Spanish
Santo Domingo.- The modification of Law 225-20 on solid waste management in Congress projects investments of up to RD$12,000 million, but experts warn that it favors large operators and may create a closed market that excludes new competitors.
According to the data, this project, which will mobilize between RD$8,000 and RD$12,000 million, promises to modernize waste management in the country. However, a comprehensive analysis of the proposal reveals serious concerns: the law could reinforce private monopolies, limit competition, and generate financial dependence in the municipalities.
Millionaire Funds Without Clear Rules
The reform contemplates million-dollar allocations to city halls and municipal districts, supposedly to strengthen waste management. But it does not establish strict accountability mechanisms. The fear is that these resources, instead of being used to improve services, will end up in parallel payrolls or fueling political clientelism.
An element that has generated special concern is that, unlike the current law where the Ministry of Finance plays a well-defined role in the supervision and control of the use of public funds, in this reform its role is significantly diluted. The exclusion of the governing body of public finances opens the door for these millionaire resources to be managed with less transparency and less effective state control.
The modifications seem to favor a small group of actors: companies that already operate landfills, transfer stations, and valorization plants. Key articles such as 4, 16, 17, 36, and 38 outline a scheme that could consolidate these businesses, ensuring them stable income for a decade through long-term contracts and guaranteed payments, financed by a public-private trust.
Experts warn that this model violates Article 50 of the Constitution, which enshrines freedom of enterprise, by closing the market to new competitors and strengthening current operators without constant evaluation of performance or innovation.
The new rules that exclude several of the reforms introduce conditions that could block emerging actors. For example:
• Articles 108 and 109: require that any new transfer station have a prior agreement with an authorized landfill, which gives an advantage to already established operators.
• Article 116: obliges that the valorization plants be associated with an authorized landfill, closing the way to independent models.
• Article 172: grants 60 additional months to plastic companies to use recycled resin, but without identifying who will provide this resin, creating a potential monopoly on this key input.
The reform establishes a direct collection system for the garbage service through fees defined by each municipality (article 140). While this could mean additional income for the municipalities, it is also feared that it will generate tariff distortions between regions and promote an incentive system that prioritizes immediate political benefits over long-term sustainability.
They argue that the creation of a centralized trust to manage the funds and pay private operators (articles 38-40) is another critical point. This structure could become a mechanism that perpetuates particular interests if independent supervision is not guaranteed. And here again the concern arises: in the current law, the Ministry of Finance has a role that ensures some control over these public funds; but in the reform, this function is minimized, leaving financial management in the hands of a trust where private interests predominate.
You may be interested in: ANJE expresses modification to the Solid Waste Law could negatively affect small businesses
Furthermore, the payment of late interest to these private companies represents an extra burden on public funds, ensuring current operators a constant and protected flow of resources, while limiting the entry of new actors into the market.
The modifications also include environmental measures, such as the prohibition of foam without biodegradable additives (article 161), which, although positive in principle, could generate additional costs for certain companies and benefit other actors who already control biodegradable alternatives.
Finally, they reiterate that while the project promises efficiency and modernization, critics warn that the real effect will be the concentration of power in few hands, the closure of the market to new actors, and the creation of financial dependencies in local governments. A multimillion-dollar play that, rather than solving the garbage problem, could institutionalize it.
