Business Recorder Editorials 8th August 2026

Policy by abandonment

EDITORIAL: 16 years is long enough for a child to become an adult, for governments to come and go, and for entire policy agendas to be written and forgotten.

In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, it has also proved long enough for legally harvested timber worth an estimated Rs3.8 billion to remain stacked along roadsides and inside forests, steadily losing its value while successive governments failed to decide what to do with it. If ever there were a more compelling illustration of how administrative paralysis destroys public wealth, it would be difficult to find.

The facts are extraordinary. Under the Dry Wind Fall Policy, timber from dry and wind-fallen trees was legally harvested between 2008 and 2010 after a lengthy process involving official approvals, working plans, marking of trees and third-party validation.

Most of the timber was eventually sold, but around 0.55 million cubic feet was left behind when the policy expired. 16 years later, it remains where it was, exposed to rain, floods and decay, waiting for a decision that should have been taken years ago. The result is an estimated Rs3.8bn in timber steadily deteriorating while nobody in government appears willing to accept responsibility.

Let’s not forget that the loss extends beyond government finances. Under the policy, 80 percent of the proceeds from timber sales were to go to local forest owners, with the remaining 20 percent accruing to the government. Those communities have therefore watched a legitimate economic asset deteriorate year after year because official approvals never materialised.

Forest management depends upon cooperation between the state and local populations. Governments cannot expect that cooperation to endure indefinitely when bureaucratic indecision repeatedly deprives communities of income that legally belongs to them.

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the story is the explanation reportedly offered by officials. According to a senior forest department official, the provincial government has been reluctant to authorise the sale because photographs of trucks carrying timber could trigger accusations of smuggling on social media. If that is indeed the reason for delaying disposal of legally harvested timber for well over a decade, it represents a remarkable admission of administrative weakness. Governments are elected to govern, not to suspend lawful decisions because they fear online criticism.

The argument collapses under even modest scrutiny. The timber was harvested under an approved policy. It was marked, validated and transported through official procedures. Every stage was documented. If governments genuinely believe the process was lawful, transparency provides the obvious answer. Publish inventories, disclose auction details, invite independent oversight and allow public scrutiny of the entire disposal process. Hiding behind the prospect of hostile social media commentary merely creates greater suspicion while guaranteeing continued financial loss.

Unfortunately, this episode reflects a much broader pattern in public administration.

Pakistan rarely suffers from a shortage of policies. It suffers from an inability to implement them. Strategies are announced, notifications are issued, committees are constituted and procedures are painstakingly completed. Then progress simply stops. Files remain pending, approvals are delayed indefinitely and projects gradually lose both momentum and purpose. Years later, governments confront problems that their own indecision has created.

That institutional culture carries enormous costs, of course. Assets depreciate. Investors lose confidence. Public resources are wasted. Citizens become increasingly convinced that official processes exist to delay decisions rather than facilitate them. Every such failure reinforces the perception that bureaucracy has become an obstacle to development instead of an instrument of governance.

The timber lying across Kohistan is therefore more than a forestry issue. It is a monument to administrative inertia. Every passing monsoon further reduces its value, while floods threaten to wash away what remains. Meanwhile, governments continue debating approvals that should have been routine ages ago.

The provincial cabinet should immediately authorise the transparent disposal of the remaining timber, publish every relevant record and establish clear procedures to ensure that harvested timber can never again be left to rot because officials are unwilling to make decisions. Public policy serves little purpose if implementation ends where paperwork does.

One month to prove it

EDITORIAL: Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has given the Right-Sizing Committee one month to complete its remaining recommendations on eliminating unnecessary posts and restructuring federal institutions, setting the government a clear and measurable deadline. That matters because announcements about cutting waste, abolishing redundant posts and improving administrative efficiency have emerged from Islamabad many times before only to disappear into the same bureaucracy they were meant to reform.

The latest directive will therefore be judged less by its language than by what the government places before the public when that month expires.

The case for right-sizing is compelling. Pakistan’s federal government carries layers of departments, autonomous bodies, vacant posts, overlapping mandates and administrative structures that absorb scarce public money without delivering corresponding value.

At a time when taxpayers face repeated increases in levies and development spending remains constrained, every unnecessary position becomes harder to defend. A government that constantly asks citizens to make sacrifices cannot continue financing institutional excess merely because reform is politically or administratively inconvenient.

Some steps have already been taken. The Utility Stores Corporation, Pakistan Public Works Department and Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Services Corporation have been closed, while vacant posts across ministries and departments have also reportedly been abolished.

The government also claims that these measures have reduced federal civilian expenditure as a proportion of GDP. Those developments deserve acknowledgement, but they also require proper verification. Savings announced in meetings often look different once severance costs, pension liabilities, transferred functions and replacement arrangements are fully accounted for.

The prime minister’s order for a third-party audit is therefore important. Such an audit should establish how many posts have actually been eliminated, how much recurring expenditure has been removed, what liabilities remain and whether the abolished institutions’ functions have merely shifted elsewhere.

Without this level of detail, right-sizing can easily become an accounting exercise in which departments disappear from one column while their costs reappear in another. Transparency is the only safeguard against that familiar outcome.

There is also the question of performance. Cutting posts indiscriminately can weaken institutions that are already struggling, while preserving politically protected positions would defeat the entire purpose of the exercise. The review must therefore distinguish between genuine redundancy and essential capacity.

Modern technology and better training can improve productivity, as the prime minister noted, but digital systems cannot compensate for poor design, unclear authority or unqualified appointments. Reform must examine what each institution does, whether that function remains necessary and how it can be delivered at lower cost without reducing public service quality.

The government’s record gives reason for caution, of course. Similar declarations have repeatedly promised leaner administration, better-performing state-owned enterprises and lower fiscal waste.

Follow-through has usually been partial, delayed or obscured by the absence of publicly available results. Bureaucratic resistance, political patronage and weak accountability have repeatedly diluted reform once the initial announcement faded from attention. That history is precisely why the one-month deadline should now be treated as a public commitment.

When the deadline expires, the Prime Minister’s Office should release the committee’s recommendations in full, along with a ministry-wise list of posts abolished, institutions restructured, projected annual savings and implementation dates.

The third-party audit should also be published once completed. Any exclusions should be explained rather than hidden behind vague references to administrative sensitivity.

Citizens are entitled to know whether the government has actually reduced its own cost before asking them to bear further fiscal adjustment.

Right-sizing can become a meaningful reform if it is implemented consistently and protected from political interference. It can also become another headline that produces a meeting, a committee and little else.

The prime minister has chosen the deadline himself. One month from now, transparency demands that he show exactly what has been achieved.