The SCG introduced an EfS data collection section in its 2009 Workbook not only to gauge progress, but also to encourage institutions to collect and report data in this area and bring this topic to the

attention of senior staff members and decision makers. EfS can be taught, researched or applied on campus, such as Murdoch University’s engagement of academic staff and students with biodiversity on campus, depicted in figure 7.

Chart 17 – Percentage of Respondents with Listed EfS Initiatives in 2010

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

University

TAFE

All

% of positive responses

Institution Type

EfS Performance Indicators

Environmental or Sustainability Aspects Included in Orientation Environment or Sustainability Subject Required to Graduate

Strategy or Plan for Implementing EfS EfS Committee

21

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.

As can be seen in chart 17, TAFEs have a better record 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 have been updated to embed sustainability content and TAFEs have supported staff to attend relevant training and education programs.

Conclusion

Environmental responsibilities of TAFEs and universities fall into two main areas: 1. Academia, such as teaching, training, and research; and 2. Operations, such as finance, procurement, IT, building and grounds management, and other student and staff support services. Most TAFEs and universities take an active role in promoting their environmental capabilities and performance in this area and publicise this through their web sites and reports.

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 has been evidenced in this report 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 sustainability performance of suppliers. These may be considered within the influence of an institution, but not direct control.

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.

22

Academically, large positive environmental impacts can be made via 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 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.

References

Council of Australian Governments (COAG), (2009), Green Skills Agreement: An Agreement between the Australian Government and the state and territory governments

EPEAT, http://www.epeat.net/resources/criteria-verification/, accessed 04/09/2011 Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA), http://www.gbca.org.au/about/, accessed 05/09/2011 ECO-Buy, http://www.ecobuy.org.au/director/suppliers/What%20are%20green%20products.cfm,

accessed 01/09/2011

23

Appendix 1 - Data Completeness

Table A 1.1 Ranked data completeness for selected sections of the workbook

Module Section

Total number of institutions who

provided data for 2010 (of 16)

Total number of institutions who

provided data for 2009 (of 16)

Campus Statistics Effective Full Time Student Load (EFTSL) 16 14

Campus StatisticsFull Time Equivalent (FTE) Academic and Non Academic Staff 16 14

Campus Statistics Gross Floor Area 16 14

Energy use & GHG emissions Facil ities energy use and GHG emissions 16 14

Energy use & GHG emissionsAutomotive transport energy use and GHG emissions 16 14

Energy use & GHG emissions Air travel GHG emissions 9 8

Energy use & GHG emissions GreenPower 16 14

Waste & Recycl ing Total waste to landfil l 16 14

Waste & Recycl ing Total waste recycled 16 14

Water Amount of potable (mains) water used 16 14

Water* Licensed Ground Water Extraction 4 3

Water* Licensed Surface Water Collection 1 0

Water* Rainwater Collected & Used 5 2

Water* Runoff Collected & Used 3 1

Water* Water Recycled / Treated 0 0

Water* Other Recycled Water 0 0

Buildings Total GFA of New & Retrofitted Buildings 15 14

BuildingsTotal GFA of New & Retrofitted Buildings with Accredited Sustainable Design 15 14

BuildingsIntegration of Sustainability into new Buildings

16 14

Green purchasing A4 copy paper purchasing 13 14

Green purchasing Tea & coffee purchasing 6 6

* It was not possible for al l Institutions to complete this section as they did not have the relevent facil ities

24

Appendix 2 – Data by Institution

The following tables include all data reported for 2009 by SCG Members in 2009. SCG Members in 2010 reported 2010 data and many also reported 2009 data, which has been included.

Table A 2.1 Staff, Students and Gross Floor Area by Institution

Page 25

Table A 2.2 Institutional Commitment to Environmental Policies Indicator

Page 26

Table A 2.3 Facilities Energy Consumption

Page 27

Table A 2.4 GHG Emissions by Facilities, Air Travel and Automotive Travel by Institution

Page 28

Table A 2.5 Mains Water Purchased (Per Capita and Gross Floor Area) by Institution

Page 29

Table A 2.6 Waste to Landfill (Per Capita and Gross Floor Area) by Institution

Page 30

25

Stat

eIn

stit

utio

n

2009

2010

2009

2010

2009

2010

2009

2010

2009

2010

2009

2010

Nat

.Au

st. C

atho

lic

Uni

11,9

61na

735

na64

8

na1,

383

na13

,344

na10

7,13

6na

NSW

Char

les

Stur

t Uni

vers

ity

na15

,757

na63

3

na1,

123

na1,

756

na17

,513

na18

5,57

5

Hun

ter

Inst

15,8

85na

1,44

7

na

325

na

1,77

2na

17,6

57na

0na

Illa

war

ra In

st10

,791

na67

8

na

421

na

1,09

9na

11,8

90na

144,

676

na

New

Eng

land

Inst

7,37

3na

193

na20

7

na40

0na

7,77

3na

57,3

52na

Nor

th C

oast

Inst

11,1

56na

659

na41

3

na1,

072

na12

,228

na12

1,82

2na

Nor

ther

n Sy

dney

Inst

27,0

48na

516

na44

4

na96

0na

28,0

08na

188,

724

na

Sout

h W

est.

Sydn

ey In

st25

,935

na87

7

na

760

na

1,63

7na

27,5

72na

231,

679

na

Sydn

ey In

st30

,196

30,7

662,

723

2,98

1

1,

269

779

3,

992

3,76

034

,188

34,5

2623

4,81

723

5,08

2

Wes

tern

Syd

ney

Inst

17,2

91na

456

na27

9

na73

5na

18,0

26na

151,

626

na

NT

Char

les

Dar

win

Uni

4,83

74,

856

1,09

9

51

2

645

60

7

1,74

41,

119

6,58

15,

975

120,

300

112,

040

QLD

Bris

bane

Nor

th In

st11

,058

12,0

8441

5

42

3

650

57

4

1,06

599

712

,123

13,0

8190

,127

90,1

27

Suns

hine

Coa

st In

st4,

016

5,37

429

3

27

2

255

26

6

548

538

4,56

45,

912

29,8

7333

,134

SAFl

inde

rs U

nive

rsit

y12

,243

12,9

2273

6

74

7

1,02

1

1,

054

1,75

71,

801

14,0

0014

,723

192,

813

192,

813

Uni

of A

dela

ide

16,8

59na

910

na1,

351

na2,

261

na19

,120

na30

4,69

5

VIC

Box

Hil

l Ins

titu

te o

f TAF

E10

,061

9,71

144

2

54

1

446

41

2

888

953

10,9

4910

,664

82,0

4788

,152

Chis

holm

Inst

itut

e of

TAF

E15

,713

12,8

8769

2

67

3

383

44

0

1,07

51,

112

16,7

8813

,999

98,8

2098

,820

Dea

kin

Uni

18,7

3423

,296

1,05

8

1,

093

1,42

5

1,

521

2,48

32,

614

21,2

1725

,910

230,

009

265,

037

Gor

don

Inst

5,85

710

,971

577

335

na

233

57

756

86,

434

11,5

3948

,328

51,2

02

Gou

lbur

n O

vens

Inst

3,42

13,

778

264

272

18

6

190

45

046

23,

871

4,24

043

,358

50,5

74

Kang

an In

st7,

959

7,92

997

7

1,

011

nana

977

1,01

18,

936

8,94

083

,878

83,8

78

La T

robe

Uni

21,8

74na

1,43

4

na

1,25

1

na

2,68

5na

24,5

59na

286,

739

na

Mon

ash

Uni

36,8

0137

,186

3,76

6

3,

716

3,78

6

3,

954

7,55

27,

670

44,3

5344

,856

668,

521

668,

521

RMIT

Uni

52,9

99na

1,66

5

na

2,07

9

na

3,74

4na

56,7

43na

430,

815

na

Sunr

aysi

a In

st2,

476

2,59

291

98

13

1

110

22

220

82,

698

2,80

024

,432

24,4

32

Swin

burn

e U

ni o

f Tec

hnol

ogy

28,3

51na

1,07

5

na

1,52

4

na

2,59

9na

30,9

50na

195,

507

na

Uni

of B

alla

rat

15,3

10na

550

na62

2

na1,

172

na16

,482

na0

na

Uni

of M

elbo

urne

36,0

01na

3,37

5

na

3,99

6

na

7,37

1na

43,3

72na

746,

809

na

Vict

oria

Uni

47,4

89na

974

na1,

237

na2,

211

na49

,700

na31

1,27

9na

WA

Cent

ral I

nsti

tute

of T

echn

olog

y12

,196

12,2

7956

5

59

8

388

40

7

953

1,00

513

,149

13,2

8410

3,30

510

3,30

5

Edit

h Co

wan

Uni

13,6

48na

577

na95

7

na1,

534

na15

,182

na19

3,59

9na

Mur

doch

Uni

vers

ity

na9,

785

na50

5

na77

4

na1,

279

na11

,064

na11

9,55

2

TOTA

LTO

TAL

535,

538

212,

173

29,8

1814

,410

27,1

0012

,444

56,9

1926

,853

592,

457

239,

026

5,52

3,08

62,

402,

244

Tabl

e A

2.1

: St

aff,

stu

dent

s an

d gr

oss

floo

r are

a by

inst

itut

ion.

Stud

ents

(EFT

SL)

Aca

dem

ic /

Teac

hing

St

aff (

FTE)

Gen

eral

/Non

-Te

achi

ng S

taff

(FTE

)To

tal S

taff

(FTE

)To

tal S

taff

+ S

tude

nts

Gro

ss F

loor

Are

a ( m

2)

26

Stat

eIn

stit

ute

2009

2010

2009

201

02

009

2010

Nat

.A

ust.

Cath

oli

c U

ni

0.5

na

0na

na

na

NSW

Cha

rles

Stu

rt U

niv

ersi

tyn

a3

na

6n

an

a

Hu

nter

Ins

t2

na

1na

na

na

Illa

war

a In

st1.

2n

a1

nan

an

a

New

En

gla

nd In

st1

na

0na

na

na

No

rth

Coas

t Ins

t1

na

1na

na

na

No

rthe

rn S

ydne

y In

stn

an

a8

naAs

soci

ate

Dir

ecto

rn

a

Sou

th W

est.

Sydn

ey I

nst

0n

a2

naC

olle

ge M

ana

ger

na

Syd

ney

Inst

1.2

27

5As

soci

ate

Dir

ecto

rAs

soci

ate

Dir

ecto

r/Co

lleg

e D

irec

tor

Wes

tern

Syd

ney

Ins

t1

na

2na

Dir

ecto

rn

a

NT

Cha

rles

Dar

win

Un

i0

30

6n

an

a

Qld

Bri

sban

e N

ort

h In

stn

a1

na

2n

an

a

Sun

shin

e Co

ast I

nst

11

00

.8n

aM

anag

er -

St

rate

gy &

Gov

ern

ance

SAFl

ind

ers

Uni

vers

ity

na

1n

a0

na

Dep

uty

Vic

e-Ch

ance

llor

Un

i of A

dela

ide

1.8

na

4na

Dep

uty

Vic

e-C

hanc

ello

r &

Vic

e-P

resi

den

tn

a

Vic

Box

Hil

l In

stit

ute

of T

AFE

na

0n

a2

na

CIO

res

pons

ible

for

the

Res

ourc

eSM

ART

wo

rkin

g gr

oup

Chi

sho

lm In

st0.

51

00

na

na

Dea

kin

Un

i2.

53.

56

6Ch

ief

Op

era

ting

Off

icer

Chie

f O

pera

ting

Off

icer

Go

rdo

n In

st2.

51

10

.5n

aSe

nio

r M

ana

ger

Go

ulb

urn

Ove

ns In

st0.

30.

31

5G

ener

al M

anag

er,

Fin

ance

& In

fras

truc

ture

Gen

eral

Ma

nage

r:

Fin

ance

& I

nfra

stru

ctu

re

Kan

gan

Inst

11

00

na

na

La T

robe

Uni

3n

a1

naV

ice-

Cha

ncel

lor

na

Mon

ash

Uni

15

14.

41

111

Vic

e-Ch

anc

ello

rSe

nio

r D

eput

y

RM

IT3

na

1na

na

na

Sun

rays

ia I

nst

00

na

0n

an

a

Swin

bur

ne

Un

i of T

ech

nolo

gy1

8n

a1

nan

an

a

Un

i of B

alla

rat

2.3

na

0na

na

na

Un

i of M

elbo

urn

e2.

1n

a1

7na

Dep

uty

Vic

e-C

hanc

ello

rn

a

Vic

tori

a U

ni

3n

a1

naD

irec

tor

na

WA

Cen

tral

Ins

titu

te o

f Tec

hno

logy

0

00

0n

an

a

Edit

h C

owa

n U

ni

2n

a1

naPr

o V

ice-

Cha

ncel

lor

na

Mur

doc

h U

nive

rsit

yn

a1

na

3n

aVi

ce-C

hanc

ello

r

Avg

.U

niv

ersi

ty4.

25.

43

.15

.8

TAFE

0.8

0.9

1.6

1.6

All

2.4

2.1

2.5

3.0

Tabl

e A

2.2

Inst

itut

iona

l Com

mit

men

t to

Envi

ronm

enta

l Pol

icie

s In

dica

tor

Staf

f (F

TE)

Num

ber

of

Envi

ronm

enta

l C

omm

itte

es

Hig

hes

t In

stit

uti

ona

l Pos

itio

n o

n En

viro

nm

ent

al C

om

mit

tee

27

2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010

Nat. Aust. Catholic Uni 4.53 na 0.56 na 3.2% na 890 na 111 na

NSW Charles Sturt University na 11.94 na 1.13 na 0.0% na 1439 na 136

Hunter Inst 2.61 na na na 0.0% na 724 na na na

Illawarra Inst 3.57 na 0.29 na 4.4% na 746 na 61 na

New England Inst 1.79 na 0.24 na 5.3% na 441 na 60 na

North Coast Inst 2.43 na 0.24 na 0.0% na 262 na 26 na

Northern Sydney Inst 2.57 na 0.38 na 0.0% na 569 na 84 na

South West. Sydney Inst 3.51 na 0.42 na 4.8% na 783 na 93 na

Sydney Inst 3.14 2.94 0.46 0.43 6.2% 6.2% 671 632 98 93

Western Sydney Inst 2.78 na 0.33 na 5.0% na 716 na 85 na

NT Charles Darwin Uni 12.61 12.65 0.69 0.67 0.0% 0.0% 3029 3414 166 182

QLD Brisbane North Inst 2.41 2.06 0.32 0.30 0.0% 0.0% 644 549 87 80

Sunshine Coast Inst 3.64 2.61 0.56 0.46 0.0% 0.0% 949 680 145 121

SA Flinders University of SA 5.70 5.75 0.41 0.44 7.7% 7.6% 1349 1331 98 102

Uni of Adelaide 11.46 na 0.72 na 0.0% na 2713 na 170

VIC Box Hill Institute of TAFE 4.22 4.94 0.56 0.60 15.4% 13.7% 732 758 98 92

Chisholm Institute of TAFE 3.84 4.81 0.65 0.68 7.7% 7.7% 556 702 95 99

Deakin Uni 10.07 9.47 0.93 0.93 0.0% 0.7% 1523 1445 140 141

Gordon Inst 4.04 2.12 0.54 0.48 11.7% 10.2% 830 404 111 91

Goulburn Ovens Inst 6.89 5.92 0.62 0.50 5.2% 12.0% 1063 926 95 78

Kangan Inst 4.72 4.97 0.50 0.53 5.1% 5.1% 730 782 78 83

La Trobe Uni 19.09 na 1.64 na 0.0% na 1500 na 129 na

Monash Uni 14.85 14.51 0.99 0.97 4.6% 4.7% 1917 2069 127 139

RMIT Uni 6.54 na 0.86 na 10.9% na 1198 na 158 na

Sunraysia Inst 4.20 4.39 0.46 0.50 7.4% 11.3% 872 943 96 108

Swinburne Uni of Technology 4.63 na 0.73 na 3.4% na 836 na 132 na

Uni of Ballarat 5.35 na na na 11.4% na 551 na na na

Uni of Melbourne 12.14 na 0.70 na 10.1% na 2026 na 118 na

Victoria Uni 4.15 na 0.66 na 3.1% na 655 na 105 na

WA Central Institute of Technology 2.77 2.81 0.35 0.36 0.0% 0.0% 563 575 72 74

Edith Cowan Uni 6.53 na 0.51 na 4.2% na 1506 na 118 na

Murdoch University na 9.11 na 0.84 na 13.6% na 2036 na 188

Average Universities 9.05 12.02 0.85 0.85 6.8% 3.8% 1414 1,816 133 141

TAFEs 3.20 3.58 0.44 0.47 6.0% 6.9% 662 645 90 89

All 6.71 7.21 0.72 0.74 6.9% 4.5% 1114 1,233 119 123

Notes :

(a ) Per head includes both sta ff and students .

(b) Insti tutions that did not provide a fi gure for GFA have been excluded from average ca lculations .

(d) Calculation combines kWh purchas ed from the gri d, green power and generated through ons ite renewables .

kWh/m2 (b)

(c) Where no figures were given by insti tutions for green energy i t i s ass umed that no green energy was purchas ed. However, these ins ti tutions have been excluded from the average ca lculations .

Table A 2.3: Facilities energy consumption (includes all electricity, gas and diesel oil consumed for facilities and excludes transport-related energy use)

State Institution

Energy Green energy(c) Electricity(d)

GJ/head(a) GJ/m2 (b)% of total energy

use kWh/head(a)

28

2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010

Nat. Aust. Catholic Uni 1.06 na 0.13 na 1.93 na 0.26 na

NSW Charles Sturt University na 1.99 na 0.19 na 4.01 na 0.83

Hunter Inst 0.77 na na na na na 0.00 na

Illawarra Inst 0.81 na 0.07 na 0.05 na 0.30 na

New England Inst 0.46 na 0.06 na na na 0.54 na

North Coast Inst 0.66 na 0.07 na na na 0.37 na

Northern Sydney Inst 0.64 na 0.10 na 0.26 na 0.15 na

South West. Sydney Inst 0.83 na 0.10 na 0.09 na 0.11 na

Sydney Inst 0.71 0.66 0.10 0.10 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04

Western Sydney Inst 0.65 na 0.08 na na na 0.40 na

NT Charles Darwin Uni 2.51 2.65 0.14 0.14 na na 0.15 0.76

QLD Brisbane North Inst 0.66 0.57 0.09 0.08 0.21 0.13 0.13 0.13

Sunshine Coast Inst 0.97 -0.25 0.15 -0.05 0.33 na 0.26 0.21

SA Flinders University of SA 1.10 1.09 0.08 0.08 na na 0.18 0.20

Uni of Adelaide 2.58 na 0.16 na 6.79 na 0.19 na

VIC Box Hill Institute of TAFE 0.83 0.90 0.11 0.11 na na -0.07 -0.06

Chisholm Institute of TAFE 0.74 0.95 0.13 0.13 0.52 0.55 0.41 0.41

Deakin Uni 2.30 2.16 0.21 0.21 3.79 3.68 0.00 -0.01

Gordon Inst 0.99 0.49 0.13 0.11 na na 0.65 0.70

Goulburn Ovens Inst 1.46 1.14 0.13 0.10 0.16 0.17 1.74 1.47

Kangan Inst 1.00 1.09 0.11 0.12 na na 0.08 0.00

La Trobe Uni 2.77 na 0.24 na 2.25 na 0.58 na

Monash Uni 2.77 2.98 0.18 0.20 3.55 3.99 -0.02 -0.02

RMIT Uni 1.46 na 0.19 na 2.34 na 0.13 na

Sunraysia Inst 1.11 1.16 0.12 0.13 0.41 0.31 1.07 0.96

Swinburne Uni of Technology 1.15 na 0.18 na 3.12 na 0.14 na

Uni of Ballarat 0.70 na na na 1.62 na 0.52 na

Uni of Melbourne 2.53 na 0.15 na na na 0.11 na

Victoria Uni 0.93 na 0.15 na 1.91 na 0.24 na

WA Central Institute of Technology 0.57 0.57 0.07 0.07 na na 0.18 0.15

Edith Cowan Uni 1.41 na 0.11 na 4.25 na 0.12 na

Murdoch University na 1.66 na 0.15 na 1.46 na 0.23

Average Universities 1.81 2.29 0.17 0.17 2.33 3.69 0.24 0.17

TAFEs 0.75 0.70 0.10 0.11 0.08 0.14 0.25 0.21

All 1.38 1.50 0.15 0.14 1.60 2.88 0.24 0.19

Notes :

(a) Insti tutions that did not provide a figure for GFA have been excluded from average ca lcula tions .

(b) Emiss ions are ca lculated from fuel usage and do not include taxis or hi re vehicles .

Table A 2.4: GHG emissions from facilities, air travel and automotive travel by institution

State Institution

Facilities (Net of offsets)Air Travel (Net of

offsets)

Auto Transport(b) (Net

of offsets)

t CO2-e/(staff + students)

t CO2-e/m2 GFA(a) t CO2-e/staff t CO2-e/staff

29

State Institution

2009 2010 2009 2010

Nat. Aust. Catholic Uni 2.4 na 0.30 na

NSW Charles Sturt University na 22.5 na 2.12

Hunter Inst 4.5 na na na

Il lawarra Inst 3.3 na 0.27 na

New England Inst 2.2 na 0.30 na

North Coast Inst 0.0 na 0.00 na

Northern Sydney Inst 4.1 na 0.61 na

South West. Sydney Inst 3.8 na 0.45 na

Sydney Inst 3.4 3.3 0.49 0.48

Western Sydney Inst 4.6 na 0.55 na

NT Charles Darwin Uni 0.0 51.9 0.00 2.77

QLD Brisbane North Inst 1.9 1.9 0.26 0.27

Sunshine Coast Inst 3.1 2.7 0.48 0.48

SA Flinders University of SA 12.0 10.7 0.87 0.81

Uni of Adelaide 17.2 na 1.08 na

VIC Box Hill Institute of TAFE 1.9 2.1 0.25 0.26

Chisholm Institute of TAFE 2.0 2.8 0.33 0.39

Deakin Uni 4.3 4.0 0.39 0.39

Gordon Inst 2.1 1.1 0.27 0.25

Goulburn Ovens Inst 9.5 6.5 0.85 0.54

Kangan Inst 2.9 7.0 0.31 0.75

La Trobe Uni 9.3 na 0.80 na

Monash Uni 8.3 7.2 0.55 0.48

RMIT Uni 3.4 na 0.45 na

Sunraysia Inst 9.3 7.1 1.03 0.82

Swinburne Uni of Technology 2.5 na 0.39 na

Uni of Bal larat 3.4 na na na

Uni of Melbourne 8.8 na 0.51 na

Victoria Uni 2.1 na 0.34 na

WA Central Institute of Technology 5.9 6.0 0.76 0.77

Edith Cowan Uni 8.9 na 0.70 na

Murdoch University na 9.8 na 0.90

Average Universities 6.1 11.6 0.57 0.91

TAFEs 3.7 3.5 0.51 0.49

All 5.2 7.6 0.57 0.76

Table A 2.5: Mains water purchased per capita and per gross floor area by institution

Water per head (kL/(staff + students)

Water per floor area (kL/m2)

Note: Insti tutions that di d not provide water data or GFA figures have been excluded from the avera ge ca lcul ations .

30

State Institution

2009 2010 2009 2010

Nat. Aust. Catholic Uni 41.0 na 5.1 na

NSW Charles Sturt University na 234.0 na 22.0

Hunter Inst 29.2 na na na

Illawarra Inst 86.0 na 7.1 na

New England Inst 0.0 na 0.0 na

North Coast Inst 132.4 na 13.3 na

Northern Sydney Inst 64.8 na 9.6 na

South West. Sydney Inst 68.9 na 8.2 na

Sydney Inst 112.1 112.0 16.3 16.0

Western Sydney Inst 0.0 na 0.0 na

NT Charles Darwin Uni 143.2 90.0 7.8 5.0

QLD Brisbane North Inst 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0

Sunshine Coast Inst 117.7 251 18.0 44.8

SA Flinders University of SA 55.6 54.0 4.0 4.0

Uni of Adelaide 32.5 na 2.0 na

VIC Box Hil l Institute of TAFE 30.4 23.0 4.1 3.0

Chisholm Institute of TAFE 79.2 113.0 13.4 16.0

Deakin Uni 40.6 48.0 3.7 5.0

Gordon Inst 96.3 51.0 12.8 11.5

Goulburn Ovens Inst 38.5 39.0 3.4 3.3

Kangan Inst 59.1 60.6 6.3 6.0

La Trobe Uni 70.3 na 6.0 na

Monash Uni 76.5 63.0 5.1 4.2

RMIT Uni 64.7 na 8.5 na

Sunraysia Inst 42.2 45.9 4.7 5.3

Swinburne Uni of Technology 43.2 na 6.8 na

Uni of Ballarat 20.7 na na na

Uni of Melbourne 24.2 na 1.4 na

Victoria Uni 0.0 na 0.0 na

WA Central Institute of Technology 12.2 19.0 1.6 2.5

Edith Cowan Uni 12.6 na 1.0 na

Murdoch University na 343.0 na 32.0

Average Universities 50.5 110.9 4.4 8.6

TAFEs 68.6 74.4 9.5 10.3

All 57.9 92.7 6.0 9.2

Table A 2.6: Waste to landfill per capita (staff + students) and per gross floor area by institution

Waste per head (kg/head)

Waste per floor area (kg/m2)

Note: Ins ti tutions that did not provide was te data or GFA figures have been excluded from the average calculations .