Trash Talk: New Department or New Ways of Doing?

Cagayan de Oro City continues to wrestle with its long-standing solid waste management (SWM) challenges. Thus was born the proposal seeking the creation of a separate office or department focused on solving all SWM challenges. While the idea and intent may seem promising on the surface, even commendable, a deeper look reveals it to be unnecessary as it is not the most effective or efficient response. In fact, it is redundant, ineffective, and financially burdensome for the city and its people. At first glance, the proposal sounds like progress. But a little digging reveals that it is redundant, and financially wasteful, even misguided to put it bluntly, especially when better, more cost-effective alternatives already exist within our current governance framework. What the city needs is better governance, coordination, and data-informed decision-making. In short: let’s fix the system, not just build new structures.

CLENRO Already Has the Structure and the Mandate:

The City Local Environment and Natural Resources Office (CLENRO) already includes a dedicated SWM Division. This unit is responsible for implementing the city’s waste management efforts in compliance with Republic Act No. 9003 or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 such as enforcement, coordination with barangays, monitoring, and public education — functions the proposed new department will handle.

RA 9003 assigns clear responsibilities to LGUs through existing bodies and mandates collaboration with barangays, civil society, and national agencies. The law emphasizes planning, implementation, enforcement, and community involvement — elements CLENRO is already positioned to deliver on if sufficiently empowered. Rather than duplicating functions, the city can benefit more from strengthening CLENRO and enhancing its accountability mechanisms.

It was clear from the proponent’s proposal during last Monday’s City Council session that CLENRO and/or the barangays are weak and underperforming, thus the need for the SWM Department. All the more reason to reform CLENRO instead! Why not conduct a performance audit of the SWM Division, barangays, and contractors to identify gaps and then fix them?

New Office, Same Old Problems: A Lesson from the RTA

This writer was surprised that the proponent, Councilor Eric Salcedo, even used the Roads and Traffic Administration (RTA) as example of “focus” in arguing for the creation of the SWM Department. But any thinking Kagay-anon and daily commuter will quickly shred his analogy to pieces. Despite the RTA’s existence for years, traffic in the city remains poorly managed, if at all. Why? Because there’s (a) no comprehensive traffic plan; (b) inconsistent enforcement; and (c) lack of coordination. This shows that a department alone won’t fix deep-rooted governance issues because the problem is in planning, execution, and leadership. A new SWM department, without a drastic shift in these areas, will likely meet the same fate. Again, a structure without strategy will not solve the problem.

Discipline Requires Leadership, Not Just Blame:

Let’s not mince words: public behavior is part of the waste problem. However, blaming residents for not following segregation rules overlooks larger systemic failures. Let me be clear: It’s not just the people’s fault! Government must enforce, not just blame! Yes, some residents fail to segregate their waste properly. Agree 100%. But in collection, is there segregation? Laws exist because not everyone follows them voluntarily. The government’s role is not to pass blame — it is to discipline through strict enforcement of laws like RA 9003. If Kagay-anons are the root of the problem, then discipline them! That’s what laws are for! That’s a mandate of government: discipline the undisciplined through strict enforcement of laws!

A. The Collection Issue: Holding Contractors Accountable:

The city’s waste collection partner, Jomara-Tencil, has reportedly failed to meet its obligations under its contract. Missed collections and service inconsistencies have impacted both households and businesses. Their contractual violations have led to mounting garbage and frustration. Yet City Hall has been silent on enforcement. Why should residents suffer while a contractor gets a free pass? If contracts aren’t monitored and noncompliance isn’t penalized, how can residents be expected to follow rules when private partners aren’t held to the same standards?

B. Barangays Must Step Up:

RA 9003 assigns barangays a central role as frontline implementers in enforcing segregation at source (household level), local collection, and managing Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs). However, compliance remains inconsistent. Rather than create a new city-level department, efforts should be focused on capacitating barangays — giving them support and all the enabling mechanisms — and ensuring they fulfill their mandated obligations and accountabilities under the law. Then hold barangay officials accountable!

C. City Council Overlooked its Oversight Role?

The City Council has the authority and oversight power over these matters: review contracts, and hold public hearings on service delivery, and enforcement of ordinances. While not involved in day-to-day management, the City Council has oversight functions that include monitoring the performance of departments to ensure they comply with laws and policies. The City Council even has power to hold the Executive Branch accountable for results. But so far, little has been done to use these powers to address noncompliance or underperformance. The problem, then, isn’t lack of structure: it’s underutilized authority and limited political will. For sure, a separate department won’t fix what’s broken if those already tasked to lead refuse to act.

D. Is the Proposal Data-Driven or Driven by Frustration?

Any proposal that affects taxpayers must be grounded in evidence. Has there been a comprehensive audit of CLENRO’s limitations? Have barangay compliance rates been studied? Has Jomara-Tencil’s performance been independently reviewed? Any major restructuring — especially one that involves public funds and a new layer of government — should be backed by solid, transparent data, which includes (a) collection of performance metrics; (b) waste generation volumes by district or barangay; (c) barangay compliance levels; (d) CLENRO’s operational capacity; (e) public satisfaction surveys; and (f) financial implications of forming a new department.

So far, there’s no publicly available evidence that the proposal is grounded in a comprehensive study. Without this data, the push to form a new department risks being reactionary rather than reform-driven. Data must guide decisions — not anecdote, frustration or public pressure.

“Whole-of-Nation” Approach?

This writer even heard someone used the “whole-of-nation approach” argument in favor of the proposal. Agree! But this approach means coordination, integration, and shared responsibility, which RA 9003 already embodies. In fact, the following, among others, can be gleaned from a closer reading of the law: (a) LGU implementation; (b) barangay-level engagement; (c) private sector participation; (d) civil society partnerships; and (e) technical assistance from national agencies like DENR. Clearly, RA 9003 is built on a “whole-of-nation” framework: multi-sectoral and participatory approach. It already envisions national-local coordination and public engagement. If the law already enshrines whole-of-nation principles, the issue is implementation, not structure. Creating a new, siloed department contradicts this principle. A real whole-of-nation strategy focuses on integrating existing structures, not building new ones! A “whole-of-nation approach” also means engaging the public, not adding to an already bloated bureaucracy. It requires massive citizen involvement, education, and partnerships with schools, businesses, and communities, not just internal reorganization.

What’s Missing?

There are some very vital factors missing that contributed to the city’s SWM woes: (a) effective communications, education and public awareness (CEPA) programs; (b) barangay-driven segregation at source; (c) monitoring and public feedback mechanisms; and (d) incentives for compliance. All these must be coupled with strict enforcement of SWM laws and ordinances. These are cheaper, scalable, and more aligned with the whole-of-nation strategy than creating a whole new bureaucracy.

The Real Fix: Accountability, Not Another Office:

The city’s solid waste problems won’t be solved by adding to the bureaucracy. What we need are: (a) full enforcement of RA 9003 and local ordinances; (b) barangays held accountable for waste segregation and collection; (c) City Council oversight that works and asks tough questions; (d) termination of contract or penalization of underperforming contractors; and (e) public education and community-based engagement, not just top-down blame. City Hall doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel. It just needs to make it turn and make it turn efficiently.

The desire to fix our city’s solid waste management problem is shared by all. But more layers of government won’t fix what is, at its core, a matter of governance, enforcement, and cooperation and coordination. Creating a new department may look like action, but it’s a shortcut that avoids the hard but necessary work of reforming existing systems. Let’s fix what’s broken first; the tools are already in place: CLENRO, barangays, private haulers, City Council oversight, and existing ordinances. The system is there — it just needs to work better. What’s missing in all these? The political will to use them!

Before creating something new, let’s make what we already have work, and let’s do it in a way that’s data-driven, collaborative, and grounded in law. Cagayan de Oro doesn’t need another department! What is needed is City Hall, barangays, and citizens working together, under one coordinated and accountable system. Until then, even the fanciest new office won’t clean up our streets.