standard LC tools to other regions that had not so far been highlighted in regional
LCM work (e.g. MFA in Alsace, and LCA in Peru, respectively). Two presentations relating to South Australia and Hauts de France respectively, describe the
application of life cycle management and circular economy principles by regional
authorities to move their development policies forward.
This Session discussed extended LCA for new industrial situations, as well as
the application of standard LCA and MFA to additional regions. Both are valuable
in promoting the further use of life cycle methodologies in regions, echoing the
conclusion of a recent book [1] that what is needed is both a further evolution of LC
tools, and raising the profile of LCM among regional managers and policy makers.
The utility of life cycle approaches to regional development is relevant to all
continents as we saw, and it is encouraging that LCA societies are nowadays found
in many countries. It remains to encourage these societies to take a broader view
than simply refining the present assessment methodologies—they also need an eye
on new client groups who have different needs.
4 Future Perspectives
Neither the development agenda nor the LCA environment is standing still. Regions
and local governments are under increasing stakeholder and trade pressure, and are
looking for ways to meet upcoming challenges, whether climate change, biodiversity loss, land preservation or social and employment issues. While certain life
cycle techniques are occasionally used by regions, few base their future development on a systematic life cycle approach. This is particularly unfortunate at a time
when many are experimenting with, for example, circular economy, industrial
ecology, long-term infrastructure planning or ‘sustainable’ forms of manufacture
and business. Now is the right formative moment for the life cycle community to
open its doors to regional government as an important stakeholder and client group,
to speak to them in their language, and to discuss their needs. The incorporation of a
municipality in the recent road test of Organisational Life Cycle Assessment
(O-LCA) [2] is a step (but only a small one) in the right direction. To borrow a
phrase from other area, a dose of positive discrimination in the direction of the
public sector would be a helpful move in enlarging the scope of LCA/LCM
application.
At the same time the life cycle community could usefully accelerate the effort to
further evolve life cycle methodologies that are of interest to regions, such as
landscape and land-use assessment techniques, biodiversity assessment, natural
resource accounting, eco-footprints and so on. There are embryonic moves in these
areas—they could usefully be moved further along to mainstream level in conferences, teaching and research.
Life Cycle Approaches to Sustainable Regional Development
437
LCM work (e.g. MFA in Alsace, and LCA in Peru, respectively). Two presentations relating to South Australia and Hauts de France respectively, describe the
application of life cycle management and circular economy principles by regional
authorities to move their development policies forward.
This Session discussed extended LCA for new industrial situations, as well as
the application of standard LCA and MFA to additional regions. Both are valuable
in promoting the further use of life cycle methodologies in regions, echoing the
conclusion of a recent book [1] that what is needed is both a further evolution of LC
tools, and raising the profile of LCM among regional managers and policy makers.
The utility of life cycle approaches to regional development is relevant to all
continents as we saw, and it is encouraging that LCA societies are nowadays found
in many countries. It remains to encourage these societies to take a broader view
than simply refining the present assessment methodologies—they also need an eye
on new client groups who have different needs.
4 Future Perspectives
Neither the development agenda nor the LCA environment is standing still. Regions
and local governments are under increasing stakeholder and trade pressure, and are
looking for ways to meet upcoming challenges, whether climate change, biodiversity loss, land preservation or social and employment issues. While certain life
cycle techniques are occasionally used by regions, few base their future development on a systematic life cycle approach. This is particularly unfortunate at a time
when many are experimenting with, for example, circular economy, industrial
ecology, long-term infrastructure planning or ‘sustainable’ forms of manufacture
and business. Now is the right formative moment for the life cycle community to
open its doors to regional government as an important stakeholder and client group,
to speak to them in their language, and to discuss their needs. The incorporation of a
municipality in the recent road test of Organisational Life Cycle Assessment
(O-LCA) [2] is a step (but only a small one) in the right direction. To borrow a
phrase from other area, a dose of positive discrimination in the direction of the
public sector would be a helpful move in enlarging the scope of LCA/LCM
application.
At the same time the life cycle community could usefully accelerate the effort to
further evolve life cycle methodologies that are of interest to regions, such as
landscape and land-use assessment techniques, biodiversity assessment, natural
resource accounting, eco-footprints and so on. There are embryonic moves in these
areas—they could usefully be moved further along to mainstream level in conferences, teaching and research.
Life Cycle Approaches to Sustainable Regional Development
437