The Waste Hierarchy has little scientific or technical basis. There is no scientific reason, for example, why materials recycling should always be preferred to energy recovery.
The hierarchy is of little use when a combination of options is used, as in an IWM system. In an IWM system, the hierarchy cannot predict, for example, whether composting combined with incineration of the residues would be preferable to materials recycling plus landfilling of residues. What is needed is an overall assessment of the whole system, which the Waste Hierarchy cannot provide.
The Waste Hierarchy does not address costs. Therefore it cannot help assess the economic affordability of waste systems.
Effective schemes need the flexibility to design, adapt and operate systems in ways which best meet current social, economic and environmental conditions. These are likely to change over time and vary by geography.
The need for consistency in quality and quantity of recycled materials, compost or energy, the need to support a range of disposal options and the benefit of economies of scale, all suggest that integrated waste management should be organized on a large-scale, regional basis.
Any scheme incorporating recycling, composting or waste-to-energy technologies must be market-orientated. There must be markets for products and energy.