Sustainable Campus Group Tertiary Education Sector Sustainability Report 2012

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

Sustainable Campus Group 2013 This report was published in August 2013. The SCG reporting process was facilitated by Belinda Allison at Monash Sustainability Institute.

Published by Monash Sustainability Institute (MSI) Monash University, VIC 3800 Australia T: +61 3 990 59323 E: belinda.allison@monash.edu 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.

Cover photographs: Certificate I Word Education Group 2013 and their teacher Tracey Wareham with their art recycling project Garbage to Garden at SuniTAFE. The flowers were made mainly from hubcaps, metal, bottle tops and scraps from junk collected (legally) from Swan Hill landfill and the SuniTAFE scrap heap. Photos by: Lois Schmidt and Tracey Wareham.

Printed on 100% recycled content and carbon neutral paper at a carbon neutral facility.

2|Page

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 Report Participants 2012 .................................................................................................................................... 4 Reporting Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Summary of Results ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Education for Sustainability .................................................................................................................................... 7 Social Sustainability................................................................................................................................................. 8 Institutional Commitment..................................................................................................................................... 10 Information Technology ........................................................................................................................................ 12 Purchasing ............................................................................................................................................................. 13 Waste .................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Biodiversity............................................................................................................................................................ 19 Water .................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Buildings ................................................................................................................................................................ 23 Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................ 25 Transport ............................................................................................................................................................... 29 Sustainability, the Sector and the Future ............................................................................................................. 32 References ............................................................................................................................................................ 34 Appendix 1 Data by Institution .......................................................................................................................... 35 Table A: Staff, Students and Gross Floor Area by Institution............................................................................ 35 Table B: Facilities Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................... 36 Table C: Total Water Consumed (Per Capita and Gross Floor Area) by Institution .......................................... 37 Table D: Waste to Landfill and Recycling (Per Capita and Gross Floor Area) by Institution ............................. 38

3|Page

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

Introduction
The Sustainable Campus Group (SCG) began in 2005 as a way of sharing ideas and collaborating on sustainability. Reporting began in 2006 to encourage members to share their progress on environmental initiatives and encourage tertiary institutes to improve their performance. The first SCG reports did not name the institutions involved, but assigned them letters, so they would not be individually recognised. The SCG was the first sector report of its type in Australia and over the years has witnessed the beginning of other benchmarking programs on sustainability in tertiary education institutes, some public and some not. It bodes well for the sector, and sustainability, that many now embrace and support sustainability reporting both as individual institutions and also as a sector or group of institutions. This is the fourth annual SCG report in which members have confidently displayed their name beside their performance. This document reports and discusses the sector averages for 2011 and 2012 data provided by SCG members. Data from nine SCG members has been included in this report. Institutional-level data is provided in Appendix 1. Results in this report provide an overview of measuring and reporting at each institution and do not necessarily reveal the full picture of sustainability management at each institution. A snapshot of performance can be seen in Table 1. This table is based on 2011 and 2012 data from current SCG Members (see Report Participants 2012) that submitted the relevant data for both years. The number of respondents that provided data for each indicator is listed in the table in the relevant section. Tertiary institutes can vary greatly from one another. Some are located in the CBD and others in suburban, industrial, or regional areas. This has an impact on land use and transport access, for example. Other variations include the types of training, teaching and research 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 in mind when looking at the results in this report.

Report Participants 2012

Northern Territory Charles Darwin University (CDU) Queensland SkillsTech Australia (SkillsTech) Sunshine Coast Institute of TAFE (SCIT) Western Australia Murdoch University (Murdoch) Victoria Chisholm Institute of TAFE (Chisholm) Deakin University (Deakin) Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE (GOTAFE) Monash University (Monash) Sunraysia Institute of TAFE (SuniTAFE)

Reporting Methodology
Monash Sustainability Institute (MSI) provides members with the SCG Workbook, which is a data management and reporting tool for both quantitative and qualitative data on different aspects of sustainability. Member institutions were given the opportunity to complete as much of the Workbook as they could with 2012 data 4|Page

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

before returning a copy to MSI for use in this report. As this is a self-reporting initiative, the data submitted in the SCG Workbooks was not verified or audited. Data was accepted as provided, except in cases where obvious anomalies appeared. In such cases MSI liaised with the members to correct the data. All members were given the opportunity to review the draft findings of this report before publication. The data provided by the participants was analysed at an institutional level (that is, the total of all campuses). Data on student residences, overseas campuses, and property not used for core institutional purposes (e.g. investment property) were not included. To allow comparisons between institutions of very different sizes, most of the results were normalised by the total number of students (on-campus) and staff at each institution (equivalent full-time student load (EFTSL) and full-time equivalent (FTE) staff) and by building gross floor area (GFA, in square metres). Graphs are labelled as to which normalisation was used. The EFTSL, FTE, GFA and other data reported by each institution are provided in detail in Appendix 1. Where data is compared or shown over two years (2011 and 2012) in this document, only current members with data for both those years are included in the averages, totals and comparisons unless a graph shows na. Graphs with na for 2011 data include 2012 data in the normalised averages. Not all members are listed or included in each category of data, depending on provision of data, and this is noted in the report where it occurs. References have been made throughout this document to national data from the Australian National Sustainability Councils (NSC) Sustainable Australia Report 2013 (see References for full citation). The NSC report refers to the most recent data available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics at the time of its publication and these data have been included in this document for reference or comparison purposes even though the years the data were gathered may not align. The NSC report data has been included to provide context for the reader.

Summary of Results
As can be seen in Table 1, student, staff and floor space increased from 2011 to 2012, each by around 5%. Growth in these numbers is expected year-to-year, and total energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have also increased by 6.9% and 9.1% respectively. When the figures are normalised for GFA and staff and student numbers it becomes apparent there has been a small decrease in energy efficiency. Many energy efficiencies may have been gained in the past and this current decrease in efficiency may reflect the fact that opportunities to save energy are getting more difficult to find and/or expensive to implement. A decrease in energy efficiency may also be due to how new space is used; for example conducting energy intensive research. Water use has decreased overall and efficiencies have been gained per person and floor area. The reduction in overall and normalised water use is mostly due to a very large decrease of 32% in water use at CDU from 2011 to 2012. Paper use has decreased, although per person (staff and student) use has remained relatively steady at 2.8 reams of paper per person per year (2.82 in 2011). However, it should be noted that any printing by staff and students off campus is not included in these figures and, as data collection methods improve at institutions, such as the inclusion of paper volume used by printing organisations and departments, it can appear that paper use has increased. It is encouraging to see that waste to landfill figures have decreased, both overall and per person and that recycling has increased. It is worth noting that availability of recycling facilities provided at 5|Page

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

each institute has also improved. Approximately 71% of in-door and out-door waste stations had recycling facilities co-located with them in 2012. This is up from about 56% (combined average of in-door and out-door stations) in 2011.

Indicator
Institutional Commitment Average no. of staff (FTE) in environmental improvement roles per 1000 students (EFTSL) and staff (FTE) Institutional Scope Total student and staff numbers (EFTSL + FTE) Total gross floor area (GFA) in metres squared (m 2) Education for Sustainability No. of SCG Members with EfS implementation strategy/plan No. of TAFEs with EfS implementation strategy/plan Energy and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Total facilities energy consumption in Gigajoules Percentage of total facilities energy consumption provided by on-site renewables Percentage of total facilities energy consumption purchased as GreenPower Average facilities energy consumption (GJ) per GFA m 2 Average facilities energy consumption (GJ) per EFTSL + FTE Gross GHG emissions (tonnes) from facilities energy (Scopes 1, 2 & 3) Percentage of total GHG emissions from facilities energy that is offset GHG emissions (tonnes) from facilities energy net of offsets per GFA m 2 GHG emissions (tonnes) from facilities energy net of offsets per EFTSL + FTE Water Total water consumption (kilolitres) Percentage of total water consumption collected/recycled/reclaimed on-site Average water consumption (litres) per GFA m 2 Average water consumption (litres) per EFTSL + FTE Waste (recycling incl. co-mingle, paper & card, metal & e-waste) Total waste to landfill (tonnes) Total waste recycled (tonnes) Average waste to landfill (kilograms) per EFTSL + FTE Average waste recycled (kilograms) per EFTSL + FTE Procurement Total reams of copy paper purchased Percentage of total copy paper with recycled content

2011

2012

Change Responses

0.216 115,777 1,418,029 4 3 1,054,101 0.10% 6.82% 0.74 9.10 222,205 2.21% 0.15 1.88 1,321,249 0.66% 932 11,412 7,113 2,446 64.45 22.16 257,999 61%

0.216 122,210 1,483,711 5 3 1,126,356 0.20% 5.83% 0.76 9.22 242,459 2.13% 0.16 1.94 1,292,197 0.88% 871 10,574 6,736 2,739 57.95 23.56 254,102 55%

-0.3% 5.6% 4.6% 25.0% 0.0% 6.9%

7 8 8 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 4 4

2.1% 1.2% 9.1% 4.4% 3.5% -2.2% -6.5% -7.3% -5.3% 12.0% -10.1% 6.3% -1.5%

Table 1 - Snapshot of Sustainability Performance Indicators for 2011 and 2012

Institutional commitment in terms of number of staff employed whose responsibility it is to implement sustainability programs and improvements have remained steady at 21.5 FTE staff in total in 2012. Education for Sustainability (EfS) is gaining momentum across the sector and the number of members with an implementation strategy or plan has increased in 2012. Social sustainability and biodiversity initiatives are likely to be expanded in future years.

6|Page

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

Education for Sustainability

This report begins with a summary of progress toward EfS. Educating domestic and international students of all ages about the importance of sustainability and giving them ways to understand and apply its principles within their study, and in their wider lives, is a fundamental role that education institutions can play in helping create a sustainable future. Figure 1 shows the presence of selected EfS initiatives in 2012 and 2011 at TAFEs and universities and Figure 2 shows some of the EfS support systems each member has in place. A lot more can be done with both EfS implementation and measurement. More than 50% of the population between the ages of 20 and 64 hold a tertiary qualification (NSC 2013), so the potential for impacting students behaviours is huge.

Implemention of EfS at Universities and TAFEs

Committee/Staff Member Resp 100% 80% 60% Env/Sust Incl in all Staff Orientation 40% 20% 0% Grad Attribute/Learning Outcome/Perform Criteria Implementation Strategy

Reward Env/Sustainable/EfS Engagement by Staff

Students Must Pass Env/Sust Subject to Graduate

Env/Sust Incl in all Student Orientation

Staff Offered Env/Sust/EfS Prof Develop't Students Offered Env/Sust Subjects

Students Offered Env/Sust Courses

Universities 2012 All 2012

TAFEs 2012 All 2011

Figure 1 - Percentage of Respondents with Listed EfS Initiatives for Universities and TAFEs (2012) and Averaged for all Respondents (2011 and 2012)

7|Page

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

Figure 1 highlights that TAFEs and universities have taken different approaches to implementing EfS, but both have strengths when it comes to ensuring students have access to environmental and/or sustainability (Env/Sust) related subjects and courses. TAFEs are more likely to ensure staff are exposed to EfS principles and receive related professional development. Universities are more likely to expose students to sustainability concepts as well as building it into student learning outcomes. Individual EfS implementation status can be seen in Figure 2. Currently measurement is for EfS support systems only as it is too early to measure the success of EfS programs. Students need to be surveyed for their understanding of sustainability before they begin study, at the completion of their study, and again several years later, to determine how and if their education has influenced their ongoing commitment to sustainability. Large scale surveys of this kind are not happening in Australia, however they sometimes occur at a subject level, such as with Monashs new subject Sustainability - Learning and Living it, for which students were surveyed before they began the subject and again on completion.

Education for Sustainability (EfS)

Committee/Staff Member Responsible Implementation Strategy Grad Attribute/Learning Outcome/Perform Criteria Env/Sust Incl in all Student Orientation Students Offered Env/Sust Courses Students Offered Env/Sust Subjects Staff Offered Env/Sust/EfS Prof Development Students Must Pass Env/Sust Subject to Graduate Env/Sust Incl in all Staff Orientation Reward Env/Sustainable/EfS Engagement by Staff

Figure 2 - Institutional Commitment to EfS for each SCG Member (does not include CDU) in 2012

Social Sustainability
Social sustainability is relatively new on the SCG agenda and reporting against some related indicators was introduced in last years report. Reporting has centred on staff and student support services, although other indicators report on external influence, for example purchasing locally, and socially responsible investment, as illustrated in Figure 3.

De aki Mo n na M u sh rd Ch och ish o GO lm TA Sk i FE llsT Sun ech iTA SCI FE T

8|Page

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

Implementation of Social Sustainability at Universities and TAFEs 2012
Use Social Impact Assessments (SIA) for Dec'n Making 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% Target: Increase No. of ATSI Students 0% Monitor Staff Wellbeing

Socially Responsible Investment Target: Increase no. of Low SES Students

Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) Purchase from Local Suppliers

Body/Grp Responsible for 'Students at Risk' Financial & Social Support for 'Students at Risk' Targets for Gender Equality (Mgt & Board)

Publicly Report no. of Women & Men at Each Level Achieved Gender Equality in Management &/or Board Composition

Universities

TAFEs

Figure 3 - Percentage of Respondents with Listed Social Sustainability Initiatives for Universities and TAFEs

Social sustainability concerns organisations taking responsibility for the impacts their decisions and actions have on society and the environment (ISO26000 2010). It is also about an organisation conducting itself in an ethical, transparent and accountable manner (ISO26000 2010). Education institutes can help support diversity, not only by making education accessible and achievable but also by adopting policies and practices, and using their influence, to help reduce inequality in society and assist the disadvantaged and vulnerable. Students who face greater challenges in obtaining educational qualifications include those from low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds; students with a disability; and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) students (NSC 2013). These groups have been included in Figures 3 and 4 as students at risk of not completing their educations (students at risk). Figure 3 illustrates that most social sustainability efforts are aimed at these students and that institutions need to focus more on staff gender equality and general wellbeing, as well as on their external sphere of influence such as investment and procurement. Only one member (SCIT, see Figure 4)

9|Page

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

had a Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) in 2012 although these are expected to become more common in the sector.

Social Sustainability
Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) Monitor Staff Wellbeing Frequency Wellbeing Monitored (yr) Publicly Report no. of Women & Men at Each Level Targets for Gender Equality (Mgt & Board) Financial & Social Support for 'Students at Risk' Body/Grp Responsible for 'Students at Risk' Target: Increase No. of ATSI Students Target: Increase no. of Low SES Students Funds in Socially Responsible Investments

Figure 4 - Institutional Commitment to Social Sustainability for each SCG Member in 2012

Institutional Commitment
Institutional commitment to sustainability aims to capture the institute-wide initiatives that SCG members have in place. These initiatives often represent support for sustainability by senior management such as the creation of the role of environment or sustainability manager or officer. Institutional commitment also captures initiatives that are not necessarily easy to categorise into other sections of the report, such as overarching sustainability plans or policies. Initiatives that exist at each members institute are shown in Figure 5. Figure 6 illustrates an overall picture and highlights some of variances in approaches between TAFEs and universities.

Institutional Commitment
Env/Sust Policy Env/Sust Strategy Env/Sust Plan Env/Sust Committee Env/Sust Targets Incl in Staff KPIs Total Env/Sust Staff (FTE) Employed Student Engagement Program Staff Engagement Program Won Env/Sust Award in 2012 Climate Change Adaptation Plan

Figure 5 - Institutional Commitments to Sustainability for each SCG Member in 2012

CD U De aki Mo n nas Mu h rd Ch och ish o GO lm TA Sk i FE llsT Sun ech iTA SCI FE T

3.7 13.0 2.1 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.5 1.0

CD U De aki n Mo nas Mu h rd Ch och ish o GO lm TA Sk i FE llsT Sun ech iTA SCI FE T

2 1 2 2/3 1 1 1 1 1
10 | P a g e

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

Implementation of Institutional Commitment 2012

Env/Sust Policy 100% Climate Change Adaptation Plan 80% 60% 40% Won Env/Sust Award in 2012 20% 0% Env/Sust Plan Env/Sust Strategy

Staff Engagement Program

Env/Sust Committee

Student Engagement Program

Env/Sust Targets Incl in Staff KPIs

Universities

TAFEs

Figure 6 - Percentage of Respondents with Listed Institution-Wide Initiatives for Universities and TAFEs

Most members had an environmental or sustainability plan, policy or strategy in place (or a combination of the three). Members employed 21.5 FTE staff in 2012 to monitor and improve sustainability performance. Figure 7 shows a normalised figure for staff and highlights that universities employ almost twice as many sustainability staff as TAFEs.

11 | P a g e

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

Sustainability Staff Employed (FTE) per 1000 Students & Staff (EFTSL+FTE)
0.3

0.2 2011 0.1 2012

na na

0.0

Figure 7 - Sustainability Staff Employed per 1000 Students and Staff in 2011 and 2012

The numbers in Figure 7 do not include those staff across the institution who may be embedding sustainability into their work groups, teams, teaching or research under their own volition and not because it is part of their official job description.

Information Technology
Green initiatives in communication and information technology affect several areas of an institutes sustainability performance. Figure 8 shows energy reduction efforts such as power saving settings on equipment and savings in paper use via computer based faxing and double sided default printing. Many members also provided electronic waste re-use and recycling facilities for IT hardware. E-waste recycling is not mandatory in Australia even though IT hardware contains heavy metals, chemical and toxins dangerous to human health (Zero Waste SA 2013). Providing e-waste facilities demonstrates members are willing to allocate finances to act responsibly at their own volition. Only 25% of households recycled e-waste in 2009 (NSC 2013), compared to 56% of members (i.e. five members) in 2012.

12 | P a g e

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

Implementation of Green IT at Universities and TAFEs
Committee 100% Computer-based Faxing

80%
60% 40%

Env Assesments Incl in ITS Projects

Behaviour Change 20% 0%

Energy Saving Default on all Equip

Power Saving in Computer Labs

Double Sided Default all Equip

Plan: Consolidate Servers in Data Centres Plan: Implement Server Virtualisation

Plan: Optimise Energy Use in Data Centres

Universities 2012 All 2012

TAFEs 2012 All 2011

Figure 8 - Percentage of Respondents with Listed Green IT Initiatives for Universities and TAFEs (2012) and Averaged for all Respondents (2011 and 2012)

Although only 1.3 FTE staff were employed specifically to reduce the impact of IT equipment and practices, anecdotally there is a culture of innovation and efficiency amongst IT departments that complements sustainability efforts elsewhere in the organisation.

Purchasing
Sustainable procurement is a process for organisations to meet their requirements for goods and services, and achieve value for money (within the context of the organisation, society and economy) in an environmentally responsible manner (DEFRA 2006). Reducing consumption is the first step in sustainable procurement. If the 13 | P a g e

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

purchase of a product (or in some cases, a service) can be avoided this is the best environmental outcome. The use of manufacturing materials is avoided as is the waste at the end of the product life. Initiatives that reduce consumption are closely linked with those that reduce waste. For example the Monash University Furniture Reuse Store reduces the need for the procurement of new furniture and diverts old furniture from landfill (Case Study 1).

Case Study 1 - Furniture Reuse Store at Monash University The Monash Furniture Reuse Program redistributes surplus furniture to other departments within the University, diverting furniture from landfill. Inventory reporting and promotion of the Program has been improved by launching the Reuse web store and inventory management system. During 2012, the Monash Furniture and Equipment Reuse Program has found a new home for more than 3100 items, diverting more than 85 tonnes of waste from landfill and saving at least $533,000 of University funds. Monash continues to donate furniture from this Program to a number of charities and community groups.

Furniture Reuse Store

Diversity of the supply chain is one component of the social aspect of sustainable procurement. Diversity means engaging organisations that offer employment and training opportunities to disadvantaged, vulnerable or marginalised people such as the long-term unemployed, women, people with disabilities, ethnic minority groups, the aged, veterans, and Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander peoples, as well as small and local suppliers. Another example of diversity in the supply chain is committing to purchase Fair Trade products. Deakin became a Fair Trade University in 2012.

Addressing social sustainability in the supply chain is not well advanced in the tertiary education sector in Australia. Figure 9 shows whether members have some aspects of sustainability in the supply chain, such as purchasing from local suppliers (four members). It also highlights the presence or absence of environmental selection criteria in the procurement process.

14 | P a g e

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

CD U De aki Mo n na M u sh rd Ch och ish o GO lm TA Sk i FE llsT Sun ech iTA SCI FE T
0.4 0.1 0.1 2.0 2.0

Sustainable Purchasing
Committee Behaviour Change Dedicated Staff (FTE) No. of Staff Trained Target: Use Env Selection Criteria/Buy Green Purchase from Local Suppliers % of Local Purchases Monitored

Figure 9 - Institutional Commitment to Sustainable Purchasing for each SCG Member in 2012

Paper was one of the first items on the green procurement agenda for the sector. Paper consumption and content is a well-known and understood representation of green purchasing. Logging of native forests can be a highly emotive issue and in the past both students and staff have advocated strongly for high recycled content copy paper. Figure 10 shows the use of paper per person in 2012 as well as the level of recycled content of the paper. Paper use per person remained steady (2.82 reams (1410 pages) in 2011 and 2.80 reams (1400 pages) in 2012). The use of recycled content paper decreased in 2012 compared to 2011, but the use of carbon neutral paper increased over the same period.

Copy Paper Purchased (Total Reams & Reams per Person (EFTSL+FTE))
120,000 7.00

Total Reams

100,000
80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0

5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 -

Reams per EFTSL + FTE

6.00

Other 100% plantation 100% recycled 50-99% recycled Total Reams per EFTSL + FTE

CDU

Deakin

Monash Murdoch SkillsTech SuniTAFE

Figure 10 - Total Copy Paper Purchased (reams of A4 equivalent) and Paper Use per Student and Staff Numbers per Institution for 2012 (note: Other includes categories of paper not listed individually, including carbon neutral paper)

15 | P a g e

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

Waste
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 evident aspects of waste are recycling stations and landfill bins on campuses. Figure 11 shows the increase in the percentage of in-door and out-door waste bins that had recycling bins accompanying them.

Waste measurement by waste removal services is becoming more accurate (although often waste calculations for internal and external reporting are calculated based on estimates of volume and then converted to weight using relevant conversion rates). Direct measurement by waste services suppliers is preferred, but not always available or reliable. Waste and recycling figures can also be affected by activities at each institution over the year, for example demolition waste (such as concrete) may not need to be disposed of every year. For this reason waste and recycling data in this report do not include concrete, demolition or industrial waste.

Proportion of Waste Stations with Recycling Facilities

100% 80% 60%

Unis 2012
TAFEs 2012 All 2012 All 2011

40% 20%
0% % In-door Waste Stations with % Out-door Waste Stations Recycling Option with Recycling Option

Figure 11 - Percentage of In-door and Out-door Waste Bins accompanied by Recycling Facilities in 2012

The recycling rate is the proportion of total waste generated that is recycled. Members recycling rates averaged 29% in 2012 (see Figure 12) and 26% in 2011. In 2009, Australia-wide, approximately 1030 kg of waste was disposed to landfill per person; of this, 32% was organics, 30% masonry materials, 11% paper and cardboard, and 8% plastics (NSC 2013). SCG Members reported waste to landfill of 59.7 kg per person (students and staff). Waste and recycling amounts per institution are shown in Figures 13 and 14.

16 | P a g e

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

University Waste and University Waste and TAFE Waste and Recycling Proportions Recycling Proportions Recycling Proportions
29%
29%

27%

71%

71%

73%

Total Waste Recycled/Composted (tonnes) Total Waste Recycled/Composted (tonnes) Total Waste to Landfill (tonnes)Total Waste to Landfill (tonnes)

Figure 12 - Total Waste Proportion of Recycling/Composting and Waste to Landfill at Universities and at TAFEs in 2012 (by weight)

It is worth noting that better recycling and waste to landfill results are achievable when the appropriate services, incentives and infrastructure are available. For example, Australia sent 58% of its municipal waste to landfill in 2010, whereas Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands sent less than half a per cent of their waste to landfill in the same year (NSC 2013, p 195). Figures 13 and 14 provide details on waste to landfill and recycling per person and per floor area. TAFEs and universities had similar amounts of waste to landfill and recycling in 2012 when compared per person (Figure 13). When compared by floor area TAFEs waste and recycling figures were both higher than universities (Figure 14), although the proportions were about the same (Figure 12).

Waste Generation per Institution/Person (kgs/(EFTSL+FTE))

160 140

kgs/(EFTSL+FTE)

120 100 80 60 40 20 0
na

Recycling 2012

Waste to Landfill 2012

Recycling 2011

Waste to Landfill 2011

Figure 13 - Waste Generation and Recycling per Institution for 2011 and 2012 (kilograms per Equivalent Full-time Student Load and Full-time Equivalent Staff)

17 | P a g e

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

Waste Generation per Institution/Floor Area (kgs/GFA m2)

25 20

kgs/m2

15 10 5 0
na

Recycling 2012

Waste to Landfill 2012

Recycling 2011

Waste to Landfill 2011

Figure 14 - Waste Generation and Recycling per Institution for 2011 and 2012 (kilograms per Gross Floor Area Metres Squared)

Initiatives to reduce and monitor waste at each institute are listed below in Figure 15. Overall 2.6 FTE staff were employed to oversee these programs. Other initiatives to reduce waste focussed on eliminating the creation of waste, such as Murdochs biodegradable food packaging trial (Case Study 2).

Waste Reduction
Committee Behaviour Change Dedicated Staff (FTE) Data from Waste Contractors Waste Audit in 2012 E-waste Recycling Target: Reduce Waste to Landfill Target: Reduce Recycling to Landfill

Figure 15 - Institutional Commitment to Waste Reduction for each SCG Member in 2012

CD U De aki Mo n na M u sh rd Ch och ish o GO lm TA Sk i FE llsT Sun ech iTA S CI F E T

0.2 1.5 0.2 0.2 0.5

18 | P a g e

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

Case Study 2 Murdoch University Sustainable Food Packaging Trial

BagasseWare packaging

Natural cornstarch bowl range

Selected food vendors on campus were asked to participate in a one-week trial using biodegradable packaging, rather than their standard single-use (recyclable) plastic containers. Murdoch provided sustainable packaging made from bagasse (a sugar cane by-product) and corn starch, to the vendors. Pre-trial waste audits and surveys established baseline data for waste and recycling behaviours. Patrons and vendors were surveyed during the trial to gauge acceptance of the packaging and any problems or issues identified. The surveys also sought to establish vendors and patrons understanding of which packaging items could be recycled. Information gathered during the survey was compared against results from waste audits and revealed that although people might say they know what can and cannot be recycled, their actions were not consistent with their knowledge. There was a high level of support for the use of sustainable packaging among patrons, but some reservations from vendors, mainly around suitability of the sustainable packages being pre-filled and kept warm for quick take-away options. Recommendations from the trial included: building the use of sustainable packaging into vendors contracts; developing a range of incentives and disincentives for vendors and patrons; ongoing education for vendors and patrons through engagement strategies (including appropriate signage); investigating introduction of dine in cutlery and plates/bowls; and investigating a deposit -based reusable take-out container scheme. On-site composting for organic waste, including food waste and the sustainable packaging will also be considered. Roll out of the sustainable packaging recommendations is being explored for 2014.

Biodiversity
Biodiversity (the variety of genes, populations, species, communities, ecosystems, and ecological processes that make up life on Earth) (Watson 2011) is inextricably linked to wellbeing, quality of life and sustenance. In 2013 more than 1340 species of plants and 440 species of animals were on the national threatened species list (NSC 2013). Organisations can affect biodiversity in a direct and tangible way, for example by designating wilderness zones or corridors on campus; however they also affect biodiversity indirectly through almost every action and decision they make, from consumption and land use to building materials and teaching methods. For the purpose of this report biodiversity is intended to refer to native biodiversity and ecosystems on and around 19 | P a g e

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

campuses. As can be seen in Figure 16, universities are more likely to have designated biodiversity zones and they have a greater commitment to protection and restoration. This may be due to the large areas of land that universities tend to occupy, whilst TAFEs generally occupy less land. SCG members were asked to respond to questions about institutional commitment and systems to support biodiversity as well as areas of land that are considered diverse. Efforts made by individual SCG members to support and improve biodiversity on campus are listed in Figure 17.

Implementation of Biodiversity Management at Universities and TAFEs

Committee 100%
80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Initiatives to Protect/Improve Biodiversity

Designated Zones

Biodiversity Incl in Master Plans

Biodiversity Awareness Initiatives

Policy for Native/Indigenous Planting

Universities 2012

TAFEs 2012

All 2012

All 2011

Figure 16 - Percentage of Respondents with Listed Biodiversity Initiatives for Universities and TAFEs (2012) and Averaged for all Respondents (2011 and 2012)

20 | P a g e

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

Biodiversity
Committee Dedicated Staff (FTE) Biodiversity Incl in Master Plans Initiatives to Protect/Improve Biodiversity Policy for Native/Indigenous Planting Biodiversity Awareness Initiatives Designated Zones

Figure 17 - Institutional Commitment to Biodiversity for each SCG Member in 2012

Water
The tertiary education sector is not a large user of water in Australia, although it has made considerable efforts over the past ten years or so to reduce its water use. Sectors that use large quantities of water include: agriculture, forestry and fishing; electricity, gas, water and waste service; and manufacturing and mining (NSC 2013). Although that is not to say tertiary education institutes do not have an impact on these other sectors by indirectly contributing to water use, for example through energy and food consumption.

Australia-wide water consumption in 2011 was 597kL per person (equating to approximately 1635 litres per person per day), half of what it was in 2001 (NSC 2013). For SCG members, Figure 18 shows that average water use per person was 10.57kL in 2012 and 11.41kL in 2011. To put water use at members institutions into context of its contribution to national water use, in 2012 the 10.57kL per person reported by SCG members equated to 29 litres per person (students and staff) per day and 31 litres in 2011. Figure 19 compares water use based on GFA and shows that, as with the per person normalisation, usage levels remained steady from 2011 to 2012.

CD U De aki Mo n na M u sh rd Ch och ish o GO lm TA Sk i FE llsT Sun ech iTA SCI FE T

0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 2.0

21 | P a g e

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

Water Use per Institution/Person (kL/(EFTSL+FTE))
60

50
kL/(EFTSL+FTE)
40 30 20 10

na

2012 Ground, Surface, Collected, Recycled, Treated 2011 Ground, Surface, Collected, Recycled, Treated

2012 Mains 2011 Mains

Figure 18 - Water Consumption per Institution and by Sector for 2011 and 2012 (kilolitres per Equivalent Full-time Student Load and Full-time Equivalent staff)

Water Use per Institution/Floor Area (kL/GFA m2)

4.0 3.5 3.0

kL/m2

2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0

0.5
0.0
na

2012 Ground, Surface, Collected, Recycled, Treated 2011 Ground, Surface, Collected, Recycled, Treated

2012 Mains 2011 Mains

Figure 19 - Water Consumption per Institution and by Sector for 2011 and 2012 (kilolitres per Gross Floor Area Metres Squared)

Water restrictions and a sense of obligation to the community have led to rain water tanks and other methods of surface collection becoming more common in member institutions. For example SuniTAFE won the Lower Murray Rural Water Innovation Award Surface Water Re-use for its redevelopment of existing stormwater 22 | P a g e

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

drains within the campus (see Figure 20). The drainage system is now able to collect and harvest incoming stormwater and pump it to the existing storage dam for reuse on site. Figure 21 shows the types of water efficiency support programs and targets that members have in place.

Figure 20 - Garden Redevelopment for Surface Water Collection (left) and Win Scott (SuniTAFE CEO) and Ron Leamon (Lower Murray Water MD) standing by the water catchment area at SuniTAFE (right)

Water Efficency
Water Restrictions Committee Behaviour Change Dedicated Staff (FTE) Grey Water Recycling Rain Water Collection Target: Reduce Water Use Target: Increase Grey Water Use Target: Increase Onsite Collection

Figure 21 - Institutional Commitment to Water Efficiency for each SCG Member in 2012

Buildings
SCG members were asked to self-assess how well sustainability was integrated into the building process at various levels, from the planning and procurement processes to leadership and support for sustainable buildings provided by senior management. Figure 22 highlights these responses. Each of the four categories could score a maximum of 100 and the highest possible total score would be 400. As can be seen in the figure, most members have a long way to go to ensure they are investing in sustainable building stock for the future. The average total score for 2012 was just 134 (out of 400). The support processes in place to help ensure new buildings are sustainable have remained largely the same compared to 2011, when the average score was 135. From 2011 to 2012 sustainability integration in Project Procurement and Leadership declined by 12 and 10 per 23 | P a g e

CD U De aki Mo n na M u sh rd Ch och ish o GO lm TA Sk i FE llsT Sun ech iTA SCI FE T

0.2 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.5

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

cent respectively, whereas sustainability integration in Strategic Planning and Facilities Management increased in both by 9%.

Integration of Sustainability in New Buildings at Each Stage of the Process

0 CDU Deakin Monash 50 100 Total Score (out of 400) 150 200 250 300 350 400

Murdoch
Chisholm GOTAFE SkillsTech SuniTAFE SCIT Strategic Planning Project Procurement Facilities Management Leadership

Figure 22 - Integration of Sustainability into each Process of Building Planning, Construction and Use in 2012

As energy use from buildings contributes about 26% of Australias GHG emissions, building stock will continue to have a significant impact (CSIRO 2011) and it is apparent more effort is needed to ensure existing building stock is managed well. As can be seen in Figure 23 there were no green leases in place at any members institutions. Green Leases help ensure tenants (at institutions where space is leased out) behave in an environmentally responsible manner; this might extend from energy and water efficiency, to the types of products sold, packaging used or how waste is disposed. There is a National Green Leasing Policy available at: ee.ret.gov.au/non-residential-buildings/green-leases-private-sector, however the policy focuses mainly on energy and water efficiency.

Green Buildings
Committee Dedicated Staff (FTE) Perform. based rating system used for existing buildings Green Leases

2.0

Figure 23 - Institutional Commitment to Green Buildings for each SCG Member in 2012

CD U De aki Mo n na M u sh rd Ch och ish o GO lm TA Sk i FE llsT Sun ech iTA SCI FE T

1.7 0.2 0.1 1.0

24 | P a g e

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The tertiary education sector as a whole does not account for a large proportion of Australias energy use (NSC 2013) although some larger institutes are in the top 300 energy users in Australia (EEO 2013). However energy use accounts for a large proportion of each institutions GHG emissions and therefore, members remain committed to improving energy efficiency and reducing GHG emissions. The tertiary education sector also has the potential to influence energy efficiency outside their campuses by ensuring graduates are well equipped to make a positive impact when they complete their education and begin work in other sectors. Research and researchers contribute by developing energy efficient technology, such as the fuel cell recently installed to power a building at Deakin (Case Study 3).

In 2012 64% of facilities energy use by members was electricity; the remainder was largely natural gas. Approximately 0.2% of this energy was sourced from on-site renewable energy and less than 6% was GreenPower. Figure 24 refers to the proportion of electricity consumed by each member that is GreenPower. GreenPower is electricity from renewable sources such as wind and solar, which therefore helps reduce GHG emissions. The amount of energy consumed by each member (Figures 25 and 26) also includes natural gas consumption, and on-site renewable energy such as from solar panels.

Case Study 3 Fuel Cells at Deakin University Deakin implemented a number of energy reduction initiatives in 2012, one of which was the installation of natural gas fuel cells at a marine research facility at Deakins Warrnambool Campus. A fuel cell is a generator that uses chemical reactions rather than combustion to generate electricity and heat. Fuel cells have been around for some time but are finding wider commercial building applications in recent years. Six fuel cell units were installed at Deakin totalling 9kW per hour of electricity generation and 3kW of heat. This will provide a significant proportion of the buildings electricity needs including water pumps, lights and office equipment. This will be the only 3-phase BlueGen installation in the world. By changing the energy source from coal-fired grid supply to natural gas, Deakin will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 63,000 kg C02-e per year; contributing to Deakins commitment to reduce its carbon footprint.

Fuel cell prefabrication plantroom

25 | P a g e

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

GreenPower as a Percentage of Electricity Purchased
30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 2011 2012

0%

Figure 24 - Percentage of Electricity Consumption that was GreenPower in 2011 and 2012

As can be seen in Figures 25 and 26, average energy consumption has remained relatively steady from 2011 to 2012, when normalised. Actual consumption has increased by 6.9% (Table 1). On average, TAFEs show reductions per person and per floor area, whereas universities show increases per person (Figure 25) and per floor area (Figure 26). Individual institutions showed decreases per person with the exception of Monash and SuniTAFE; results were more mixed per floor area, with increases recorded at CDU, Monash, GOTAFE and SuniTAFE.

Facilities Energy Consumption per Institution/Person (GJ/(EFTSL+FTE))

14.00
12.00

GJ/(EFTSL+FTE)

10.00 8.00 6.00 2011 2012

na

4.00 2.00
0.00

Figure 25 - Facilities Energy Consumption per Institution, and Sector Averages for 2011 and 2012 (Gigajoules per Equivalent Full-time Student Unit and Full Time Equivalent Staff)

26 | P a g e

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

Facilities Energy Consumption per Institution/Floor Area (GJ/GFA m2)
1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00

GJ/m2

2011 2012
na

Figure 26 - Facilities Energy Consumption per Institution and Sector Averages for 2011 and 2012 (Gigajoules per Gross Floor Area in Metres Squared)

GHG Emissions from electricity consumption accounted for approximately 84% of members reported emissions (for members that reported facilities energy, air travel and fleet vehicles). (Air travel and vehicles are discussed further in the following section.) Normalised facilities GHG emissions are shown in Figures 27 and 28. These emissions are shown net of the offsets members purchased to help reduce the impact of their facilities emissions. SCIT retained its Carbon Neutral status in 2012 and therefore no emissions are shown. Facilities GHG emissions increased by 9.1% overall, but only increased by 3.5% per person and 4.4% per floor area. The percentage of facilities GHG emissions that were offset decreased slightly from 2.21% in 2011 to 2.13% in 2012. In Australia GHG emissions per capita in 2012 were 24.4 tonnes per person (Carbon Neutral 2013) or 67 kg per person per day. The education sector contributes to this per capita use somewhat; of the members who reported emissions for facilities energy, vehicle fleet and air travel the average GHG emissions per person (students and staff) were 2.44 tonnes or 6.69 kg per person per day.

27 | P a g e

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

Facilities GHG Emissions Net of Offsets per Institution/Person (Tonnes CO2e/(EFTSL+FTE))
3.00

Tonnes CO2e/(EFTSL+FTE)

2.50 2.00 1.50 2011

1.00
0.50 0.00
na

2012

Figure 27 - Facilities GHG Emissions Net of Offsets per Institution and Sector Averages for 2011 and 2012 (Tonnes of CO2-e per Equivalent Full-time Student Load and Full-time Equivalent Staff)

Facilities GHG Emissions Net of Offsets per Institution/Floor Area (Tonnes CO2e/GFA m2)
0.25

Tonnes CO2e/m2

0.20
0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00
na

2011 2012

Figure 28 - GHG Emissions Net of Offsets per Institution and Sector Averages for 2011 and 2012 (Tonnes of CO2-e per Gross Floor Area in Metres Squared)

Efforts to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions include behaviour change, infrastructure changes and purchasing or generating renewable energy. Figure 29 shows the existence of energy efficiency and GHG reduction activities by members. There were seven FTE staff responsible for energy efficiency and emissions reduction at member institutions in 2012.

28 | P a g e

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

CD U De aki Mo n na M u sh rd Ch och ish o GO lm TA Sk i FE llsT Sun ech iTA S CI F E T
2.0 0.5 3.7 0.1 0.2 0.5

Energy Efficency
Committee Strategy/Policy/Action Plan Behaviour Change Dedicated Staff (FTE) Generate Renewable Energy On-site Purchase GreenPower Target: Reduce Energy/GHG Purchase GHG Offsets

Figure 29 - Institutional Commitment to Energy Efficiency for each SCG Member in 2012

Transport
The environmental impact of transport for the sector falls into two main categories: travel for business and travel to and from work/study. Travel for business generally includes travel for operational purposes, over which institutions have some control, such as air travel and vehicles for staff use, whether they are owned or leased by the institute. Initiatives to reduce the environmental impacts of travel are highlighted in Figures 30 and 31 and show that members made efforts to reduce the environmental impacts of both categories of travel, even if it was outside their direct control.

Sustainable Transport
Sustainable Transport Committee Awareness Campaign Dedicated Staff (FTE) Working with Gov't to Expand Public Transport Cyclist Support Systems on Campus Car Pool Program Strategies to Reduce Air Travel Video Conf (VC) Available Collect Data on VC Use

Figure 30 - Institutional Commitment to Sustainable Transport for each SCG Member in 2012

CD U De aki Mo n na M u sh rd Ch och ish o GO lm TA Sk i FE llsT Sun ech iTA SCI FE T

0.5 1.2 0.2 0.2

29 | P a g e

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

Sustainable Transport Initiatives 2012

Sust. Transport Committee 100% Collect Data on VC Use 80% 60% Awareness Campaign

40%
20% Video Conf (VC) Avail 0% Working with Gov't to Expand PT

Strategies to Reduce Air Travel

Cyclist Support Systems on Campus

Car Pool Program

Universities

TAFEs

Figure 31 - Percentage of Respondents with Listed Sustainable Transport Initiatives for Universities and TAFEs

Data on travel for business purposes (kilometres travelled by vehicle and by air) was reported by most members. Vehicular travel is difficult to compare as data for vehicles under a novated lease was not available. The mix of owned and leased vehicles at each institute varies greatly and therefore does not allow for an accurate comparison. Air travel emissions and distance travelled are depicted in Figure 32.

Domestic air travel in Australia comprises an increasing share of overall passenger kilometres per capita, up from 6% in 1990-1991 to 16% in 2009-2010 (NSC 2013, p 220). Pressure to provide opportunities for staff learning and development (such as attending conferences) and internationalisation of campuses (particularly by universities) means the environmental impact of air travel is rarely, if ever, taken into account when making business decisions. As can be seen in Figures 30 and 31 only one member had strategies to reduce air travel.

30 | P a g e

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

Distance Travelled by Air (kms) and Associated GHG Emissions (tonnes), per Staff FTE
Tonnes of GHG Emissions per Staff FTE Kilometres Travelled per Staff FTE
4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 CDU Deakin Monash Murdoch Chisholm GOTAFE Total Staff Air Travel (km) (OS & Domestic) per Staff FTE Total CO2 -e (tonnes) from Air Travel (SCOPE 3) per Staff FTE 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0

Figure 32 Distance Travelled by Air (kilometres per Staff FTE) and GHG Emissions (Tonnes of CO2-e per Staff FTE) by Institution for 2012

Much of the focus on minimising GHG emissions from travel for business has been on reducing car fleet engine sizes, fuel use and vehicle use in general. Some of this has been accomplished via the use of video conferencing.

Efforts to reduce GHG emissions from travel to and from work/study have focussed on sustainable transport options. In 2011 the dominant mode of travel to and from work in Australia was by car with a single occupant (68%). Rates of travel to and from work as a passenger, pedestrian, and cyclist were around 5% each. Travel via public transport and taxi made up about 11%. Approximately 5% of people worked from home (NSC 2013). Members try to encourage staff and students to travel to and from campus via sustainable means of transport. Figure 31 shows cycling was supported by five members with the provision of facilities on campus such as bike lockers and showers (see Case Study 4). Car pooling software and incentives were also provided by four members. Some institutes offered discounted or salary sacrificed tickets to encourage and reward travel by public transport. Overall more than two FTE staff were employed by members to help manage a transition to sustainable transport options.

31 | P a g e

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

Case Study 4 - Bike Hub as Part of a Bike Friendly Campus at Deakin A Deakin University initiative to make its Geelong Waurn Ponds Campus a bike friendly Campus has assisted in progressing sustainable transport use. Advancing both social and environmental sustainability, two new bike hubs, various bike racks, bike lanes, and signage were installed on the regional Campus. The bike hub (pictured) has been designed to stand out from the crowd while also providing functionality and purpose. The hub has 20 bike hoops, 28 lockers and two solar heated showers.

Bike hub at Waurn Ponds Campus

Sustainability, the Sector and the Future

The tertiary education sector has reacted to environmental challenges in a positive way by reducing its own environmental impacts and continuing to expand its areas of responsibility. For example GHG emissions calculations are now more likely to include not just GHG emissions from energy, but also those from air travel, paper use and waste. The next stage for the sector is to expand this responsibility beyond our own boundaries (both physical and legal) and take responsibility for our wider impacts such as those on biodiversity and ecosystems. Part of this broader outlook for sustainability needs to include an institutional-level approach to integrating social and environmental performance and recognition that an integrated approach is necessary for a sustainable future. The value of biodiversity and ecosystems is not included in economic decision making; this needs to change (Watson 2011). This is not just an issue for tertiary education in Australia, but is a wide-spread problem throughout the business world. There is a need for all sectors, including tertiary education, to look beyond their immediate boundaries and take responsibility for the impacts of their decisions and actions. Sourcing of products, services, energy, food, transport options and buildings are just a few examples of daily occurrences that directly affect off-campus (and in many cases on-campus) biodiversity. Specific to the sector is the need to recognise and formalise the alignment of social and environmental sustainability. In a global context many of us realise it is impossible to have one without the other and yet within the sector the two are often separated. This may be because traditionally the departments responsible for the institutes social wellbeing (such as staff, students and community) are not the same departments or 32 | P a g e

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

divisions that can have the biggest immediate impact on the environment (such as facilities, building management, finance and procurement). Institutions need a better strategy for social sustainability. We are good at including students categorised as at risk or vulnerable but we are not good at ensuring this responsible approach to society and the community is across all that we do. For example investment strategies, procurement processes, and approaches to managing staff need to have a positive, rather than a negative impact on society and environment. EfS is a growing area for the sector and an area of potential influence for the wider community, both domestically and internationally. What our future organisational and governmental leaders learn about sustainability could have far reaching impacts. The importance of EfS cannot be underestimated. The impact of having graduates that are familiar with, and see the relevance of, sustainability concepts in everyday life, is not yet known, but the potential is huge. Implementing EfS is expensive. Curriculum needs to be developed or revised and academic and teaching staff require professional development. It is not a sustainability measure that can be justified with cost savings, such as saving energy, and with the financial pressure tertiary education institutes are now under it is most likely the full implementation of EfS will be delayed. Students exposed to an education centred on immersion in sustainability principles, philosophy and application are a greater immediate benefit to business and the community than to an education institute. Therefore it requires a culture of community engagement and organisational altruism. This is more difficult to foster in times of great financial pressure. Efforts to reduce environmental impacts continue at member institutions, although activities that have an overall financial cost are on the decline, for example the purchase of GreenPower and emission offsets. Reduction of GHG emissions continues in other ways such as reductions in fleet vehicle size and building energy efficiencies. There are good examples in the sector of sustainable buildings, however the majority of the buildings are older stock and were not built to include sustainability principles. There remains room for improvement and the costs of operating a building are rarely factored into the initial construction or renovation costs of the building. With increasing energy, water and carbon costs forecasted in the near future, this simple change to how new building and refurbishment costs are calculated could help result in even greater environmental and financial savings. Lastly, we as a sector need to paint a picture of what a sustainable education institute looks like, particularly one that can adapt to climate change. We are reducing our environmental impacts and becoming more sustainable, but what is the end goal? We need a vision of what a sustainable organisation would look like, how it operates and how it would contribute to a sustainable nation and world. At the most senior levels the big questions need to be asked, such as: are we doing enough; how should we adapt; do we need to change the way we do business; are our future plans going to promote or hinder sustainability; what does a workforce committed to sustainability consist of; what does a campus based on sustainability look like; what does sustainable education, or research look like? How do we know when we are sustainable?

33 | P a g e

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

References
National Sustainability Council (2013). Sustainable Australia Report 2013: Conversations with the future. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. International Organization for Standardization (2010). ISO 26000:2010 Guidance on social responsibility. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO. Watson, Robert (2011). Biodiversity as a strategic priority for commissioning and use of evidence. Retrieved from sd.defra.gov.uk/2011/04/biodiversity-as-a-strategic-priority-for-commissioning-and-use-of-evidence/ on 28/06/2013. Zero Waste SA (2013). What can be recycled from e-waste? Retrieved from www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/ewaste/what-can-be-recycled-from-e-waste on 01/07/2013. UK Government Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2006). Procuring the Future: Sustainable Procurement National Action Plan: Recommendations from the Sustainable Procurement Task Force. London, UK: DEFRA. CSIRO (2011). Energy for Buildings. Retrieved from www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Energy/Renewables-andSmart-Systems/Energy-for-buildings.aspx on 01/07/2013 Carbon Neutral (2012). Australias Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Retrieved from www.carbonneutral.com.au/climate-change/australian-emissions.html on 02/07/2013 Energy Efficiency Opportunities (2013). Results and Participants. Retrieved from energyefficiencyopportunities.gov.au/results-and-participants on 16/07/2013

34 | P a g e

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

Appendix 1 Data by Institution

The following tables include data reported by SCG members for 2012. Where members had previously reported 2011 data this has also been included. The data includes Staff, Students and Gross Floor Area by Institution (Table A); Facilities Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions (Table B); Total Water Consumed (Per Capita and Gross Floor Area) by Institution (Table C); and Waste to Landfill and Recycling (Per Capita and Gross Floor Area) by Institution (Table D).

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

Table A: Staff, students and gross floor area by institution
Institution Charles Darwin University Deakin University Monash University Murdoch University Chisholm Institute of TAFE Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE SkillsTech Australia Sunraysia Institute of TAFE Sunshine Coast TAFE TOTAL Students (EFTSL) 2011 2012 3,906 24,436 38,525 8,849 12,140 3,042 NA 2,765 6,557 100,221 4,445 25,669 38,542 10,512 13,352 4,135 5,197 3,047 6,376 111,274 Academic /Teaching Staff (FTE) 2011 2012 888 1,208 3,524 505 684 304 NA 92 224 7,429 888 1,312 3,589 542 724 292 337 85 185 7,954 General/NonTeaching Staff (FTE) 2011 2012 623 1,586 4,123 771 425 191 NA 110 299 8,127 623 1,638 4,582 847 314 181 378 99 231 8,894 Total Staff (FTE) 2011 2012 1,511 2,793 7,647 1,276 1,109 495 NA 202 523 15,556 1,511 2,950 8,171 1,389 1,038 473 715 184 416 16,848 Total Staff + Students Gross Floor Area (m 2 ) 2011 2012 2011 2012 5,417 27,229 46,172 10,125 13,249 3,537 NA 2,967 7,080 115,777 5,956 28,619 46,713 11,901 14,390 4,608 5,912 3,231 6,792 123,791 288,067 650,743 123,030 111,719 54,347 NA 29,029 37,303 122,490 316,874 672,528 132,075 119,613 52,767 69,372 29,029 38,335

128,122 1,418,029 1,553,083

Note: If numbers of staff could not be subclassified into either academic/teaching or general/non-teaching then the total staff has been included in one category only.

35 | P a g e

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

Table B: Facilities Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table B: Facilities energy consumption (includes all electricity, gas and diesel oil consumed for facilities and excludes transport-related energy use) and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (net of offsets)
Energy GreenPower (b) % of total electricity purchased 2011 2012 0.0% 1.2% 15.0% 20.4% 13.0% 27.7% NA 18.9% 0.0% 10.6% 14.3% 11.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.9% 18.8% 0.0% 11.2% 0.0% 21.9% 0.0% 9.7% 4.2% 9.0% Electricity (c) GHG Emissions (Net of offsets) (d) t CO2 -e/(staff FTE + students EFTSL) 2011 2012 2.56 2.14 2.33 1.60 1.11 1.22 NA 1.09 0.00 2.20 0.80 1.88 2.55 2.04 2.68 1.42 1.04 1.14 0.91 0.99 0.00 2.31 0.78 1.89 t CO2 -e/GFA m 2 (a) 2011 0.11 0.20 0.17 0.13 0.13 0.08 NA 0.11 0.00 0.17 0.09 0.15 2012 0.12 0.18 0.19 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.11 0.00 0.17 0.09 0.16

Institution Charles Darwin University Deakin University Monash University Murdoch University Chisholm Institute of TAFE Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE SkillsTech Australia Sunraysia Institute of TAFE Sunshine Coast TAFE Universities (Average) TAFEs (Average) All (Average)
Notes :

GJ/head (a) 2011 2012 12.46 9.12 11.38 9.15 5.26 6.85 NA 4.37 1.89 10.50 4.48 9.10 11.61 7.74 13.18 8.08 4.93 5.70 3.35 4.44 1.78 10.76 4.11 8.95

GJ/GFA m 2 2011 2012 0.55 0.86 0.81 0.75 0.62 0.45 NA 0.45 0.36 0.79 0.52 0.74 0.56 0.70 0.92 0.73 0.59 0.50 0.29 0.49 0.32 0.81 0.46 0.74

kWh/head (a) 2011 2012 3460 1447 1778 2042 835 1078 NA 944 494 1809 789 1573 3224 1428 2052 1781 673 837 931 877 465 1900 717 1578

kWh/GFA m 2 2011 2012 151.41 136.81 126.17 168.02 99.07 70.14 NA 96.51 93.68 135.73 91.12 128.42 156.75 128.95 142.50 160.45 80.91 73.10 79.33 97.63 82.42 142.36 80.98 130.14

(a ) Per hea d i ncl udes s taff (FTE) a nd s tudents (EFTSL). (b) Where no fi gures were gi ven by i ns titutions for GreenPower i t i s a s s umed no GreenPower wa s purcha s ed. (c) Ca l cul a tion combi nes kWh purcha s ed from the gri d, GreenPower a nd el ectri ci ty genera ted through ons i te renewa bl es . (d) Offs ets recorded a s 'fa ci l i ties offs ets ' or 'other offs ets ' ha ve been deducted. If offs ets were recorded for 'a i r tra vel ' or 'vehi cl es ' they were not deducted from fa ci l i ties emi s s i ons .

36 | P a g e

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

Table C: Total Water Consumed (Per Person and Gross Floor Area) by Institution
Table C: Total water consumed per head (staff FTE & students EFTSL) and per gross floor area (GFA) by institution
Institution Charles Darwin University Deakin University Monash University Murdoch University Chisholm Institute of TAFE Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE SkillsTech Australia Sunraysia Institute of TAFE Sunshine Coast TAFE Universities (Average) TAFEs (Average) All (Average) Water per head (kL/(staff + students) 2011 2012 59.8 3.7 7.1 47.2 2.7 7.8 NA 5.7 1.6 13.8 3.4 11.4 37.2 3.3 8.1 41.7 2.5 6.9 1.5 7.3 1.6 12.8 3.2 10.2 Water per floor area (kL/GFA m 2 ) 2011 2012 2.6 0.4 0.5 3.9 0.3 0.5 NA 0.6 0.3 1.0 0.4 0.9 1.8 0.3 0.6 3.8 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.8 0.3 1.0 0.4 0.8

Note: Ins titutions tha t di d not provi de wa ter da ta or GFA fi gures ha ve been excl uded from the a vera ge ca l cul a tions .

37 | P a g e

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

Table D: Waste to Landfill and Recycling (Per Person and Gross Floor Area) by Institution
Table D: Waste to landfill and recycling per head (staff FTE + students EFTSL) and per gross floor area (GFA) by institution
Institution Charles Darwin University Deakin University Monash University Murdoch University Chisholm Institute of TAFE Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE SkillsTech Australia Sunraysia Institute of TAFE Sunshine Coast TAFE Universities (Average) TAFEs (Average) All (Average) Waste per head (kg/head) 2011 2012 0.0 47.6 62.7 53.2 99.4 41.7 NA 81.0 96.2 56.6 88.9 64.5 0.0 51.7 62.3 37.2 94.1 31.8 94.0 24.0 47.8 55.4 65.6 57.9 Recycling per head (kg/head) 2011 2012 0.0 10.9 21.4 41.1 35.5 18.0 NA 15.0 23.9 20.3 27.9 22.2 9.2 12.9 26.0 36.5 35.9 12.5 9.6 3.2 19.7 23.2 24.7 23.6 Waste per floor area (kg/GFA m ) 2011 2012 0.0 4.5 4.4 4.4 11.8 2.7 NA 8.3 18.3 4.5 10.3 5.5 0.0 4.7 4.3 3.4 11.3 2.8 8.0 2.7 8.5 4.3 7.9 4.9
2

Recycling per floor area (kg/GFA m 2 ) 2011 2012 0.0 1.0 1.5 3.4 4.2 1.2 NA 1.5 4.5 1.6 3.2 1.9 0.4 1.2 1.8 3.3 4.3 1.1 0.8 0.4 3.5 1.8 3.0 2.0

Note: Ins titutions tha t di d not provi de wa s te da ta or GFA fi gures ha ve been excl uded from the a vera ge ca l cul a tions . Concrete a nd demol i ti on wa s te (to l a ndfi l l a nd recycl ed) a nd i ndus tri a l wa s te a re not i ncl uded i n thes e fi gures .

38 | P a g e