australian tertiary education sector sustainability report 2012

Sustainable Campus Group

Tertiary Education Sector

Sustainability Report 2012

Sustainable Campus Group 2012

2 | P a g e

© 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: [email protected] 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.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.monash.edu/research/sustainability-institute


3 | P a g e

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


4 | P a g e

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 Victoria Charles Darwin University (CDU) Chisholm Institute of TAFE (Chisholm)

Deakin University (Deakin) Queensland Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE (GOTAFE)

SkillsTech Australia (SkillsTech) Monash University (Monash) Sunshine Coast Institute of TAFE (SCIT) Sunraysia Institute of TAFE (SuniTAFE)

Western Australia

Murdoch University (Murdoch)

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


5 | P a g e

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 Council’s (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


6 | P a g e

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.

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.

Indicator 2011 2012 Change ResponsesInstitutional Commitment

Average no. of staff (FTE) in environmental improvement roles

per 1000 students (EFTSL) and staff (FTE) 0.216 0.216 -0.3% 7

Institutional Scope

Total student and staff numbers (EFTSL + FTE) 115,777 122,210 5.6% 8

Total gross floor area (GFA) in metres squared (m2) 1,418,029 1,483,711 4.6% 8

Education for Sustainability

No. of SCG Members with EfS implementation strategy/plan 4 5 25.0% 7

No. of TAFEs with EfS implementation strategy/plan 3 3 0.0% 7

Energy and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

Total facilities energy consumption in Gigajoules 1,054,101 1,126,356 6.9% 8

Percentage of total facilities energy consumption provided by on-site renewables 0.10% 0.20% 8

Percentage of total facilities energy consumption purchased as GreenPower 6.82% 5.83% 8

Average facilities energy consumption (GJ) per GFA m2 0.74 0.76 2.1% 8

Average facilities energy consumption (GJ) per EFTSL + FTE 9.10 9.22 1.2% 8

Gross GHG emissions (tonnes) from facilities energy (Scopes 1, 2 & 3) 222,205 242,459 9.1% 8

Percentage of total GHG emissions from facilities energy that is offset 2.21% 2.13% 8

GHG emissions (tonnes) from facilities energy net of offsets per GFA m2 0.15 0.16 4.4% 8

GHG emissions (tonnes) from facilities energy net of offsets per EFTSL + FTE 1.88 1.94 3.5% 8

Water

Total water consumption (kilolitres) 1,321,249 1,292,197 -2.2% 8

Percentage of total water consumption collected/recycled/reclaimed on-site 0.66% 0.88% 8

Average water consumption (litres) per GFA m2 932 871 -6.5% 8

Average water consumption (litres) per EFTSL + FTE 11,412 10,574 -7.3% 8

Waste (recycling incl. co-mingle, paper & card, metal & e-waste)

Total waste to landfill (tonnes) 7,113 6,736 -5.3% 7

Total waste recycled (tonnes) 2,446 2,739 12.0% 7

Average waste to landfill (kilograms) per EFTSL + FTE 64.45 57.95 -10.1% 7

Average waste recycled (kilograms) per EFTSL + FTE 22.16 23.56 6.3% 7

Procurement

Total reams of copy paper purchased 257,999 254,102 -1.5% 4

Percentage of total copy paper with recycled content 61% 55% 4


7 | P a g e

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.

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

Respondents (2011 and 2012)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Committee/StaffMember Resp

ImplementationStrategy

GradAttribute/LearningOutcome/Perform

Criteria

Env/Sust Incl in allStudent Orientation

Students OfferedEnv/Sust Courses

Students OfferedEnv/Sust Subjects

Staff OfferedEnv/Sust/EfS Prof

Develop't

Students Must PassEnv/Sust Subject to

Graduate

Env/Sust Incl in allStaff Orientation

RewardEnv/Sustainable/EfSEngagement by Staff

Universities 2012 TAFEs 2012

All 2012 All 2011

Implemention of EfS at Universities and TAFEs


8 | P a g e

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 Monash’s new subject Sustainability - Learning and Living it, for which students were

surveyed before they began the subject and again on completion.

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 year’s 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.

Education for Sustainability (EfS) Dea

kin

Mon

ash

Mur

doch

Chis

holm

GO

TAFE

Skill

sTec

hSu

niTA

FESC

IT

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


9 | P a g e

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 socio-

economic 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)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Use Social ImpactAssessments (SIA) for

Dec'n Making

Reconciliation Action Plan(RAP)

Purchase from LocalSuppliers

Monitor Staff Wellbeing

Publicly Report no. ofWomen & Men at Each

Level

Achieved Gender Equalityin Management &/orBoard Composition

Targets for GenderEquality (Mgt & Board)

Financial & Social Supportfor 'Students at Risk'

Body/Grp Responsible for'Students at Risk'

Target: Increase No. ofATSI Students

Target: Increase no. of LowSES Students

Socially ResponsibleInvestment

Universities TAFEs

Implementation of Social Sustainability at Universities and TAFEs 2012


10 | P a g e

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

sector.

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 member’s institute are shown in Figure

5. Figure 6 illustrates an overall picture and highlights some of variances in approaches between TAFEs and

universities.

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

Social Sustainability CDU

Dea

kin

Mon

ash

Mur

doch

Chis

holm

GO

TAFE

Skill

sTec

hSu

niTA

FESC

IT

Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP)

Monitor Staff Wellbeing

Frequency Wellbeing Monitored (yr) 2 1 2 2/3 1 1 1 1 1

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

Institutional Commitment CDU

Dea

kin

Mon

ash

Mur

doch

Chis

holm

GO

TAFE

Skill

sTec

hSu

niTA

FESC

IT

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 3.7 13.0 2.1 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.5 1.0

Student Engagement Program

Staff Engagement Program

Won Env/Sust Award in 2012

Climate Change Adaptation Plan


11 | P a g e

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.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Env/Sust Policy

Env/Sust Strategy

Env/Sust Plan

Env/Sust Committee

Env/Sust Targets Inclin Staff KPIs

StudentEngagement

Program

Staff EngagementProgram

Won Env/SustAward in 2012

Climate ChangeAdaptation Plan

Universities TAFEs

Implementation of Institutional Commitment 2012


12 | P a g e

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 institute’s

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.

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

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

2011

2012

nana


13 | P a g e

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

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Committee

Env Assesments Inclin ITS Projects

Energy Saving Defaulton all Equip

Double Sided Defaultall Equip

Plan: Optimise EnergyUse in Data Centres

Plan: ImplementServer Virtualisation

Plan: ConsolidateServers in Data

Centres

Power Saving inComputer Labs

Behaviour Change

Computer-basedFaxing

Universities 2012 TAFEs 2012

All 2012 All 2011

Implementation of Green IT at Universities and TAFEs


14 | P a g e

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).

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.

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


15 | P a g e

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.

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)

Sustainable Purchasing CDU

Dea

kin

Mon

ash

Mur

doch

Chis

holm

GO

TAFE

Skill

sTec

hSu

niTA

FESC

IT

Committee

Behaviour Change

Dedicated Staff (FTE) 0.4 0.1 2.0

No. of Staff Trained 0.1 2.0

Target: Use Env Selection Criteria/Buy Green

Purchase from Local Suppliers

% of Local Purchases Monitored

-

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

CDU Deakin Monash Murdoch SkillsTech SuniTAFE

Rea

ms

per

EFT

SL +

FTE

Tota

l Rea

ms

Copy Paper Purchased (Total Reams & Reams per Person (EFTSL+FTE))

Other

100% plantation

100% recycled

50-99% recycled

Total Reams perEFTSL + FTE


16 | P a g e

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.

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.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% In-door Waste Stations withRecycling Option

% Out-door Waste Stationswith Recycling Option

Proportion of Waste Stations with Recycling Facilities

Unis 2012

TAFEs 2012

All 2012

All 2011


17 | P a g e

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).

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

29%

71%

University Waste and Recycling Proportions

Total Waste Recycled/Composted (tonnes)

Total Waste to Landfill (tonnes)

27%

73%

TAFE Waste and Recycling Proportions

29%

71%

University Waste and Recycling Proportions

Total Waste Recycled/Composted (tonnes)

Total Waste to Landfill (tonnes)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

kgs/

(EFT

SL+F

TE)

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

Recycling 2012 Waste to Landfill 2012 Recycling 2011 Waste to Landfill 2011

na


18 | P a g e

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 Murdoch’s biodegradable food packaging trial (Case Study 2).

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

kgs/

m2

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

Recycling 2012 Waste to Landfill 2012 Recycling 2011 Waste to Landfill 2011

na

Waste Reduction CDU

Dea

kin

Mon

ash

Mur

doch

Chis

holm

GO

TAFE

Skill

sTec

hSu

niTA

FESC

IT

Committee

Behaviour Change

Dedicated Staff (FTE) 0.2 1.5 0.2 0.2 0.5

Data from Waste Contractors

Waste Audit in 2012

E-waste Recycling

Target: Reduce Waste to Landfill

Target: Reduce Recycling to Landfill


19 | P a g e

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

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.

Case Study 2 – Murdoch University Sustainable Food Packaging Trial

BagasseWare packaging Natural cornstarch bowl range


20 | P a g e

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.

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

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Committee

Initiatives toProtect/Improve

Biodiversity

Biodiversity AwarenessInitiatives

Policy forNative/Indigenous

Planting

Biodiversity Incl inMaster Plans

Designated Zones

Universities 2012 TAFEs 2012 All 2012 All 2011

Implementation of Biodiversity Management at Universities and TAFEs


21 | P a g e

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.

Biodiversity CDU

Dea

kin

Mon

ash

Mur

doch

Chis

holm

GO

TAFE

Skill

sTec

hSu

niTA

FESC

IT

Committee


Biodiversity Incl in Master Plans

Initiatives to Protect/Improve Biodiversity

Policy for Native/Indigenous Planting

Biodiversity Awareness Initiatives

Designated Zones


22 | P a g e

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)

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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

kL/(

EFTS

L+FT

E)

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

2012 Ground, Surface, Collected, Recycled, Treated 2012 Mains


na

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

kL/m

2

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



na


23 | P a g e

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)

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

Water Efficency CDU

Dea

kin

Mon

ash

Mur

doch

Chis

holm

GO

TAFE

Skill

sTec

hSu

niTA

FESC

IT

Water Restrictions

Committee

Behaviour Change


Grey Water Recycling

Rain Water Collection

Target: Reduce Water Use

Target: Increase Grey Water Use

Target: Increase Onsite Collection


24 | P a g e

cent respectively, whereas sustainability integration in Strategic Planning and Facilities Management increased

in both by 9%.

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 Australia’s 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.

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

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

CDU

Deakin

Monash

Murdoch

Chisholm

GOTAFE

SkillsTech

SuniTAFE

SCIT

Total Score (out of 400)

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

Strategic Planning Project Procurement Facilities Management Leadership

Green Buildings CDU

Dea

kin

Mon

ash

Mur

doch

Chis

holm

GO

TAFE

Skill

sTec

hSu

niTA

FESC

IT

Committee


Perform. based rating system used for existing buildings

Green Leases


25 | P a g e

Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The tertiary education sector as a whole does not account for a large proportion of Australia’s 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 institution’s 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 Deakin’s 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 building’s 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 Deakin’s

commitment to reduce its carbon footprint.

Fuel cell prefabrication plantroom


26 | P a g e

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.

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)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

GreenPower as a Percentage of Electricity Purchased

2011

2012

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

GJ/

(EFT

SL+F

TE)

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

2011

2012

na


27 | P a g e

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.

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.901.00

GJ/

m2

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

2011

2012

na


28 | P a g e

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)

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.

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

Ton

nes

CO

2e/(

EFTS

L+FT

E)

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

2011

2012

na

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

Ton

nes

CO

2e/m

2

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

2011

2012

na


29 | P a g e

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.

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

Energy Efficency CDU

Dea

kin

Mon

ash

Mur

doch

Chis

holm

GO

TAFE

Skill

sTec

hSu

niTA

FESC

IT

Committee

Strategy/Policy/Action Plan

Behaviour Change

Dedicated Staff (FTE) 2.0 0.5 3.7 0.1 0.2 0.5

Generate Renewable Energy On-site

Purchase GreenPower

Target: Reduce Energy/GHG

Purchase GHG Offsets

Sustainable Transport CDU

Dea

kin

Mon

ash

Mur

doch

Chis

holm

GO

TAFE

Skill

sTec

hSu

niTA

FESC

IT

Sustainable Transport Committee

Awareness Campaign

Dedicated Staff (FTE) 0.5 1.2 0.2 0.2

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


30 | P a g e

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.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Sust. TransportCommittee

Awareness Campaign

Working with Gov't toExpand PT

Cyclist SupportSystems on Campus

Car Pool Program

Strategies to ReduceAir Travel

Video Conf (VC) Avail

Collect Data on VC Use

Sustainable Transport Initiatives 2012

Universities TAFEs


31 | P a g e

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.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

CDU Deakin Monash Murdoch Chisholm GOTAFE

Kilo

met

res

Trav

elle

d p

er S

taff

FTE

Ton

nes

of

GH

G E

mis

sio

ns

per

Sta

ff F

TE

Distance Travelled by Air (kms) and Associated GHG Emissions (tonnes), per Staff FTE

Total Staff Air Travel (km) (OS & Domestic) per Staff FTE

Total CO2 -e (tonnes) from Air Travel (SCOPE 3) per Staff FTE


32 | P a g e

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

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


33 | P a g e

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?


34 | P a g e

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/e-

waste/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-and-

Smart-Systems/Energy-for-buildings.aspx on 01/07/2013

Carbon Neutral (2012). Australia’s 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

http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/e-waste/what-can-be-recycled-from-e-waste

http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/e-waste/what-can-be-recycled-from-e-waste

http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Energy/Renewables-and-Smart-Systems/Energy-for-buildings.aspx

http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Energy/Renewables-and-Smart-Systems/Energy-for-buildings.aspx

http://www.carbonneutral.com.au/climate-change/australian-emissions.html

http://energyefficiencyopportunities.gov.au/results-and-participants/


35 | P a g e

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

Institution

2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012

Charles Darwin University 3,906 4,445 888 888 623 623 1,511 1,511 5,417 5,956 123,791 122,490

Deakin University 24,436 25,669 1,208 1,312 1,586 1,638 2,793 2,950 27,229 28,619 288,067 316,874

Monash University 38,525 38,542 3,524 3,589 4,123 4,582 7,647 8,171 46,172 46,713 650,743 672,528

Murdoch University 8,849 10,512 505 542 771 847 1,276 1,389 10,125 11,901 123,030 132,075

Chisholm Institute of TAFE 12,140 13,352 684 724 425 314 1,109 1,038 13,249 14,390 111,719 119,613

Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE 3,042 4,135 304 292 191 181 495 473 3,537 4,608 54,347 52,767

Skil lsTech Australia NA 5,197 NA 337 NA 378 NA 715 NA 5,912 NA 69,372

Sunraysia Institute of TAFE 2,765 3,047 92 85 110 99 202 184 2,967 3,231 29,029 29,029

Sunshine Coast TAFE 6,557 6,376 224 185 299 231 523 416 7,080 6,792 37,303 38,335

TOTAL 100,221 111,274 7,429 7,954 8,127 8,894 15,556 16,848 115,777 128,122 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.

Table A: Staff, students and gross floor area by institution

Students (EFTSL)

Academic /Teaching

Staff (FTE)

General/Non-

Teaching Staff (FTE) Total Staff (FTE) Total Staff + Students Gross Floor Area (m2)


36 | P a g e

Table B: Facilities Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012

Charles Darwin University 12.46 11.61 0.55 0.56 0.0% 0.0% 3460 3224 151.41 156.75 2.56 2.55 0.11 0.12

Deakin University 9.12 7.74 0.86 0.70 1.2% 0.0% 1447 1428 136.81 128.95 2.14 2.04 0.20 0.18

Monash University 11.38 13.18 0.81 0.92 15.0% 13.9% 1778 2052 126.17 142.50 2.33 2.68 0.17 0.19

Murdoch University 9.15 8.08 0.75 0.73 20.4% 18.8% 2042 1781 168.02 160.45 1.60 1.42 0.13 0.13

Chisholm Institute of TAFE 5.26 4.93 0.62 0.59 13.0% 0.0% 835 673 99.07 80.91 1.11 1.04 0.13 0.12

Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE 6.85 5.70 0.45 0.50 27.7% 11.2% 1078 837 70.14 73.10 1.22 1.14 0.08 0.10

SkillsTech Australia NA 3.35 NA 0.29 NA 0.0% NA 931 NA 79.33 NA 0.91 NA 0.08

Sunraysia Institute of TAFE 4.37 4.44 0.45 0.49 18.9% 21.9% 944 877 96.51 97.63 1.09 0.99 0.11 0.11

Sunshine Coast TAFE 1.89 1.78 0.36 0.32 0.0% 0.0% 494 465 93.68 82.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Universities (Average) 10.50 10.76 0.79 0.81 10.6% 9.7% 1809 1900 135.73 142.36 2.20 2.31 0.17 0.17

TAFEs (Average) 4.48 4.11 0.52 0.46 14.3% 4.2% 789 717 91.12 80.98 0.80 0.78 0.09 0.09

All (Average) 9.10 8.95 0.74 0.74 11.0% 9.0% 1573 1578 128.42 130.14 1.88 1.89 0.15 0.16

Notes :

(a) Per head includes s taff (FTE) and s tudents (EFTSL).

(b) Where no figures were given by insti tutions for GreenPower i t i s assumed no GreenPower was purchased.

(c) Ca lculation combines kWh purchased from the grid, GreenPower and electrici ty generated through ons i te renewables .

(d) Offsets recorded as 'faci l i ties offsets ' or 'other offsets ' have been deducted. If offsets were recorded for 'a i r travel ' or 'vehicles ' they were not deducted

from faci l i ties emiss ions .

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)

GHG Emissions (Net of offsets) (d)

t CO2-e/(staff

FTE + students

EFTSL)

t CO2-e/GFA

m2(a)kWh/GFA m2Institution

Energy GreenPower (b) Electricity (c)

GJ/head (a) GJ/GFA m2

% of total

electricity

purchased kWh/head (a)


37 | P a g e

Table C: Total Water Consumed (Per Person and Gross Floor Area) by Institution

Institution

2011 2012 2011 2012

Charles Darwin University 59.8 37.2 2.6 1.8

Deakin University 3.7 3.3 0.4 0.3

Monash University 7.1 8.1 0.5 0.6

Murdoch University 47.2 41.7 3.9 3.8

Chisholm Institute of TAFE 2.7 2.5 0.3 0.3

Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE 7.8 6.9 0.5 0.6

SkillsTech Australia NA 1.5 NA 0.1

Sunraysia Institute of TAFE 5.7 7.3 0.6 0.8

Sunshine Coast TAFE 1.6 1.6 0.3 0.3

Universities (Average) 13.8 12.8 1.0 1.0

TAFEs (Average) 3.4 3.2 0.4 0.4

All (Average) 11.4 10.2 0.9 0.8

Water per head

(kL/(staff + students)

Water per floor area

(kL/GFA m2)

Table C: Total water consumed per head (staff FTE & students EFTSL) and

per gross floor area (GFA) by institution

Note: Insti tutions that did not provide water data or GFA figures have been

excluded from the average ca lculations .


38 | P a g e

Table D: Waste to Landfill and Recycling (Per Person and Gross Floor Area) by Institution

Institution

2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012

Charles Darwin University 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4

Deakin University 47.6 51.7 10.9 12.9 4.5 4.7 1.0 1.2

Monash University 62.7 62.3 21.4 26.0 4.4 4.3 1.5 1.8

Murdoch University 53.2 37.2 41.1 36.5 4.4 3.4 3.4 3.3

Chisholm Institute of TAFE 99.4 94.1 35.5 35.9 11.8 11.3 4.2 4.3

Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE 41.7 31.8 18.0 12.5 2.7 2.8 1.2 1.1

SkillsTech Australia NA 94.0 NA 9.6 NA 8.0 NA 0.8

Sunraysia Institute of TAFE 81.0 24.0 15.0 3.2 8.3 2.7 1.5 0.4

Sunshine Coast TAFE 96.2 47.8 23.9 19.7 18.3 8.5 4.5 3.5

Universities (Average) 56.6 55.4 20.3 23.2 4.5 4.3 1.6 1.8

TAFEs (Average) 88.9 65.6 27.9 24.7 10.3 7.9 3.2 3.0

All (Average) 64.5 57.9 22.2 23.6 5.5 4.9 1.9 2.0

Recycling per floor area

(kg/GFA m2)

Note: Insti tutions that did not provide waste data or GFA figures have been excluded from the average ca lculations .

Concrete and demol i tion waste (to landfi l l and recycled) and industria l waste are not included in these figures .

Table D: Waste to landfill and recycling per head (staff FTE + students EFTSL) and per gross floor area (GFA) by institution

Waste per head

(kg/head)

Waste per floor area

(kg/GFA m2)

Recycling per head

(kg/head)

australian tertiary education sector sustainability report 2012

Documents

g e sustainable campus

word education group

social sustainability

report participants

g e contents introduction

carbon neutral paper

teacher tracey wareham

carbon neutral facility