Earlier, the government had announced that the funds reserved for 335 schemes, worth more than Rs20 billion included in the Annual Development Programme (ADP) 2010-11, will be frozen till the provision of financial assistance from the international community and the federal government. This was done in the backdrop of the devastation caused by the rains and the flash floods in July and August in the province.
Later the provincial government had given exceptions to funds reserved for the district development programme worth Rs1.5 billion and for Tameer-i-Khyber Pakhtunkhwa programme worth Rs1.24 billion, leaving Rs17 billion for other schemes intact.
The provincial government has approved 65 schemes and reapproved some other schemes and released their funds, and now has partially lifted the restriction on the use of the remaining funds.
The development creates chances for restart of work in the third quarter of the current fiscal year on some of the schemes that were stopped because of the stoppage of funds.
The highest number of new schemes in a single sector is 38 in case of the health sector and Rs1.5 billion is reserved for it. According to a breakdown, Rs1.13 billion is reserved for 35 schemes in the industrial sector, Rs0.36 billion for 27 schemes in the agricultural sector, Rs2 billion for 21 schemes of roads, Rs0.68 billion for 21 schemes of water, Rs0.27 billion for 17 schemes of sports and culture, Rs1.17 billion for 18 schemes of higher education, Rs1 billion for six schemes of urban development, Rs2.35 billion for 12 schemes of elementary and secondary education and Rs0.84 billion for 10 schemes of water and sanitation.
A spokesperson for the provincial government, Mian Iftikhar Hussain, clarified that the ban has not been lifted and the funds are still frozen, however the chief minister can give permission for use of these funds for new schemes on a need basis.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 29th, 2010.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ