The European Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) explicitly specifies the hierarchy
for waste management: prevention, preparation for re-use, recycling, other recovery
actions, disposal. When selecting waste management options, this waste hierarchy should be
followed. A deviation can only be justified by Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) on the overall
impacts. The application of this principle in the Flemish waste management practice
triggered the need for evaluation of treatment options for several waste streams.
Alternative treatments were evaluated for waste batteries, used frying oils and waste oil.
The evaluation methodology combined life cycle assessment with technical and economical
viability criteria. These cases show that LCT does not allow to establish a “general
priority order”. In each case reasons for deviation from the standard waste hierarchy
could be given, but also none of the evaluated options can be considered as the best. The
evaluation showed that the priority is largely dependent on location-specific
characteristics of inputs, outputs, processes and installations and that the establishment
of local and global environmental priorities always implies a value choice. In this
presentation, we will present the results of the three cases and provide a methodological
framework for life cycle thinking in waste management policy.