Waste not want not - States Assembly

Figure 7: A more detailed version
of the waste hierarchy
Waste
reduction
Re-use
Recycling &
Composting
Energy recovery with
heat & power
Energy recovery
Landfill with energy recovery
Landfill
Source: in Murray R. Creating Wealth from Waste
from work by Merrill Lynch
binding tool in the same way as the Waste
Hierarchy in Figure 6 under the EC Waste
Framework Directive.
Figure 8: SU version of the
waste hierarchy
Reduce
Re-use
Recycle
A mixture of pretreatment
and disposal
options
5.9 A third alternative is possible by combining
the two versions in Figures 6 and 7 into Figure 8.
This retains the principle of moving up the
hierarchy to a reduction-re-use-recycling-led
strategy but makes a clearer distinction between
these options and disposal or pre-treatment
options. 65 It is a clearer guide to non-waste
experts and underpins the approach of the
strategy set out later in this chapter and in
detail in the remainder of the report, namely to
aim for options in the top half of the hierarchy.
It provides a helpful way of focusing on the
main themes in this strategy – namely reducing,
re-using and recycling waste. However, it should
be stressed that it is not an accepted and legally
5.10 However, it is clear that whatever the
specification of the waste hierarchy, it can only
be a partial guide to decision making. It shows
an ordering of the options and illustrates that
each step up will generate an additional
environmental benefit. To be of practical use it
needs to be assessed against other criteria,
including costs, to reach an acceptable point on
the hierarchy. This is why the principle of the
BPEO is used by waste management experts at
local level together with the hierarchy (see Box 7).
5.11 There are cases where the BPEO for a type
of waste may be some way down the hierarchy.
Box 7: Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO)
The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (12th Report) defined BPEO as
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT
“for a given set of objectives, the option that provides the most benefits or the least damage to
the environment as a whole, at acceptable costs in the long term as well as in the short term.”
65
This does not imply that pre-treatment or other disposal options have no value, nor that all the options within the lower half have the
same environmental impact
44