We agree with Audley Shaw's insistence that a transparent system of accountability be put in place for the environmental levy, which the Government plans to introduce on June 1.

This newspaper has complained long and loudly about the poor health of Jamaica's physical environment. We have been concerned about the little things - like the failure to clean drains and trim verges, and how our cities and towns have been allowed to grow gritty and ramshackle. It is what former Prime Minister Patterson has called the "uglification of Jamaica".

Part of the issue, of course, has been the inability to police and enforce regulatory regimes covering the natural and built environment. Despite enacting laws, we have not, so far, arrived at a consensus on what ought to be the balance between protecting the environment and ensuring economic development. These are matters in need of urgent attention.

But a significant cause of this "uglification of Jamaica" has been weak solid-waste management, to which, in the absence of clarity from the Finance Minister, Dr. Davies, we assume much of the environmental levy will be steered. This levy, essentially, will be a tax of 0.5 per cent of the c.i.f value of imports, from which the Government projects to earn $1.2 billion this fiscal year.

A part of these earnings, we expect, will go towards enhancing the budget of the Government's National Solid Waste Management Agency (NWSMA), which has responsibilty for public cleaning. In the last fiscal year, the Government initially allocated $365 million to this agency, but later increased this by 93 per cent to $705 million.

In the budget for 2007/2008, which started at the beginning of this month, the NWSMA is allocated just under $418 million, a more than 40 per cent decline on last year's revised figure. Given that the authority continuously complains of not having enough money to properly do its job, this budget is patently insufficient. The proceeds from the levy will therefore be critical.

It is an open secret, however, that works contracts and informal employment, through agencies like the NWSMA, are conduits to government pork, a process that tends to be especially tempting in periods leading up to general elections, such as we are now in.

We advocate, therefore, that the environmental levy, rather than being commingled with monies in the Consolidated Fund, be held separately and Parliament be given quarterly updates on its intake and use. This should be written into rules and approved by Parliament. It could only help to build trust in government in general.

At the same time, we, like Mr. Shaw, believe that this fund ought to be for more than financing the NSWMA, given, especially, the prospect for its expansion with economic growth, which will drive imports. In that regard, the fund provides an opportunity for us to begin to consider the sustainable funding of lingering programmes such as those for environmental wardens, forest rangers and watershed resuscitation. Over time, special projects involving studies and analyses by government agencies could be financed via the levy. But first, Dr. Davies and the appropriate minister, must clearly define the ends to which they expect the levy is to be put for there to be full discussion of the matter.