REPORTS about the public sector development programme (PSDP) always remind me of an incident in the early sixties. PSDP used to have the simple title of ‘development programme’ those days. Some of our seniors had joined the civil service through competitive examination and were suddenly missing for a while. We asked them where they had been when they surfaced again and one of them said that they had been busy preparing the budget.

What kind of budget they had prepared? They had been instructed to produce a ‘good looking budget’. It meant considerable outlay for development but it was also ensured that the entire amount would not be spent because of carefully designed loopholes. Some projects were located in areas under litigation and a few had other problems that debarred investment.

It is certainly not a repetition of the same story these days but the end result is generally the same as in the past. Only about 49 per cent of the allocated amount for the last year’s programme could be utilized from July 2004 to March 2005. This information has however been provided as an achievement because the utilization was 48.6 per cent for the same period the year before.

Hopefully, another few notches would be achieved during the next fiscal year. However, this information contrasts with the information disseminated by the Planning Commission Deputy Chairman who expected one hundred per cent utilization of PSDP allocations for the year now coming to a close. One wishes him good hunting in the remaining period of the year.

Under utilization of funds was apparently due to factors other than presenting healthy statistics for development but that is even worse for it reflects on the inefficiency of the implementation system. Donor agencies have also complained of a faulty implementation system. Official explanation suggests shortfall in foreign aid disbursement and higher releases for Khushal Pakistan Programme. A pity that the people of Pakistan have not become richer despite higher spending for that worthy end.

An amount of Rs7.3 billion has been earmarked for the agriculture sector in PDSP, including livestock and fisheries for the year 2005-06 for both on going and new projects. How the projects are managed is a sad story. Many projects are a regular component of the development programme in the agriculture sector year after year and never seem to attain the age of maturity and delivery.

Either their achievements remain short of reaching the concerned community or there are fault lines that are left untouched or the next essential measure is not adopted because it is outside the purview of the managers of the sector and agencies responsible for that area have other priorities. Whatever the reason, the projects continue without proving their worth.

A case in point is research in production of tea in Pakistan. An amount of Rs12.7 million has been earmarked for tea research in Mansehra, Abbotabad and Swat. The effort, undertaken in 1981, would enter its 25th year in 2006. Tea research finds support from the scheme of development every year but some how or the other it has not borne results and Pakistan continues to spend heavily on the import of the commodity.

The project is actually not a failure as far as research is concerned but its results have not been transferred to farmers. The quality of tea produced by the Abbotabad station is said to be excellent. But the crop remains confined to the research area and results have not been extended to farmers.

This has been for two reasons. One: the importer’s lobby apparently has been successful in exerting influence over policies and has managed to block wide cultivation of tea.

Two, the areas in which tea can be grown mostly comprises small farmers who lack resources to invest in crops that take time to bear results. A tea plantation would be come productive in about four years. The farmer cannot afford for such a long period. The way out is interest free loans for farmers to enable them to go for crops with a longish maturing period. But a half a century old project without results is something the government must worry about.

The same is to be said about cultivation of olives, sugar beet, introduction of medicinal herbs and species as crops and other such programmes for crops of a different kind. Firstly, there is little point in pursuing research if it tends to be an end in itself and its results do no reach farmers. Secondly, an average farmer cannot grow them without specific support from loaning agencies.

Reports about loans to the farming community inform of increasing availability of financing for growers and a rising trend in borrowing by members of the agriculture sector. What is the point in disbursing loans if they cannot be made available to farmers for specific crops and for promoting cultivation that would reduce the burden of imports on the country and scuttle the foreign exchange bill for the exchequer?

Loans need to be directed, among other ends, towards cultivation of crops that have a bearing on the overall economy and are not confined to major crops or influential farmers. Other important crops for the economy in this regard are the ones that produce edible oil, a massive recurring import bill. Their promotion would not only counter imports but also generate considerable employment in the rural areas by supporting oil extraction industry.

That would also contribute towards minimizing the migration phenomenon that is playing havoc with the limited civic facilities provided in the cities without bringing any joy to the people who leave villages to earn a living in urban centres. The best they can get is work as labourers and there are already too many unskilled workers knocking on this door.

The increased investment in the agriculture sector is a welcome approach but it has to be integrated and made result oriented. Investment in specific projects and crops without ensuring that the results would be available to farmers is tantamount to wasting precious resources.

The focus should be on how growers benefit from these projects and what impact they have on the national economy. Investing without clearly defined goals is callously playing with national resources.