~ 1 ~

2011

Australian Tertiary Education Sector

Summary Sustainability Report

Monash Sustainability Institute

Sustainable Campus Group Summary Report

~ 2 ~

© Sustainable Campus Group 2011

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

Published by the Monash Sustainability Institute (MSI)

Monash University, VIC 3800 Australia T: +61 3 990 59875 E: enquiries@msi.monash.edu.au W: www.monash.edu/research/sustainability-institute

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

Cover photograph

Solar panels at Central Institute of Technology, Western Australia

This report has been printed on 100% recycled content paper

Table of Contents

Participating Institutions .............................................................................................................. 3

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3 1.1 Reporting Methodology ........................................................................................................... 3

Sustainability in the Australian Tertiary Education Sector .............................................................. 3 2.1 Institutional Commitment ........................................................................................................ 4 2.2 Transport ................................................................................................................................. 5 2.3 Energy and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions ......................................................................... 6 2.4 Buildings ................................................................................................................................... 9 2.5 Information Technology (IT) .................................................................................................... 9 2.6 Education for Sustainability (EfS) ............................................................................................. 9 2.7 Waste and Recycling .............................................................................................................. 10 2.8 Purchasing .............................................................................................................................. 12 2.9 Water ..................................................................................................................................... 12

~ 3 ~

Participating Institutions

NSW

Charles Sturt University

TAFE NSW – Sydney Institute

NT

Charles Darwin University

QLD

Brisbane North Institute of TAFE (BNIT)

Sunshine Coast Institute of TAFE

SA

Flinders University of South Australia

VIC

Box Hill Institute of TAFE

Chisholm Institute of TAFE

Deakin University

Gordon Institute of TAFE

Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE (GoTAFE)

Kangan Institute of TAFE

Monash University

Sunraysia Institute of TAFE (Suni TAFE)

WA

Central Institute of Technology (Central)

Murdoch University

Introduction

This is the second report of the nation-wide Sustainable Campus Group (SCG) and it showcases the 2010 environmental performance of SCG members.

The SCG is a national environmental sustainability reporting initiative begun in Victoria in 2006. In 2009 membership was opened to tertiary education institutions Australia wide. SCG members consist of universities and TAFE institutes that are working to improve their environmental performance and choose to report publicly on their progress. Sharing this information creates a constructive climate for positive change in tertiary education and stimulates improved effort among peer institutions.

The full SCG report can be found online at http://www.monash.edu/research/sustainability-institute/scg/, together with more information about the SCG and all past reports.

1.1 Reporting Methodology This sector Sustainability Report is a self-reporting initiative and SCG has not verified or audited the data submitted. All members were given the opportunity to review the draft findings of this report and the data before publication.

The data provided by the participants was analysed on a total institution basis (that is, the total of all campuses included by the institution). To allow comparisons between institutions of very different sizes, most results were first standardised either by each institution’s total staff and students (full-time equivalent (FTE) staff and equivalent full-time student loads (EFTSL)) or by its building gross floor area (GFA - in square metres).

Sustainability in the Australian Tertiary Education Sector

Results are a snapshot of measuring and reporting at each institution and do not necessarily reveal the full picture of sustainability work and management. There are currently 16 members of the SCG, representing 25 per cent of the sector’s equivalent full-time student load (EFTSL) in Australia. The approach of this report is to create a collaborative environment for engaging the tertiary education sector in measuring, monitoring and reducing its collective environmental footprint and improving its sustainability performance. A snap shot of performance can be seen in table 1, below. This table is based on data from 14 current SCG Members that provided relevant information for the 2009 and 2010 years. If data was not provided it is indicated with a ‘na’ (not available).

This table shows that institutions have grown their student and staff numbers and floor area, but have managed to reduce relative water consumption and net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

~ 4 ~

Encouragingly, energy consumption has not increased at the same rate as the growth in student and staff numbers and floor area.

Tertiary Institutions can vary greatly from one to another. Some are located in the CBD, others in suburban or rural areas and some provide residential accommodation for students; some teaching is conducted mainly in classrooms while others will require workshops, laboratories, research facilities, and agricultural land etc. These variations should be kept in mind when reading this report.

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

Operations based environmental impacts such as energy and water consumption, GHG emissions and waste have been the focus of the sector for several years and efforts in these areas are quite advanced. This is evidenced by decreases on 2009 figures (per EFTSL/FTE) of mains water use (down 6.5%), waste (down 1.4%) and GHG emissions (down 1.04%) and by an increase in energy consumption of only 1.5 per cent despite increases in student numbers of 5.3 per cent and GFA of 2.3 per cent. The impacts directly related to the operation and maintenance of buildings and grounds are usually the responsibility of one department within an institution. These direct impacts on the environment are relatively easy to measure and monitor.

Other areas within operations are not as well as advanced when it comes to measuring, monitoring and reducing the environmental impacts. There are several reasons for this. Environmental impacts that are not under the direct control of the institution are difficult to affect and measure, such as how students and staff travel to and from work every day and the

sustainability performance of suppliers. These may be considered within the influence of an institution, but not under its direct control.

Also, as so much of the focus of environmental impacts has been on those associated with buildings and grounds there have been fewer resources to concentrate on other areas of responsibility within institutions. For example, areas such as Socially Responsible Investment may be the responsibility of the finance department, or green purchasing which may be the responsibility of the procurement department, or green IT etc. As seen in the report the sector is aware of these issues and some steps have been taken to reduce their impact, such as $22.75 million of green purchasing in 2010 and seven members running behaviour change programs specifically related to Green IT. These will be areas of greater focus in future.

Academically, large positive environmental impacts can be made through teaching, training and research. Impacts on students’ behaviours once they leave an institution and enter the workforce are extremely difficult to measure. However the efforts made to ensure they are exposed to the knowledge and learning necessary to help reduce their impact are within the powers of the sector to deliver and measure. This is another emerging area of concern for the sector and more resources will be directed this way in future. It is apparent that government support and encouragement for Education for Sustainability (EfS) (i.e. the Green Skills Agreement) does have an impact, as it has in the TAFE sector which is more advanced than the university sector in imbedding EfS in 2010. Six TAFE members but only one university member had a strategy or plan in 2010 for implementing EfS.

2.1 Institutional Commitment Measuring institutional commitment to sustainability is an attempt to show how well sustainability initiatives are funded, integrated and supported by an institution. Figure 1 shows which institutions had programs in place in 2010. These are indicated by the green boxes. White boxes mean there was no program in place in 2010 and ‘na’ indicates that there was no response to this question.

Environment committees (or equivalent), policies, strategies and plans are common in the sector. Less common are engagement programs for staff and students and Environmental Management Systems (EMS). The integration of other aspects of sustainability such as including criteria in building lease agreements, master planning and investment are also areas for improvement.

The Chart 1 shows the number (FTE) of staff employed to work on operational environmental programs at each institution for each 1,000 students (EFTSL). Four respondents do not have a dedicated staff resource for sustainability initiatives.

Indicator Value in 2009 Value in 2010 % ChangeInstitutional Commitment

Average number of Staff in environmental improvement roles (FTE) per 1000 students na 0.15Number of institutions that ran cultural change/green office programs na 11Number of institutions with an Environmental Management System (EMS) na 4

Student and Staff numbers (Effective Full Time Student Load + Full Time Equivalent) 199,851 210,449 5.3%Gross Floor Area (GFA) meters squared (m²) 2,050,628 2,097,117 2.3%Energy and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

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

Total Net facil ity and automotive emissions (tonnes CO2-e) 299,887 318,547 6.2%Net facil ity GHG emissions per head (tonnes CO2-e/(EFTSL + staff FTE)) 1.46 1.45 -1.04%Net facil ity GHG emissions per GFA m² (tonnes CO2-e/(GFA m²)) 0.14 0.15 1.77%Automotive emissions (owned and leased) per head (tonnes CO2-e/staff FTE) 0.12 0.14 16.9%

WaterMains water purchased per head (kilolitres/(EFTSL + staff FTE)) 5.3 4.9 -6.5%Mains water purchased per GFA m² (kilolitres/GFA m² ) 0.53 0.51 -4.01%

WasteWaste to landfil l per head (kilograms/(EFTSL + staff FTE)) 68.8 67.8 -1.4%Waste to landfil l per GFA m² (kilograms/GFA m² ) 6.7 6.8 1.53%Percentage of waste diverted from landfil l (recycled) 21.8% 23.4% 7.7%

~ 5 ~

Figure 1 – Examples of Commitment to Environmental Improvement at each Institute

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

2.2 Transport The table below shows initiatives in place to reduce the environmental impact of travel such us encouraging staff and students to walk, cycle or use public transport rather than driving to and from, and between, campuses. As seen in Figure 2 commitment to reduce the indirect environmental impact of transport (non-business travel) varied among members: five had a committee, taskforce or working group dedicated to sustainable transport and four ran an awareness campaign to encourage alternatives to vehicle use. Almost all members utilised video conferencing. Finally, most members had behaviour change programs to help increase the use of sustainable transport modes.

Figure 2 – Institutional Commitment to Reduce the Environmental Impact of Transport by Institution

Institutional Commitment Box Hill Instit

ute

BNITCentra

l

Charles D

arwin Uni

Charles S

turt Uni

Chisholm

Insti

tute

Deakin Uni

Flinders U

ni

The Gordon

GoTAFE

Kangan Instit

ute

Monash Uni

Murdoch Uni

Sunshine Coast TAFE

SuniTAFE

Sydney Instit

ute

Environmental Committee na

Environmental Policy na

Environmental Strategy na

Environmental Plan na

Staff Engagement Programs na

Student Engagement Programs na

Socially Responsible Investment Funds na na

EMS na

Green Leases na na

Sustainability Principals in Master Planning na

Biodiversity Policy na na

Policy to Plant Native Trees na

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45

Box Hill Institute of TAFE

Brisbane North Institute of TAFE

Central Institute of Technology

Charles Darwin University

Charles Sturt University

Chisholm Institute of TAFE

Deakin University

Flinders University of South Australia

Gordon Institute of TAFE

Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE

Kangan Institute of TAFE

Monash University

Murdoch University

Sunshine Coast Institute of TAFE

Sunraysia Institute of TAFE

TAFE NSW - Sydney Institute

2010 Total Number of Staff (FTE) Employed in Sustainability Improvement Roles per 1000 EFTSL

Total Number of Staff (FTE) Employed in Sustainability Improvement Roles per 1000 EFTSL

Transport Box Hill Instit

ute

BNITCentra

l

Charles D

arwin Uni

Charles S

turt Uni

Chisholm

Insti

tute

Deakin Uni

Flinders U

ni

The Gordon

GoTAFE

Kangan Instit

ute

Monash Uni

Murdoch Uni

Sunshine Coast TAFE

SuniTAFE

Sydney Instit

ute

CommitteeBehaviour Change InitiativesInitiatives to Reduce Air TravelCampaign to Promote Alternative TransportVideo Conferencing Facilities Available

Example of Good Practice - Student Engagement Monash University’s Footprints was one of five entries to receive a Highly Commended in the Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability Green Gown Awards for Student Initiatives and Campaigns. For more information about the Footprints program go to: http://www.fsd.monash.edu.au/environmental-sustainability/monash-footprints

Example of Good Practice – Sustainable Transport The James Gormley Bike Arrival Station at Monash University Clayton Campus provides amenities for cyclists such as change rooms, showers and security. On average 70-80 cyclists use the BAS each day. For further information go to: http://fsd.monash.edu.au/environmental-sustainability/bike-arrival-station-news

~ 6 ~

2.3 Energy and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions The majority of energy consumption at Australian tertiary institutions is used in buildings for heating, cooling, and air handling. Energy consumed on campus for running buildings and infrastructure is referred to in this report as facilities energy. The majority of facilities energy is electricity and natural gas. As electricity in Australia is largely generated from burning coal, most of the GHG emissions at tertiary institutes can be directly linked with its use in buildings. For both indicators, TAFEs have the lowest energy consumption by a significant margin. This difference is likely to reflect the more energy-intensive research facilities and laboratories in universities.

Some electricity purchased is GreenPower which is sourced from renewable energy, and therefore reduces overall GHG emissions. Several SCG members also generate renewable energy-on campus. Only institutes that purchased GreenPower in 2010 are listed in Chart 2, below. In 2010 all Government departments and agencies in Victoria were required to purchase 10 per cent GreenPower increasing to 25 per cent in July 2010. This was not the case in other states and territories. Subsequent to a change of Government in Victoria this requirement to purchase GreenPower is no longer in effect.

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

Charts 3 and 4 show each institutions’ facilities energy consumption per head and per floor area as well as sector averages. As Chart 3 shows, universities reported much higher energy use relative to TAFEs, being more than three times higher in 2010. However the difference between TAFEs and universities is not as marked when energy use is considered per floor area as Chart 4 shows.

Charts 5 and 6 show net GHG emissions per head and per floor area for each institution and sector averages. Consistent with the energy use data, universities show significantly higher emissions per head than TAFEs – by a factor of more than three, even after carbon offsets have been taken into account. This differential is much less marked when the comparison is made using floor area.

Figure 3 shows the programs and initiatives that each institution had in place in 2010 to reduce energy and GHG emissions.

Figure 3 – Institutional Commitment to Energy and GHG Reduction by Institution

Chart 2 – Percentage of Electricity Consumption that was GreenPower in 2009 and 2010. Only Institutions that purchased GreenPower are listed in chart.

Energy Box Hill Instit

ute

BNITCentra

l

Charles D

arwin Uni

Charles S

turt Uni

Chisholm

Insti

tute

Deakin Uni

Flinders U

ni

The Gordon

GoTAFE

Kangan Instit

ute

Monash Uni

Murdoch Uni

Sunshine Coast TAFE

SuniTAFE

Sydney Instit

ute

CommitteeBehaviour Change InitiativesEnergy AuditsReduction TargetAction Plan to Reduce Electricity UseTarget to Purchase GreenPower

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

% Purchased

GreenPower as a Percentage of Total Electricity Consumption

2009

2010

Example of Good Practice - Renewable Energy Central Institute of Technology (CIT) has the largest solar array in the Perth CBD and one of the largest in the Western Australia. For more information about the solar array and how it will be used for teaching see: http://www.central.wa.edu.au/ABOUTUS/SUSTAINABILITY/Pages/Central%27sSolarCity.aspx

~ 7 ~

Chart 3 – Facility Energy Consumption per Institution and Sector Averages (Gigajoules per Equivalent Full-time Student Unit and Full Time Equivalent Staff)

Chart 4 – Facility Energy Consumption per Institution and Sector Averages (Gigajoules per Gross Floor Area in Metres Squared)

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

GJ

Facility Energy Consumption per Institution (GJ/(EFTSL+FTE))

2009

2010

na na

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

GJ

Facility Energy Consumption per Institution (GJ/GFA m²)

2009

2010

na na

~ 8 ~

Chart 5 – Facility GHG Emissions Net of Offsets per Institution and Sector Averages (Tonnes of CO2-e per Equivalent Full-time Student Load and Full-time Equivalent Staff)

Chart 6 – Facility GHG Emissions Net of Offsets per Institution and Sector Averages (Tonnes of CO2-e per Gross Floor Area in Metres Squared)

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

Tonnes CO2e

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

2009

2010na na

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

Tonnes CO2e

Facility GHG Emissions Net of Offsets per Institution (Tonnes CO2e/GFA m²)

2009

2010na na

~ 9 ~

2.4 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 the leadership and support provided by senior management, as well as the reporting processes to ensure sustainable buildings were the most desired outcome. Chart 7 illustrates these responses. Each of the four categories could score a maximum of 25 per cent and the best total score would be 100 per cent. When averaged, the lowest score was for Project Procurement processes (8.2 %), such as selecting appropriate consultants and contractors and setting environmental targets. The highest average score was for ongoing Facilities Management processes (11.2 %), such as staff environmental programs and utilities metering. Integration of sustainability criteria into the building process is an area with room for much improvement across the sector.

Chart 7 – Integration of Sustainability into each Process of Building Planning, Construction and Use, for each SCG Member in 2010

2.5 Information Technology (IT) Information Technology (IT) is an area that can have a large impact on sustainability in the workplace. Electricity and paper consumption can be reduced by including the appropriate criteria when purchasing IT equipment, electronic waste can be re-used and recycled rather than going to landfill and the technology itself can be used to reduce travel and paper, such as video

conferencing and lecture downloads. Figure 4 shows some of the initiatives institutes use to reduce the environmental impact of IT.

Figure 4 – Institutional Commitment to Reducing the Environmental Impact of IT

2.6 Education for Sustainability (EfS) Although universities and TAFEs have large day-to-day environmental impacts by far the greatest contribution they can make to sustainability is to educate students to understand and apply sustainability principles in all that they do: in their work, careers, communities and society.

EfS has a long way to go before it can be considered embedded in universities, however senior management is beginning to show an interest in delivering strategic approaches to support EfS at their institutes. Senior management commitment and support is crucial to the success of EfS at any institute. Aspects of the progression of EfS can be seen in Figure 5.

TAFEs have better performance than universities when it comes to embedding sustainability in their education and training packages. The Green Skills Agreement, which is an agreement between the Australian Government and state and territory governments to “build the capacity of the vocational education and training sector to deliver the skills for sustainability required in the workplace” mandated that Australian TAFEs review their training packages for any gaps in their skills for sustainability by the end of March 2010 (COAG 2009). Many TAFE courses and subjects

0 20 40 60 80 100

0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0

Box Hill Institute of TAFE

Brisbane North Institute of TAFE

Central Institute of Technology

Charles Darwin University

Charles Sturt University

Chisholm Institute of TAFE

Deakin University

Flinders University of South Australia

Gordon Institute of TAFE

Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE

Kangan Institute of TAFE

Monash University

Murdoch University

Sunshine Coast Institute of TAFE

Sunraysia Institute of TAFE

TAFE NSW - Sydney Institute

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

Integration of Sustainability in New Buildings

Strategic Planning

Project Procurement

Facilities Management

Leadership

Green IT Box Hill Instit

ute

BNITCentra

l

Charles D

arwin Uni

Charles S

turt Uni

Chisholm

Insti

tute

Deakin Uni

Flinders U

ni

The Gordon

GoTAFE

Kangan Instit

ute

Monash Uni

Murdoch Uni

Sunshine Coast TAFE

SuniTAFE

Sydney Instit

ute

CommitteeBehaviour Change InitiativesAuto Installation of Low Energy SettingsAuto Installation of Double Sided Printing

Example of Good Practice – EfS and Green IT Box Hill Institute was the winner in the category of Sustainability and Green IT at the Victorian iAwards for the development of the Vocational Graduate Certificate in ICT Sustainability. http://www.bhtafe.edu.au/news/Pages/Sustainability-Success.aspx

Example of Good Practice – Green IT Sydney Institute of TAFE won the Hewlett Packard (HP) 2010 Eco Solutions Award Australia for reduction of paper use, power consumption, staff time, printing costs and number of printing devices. Further information available at: https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/media/downloads/about-us/l4s/l4s_i_sydney.pdf

~ 10 ~

have been updated to embed sustainability content and TAFEs have supported staff to attend relevant training and education programs.

Figure 5 – Institutional Commitment to Education for Sustainability

2.7 Waste and Recycling Waste is a large environmental impact of the sector and waste infrastructure is highly visible. Public recycling and waste stations can be used to demonstrate to staff and students that an institute takes responsibility for its impacts. The most visible aspects of waste are recycling stations and landfill bins on campuses (see Chart 8).

It should be noted that waste and recycling measurement is based on certain assumptions which vary according to waste management providers and institutions, such as volume of waste based on weight and composition. In 2010, SCG members sent over 22,000 tonnes of waste to landfill and reported recycling over 4,800 tonnes. Initiatives to reduce waste at each institution can be seen in Figure 6.

The proportion of recycling to total waste did not differ significantly between universities and TAFEs. Charts 9 and 10 show the details for each institute and also the averages for universities and TAFEs as separate groups. On average, universities sent more waste to landfill per head and recycled more than for TAFEs for both 2009 and 2010. When this is compared to waste per floor area, the situation is reversed.

Figure 6 – Institutional Commitment to Reduce Environmental Impact of Waste and Recycling

Chart 8 - Percentage of Internal and External Waste Bins accompanied by Recycling Facilities in 2010

EfS Box Hill Instit

ute

BNITCentra

l

Charles D

arwin Uni

Charles S

turt Uni

Chisholm

Insti

tute

Deakin Uni

Flinders U

ni

The Gordon

GoTAFE

Kangan Instit

ute

Monash Uni

Murdoch Uni

Sunshine Coast TAFE

SuniTAFE

Sydney Instit

ute

Committee na

Strategy or Plan for Implementing EfS na

Environment Subject Required to Graduate na

Sustainability in Orientation na

EfS Engagement in Annual Staff Evaluation na na

Waste & Recycling Box Hill Instit

ute

BNITCentra

l

Charles D

arwin Uni

Charles S

turt Uni

Chisholm

Insti

tute

Deakin Uni

Flinders U

ni

The Gordon

GoTAFE

Kangan Instit

ute

Monash Uni

Murdoch Uni

Sunshine Coast TAFE

SuniTAFE

Sydney Instit

ute

CommitteeBehaviour Change InitiativesTarget to Reduce Waste to Landfill na

Waste Measurement Capabilities

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

Internal

External

2010 Proportion of Waste Stations with Recycling Facilities

All

TAFE

University

Example of Good Practice – EfS The Gordon Culinary School incorporates sustainable cooking practices and has documented a Lifecycle Approach to Sustainable Service which can be found at: http://www.thegordon.edu.au/News%20and%20Events/Publications/Publications/The%20Gordon%20sustainability%20case%20study%20LOW%20RES.pdf

Example of Good Practice – EfS Box Hill Institute’s Green Trades Skills Hub: http://www.bhtafe.edu.au/news/Pages/green-trade-skills-hub-open.aspx

~ 11 ~

Chart 9 – Waste Generation and Recycling per Institution for 2009 and 2010 (kilograms per Equivalent Full-time Student Load and Full-time Equivalent Staff)

Chart 10 – Waste Generation and Recycling per Institution for 2009 and 2010 (kilograms per Gross Floor Area metres squared)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

kg/(EFTSL+FTE)

Waste Generation per Institution (kg/(EFTSL+FTE))

Recycling 2009 Recycling 2010

Waste to Landfill 2009 Waste to Landfill 2010

nana

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

kg/GFA m²

Waste Generation per Institution (kg/GFA m²)

Recycling 2009 Recycling 2010

Waste to Landfill 2009 Waste to Landfill 2010

na na

~ 12 ~

2.8 Purchasing

Green purchasing means selecting environmentally preferable products from environmentally responsible suppliers. It is an area where institutions have great influence and responsibility even though suppliers and manufacturers are ultimately responsible for impacts. Common examples of environmentally and socially responsible procurement in the sector are recycled content copy paper and paper towel, and Fair Trade tea and coffee (see Chart 11). Other examples include recycled and recyclable office furniture and equipment. Green procurement can be extended to on-campus vendors by providing them with leases only if they agree to sell environmentally and socially responsible products. Green leases can be used to help achieve this.

Chart 11 – Total Copy Paper Purchased (reams of A4 equivalent) in 2010 by Institution

Figure 7 shows which institution had these green procurement initiatives. Seven institutes provided green procurement training for staff, and four incorporated environmental considerations into purchasing in 2010. Green procurement is an area of growing concern and there is need for improvement within the sector.

Figure 7 – Institutional Commitment to Green Procurement

2.9 Water Tertiary education institutions are often large water users. Areas of high water consumption include grounds maintenance, cooling towers, student residences, laboratories, on-campus agriculture and other areas of teaching, training and research.

SCG members used a total of 2,303,642 kL of water during 2010 from several sources including mains, bore and rain water. For those members that provided both 2009 and 2010 data, a four per cent decrease in the proportion of mains water consumed was noted, from 1,015,222 kL (96% of total 2009 water consumption) to 1,004,001 kL (92% of total 2010 water consumption).

Charts 12 and 13 show water use by institute and sector averages for 2009 and 2010. The averages for universities in 2010 are much higher due to three universities reporting 2010 water consumption but not 2009 consumption. This needs to be taken into account when looking at these charts. If the 2010 water consumption of these universities is left aside, between 2009 and 2010 water use decreased at universities by head and by floor area and increased slightly at TAFEs by head and floor area.

Initiatives to reduce mains water consumption have long been in place in many institutions. Figure 8 shows that the majority of SCG Members were subject to water restrictions in 2010. Twelve institutes harvest rain or surface water, ten have behaviour change initiatives in place to encourage reduced water use and four conducted water audits in 2010.

Figure 8 – Institutional Commitment to Reducing Mains Water Consumption

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

Reams

Total Copy Paper Purchased 2010

Other 50 - 99% Recycled 100% Recycled Plantation

Green Procurement Box Hill Instit

ute

BNITCentra

l

Charles D

arwin Uni

Charles S

turt Uni

Chisholm

Insti

tute

Deakin Uni

Flinders U

ni

The Gordon

GoTAFE

Kangan Instit

ute

Monash Uni

Murdoch Uni

Sunshine Coast TAFE

SuniTAFE

Sydney Instit

ute

CommitteeBehaviour Change InitiativesStaff Specially Employed/Receive TrainingIncorporate Environmental Considerations

Water Box Hill Instit

ute

BNITCentra

l

Charles D

arwin Uni

Charles S

turt Uni

Chisholm

Insti

tute

Deakin Uni

Flinders U

ni

The Gordon

GoTAFE

Kangan Instit

ute

Monash Uni

Murdoch Uni

Sunshine Coast TAFE

SuniTAFE

Sydney Instit

ute

CommitteeBehaviour Change InitiativesReduction Target na

Subject to Water RestrictionsCollect Rain or Surface Water na

Conduct Water Audits

~ 13 ~

Chart 12 – Water Consumption per Institution and by Sector (kilolitres per Equivalent Full-time Student Load and Full-time Equivalent staff) for 2009 and 2010

Chart 13 – Water Consumption per Institution and by Sector (kilolitres per Gross Floor Area Metres Squared for 2009 and 2010

Box Hill Institute of

TAFE

Brisbane North

Institute of TAFE

Central Institute of Technology

Charles Darwin

University

Charles Sturt

University

Chisholm Institute of

TAFE

Deakin University

Flinders University of South Australia

Gordon Institute of

TAFE

Goulburn Ovens

Institute of TAFE

Kangan Institute of

TAFE

Monash University

Murdoch University

Sunshine Coast

Institute of TAFE

Sunraysia Institute of

TAFE

TAFE NSW - Sydney Institute

University Average

TAFE Average

Sector Average

0

10

20

30

40

50

601 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

kL/ (EFTSL+FTE)

Water Consumption per Institution (kL/(EFTSL + FTE))

Mains water purchased 2009 Licensed Ground Water Extraction (Bore Water) (kL) 2009 Mains water purchased 2010 Licensed Ground Water Extraction (Bore Water) 2010Licensed Surface Water Collection (Rivers, Streams etc.) 2009 Rainwater Collected & Used 2009 Licensed Surface Water Collection (Rivers, Streams etc.) 2010 Rainwater Collected & Used 2010blah Runoff Collected & Used 2009 Runoff Collected & Used 2010

na na na

Box Hill Institute of

TAFE

Brisbane North

Institute of TAFE

Central Institute of Technology

Charles Darwin

University

Charles Sturt

University

Chisholm Institute of

TAFE

Deakin University

Flinders University of South Australia

Gordon Institute of

TAFE

Goulburn Ovens

Institute of TAFE

Kangan Institute of

TAFE

Monash University

Murdoch University

Sunshine Coast

Institute of TAFE

Sunraysia Institute of

TAFE

TAFE NSW - Sydney Institute

University Average

TAFE Average

Sector Average

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

kL/GFA m²

Water Consumption per Institution (kL/GFA m²)

Mains water purchased 2009 Licensed Ground Water Extraction (Bore Water) (kL) 2009 Mains water purchased 2010 Licensed Ground Water Extraction (Bore Water) 2010Licensed Surface Water Collection (Rivers, Streams etc.) 2009 Rainwater Collected & Used 2009 Licensed Surface Water Collection (Rivers, Streams etc.) 2010 Rainwater Collected & Used 2010blah Runoff Collected & Used 2009 Runoff Collected & Used 2010

na na na