ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS – THE CASE STUDY OF OSHWAL ACADEMY PRIMARY SCHOOL, NAIROBI KENYA

BY

SHAH PARITA SURESHCHANDRA

SUPERVISED BY: DR. F. MWAURA DR. J. MORONGE

 

Definition

In this study: EA is a documented, objective, systematic way 

systematic examination of interactions between an operation and its surroundings

– ICC  a total assessment of the nature and extent of any harm or detriment caused to, or the risk of any possible harm or detriment which may be caused to, any beneficial use made by any segment of the environment by any industrial process or activity, waste, substance (including any chemical substance) or noise” (GoA 1988-89)  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defined an environmental audit as “a systematic, documented, periodic and objective review by regulated entities of facility operations and practices related to meeting environmental requirements”

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT

 Relatively a new concept in developing world  Origination – USA - EPA  Ideas found in Bruntland Commission+ Ehrlich  Rio Agenda 21 – Principle 16  Kenya – EMCA Sections 68+69- NEMA - Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations – 31+41

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT

 Why do an EA?

Benefits (Kenya – EMCA) - resource conservation - environmental health and safety - helps in planning - financial - compliance with laws - environmental awareness - operational efficiency

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT IN KENYAN CONTEXT

 Annually – initial audit + follow ups  External auditor/self  Education – EMCA -Schedule 2, Section F  Overall follow up of audits – poor

YEAR

2004 2005 2006 2007

SECTOR

Education

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITS RECEIVED

2 Education Education 31 18 Education 14

STATEMENT OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM

 Is EA a tool of resource conservation?

 Is EA done yearly?

 Is Syllabi more environmental oriented?

OBJECTIVES

 To comply with Environmental laws of Kenya  To see if 2005 audits have been complied with  Minimize wastage and provide tools for waste minimization  Improving the environment further

HYPOTHESES

 1. There is no relationship between paper wastage in school and number of children per year.

 2. There is no difference between water wastage through normal taps and press on taps.

 3. There is no relationship in energy conservation between different year groups in Oshwal Academy Primary School.

JUSTIFICATION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

 MDGs and universal education + syllabus incorporating environment  Must do an EA annually  Resource conservation - forests + paper - water + scarcity - water + taps - electricity + conservation  Reusing, recycling, reducing and repairing



LITERATURE REVIEW

Tolba and El Kholy (1992) –An environmental audit measures the relative accuracy of the prediction of impacts and their management through mitigation and compensation”.

 Gege (1997) – 5% reduction in costs  Lethmathe and Doost (2000) –correct accounting + costs of environmental related flows of materials and energy.  INTOSAI WGEA 2007 + Tolba and El Kholy (1992) – EA address issues that are physical in nature and specific to a particular site e.g. field observations and photographs .

 Njuguna (2007) if environmental audits will not be done, results will be:-

“when the forest is gone, the great reservoir of moisture stored up in its vegetable mould is evaporated and the returns only in deluge of rain to wash away the parched dust into which the mould has been converted…

.”  (Glasson, Therivel and Chadwick 2005) audits “best practice” models.

– Some

Examples of Environmental Audits in Western Institutions

 University of Pennsylvania Auditors agree to Ben Franklin’s (1898) statement – “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”.

– Environmental  University of Sussex – EA has helped the university have an EMP + reduce costs

Professor Gordon Conway – former Vice Chancellor

(HEFCE 1998)  Income from recycling has brought savings + reduced financial costs. Helen Tompkins, Graham School (HEFCE 1998)

Examples of Environmental Audits in the Developing World

 fairly new concept  Tolba 1984 – fear and skepticism  Ananda (2004) - Sri Lanka – Environmental audit training needs man power, training and monetary facilities.

 Uganda – Environmental auditing systems in 1995, Kenya in 2003 but Kenya ahead.



The Case of Kenya

1992 Rio Summit 

1.

2.

3.

4.

Wamukoya and Situma 2003 - Development of National Environmental Action Plans –

National Environmental Action Plan for the Period 1994 – 1999 National Environmental Action Plan for the Period 1999 – 2003

EMCA 1999 Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations 2003

 NEMA  Kenya’s educational institutions - 56,679 registered  Mwangi (2008) - Initial EA done by few –

YEAR

2004 2005 2006 2007

TOTAL FIGURES

18 77 37 32

164

Critical Review of Environmental Audits

 INTOSAI (2000) – difficulties of EA - significant gaps in implementation and legislation.

 Guterl and Sheridan (2008) - reliability of data and lack of detailed information.

 Volokh (1997) – Case of Colorado based Coors Brewing Company in 1992.  NEMA + lack of officers

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

UTILIZATION OF KEY INPUTS IN SCHOOLS e.g.

Reduced costs for

Paper

schools

Water Electricity (The way inputs are used can cause environmental problems.)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS High costs of electricity Generation of waste paper Generation of waste water Air pollution Excessive use of non-renewable resources like petrol RESOURCE DEGRADATION Loss of forests Generation of waste water Air pollution Physical degradation Noise pollution

NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT

BENEFITS FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT Resource conservation Compliance with laws Efficiency in usage of materials Reduced waste Awareness creation

DESCRIPTION OF AUDIT SITE

OSHWAL ACADEMY PRIMARY SCHOOL  Location  Direction from city centre  Size – physical  Function  Neighbourhood

MAP SHOWING LOCATION OF THE SCHOOL

OSHWAL ACADEMY PR.

School’s appearance

The School’s old block The school’s new block

School set up

 Started in 1978  In 1978 students only 28, today 995 students  Exam body in till 1984 – CPE  1985 -1987 – KCPE  1987 - 2001 – CPE  2001 till date - BNC

The School Lay Out

Special Education A classroom Library for years 1, 2 and 3 A computer lab

The School Lay Out

The Swimming Pool The School field - Athletics Play area for Reception class The full view of the School field

Sanitary Facilities

FACILITY

Toilets Wash-hand basins Showers

BOYS

24 24 12

GIRLS

24 24 8

STAFF

9 9 4

TOTAL

57 57 24

METHODOLOGY

 Responses obtained from staff, students, neighbours through questionnaires, interviews and general discussions  Primary sources – the school and neighbourood  Secondary sources – audit report of 2005,Environmental Legal Framework like EMCA, authored books, thesis, journals  Data collection for primary data – mixed probability sampling

Data Collection

POPULATION NO. OF UNITS PER COMPONENTS COMPONENT

 Students – Simple random – hat method

STAFF

Office Staff 4 Teaching Staff 109  Staff - Simple random – hat method  Neighbours systematic random – evry 5 th house Support Staff

TOTAL STUDENTS

Year 4 Year 5 Year 6

TOTAL

15

128

148 127 128

403 NO. OF UNITS IN THE SAMPLE

15 13 13

41

1 27 3

31

Primary Data

   Student responses Staff responses Neighbourhood responses  Water quality testing Questionnaires  Measurements and recordings  Camera  Observation – burning vegetation, protective clothing, traffic

Water

 Two types of taps –press-on and normal   Run off rate - press-on, 1 litre in 10 sec.

Run off rate – normal, 470 ml in 10 sec.

Press-on tap at its maximum Normal tap at its maximum

Regulatory Framework

A. Environmental Management and Coordination Act 1999 B. Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulation 2003 C. Environmental Management and Coordination (Water Quality) Regulations of 2006 D. Environmental Management and Coordination (Waste Management) Regulations of 2006 E. Water Act of 2002 F. Building Code of 2000

Regulatory Framework

H. Public Health Act I. Factory Act J. Employment Act K. Legal Notice No 296 of 1996 L. Work Injury Benefits Act (2007)

Regulatory Framework

M. The Local Government Act N. The Penal Code O. Physical Planning Act 1996 P. Energy Policy and Energy Act Q. Vision 2030 R. CCN By-Laws

Data Processing

 Checking all questionnaires  Closed ended compiled in their list  Open ended compiled according to categories

Data Analysis

 Descriptive – dispersion, tools e.g. graphs, cross tabulation, percentages, frequencies, means  Inferential – chi-square – spearman’s rank correlation – student t-test  SPSS Statistical Package  Excel Program

General Rules

 If calculated value is greater than the tabulated value, the null hypothesis was rejected.

 In all tests, degree of significance - 95% ( α = 0.05).

Limitations

 Limited to one area  Screening and control of collected data  Most measurements at nominal level- use of non-parametric tests.

FINDINGS

 This was done in areas of  Water  Electricity  Paper  Safety and security  Transport  Emergency preparedness



Water Use

Carried on for one week  Intervals of one hour  Run off collected in both taps – all washrooms Run-off collected in basin  Equipment  Data recordings hourly Measuring equipment

SUM AND MEAN OF WATER WASTAGE FOR BOTH PRESS-ON AND NORMAL TAPS

1200 1000 800

WASTAGE (LITRES)

600 400 200 0

SUM MEAN PRESS ON TAPS 1071.3

27.47

NORMAL TAPS 171.9

4.41

Monday

Water wastage for all five days

Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

1 0 3 2 6 5 4 4

More Water Wastage Findings

 Gender and class cross tabulation – females more playful

Gender=female Gender=male

Do you like playing with press-on taps in the wash rooms?

no yes 1 0 3 2 6 5 4 4 5

Class

6 5

Class

6 Do you like playing with press-on taps in the wash rooms?

no yes

Water Use Results

 There is no difference between water wastage through normal taps and press on taps – Student t-test  Calculated t = 12.973

 Critical t = 1.960 (df = 38)  Result – null hypothesis rejected, alternative accepted.

Water Sources

 3 sources –    Alpine NCC – kitchen Borehole – boarding, Zero B Storage tank, then tap Goes to the filter, then Zero B  Chemical tests done – signs of problems

Water Test Results

Water Samples Chemical Name

pH

WHO Recommendation s

6.5-8.5

Alpine

8.2

Kitchen boarding

8.0

School kitchen

8.1

Borehole

8.1

Zero B

8.2

Manganese, mg/l

Fluorides, mg/l

Iron chlorides, mg/l 0.4

1.5

0.3

600 0.4

0.23

0.3

15 0

0.17

0.2

17 0

3.62

0.2

44 0

3.8

0.2

45 0

1.96

0.1

47

Electricity

 60 computers + old version  Incoming natural light in class – 74.2% (23/31)  Generator + diesel  Energy conservation

Energy Conservation

.

 Records of lights off – break, lunch after school (questionnaire, observation)

YEAR (STAN DARD) NO OF CHILDREN WHO SWITCHED LIGHTS OFF % OF CHILDREN WHO SWITCHED LIGHTS OFF (%) NO OF CHILDRE N WHO DID NOT SWITCH LIGHTS OFF % OF CHILDREN WHO DID NOT SWITCH LIGHTS OFF (%) TOTAL

6 5 4

TOTAL

12 5 14

31

92.31

38.5

93.33

74.7%

1 8 1

10

7.69

61.5

6.67

23.4%

13 13 15

41

Lights on when children not there

Energy conservation results

  There is no relationship in energy conservation between different year groups in Oshwal Academy Primary School.

– Chi-square Calculated value = 14.249

 Critical value = 5.991 (df = 2)  Result – null hypothesis rejected, alternative accepted.

 Observed difference not by chance

Awareness Creation

Types of environmental awareness creation by staff in school

30 25 20 15 10 Conservation label in a class 5 0

Yes No Environment club 28 3 Curriculum delivery 21 10

T

ype of Awareness Assembly Talks 22 9

Thus students should be encouraged to join the environmental club.

Future Action

Solar Power

Paper

Number of Children and Paper Wastage   Paper wastage high Results since 2005 60 40 20 0 160 140 120 100 80 2000 1500 1000 500 0 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 Number of Children Year Paper wastage(gms) NB. Two scale graph used to get good comparison .

Paper wastage in relation to number of students from 2005 to 2008 2500 2000 1500 1000 4500 4000 3500 3000 YEAR 2005 2006 2007 2008 500 20 40 60 80 100 120

NOOFCHILDREN

140 160 r² = 0.121 – not best fit relationship. No of students not good measurement as relationship is not linear.

Relationship between class and paper wastage

CLASS

Year 4

NO OF CHILDREN

150

DAY 1 (WASTE IN GM)

3300

DAY 2 (WASTE IN GM)

2800

DAY 3 (WASTE IN GM)

3300

MEAN

63 Year 5 127 1800 1600 2000 42.52

Year 6 128 1900 2100 1500 42.97

Paper wastage results

 There is no relationship between paper wastage in school and number of children per year – Spearman's Rank Correlation.

 After Spearman’s Rank Correlation, student t test was used to test the observed.

 Calculated value = 6.314011

 Tabulated value = 2.056 (df = 26)  Result – null hypothesis rejected, alternative accepted .

YEAR

2005 2006

Recycling of paper and plastic waste

COST OF EXERCISE BOOKS (KSH)

247418

SELL OF NEWSPAPERS (KSH)

-

SELL OF PLASTICS (KSH)

-

DIFFERENCE (KSH) % SAVINGS

2006 2007 238013 2007 2008

218400 14160 73953 88116 40.35%

Safety and health - Cleanliness

Maintenance of the garden by the support staff Burning of vegetation in the school compound

Safety and health – Tree pruning

Tree which was leaning toward the school building cut The height of the tree as it was being cut (the picture is put in order to justify that it was tall, thus becoming bent and being a risk hazard)

Safety and health – Protective Clothing

An Ideal Bin staff wearing gloves while cleaning a corridor wall

Afforestation and reafforestation

Tree planting in the school field on environment day Tree planting done in the Kabagare forest of the Aberdares by children and staff of Oshwal Academy Primary School.

Transport

The 25 seater school bus

Traffic problems

Traffic jam in the neighbourhood after school

Emergency preparedness

 Fire – 25 extinguishers  Fire drills + trained staff  Exits  Regular checking of equipment  First aid Fire extinguisher in the first floor of the new block

CONCLUSION

 Initial audit report released late from NEMA  External auditor – didn’t meet expectations of 2005 audit  Management – need to get acquainted with environmental laws  Compliance status on laws

Recommendations

 Water –   change of press-on taps Quality of water – filters (get sponsors)  Energy –     energy saving bulbs Energy efficiency Conservation and awareness Solar array

 Paper  Awareness    Reusing both sides Recycling Frequent trips to recycling factories  Tree planting and care of trees  Waste management – • no burning • Compost pit

 Transport   Big, efficient school buses Transport system (discourage private transport + coordination with parents)  Emergency preparedness   Disaster preparedness like security Inserting smoke alarms  Environmental Management Plan