Trash2Cash Waste Management Solutions - Pitch&Switch Results

PITCH&SWITCH RESULTS

2

FOREWORD

by Minister of Transport, Integrity, Nature & Senior Affairs Mr. Ursell Arends On February 22, 2022, Trash to Cash was launched symbolically with my promise to reduce, reuse and recycle our waste. As Minister of Nature, I am working to bring immediate solutions in the short term for Parkietenbos, as well as to realize a comprehensive waste management policy. Hereto, a draft policy document 'Waste Management' was devised, where I also presented my vision for Aruba: "To realize a robust waste sector based on responsible waste management and on the principles of a circular economy in which every citizen contributes to a cleaner Aruba and the conservation, rehabilitation and restoration of our nature."

To realize this vision, the strategic goals and actions are focused on all components of the vision, whereby the Trash to Cash platform and the Pitch & Switch event were the first steps toward closing the landfill at Parkietenbos.

And to close the dump, the waste currently flowing to Parkietenbos needs to be redirected and effectively processed. The objective was to take an inventory of all the end-of-life processing options and opportunities. This, so that the waste currently flowing to the dump at Parkietenbos can be diverted instead to waste companies with the ability and expertise to receive and process these waste streams effectively.

The Trash to Cash platform, and its Pitch&Switch event held on March 22, 2022, allowed us to take the first steps in achieving the goals of a sustainable waste policy for Aruba. Based on the solutions inventory taken, and the stakeholder evaluation process, the next step to designing Aruba’s new waste policy in collaboration with the stakeholders starts now!

3

4

CONTENTS Foreword

3

Preface

6

Panelist Disclaimer

7

Introduction

8

Key Statistics

9

Pitch&Switch

10

Pitch Guidelines

11

Expert Panel

12

Methodology

13

Results

16

Conclusion & Recommendations

20

Next Steps

21

Appendices

23

Appendix A: Pitch Guidelines Appendix B: T2C Pitch&Switch Program Appendix C: Signed Non-Disclosure Agreements Appendix D: Evaluation Rubric

5

PREFACE Aruba's waste system is currently in urgent need of reorganization and regulation: a "waste authority" to properly manage and control the sector has been lacking for decades. Traditionally, waste has been treated as a single item, while in reality, it consists of many different materials and substances, with effective processing varying depending on the waste type or category. To move from the current structure to one based on responsible management and circular principles, the system, as a whole, needs appropriate and long overdue commitment from the Government of Aruba.

On February 22, 2022, the Minister of Nature, Mr. Ursell Arends launched the Trash to Cash platform with a promise to reduce, reuse and recycle Aruba’s waste toward a circular model. The first step hereto is to close the dump at Parkietenbos by the end of 2022. To achieve this, the waste currently flowing to this landfill must first be redirected elsewhere.

The Pitch & Switch event held four weeks later, on March 22, 2022, was aimed at taking an inventory of all the waste processing opportunities that could receive the diverted waste from Parkietenbos. A total of 24 ideas were presented at this event, reviewed by an independent expert panel.

The Pitch&Switch event showed that many options exist to process waste in a more responsible manner, and in a localized context for circular principles while fortifying our local economy. This report explains the process for the Pitch&Switch event and presents the results. Based on the panelist evaluation and set criteria, the next step is to enter into the design phase of Aruba’s new waste policy in collaboration with selected stakeholders.

6

PANELIST DISCLAIMER The results reported herein attempt to reflect the collective opinion of the panelists who have contributed to the evaluation of the presenters at the Pitch&Switch event held on March 22, 2022. The results do not necessarily imply an agreed position nor endorsement of any participating company or individual that pitched their idea or solution.

This report has been coordinated by the Ministry of Nature, who takes full responsibility for the report’s contents and conclusions. Hereto, the views and policies conveyed by the Ministry of Nature do not necessarily imply an agreed position nor endorsement of the Minister of Nature or the Government of Aruba.

We, the panelists, hereby sign for having read the contents of this report. We, the panelists, also hereby sign in agreement to the contents pertaining to the parts we contributed to, namely the methodology, results, and the conclusion & recommendations.

7

INTRODUCTION TRASH TO CASH PLATFORM

The Trash to Cash Platform was launched with the goals to create awareness within the community at large on (1) the challenges Aruba has with waste, (2) the potential economic value of our waste, and (3) the impacts on nature.

PARKIETENBOS

Parkietenbos gets its name historically for having been an area known for an abundance of parakeets within its mangrove forest.

Currently, it has become a toxic source in all senses – the contamination from the landfill is not only harming nature, but also the entire surrounding area and its inhabitants.

PITCH&SWITCH The Pitch&Switch event took place on March 22, 2022, one month after the launch of the Trash to Cash waste management solutions platform on February 22, 2022. The event hosted 24 presentations of various processing methods, including tires, glass, organic or food waste, and many more.

8

KEY STATISTICS GENERAL Currently, Aruba generates an average of 140,000 tons of waste annually, and this is set to grow by another 10,000 tons by 20251.

Traditionally, waste has been treated as one item. In reality, our waste is composed of many different materials and substances.

WASTE BY VOLUME

In 2019 and 2020, between a third to half of Aruba’s total waste still ended up at the dump at Parkietenbos2. The largest volumes include construction or demolition waste (~30%) and pallet or plant-based waste (~17-20%). Other unnecessary categories of waste reaching the dump include glass, tires, metals, waste oil, and many more.

DOGS OF PARKIETENBOS The Ministry of Nature together with Bureau City Inspector calculates that there are between 200 to 300 dogs living on the landfill. A plan is currently being developed on how to tackle this as part of the goal of closing the landfill at Parkietenbos.

1 2

Minister of Finance, 2019 Serlimar waste composition data for Parkietenbos, 2019 & 2020

9

PITCH&SWITCH To participate in the Pitch&Switch event, any established company, startup or individual could register on the Trash to Cash website, www.trashtocasharuba.org. Registrations opened on the Trash to Cash platform launch date on February 22, 2022, and closed on March 8, 2022, at 11.59pm.

In total, 34 registrations were received, whereby 1 registration was late, 1 was a double registration and 1 did not intend to register.

Hereto, all 31 valid registrants were selected to pitch.

34

The Trash to Cash Pitch & Switch event was held at the Renaissance Convention Center on March 22, 2022, from 8am to 2pm. From the 31 registrants, 3 cancelled their participation for a total of 28 participants on the Pitch & Switch program (see Appendix B), of which another 4 companies either cancelled at the last minute or were no-shows.

31

Due to the number of registrations received, the presenters were grouped to pitch simultaneously in two rooms. Each room had its own set of panelists to evaluate the presented solutions. The presentations were also attended by the Council of Ministers.

registrations

selected to pitch

24

presenters pitched their solutions

To protect the intellectual property of presenters, and/or any informal relationships they may have with international companies, the event was closed to the public. Additionally, all those present in the pitch rooms were required to sign an NDA (see appendix C). This included the panelists, volunteers and any team members working the event.

10

PITCH GUIDELINES

The following are the pitch guidelines as presented to participants and are also included in Appendix A for reference.

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS Each pitch must start with highlighting (a) the specific problem you/your company aims to solve, (b) why you/your company is apt for tackling the problem, (c) how it will be solved, and (d) the role expected from the of government of Aruba (be explicit!). You must also show how the three pillars of sustainability people, planet, and prosperity are met. Other key information to share may include any current/projected bottlenecks. REMEMBER: your presentation will be a high-level bird’s eye view of your solution, so keep it simple!

PEOPLE How does your idea help the people of Aruba (broadest sense)?

WHY THE 3 PILLARS?

When we create solutions that have a positive impact for all three of these pillars, it likely means we are changing business as usual by embedding a more responsible mindset from the get-go into our business models.

PEOPLE PLANET How does your idea help the environment and nature of Aruba (broadest sense)?

Examples: work environment, employee health & safety, inclusiveness, community engagement or involvement, number of additional job creations, contribution to culture enrichment, development of pro-environmental values, etc.

PLANET

Examples: solves a waste stream, level within waste hierarchy, leakage/pollution/emission prevention, impacts on waste generation (value-chain perspective), environmental operating standards/certifications, circular or zero-waste models, any other impacts (direct/indirect) on nature/environment.

PROSPERITY How does your idea help the prosperity of Aruba’s economy (broadest sense)?

PROSPERITY Examples: business model, business case, long-term sustainability/continuity, job creation, circular or zero-waste models, any indirect financial impacts (costs related to healthcare, environment & nature, etc.).

11

EXPERT PANEL The expert and independent panel for the Pitch&Switch event on March 22, 2022, consisted of 12 members, 6 in each pitch room.

The expertise of the panelists was varied, and included, for example, backgrounds in sociology, marine biology, environment, hotelier, engineering, business & entrepreneurship, and a citizen of the Parkietenbos area.

The panelists for each pillar were as follows:

Twelve panelists based on the three pillars of sustainability: people, planet, & prosperity

People Dr. Paula Kibbelaar drs. Greg Peterson Mrs. Dyane Escalona-Vis, MBA Dr. Ryan Peterson Planet Ms. Sietske van der Wal, MSc Ms. Anastacia Brete, BSc ir. Javier Sint Jago Ms. Kryss Facun, MSc Prosperity Mr. Jurgen van Schaijk Mr. Elthon Lampe, ing.

Mr. Tristan Every Mr. Stanley Brown

12

METHODOLOGY The philosophy behind the Trash to Cash platform was to create an opportunity for any individual to participate in solving Aruba’s waste challenges. This inclusive approach allowed startups and individuals to pitch their ideas at the Pitch&Switch event, beyond the expected well-known or established waste companies.

Any and all that aspired to be part of the solution to Aruba’s waste management challenges moving forward were required to undergo the same process under the same conditions. This hereby resulted in a level playing field for all participants.

PROCESS 1. Trash to Cash website launched and registrations opened on February 22, 2022.

2. Registration through www.trashtocasharuba.org.

3. Registration requirements included: First name Last name Email Phone number Country of Residence Company name (if applicable)

Company description: • A well-established company • A startup, or • No company yet established Company Country (if applicable) Video upload link (2-minute video)

4. Registrations closed on March 8, 2022, at 11.59pm.

5. Selection process by T2C team on March 9, 2022, whereby all valid registrants were invited to participate.

6. Selection status was communicated to registrants on March 10, 2022. The Pitch Guidelines were also shared in this communication.

7. All participants were required to have their PPT presentations submitted to T2C by 12pm noon on March 21, 2022to allow for technical setup and testing pre-event (production team).

8. All participants were offered the option to a dry run of their pitch to take place on March 21, 2022, between 3pm and 5pm at event location.

9. Panelists were invited to evaluate participant ideas and solutions based on the three pillars of sustainability, namely people, planet & prosperity.

10. Panelist names were not published nor shared with companies to avoid any influencing pre-event and hereto to protect the integrity of the panelists and evaluation process.

11. Participating names/companies were not published nor shared publicly or with panelists to avoid any influencing pre-event and hereto to protect the integrity of the event and the process.

12. The digital evaluation form was not published nor shared with anyone externally. The panelists received an explanation/training of the evaluation rubric on March 21, 2022, in the late afternoon.

The evaluation rubric was digital and allocated on a tablet that each panelist received for use at the event and for the duration of the event.

13

EVENT FORMAT 1. The Pitch&Switch event was hosted on March 22, 2022, from 8am to 2pm, at the Renaissance Convention Center.

2. The event was a closed event to ease any concerns raised by presenters relevant to their intellectual property. All those present, including panelists, volunteers and T2C team members, were required to sign an NDA with the Government of Aruba (see Appendix C).

3. Due to the number of registrations received, the program (see Appendix B) was devised with two pitches being presented simultaneously in separate rooms, each with its own set of six panelists representing the three pillars.

4. Each participant had a maximum of 7 minutes to present their ideas and solutions based on the Pitch Guidelines shared (see Appendix A).

5. Each presentation was followed by a 5-minute Q&A with the panelists, guided by the MC. 6. A timekeeper was allocated in each pitch room to support the presenters and MC. The time allocated for each presenter was adhered to strictly to safeguard the level playing field among all participants equally.

7. Presenters were expected to be on location 30 minutes prior to their pitch timeslot and were not expected to stay on location after their presentations.

8. Due to the nature of the event being closed, each presenter was asked to give an interview after their pitch. This allowed the presenters to choose freely which information to share without impeding any intellectual property. This is facilitating transparency about the event toward the community at large post-event.

9. Besides the evaluation by the independent expert panel, the technically trained team of the Directorate of Nature & Environment (hereafter: DNM) took on an observer’s role. The aim was to engage DNM for the next steps of the waste policy design where they would be a key design partner. Specifically, any red flags or unanswered questions about the solutions presented were to be documented so that these could be addressed in the design phase with the stakeholders.

EVALUATION RUBRIC The evaluation rubric (see Appendix D) consisted of five sections, namely: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

The problem (Q1 – Q2) The solution (Q3 – Q8) The expectations from the government (Q9), and The pillars beyond prosperity for people and planet (Q10 – Q11) Open section for any additional comments or feedback by panelists.

Panelists provided a high-level rating, based only on the information presented during the 7 minutes presentation and with no other documentation reviewed in advance. For each question in section 1 and 2 (Q1 - Q8), panelists were able to rate the presenter from a score of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). For section 3, panelists were able to check all relevant options as to the expectations of the government as presented by the participant, as well as add any additional options not listed. Finally, for section 4 (Q10 – Q11), panelists had the option to rate the presenter for each of the pillars in a multiple-choice question. These two final questions were scaled from 1 (lowest) to 4 (highest) in terms of the representation of the pillar within the solution or business model. To reach a comparable final overall result per presenter, the scales for this final section were adjusted to a five-point scale.

14

In terms of scoring, questions from section 1, 2 and 4 were calculated for an overall average (mean) per participant. The median or mode for such a small sample would not be valuable in evaluating the solutions, where the average score is a more comprehensible representation. The standard deviation for each question and for the overall average was calculated to check for variance.

For the purpose of closing the landfill at Parkietenbos, if the cutoff score was too strict, the expertise represented in the design phase would be limited. If the scoring was too lenient, too many at the table could hinder the speed and the consensus among stakeholders. To reach a reasonable selection process, a panelist meeting was held where the consensus reached was that the cutoff would be a score of 4.0 or higher. If a waste stream was not represented in those selected and/or a particular processing method, the participant with the successive highest score would be included in the selection for the design phase.

For all clarity purposes, the aim of the Pitch&Switch event was to take an inventory of the possible processing solutions towards the design phase of Aruba’s waste policy with the ultimate goal to close the landfill at Parkietenbos. Meaning, a presenter not selected for this phase of the design process does not imply they will be excluded from the waste sector, now nor in the future. And from a structural perspective, one of the objectives is to create a robust waste sector for the future.

To finalize the methodology, question 9 was designed to have the participants be explicit of their expectations of the government. The final question (section 5) allowed panelists to add any additional comments or feedback to aid in explaining findings. The overall results are explained in the next section.

15

RESULTS The results section will firstly explain participant demographics briefly. As for the evaluation findings, and as previously stated, the evaluation rubric (see Appendix D) was devised in five sections, with the last section for additional notes about participant solutions presented. Hereto, section 1 to 4 findings are described below and are concluded with the overall results.

DEMOGRAPHICS In total, 24 participants pitched their solutions, from which 22 presenters were local and 2 were international. In total, solutions for 19 different waste categories were pitched.

LOCAL

INTERNATIONAL

0 2

22

19

5

10

15

20

# OF WASTE CATEGORIES DISCUSSED

PROBLEM The problem-related questions (Q1-Q2) were included to assess the participant’s: 1. understanding of Aruba’s waste management challenges, and 2. problem definition.

From the 24 presenters, 16 participants showed that Aruba’s waste challenges were well-understood and that their problem definition was clear, with a score of ≥4.0. From the 8 participants that scored <4.0, 5 presenters scored ≤3.6, indicating some speculation of the scopes presented.

16

SOLUTION The solution-related section (Q3-Q8) of the evaluation rubric was designed to assess the degree of: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

the evidence and expertise within their solution understanding of their business/financial model a responsible and structural solution creativity and originality of the solution a realistic and practical solution, and a scalable solution.

From the 24 presenters, 8 participants scored ≥4.0, having clearly showed that their solutions were wellgrounded. From the 15 participants that scored <4.0, 10 presenters scored ≤3.6, indicating some speculation in the aptness of these solutions.

EXPECTATIONS FROM GOVERNMENT This section of the evaluation rubric (Q9) was included to take an inventory of the expectations from the government and any obstacles that would need to be solved to facilitate a robust sector. Participants were asked to be explicit by means of the pitch guidelines (see Appendix A). For this section, the needs or obstacles communicated are not mutually exclusive.

As can be seen from the figure below, from the 24 presenters, the top three obstacles communicated as the most pressing were (a) the need for the appropriate policy and corresponding regulations (46% of participants), (b) a suitable location or property for their operations (33%) and/or (c) access to funding or subsidy (29%). Participants also indicated the need for accelerated permits, the need for being able to sell their processed product to a government-owned company (GOC), and a few indicated the interest to provide (consulting) services to the Government of Aruba (GOA).

Did not specify Services to GOA Market to GOC Accelerated permits/licenses Funding/subsidy Location/property Policy/laws 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

17

As previously stated, and as per figure below, the needs or obstacles were not mutually exclusive. Hereto, 22 out of the 24 participants flagged >4 obstacles as impacting their (current or future) solution to some degree.

12

8

6

4

# OF PARTICIPANTS

10

2

0 6

5

4

3

2

1

# OF OBSTACLES OR NEEDS FLAGGED PER PARTICIPANT

PEOPLE & PLANET PILLARS This section describes the results for the people and planet pillars.

People Firstly, describing the results for the people pillar (Q10), the overall results showed that 8 participants satisfactorily incorporated this perspective clearly within their business models, with a score of ≥4.0. From the remaining 16 presenters, 3 participants scored between 3.7 to 3.9, whereas 13 participants scored ≤3.6.

Comparatively, considering the perspective of the people panelists only, the results showed 5 participants satisfactorily having incorporated this perspective clearly within their business models, with a score of ≥4.0. From the remaining 19 participants, 7 participants scored between 3.7 to 3.9, whereas 12 participants scored ≤3.6.

Finally, the results also show the people panelists rating 2 participants on the higher end, compared to the overall panelist scoring for this pillar on the lower end of the scale. The standard deviation check for variance indicated that, although the scoring for both the participants were acceptable (<1), these were on the high end close to 1.

18

Planet Next, describing the results for the planet pillar (Q11), the overall results showed that 11 participants satisfactorily incorporated this perspective clearly within their business models, with a score of ≥4.0. From the remaining 13 participants, 3 participants scored between 3.7 to 3.9, whereas 10 participants scored ≤3.6.

Contrastingly, looking at the perspective of the planet panelists only, the findings revealed 6 participants satisfactorily having incorporated this pillar clearly within their business models, with a score of ≥4.0.

From the remaining 18 participants, 8 participants scored between 3.7 and 3.9, and 10 participants received a score of ≤3.6.

Finally, the results also show the planet panelists rating 7 participants either higher or lower, compared to the overall panelist scoring for this pillar. The standard deviation check for variance indicated that the scoring for 6 out of the 7 were acceptable (<1). The outlier where the standard deviation was higher than acceptable (>1) was scored much lower by the planet panelists compared to the overall scoring by the group of panelists.

OVERALL EVALUATION RESULTS From the 24 participants, the overall results show that 10 presenters scored a 4.0 or higher (≥4.0), 6 scored between 3.7 and 3.9, and 8 participants a 3.6 or less (≤3.6), as shown in the figure below.

≥4

10

3.7-3.9

6

≤3.6

8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

The standard deviation was also calculated for the overall results which found that a majority of the results were all <1 (acceptable). There were four outliers (>1) in the overall results which clearly showed where the three pillars were not in consensus about a certain solution/idea presented.

19

CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the overall selection criteria set by the panelists, and the overall scoring results, the participants that are invited to contribute in the next phase to design Aruba’s waste policy are (alphabetically): 1. Berca Brand 2. Cadwell Inc 3. Carentra 4. Caribbean Trucking Company 5. Daltra 6. Diana Castillo 7. Ecotech Freezone NV 8. Enviro-Oil Corp NV 9. International Construction & Recycling Company NV 10. Johnson's Enterprises NV 11. Metabolic Foundation 12. Romar Trading As mentioned in the overall evaluation results section, 10 of the above participants scored a 4.0 or higher.

The remaining 2 participants represented a waste category and/or a particular processing method that was not yet included, and with the successive highest score.

In terms of the standard deviation check, the variances of >1, where results deviated from the average score, revealed where the panelists from the three pillars were not in consensus about a certain solution or idea presented. Hereto, a presenter may have had a solid business model, for example, but possibly lacked conveying or having environmental or health aspects in place, or vice versa. The future waste policy and corresponding regulations would need to, for example, ensure appropriate standards of operations to restrict any nuisance externally, warrant proper health and safety criteria, and avert any negative impacts on nature in the broadest of senses.

20

NEXT STEPS As mentioned previously, Aruba's waste system is currently in urgent need of reorganization and regulation: a "waste authority" to properly manage and control the sector has been lacking for decades.

Traditionally, waste has also been treated as a single item while, in reality, our waste consists of many different materials and substances, whereby effective end-of-life phase processing can vary depending on the waste type or category of waste.

Results show that many opportunities exist to process waste based on circular principles which also provides the opportunity to prevent further destruction of nature. The panelist recommendations show 12 participants with the needed expertise to contribute to the next step, namely the design phase of Aruba’s new waste policy in collaboration with these selected stakeholders.

The objective is to realize structural changes to the waste portfolio toward a responsible waste management system and a robust waste sector, based on circular principles. To move away from the current status-quo to a new structure, the waste system as a whole needs reorganization and regulation.

This will be based on four main processes within the value-chain, namely: 1. Input/source: import/manufacture by type/category 2. Product flow by type/category 3. Sort/collect by type/category, and 4. End-of-life processing/material recovery by type/category.

Now that an inventory has been taken of all the varying processing opportunities, the next steps based on the Pitch & Switch event results are to design Aruba’s waste policy, beginning with the last process in the value-chain, namely the end-of-life processing and material recovery by type/category. This will have two main outputs: 1. Aruba’s new waste management plan (reorganized end-of-life phase), and 2. All the corresponding laws (regulated waste sector).

Based on the solutions and ideas presented, and the panelist feedback, the waste management plan and all the corresponding laws will have to consider and balance various aspects, including: 1. Environmental and ecological impacts of the various processing methods, for example, contribution to GHG, emissions, carcinogens release into air, any by-products and how to safely handle these, impacts on surrounding location or ecosystem, new product design and their lifecycle impacts, chemical handling, and (hazardous) waste transportation and handling.

2. Health and safety impacts of the various processing methods, for example, plastic shredding methods, carcinogens release into air, impacts on surrounding neighborhood, new product design and their impacts during the use stage of the lifecycle, chemical handling, and (hazardous) waste transportation and handling.

The role of the Ministry of Nature for the above will be to ensure that the highest environmental and ecological, and health and safety standards of operations are clearly addressed in the corresponding regulations, and that these are adhered to strictly. A legal requirement for environmental impact assessments to be eligible for a waste processing license could also support to shape the sector duly. A future independent “waste authority” will be able to regulate the sector through various instruments, for example provisional operational licenses and routine auditing.

21

To create a robust waste sector, the Ministry of Nature, based on the explicit needs communicated by presenters, and the panelist feedback, will also have to consider facilitating additional aspects, including: 1. Economies of scale and business case 2. Permits and licensing 3. Market access 4. Operational facilities and location For the economies of scale perspective, this can negatively affect the business case for certain desired processing methods or business models, based on the waste hierarchy and circular principles. However, globally, effective recycling and/or material recovery requires certain financial mechanisms to be in place.

These can include, not mutually exclusive, deposit schemes, subscription models, or a producer-pays policy model, for example. Depending on the waste type, different financial scenarios will be researched to determine the strategy forward, in collaboration with stakeholders from the value-chain perspective.

The presenters also communicated a need for an accelerated process for permits and licensing as one of the obstacles experienced. To close the landfill at Parkietenbos in the short-term, the Ministry of Nature could support within the boundaries of its mandated authority. As mentioned previously, an independent “waste authority” could manage these processes structurally in the future, hereto shifting this responsibility away from the government.

One of the hurdles for some of the participants, as presented, is accessibility to either the local market to sell their new product from their processing method, or easier access to resell recovered material on international markets. For the local market, the main obstacle identified was the ability to sell their product to a government-owned company or entity. The option to offload their product on the local market directly impacts their business case, and hereto, the feasibility of solving a particular waste stream or group of waste categories. For the international market, financial benefits could also positively influence the business case, for example those offered at the Freezone.

Finally, in terms of appropriate locations for operations, the role of the Ministry of Nature will be to evaluate the specific needs for the sector, both individually and collectively. The area at Freezone might be one option to consider. However, the need for a material recovery facility was also flagged by participants. For this case, ideally all processing companies would have their operations in the same vicinity for optimal recovery and transport of specific waste categories, and to contain any nuisance or impacts on nature.

To conclude, the Ministry of Nature received the advice from DNM who was present within an observer’s role for the presented solutions. The scope of the DNM advice leans toward the specific technical perspective and expertise of DNM. It is expected that the first meeting with the selected stakeholders can take place in June 2022. Herein, the design process in collaboration with the waste experts, DNM and Serlimar Sui Generis will begin towards Aruba’s new waste policy. Through this stakeholder consultation process, any waste streams that can be fast-tracked based on readiness will be tackled first and immediately.

22

APPENDICES APPENDIX A: PITCH GUIDELINES

23

24

APPENDIX B: T2C PITCH&SWITCH PROGRAM

25

APPENDIX C: SIGNED NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS The NDAs and signatures included below are (1) for the panelists and (2) for any person present that did not fall officially as an employee of Government of Aruba. For the latter, those that needed to sign the NDA were volunteers and any contracted team member from the Ministry of Transport, Integrity, Nature & Senior Affairs that were pending their contract from the Directorate of Human Resources. The Council of Ministers, members from DNM, and any other public employee present, did not need to officially sign the NDA given their contractual agreement for confidentiality as a public employee.

26

27

28

NON-DISCLOSURE AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT This Non-Disclosure and Confidentiality Agreement (this "Agreement”) is entered into as of the ) V 2022 by and betwe en: + G overnment of Aruba (Land Aruba), represented by the Minister of Transport, Integrity, N ature and E lderly Affairs, Mr. Ursell Arends, here after referred to as the G overnment and 1.

2.

4.

vSf? g k.-(.rrL I V~^

O

o r\

'Rn > .rLpy

5.

6.

&

7.

0

8. m 9. lUl.C 10.

Tcxc C a 11.

.yw fX A/^

yir LoidM. /

12.

y,

13.

14.

15.

T Irl-^ n

16.

17.

19.

20.

hcrk..

jyi zf /

!<r

{/

fig- s' LL^t

(rJJa-sly.

L-e H ere after together referred to as “volunte ers”

T aking into consideration the following;

29

NON-DISCLOSURE AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT

U

^CM\S,V

Voo(o:

(7^CjU-^U

A_i<:

Cl’ H

30

APPENDIX D: EVALUATION RUBRIC Pitch Room A:

31

32

33

34

35

Pitch Room B:

36

37

38

39

40

41