Summary of A4 Paper Saving Project that took place at the University of Limerick,

Rep. of Ireland, 2007-2009.

The project’s main aim was to demonstrate a 20% reduction in a waste stream at source as oppose to just creating waste and then recycling it. “Prevention is better than cure” was the theme of the project and the University of Limerick choose A4 paper as their stream of waste to reduce by 20%.

End of project results indicated a 32% reduction in A4 paper purchases, saving the University over €40,000 and a further €10,000 in waste disposal costs.

However, before we could figure out how to reduce A4 paper consumption at the university we had to first find out :

1. How much A4 paper was coming into the university (through accessing paper purchasing records)

2. How staff and students at the university were using A4 paper (through series of waste audits). Data from those audits indicated how paper was being used (efficiently or wastefully) and approximately how much of it was being disposed of or stored in offices (in drawers, filing cabinets, on shelves etc.) or given out as lecture notes.

3. How we were going to reduce those numbers by 20%

Over the course of the project we were able to determine that :

1. Paper In : The University purchased almost 25 million sheets of A4 paper during the ’05-‘06 academic year.

We could not gain access to the university purchasing records. Despite asking for them on few occasions our requests were not answered. Instead we went straight to the A4 paper suppliers and asked them for copies of their A4 paper sales records to UL for previous two years. This determined how much A4 paper UL purchased each year. It amounted to almost 25 million sheets of paper (white and coloured).

2. How its was used : 80 -90% of waste paper was printed single sided and 85% of the contents of mixed waste bins were waste paper.

After carrying out a series of waste audits over the course of the research the contents of waste paper bins and mixed waste bins were collected from various university buildings. The waste was separated into various categories, i.e. mixed waste, glass, plastic, glossy paper, newspaper, A4 printing paper, coloured printing paper, light cardboard etc. and each category of waste was weighed. The category of A4 waste paper was examined and results showed that the majority of A4 waste paper had been printed on one side only or only part of the page was used. The audit also showed excess printing and photocopying occurring and excess course material being thrown out after having not been used.

3. How we were going to reduce those numbers by 20%

It was decided that all wasted paper issues needed to be addressed immediately and so a “Top 10 Ways to Save Paper” list was circulated to staff and students at the University via e mail. (see appendices)

A survey was carried out to determine how staff and students at the University felt about using paper. Replies indicated that both staff and students had no choice but to use paper as it was part of university policy and that ideally they’d prefer communicate via technology. For example the university handbook for students stated that “course work must be submitted single sided”..

Initiatives that worked:

1. The committee then decided that they would approach the IT department and ask that all student printers be set to print double sided by default. The IT department insisted that it was university policy that coursework (including FYP’s Masters and PhD. theses) be submitted single sided and that until they were issued an mandate to do otherwise they would continue to print single sided. On foot of this issue the committee drafted a proposal to the Deans Council (see appendices) explaining the paper wastage situation, how much it was costing the
University not only in paper purchasing costs but in waste disposal costs too. The Deans Committee approved the proposal which in turn lead to the IT department switching student printers to print double sided by default. This initiative saved the university almost 2 million sheets of paper in the first year alone. Not surprisingly the IT department received no complaints from either staff or students about the change in printing protocol.

2. The majority of paper savings occurred through awareness of the project. Posters (see appendices) reminding staff and student of the effects printing and photocopying was having on the environment were hung in high traffic areas such as print and photocopying rooms, computer rooms, communal meeting areas, library foyer etc., and this seemed to contribute significantly to the overall reduction in A4 paper use So too did sending emails about how to reduce paper and there were regular articles on the progress of the project in the University’s student newspaper, An Focal.

3. Also students were now accessing coursework on line through university internal information systems such as Sulis and SharePoint Portal which lead to further reduction in A4 paper use (unfortunately those reductions couldn’t be quantified). The university library had upgraded they’re information systems to include electronic referencing so students were photocopying less as the information was now available on line.

4. An additional success to the project was Buildings and Estates Department deciding that based on the results of the projects waste audits that all waste paper from offices would be segregated at source, collected separately and sent for recycling. This resulted in each office in the University receiving a blue waste paper only bin and having their mixed waste bins removed.

Initiatives that did not work.

1. We tried implementing double sided photocopying by default on all university copiers but were informed by copy technicians that the equipment would be unable to copy double sided continuously. Photocopying technicians informed us that the internal workings of copiers would over heat and stick causing copiers to jam and would be in constant need of repair. Despite the fact that in preventing the setting of University copiers to copy double sided by default, and that they were in breach of their contract, the university decided not to pursue the issue as it would prove fruitless.

2. We also tried charging students less for printing and copying double sided than single sided. This was in an attempt to rewarding students for being efficient in their paper use but the IT department were not in favour of the idea stating installing the technology proved far too complicated and disruptive to all concerned.

Final data sets :

Resource Used / 05-06 Total Paper Usage / 07-08 Total Paper Usage / Reduction in Environmental Impacts since 05-06 AY
Number of Sheets of A4 Paper / 24,977,750 / 16,883,750 / 8,094,000
Energy Used (kWh) / 904,195 / 611,192 / 293,003
CO2 emissions Tonnes / 564 / 381 / 183
Amount of land required to sequester the CO2(ha) / 107 / 72 / 35
Energy Footprint (energy) (gha) / 150 / 101 / 49
Forest Footprint (gha) / 261 / 176 / 84
Total Ecological Footprint (gha) / 412 / 278 / 134
Source of A4 Paper Saved / Total amount of A4 pages saved
since start of Paper saving project / since start of project
A4 Paper suppliers / 8,094,000
Stand Alone Data of Paper Saved
ITD implementing double sided printing / 1,823,077
Library / 593,018
Total Amount / 2,416,095
Paper saved through awareness / 5,677,906
% saving through awareness / 70
Paper saved through initiatives / 2,416,095
% saving through awareness / 30