The Billion Tree Project began without a feasibility study

Islamabad (Ansar Abbasi) The Auditor-General of Pakistan has stated in its report that the goals of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government's Billion Tree Program for forestry have been achieved to some extent, however, in the project document called 'Green Revolution' The promise was made to be a raw world ahmed
 The Billion Tree Project began without a feasibility study

 In its latest report submitted to Governor Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the Auditor General has indicated that there were defects in the project plan, its costs and completion times were changing, due to increased rates from the department nurseries. The national treasury suffered huge losses.

The project management unit (PMU) played an ineffective role in the implementation of the project; rangeland and pasture management were left unaddressed.current world news

More than the number of whites (eucalypts) produced in PC One, which had devastating effects on the environment, the funds allocated for different forest divisions were different from the amount reported in PC One, project financing matters on the project. Implemented and adversely affected many different issues, including its timeline. "The project goals have been achieved to some extent.

 The audit team indicated that the failure of closure was highest (35.14%) in seven forest divisions. The area allotted for forestry was set at 30% thousand hectares, but only 19% of 986.5% hectares could be worked on.current world news

For the first phase, the target set for re-usable and damaged land was 450 ؍ hectares, while for the second phase the target was 1920۔ hectares.

The data from the project directorate shows that only 290% and 1343% of the hectares could be achieved for the first and second phase, respectively. "

The report adds that the closure of the closure on the economic side of the project has had adverse effects due to problems associated with the nausea. The failure of the closure was seen in large numbers in the various forest divisions as the field offices were not guided and at the administrative level there was also mismanagement.

Allotment of nurseries in a transparent manner to private persons, additional rates for seedlings in departmental nurseries, non-payment of rates for allotment of forest land, purchase of unauthorized seeds and additional payments for surveillance and security services. This is the case which has had a direct financial impact on the project.current world news

The methodology adopted in the implementation of the project has led to serious problems in achieving positive results. The financing of the project was random, with adverse effects on project completion time. Make changes to the project budget that are different from the amount allocated to PC One.

 The feasibility study of the project was not conducted, which resulted in disruption to the planning and execution of the project. Output sourcing for handling pastures was discontinued without justification.

Eucalyptus was grown in greater numbers than it was in PC One. The monitoring framework failed to produce timely results, which caused the project to fail in the middle. A gradual return strategy was not set up to achieve the benefits. "

According to the report, the methodology adopted to procure resources has had a material adverse effect on the project. A large number of closures in three zones were abolished by the PMU for not providing guidance to the field office and mismanagement.

 Overall, the share of closures in the project was 60%. So failure in this case creates a question mark on the project results. Allotment of nurseries to private farmers was also not transparent. Similarly, seeds and plants were purchased from the nurseries of the department at expensive rates.

Many forestry divisions received huge sums of money for the provision of surveillance and security services compared to the amount set out in PC One.

Badges were purchased for the project without confirmation. Only the level information provided for the purchase of these resources is provided in Project One of PC. Forest field staff were left on their own and were not given any clear guidance or guidance as to what benefits they could get in terms of project implementation.

The feasibility study of the project was not conducted. The financing of the project was reflected in the shortcomings, the budget was flawed while the management of the project accounts was not handled properly so that the department worked properly to the extent possible.

No operational plan has been set up for technical intervention to deal with issues such as degradation, water sheds, restoration of sewaged lands. There was a monitoring framework but it could not get timely and accurate information so that matters could be brought in the right direction in the middle. The three-level monitoring system, mentioned in PC One, was not implemented carefully.

All of this was due to a bad plan that requires a response from the P&D department. By empowering the standing committee of the Secretary-Environmental Project, the PC&D department changed the provisions of PC1 and put the authority and responsibility on the project implementation agency, resulting in permanent oversight of the project. Neither pie nor P&D