Metropolitan Arrangements - Philippine Institute for Development ...

Case Study: MetroCagayande Oro 217
Public transport:
Infra and traffic management - 60%
Garbage collection, recycling and disposal - 53%
The LGUs also recognize the need to collaborate with line agencies
and/or the private sector in the following areas:
Planning - 53%
Health - 47%
Housing - 47%
The institutional mechanism should not create unhealthy
competition among implementing agencies/LGU/NGOs. The members
of the Metro Cagayan de Oro governing body must complement and
collaborate for greater results.Any unabated conflict between and among
member LGUs agencies or NGOs can be dysfunctional to the entire
system and impede the progress of the metropolis. Rather, the
mechanism should serve as a means to cut red tapes and enable the
community to participate in the decisionmaking process. As the Metro
Cagayan de Oro progresses, the existing institutional mechanism would
have to sustain the same momentum of change in the component LGUs/
areas of the metropolis.
The LGUs are willing to cooperate with NGOs and the private
sector on two areas, namely:
a) Garbage collection and disposal/recycling - 40%
b) Housing and resettlement - 40%
Only a few favor the idea of Metro Cagayan de Oro to solely
undertake the following development activities:
a) Transport 40%
b) Garbage collection and disposal 20%
c) Housing and resettlement - 20%
On the question of what activities are for LGU undertaldng
the results are as follows:
only
Licensing and inspection 80%
Finance and taxation - 73%