Tendencias globales para Reducir, Reutilizar, Reciclar y REP - direcciones de las políticas públicas y respuesta de l

1. Tendencias globales para Reducir, Reutilizar, Reciclar y REP - direcciones de laspolíticas públicas y respuesta de la industria

2. What this presentation will cover • A little about Reclay StewardEdge • Why waste management has become a global issue • How this is affecting government policy and legislation • Brief summaries of key global examples • Perspective on the Chile law project

3. About Reclay Group • Founded in 2002 • Headquartered in Cologne, Germany • 280 employees worldwide • Turnover: 170 Million EUR in 2012 (115 billion CLP) • Since 2012 majority shareholder of Reclay StewardEdge, Toronto, Canada • Subsidiaries/offices in Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Switzerland

4. Our expertise Extensive experience designing, implementing and operating recovery and recycling programs for used products and packaging. This includes: • Designing effective policy frameworks reflecting local conditions • Establishing mechanisms for effective implementation of packaging and product recycling programs • Partnering with key stakeholders to successfully manage industry schemesfrom program design to material trading

5. Greenland Sweden Nunavut Alaska Iceland Northwest Territories Russia Finland Yukon Territory Norway ? Estonia United Kingdom Canada Latvia Denmark Lithuania Manitoba British Columbia Alberta Newfoundland & Labrador Belarus Ireland Poland Netherlands Saskatchewan Germany Quebec Ontario Bel. Lux. Czech Rep. Ukraine Kazakhstan Slovakia Prince Edward Island Austria Moldova North Dakota Hungary Switz. Washington New Brunswick France Mongolia Montana Minnesota Slovenia Romania Croatia Italy Maine South Dakota Bosnia & Herz. Nova Scotia Wisconsin VT Oregon Serbia Idaho Michigan New York NH Bulgaria Uzbekistan Montenegro Wyoming Massachusetts Georgia Kyrgyzstan Iowa Macedonia N. Korea Nebraska CT Pennsylvania Portugal Albania Azerbaijan Indiana Spain Armenia RI United States Ohio Illinois New Jersey Turkmenistan Nevada Turkey Tajikistan MD Greece Utah West Virginia Colorado Delaware S. Korea Kansas Missouri Japan Kentucky California Virginia Malta North Carolina Syria Oklahoma Tennessee Cyprus New Mexico Arkansas Lebanon Afghanistan Arizona South Carolina Iran Morocco China Alabama Iraq Tunisia Israel Mississippi Georgia Texas Jordan Pakistan Louisiana Kuwait Nepal Algeria Florida Bhutan Libya Egypt Qatar Western Sahara Bahamas Mexico Bangladesh Taiwan U.A.E. India Cuba Oman Burma Saudi Arabia Laos Dominican Republic Mauritania Haiti Hawaii Mali Jamaica Belize Niger Cape Verde Thailand Eritrea Philippines Chad Honduras Vietnam Senegal Yemen Guatemala Gambia Sudan Cambodia Burkina Faso Nicaragua El Salvador Dijbouti Guinea-Bissau Guinea Benin Panama Nigeria Togo Cote d’Ivoire Costa Rica Sri Lanka Guyana Central African Republic Venezuela Ethiopia Sierra Leone Suriname Ghana Brunei French Guiana Liberia Cameroon Somalia Colombia Malaysia Equatorial Guinea Uganda Singapore Congo Kenya Gabon Rwanda Ecuador Dem. Rep. Congo Burundi Indonesia Papua New Guinea Indonesia Tanzania Peru Solomon Islands East Timor Brazil Angola Zambia Vanuatu Malawi Bolivia Fiji Zimbabwe Namibia Mozambique Botswana Paraguay Chile Madagascar Australia Swaziland Lesotho South Africa Uruguay Argentina New Zealand Reclay Group Consulting & Program Experience

6. 2 billion New Urban Residents by 2030, 3 Billion by 2050 Reference: World Urbanization Prospects, 2011 Revision (United Nations, 2012)

7. Shenzen in 1987 Shenzen today Cities are adding 1,500,000 Residents each Week Reference: WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, World Bank, 2012

8. Global Peak Waste Likely not Before 2100 -Enormous Growth is Coming Reference: WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, World Bank, 2012

9. Waste management costs are increasing Biggest proportional increase in low (and low-middle) income nations Total now = $205 billion Total in 2025 = $376 billion Reference: WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, World Bank, 2012

10. Search for “Global Solutions” is on Waste management has become a global problem Six “big ideas” for accelerating reduction, reuse & recycling • Promote “best practices” • Green taxes • Tradable credits • Collaborative consumption • Circular economy • Extended Producer Responsibility Common objective to scale up perceived 3Rs best practices

11. Collaborative Consumption Access to goods and skills without ownership Product-service systems for sharing or renting of a product Redistribution markets, which enable the sale and reuse of a product Collaborative lifestyles in which assets and skills can be shared Lower costs, less waste, and community building

12. Credit: City of Melbourne

13. Credit: City of Melbourne

14. Credit: City of Melbourne

15. Credit: City of Melbourne

16. Circular Economy Framework Embodies Different Sustainability Concepts & Philosophies Enables Different Tools & Mechanisms The Circular Economy The Circular Economy Closed Loop Voluntary Industry Initiatives Cradle-to-Cradle Deposit Laws Natural Economy Informal Sector Industrial Ecology EPR Resource Efficiency Landfill Bans

17. The Circular Economy Reference: Towards the Circular Economy – McKinsey & Company for The Ellen MacArthur Foundation

18. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is, according to OECD (2001), an environmental policy approach in which a producer's responsibility, physical and/or financial, for a product is extended to the post-consumer stage of a product's life cycle. A wide range of EPR models have been implemented globally.

19. Greenland Sweden Nunavut Alaska Iceland Northwest Territories Russia Finland Yukon Territory Norway ? Estonia United Kingdom Canada Latvia Denmark Lithuania Manitoba British Columbia Alberta Newfoundland & Labrador Belarus Ireland Poland Netherlands Saskatchewan Germany Quebec Ontario Bel. Lux. Czech Rep. Ukraine Kazakhstan Slovakia Prince Edward Island Austria Moldova North Dakota Hungary Switz. Washington New Brunswick France Mongolia Montana Minnesota Slovenia Romania Croatia Italy Maine South Dakota Bosnia & Herz. Nova Scotia Wisconsin VT Oregon Serbia Idaho Michigan New York NH Bulgaria Uzbekistan Montenegro Wyoming Massachusetts Georgia Kyrgyzstan Iowa Macedonia N. Korea Nebraska CT Pennsylvania Portugal Albania Azerbaijan Indiana Spain Armenia RI United States Ohio Illinois New Jersey Turkmenistan Nevada Turkey Tajikistan ? MD Greece Utah West Virginia Colorado Delaware S. Korea Kansas Missouri Japan Kentucky California Virginia Malta North Carolina Syria Oklahoma Tennessee Cyprus New Mexico Arkansas Lebanon Afghanistan Arizona South Carolina Iran Morocco China Alabama Iraq Tunisia Israel Mississippi ? Georgia Texas Jordan Pakistan Louisiana Kuwait Nepal Algeria Florida Bhutan Libya Egypt Qatar Western Sahara Bahamas Mexico Bangladesh Taiwan U.A.E. India Cuba Oman Burma Saudi Arabia Laos Dominican Republic Mauritania Haiti ? Hawaii Mali Jamaica Belize Niger Cape Verde Thailand Eritrea Philippines Chad Honduras Vietnam Senegal Yemen Guatemala Gambia Sudan Cambodia Burkina Faso Nicaragua El Salvador Dijbouti Guinea-Bissau Guinea Benin Panama Nigeria V Togo Cote d’Ivoire Costa Rica Sri Lanka Guyana Central African Republic Venezuela Ethiopia Sierra Leone Suriname Ghana Brunei French Guiana Liberia Cameroon Somalia Colombia Malaysia Equatorial Guinea Uganda Singapore Congo Kenya Gabon Rwanda Ecuador Dem. Rep. Congo Burundi Indonesia Papua New Guinea Indonesia Tanzania Peru Solomon Islands East Timor Brazil Angola Zambia Vanuatu Malawi Bolivia Fiji Zimbabwe Namibia Mozambique Botswana Paraguay Chile Madagascar Australia Swaziland Lesotho South Africa Uruguay Argentina New Zealand Used Packaging Management Initiatives 1990 No Waste Packaging or Product Stewardship Legislation Beverage Container Deposit Legislation

20. V V V V Greenland Sweden Nunavut Alaska Iceland Northwest Territories Russia Finland Yukon Territory Norway ? Estonia United Kingdom Canada Latvia Denmark Lithuania Manitoba British Columbia Alberta Newfoundland & Labrador Belarus Ireland Poland Netherlands Saskatchewan Germany Quebec Ontario Bel. Lux. Czech Rep. Ukraine Kazakhstan Slovakia Prince Edward Island Austria Moldova North Dakota Hungary Switz. Washington New Brunswick France Mongolia Montana Minnesota Slovenia Romania Croatia Italy Maine South Dakota Bosnia & Herz. Nova Scotia Wisconsin VT Oregon Serbia Idaho Michigan New York NH Bulgaria Uzbekistan Montenegro Wyoming Massachusetts Georgia Kyrgyzstan Iowa Macedonia N. Korea Nebraska CT Pennsylvania Portugal Albania Azerbaijan Indiana Spain Armenia RI United States Ohio Illinois New Jersey Turkmenistan Nevada Turkey Tajikistan MD Greece Utah West Virginia Colorado Delaware S. Korea Kansas ? Missouri Japan Kentucky California Virginia Malta North Carolina Syria Oklahoma Tennessee Cyprus New Mexico Arkansas Lebanon Afghanistan Arizona South Carolina Iran Morocco China Alabama Iraq Tunisia Israel Mississippi Georgia Texas Jordan Pakistan Louisiana ? Kuwait Nepal Algeria Florida Bhutan Libya Egypt Qatar Western Sahara Bahamas Mexico Bangladesh Taiwan U.A.E. India Cuba Oman Burma Saudi Arabia Laos Dominican Republic Mauritania Haiti Hawaii Mali V Jamaica Belize Niger ? Cape Verde Thailand Eritrea Philippines Chad Honduras Vietnam Senegal Yemen Guatemala Gambia Sudan Cambodia Burkina Faso Nicaragua El Salvador Dijbouti Guinea-Bissau Guinea Benin Panama Nigeria Togo Cote d’Ivoire Costa Rica Sri Lanka Guyana Central African Republic Venezuela Ethiopia Sierra Leone V Suriname Ghana Brunei French Guiana Liberia Cameroon Somalia Colombia Malaysia Equatorial Guinea Uganda Singapore Congo Kenya Gabon Rwanda Ecuador Dem. Rep. Congo Burundi Indonesia Papua New Guinea Indonesia Tanzania Peru Solomon Islands East Timor Brazil Angola Zambia Vanuatu Malawi Bolivia Fiji Zimbabwe Namibia Container Packaging Taxes Mozambique Botswana Paraguay Chile v Madagascar Australia Swaziland Beverage Container Deposit Legislation Lesotho South Africa Uruguay Argentina Packaging Waste Legislation & Product Stewardship in Place V New Zealand Industry-led Voluntary Recycling Used Packaging Management Initiatives 2000 V

21. Greenland Sweden Nunavut Alaska Iceland Northwest Territories Russia Finland Yukon Territory Norway ? Estonia United Kingdom Canada Latvia Denmark Lithuania Manitoba British Columbia Alberta Newfoundland & Labrador Belarus Ireland Poland Netherlands Saskatchewan Germany Quebec Ontario Bel. Lux. Czech Rep. Ukraine Kazakhstan Slovakia Prince Edward Island Austria Moldova North Dakota Hungary Switz. Washington New Brunswick France Mongolia Montana Minnesota Slovenia Romania Croatia Italy Maine South Dakota Bosnia & Herz. Nova Scotia Wisconsin VT Oregon Serbia Idaho Michigan New York NH Bulgaria Uzbekistan Montenegro Wyoming Massachusetts Georgia Kyrgyzstan Iowa Macedonia N. Korea Nebraska CT Pennsylvania Portugal Albania Azerbaijan Indiana Spain Armenia RI United States Ohio Illinois New Jersey Turkmenistan Nevada Turkey Tajikistan MD Greece Utah West Virginia Colorado Delaware S. Korea Kansas ? Missouri Japan Kentucky California Virginia Malta North Carolina Syria Oklahoma Tennessee Cyprus New Mexico Arkansas Lebanon Afghanistan Arizona South Carolina Iran Morocco China Alabama Iraq Tunisia Israel Mississippi Georgia Texas Jordan Pakistan Louisiana ? Kuwait Nepal Algeria Florida Bhutan Libya Egypt Qatar Western Sahara Bahamas Mexico Bangladesh Taiwan U.A.E. India Cuba Oman Burma Saudi Arabia Laos Dominican Republic Mauritania Haiti Hawaii Mali Jamaica Belize Niger ? Cape Verde Thailand Eritrea Philippines Chad Honduras Vietnam Senegal Yemen Guatemala Gambia Sudan Cambodia Burkina Faso Nicaragua El Salvador Dijbouti Guinea-Bissau Guinea Benin Panama Nigeria Togo Cote d’Ivoire Costa Rica Sri Lanka Guyana Central African Republic Venezuela Ethiopia Sierra Leone V Suriname Ghana Brunei French Guiana Liberia Cameroon Somalia Colombia Malaysia Equatorial Guinea Uganda Singapore Congo Kenya Gabon Rwanda Ecuador Dem. Rep. Congo Burundi Indonesia Papua New Guinea Indonesia Tanzania Peru Solomon Islands East Timor Brazil Angola Zambia Vanuatu Malawi Bolivia Fiji Zimbabwe Namibia Mozambique Botswana Paraguay Chile Madagascar Australia Swaziland Lesotho South Africa Uruguay Argentina Proposed/Expected New Zealand Packaging Waste Legislation & Product Stewardship in Place Used Packaging Management Initiatives 2013

22. Country Performance: Overall Recycling Quotas in 2009(%)

23. Typical Recycling Model Operated in Europe

24. Funcionamiento del Sistema Integrados de Gestión (SIG) 1 S I G 2 EMPRESAS Aportan una cuota según 7 los envases que pongan en el mercado Recauda Y Administra En CC.AA. donde esté autorizado el SIG Nuevos envases 6 y/o productos Reciclado 5 El SIG paga el coste adicional de la recogida selectiva y apoya las acciones de sensibilización hacia los ciudadanos CC.AA. 3 Planta de selección Convenios Marco por tipo de material Rechazo Las entidades locales pueden adherirse a los Convenio directo Convenios Marco firmados con CC.AA. Valorización ENTIDADES LOCALES energética Recogida selectiva Los ciudadanos separan en el Convenios de Colaboración A cargo de las entidades hogar y depositan los residuos locales en contenedores específicos 4

25. full-colour symbols = program in place or pending white-washed symbols = program proposed or under consideration EPR Programs in Canada see inset 2012 Status

26. Case Study Ontario 900,000 square kms. 12.7M population 4.4M households 500 municipalities • Organized into 120 regional recycling programs 95% of single family homes with recycling services ~25% of multi-family units served

27. Ontario’s Blue Box Program Plan (BBPP) Brand Owners & first importers are “producers” Producers fund 50% approved net cost of municipal residential Blue Box programs • Shared responsibility approach Blue Box Waste defined as: • Glass, metal, paper, plastic & textiles or any combination of above Producers report on and pay for amount & type of printed paper & packaging they supply into the market

28. Sistemas de Gestión de EnvasesPost-Consumo Total Responsabilidad del Sector Público ResponsabilidadCompartida Total Responsabilidad del Sector Privado • Manejocompartido • Financiaciónpublico-privada • Acciónconjuntamunicipalidades- sector privado • Manejoprivado • Financiado a traves de aportes de los productores • Sistemaindependiente • ManejoEstatal • Financiado a traves de impuestos • Serviciopúblico

29. Sistemas de Gestión de EnvasesPost-Consumo Total Responsabilidad del Sector Público ResponsabilidadCompartida Total Responsabilidad del Sector Privado • Consumidorpaga y el gobiernomaneja el sistema • No incentivosparamejorarcaracteristicas del envasepor parte del productor • El productorpaga parte del costo total del sistema • El productor y el consumidor/gobierno local tienenen el incentivo de mejorar la eficiencia del programa de reciclaje • Productorpaga y es responsible de la operación del sistema • El productorestamotivado en realizarmejoras en el empaqueusado

30. The Essence of “EPR” • Internalizing Costs • Producer Management • Level Playing Field • Regulatory Oversight

31. What are the Key Drivers of EPR? • EPR a reflection of broader transition underway • Quantifying environmental impacts • Internalizing these costs to producers & users • Driven by converging forces • Government systemic financial stress • Commercial pressures for greater transparency along the supply chain • Securing supplies of key strategic materials • Policy innovation & adoption across the OECD • Recognition that cradle-to-cradle management essential to sustainability • Social license to grow

32. La Importancia de los Recolectoresde Base • A nivelmundialmillones de recolectores de base retiranmanualmentematerial reciclabledestinado a rellenos: • India: 1.5 millones (2010), en su mayoríamujeres y gruposmarginados • Colombia: 18,000 (?) “recicladores” • Uruguay: 15,000 “clasificadores” • Argentina: 42,000 “cartoneros” • Brasil: 229,000 “catadores” • Realizan la separacióndel material recicladoqueesvendido en los mercadosglobales • Con frecuenciatrabajan en condiciones de riesgo

33. “¿Puedesentirseorgulloso de estacadena de valor?”

34. El Reto: Integración de los Recolectores de Base a la Economía Formal Antes Después

35. Will the Chile EPR law meet its objectives? • Should EPR be integrated into comprehensive general waste law? • Are legislators also prepared to: • Require households to pay for waste management services? • Make recycling mandatory? • Ban priority materials from final disposal?

36. Can Chile “de-link” economic growth & waste? Reference: WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, World Bank, 2012

37. Thank you Derek Stephenson – Presidentdstephenson@reclaystewardedge.comTel: 416.594.3459