Sustainability performance EAUC-Scotland Campus Sustainability Programme 17 th November 2006

Welcome Jan Bebbington Professor of Accounting and Sustainable Development University of St Andrews

Agenda for the day  Welcome  Sustainability policy and reporting in other sectors  Sustainability policy in the FHE sector  Examples of practice  Outcomes from CaSPr Baseline Review  Lunch ( )  Improving the CaSPr baseline questionnaire  Baseline reports for individual institutions  Sustainability indicators and reporting  Management systems  Next steps for institutions and CaSPr  Coffee and close (1530)

Outcomes  Understand why sustainability reporting is important  Learn about the policy commitments applying to the Scottish FHE sector  Become familiar with the performance issues identified in the CaSPr sustainability baseline report  Suggest ways of improving the questionnaire and individual reports for institutions  Learn what policies and systems have been put in place by other institutions to manage sustainability and reduce risks  Become aware of different management systems and how they can help reduce risks and improve sustainability performance

Introduction to sustainability policy and reporting Tim Birley BSc(Eng) ACGI MSc FRICS FRTPI FRSA Advisor on sustainable development and public policy

Sustainability policy in universities and colleges Inga Burton CaSPr Programme Manager

Sustainability policy – important issues  Letter of guidance from SE to SFC  Sustainable Development Guidance developed by SFC  UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development

Sustainability policy Letter of Guidance SE requested:  the delivery of sustainable 21st century buildings;  recognising the principles of sustainable development including biodiversity in capital project delivery;  institutions should be encouraged to make use of identified best practice in areas such as procurement, energy efficiency and waste management; and  making a meaningful contribution to the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development.

Sustainability Policy Sustainable Development Guidance – taken from Roger McLure introduction to the guidance - 10 March ’06 – Circular SFC/17/06 7. We will work with the Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges – Scotland, the Scottish Association of Directors of Estates together with representation from college sector to keep our guidance on sustainable development updated. 8. We will include this guidance within the Council’s forthcoming revised estate strategy guidance. 9. We will also be reviewing the estate management data collected for the sectors with the intention of setting benchmarks and relevant key performance indicators for this area. 10. We anticipate that each institution will develop its own sustainable development policy, if it has not already done so, and that colleges and universities will embed the key principles from this guidance within their estate strategies. Similar reference is made in the SE Action Plan for UDESD

Sustainability Policy UN Decade of education for sustainable development SE Action Plan/Estates – August 2006  62. The Funding Council is encouraging colleges and universities to embrace the principles of sustainable development throughout the delivery of major capital projects…the Funding Council has a standard condition of grant which requires reporting on the progress of the delivery of the sustainable development items identified in the capital project.

Sustainability Policy Important areas for the sector  Sustainable design, construction and deconstruction  Best practice in procurement, energy and waste  United Nations Decade on Education for Sustainable Development  SFC Guidance on Sustainable Development  Estates Management Statistics and E-Mandate  Sustainable Development policies  Key Performance Indicators and reporting

Examples of practice within FHE institutions 1. Dundee College - Derek Marshall 2. University of St Andrews – Roddy Yarr 3. University of Edinburgh – David Somervell

Outcomes from CaSPr sustainability baseline review Inga Burton CaSPr Programme manager

Baseline review - purpose To construct a baseline of performance that will enable CaSPr and the EAUC to identify: The state of sustainability in the sector (those participating in CaSPr) Areas needing action Improvements year to year; and Opportunities for providing support both to the sector as a whole and to individual institutions

Baseline review – outcomes of review  The extent to which environmental and sustainability issues are embedded into institutional practice  Level of institutional awareness of legal issues  Quality and quantity of information on environment and sustainability issues  Opportunities for improvement  Possible performance indicators

Baseline review – what was done  Held regional induction workshops during 2005 to obtain feedback  Developed questionnaire  Issued questionnaire to CaSPr institutions (not entire sector)- January 2006  Questionnaires returned March 2006  Questionnaires analysed  Report written

Baseline review - structure of questionnaire You & your college / university SECTION 1 SECTION 4 Data Collection SECTION 2 SECTION 3 General management Legislation, compliance and other requirements Basic contact details Qualitative information Awareness of compliance Quantitative information

Baseline review - responses  30 institutions were contacted  16 (53%) responded  13 (81%) were colleges (43 colleges (68%) in Scotland)  3 (19%) were universities (20 HEIs (32%) in Scotland)

Baseline review – summary of findings Policy  1 institution was accredited to an EMS, another was implementing one  9 had or were developing a sustainability policy  Not all institutions with a policy statement had objectives and targets in the same area  Some institutions had developed working groups without having policies and objectives and vice versa  More attention was given to social policy such as equal opps than to sustainability/environment

Baseline review – summary of findings

KEY: Dotted Grey – Sustainability; Black – Environment; Grey – Equal Opps; Dotted black - Equality

Baseline review – summary of findings Audits  9 had undertaken an energy audit, 6 an environment audit, a few audits on waste, transport and fair trade  No audits had been done on ethical investment Training and staff  Around 50% of institutions had given training of some kind for some staff  Only 25% of institutions that have full time posts for environment/sustainability have policies for sustainability or environment  80% of institutions with at least one post have no policies

Baseline review – summary of findings Procedures  Many institutions have no separate or integrated operational procedures for environment/ sustainability  4 institutions have a risk register with environmental /sustainability risks included Reporting  All the universities and 7 of the colleges submitted information to EMS and E-Mandate  Less than 50% of institutions report internally  Senior management was most usual audience  Few reported to governing bodies

Baseline review - legislation Legislation  7 institutions acknowledged the need to comply with the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991

Baseline review – consumption and production Data  60-70% of institutions could provide information on the costs of water, gas and electricity, fewer could provide information on costs and amounts of other resources

Baseline review – consumption and production % of institutions providing data

Baseline review – consumption and production

Number of institutions with targets or KPIs for specific types of resources or impact

Baseline review - conclusions General management  Many institutions did not have systems in place to manage environmental and sustainability issues  Environmental and sustainability issues were given less priority in comparison to health and safety and equal opps (required by law) Legislation  Institutions lacked awareness of legal requirements Data  In general institutions lack data on production and consumption of resources (cost and quantity)  Very few report or have targets or KPIs

Baseline questions Discussion on outcomes of report  General management  Legislation  Data

Lunch

Agenda for the afternoon  Improving the CaSPr baseline questionnaire  Baseline reports for individual institutions  Sustainability indicators and reporting  Management systems  Next steps for institutions and CaSPr  Coffee and close (~1530)

Group work 1. Improvements to Baseline questionnaire 2. Baseline reports for individual institutions 3. Sustainability indicators and reporting

Improvements to questionnaire 1. Ideas to make the questionnaire easier to complete 2. Examples of problems or improvements relating to Section 2 – General Management 3. Examples of problems or improvements relating to Section 3 – Legislation 4. Examples of problems or improvements relating to Section 4 – Data and Amounts 5. Other ideas for improving the questionnaire

Baseline reports for individual institutions  Would they be useful?  What would you use them for?  Who should they be aimed at?  What should they contain?

Sustainability indicators and reporting Inga Burton

Indicators and reporting Number of institutions with targets or KPIs for specific types of resources or impact

Indicators and reporting Requirements  Significant issues (institutions need to know what the most significant environmental and social issues are for their own institutions - as well as what the important issues are at sector level)  A policy (commitment)  Internal management systems (for delivering policy commitments, supporting and encouraging compliance and reporting)  Resources (human, technical, financial etc)  Accurate information and data (q uantitative/qualitative)  Reporting systems (internal and external e.g. EMS/E-mandate)

Indicators and reporting 1. What are the barriers to reporting 2. What should institutions be gathering data about? 3. What is needed to enable institutions to report on sustainability performance?

Introduction to Management systems Inga Burton CaSPr Programme Manager

Management systems Environmental  ISO14001 (British Standard)  EMAS (Eco-Management and Audit Scheme)  BS8555 (British Standard) – Acorn Scheme Quality  Scottish Quality Management System  EFQM (European Framework for Quality Management)  ISO9001 (British Standard) Health and Safety  OHSAS18001 (Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series)  Scottish Health at Work (SHAW) People  Investors in People (IIP)  CharterMark

Management systems General Benefits  Demonstrate high standards  Demonstrate compliance with legislation  Reduce costs  Improve efficiency  Remove uncertainty and inconsistency by managing disruption and waste  Give competitive advantage  Improve overall performance

Management systems

BS8555 – Phased approach to EMS

Management systems BS Sustainability Management System - draft  Provides a framework  Applicable to all organisations, in terms of size, type etc,  Make it easier to adjust to changing social expectations  Helps connect existing technical, social and environmental standards  Provide stakeholders with a useful tool to assess and engage in improving performance  Contribute to international level dialogue in the international standard on social responsibility (draft)  Incorporates ISO14031 – Environmental Performance Evaluation

Management systems - ISO14031 Taken from ISO14031 Type of indicators Management Operational Environmental Condition ISO14031 – Environmental Evaluation Performance

Management systems 1. Elmwood College – ISO University of St Andrews - Green Tourism Business Scheme 3. EcoCampus

Management systems EcoCampus

Management systems  Environmental Management System (EMS) and award scheme for the higher education sector  Funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)  Collaborative project between Nottingham Trent University (NTU), Loreus Ltd (EMS, software development & training consultancy), EAUC and ENCAMS  Developing EcoCampus as a sector specific tool for rewarding EMS implementation  The scheme will run from December 2005 to December 2008  Phase 1 will involve the commencement of the pilot undertaken by 10 institutions Phase II: the development of the EcoCampus Awards scheme. Phase III: will see the scheme launched nationally.

Management systems - Litter Waste minimisation Water Energy School Grounds Health and Well-being Biodiversity Transport BRONZE - SILVER - GREEN FLAG

Pilot Institutions  Bath Spa University  London School of Economics  Nottingham Trent University  Oxford Brooks University  University of Bradford  University of Bristol  University of Derby  University of Kent  University of Worcester  University of Hertfordshire  South Tyneside College Management systems

Bronze  Planning  - Senior management commitment  - Environmental awareness training  - Baseline environmental review  - Draft environmental policy Silver  Implementing  - Legal & other requirements  - Significant environmental aspects  - Objectives, targets & programmes  - Environmental policy Management systems

Gold  Operating  - Resources, roles, responsibility & authority  - Competence, training and awareness  - Communication  - Documentation  - Control of documents  - Operational control  - Emergency preparedness & response Platinum  Checking & Correcting  - Monitoring & measurement  - Evaluation of compliance  - Nonconformity, corrective & preventative action  - Control of records  - Internal audit  - Management review Management systems

Next steps 1. Priorities 2. What next for CaSPr

Priorities - Institutions  Develop a policy for sustainable development  Integrate sustainability within capital projects, including biodiversity in order that 21 st century buildings are delivered  Be familiar with SFC Guidance on Sustainable Development and integrate aspects of this within Estates strategies  Incorporate best practice in procurement, energy and waste within operations  Improve data collection on energy, water, waste management for reporting through EMS/E-mandate (contact suppliers/contractors to request data from them)  Contribute to UNDESD

Priorities - CaSPr  Continue programme of workshops  Develop case studies  Individual/Sector baseline reports  Topic support networks  Establish stronger connections with Strategic partners and communicate support available  CaSPr meeting January 2007  Set up website  Establish a CaSPr network  Develop programme for

CaSPr workshops in 2006/07 TitleDate/VenueIntended Audience Sustainable construction Building a smart, successful institution 8 December Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh Senior management (finance, procurement) Estates management Energy managementJanuary 2007 University of Glasgow Estates management, Energy managers, Maintenance/ Operational managers. Travel planningJan/Feb 2007 Location t.b.c Estates staff and others interested in campus management