Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of Infrastructure Projects - Governing the Nexus: Water, Soil and Waste Resources Considering Global Change - page 119

How much do the so-called environmentally safe goods and services (at the
consumer level) really contribute to a green economy? It is observed that excess use
of manure in the SRI would increase methane emissions and GHGs (Gathorne-
Hardy 2013b ). While SRI is being promoted for its water saving qualities (less
water per kg of paddy produced), its other impacts are not well understood. For
instance, the water saved in SRI is often used to expand the area under crops in the
same location. When taken at the basin scale there will not be any water savings for
environmental requirements (environmental flows). Besides, SRI does not have any
return flows (which is a case for flood irrigation) and hence reduces the availability
of water downstream resulting in inequity. This is observed even in the case of
other water saving technologies (WSTs) (Batchelor et al. 2014 ).
Another case where such granularity is missed is wastewater usage for pro-
ductive purposes. While wastewater is often let out into streams, ponds and rivers
without treating it, its usage downstream for productive purposes not only creates
jobs and income but also results in adverse health impacts. Unless the net impacts
(positive-negative) are assessed, the economics of wastewater use would not be
clear for making investment decisions to create infrastructure for wastewater
treatment (Reddy and Kurian 2010 ). That is, water sector policies and investment
decisions should shift from single use infrastructure to multiple use infrastructure
investment decisions. Such contradictions are also observed in the case of different
biofuel production processes (Davis et al. 2008 ). Therefore, it is necessary to
understand and adopt a comprehensive approach in order to move towards sus-
tainable development. Moreover, macro policy has a critical role in promoting such
approaches and awareness in public as well as private organizations.
Given the fact that sustainable services and food security are integral to LCA,
adoption of LCA could provide double bene

ts in developing countries, where
dwindling services is a major policy concern. In this regard, LCA could provide cost
effective measures as a sector- nancing tool for sector ef ciency. Adopting LCA to

finance the sector would help to get the unit costs right and the right balance of
different cost components for sustainable service delivery. In the case of environ-
mental issues, European countries have introduced standardization processes
through International Organisation of Standards (ISO). ISO has developed standard
labelling like eco-labelling, environmental claims and eco-pro

les for voluntary
adoption (Iraldo et al. 2014 ). Even in Europe, the application of LCA is limited to
design stage and not applied in the implementation stage (Schiller and Dirlich 2013 ).
While adoption of LCA provides win-win policy strategies in developing
countries, there is need for awareness and capacity building for wider promotion
and adoption of LCA. While LCA is not a new concept in these countries, it needs
recasting to address present day concerns. Particularly since LCA is often viewed as
an engineer

'

s tool for project appraisal. Its evolution over the years as an effective
tool to move towards sustainable development and service delivery has also
encouraged planners and

financial managers to adopt it with conviction across the
world. This needs careful articulation in order to mainstream it into policy-making.
Moving towards life cycle thinking and life cycle-management of infrastructure
projects. It is not to suggest that developing countries need to embark on the same