65-Trade Centre Block, M A Johar Town, Lahore (Punjab), Pakistan info@dgmepunjab.gov.pk +92-42-99233187-91
Third Party Validation Study Report
Green Pakistan Programme Reclamation and Development of Forest Areas in Punjab (Phase-I)
Year 2016-17
46-M, Gulberg III, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan https://pakgreen.pk/ info@pakgreen.pk, pakgreen@hotmail.com
+92 (0) 42 354 414 44
Executive Summary On 11th January 2016, Prime Minister of Islamic Republic of Pakistan while considering a summary submitted by the Ministry of Climate Change on the subject “Revival of Forestry and Wildlife Resources in Pakistan” had taken decision on “Reclamation & Development of Forest Areas under Green Pakistan Program. The CDWP meeting held on 10th November 2016 approved Umbrella PC-I at total cost of Rs. 3652.142 Million with the aim to launch a countrywide drive to improve and enhance forest cover of the country. Later on, the CDWP reduced share of Government of the Punjab against the PC-I cost Rs. 1283.741 Million approved by the PDWP to Rs. 1263.753 Million. In view of the importance of this initiative, the programme also included it in the 11th Five Year Plan (2013-18) approved by the Planning Commission of Pakistan. The project is also in line with relevant component on Environment and Climate Change of Vision 2025. Quantifiable objectives of GPP are: i) Road side and Canal side 0.151 Million specie planation, covering 302 AvM. ii) Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantation 0.812 Million specie plantation on 1,119 acres. iii) Restoration and Improvement of Scrub Forests 0.050 Dry Afforestation through Seed sowing on 100 acres and 0.0114 Afforestation along 09 water harvesting devices. iv) Increase in existing cover of Bella Forests 0.189 Million Afforestation on 260 acres and Raising of P.bag nursery 737,000 Nos. v) Rehabilitation of Guzara and Protected Forests 0.087 Afforestation 200 acres, 0.285 Afforestation on 570 acres, Establishment of new Enclosure to boost Natural Regeneration in coniferous /Natural Forests re 22 Nos. (440 Acres, Identified Natural Regeneration area of Compartment / Guzara, 0.191 Million plants regeneration. 62 Nos. Identified Natural Regeneration area of Compartment (1240 Acres), 0.620 Million plants regeneration. vi) Protection and Augmentation of dry temperature forests (Pothwar), 0.065 Million Afforestation along 51 water harvesting devices. After critical review of revised PC-I document especially Quantitative Objectives, Physical and Financial Phasing, Area Statement and Implementation Strategy as well as detailed discussion with DG M&E, P&DD: key performance indicators were developed and it was agreed to validate 60% vegetation form compartments and 100% from linear. For this purpose, determined sample size was a circle with radius of 37.2 feet. As it was equivalent to 1/10th of an acre so sample count of planted species was multiplied by 10 and found per acre count. Proportionate of each planted specie in every sample count was calculated to find specie wise proportionate per forest. To validate growth of planted species both height (meter rod) and diameter (digital Vernier caliper) were measured1. TPV team adopted statistical tool of manual sampling for data collection, ANOVA for data analysis. Very first time introduced Drone Technology for monitoring and validation of afforestation and collected GPS coordinates for developing GIS Images. Road and canal side plantation was below 50% of the target and variance of average height and diameter were also not satisfactory. Under rehabilitation and restocking of historical plantation, specie selection was largely neglected across all forests and violations of space size (10’ X 6’) recorded in Changa Maanga and Chichawatni plantation. 1
Hay et al 1999
Page | II
The scrub forests are mainly famous for Kikar and pholai but eucalyptus was also planted. The analysis of height and variance data shows eucalyptus has maximum height followed by Kikar and Phulai. The analysis of diameter and variance data showed that pattern of growth of the diameter also similar to height. There are three Bella forests (Bella Randiali, Bella Qadir Abad and Dhool) where plantation was done. High variation in height variance was observed in Bella Qadir Abad and high variation in variance of diameter in Dhool forest. Under Rehabilitation of Guzara and Protected Forests in coniferous forest, only pinus trees were planted. The height of the pinus plant was observed maximum in Hanaser and minimum in Hokeria Ker. Analysis showed high variation in Hanaser. Regarding the diameter of the plant it is maximum in Khanawas and minimum in the Gohi forest. ANOVA findings showed uncertain and high variation in variance of average height and average diameter of planted species. These findings pointed out violation of spacing size and species selection. Flaws in jungle clearance, ploughing & leveling, improper earth work, poor weed management and clearance of trenches. Theses flaws may cause the damage and even slow down growth of planted species. Improper demarcation as well as irregular dimensions of water harvesting devices observed while suitability of catchment area largely ignored while selecting site for 51 RWHD/ponds under Protection and Augmentation of dry temperature forests (Pothwar). Monoculture of eucalyptus was observed, as it was s more than 65% of total irrigated plantation. Mixed culture of indigenous species should be adopted as per revised PC-I for enrichment of flora and fauna bio diversity. Environmental Impact Assessment had been incorporated. But no Pre-Assessment Reports of any of the ten of the indicators especially microclimate, pollution, soil erosion and carbon emission level of respective forest areas were available. Therefore, TPV study was limited to validate Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) mainly number of plantations, type of species, growth height and diameter measurements. On the basis of TPV study findings, GPP 2016-17 overall plantation and progress made is partially satisfactory. Mmixed culture of indigenous species not followed, spacing size largely violated, uncertain and high variation of height and diameter measurements of planted species pointed out flaws in its execution, operation and maintenance. Proper record of procurement and procedures, if followed, as per PPRA Rules, was not provided. GPS coordinates mentioned in PC-I and available with field formation are inaccurate and it would distract findings of Dashboard monitoring. Mr. Abdul Hafiz Nasir, Team Leader
Page | III
Table of Contents Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................................. II List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................................ VII List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................................... X Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................................ XI Contribution ......................................................................................................................................................... XII 1.
Introduction and Background .................................................................................................................1 1.1
Introduction to the document .........................................................................................................1
1.2 Green Pakistan Programme – Reclamation and Development of Forest Areas in Punjab (Phase-I) ................................................................................................................................................1 1.3 2.
Brief Introduction of PAK GREEN ENVIRO-ENGINEERING (PVT.) LTD .........................5
Validation Methodology .............................................................................................................................6 2.1
Scope of Work for the TPV Study ...................................................................................................6
2.2
Geographical Focus ..............................................................................................................................6
2.3
Implementation Methodology .........................................................................................................9
2.3.1
Team Formation ..........................................................................................................................9
2.3.2
Review of Documents & Desktop Research .......................................................................9
2.3.3
Sampling Methodology for Plantation covers................................................................ 10
2.3.3.1 Sampling Methodology for Rain Water Harvesting Devices ...................................... 10 2.3.4
Key Performance Indicators for Validation of Plantation ......................................... 11
2.3.4.1 Key Performance Indicators for Rain Water Harvesting Devices ............................ 12 2.3.5
Inception Meeting ..................................................................................................................... 12
2.3.6
Field Visit Plan ........................................................................................................................... 12
2.3.7
Field Validation .......................................................................................................................... 13
2.3.8
Data Analysis and Reporting ............................................................................................... 13
2.3.9
Ethical Considerations ............................................................................................................ 13
2.3.10 Limitations...................................................................................................................................... 13 2.3.11 3.
Copy Right .............................................................................................................................. 13
Funds Utilization Status .......................................................................................................................... 14 3.1
ADP allocation vs. Actual Releases & Actual Utilization ..................................................... 14
3.2
Procurement Process and physical verification .................................................................... 15
4.
Validation on Quantifiable Objectives of GPP ................................................................................. 15
5.
Data Analysis and Findings.................................................................................................................... 20 5-A-I 5.1
Total No. of Plants, Identification of Specie and its Proportionate ............................ 20 Road & Canal side Plantations ...................................................................................................... 21 Page | IV
5.2
Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations.................................................... 25
5. 2.1
Chichawatni Plantation .......................................................................................................... 27
5.2.2
Pirowal Plantation .................................................................................................................... 32
5.2.3
Changa Maanga Plantation .................................................................................................... 35
5.2.4
Daphar Plantation..................................................................................................................... 40
5.2.5
Machu & Inayat Plantation .................................................................................................... 44
5.2.6
Laal Suhanra National Park (LSNP) Plantation ............................................................. 50
5.2.7
Ladam Sir-II................................................................................................................................. 54
5.2.8
Abbasia Plantation ................................................................................................................... 57
5.2.9 Major Weeds, Grazing & Trespassing, Poor Operation & Maintenance (Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantation) .......................................................... 59 5.3
Increase in existing cover of Bellas Forests ........................................................................... 61
5.3.1
Bella Randiali .............................................................................................................................. 63
5.3.2
Bella Qadir Abad ........................................................................................................................ 66
.......................................................................................................................................................................... 68 5.3.3 5.4
Restoration and Improvement of Scrub Forests ................................................................... 71
5.4.1 5.5
Dhool Forest................................................................................................................................ 69 Kali Dali ......................................................................................................................................... 72
Rehabilitation of Guzara and Protected Forests.................................................................... 74
5.5.1
Coniferous (Protected) Forests ........................................................................................... 74
5.5.2
Guzara Forests ........................................................................................................................... 77
5. 6
Protection and Augmentation of dry temperature forests (Pothwar).......................... 78
5-A-II Height and Diameter Analysis of Planted Species ................................................................ 79 5.1
Road side and Canal side Plantation .......................................................................................... 83
5.2
Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantation..................................................... 85
5.2.1
Eucalyptus ................................................................................................................................... 85
5.2.2
Kikar (Acacia nilotica)............................................................................................................. 89
5.2.3
Toot (Morus alba) ..................................................................................................................... 91
5.2.4
Siris (Albizzia lebbek) ............................................................................................................. 93
5. 2.5
Ehretia (Ehretia laevis) .......................................................................................................... 95
5.2.6
Frash (Tamarix aphylla)......................................................................................................... 97
5.2.7
Mix Plantation ............................................................................................................................ 99
5.3
Increase in existing cover of Belas Forests ........................................................................... 102
5.3.1
Eucalyptus ................................................................................................................................ 102
5.3.2
Bottlebrush, Meetha, Amrood, Khoobani ..................................................................... 105 Page | V
5.3.3 5.4
Restoration and Improvement of Scrub Forests ................................................................ 109
5.4.1 5.5
Eucalyptus, Kikar, Phulai .................................................................................................... 109
Rehabilitation of Guzara and Protected Forests................................................................ 111
5.5.1 5-B
Amrood, Nim............................................................................................................................ 107
Pine (Pinus roxburghii) ....................................................................................................... 111
Rain Water Harvesting Devices................................................................................................. 114
6
Environmental Impact Assessment ................................................................................................. 118
7
Conclusion, Observations and Recommendations .................................................................... 118 7.1
Observations..................................................................................................................................... 119
7.2
Recommendations.......................................................................................................................... 120
Annexure-I Comparative Cost Estimate of the last Sanctioned and Revised Scheme (Rs. In Million) ................................................................................................................................................................. 121 Annexure-II Scientific Name of Planted Species .................................................................................. 122 Annexure-III Field Activity ........................................................................................................................... 123 Annexure-IV ADP Allocation, Release and Utilization ....................................................................... 125 Annexure-V Procured items (Water Pumps) ........................................................................................ 126 Annexure-VI Cost Breakup of Expenditures per Acre Afforestation for Irrigated plantation ................................................................................................................................................................................. 127 Annexure-VII Rough Cost Estimate of Rain Water Harvesting (RWHD) .................................... 128 Annexure-VIII GPS Coordinates ................................................................................................................. 129
Page | VI
List of Tables Table 1 Quantifiable Objectives of GPP 2016-17 .......................................................................................3 Table 2 Programme Summary GPP 2016-2017 .........................................................................................4 Table 3 List of Forests/Area/AvM ...................................................................................................................8 Table 4 ADP Actual Allocation, Release and Utilization ....................................................................... 14 Table 5 Quantifiable Objectives of GPP ...................................................................................................... 15 Table 6 Total No. of Planted Species – Road & Canal side (Linear) Plantation ........................... 21 Table 7 Specie wise Status of Plantation.................................................................................................... 22 Table 8 Specie wise Status of Plantation.................................................................................................... 23 Table 9 Specie wise Status of Plantation.................................................................................................... 24 Table 10 Total No. of Planted Species - Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations (Irrigated Plantations) .................................................................................................... 26 Table 11 Chichawatni Compartments and Total Area - GPP 2016-17 .......................................... 27 Table 12 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Chichawatni Plantation ............................... 28 Table 13 Specie wise Plantation – Chichawatni Plantation ................................................................ 29 Table 14 Pirowal Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17 .................................................... 32 Table 15 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Pirowal Plantation ........................................ 32 Table 16 Specie wise Plantation – Pirowal Plantation ......................................................................... 33 Table 17 Changa Maanga Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17 ................................... 35 Table 18 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Changa Maanga Plantation ........................ 36 Table 19 Specie wise Plantation –Changa Maanga ................................................................................ 37 Table 20 Daphar Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17..................................................... 40 Table 21 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Daphar Plantation ......................................... 41 Table 22 Specie wise Plantation –Daphar Plantation ........................................................................... 42 Table 23 Machu & Inayat Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17 .................................... 44 Table 24 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Machu Plantation .......................................... 45 Table 25 Specie wise Plantation –Machu Plantation............................................................................. 46 Table 26 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Inaayat Plantation ......................................... 47 Table 27 Specie wise Plantation –Inayat Plantation ............................................................................. 48 Table 28 Laal Suhanra National Park (LSNP) Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 50 Table 29 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Laal Suhanra National Park (LSNP) Plantation ..................................................................................................................................................... 51 Table 30 Specie wise Plantation – Laal Suhanra National Park (LSNP) ........................................ 52 Table 31 Ladam Sir-II Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17 .......................................... 54 Table 32 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Ladam Sir-II Plantation ............................... 55 Table 33 Specie wise Plantation – Ladam Sir-II ...................................................................................... 56 Table 34 Abbasia Plantation Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17 ............................ 57 Table 35 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Ladam Sir-II Plantation ............................... 57 Table 36 Specie wise Plantation – Abbasia Plantation – GPP 2016-17.......................................... 58 Table 37 Total No. of Planted Species Increase in existing cover of Bella Forests .................... 62 Table 38 Bella Randiali Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17 ........................................ 63 Table 39 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Bella Randiali .................................................. 63 Table 40 Specie wise Plantation – Bella Randiali – GPP 2016-17 .................................................... 64 Table 41 Bella Qadir Abad Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17 ................................. 66 Table 42 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Bella Qadir Abad ............................................ 66 Table 43 Specie wise Plantation – Bella Qadir Abad – GPP 2016-17 .............................................. 67 Table 44 Dhool Forest Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17 ......................................... 69
Page | VII
Table 45 Specie wise Plantation – Dhool Forest – GPP 2016-17 ...................................................... 70 Table 46 Total No. of Planted Species Restoration and Improvement of Scrub Forests......... 71 Table 47 Kali Dali Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17................................................... 72 Table 48 Specie wise Plantation – Kali Dali – GPP 2016-17 ............................................................... 73 Table 49 Total No. of Pinus Plantation under Rehabilitation of Protected (Coniferous) across Murree Forest Range.................................................................................................................. 74 Table 50 Forest wise (Pinus) Plantation – Murree Forest Range – GPP 2016-17 ..................... 75 Table 51 Total No. of Pinus Plantation under Rehabilitation of Protected (Coniferous) across Rawalpindi Forest Range ......................................................................................................... 76 Table 52 Forest wise (Pinus) Plantation – Rawalpindi Forest Range – GPP 2016-17 ............. 77 Table 53 Specie wise maximum and minimum Height (Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantation) ............................................................................................................................... 79 Table 54 Specie wise maximum and minimum Diameter (Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantation) ............................................................................................................................... 80 Table 55 Specie wise maximum and minimum Height (Increase in Existing cover of Bella Forests).......................................................................................................................................................... 80 Table 56 Specie wise maximum and minimum Diameter (Increase in Existing cover of Bella Forests).......................................................................................................................................................... 81 Table 57 Specie wise maximum and minimum Height (Restoration and Improvement of Scrub Forests) ............................................................................................................................................. 81 Table 58 Specie wise maximum and minimum Diameter (Restoration and Improvement of Scrub Forests) ............................................................................................................................................. 81 Table 59 Specie wise maximum and minimum Height (Rehabilitation of Guzara and Protected Forests)..................................................................................................................................... 82 Table 60 Specie wise maximum and minimum Diameter (Rehabilitation of Guzara and Protected Forests) ..................................................................................................................................... 82 Table 61 Specie wise maximum and minimum Height (Road and Canal side Plantation) .... 82 Table 62 Specie wise maximum and minimum Height (Road and Canal side Plantation) .... 82 Table 63 Height of Kikar (Acacia nilotica) and Shisham (Dalbergia sissoo)................................ 83 Table 64Diameter of Kikar (Acacia nilotica) and Shisham (Dalbergia sissoo) ........................... 84 Table 65 Height of Eucalyptus ...................................................................................................................... 85 Table 66 Diameter of Eucalypts ................................................................................................................... 87 Table 67 Height of Kikar (Acacia nilotica) ................................................................................................ 89 Table 68 Diameter of Kikar (Acacia nilotica) .......................................................................................... 90 Table 69 Height of Toot (Morus alba) ......................................................................................................... 91 Table 70 Diameter of Toot (Morus alba) ................................................................................................... 92 Table 71 Height of Siris (Albizza lebbek) .................................................................................................. 93 Table 72 Diameter of Siris (Albizza lebbek) ............................................................................................. 94 Table 73 Height of Ehretia (Ehretia laevis) .............................................................................................. 95 Table 74 Diameter of Ehretia (Ehretia laevis) ......................................................................................... 96 Table 75 Height of Frash (Tamarix aphylla) ............................................................................................ 97 Table 76 Diameter of Frash (Tamarix aphylla) ....................................................................................... 98 Table 77 Height of Sumbal, Peepal, Malaina, Lasoorah, Nim ............................................................. 99 Table 78 Diameter of Sumbal, Peepal, Malaina, Lasoorah, Nim ..................................................... 100 Table 79 Height of Poplar, Tun, Jaman .................................................................................................... 101 Table 80 Height of Eucalyptus .................................................................................................................... 102 Table 81 Diameter of Eucalyptus ............................................................................................................... 104 Table 82 Height of Bottlebrush, Meetha, Amrood and Khoobani ................................................. 105 Table 83 Diameter of Bottlebrush, Meetha, Amrood and Khoobani ............................................ 106
Page | VIII
Table 84 Height of Amrood, Nim ............................................................................................................... 107 Table 85 Diameter of Amrood, Nim .......................................................................................................... 108 Table 86 Height of Eucalyptus, Kikar and Phulai ................................................................................ 109 Table 87 Diameter of Eucalyptus, Kikar and Phulai ........................................................................... 110 Table 88 Height of Pine (Pinus roxburghii) ........................................................................................... 111 Table 89 Diameter of Pine (Pinus roxburghii) ..................................................................................... 113
Page | IX
List of Figures Figure 1 ADP Actual Allocation, Release and Utilization ..................................................................... 14 Figure 2 Specie wise Plantation – Bahawalpur Hasilpur Road KM 11-95 / L R ......................... 22 Figure 3 Specie wise Plantation – Bhakhar ............................................................................................... 23 Figure 4 Specie wise Plantation – Mian Wali ........................................................................................... 24 Figure 5 Specie wise Plantation - Chichawatni Forest ......................................................................... 29 Figure 6 Specie wise Plantation - Pirowal ................................................................................................. 33 Figure 7 Specie wise Plantation – Changa Maanga ................................................................................ 37 Figure 8 Specie wise Plantation – Daphar Plantation ........................................................................... 42 Figure 9 Specie wise Plantation – Machu Plantation ............................................................................ 46 Figure 10 Specie wise Plantation – Inayat Plantation .......................................................................... 48 Figure 11 Specie wise Plantation – Laal Suhanra National Park (LSNP) ...................................... 52 Figure 12 Specie wise Plantation – Ladam Sir-II .................................................................................... 56 Figure 13 Specie wise Plantation – Abbasia Plantation ....................................................................... 58 Figure 14 Specie wise Plantation – Bella Randiali ................................................................................. 64 Figure 15 Specie wise Plantation – Bella Qadir Abad ........................................................................... 67 Figure 16 Specie wise Plantation – Dhool Forest ................................................................................... 70 Figure 17 Specie wise Plantation – Kali Dali ............................................................................................ 73 Figure 18 Forest wise (Pinus) Plantation – Murree Forest Range .................................................. 75 Figure 19 Forest wise (Pinus) Plantation – Rawalpindi Forest Range .......................................... 77 Figure 20 Height Kikar (Acacia nilotica) and Shisham (Dalbergia sissoo) ................................... 83 Figure 21 Diameter of Kikar (Acacia nilotica) and Shisham (Dalbergia Sissoo) ........................ 84 Figure 22 Height of Eucalyptus ..................................................................................................................... 86 Figure 23 Diameter of Eucalyptus ................................................................................................................ 88 Figure 24 Height of Kikar (Acacia nilotica) ............................................................................................... 89 Figure 25 Diameter of Kikar (Acacia nilotica) ......................................................................................... 90 Figure 26 Height of Toot (Morus alba) ....................................................................................................... 91 Figure 27 Diameter of Toot (Morus alba).................................................................................................. 92 Figure 28 Height of Siris (Albizza lebbek)................................................................................................. 93 Figure 29 Diameter of Siris (Albizza lebbek) ........................................................................................... 94 Figure 30 Height of Ehretia (Ehretia laevis)............................................................................................. 95 Figure 31 Diameter of Ehretia (Ehretia laevis) ....................................................................................... 96 Figure 32 Height of Frash (Tamarix aphylla) ........................................................................................... 97 Figure 33 Diameter of Frash (Tamarix aphylla) ..................................................................................... 98 Figure 34 Height of Sumbal, Peepal, Malaina, Lasoorah, Nim ........................................................... 99 Figure 35 Diameter of Sumbal, Peepal, Malaina, Lasoorah, Nim ................................................... 100 Figure 36 Height of Poplar, Tun, Jaman .................................................................................................. 101 Figure 37 Height of Eucalyptus .................................................................................................................. 103 Figure 38 Diameter of Eucalyptus ............................................................................................................. 104 Figure 39 Height of Bottle Brush, Meetha, Amrood, Khoobani ...................................................... 105 Figure 40 Diameter of Bottle Brush, Meetha, Amrood, Khoobani................................................. 106 Figure 41 Height of Amrood, Nim .............................................................................................................. 107 Figure 42 Diameter of Amrood, Nim ........................................................................................................ 108 Figure 43 Height of Eucalyptus, Kikar Phulai ....................................................................................... 109 Figure 44 Diameter of Poplar, Tun Jaman ............................................................................................. 110 Figure 45 Height of Pine (Pinus roxburghii) ........................................................................................ 112 Figure 46 Diameter of Pinus ....................................................................................................................... 113
Page | X
Acronyms ANOVA
Analysis of Variance
CCF
Chief Conservator of Forests
CDWP
Central Development Working Party
DFO
District Forest Officer
DG M&E
Directorate General Monitoring & Evaluation
EIA
Environmental Impact Assessment
FW&F D
Forest, Wildlife & Fisheries Department
FSC
Federal Steering Committee
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GIS
Geographical Information System
GPP
Green Pakistan Programme
GOP
Government of Pakistan
KPIs
Key Performance Indicators
M&E
Monitoring & Evaluation
MOCC
Ministry of Climate Change
MPR
Monthly Progress Reports
PC-I
Planning Commission (Form-I)
P & DD
Planning & Development Department
PD
Programme Director
PDWP
Provincial Development Working Party
PM
Prime Minister
PMU
Programme Management Unit
PPRA
Punjab Procurement Regulatory Authority
RWHD
Rain Water Harvesting Device
SDGs
Sustainable Development Goals
TPV
Third Party Validation
Page | XI
Contribution Reviewed by:
Mr. Ghazanfar Mubin – Sr. Specialist Research & Development, DG M&E Mr. M Sadiq Munawar – Forest, Live Stock and Fisheries Expert, DG M&E
Report Writing:
Mr. Ihsan Nadir Syed – Research & Evaluation Specialist Dr. Rashid Mehmood – Plant Ecologist/Forester
Monitoring Plan for Validation, Data Analysis:
Mr. Abdul Hafeez Nasir – Ecologist, Team Leader Mr. Ihsan Nadir Syed – Research & Evaluation Specialist Dr. Rashid Mehmood – Plant Ecologist/Forester
Field Monitoring and Data Collection:
Mr. Abdul Hafeez Nasir – Ecologist, Team Leader Mr. Ihsan Nadir Syed – Research & Evaluation Specialist Dr. Rashid Mehmood – Plant Ecologist Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad – Restoration Ecologist Mr. Umair Rasheed – GIS Expert Mr. Ibtihaj Shabbir – Research Associate
Page | XII
1.
Introduction and Background
1.1
Introduction to the document
This document presents a detailed report of third party validation of the Green Pakistan Programme - Reclamation and Development of Forest Areas in Punjab (Phase-I) for the year 2016-17. I t had been conducted from May 29 to July 27, 2018. To monitor and validate the forest resources and their changes is key to national and international environmental and developmental policy processes. It is required by many international agreements, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the UN Forest Instrument and the Sustainable Developments Goals (SDGs). The data is presented both in self-explanatory graphic and tabulated forms. For ease of reading and understanding the overall, region and species wise data analysis is given in the main text while detailed information is given in the appendices.
1.2
Green Pakistan Programme – Reclamation and Development of Forest Areas in Punjab (Phase-I)
Punjab being a poor forest cover province requires drastic steps to increase its forest area in next few years’ time by adopting two-prong strategy including short term/fast track measures and long-term actions. It is an integral part of the assigned task of Forestry Sector to establish and manage various components of forests (Coniferous forests, Scrub Forests, Irrigated Plantations, Riverain Forests, linear Plantations and rangelands). On 11th January 2016, Prime Minister of Islamic Republic of Pakistan while considering a summary submitted by the Ministry of Climate Change on the subject “Revival of Forestry and Wildlife Resources in Pakistan” had taken decision on “Reclamation & Development of Forest Areas” under Green Pakistan Program. The CDWP meeting held on 10th November 2016 approved Umbrella PC-I at total cost of Rs. 3652.142 Million with the aim to launch a countrywide drive to improve and enhance forest cover of the country. Later on, the CDWP reduced share of Government of the Punjab against the PC-I cost Rs. 1283.741 Million approved by the PDWP to Rs. 1263.753 Million (Annexure-I). In view of the importance of this initiative, the programme also included it in the 11th Five Year Plan (2013-18) approved by the Planning Commission of Pakistan. The project is also in line with relevant component on Environment and Climate Change of Vision 2025. The programme is in consonance with the overall objectives of forestry sector. The main objective of the GPP is reclamation, rehabilitation and development of the existing forest and enhancing tree cover on farmlands through social forestry.
Page | 1
As the GPP goal is “Reclamation & Development of Forest Areas”, so targets are designed in such a way to achieve the following sectorial objectives:
To promote sustainably managed forests through social forestry To mitigate the climate changes in the province To improve the recharge of aquifer (Pothwar) To increase the soil conservation
The programme is in consonance with the overall objectives of forestry sector. As earlier mentioned goals it is in also in consistence with the overall objectives of forestry sector viz a viz improvement of environment, rehabilitation of climate, rehabilitation of flora and fauna, to control pollution, to rehabilitate forests, wildlife and other vulnerable ecosystems.
SDG 15: Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, halt and revers land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
GPP is in line with the international and national obligations regarding forestry and forest resources. It is also in line with the national climate change policy and its implementation framework. The proposed project also addresses Punjab Growth Strategy issues and parameters.
International 2030 UN Development Agenda known as Sustainable Development Goals
SDG 15.2: By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally.
(SDGs) have also set goals especially (SDG 13 – 17) for developing and implementing environmentally sound solutions. Under SDGs target 15.2 each country has responsibility to protect, enhance and sustainably manage its forest areas by 2030.
Page | 2
Quantifiable (Physical) Objectives of the GPP: Detail discussion on physical objectives available in detail under relevant topics. Table 1 Quantifiable Objectives of GPP 2016-17 Sr. #
Forest Component
Area /Length (Acres/AvM)
1
Road Side and Canal Side Plantation
2
Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations
3
No. of Plants to be planted
302
15,100
1,119
812,815
Restoration and Improvement of Scrub Forests
100
50,000
4
Increase in Existing Cover of Belas Forests
260
188,760
5
Rehabilitation of Guzara and Protected Forest
200
5-a
Coniferous Forests
570
28,500
6
Protection and Augmentation temperature forests (Pothwar)
100
50,000
2,651
1,145,175
7
8
of
dry
Establishment of New Enclosures to boost the Natural Regeneration in Coniferous/Natural Forests
84
Construction of Water Harvesting Devices
82
82,000
2,733
1,227,175
Total (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 5-a + 6 + 8)
-
Page | 3
Table 2 Programme Summary GPP 2016-2017 1
2
Programme Title
Green Pakistan Program – Reclamation and Development of Forest Areas in Punjab (Phase-I)
Location (Districts)
Attock, Bhakhar, Bhawalpur, Chakwaal, Chichawatni, Gujarat, Jhelum, Kasur, Lahore, Layyah, Khanewal, Mianwali, Rahim Yar Khan, Rawalpindi,
Authority responsible for: 3
Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Climate Change (50%)
Sponsoring
Government of Punjab through Punjab Forest Department (50%)
Execution
Forest Department of the Punjab
Operation & Maintenance
Punjab Forest Department through respective Conservators of Forests and Divisional Forest Officers.
Concerned Federal Ministry
Ministry of Islamabad
5
Gestation Period
05 years (60 months) 2016-2021
6
PC-I Original Cost
PKR 1,283.753 Million
7
PC-I Revised Cost
PKR 1,263.753 Million
8
1st Year Allocation
PKR. 255.281 Million
9
1st Year Actual Release
PKR. 255.281 Million
4
Climate
Change,
GOP,
10 1st Year Actual Utilization
PKR 254.077 Million (Till 30-06-2017)
11 1st Year Actual Utilization (%)
99.525% (30-06-2017)
Page | 4
12 Approval Date (Revised PC-I)
19 April 2017
13 Programme Start Date
01 July 2016
14 Programme Start Completion Date
30 June 2021
Source: Revised PC-I and Progress Reports
1.3
Brief Introduction of PAK GREEN ENVIRO-ENGINEERING (PVT.) LTD
Pak Green Group was established during the year 2009. The group is providing different services to commercial & industrial region in the field of Environment regarding Environmental approvals, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Initial Environmental Examination (IEE), Analytical monitoring, air emission control devices, legal services, wastewater treatment systems, planning & design of water supply & sewerage system networks. The company also deals in import and manufacturing of different industrial and laboratory equipment. The Pak Green Group mainly consists of four divisions as follow:
Pak Green Enviro-Engineering (Pvt.) Pak Green Laboratories (Environmental division) Pak Green Techno-Legal services Pak Green Research Institute
Our goal is to be the premier worldwide Monitoring and Consultancy firm, focusing on water, environment, infrastructure, resource management, energy, and international development services. The objective of its creation was to provide reliable environmental services, attain reliance in environmental consultancy and replace foreign consultants. The Company has bright and highly qualified skilled staff, which is committed to quality in every aspect of its operation. Board of Directors comprising a Chief Executive and Directors manages the Company. The day-to-day projects of the Company are looked after by the Directors assisted by Environmental Professionals/Environmental Lawyers. The project management division is responsible for management of projects.
Page | 5
2.
Validation Methodology
The Planning & Development Department Govt. of the Punjab made the Request for Third Party Validation of GPP. As a first stance the Terms of Reference of the TPV were discussed in a meeting held in the office of Director General M&E. The TPV team leader shared the proposed ToRs with the Director General M&E and the team, for their review and approval. The formal approval of the ToRs was granted by the Directorate General M&E, Authority. The detailed validation methodology was designed prior to the data collection. The Director General M&E and Chief Regional Planning, P&DD, Govt. of the Punjab approved the methodology. Plantation covers:
Physical Validation of (50%) compact, (100%) linear plantation covers on sampled based approach Drone Ariel View Recordings of (50%) compact plantation covers GPS Coordinates for GIS Digitization of selected compartments
Rain Water Harvesting Devices:
2.1
Physical Validation of (20%) Rain Water Harvesting Devices on sampled based approach Drone Ariel View Recordings GPS Coordinates for GIS Digitization of selected Rain Water Harvesting Devices
Scope of Work for the TPV Study
Scope of work was to validate GPP Annual Phasing of Physical Targets 2016-17, as defined in the terms of reference of the TPV Study, included: I. II. III. IV. V.
2.2
To validate progress against Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)on sample-based approach To validate that the executing agency (PMU, GPP) is working in the framework and scope of programme To validate the Implementation Methodology for different quantifiable objectives and validation of such procedures Overall utilization of funds is as per approved PC-I To furnish certain recommendations for better future program implementation
Geographical Focus
Under GPP targets 2016-17, compact and linear plantation was done all over the Punjab. Kasur, Chichawatni, LSNP, Multan, R. Y. Khan, Layyah, Gujarat, D. G. Khan Forest Division for Irrigated Plantations.
Page | 6
Murree, Kahuta, Kotlisatian for Coniferous Forest area. Attock, Chakwaal and Jhelum Forest Division for Scrub and Range Land areas. Gujarat and Sialkot for Bella Forest area. Mianwali, Bhakhar and Lahore Forest Division for Linear Plantation. GIS based map of the Punjab Province digitizing geographically focused target districts is as under:
Page | 7
Component wise Details of geographical locations are attached as under. Table 3 List of Forests/Area/AvM Sr. #
Component
Circle
Division
1
Road Side and Canal Side Plantation
Bhawalpur
Bhawalpur
2
3 3-a
Name of Forest/Area
Bahawalpur-Hasilpur Road KM 11-95/LR Sargodha Mianwali MLLC RD 0-131 L&R Bhakhar MLLC RD 131-172/L&R Rehabilitation Bhawalpur LSNP Div LSNP Sub Div and Restocking Ladam Sir-ll Ladam Sir-ll of Historical R. Y. Khan Abbasia Plantation Planation Lahore Kasur Forest Changa Manga Forest Forest Circle Division Gujranwala Gujarat Forest Daphar Irrigated Plantation Division Multan Chichawatni Chichawatni Irrigated Forest Division Plantation Multan Div Pirowal DG Khan Layyah Machu/Inayat Inayat Restoration and Rawalpindi Attock Kali Dili Improvement of Scrub Forests Construction of Rawalpindi Attock Mari, Taiwan-ll, Jalwal, Ban Water Ramy Shah, Ban Ramy Shah, Harvesting Jangla Utran RF, Taiwan-l, Devices in Chack Fateh Khan, Fatuwala Scrub Forests 09 Nos Chakwaal 25 Nos Jhelum Lahore/Skp Gujarat
4
Increase in Lahore Existing Cover Gujranwala of Belas Forests
5
Rehabilitation Rawalpindi of Guzara and Protected Forest
Guzara
5-a
Coniferous Forests
Murree
Rawalpindi
26 Nos Karol Dhool Forest Bella Randiali Bella Qadir Abad Kahuta Kallar Seydan Kotli Sattian Murree Dewal Aucha Gohi Patriata Hokeria Ker
Page | 8
5-b
Rawalpindi
North
Construction of Rawalpindi Water Harvesting Devices in Coniferous Forests
North
Hanaser Chonoyan Khanwas Jhila Chirarah, Keral, Talater, Bhangal, Jhila Chirarah, Chanam, Bhalakhar, Rajdhani, Banahal, Balima, Thuter 22 Nos
Source: PC-I and Field Visit
2.3
Implementation Methodology
To validate the programme interventions, following methodology was adopted. 2.3.1 Team Formation The validation team for TPV was constituted in a meeting held in the office of Pak-Green. The team was constituted under the patronage of Abdul Hafeez Nasir, CEO Pak-Green Enviro-Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd. The team comprised of the followings: Director General (M&E), Planning and Development Department, Govt. of the Punjab. The team comprised of the followings: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)
Mr. Abdul Hafeez Nasir – Ecologist, Team Leader Mr. Ihsan Nadir Syed – Research & Evaluation Specialist Dr. Rashid Mehmood – Plant Ecologist Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad – Restoration Ecologist Mr. Umair Rasheed – GIS Expert Mr. Ibtihaj Shabbir – Research Associate
2.3.2 Review of Documents & Desktop Research
Documents received from DG M &E, along with other documents received from PMU, GPP were reviewed. In addition to desktop research was also carried out. Revised PC-I Progress Reports collected during field visits http://dgmepunjab.gov.pk/ http://www.mocc.gov.pk/ https://fwf.punjab.gov.pk/ http://www.pndpunjab.gov.pk/ http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/1025728/icode/ https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/country/PAK
Page | 9
2.3.3 Sampling Methodology for Plantation covers Sample Size Determination for Plantation covers Unit of Analysis was “number of planted species per Acre". To evaluate the number of planted species per acre measuring tape method was used and the data of the sample area was extrapolated. For this purpose, planted species were counted in a circle of 37.2 feet radius. It was 1/10 of the acre2. Sample size = 4,347.46158 ft2 Radius = r = 37.2 ft. Pie = π = 22/7 = 3.14 Area = A = πr2 A = 22/7 x 37.22 ≈ 4,347.46158 ft2 01 Acre = 43,474.6158 Square Feet (ft2) No. of Planted species per Acre = No. of planted species counted per sample size x 10 2.3.3.1 Sampling Methodology for Rain Water Harvesting Devices Sample Size Determination for Rain Water Harvesting Devices Unit of Analysis was Rain Water Harvesting Device. For validation of RWHDs Population Proportion sampling technique used on Unit of Analysis/outcome with 95% Confidence Interval and 5% Margin of Error. Formula (Population proportion Sampling) = Population Proportion Sample Size of had further been divided among 3 (coniferous, scrub and dry temperature forests) components on pro rata basis. Thus, equal proportion of every district as per total sample size 16 was evaluated. Width and Length both were measured through measuring tape. Spill way were also checked. Mainly afforestation along (WHD) was evaluated.
2
(Hay et al 1999)
Page | 10
2.3.4 Key Performance Indicators for Validation of Plantation On the basis of review of documents and as per deliverables of Third Party Validation following key Performance Indicators had been developed with input of PMU and DG M&E, P&DD. I. II.
Total No. of Planted Species (Per Acre, Forest & Component wise) Identification of Planted Species (as per Revised PC-I)
III.
Proportionate of Identified Planted Species (Forest wise)
IV.
Specie wise Growth Height & Diameter Analysis
V.
Drone Ariel view
VI.
GPS Coordinates for GIS Digitization 1) Total No. of Planted species per Acre, Forest & Component wise
To calculate area wise total number of planted species per forest. Number of planted species calculated per acre as per technique discussed under “sample size determination for plantation covers” multiplied by number of acres per forest.
Total No. of Planted species per Forest = No. of Planted species per Acre x Total Number of Acres per Forest
Specie wise Total No. of Plantation per Forest Area = Total No. of Planted species per Compartment x No. of Compartment(s)
Proportionate of every planted species of each sample size was calculated. Average of proportionate across all sample sizes was multiplied by ten to calculate per acre proportionate. On the basis of average proportionate across all sample size and per acre total proportionate per forest for all planted specie was calculated separately. Scientific names of all planted species are available in (Annexure-II) 2) Height and Diameter of the Planted species To evaluate Height (H) of the planted species, it was directly measured in meters (m) using meter rod. Diameter of the stem measured in centimeter (cm) using digital venire caliper. Measurement of Height and Diameter were carried out to calculate growth of the planted species.3 3) Drone Ariel View Recordings It was also agreed to monitor fifty percent of the area through drone camera recordings but it was impossible to fly drone cameras in certain areas due to plantation along high and 3
(Hay et al 1999)
Page | 11
dense forest cover. However, it was impossible to fly drone in protected (coniferous) forests mainly due to unfavorable weather conditions especially in coniferous forests. 4) GPS Coordinates for GIS Digitization It was committed to provide GIS images after digitization based on GPS coordinates. First, GPS Coordinates were very much delayed by the PMU team. Later on, a major mismatch was observed in coordinates available in PC-I and those provided by department team (DFO Offices), if any. In addition to it no official record of coordinates was provided in Rawalpindi Forest Division both (North, Murree) as well as Chakwaal and Jhelum to TPV team. Even than TPV, teams had collected GPS coordinates, selected digitized images are attached in relevant analysis of components. 2.3.4.1 Key Performance Indicators for Rain Water Harvesting Devices Width and Length both were measured through measuring tape. Spill way were also checked. Mainly afforestation along (WHD) was also evaluated for validation. I. II. III. IV.
Afforestation Measurement of Dimensions, Overview of Enhancement Areas and Spill Ways Drone Ariel View Recordings GPS Coordinates for GIS Digitization
2.3.5 Inception Meeting An inception meeting was held with the GPP PMU team 30th of May 2018. The aim of the meeting was to develop a mutual understanding on the validation methodology and get the validation tools and field visit plan approved by DG M& E, P &DD. Moreover, the data collection tools were also field-tested during the visit on 4th of June 2018. The changes envisaged in the field-testing were incorporated in the tools before its field execution. 2.3.6 Field Visit Plan The field visit plan was prepared to carry out the data validation in all the area. A rigorous plan of fifteen days divided into two phases was prepared and got approved from the Directorate General M&E as following:
Phase- I: 09-days (04th – 12th June 2018)
Phase –II: 06-days (20th – 26th June 2018)
It was also shared with the relevant stakeholders before execution.
Page | 12
2.3.7 Field Validation A 15-day field activity (Annexure-III) was conducted to execute the field validation. A team of 06-members was constituted to execute this process. The team worked in a group formation. 2.3.8 Data Analysis and Reporting After the field exercise primary data collected from the field was entered in the MS Excel and used Data Analysis tool of ANOVA Single Factor for statistical analysis of recorded data of Height and Diameter among all forests of same component to generate the results for reporting. The results, findings and observations are incorporated in the report. Figures of Graphs were developed selecting the relevant values of the findings from the Tables. Some species were planted in a particular area, in this case, simple average was calculated through MS Excel and graph developed. 2.3.9 Ethical Considerations Guidance on how to collect, compile and analyse forest information is fundamental to this endeavour. TPV team followed Volunteer Guidelines on National Forest Monitoring4 during the process. 2.3.10 Limitations Limitations of the validation are as under: I. II. III. IV. V. VI.
Inappropriate provision of requested documents for TPV GPP 2016-17 especially of Procurement and Financial utilization by PMU team. Monitoring Record of planted species and number of plants was not provided by PMU, GPP. Monitoring Record of planted species Height and Diameter (girth) measurements on annual basis had neither been maintained at PMU nor provided by Field formation. Standards for classification of “problematic land� neither had been described in revised PC-I nor by Field Formation although Eucalyptus planted across all forests. Proportionate of selected species and their ability of carbon sequestration and nitrogen-fixing in order to mitigate the climate change was undefined in revised PCI. Provided data of beneficiaries under Guzara component was not verifiable.
2.3.11 Copy Right The consultancy firm (Pak Green) will hand over all material collected and the report in hard and soft copy to the Directorate General M&E (DG M&E). The DG M&E will have copy rights over all the documents / material collected and produced during or because of the validation.
4
http://www.fao.org/3/a-I6767e.pdf
Page | 13
3.
Funds Utilization Status
As required data partially provided by field formation and PMU, so it was done accordingly. I. II.
ADP allocation vs. Actual Releases & Actual Expenditures Procurement Process and physical verification
During field visits, physical assets were observed but on requesting PMU time and again to provide record of procurement process no documents shared with TPV team. Field formation and PMU kept on spinning and adopted delaying tactics. TPV team is limited to validate procurement process and physical verification. No detail of Actual Expenditures provided against Total Cost as per “Annual Phasing of Physical Targets” Appendix-II available in revised PC-I. Therefore, TPV team is limited to analyse only provided data and documents (Annexure-IV).
3.1
ADP allocation vs. Actual Releases & Actual Utilization
Analysis of Actual Allocations verses Actual Release and Utilization is as under: Table 4 ADP Actual Allocation, Release and Utilization YEAR
ACTUAL ALLOCATION
2016-17 PROVINCIAL
FEDERAL
132.69
122.591
ACTUAL RELEASES
ACTUAL UTILIZATION
PROVINCIAL FEDERAL PROVINCIAL FEDERAL 132.69
122.591
132.183
121.894
Source: Progress Report Annexure -I Figure 1 ADP Actual Allocation, Release and Utilization
Rs. In Millions
132.69
122.591
PROVINCIAL Series1
132.69
FEDRAL
ACTUAL ALLOCATION 132.69 122.591
132.183
122.591
PROVINCIAL
FEDRAL
ACTUAL RELEASES 132.69 122.591
121.894
PROVINCIAL
FEDRAL
ACTUAL UTILIZATION 132.183 121.894
GPP 2016-17 Actual Utilization was PKR 254.077(99.525%). As object code wise Actual Expenditures status of was not provided by PMU so no financial analysis is available.
Page | 14
3.2
Procurement Process and physical verification
TPV team observed Water pumps (Annexure-V) installed and functional at Bella Forests in Gujarat. As no documents of Procurement process provided by field formation and PMU, GPP for review although it was done during the year 2016-17.
4.
Validation on Quantifiable Objectives of GPP
The programme documents including the Revised PC- I, Progress Reports were evaluated and ascertained on the findings of field data collection. Table 7 below highlights certain points where there are discrepancies among both the documents and field implementation: Table 5 Quantifiable Objectives of GPP Sr. #
Quantifiable Objective
1
Road & Canal side Plantations
Area/ Length No. of Plants to be Validation by Pak-Green (Acres/AvM/N planted (Nos) Millions o.)
Afforestation (500 plants at 10 x 10 82 AvM along 0.041 spacing) Road side
220 AvM along 0.11 Canal side
Number wise partially achieved (Table 6) only 53% of the target.
Number wise partially achieved (Table 6) only 44%, 62 % of the target.
Page | 15
2
Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations Afforestation (726 plants per Acre at 1119 Acres 10 X 6 spacing)
0.812
Number wise achieved (Table 8). Analysis of Height and Diameter measurements data points out serious concerns regarding growth.
3
4
Restoration and Improvement of Scrub Forests Dry Afforestation through Seed sowing 100
0.050
Partially Achieved
Water harvesting device
-
Achieved (observations)
Afforestation along water harvesting 9 device (1000 No.)
0.0114
Partially Achieved
Soil Conservation works (1000 cft)
-
Achieved
0.189
Number wise achieved (Table 26)
9
68,500
Increase in existing cover of Belas Forests Afforestation (726 plants per Acre at 260 10 X 6 spacing)
Analysis of Height and Diameter measurement data points out
Page | 16
serious concerns regarding growth. Raising of P.bag nursery
5
0.737 Million
-
Achieved
0.087
Partially Achieved
Closure to boost Natural Regeneration 22 Nos. (440 0.191 / Establishment of new Enclosure Acre) Identified Natural Regeneration area of Compartment / Guzara
Partially Achieved
Afforestation (planting of large sized 570 50 No. Cir plants and sowing in trenches)
Number wise achieved (Table 49, 51).
Rehabilitation of Guzara and Protected Forests Afforestation 435 Plant per Ac
200
0.285
Analysis of Height and Diameter measurement data points out some concerns regarding growth. Water
harvesting
device
with 22
-
Achieved (serious observations)
Page | 17
afforestation 22 Nos Afforestation along water harvesting 22 device (1000 No.)
0.044
Not Achieved
Construction of Vegetative loose stone 30,000 retaining wall/ check dams (1000 cft / Ac)
0.02
Achieved
Construction of vegetated gabion
17,000
0.0113
Partially Achieved
Vegetated soft gabions retaining walls
26,000
0.0173
Partially Achieved
Brush wattles/ Brush layering / 26,000 fences/ Hedges etc.
0.0173
Partially Achieved
Closure to boost Natural Regeneration 62 Nos. 0.620 / Establishment of new Enclosure Identified Natural Regeneration area of Compartment (1240 Ac)
Partially Achieved
Page | 18
6
Protection and Augmentation of dry temperate forests (Pothwar) Dry Afforestation through Seed sowing 100
0.0500
Partially Achieved
Water harvesting device
-
Achieved (serious observations)
Afforestation along water harvesting 51 Nos. device (1000 No.)
0.065
Not Achieved
Soil Conservations
-
Achieved
51
20,900
Source: PC-I, Field Visits Data
Page | 19
5.
Data Analysis and Findings
As mentioned in Validation Methodology, the field data was collected separately for different planted tree species under each component. So, the data analysis is also conducted as component wise.
5-A-I Total No. of Plants, Identification of Specie and its Proportionate Under this part of analysis following Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) analysis carried out:
Total No. of Planted Species (per Acre, Forest & Component wise) Identification of Planted Species (as per Revised PC-I) Proportionate of Identified Planted Species (Forest wise) Drone Arial View Recordings GIS Digitization
Drone Ariel recordings are available in the DVD attached with the document.
Page | 20
5.1
Road & Canal side Plantations
These are avenues of trees planted along roadside, In Punjab total area under Road side plantations is 6624 Avenue Miles (AvM). Total of 318 Av M (500 plants per AvM) area tackled during 2016-17. Plants like Shisham, Kikar, Tun, Arjan, Nim, Toot, Dhrek and a variety of ornamental plants would be planted to conserve the biodiversity. Table 6 Total No. of Planted Species – Road & Canal side (Linear) Plantation Road Side & Canal Side Plantation Location Sr. # 1 2 3
Bahawalpur Hasilpur Road KM 11-95 / L R Bhakhar MLLC RD 131-172/L&R Mian Wali MLLC RD 0-131 L&R
Actual No. of Plants/ Acre
Target No. of Plants/Acre as per PC-I
Per Acre Difference
Difference %age
Actual %age
Target Area (Acres)
Actual No. of Plants (Forest)
Target No. of Plants as per PC-l
Plants Difference
234
500
-266
-53%
47.00%
82
19,188
41,000
-21,812
280
500
-220
-44%
56.00%
100
28,000
50,000
-22,000
190
500
-310
-62%
38.00%
120
22,800
60,000
-37,200
302
69,988
151,000
-81, 012
(Table 5) shows that in sample selected area Plantation per AvM is 234 Nos. on Bhawalpur Hasilpur Road, 190 Nos. in Mianwali and 280 Nos respectively against required 500 Nos. When projected it showed total difference of -81,012 Nos. in all three areas.
Page | 21
Status of specie wise total number of plantations is as under:
As per PC - I
Table 7 Specie wise Status of Plantation
Not As per PC - I
PC-I Species Shisham Kikar Tun Arjan Nim Toot Dhrek
Bahawalpur Hasilpur Road KM 11-95 / L R Planted Actual Count (Nos. PC-I (Nos. Plants Species Plants Per Acre) % age Per Acre)
Eucalyptus
234
100%
500
(Table 7) clearly indicates violation of selection of proposed specie in Bahawalpur Hasilpur Road KM 11-95 / L R. Figure 2 Specie wise Plantation – Bahawalpur Hasilpur Road KM 11-95 / L R
Bahawalpur Hasilpur Road KM 11-95 / L R
Eucalyptus 100%
Page | 22
Status of specie wise total number of plantations is as under:
As per PC - I
Table 8 Specie wise Status of Plantation
Not As per PC - I
PC-I Species Kikar Shisham Tun Arjan Nim Toot Dhrek
Bhakhar 131-172 Actual Count (Nos. PC-I (Nos. Plants Plants Per Acre) % age Per Acre) 179 64% 319 101 36% 181
Planted Species Kikar Shisham
Total
280
500
(Table 8) shows that both planted species are as per PC-I. Figure 3 Specie wise Plantation – Bhakhar
Bhakhar 131-172
Shisham 36%
Kikar 64%
Page | 23
Status of specie wise total number of plantations is as under:
As per PC - I
Table 9 Specie wise Status of Plantation
Not As per PC - I
PC-I Species Shisham Kikar Tun Arjan Nim Toot Dhrek
Planted Species
Mian Wali 0-131 Actual Count (Nos. Plants Per Acre) % age
Eucalyptus
190
PC-I (Nos. Plants Per Acre)
100%
500
(Table 9) clearly indicates violation of selection of proposed specie in Mianwali. Figure 4 Specie wise Plantation – Mian Wali
Mian wali 0-131
Eucalyptus 100%
Page | 24
5.2
Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations
These are manmade forests and are in the shape of blocks of tree plantations in the canal irrigated tract, raised originally to cater for the fuel wood requirements of the railway steam engines: the first fabricated forest of this type was established at Changa Manga in 1866. These plantations are spread over an area of 370,657 acre in different districts of the Punjab having irrigation water facilities. An area of 1,119 acres planted during the programme year 2016-17. Planting was done at spacing of 10’ x 6’ feet. The choice of species will be Shisham, Kikar, Tun, Arjan, Toot, Acacia Albida etc. and also according to the site conditions. At problematic areas Eucalyptus species can be planted. Status of Total No. of Planted Tree species during the year 2016-17 across all forests is as under:
Page | 25
Table 10 Total No. of Planted Species - Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations (Irrigated Plantations) Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations (Irrigated Plantations) Target No. Sr. Actual No. Target of Per Acre Difference Actual # Forest Name of Area Plants/Acre Difference %age %age Plants/Acre (Acres) as per PC-I Changa 1 Maanga 820 726 94 12.95% 112.95% 224 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Target No. No. of of Plants Plants as per PC-l (Forest)
Plants Difference
183,680
162,624
21,056
Daphar
740
726
14
1.93%
101.93%
140
103,600
101,640
1,960
Chichawatni
817
726
91
12.53%
112.53%
298
243,466
216,348
27,118
Pirowal
680
726
-46
-6.34%
93.66%
101
68,680
73, 326
-4,646
Laal Suhanra
690
726
-36
-4.96%
95.04%
77
53,130
55,902
-2,772
Ladam Sir-ll Abbasia Plantation
665
726
-61
-8.40%
91.60%
105
69,825
76,230
-6,405
710
726
-16
-2.20%
97.80%
50
35,500
36,300
-800
Machu
685
726
-41
-5.65%
94.35%
69
47,265
50,094
-2,829
Inaayat
670
726
-56
-7.71%
92.29%
56
37,520
40,656
-3,136
1,119 842,666
813,120
29,097
Total
(Table 10) shows Changa Manga, Chichawatni are densely planted as Actual No. in percentage above 100%. Forests having more plantation than required revised PC-l, spacing size is seriously violated. Cost break up of expenditures per Acre for afforestation, approved for irrigated plantation (Annexure-VI) as per revised PC-I.
Page | 26
5. 2.1 Chichawatni Plantation Chichawatni Plantation is one of the major plantations in the Punjab. The total area of the plantation is 11531.70 Acres. The soil is fertile and canal water supply is available from LBDC, which runs along northern boundary of plantation. Although major part of the plantation contains good crop due to mesquite infestation and drying of Shisham crop due to Shisham Die Back. Part of the area of plantation (298 Acres) which was invaded by mesquite was included in the said scheme for rehabilitation/reclamation. Detail of all compartments and total area covered in Chichawatni under GPP 2016-17 is as under: Table 11 Chichawatni Compartments and Total Area - GPP 2016-17 Circle
Division
Chichawatni Forest Multan Division
Sub Name Division Forest
of
Chichawatni Irrigated Plantation
Total
Total Cpt./RD/No. Area
2016-17
23-A
27
27
42
53
53
168
41
41
185
10
10
233
10
10
129
34
34
153
41
41
94 C
9
9
97
25
25
21-B
19
19
21-A
29
29 298
Page | 27
Plantation status of Chichawatni Forest is as under:
Per Acre Forest wise
Table 12 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Chichawatni Plantation
Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations (Irrigated Plantations) Forest Name
Chichawatni Plantation
Actual No. Target No. Per Acre Difference Actual of of Difference %age %age Plants/Acre Plants/Acre as per PC-I 817
726
91 12.53%
112.53%
Total
Target Area (Acres)
298
298
Actual No. of Plants (Forest)
Target No. of Plants as per PC-l
Plants Difference
243,466
216,348
27,118
243466
216,384
27,118
In revised PC-I it was clearly mentioned (726 plants per Acre at 10 X 6 spacing) but in actual it is 817 Nos. (Table 12) showing analysis of Per Acre positive difference of 91 Nos. of plants clearly projected 27,118 Nos. plants extra planted during 2016-17 across 298 acres. It was a serious violation of PC-I and would adversely impact the sustainability and benefits of the GPP.
Page | 28
Specie wise status of total number of plantations is as under:
As per PC - I
Table 13 Specie wise Plantation – Chichawatni Plantation
Not As per PC - I
Planted PC-I Species Species Kikar Kikar Toot Toot Arjan Ehretia Shisham Eucalyptus Tun Nim Acacia Albida Peepal Sumbal Frash Malaina Siris Lasoorah Total
Chichawatni Plantation Actual Count (Nos. PC-I (Nos. Plants Per Plants Per Acre) % age Acre) 25 28 3% 60 68 8% 54 61 7% 411 461 56% 21 24 3% 34 14 27 34 44 22 817
4% 2% 3% 4% 5% 3% 100%
29 13 24 29 39 21 726
Figure 5 Specie wise Plantation - Chichawatni Forest
Specie wise Plantatation - Chichawatni Forest Malaina 4%
Frash 3%
Lasoorah 3%
Toot 8%
Sumbal 2% Peepal 4% Kikar 3%
Siris 5%
Eucalyptus 57%
Nim 3% Ehretia 8%
(Table 13, Figure 05) clearly showing violation of Species to be planted under this component of GPP. Only Eucalyptus is 57%. Page | 29
Page | 30
Page | 31
5.2.2 Pirowal Plantation Detail of all compartments and total area covered in Machu & Inayat under GPP 2016-17 is as under: Table 14 Pirowal Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17 Circle Multan
Division Multan Div
Sub Division
Name of Forest Pirowal
Cpt./RD/No. 4/E 202/E 208
Total
Total Area 2016-17 44 34 23 23 56 44 101
Plantation status of Chichawatni Forest is as under:
Per Acre Forest wise
Table 15 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Pirowal Plantation
Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations (Irrigated Plantations) Forest Name Pirowal Plantation Total
Actual No. of Plants/Acre 680
Target No. of Plants/Acre as per PC-I 726
Per Acre Difference Difference %age -46
-06.34%
Actual %age 93.66%
Target Area (Acres) 101 101
Actual No. Target No. of Plants of Plants (Forest) as per PC-l 68,680 73,326 68,680
73,326
Plants Difference -4,646 -4,646
In revised PC-I it was clearly mentioned (726 plants per Acre at 10 X 6 spacing) but in actual it is 680 Nos. (Table 15) showing analysis of Per Acre negative difference of (46) Nos. of plants clearly projected (4,646) Nos. Page | 32
Status of specie wise total number of plantations is as under:
As per PC - I
Table 16 Specie wise Plantation – Pirowal Plantation
Not As per PC - I
Pirowal Plantation PC-I Species Kikar Shisham Tun Arjan Toot Acacia Albida
Planted Species Kikar Shisham Jaman Eucalyptus Siris
Actual Count (Nos. PC-I (Nos. Plants Plants Per Acre) % age Per Acre) 105 15% 112 120 18% 128 115 17% 123 230 34% 246 110 16% 117
Total
680
100%
726
Figure 6 Specie wise Plantation - Pirowal
Specie wise Plantation - Pirowal
Shisham 18%
Siris 16%
Kikar 15% Eucalyptus 34% Jaman 17%
(Table 16, Figure 06) clearly showing violation of Species to be planted under this component of GPP. Only Eucalyptus is 34%.
Page | 33
Page | 34
5.2.3 Changa Maanga Plantation The Changa Maanga forest is the Largest planted forest in Pakistan. It is located in Chunian is about 70 km south of Lahore (also known as the Indus Plains of Punjab, Pakistan). It covers an area of 50 km² (12,510 acres) and is one of the largest of its kind. The planting and irrigation of it took place in the 19th century in the era of the British Raj to fill the need for timber and fuel resources for the North-Western railway networks. The most common species of flora are Dalbergia Sissoo (Shisham) and Acacia nilotica (Kikar), both members of the Fabaceae and native to the Indian subcontinent. Morus Alba (white mulberry) was also introduced to the plantation and became popular in cultivation throughout South Asia. The forest also has several species of Eucalyptus and Populus. Detail of all compartments and total area covered in Changa Maanga under GPP 2016-17 is as under: Table 17 Changa Maanga Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17
Circle
Division
Lahore Kasur Forest Forest Circle Division
Sub Division
Name of Forest Changa Manga Forest
Total
Cpt./RD/No.
Total Area
2016-17
32
84
84
37
58
58
187
26
25
13
57
57 224
Page | 35
Plantation status of Changa Maanga Forest is as under:
Per Acre Forest wise
Table 18 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Changa Maanga Plantation
Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations (Irrigated Plantations) Forest Name
Changa Maanga Plantation Total
Actual No. Target No. Per Acre of of Difference Plants/Acre Plants/Acre as per PC-I 820
726
94
Difference %age
Actual %age
12.95%
112.95%
Target Area (Acres)
Actual No. of Plants (Forest)
Target No. of Plants as per PC-l
Plants Difference
224
183,680
162,624
21,056
224
183,680
162,624
21,056
In revised PC-I it was clearly mentioned (726 plants per Acre at 10 X 6 spacing) but in actual it is 820 Nos. (Table 18) showing analysis of Per Acre positive difference of 94 Nos. of plants clearly projected 21,056 Nos. plants extra planted during 2016-17 across 224 Acres. It was a serious violation of PC-I and would adversely impact the sustainability and benefits of the GPP.
Page | 36
Status of specie wise plantation is as under:
As per PC - I
Table 19 Specie wise Plantation –Changa Maanga
Not As per PC - I
Changa Maanga PC-I Species Toot Shisham Tun Kikar Arjan Acacia Albida
Actual Count (Nos. PC-I (Nos. Planted Species Plants Per Acre) % age Per Acre) Toot 57 7% Shisham 47 6% Tun 29 3% Ehretia 163 20% Poplar 49 6% Eucalyptus 417 51% Jaman 58 7% Total 820 100%
Plants 50 42 27 144 43 369 51 726
Figure 7 Specie wise Plantation – Changa Maanga
Specie wise Palntation - Changa Maanga Jaman Tun 7% 3%
Toot 7% Shisham 6%
Ehretia 20%
Eucalyptus 51%
Poplar 6%
Page | 37
Page | 38
Page | 39
5.2.4 Daphar Plantation Daphar Irrigated Plantation is one of the premier plantations of the province. Total area of the plantation is 7212 acre and it is situated in the Northern Extremity at the intersection of latitude 32-26 North and Longitude 73-11 East. Daphar Irrigated Plantation is situated in Tehsil Malakwal of District Mandi Bahauddin and comes under the jurisdiction of Gujarat Forest Division. The Sub-Division Head Quarter is situated at Bangla Kathianwala, which is at a distance of 112 KM from Gujarat. Daphar Plantation was declared as Reserve Forest during 1921 vide notification No. 11232 dated 09-04-1921. The Plantation was started in 1918-19 under Working Scheme written by Mian Mushtaq Ahmed (I. F. S). Sowing Shisham Seed started it and Shisham Stumps in the beginning and Mulberry was introduced later. Detail of all compartments and total area covered in Daphar under GPP 2016-17 is as under: Table 20 Daphar Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17 Circle
Division Gujarat Forest Gujranwala Division
Sub Division
Name of Forest Daphar Irrigated Plantation
Total
Cpt./RD/No.
Total Area
201617
17
42
35
30
46
28
78
33
18
100
30
30
140
40
29 140
Page | 40
Plantation status of Daphar Plantation is as under:
Per Acre Forest wise
Table 21 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Daphar Plantation
Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations (Irrigated Plantations) Forest Name
Daphar Plantation Total
Actual No. Target No. Per Acre of of Difference Plants/Acre Plants/Acre as per PC-I 740
726
14
Difference %age
Actual %age
1.93%
103.93%
Target Area (Acres)
Actual No. of Plants (Forest)
Target No. of Plants as per PC-l
Plants Difference
140
103,600
101,640
1,960
140
103,600
101, 640
1,960
In revised PC-I it was clearly mentioned (726 plants per Acre at 10 X 6 spacing) but in actual it is 740 Nos. (Table 21) showing analysis of Per Acre positive difference of 94 Nos. of plants clearly projected 21,056 Nos. plants extra planted during 2016-17 across 224 Acres. It was a serious violation of PC-I and would adversely impact the sustainability and benefits of the GPP.
Page | 41
Status of specie wise plantation is as under:
As per PC - I
Table 22 Specie wise Plantation –Daphar Plantation
Not As per PC - I
Daphar Plantation
Species in PC-l
Species observed
Actual Count
% age
PC-I (Nos. Plants Per Acre)
Shisham Kikar Tun Arjan Toot Acacia Albida Eucalyptus
740
100%
726
In problematic area Eucalyptus could be planted. But it’s all over planted here. Figure 8 Specie wise Plantation – Daphar Plantation
Specie wise Plantation - Daphar Plantation
Eucalyptus 100%
Page | 42
Page | 43
5.2.5 Machu & Inayat Plantation The objective behind creating Layyah Forest Division was to stabilize sand dunes and retrieve vast tract of land by growing Forest plantations spread over whole the tract. The gross area off Layyah Forest Division is 34701.51 with net as 17954.47 acres. The remaining area either consists of un-commanded and dunes or without vegetation. The Forests are not fully stocked with trees. The plantations are either dry or poorly managed due to less supply of irrigation water coupled with continuous scarcity of funds needed for their rehabilitation. Adequate quantity of water was provided through Inayat, Machu and Rajang Shah Canals from which these plantations were raised. The quantity of canal water available for the Forests reduced gradually and consequently, the Forests suffered adversely. The main source of canal water supply is from Thala Canal System. The approved water supply is @ 16 and 3.2 cusecs per 1000 acres for Kharif and Rabi respectively whereas it is being provided throughout the year 3.18 cusecs. Water shortage is the main problem of Plantation. Detail of all compartments and total area covered in Machu & Inayat under GPP 2016-17 is as under: Table 23 Machu & Inayat Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17 Sub Circle Division Division DG Khan
Layyah
Name of Total Forest Cpt./RD/No. Area 281 402 A Machu 402 B 375 265 102 Inayat 140 164 Total
-
2016-17 18 9 9 20 13 27 23 6 125
Page | 44
Plantation status of Machu Plantation is as under:
Per Acre Forest wise
Table 24 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Machu Plantation
Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations (Irrigated Plantations) Forest Name
Machu Plantation Total
Actual No. Target No. Per Acre of of Difference Plants/Acre Plants/Acre as per PC-I 685
726
-41
Difference %age
Actual %age
-5.65%
94.35%
Target Area (Acres)
Actual No. of Plants (Forest)
Target No. of Plants as per PC-l
Plants Difference
69
47,265
50,094
-2,829
69
47,265
50,094
-2,829
In revised PC-I it was clearly mentioned (726 plants per Acre at 10 X 6 spacing) but in actual it is 685 Nos. (Table 24)
Page | 45
Status of specie wise plantation is as under:
As per PC - I
Table 25 Specie wise Plantation –Machu Plantation
Not As per PC - I
Machu Plantation Species in PC-l Kikar Tun Arjan Toot Shisham Kikar
Species observed Kikar Siris Eucalyptus Frash
Total
Actual PC-I (Nos. Plants Count % age Per Acre) 130 19% 138 290 43% 307 50 7% 53 215 31% 228
685
100%
726
Figure 9 Specie wise Plantation – Machu Plantation
Specie wise Plantation - Machu Plantation Eucalyptus 7%
Frash 32%
Siris 42%
Kikar 19%
Page | 46
Plantation status of Inaayat Plantation is as under:
Per Acre Forest wise
Table 26 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Inaayat Plantation
Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations (Irrigated Plantations) Forest Name
Inaayat Planation Total
Actual No. Target No. Per Acre of of Difference Plants/Acre Plants/Acre as per PC-I 670
726
-56
Difference %age
Actual %age
-7.71%
92.29%
Target Area (Acres)
Actual No. of Plants (Forest)
Target No. of Plants as per PC-l
Plants Difference
56
37,520
40,656
-3,136
56
37,520
40,656
-3,136
In revised PC-I it was clearly mentioned (726 plants per Acre at 10 X 6 spacing) but in actual it is 670 Nos. (Table 26)
Page | 47
Status of specie wise plantation is as under:
As per PC - I
Table 27 Specie wise Plantation –Inayat Plantation
Not As per PC - I
Inayat Plantation
Species in PC-l Shisham Kikar Tun Arjan Toot Acacia Albida
Species observed
Eucalyptus
Actual Count % age
670
100%
PC-I Plants Acre)
(Nos. Per
726
Figure 10 Specie wise Plantation – Inayat Plantation
Specie wise Plantation - Inayat Plantation
Eucalyptus 100%
Page | 48
Page | 49
5.2.6 Laal Suhanra National Park (LSNP) Plantation Laal Suhanra National Park is located in the southeastern Punjab of Pakistan with altitudes ranging from 125 to 140 meters. The flora of Park consists of 212 species belonging to 162 genera and 50 families. The Dicots having 41 families, 118 genera and 158 species, were the most diverse and dominating group of plants in this area followed by Monocots with 5 families, 40 genera and 50 species, Pteridophytes with 3 families, 3 genera and 3 species and Bryophytes represented by monotypic species. Detail of all compartments and total area covered in Laal Suhanra National Park (LSNP) under GPP 2016-17 is as under: Table 28 Laal Suhanra National Park (LSNP) Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17
Circle Bhawalpur
Division LSNP Div
Sub Division
Name Forest LSNP Div
Total
of Sub
Cpt. /RD/No.
Total Area
2016-17
40
50
46
223
50
12
819
50
19 77
Page | 50
Plantation status of Inaayat Plantation is as under:
Per Acre Forest wise
Table 29 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Laal Suhanra National Park (LSNP) Plantation
Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations (Irrigated Plantations) Forest Name
Laal Suhanra National Park (LSNP) Plantation Total
Actual No. Target No. Per Acre of of Difference Plants/Acre Plants/Acre as per PC-I 690
726
-36
Difference %age
Actual %age
-4.96%
95.04%
Target Area (Acres)
Actual No. of Plants (Forest)
Target No. of Plants as per PC-l
Plants Difference
77
53,130
55,902
-2,772
77
53,130
55,902
-2,772
In revised PC-I it was clearly mentioned (726 plants per Acre at 10 X 6 spacing) but in actual it is 690 Nos. (Table 29)
Page | 51
Status of specie wise plantation is as under:
As per PC - I
Table 30 Specie wise Plantation – Laal Suhanra National Park (LSNP)
Not As per PC - I
Laal Suhanra National Park (LSNP) Species in PC-l Shisham Kikar Tun Arjan Toot Acacia Albida
Species observed
Actual Count
Eucalyptus Frash
% age
630 60 690
Total
PC-I (Nos. Plants Per Acre)
91% 9% 100%
661 65 726
Figure 11 Specie wise Plantation – Laal Suhanra National Park (LSNP)
Specie wise Plantation - Lal Suhnara National Park (LSNP) Frash 9%
Eucalyptus 91%
Page | 52
Page | 53
5.2.7 Ladam Sir-II Detail of all compartments and total area covered in Ladam Sir-II under GPP 2016-17 is as under: Table 31 Ladam Sir-II Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17 Circle Bhawalpur
Sub Division Division Ladam Sir-ll
Name of Forest Ladam Sir-ll
Total
Total Cpt./RD/No. Area 813 814 842 846 847 848
50 50 50 50 50 50
2016-17 10 14 25 35 13 8 105
Page | 54
Plantation status of Inaayat Plantation is as under:
Per Acre Forest wise
Table 32 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Ladam Sir-II Plantation
Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations (Irrigated Plantations) Forest Name
Ladam Sir-II Total
Actual No. of Plants/Acre
665
Target No. Per Acre of Difference Plants/Acre as per PC-I 726
-61
Difference %age
Actual %age
-8.40%
91.60%
Target Area (Acres)
Actual No. of Plants (Forest)
Target No. of Plants as per PC-l
Plants Difference
105
53,130
55,902
-2,772
105
53,130
55,902
-2,772
In revised PC-I it was clearly mentioned (726 plants per Acre at 10 X 6 spacing) but in actual it is 665 Nos. (Table 32)
Page | 55
Status of specie wise plantation is as under:
As per PC - I
Table 33 Specie wise Plantation – Ladam Sir-II
Not As per PC - I
Ladam Sir-ll Species in PC-l Shisham Kikar Tun Arjan Toot Acacia Albida
Species observed
Actual Count % age
Eucalyptus
665
PC-I (Nos. Plants Per Acre)
100%
726
Figure 12 Specie wise Plantation – Ladam Sir-II
Specie wise Plantation - Ladam Sir-II
Euclyptus 100%
Page | 56
5.2.8 Abbasia Plantation Detail of all compartments and total area covered in Abbasia Plantation under GPP 2016-17 is as under: Table 34 Abbasia Plantation Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17 Circle
Division
Bhawalpur
R. Y. Khan
Sub Division
Name of Forest Abbasia Plantation
Cpt./RD/No.
Total Area 83 84 94
2016-17 25 15 10 50
-
Total Plantation status of Inaayat Plantation is as under:
Per Acre Forest wise
Table 35 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Ladam Sir-II Plantation
Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations (Irrigated Plantations) Forest Name Abbasia Plantation Total
Actual No. of Target No. of Plants/Acre Plants/Acre as per PC-I 710 726
Per Acre Difference Difference %age -16
-2.20%
Actual %age 97.80%
Target Area Actual No. of (Acres) Plants (Forest) 50 35,500 50
35,300
Target No. of Plants as per PC-l 36,300 36,300
Plants Difference -800 -800
In revised PC-I it was clearly mentioned (726 plants per Acre at 10 X 6 spacing) but in actual it is 710 Nos. (Table 35)
Page | 57
As per PC - I
Status of specie wise plantation is as under: Table 36 Specie wise Plantation – Abbasia Plantation – GPP 2016-17
Not As per PC - I
Abbasia Plantation Species in PC-l Kikar Shisham Arjan Toot Acacia Albida Tun
Species observed Kikar
Count % age Plants Per Acre 710 100% 726
Figure 13 Specie wise Plantation – Abbasia Plantation
Specie wise Plantation - Abbasia Plantation
Kikar 100%
Page | 58
5.2.9 Major Weeds, Grazing & Trespassing, Poor Operation & Maintenance (Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantation) Major species of weeds observed are as under:
Boerhavia diffusa Calotropis procera Chenchruasspp Chenopodium album Conyza ambigua Cynodon dactylon Desmos stachia bipinata Imperata cyclindrica Parthenium hysterophorus Pseudo fruitcosa Saccharum munja Sporobolus spp Xanthium strumarium
Page | 59
Grazing, Tress pasing
Poor Operation & Maintainannce (Filled Trenches, Excessive Plantation)
Page | 60
5.3
Increase in existing cover of Bellas Forests
The Riverain or Bella Forests occur in varied sized patches along different rivers of the Punjab. Erratic flooding in rivers of Punjab and its tributaries has been a constant feature especially in the past decade or so. These flooding are the major cause of damages in the areas adjacent to this river primarily where the main source of livelihood is agriculture. The presence of plantations on the River banks greatly helps to reduce the impact of such flooding. Presently the existing Riparian Forests along Rivers and its tributaries are scanty & big chunks of state land are lying blank making the said areas more susceptible to soil degradation. In order to stabilize the land resource and to reduce the effects of flood water intrusion into the adjacent agricultural areas, these Riparian Forests require proper Afforestation/stocking. In Punjab, total area under Riverain Forests is 144,343 acres. An area of 1277 acres has been proposed for plantation under this scheme during the project period. Planting will be done at spacing of 10’ x 6’ feet. These Riverain Forests do not receive inundation frequently and subsurface water is 30’40’ feet deep. Planting was carried out at 10 ’x 6’ spacing (726 plants per acre) on Flow irrigation on standard Irrigated Plantation technique by pumping out the sub soil water with the help of peter pumps. One peter pump will irrigate at least an area of 25 Acres. At some places tube had also been installed to overcome the shortage of water.
Page | 61
The choice of species was Shisham, Kikar, Tun, Arjan, Toot etc. and also according to the site conditions. At problematic areas Eucalyptus species can be planted. Status of Total No. of Planted Tree species during the year 2016-17 across all forests is as under: Table 37 Total No. of Planted Species Increase in existing cover of Bella Forests Increase in existing cover of Belas Forests
Forest Name
Target No. of Actual No. of Plants/ Plants/Acre Acre as per PC-I
1
Bella Randiali
680
726
-46
-6.34%
93.66%
42
28,560
30,492
-1932
2
Bella Qadir Abad
667
726
-59
-8.13%
150
100,050
108,900
-8850
3
Dhool
734
726
8
1.10%
91.87% 101.10 %
68
49,912
49,368
544
Total
260
178,522
188,760
-10,238
Sr. #
Per Acre Difference
Difference %age
Actual %age
Target Area (Acres)
Actual No. of Plants (Forest)
Target No. of Plants as per PC-l
Plants Difference
(Table 37) clearly shows plantation success ratio is above 90% but Difference of plantation against required number is of negative 10, 238. Although 2-3% restocking was observed in Bella Randiali and Bella Qadir Abad while Dhool forest showed 1% more plantations that recommended in PC-l and it had no need for restocking.
Page | 62
5.3.1 Bella Randiali Detail of all compartments and total area covered in Bella Randiali under GPP 2016-17 is as under: Table 38 Bella Randiali Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17 Circle
Division
Sub Division
Gujranwala Gujarat
Name of Forest Bella Randiali Total
Cpt./RD/No.
Total Area
2&3
42
2016-17 42 42
Plantation status of Inaayat Plantation is as under:
Per Acre Forest wise
Table 39 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Bella Randiali
Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations (Irrigated Plantations) Forest Name Bella Randiali Total
Actual No. Target No. Per Acre of of Difference Plants/Acre Plants/Acre as per PC-I 680
726
-46
Difference %age
Actual %age
-6.34%
93.66%
Target Actual No. Area of Plants (Acres) (Forest)
Target No. of Plants as per PC-l
Plants Difference
42
28, 560
30,492
-1.932
42
28,560
30,492
-1,932
In revised PC-I it was clearly mentioned (726 plants per Acre at 10 X 6 spacing) but in actual it is 680 Nos. (Table 39) Page | 63
Status of specie wise plantation is as under:
As per PC - I
Table 40 Specie wise Plantation – Bella Randiali – GPP 2016-17
Not As per PC - I
Species in PC-l Shisham Kikar Tun Arjan
Bella Randiali Actual PC-I (Nos. Plants Species observed Count % age Per Acre) Shisham 111 16% 119 Kikar 39 6% 42 Eucalyptus 259 38% 277 Siris 199 30% 212 Jaman 72 10% 77 Total 680 100% 726
Figure 14 Specie wise Plantation – Bella Randiali
Specie wise Plantation - Bella Randiali
Kikar 6%
Jaman 10%
Eucalyptus 38%
Shisham 16%
Siris 30%
Page | 64
Page | 65
5.3.2 Bella Qadir Abad Detail of all compartments and total area covered in Abbasia Plantation under GPP 2016-17 is as under: Table 41 Bella Qadir Abad Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17 Circle Gujranwala
Division
Sub Division
Name of Forest
Cpt./RD/No.
Bella Qadir Abad
Gujarat
3 11 15
Total Area
2016-17
40 56 54
Total
40 56 54 150
Plantation status of Inaayat Plantation is as under:
Per Acre Forest wise
Table 42 Per Acre, Forest wise Plantation Status – Bella Qadir Abad
Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantations (Irrigated Plantations) Forest Name Bella Qadir Abad
Actual No. of Plants/Acre 667
Target No. of Plants/Acre as per PC-I 726
Per Acre Difference -59
Difference Actual %age %age -8.13%
91.87%
Target Area Actual No. (Acres) of Plants (Forest) 150
100,050
Total 150 100,050 In revised PC-I it was clearly mentioned (726 plants per Acre at 10 X 6 spacing) but in actual it is 667 Nos. (Table 42)
Target No. of Plants as per PC-l
Plants Difference
108,900
-8.850
108,900
-8,850
Page | 66
Status of specie wise plantation is as under:
As per PC - I
Table 43 Specie wise Plantation – Bella Qadir Abad – GPP 2016-17
Not As per PC - I
Bella Qadir Abad Species in PC-l Shisham
Species observed Eucalyptus
Kikar
Bottle Brush
Tun
% age
PC-I (Nos. Plants Per Acre)
251
38%
273
193
29%
210
Meetha
97
15%
106
Arjan
Amrood
83
12%
90
Toot
Khoobani
43
6%
47
667
100%
726
Total
Actual Count
Figure 15 Specie wise Plantation – Bella Qadir Abad
Specie wise Plantation - Bella Qadir Abad Khoobani 7%
Amrood 13%
Eucalyptus 37%
Meetha 14%
Bottle Brush 29%
Page | 67
Page | 68
5.3.3 Dhool Forest Detail of all compartments and total area covered in Dhool under GPP 2016-17 is as under: Table 44 Dhool Forest Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17
Circle
Division
Gujranwala
Gujarat
Sub Division
Name Forest
of
Dhool Forest Total
Cpt./RD/No.
Total Area 163
2016-17 68 68
Page | 69
Status of specie wise plantation is as under:
As per PC - I
Table 45 Specie wise Plantation – Dhool Forest – GPP 2016-17
Not As per PC - I
Species in PC-l Kikar Arjan Shisham Tun Toot
Species observed Kikar Arjan Sukh Chain Eucalyptus Nim Amrood Amaltas Siris Pilkan
Dhool Forest Actual Count % age PC-I (Nos. Plants Per Acre) 38 6% 37 11 1% 10 10 1% 10 429 58% 421 101 14% 99 89 12% 87 41 5% 40 11 2% 12 10 1% 10 740 100% 726
Figure 16 Specie wise Plantation – Dhool Forest
Specie wise Plantation - Dhool Forest Sukh Chain Kikar 1% 6%
Siris 2%
Arjan 1% Pilkan 1%
Amaltas 5%
Amrood 12%
Eucalyptus 58% Nim 14%
Page | 70
5.4
Restoration and Improvement of Scrub Forests
The scrub forests consisting of natural low yielding thorny vegetation occur in Pothwar area of Rawalpindi Civil Division and also in the low dry hills of Mianwali, Khushab and DG Khan Districts. Their importance from the soil and water conservation point of view can hardly be over emphasized. Moreover, these areas will improve productivity of Rangelands. Livelihood of adjoining population will improve through provision of developed grass lands with palatable grasses for grazing animals. In Punjab total area under scrub forests is 635,497 acres. Under this scheme 1514-acre area has been proposed to tackle in Attock, Chakwaal and Jhelum Forest Division. The species to be planted are Siris, Phulai, Kikar, Kahu, Robinia, Iple, Ailanthus, Jand, Ber, Frash etc. Planting had to be done at 10’ x 10’ spacing on dry afforestation techniques. 300 plants will be planted in Scrub Area along with seed sowing. At problematic areas Eucalyptus species can be planted. Status of Total No. of Planted Tree species during the year 2016-17 across all forests is as under: Table 46 Total No. of Planted Species Restoration and Improvement of Scrub Forests
Sr. Forest # Name 1
Target No. Actual No. of Per Acre of Plants/Acre Difference Plants/Acre as per PC-I
Kali Dali 230
300
-70
Difference Actual %age %age
Target Area (Acres)
Actual No. of Plants (Forest)
Target No. of Plants as per PC-l
-23.33%
100
23,000
30000
-7,000
100
23,000
30000
-7,000
76.67%
Plants Difference
Table 46 findings showed that there is negative difference of target plantation. In scrub forest, the success rate was observed 76.67% with restocking only 4-5%, which not fulfill the needs.
Page | 71
5.4.1 Kali Dali Kali Dili Reserve Forest is located in Kala Chita National Park on the southern aspect and in the west of Kala Chita Mountain Range. It is the forest in Kali Dili beat of Thatta Block in Jand Forest Range of Attock Forest Division. The forest comprises 15 compartments i.e. from 197-211 with a total area of 3738 acres. The tract of the area is very undulating and the soil is coarse and stony. The vegetation is sparsely scattered and mostly comprising of Acacia modesta, Acacia nilotica, Caparis aphylla etc. The average annual rainfall of the area is less than 250 mm. Detail of all compartments and total area covered in Dhool under GPP 2016-17 is as under: Table 47 Kali Dali Compartments and Total Area – GPP 2016-17
Circle
Division
Rawalpindi
Attock
Sub Division
Name Forest
Kali Dili Total
of Cpt./RD/No.
Total Area
2016-17
206
239
20
207
206
80 100
Page | 72
Status of specie wise plantation is as under:
As per PC - I
Table 48 Specie wise Plantation – Kali Dali – GPP 2016-17
Not As per PC - I
Kali Dali Species in PC-l Phulai Kikar Siris Robinia Iple Ailanthus Jand Ber Frash
Actual Species observed Count % age Phulai 100 36% Kikar 50 18% Eucalyptus 130 46%
Total
280
PC-I Plants Acre)
100%
(Nos. Per 180 90 230
500
Figure 17 Specie wise Plantation – Kali Dali
Specie wise Plantation - Kali Dali Kikar 18%
Eucalyptus 46%
Phulai 36%
Mixed eucalypt–acacia plantations5 may be used in water-limited environments to produce a given amount of wood with less water than eucalypt monocultures.
5
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112709005143
Page | 73
5.5
Rehabilitation of Guzara and Protected Forests
5.5.1 Coniferous (Protected) Forests The natural high hill Coniferous Forests grow 765 meters above sea level between 32º 6’ and 34º 1 North latitude and 72º 47 and 73º 42 East longitude. The average annual rainfall varies from 1.01 to 1.45 meters. The forests areas are situated in Murree, Kahuta and Kotli Sattian Tehsils of Rawalpindi. These forests are the only source of soft wood supply in the province. These forests also provide recreational facilities. In Punjab total area under coniferous forests is 171,000 acres. Under this scheme 2468-acre area will be tackled in Murree Forest Division and North Forest Division. 50 No. big plants per acre will be planted along with seed sowing. The species to be planted are Chir, Kail, Fir, Horse Chest Nut, Amlok, Robinia, Ailanthus, Poplus ciliate, fig, willow, chinar, Quercus incana, Quercus Ilex, Tun etc. Status of Total No. of Pinus Planted during the year 2016-17 across Muree Forest Ranges is as under:
Murree Forest Range
Table 49 Total No. of Pinus Plantation under Rehabilitation of Protected (Coniferous) across Murree Forest Range
Forest Name Gohi Patriata Hokeria Ker Aucha Dewal
Target No. of Target Actual No. Actual No. of Per Acre Difference Actual Plants/Acr Area of Plants Plants/Acre Difference %age %age e as per PC(Acres) (Forest) I 47 50 -3 -6.00% 94.00% 70 3,290 46 50 -4 -8.00% 92.00% 50 2,300 48 47 45
50 50 50
-2 -3 -5
-4.00% -6.00% -10.00%
96.00% 94.00% 90.00%
Target No. of Plants as per PC-l
Plants Difference
3,500 2,500
-210 -200
50 50 50
2,400 2,350 2,250
2,500 2,500 2,500
-100 -150 -250
270
12,590
13,500
-910
Page | 74
Status of forest range wise pinus plantation is as under: Table 50 Forest wise (Pinus) Plantation – Murree Forest Range – GPP 2016-17
Forest Gohi Hokeria Patriata Aucha Dewal
Pinus Plantation Murree Forest Range Actual Count % age PC-I (Nos. Plants Per Forest) 3,290 20% 3,500 2,400 21% 2,500 2,300 20% 2,500 2,350 20% 2,500 2,250 19% 2,500 12,590 100% 13,500
Figure 18 Forest wise (Pinus) Plantation – Murree Forest Range
Forest wise (Pinus) Plantation - Murree Forest Range Dewal 19% Gohi 20%
Aucha 20% Hokeria 21% Patriata 20%
Page | 75
Status of Total No. of Pinus Plantation during the year 2016-17 across Rawalpindi Forest Ranges is as under:
Rawalpindi Forest Range
Table 51 Total No. of Pinus Plantation under Rehabilitation of Protected (Coniferous) across Rawalpindi Forest Range Forest Name
Actual No. of Plants/ Acre
Target No. of Plants/Acre as per PC-I
Per Acre Difference
Difference %age
Hanaser
49
50
-1
-2.00%
Chonoyan
47
50
-3
-6.00%
Khanawas
45
50
-5
-10.00%
Actual %age 98.00 % 94.00 % 90.00 %
Target Area (Acres)
Actual No. of Plants (Forest)
Target No. of Plants as per PC-l
100
4,900
5,000
-100
100
4,700
5,000
-300
100
4,500
5,000
-500
300
14,100
15,000
-900
Plants Difference
No restocking was observed in all the forest in coniferous forest.
Page | 76
Status of forest wise pinus plantation is as under: Table 52 Forest wise (Pinus) Plantation – Rawalpindi Forest Range – GPP 2016-17
Forest Hanaser Chonoyan Khanawas
Pinus Rawalpindi Forest Range Actual Count % age PC-I (Nos. Plants Per Forest) 4,900 35% 4,900 4,700 33% 4,700 4,500 32% 4.500 14.100 100% 14,100
Figure 19 Forest wise (Pinus) Plantation – Rawalpindi Forest Range
Forest wise (Pinus) Plantation - Rawalpinidi Forest Range
Khanawas 32%
Hanaser 35%
Chonoyan 33%
5.5.2 Guzara Forests The natural high hill Coniferous Forests grow 765 meters above sea level between 32º 6’ and 34º 1 North latitude and 72º 47 and 73º 42 East longitude. The average annual rainfall varies from 1.01 to 1.45 meters. The forests areas are situated in Murree, Kotli Sattian and Kahuta Tehsils of Rawalpindi. These forests are the only source of soft wood supply in the province. These forests also provide recreational facilities. Under this scheme 200 were tackled. The species planted were Chir, Kail, Horse Chest Nut, Amlok, Robinia, Ailanthus, Poplus ciliate, fig, Quercus incana, Quercus Ilex, Tun and fruit plants etc. As plantation was through land lords of (Maliki land Shamlat) so team visited and verified physically across all areas. Although documentation need serious improvements but it was overall satisfactory. As to sensitize and engage communities for afforestation was comparatively a little difficult task.
Page | 77
5. 6 Protection
and
Augmentation
of
dry
temperature
forests
(Pothwar) The Range Lands / scrub forests consisting of natural low yielding thorny vegetation occur in Pothwar area of Rawalpindi Civil Division and in the low dry hills of Mianwali, Khushab and DG Khan Districts. Their importance from the soil and water conservation point of view can hardly be over emphasized. Moreover, these areas also improve productivity of Rangelands. Livelihood of adjoining population also l improves through provision of developed grasslands with palatable grasses for grazing animals. An area of 7322 acres to be planted during the programme period in in Pothwar track and GPP 2016-17 targets was only 100 acres. The species to be planted are Siris, Phulai, Kikar, Kahu, Robinia, Iple, Ailanthus, Jand, Ber, Frash & other Acacia species. Planting had to be done at 10’ x 10’ spacing on dry afforestation techniques. At problematic areas Eucalyptus species could be planted. Although plantation was observed both spacing size and specie selection were violated and needs serious monitoring.
Page | 78
5-A-II Height and Diameter Analysis of Planted Species I order to study the effects of plantation space size and time of harvesting plant height and diameter of every planted specie were recoded. For data analysis purpose, Average and Variance of both height and diameter were processed through ANOVA Single Factor Tool. Component and specie wise “maximum” and “minimum” data is as under:
Height & Diameter Analysis Specie wise Height & Diameter Analysis under each component
Specie wise maximum and minimum height under, “Rehabilitation & Restocking of Historical Plantation” are as under: Table 53 Specie wise maximum and minimum Height (Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantation) Height (m) Specie Eucalyptus Kikar Toot Siris Ehretia Frash Sumbal Peepal Malaina Lasoorah Nim Poplar Tun Jaamun
Forest Chichawatni Chichawatni Chichawatni Inaayat Changa Maanga Machu Chichawatni Chichawatni Chichawatni Chichawatni Chichawatni Changa Maanga Changa Maanga Changa Maanga
Maximum Height (m) 7.62 3.96 3.66 4.88 4.11 2.68 3.66 2.46 4.57 3.99 3.66 2.13 1.22 1.68
Forest Name Ladam Sir-ll Machu Chichawatni Chichawatni Chichawatni Laal Suhanra Chichawatni Chichawatni Chichawatni Chichawatni Chichawatni Changa Maanga Changa Maanga Changa Maanga
Minimum Height (m) 1.74 1.52 1.75 1.45 2.44 1.68 1.46 2.44 3.09 3.96 2.13 1.53 0.91 1.22
Page | 79
Specie wise maximum and minimum diameter under, “Rehabilitation & Restocking of Historical Plantation” are as under: Table 54 Specie wise maximum and minimum Diameter (Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantation)
Specie Eucalyptus Kikar Toot Siris Erethiya Frash Sumbal Peepal Malaina Lasoorah Nim Poplar Tun Jaamun
Forest Chichawatni Chichawatni Chichawatni Inaayat Changa Maanga Machu Chichawatni Chichawatni Chichawatni Chichawatni Chichawatni Changa Maanga Changa Maanga Changa Maanga
Diameter (cm) Maximum Diameter (cm) Forest 6.1 Changa Maanga 3.77 Chichawatni 3.43 Chichawatni 4.06 Chichawatni 3.54 Chichawatni 2.97 Laal Suhanra 3.67 Chichawatni 2.85 Chichawatni 6.75 Chichawatni 2.95 Chichawatni 3.09 Chichawatni 2.21 Changa Maanga 0.76 Changa Maanga 1.47 Changa Maanga
Minimum Diameter (cm) 0.58 0.94 0.9 0.62 2.12 1.3 0.56 2.56 2.06 2.93 2.51 1.55 0.73 0.97
Specie wise maximum and minimum height under, “Increase in Existing cover of Bella Forests” are as under: Table 55 Specie wise maximum and minimum Height (Increase in Existing cover of Bella Forests) Height (m) Specie Eucalyptus Meetha Amrood Khoobani Bottle Brush Nim
Forest Bella Qadir Abad Bella Qadir Abad Dhool Bella Qadir Abad
Maximum Height (m) 4.27 1.22 1.68 1.37
Forest Name Dhool Bella Qadir Abad Bella Qadir Abad Bella Qadir Abad
Minimum Height (m) 1.43 1.07 1.22 1.04
Bella Qadir Abad Dhool
1.55 1.74
Bella Qadir Abad Dhool
1.34 1.65
Page | 80
Specie wise maximum and minimum diameter under, “Rehabilitation & Restocking of Historical Plantation” are as under: Table 56 Specie wise maximum and minimum Diameter (Increase in Existing cover of Bella Forests) Diameter (cm) Specie Eucalyptus Meetha Amrood Khoobani Bottle Brush Nim
Forest Bella Qadir Abad Bella Qadir Abad Dhool Bella Qadir Abad Bella Qadir Abad Dhool
Maximum Diameter (cm) 3.98 0.87 1.09 1.14 1.1 1.95
Forest Name Dhool Bella Qadir Abad Bella Qadir Abad Bella Qadir Abad Bella Qadir Abad Dhool
Minimum Diameter (cm) 0.3 0.63 0.8 0.59 0.83 1.28
Specie wise maximum and minimum height under, “Restoration and Improvement of Scrub Forests” are as under: Table 57 Specie wise maximum and minimum Height (Restoration and Improvement of Scrub Forests) Height (m) Specie Eucalyptus Kikar Phulai
Forest Kali Dali Kali Dali Kali Dali
Maximum Height (m) 3.66 1.84 0.62
Forest Name Kali Dali Kali Dali Kali Dali
Minimum Height (m) 0.61 1.83 0.61
Specie wise maximum and minimum diameter under, “Restoration and Improvement of Scrub Forests” are as under: Table 58 Specie wise maximum and minimum Diameter (Restoration and Improvement of Scrub Forests)
Specie Eucalyptus Kikar Phulai
Forest Kali Dali Kali Dali Kali Dali
Diameter (cm) Maximum Diameter (cm) Forest 2.36 Kali Dali 1.24 Kali Dali 0.87 Kali Dali
Minimum Diameter (cm) 0.68 1.23 0.86
Page | 81
Specie wise maximum and minimum height under, “Rehabilitation of Guzara and Protected Forests” are as under: Table 59 Specie wise maximum and minimum Height (Rehabilitation of Guzara and Protected Forests) Height (m) Specie Forest Maximum Height (m) Forest Pinus Hanaser 1.83 Hokeria Ker
Minimum Height (m) 0.67
Specie wise maximum and minimum diameter under, “Rehabilitation of Guzara and Protected Forests” are as under: Table 60 Specie wise maximum and minimum Diameter (Rehabilitation of Guzara and Protected Forests) Diameter (cm) Specie Forest Maximum Height (m) Forest Pinus Hanaser 3.98 Hokeria Ker
Minimum Height (m) 0.74
Specie wise maximum and minimum height under, “Road and Canal side Plantation” are as under: Table 61 Specie wise maximum and minimum Height (Road and Canal side Plantation) Height (m) Plant Eucalyptus Kikar Shisham
Forest Maximum Height (m) Mian Wali 3.96 Bhakhar 3.05 Bhakhar 3.05
Forest Minimum Height (m) Mian Wali 2.74 Bhakhar 1.52 Bhakhar 2.74
Specie wise maximum and minimum height under, “Road and Canal side Plantation” are as under: Table 62 Specie wise maximum and minimum Height (Road and Canal side Plantation) Diameter (cm) Plant Eucalyptus Kikar Shisham
Forest Maximum Height (m) Mian Wali 3.55 Bhakhar 4.67 Bhakhar 2.71
Forest Minimum Height (m) Mian Wali 1.35 Bhakhar 2.28 Bhakhar 2.06
Page | 82
5.1
Road side and Canal side Plantation
Specie wise analysis of Average and Variance findings through ANOVA Single Factor for all observed and recoded species of this component is as under: Table 63 Height of Kikar (Acacia nilotica) and Shisham (Dalbergia sissoo) Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups
Sample Count
Average
18 10
2.233 2.843
Kikar Shisham
SD
Variance
Min
Max
0.593 0.032
1.52 2.74
3.05 3.05
0.77022 0.17898
Greater Less than than 6 12 3 7
ANOVA Source of P-value Variation Between 0.252444722 Groups Figure 20 Height Kikar (Acacia nilotica) and Shisham (Dalbergia sissoo)
Kikar, Shisham 3.500 3.000
Height (m)
2.500 2.000 1.500 1.000 0.500 0.000 Average
1
2
2.233
2.843
Page | 83
Table 64Diameter of Kikar (Acacia nilotica) and Shisham (Dalbergia sissoo) Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups
Average SD
Kikar
Sample Count 18
3.26
1.25168 1.5667
2.28
4.67
Shisham
10
2.46
0.35
2.06
2.71
ANOVA Source Variation Between Groups
Variance Min
0.1225
Max
Greater than
Less than
6
12
7
3
of P-value 0.346439715
Figure 21 Diameter of Kikar (Acacia nilotica) and Shisham (Dalbergia Sissoo)
Kikar, Shisham 4 3.5
Diameter (cm)
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0
Series1
Kikar 3.26
Shisham 2.46
Page | 84
5.2
Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantation
Specie wise analysis of Average and Variance findings through ANOVA Single Factor for all observed and recoded species of this component is as under: 5.2.1 Eucalyptus 
Height (m)
Analysis of Variance for height of Eucalyptus discussed as under: Table 65 Height of Eucalyptus Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups
Sample Count
Average
SD
Variance Min
Max
Greater Less than than
Changa Maanga
125
5.4663
0.5723
0.3275
4.57
6.25
63
63
Daphar
444
4.6315
0.6708
0.4500
3.35
5.79
222
222
Chichawatni
415
5.2140
1.2594
1.5862
2.44
7.62
221
194
Pirowal
46
2.6650
0.2616
0.0685
2.48
2.85
23
23
Laal Suhanra
63
5.0800
0.4681
0.2191
4.57
5.49
42
21
Ladam Sir-ll
133
2.6920
0.5478
0.3001
1.74
3.05
106
27
Machu
10
3.6575
0.6231
0.3882
3.08
4.45
5
5
Innayat
67
3.7025
0.6995
0.4893
3.05
4.57
34
34
ANOVA Source Variation Between Groups
of P-value
0.0000002
Page | 85
Figure 22 Height of Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus 7.0000 6.0000
Height (m)
5.0000 4.0000 3.0000 2.0000 1.0000 0.0000
Changa Maanga Average 5.4663
Daphar 4.6315
Chichaw Pirowal atni 5.2140 2.6650
Laal Suhanra 5.0800
Ladam Sir-ll 2.6920
Machu
Innayat
3.6575
3.7025
The analysis of Eucalyptus average height data (Table 65, Figure 22) across different forest under� Rehabilitation and Restocking of Historical Plantation� shows that it was maximum in Changa Maanga, while minimum in Ladam Sir-II. Machu and Inaayat showed similar while Daphar, Chichawatni and Laal Suhanra had almost similar trend in height. Uncertain and high variation in height variance (Table 65) especially in Chichawatni clearly points out flaws in work plan, earthen work, weed management, trenches development as well as irrigation. Theses flaws may cause the damage and reduction in the growth and even slow down the growth of the plants.
Page | 86
ï‚·
Diameter (cm)
Analysis of Variance for diameter of Eucalyptus discussed as under: Table 66 Diameter of Eucalypts Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups Changa Maanga Daphar Chichawatni Pirowal Laal Suhanra Ladam Sir-ll Machu Innayat
ANOVA Source Variation Between Groups
Sample Count 125
Average
SD
Variance Min
3.5150
1.3970 1.9516
Greater Less than than 0.58 5.2000 47 78
444 415 46 63 133 10 67
3.3815 4.1227 1.6700 3.4033 2.5050 3.3950 3.4150
0.5336 1.6306 0.2970 0.8491 0.7811 0.5200 0.5639
2.50 1.36 1.46 2.47 1.77 2.98 2.96
0.2743 2.6589 0.0882 0.7209 0.6102 0.2704 0.3180
Max
4.4900 6.1000 1.8800 4.1300 3.5400 4.1500 4.2300
239 235 23 42 53 3 17
205 208 23 21 80 8 50
of P-value 0.03719
Page | 87
Figure 23 Diameter of Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus 5.0000 4.5000 4.0000
Diameter (cm)
3.5000 3.0000 2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000
Changa Maanga Average 3.5150
Daphar 3.3815
Chichaw atni 4.1227
Pirowal 1.6700
Laal Suhanra 3.4033
Ladam Sir-ll 2.5050
Machu
Innayat
3.3950
3.4150
The analysis of Eucalyptus average diameter data (Table 66, Figure 23) shows that it was maximum in Chichawatni followed by Changa Manga and Daphar. The minimum diameter was recorded for the Pirowal. Laal Suhanra, Ladam Sir-II, Machu and Inaayat shows almost same trend of diameter growth. The growth of diameter of the plants is primarily controlled by temperature and nutrients available. Uncertain and high variation in diameter variance data (Table 66) especially in Chichawatni and Changa Manga points out flaws in site selection, earthen work and weed management. Theses flaws may cause the damage and reduction in the growth and even slow down the growth of the plants. No plan was found regarding insect and disease management.
Page | 88
5.2.2 Kikar (Acacia nilotica) 
Height (m)
Analysis of Variance for height and diameter of Kikar is discussed as under: Table 67 Height of Kikar (Acacia nilotica) Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups Chichawatni Machu Abbasia Plantation Pirowal
Sample Count
Average SD
Variance Min
25 26 71
3.6180 1.6500 2.5920
0.2060 0.1179 0.4605
0.0424 0.0139 0.2121
3.29 1.52 1.83
21
2.1750
0.4879
0.2381
1.83
Max 3.96 1.75 3.66
Greater than 12.5 17.3 28.4
Less than 12.5 8.7 42.6
2.52
10.5
10.5
ANOVA Source of P-value Variation Between 0.000000047 Groups Figure 24 Height of Kikar (Acacia nilotica)
Height (m)
Kikar (Acacia nilotica) 4.5000 4.0000 3.5000 3.0000 2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000 Average
Chichawatni
Machu
3.6180
1.6500
Abbasia Plantation 2.5920
Pirowal 2.1750
Page | 89
Kikar (Acacia nilotica) plantation recorded in Chichawatni, Machu, Abbasia plantation and Pirowal. The analysis of average height data (Table 67, Figure 24) shows that it was maximum in Chichawatni, followed by Abbasia Plantation, Pirowal and minimum in Machu. Slight variation in height variance (Table 67) was observed. It indicates suitable selection of the specie. 
Diameter (cm)
Analysis of Variance for diameter of Kikar (Acacia nilotica) is discussed as under: Table 68 Diameter of Kikar (Acacia nilotica) Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups Chichawatni Machu Abbasia Plantation Pirowal
Sample Count 25 26 71
Average SD
Variance Min
Max 3.77 2.97 2.36
Greater than 5 17 36
Less than 20 9 36
1.4800 2.7267 1.9330
0.8384 0.3232 0.2798
0.7030 0.1044 0.0783
0.94 2.36 1.42
21
2.5700
0.5091
0.2592
2.21
2.93
11
11
ANOVA Source of P-value Variation Between Groups 0.0149 Figure 25 Diameter of Kikar (Acacia nilotica)
Acacia nilotica 3.5000 Diameter (cm)
3.0000 2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000 Average
Chichawatni
Machu
1.4800
2.7267
Abbasia Plantation 1.9330
Pirowal 2.5700
Page | 90
The analysis of Kikar (Acacia nilotica) average diameter data (Table 68, Figure 25) shows that it was maximum in Machu and minimum in Chichawatni. High variation in diameter variance data (Table 68) was noted in Chichawatni followed by Pirowal, Machu and minimum in Abbasia Plantation. As growth of diameter is primarily controlled by temperature and nutrients available, so these findings indicate flaws in site selection, earthen work and poorly managed weeds and irrigation. 5.2.3 Toot (Morus alba) 
Height (m)
Analysis of Variance for height of Toot (Morus alba) is discussed as under: Table 69 Height of Toot (Morus alba) Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups
Sample Count 61 17
Chichawatni Changa Maanga ANOVA Source Variation Between Groups
Average SD
Variance
Min
Max
2.7636 2.1700
0.3405 0.1594
1.75 1.83
3.66 2.74
0.5836 0.3992
Greater than 28 4
Less than 33 13
of P-value 0.0856
Figure 26 Height of Toot (Morus alba)
Height (m)
Toot 3.5000 3.0000 2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000 Average
Chichawatni
Changa Maanga
2.7636
2.1700
Page | 91
Toot (Morus Alba) was planted only in Chichawatni and Changa Maanga. (Table 69, Figure 26) shows that it was high in Changa Maanga and low in Chichawatni. But High variation was observed in Chichawatni mainly due to the factors i.e. unsmooth earthen work, poor weed management and irregular plantation. 
Diameter (cm)
Analysis of Variance for diameter of Toot (Morus alba) is discussed as under: Table 70 Diameter of Toot (Morus alba) Anova: Factor
Single
SUMMARY Groups Chichawatni Changa Maanga ANOVA Source Variation Between Groups
Sample Count 61 17
Average
SD
Variance Min
2.3127 2.2700
0.7937 0.3023
0.6299 0.0914
Max
0.9 3.43 2.07 2.72
Greater than 33 4
Less than 28 13
of P-value 0.9196
Figure 27 Diameter of Toot (Morus alba)
Diameter (cm)
Toot 2.3600 2.3400 2.3200 2.3000 2.2800 2.2600 2.2400 2.2200 2.2000 Average
Chichawatni
Changa Maanga
2.3127
2.2700
The analysis of Toot (Morus Alba) average diameter data (Table 70, Figure 27) shows that it is high in Chichawatni as compared to Changa Maanga. It might be due dense, irregular
Page | 92
plantation and poor weeds management in Changa Maanga. It also highlights more competition for nutrients among plants and the weeds in Changa Maanga than Chichawatni. 5.2.4 Siris (Albizzia lebbek) 
Height (m)
Analysis of Variance for height of Siris (Albizza lebbek) is discussed as under: Table 71 Height of Siris (Albizza lebbek) Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups Chichawatni Machu Pirowal
Sample Count 40 58 22
Average
SD
Variance
Min
Max
1.9133 4.0300 3.4133
0.4980 0.7061 0.4197
0.2480 0.4986 0.1761
1.45 3.35 2.94
2.44 4.88 3.74
Greater than 13 29 15
Less than 27 29 7
ANOVA Source of P-value Variation Between Groups 0.0058
Figure 28 Height of Siris (Albizza lebbek)
Height (m)
Siris (Albizza lebbek) 5.0000 4.5000 4.0000 3.5000 3.0000 2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000
Average
Chichawatni 1.9133
Inaayat 4.0300
Pirowal 3.4133
The Siris (Albizzia lebbek) plantation was only in Chichawatni, Inaayat and Pirowal. The analysis of average height data (Table 71, Figure 28) shows that it was maximum in Inaayat followed by Pirowal and minimum in Chichawatni. Slight variation in height variance (Table 71) was observed. It indicates suitable selection of the specie. Page | 93

Diameter (cm)
Analysis of Variance for diameter of Siris (Albizza lebbek) is discussed as under: Table 72 Diameter of Siris (Albizza lebbek) Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups
Sample Count 40 58 22
Chichawatni Machu Pirowal
ANOVA Source Variation Between Groups
Average SD
Variance
Min
Max
0.8967 3.5325 3.2500
0.0994 0.2652 0.1183
0.62 2.86 2.87
1.24 4.06 3.54
0.3153 0.5149 0.3439
Greater than 13 29 15
Less than 27 29 7
of P-value 0.0002
Figure 29 Diameter of Siris (Albizza lebbek)
Siris (Albizza lebbek) 5.0000
Diameter (cm)
4.5000 4.0000 3.5000 3.0000 2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000
Average
Chichawatni 0.8967
Inaayat 3.5325
Pirowal 3.2500
Regarding the analysis of Siris (Albizzia lebbek) average diameter data (Table 72, Figure 29) it is found maximum in Inaayat and minimum in Chichawatni. Slight variation in diameter variance (Table 72) was observed in Inaayat due to presence of weeds although managed but not properly. No plan was also found regarding insect and disease management.
Page | 94
5. 2.5 Ehretia (Ehretia laevis) 
Height (m)
Analysis of Variance for height of Ehretia (Ehretia laevis) is discussed as under: Table 73 Height of Ehretia (Ehretia laevis) Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups Chichawatni Changa Maanga
Sample Count 55 49
Average
SD
Variance
Min
Max
2.7450 3.4780
0.4313 0.5159
0.1860 0.2662
2.44 3.05
3.05 4.11
Greater than 28 20
Less than 28 29
ANOVA Source of P-value Variation Between Groups 0.1402
Figure 30 Height of Ehretia (Ehretia laevis)
Ehretia 4.5000 4.0000
Height (m)
3.5000 3.0000 2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000 Average
Chichawatni
Changa Maanga
2.7450
3.4780
Ehretia (Ehretia laevis) was planted in Chichawatni and Changa Maanga only. Regarding the analysis of height data (Table 73, Figure 30) it was comparatively more in Changa Maanga as compare to Chichawatni. The variation in the variance of was also greater in Changa Maanga (Table 73). It points out flaws in work plan, earthen work, weed management and trenches development.
Page | 95

Diameter (cm)
Analysis of Variance for diameter of Ehretia (Ehretia laevis) is discussed as under: Table 74 Diameter of Ehretia (Ehretia laevis) Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups
Sample Count 55 49
Chichawatni Changa Maanga ANOVA Source Variation Between Groups
Average
SD
Variance Min
2.2700 3.0540
0.2121 0.0450 0.4804 0.2308
2.12 2.36
Max 2.42 3.54
Greater than 28 20
of P-value 0.0865
Figure 31 Diameter of Ehretia (Ehretia laevis)
Ehretia 4.0000
Diameter (cm)
3.5000 3.0000 2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000 Average
Chichawatni
Changa Maanga
2.2700
3.0540
The analysis of Ehretia (Ehretia laevis) average diameter data (Table 74, Figure 31) shows that it had high value in Changa Maanga as compare to Chichawatni. Analysis of data sows more symmetrical diameter in Chichawatni though it is less in Changa Maanga.
Page | 96
Less than 28 29
5.2.6 Frash (Tamarix aphylla) ï‚·
Height (m)
Analysis of Variance for height of Frash (Tamarix aphylla) is discussed as under: Table 75 Height of Frash (Tamarix aphylla) Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups
Sample Count 24 43 6
Chichawatni Machu Laal Suhanra
ANOVA Source Variation Between Groups
Average SD 2.1375 2.5633 1.7150
Variance Min
0.0105 0.0001 0.1069 0.0114 0.0495 0.0025
2.13 2.47 1.68
Max 2.14 2.68 1.75
Greater than 12 14 3
Less than 12 29 3
of P-value 0.0008
Figure 32 Height of Frash (Tamarix aphylla)
Frash 3.0000
Height (m)
2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000 Average
Chichawatni
Machu
Laal Suhanra
2.1375
2.5633
1.7150
Frash (Tamarix aphylla) plantation was observed in Chichawatni, Machu and Laal Suhanra. The analysis of average height data (Table 75, Figure 32) shows that it was maximum in Machu and minimum in Laal Suhanra. Slight variation in height variance (Table 75) was observed. It indicates suitable selection of the specie.
Page | 97

Diameter (cm)
Analysis of Variance for diameter of Frash (Tamarix aphylla) discussed as under: Table 76 Diameter of Frash (Tamarix aphylla) Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups Chichawatni Machu Laal Suhanra
Sample Count 24 43 6
Average
SD
Variance
Min
Max
1.4766 2.3100 1.3150
0.0094 0.5717 0.0212
0.0001 0.3268 0.0005
1.47 1.97 1.30
1.48 2.97 1.33
Greater than 12 14 3
Less than 12 29 3
ANOVA Source of P-value Variation Between Groups 0.0958
Figure 33 Diameter of Frash (Tamarix aphylla)
Frash 3.0000
Diameter (cm)
2.5000 2.0000
1.5000 1.0000 0.5000
0.0000 Average
Chichawatni 1.4766
Machu 2.3100
Laal Suhanra 1.3150
Considering the diameter of the Frash it is also high in Machu and minimum in Laal Suhanra while Chichawatni has intermediate value of the diameter showing medium growth. (Figure 33) In Machu diameter showed same variation. (Table 76)
Page | 98
5.2.7 Mix Plantation Some species observed only in specific compartments of Chichawatni forest. Although both height and diameter were calculated and recorded but analysis of variation in variance of height/diameter for similar specie is as under. 
Sumbal, Peepal, Malaina, Lasoorah, Nim
Table 77 Height of Sumbal, Peepal, Malaina, Lasoorah, Nim Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups
Sample Count 13 30 30 20 22
Sumbal Peepal Malaina Lasoorah Nim
Average
SD
Variance Min
Max
2.5450 2.4492 3.6675 3.9749 2.8950
0.7727 0.0129 0.6452 0.0210 1.0819
0.5970 0.0002 0.4163 0.0004 1.1705
3.66 2.46 4.57 3.99 3.66
1.46 2.44 3.09 3.96 2.13
Greater than 7 15 8 10 11
Less than 7 15 23 10 11
ANOVA Source of P-value Variation Between Groups 0.0783 Figure 34 Height of Sumbal, Peepal, Malaina, Lasoorah, Nim
Height (m)
Sumbal, Peepal, Malaina, Lasoorah, Nim 4.5000 4.0000 3.5000 3.0000 2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000 Average
Sumbal 2.5450
Peepal 2.4492
Malaina 3.6675
Lasoorah 3.9749
Nim 2.8950
Page | 99
Sumbal (Salmalia malabarica), Peepal (Ficus religiosa linn), Malaina (Gemlina arborea), Lasoorah (Cordia myxa) and Nim (Azadirachta indica) were planted only in Chichawatni. Nim (Azadirachta indica) (Table 77, Figure 34) showed maximum variation in variance of height followed by Sumbal (Salmalia malabarica) and Peepal (Ficus religiosa linn) minimum. It points out flaws in work plan, earthen work, weed management and trenches development for the plantation of said specie. Table 78 Diameter of Sumbal, Peepal, Malaina, Lasoorah, Nim Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups
Sample Count 13 30 30 20 22
Sumbal Peepal Malaina Lasoorah Nim
Average
SD
Variance
Min
Max
2.4050 2.5677 3.6886 2.9388 2.8000
1.2212 0.0109 1.7870 0.0124 0.4101
1.4914 0.0001 3.1933 0.0002 0.1682
0.56 2.56 2.06 2.93 2.51
3.67 2.58 6.75 2.95 3.09
Greater than 7 15 13 10 11
Less than 6 15 17 10 11
ANOVA Source of P-value Variation Between Groups 0.5616 Figure 35 Diameter of Sumbal, Peepal, Malaina, Lasoorah, Nim
Diameeter (cm)
Sumbal, Peepal, Malaina, Lasoorah, Nim 4.5000 4.0000 3.5000 3.0000 2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000
Average
Sumbal 2.4050
Peepal 2.5677
Malaina 3.6886
Lasoorah 2.9388
Nim 2.8000
Regarding the analysis of variation in variance of diameter of above discussed species. Malaina (Gemlina arborea) had maximum value followed by Sumbal (Salmalia malabarica) and Peepal (Ficus religiosa linn) minimum (Table 78, Figure 35). It highlights flaws mainly in site selection and weed management. Page | 100

Height (m)
Analysis of Variance for height of Poplar, Tun, and Jaman discussed as under: Table 79 Height of Poplar, Tun, Jaman Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups
Sample Count 15 8 18
Poplar Tun Jaman
Average
SD
Variance
1.7900 1.0650 1.4500
0.2596 0.0674 0.2192 0.0481 0.3253 0.1058
Min
Max
1.52 0.91 1.22
2.13 1.22 1.68
Greater than 8 4 9
Less than 8 4 9
ANOVA Source of P-value Variation Between Groups 0.0637 Figure 36 Height of Poplar, Tun, Jaman
Poplar, Tun, Jaman 2.5000
Height (m)
2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000
Average
Poplar 1.7900
Tun 1.0650
Jaman 1.4500
Poplar (Populous euramericana), Tun (Cedrela toona) and Jaamun (Syzgygum cumini) were observed only in Changa Maanga forest. Among them Jaamun (Syzgygum cumini) showed maximum variation in variance of height and minimum in Tun (Cedrela toona). Very less variation in height indicates smooth growth.
Page | 101
5.3
Increase in existing cover of Belas Forests
There are three Bella forests (Bella Randiali, Bella Qadir Abad and Dhool) where plantation done under GPP 2016-17 and eucalyptus planted in all the three forests Bella Randiali, Bella Qadir Abad and Dhool. Specie wise analysis of Average and Variance findings through ANOVA Single Factor for all observed and recoded species of this component is as under: 5.3.1 Eucalyptus 
Height (m)
Analysis of Variance for height of Eucalyptus discussed as under: Table 80 Height of Eucalyptus Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups
Sample Count Bella Randiali 26 Bella Qadir 75 Abad Dhool 43
ANOVA Source Variation Between Groups
Average
SD
Variance Min
Max 2.22 4.27
Greater than 10 56
Less than 16 19
1.7240 3.4900
0.3020 0.9789
0.0912 0.9582
1.43 2.07
1.6167
0.1644
0.0270
1.43
1.74
29
14
of P-value 0.0030
Page | 102
Figure 37 Height of Eucalyptus
Height (m)
Eucalyptus 4.5000 4.0000 3.5000 3.0000 2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000 Average
Bella Randiali 1.7240
Bella Qadir Abad 3.4900
Dhool 1.6167
Eucalyptus planted in all the three Bella forests. The analysis of average height data (Table 80, Figure 37) shows that it was maximum in Bella Qadir Abad followed by Bella Randiali while minimum in Dhool. Analysis of the data describes high variation in height variance, it is maximum in Bella Qadir Abad and minimum in Dhool, it points out flaws in work plan, earthen work and trenches development.
Page | 103

Diameter (cm)
Analysis of Variance for diameter of Eucalyptus discussed as under: Table 81 Diameter of Eucalyptus Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups
Sample Count Bella Randiali 26 Bella Qadir 75 Abad Dhool 43
ANOVA Source Variation Between Groups
Average
SD
Variance Min
Max 1.22 3.14
Greater than 5 38
Less than 21 38
0.6840 2.3483
0.3088 0.6179
0.0954 0.3818
0.47 1.39
0.5550
0.2318
0.0537
0.30
0.89
22
22
of P-value 0.0000059
Figure 38 Diameter of Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus 3.5000
Diameter (cm)
3.0000 2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000 -0.5000 Average
Bella Randiali
Bella Qadir Abad
Dhool
0.6840
2.3483
0.5550
The analysis of average diameter data (Table 81, Figure 38) shows that it was maximum in Bella Qadir Abad followed by Bella Randiali and minimum is in Dhool. It shows improper weed management, poor irrigation and no planning regarding insect and disease management.
Page | 104
5.3.2 Bottlebrush, Meetha, Amrood, Khoobani Bottlebrush, Meetha, Amrood, Khoobani 
Height (m)
Analysis of Variance for height of Bottle Brush, Meetha, Amrood and Khoobani discussed as under: Table 82 Height of Bottlebrush, Meetha, Amrood and Khoobani SUMMARY Groups
Sample Count Average SD
Variance
Min
Max
Bottle Brush Meetha Amrood Khoobani
58 29 25 13
0.0129 0.0057 0.0001 0.0545
1.07 1.22 1.04 1.34
1.22 1.24 1.37 1.55
ANOVA Source Variation Between Groups
1.4700 1.1400 1.2267 1.2050
0.0755 0.0115 0.2333 0.1136
Greater than 39 10 8 7
of P-value 0.0424
Figure 39 Height of Bottle Brush, Meetha, Amrood, Khoobani
Bottlebrush, Meetha, Amrood, Khoobani 1.8000 1.6000
Height (m)
1.4000 1.2000 1.0000 0.8000 0.6000 0.4000 0.2000 0.0000 Average
Bottle Brush
Meetha
Amrood
Khoobani
1.4700
1.1400
1.2267
1.2050
Bottlebrush, Meetha, Amrood and Khoobani were observed only in Bella Qadir Abad. The analysis of height and the variance data (Table 82, Figure 39) showed bottlebrush had maximum height while minimum height was observed of Meetha. Amrood and Khoobani exhibit almost same height. Khoobnai plants showed little bit variation while other had symmetry in height.
Page | 105
Less than 19 19 17 6

Diameter (cm)
Analysis of Variance for diameter of Bottle Brush, Meetha, Amrood and Khoobani discussed as under: Table 83 Diameter of Bottlebrush, Meetha, Amrood and Khoobani Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups
Average
SD
Variance
Min
Max
Bottle Brush
Sample Count 58
0.87
Greater than 19
Less than 39
0.9633
0.1308
0.0182
0.63
Meetha Amrood Khoobani
29 25 13
0.7200 0.8533 0.8650
0.0473 0.3889 0.1350
0.0171 0.0022 0.1513
0.80 0.59 0.83
0.89 1.14 1.10
10 17 7
19 8 7
Source Variation Between Groups
of P-value 0.4772
Figure 40 Diameter of Bottle Brush, Meetha, Amrood, Khoobani
Bottle Brush, Meetha, Amrood, Khoobani 1.2000
Diameter (cm)
1.0000 0.8000 0.6000 0.4000 0.2000 0.0000
Average
Bottle Brush 0.9633
Meetha 0.7200
Amrood 0.8533
Khoobani 0.8650
The analysis of diameter and the variance data (Table 83, Figure 40) showed Bottlebrush had maximum and minimum noted for Meetha, Amrood and Khoobnai exhibit same diameter. But Khoobani showed much variation in the diameter than all the other plants. It highlights flaws mainly in site selection and weed management.
Page | 106
5.3.3 Amrood, Nim ï‚·
Height (m)
Analysis of Variance for height of Amrood, Nim discussed as under: Table 84 Height of Amrood, Nim Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups Amrood Nim
ANOVA Source Variation Between Groups
Sample Count 9 10
Average
SD
Variance Min
1.6000 1.6800
0.0850 0.0128 0.0520 0.0027
Max
1.52 1.68 1.65 1.74
Greater than 6 3
Less than 3 7
of P-value 0.3424
Figure 41 Height of Amrood, Nim
Amrood, Nim 1.7500
Height (m)
1.7000 1.6500 1.6000 1.5500 1.5000 1.4500
Average
Amrood 1.6000
Nim 1.6800
Page | 107
ï‚·
Diameter (cm)
Analysis of Variance for diameter of Amrood, Nim discussed as under: Table 85 Diameter of Amrood, Nim SUMMARY Groups
Sample Count Average SD
Variance Min
Max
Amrood Nim
9 10
0.0128 0.0027
1.09 1.95
0.9800 1.7100
0.1980 0.3707
0.81 1.28
Greater than 6 7
Less than 3 3
ANOVA Source of P-value Variation Between 0.3424 Groups Figure 42 Diameter of Amrood, Nim
Amrood, Nim 1.7500
Diameter (cm)
1.7000 1.6500 1.6000 1.5500 1.5000 1.4500
Average
Amrood 1.6000
Nim 1.6800
Page | 108
5.4
Restoration and Improvement of Scrub Forests
The scrub forest is famous for Kikar and pholai but eucalyptus also planted under GPP 2016-17. 5.4.1 Eucalyptus, Kikar, Phulai ï‚·
Height (m)
Analysis of Variance for height of Eucalyptus, Kikar and Phulai discussed as under: Table 86 Height of Eucalyptus, Kikar and Phulai Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups
Sample Count
Average SD
Variance
Min
Max
Eucalyptus Kikar Phulai
13 10 5
2.2100 1.8325 0.6109
1.6959 0.0000 0.0000
0.61 1.83 0.61
3.66 1.84 0.61
1.3023 0.0035 0.0013
Greater than 7 5 3
ANOVA Source of P-value Variation Between 0.2745 Groups
Figure 43 Height of Eucalyptus, Kikar Phulai
Eucalyptus, Kikar, Phulai 3.0000
Height (m)
2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000 Average
Eucalyptus
Kikar
Phulai
2.2100
1.8325
0.6109
Page | 109
Less than 6 5 2
The analysis of height and variance data (Table 86, Figure 43) shows eucalyptus has maximum height followed by Kikar and Phulai. Variation of variance clearly indicates that eucalyptus has much variation in height while the other both plants indicate smoothness in the height. It indicates flaws in site selection and suitability of the specie 
Diameter (cm)
Analysis of Variance for diameter of Eucalyptus, Kikar and Phulai discussed as under: Table 87 Diameter of Eucalyptus, Kikar and Phulai Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups Eucalyptus Kikar Phulai
Sample Count 13 10 5
Average
SD
Variance Min
Max
1.5325 1.2337 0.8626
0.8851 0.0052 0.0036
0.7834 0.0000 0.0000
2.36 1.24 0.87
0.68 1.23 0.86
Greater than 7 5 3
Less than 7 5 3
ANOVA Source of P-value Variation Between 0.5631 Groups Figure 44 Diameter of Poplar, Tun Jaman
Eucalyptus, Kikar, Phulai Diameter (cm)
2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000
Average
Eucalyptus 1.5325
Kikar 1.2337
Phulai 0.8626
The analysis of diameter and variance data (Table 87, Figure 44) shows that pattern of growth of the diameter is also similar to height. It is maximum in eucalyptus minimum in phulai while Kikar is intermediate. Again, the diameter of the eucalyptus showed very much variation and indicating the poor earthen work, distribution of the nutrients in soil is uneven which effect the growth. Page | 110
5.5
Rehabilitation of Guzara and Protected Forests
Pine was the only specie planted in coniferous (protected) forests under GPP 2016-17. A detailed analysis of height and diameter along with variance discussed as under: 5.5.1 Pine (Pinus roxburghii) 
Height (m)
Analysis of Variance for height of Pine (Pinus roxburghii) discussed as under: Table 88 Height of Pine (Pinus roxburghii) Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups Gohi Hokeria Ker Patriata Chonoyan Khanawas Hanaser
Sample Count 48 49 46 47 45 44
Average
SD
Variance Min
Max
0.8933 0.8450 1.1550 0.9975 1.4260 1.5250
0.1557 0.1814 0.0919 0.1621 0.2457 0.4313
0.0242 0.0329 0.0084 0.0263 0.0604 0.1861
1.04 1.07 1.22 1.22 1.77 1.83
0.73 0.67 1.09 0.76 1.16 1.22
Greater than 32 25 23 18 27 22
ANOVA Source of P-value Variation Between Groups 0.0014
Page | 111
Less than 16 14 23 29 18 22
Figure 45 Height of Pine (Pinus roxburghii)
Pine 1.8000 1.6000
Height (m)
1.4000 1.2000 1.0000 0.8000 0.6000 0.4000 0.2000 0.0000 Average
Gohi
Hokeria Ker
Patriata
Chonoyan
Khanawas
Hanaser
0.8933
0.8450
1.1550
0.9975
1.4260
1.5250
In coniferous forest only pinus trees were planted in GPP it includes Gohi, Hokeria Ker, Patriata, Chonoyan, Khanawas and Hanaser forest. The height of the pinus plant was observed maximum in Hanaser and minimum in Hokeria Ker (Figure 45). Gohi and Chonoyan showed intermediate height while the height of the pinus plant in Khanawas approaches to the height of plants in Hanaser. The analysis of variance showed maximum variation in Hanaser which is minimum in Gohi.
Page | 112

Diameter (cm)
Analysis of Variance for diameter of Pine (Pinus roxburghii) discussed as under: Table 89 Diameter of Pine (Pinus roxburghii) Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups Gohi Hokeria Ker Patriata Chonoyan Khanawas Hanaser
Sample Count 48 49 46 47 45 44
Average
SD
Variance Min
Max
1.2600 1.5975 2.4300 1.9075 3.9240 2.8150
0.4073 0.6353 0.8627 0.6814 0.2055 1.6476
0.1659 0.4036 0.7442 0.4643 0.0422 2.7145
1.01 0.74 1.82 0.93 3.72 1.65
1.73 2.25 3.04 2.54 4.22 3.98
Greater than 16 24.5 23 29.375 18 22
Patriata
Chonoyan
Khanawas
Hanaser
2.4300
1.9075
3.9240
2.8150
ANOVA Source of Variation P-value Between Groups 0.0003 Figure 46 Diameter of Pinus
Diameter (cm)
Pine 5.0000 4.5000 4.0000 3.5000 3.0000 2.5000 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 0.0000 Gohi Average
1.2600
Hokeria Ker 1.5975
Regarding the diameter of the plant it is maximum in Khanawas and minimum in the Gohi forest (Figure 46). Hanaser and Patriata showed almost same type of diameter but plants in Hanaser showed very much variation (Table 89). Hokeria Ker and Chonoyan also exhibit same trend in diameter but Chonoyan showed more variation than Hokeria Ker. Page | 113
Less than 32 24.5 23 17.625 27 22
5-B Rain Water Harvesting Devices The water harvesting devices/ water ponds had to be constructed to check the soil and water erosion in water shed areas of Punjab. These water ponds act as to improve the local climate and use as mitigation tools to control the fluids. These water ponds will also become the source to harvest the rainwater and use for the drinking purpose for local population, life stock and wildlife. These water ponds will also recharge the aquifer of the area. Total 82 Rain Water Harvesting Devices constructed.
09 under Scrub Forests Component 22 under Protected & Guzara forests 51 under Protection and Augmentation of dry temperature forests (Pothwar)
However, serious observations regarding RWHDs are as under:
NO standards of size, site selection and cost estimates had been followed During programme design , regardless of the size and site selection, RWHD standard rough estimate (Annexure – VII) had been allocated, released and utilized With respect to “recharge the aquifer” no Soil Study of the land marked for WHD/ponds was available Improper demarcation as well as irregular dimensions of water harvesting devices Suitability of Catchment area largely ignored while demarking WHD/ponds Poor maintenance of WHD/ponds as weeds were observed in WHD/ponds Afforestation along water harvesting devices (1000 No) partially had been done in very poorly manner Partially construction of check-Daims/ Gali Plughing (with loose stone masonry works) 1000 Cft
Page | 114
Measurements
Site Selection
Poor Maintenance -Spillway
Improper Demarcation
Afforestation
Improper Demarcation
Catchment Area
Poor Afforestation
No Afforestation
Page | 115
Page | 116
Page | 117
6
Environmental Impact Assessment
It is appreciable to include Environmental Impact Assessment but unfortunately, no preassessment reports prepared in the year 2016-17. PMU team responded that all assessment was universal established facts and historical records. But geographically GPP is being implemented in targets districts under respective components. Major goal of the GPP are as under:
To mitigate the climate changes in the province To promote sustainably managed forests To sink the CO2 emissions trough plantation as sequestration tool To increase the soil conservation To improve the recharge of aquifer (Pothwar)
Therefore, Pre-Assessment Reports of any of the ten indicators especially microclimate, pollution, soil erosion and carbon emission level of respective forest areas had to be prepared by competent authorities and including in the Revised PC-I.
7
Conclusion, Observations and Recommendations
On the basis of analysis of Key Performance Indicators, it is concluded that as whole plantation under GPP 2016-17 was partially satisfactory. Monthly, quarterly, biannually and annually monitoring & evaluation system had not been developed during design phase. Later on, PMU also ignored developing M& E and institutionalizing it. Therefore, spacing size (10’ x 06’) violated especially in Chichawatni and Changa Maanga. Selection of species were also neglected and mixed culture of indigenous, species not adopted as eucalyptus plantation was more than 65%. A uuncertain and high variation of height and diameter pointed out serious flaws in its execution, operation and maintenance and most importantly confines sustainable impact of Green Pakistan Programme. Although procurement had been done under GPP but no proper record, of the procedures followed as per PPRA rules, was provided by PMU-GPP. Dash Board development data analysis mainly depends on accurate GPS coordinates. But there was a wide variation between GPS coordinates data provided by PMU-GPP and received from field formation. As per Risk Mitigation Plan mentioned revised PC-I and interview with PMU team and field formation only risk factor is provision of funds corresponding to the seasonal activities especially Federal share. MOCC with close collaboration with FW&F Department and PMU-GPP should ensure strict monitoring of pre-defined space size, pre-selected species while restocking and plantation in coming years. Growth of height and diameter should be monitored and ensured through field monitoring and Dash board (Remote Sensing) because trees are carbon sequestration tool and mitigate climate change. All stakeholders should realize that there is a need to distinct between tree cover and forest cover. Page | 118
7.1
Observations
In addition to “limitations of the TPV study” as discussed earlier, field monitoring observations segregated into programme design and implementation are as under: Programme Design 1) Revised PC-I under “Implementation Strategy” stated selected species for planation under every component but “specie wise proportionate of plantation” had not been stated. 2) In revised PC-I, with respect to “water harvesting devices” no soil testing and survey of catchment areas recommended prior to site selection and approval of RWHD/ponds but it’s rough cost estimate was fixed. Programme Implementation 3) Under “Implementation Strategy” revised PC-I defined “spacing size” during plantation for every component but it was not followed by field formation and over plantation observed under “rehabilitation and restocking of historical plantation”. (Reference Report Page # 28). 4) Under “Implementation Strategy” revised PC-I had stated mix culture of selected species for every component. But mono culture of eucalyptus plantation was observed in Daphar Forest. (RRP # 43) 5) Revised PC-I under “Quantitative Objectives” stated “numbers of plantation” for every component. But monitoring record was not provided to TPV team by PMUGPP. 6) During field visits, inaccuracy of GPS coordinates of similar (Area/Length/AvM) provided by PMU/Field Formation with that of revised PC-I was observed due to not marking GPS Points. (Annexure-VIII) 7) During field monitoring grazing and tress passing was observed but compartment boundary pillars and fences were not found to protect plantation area. (RRP # 63) 8) Uncertain and high variation in “average” of height and diameter pointed out poor operation & maintenance mainly due to trenches & pits covered with extensive weeds and irregular irrigation patterns etc. (RRP # 63) 9) Comprehensive M&E System had not been designed and institutionalized by PMUGPP team. 10)It was observed that documents of procurement process made during the year 2016-17 were not provided by PMU-GPP to TPV team for review. 11)In revised PC-I, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) stated but on the basis of historical data and no Pre-Assessment Reports of microclimate, pollution, soil erosion and carbon emission level of respective forest areas were provided by PMUGPP to TPV team.
Page | 119
7.2
Recommendations
Following recommendation are segregated into programme design, implementation and sustainability. Programme Design 1) It is recommended that in order to mitigate the climate change “specie wise proportionate of plantation” should be stated in revised PC-I as trees are carbon sequestration tool. (Observation Reference # 1) 2) Rough Cost Estimate of Water Harvesting Device should be prepared and finalized after thoroughly reviewing reports of soil study, technical survey of catchment areas and drawing proposal. (OR # 2) Programme Implementation 3) As spacing size violation would adversely affect the growth of plantation, so should be followed onward during restocking and plantation. (OR # 3) 4) Mix culture of selected species as stated under “Implementation Strategy” in revised PC-I should be followed ahead during restocking and planation. (OR # 4) 5) Proper record of numbers of tree plantation, growth height and diameter should be maintained for monitoring and evaluation purposes. (OR # 5) 6) GPS Coordinates of all GPP (Areas/Lengths/AvM) should be rectified and correctly updated during the development of Dashboard and marking of GPS Points should also be done to increase the accuracy. (OR # 6) 7) To control grazing, tress passing and fire incident, GPP compartment boundary pillars and fences should be installed. (OR # 7) 8) For sustainability of the GPP plantation, uncertain and high variation in “average” of height and diameter should be monitored and efforts should be made to improve quality of operation & maintenance. (OR # 8) 9) It is recommended to designed and institutionalized comprehensive Result based M&E System for the programme after detailed consultation with key stakeholders. (OR # 9) 10)All records of procurement process should be documented and maintained at PMUGPP. (OR # 10) 11)Pre-Assessment Reports of ten indicators mentioned in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) especially microclimate, pollution, soil erosion and carbon emission level of GPP target areas, should be prepared by competent authorities. (OR # 11) Programme Sustainability 12)For Sustainability of the programme PMU-GPP should enhanced its capacity and coordination among all stakeholders should be strengthened. 13)PMU-GPP should develop Management Information System (MIS) and Online database for real time monitoring data collection, processing and dissemination well as evidence-based policy making. 14)MOCC, PMU-GPP should engage academia and researchers especially from the domain of Climate Change, Forestry, Ecology and Wildlife to study impacts of its tree plantation on climate change, forestry, ecology and bio diversity. Page | 120
Annexure-I Comparative Cost Estimate of the last Sanctioned and Revised Scheme (Rs. In Million)
Page | 121
Annexure-II Scientific Name of Planted Species Scientific Names of Species Common Name Apple Amrood Aaru Anar Anjeer Alubukhara Avocado Amaltas Black Siris Bottle Brush Cheeku Ehretia Frash Jaamun Kikar Khoobani Lasoorah Lemon Leechi Malaina Meetha Naashpati Nim Orange Pilkan Phulai Peepal Poplar Pine Sumbal
Scientific Name Pyrus malus Psidium guajava Prunus persica Punica granatum Ficus carica Prunus bokhariensis Persea americana Cassia fistula Albizzia lebbek Callistemon Manilkara zapota Ehretia laevi Tamarix aphylla Syzygum cumini Acacia nilotica Prunus armeniaca Cordia Myxa Citrus limonium Litchi chinensis Gmelina arborea Acorus calamu Pyrus Azadirachta indica Citrus aurantium Ficus virens Acacia modesta Ficus religiosa Linn. Populus euramericana Pinus roxburghii Salmalia Malabrica (Dc.) Schott & Endl.
Sufaida Shisham Toot Tun White Siris
Eucalyptus globulus Dalbergia Sissoo Morus alba Cedrela toona Albizzia procera
Page | 122
Annexure-III Field Activity Sr. Component #
Circle
Division
Rehabilitation and 01-Jun-2018 Restocking of Historical Plantations -do04-Jun-2018
Lahore Forest Circle
Kasur Forest Changa Division Forest
Gujranwala
3
Increase in Existing 05-Jun-2018 Cover of Belas Forests
Gujranwala
4
Rehabilitation and 06- Jun -2018 Multan Restocking of Historical Plantations -do06- Jun -2018 Multan
Gujarat Forest Daphar Irrigated Division Plantation Gujarat Forest Bella Radially Division Bella Qadir Dhool Forest Chichawatni Chichawatni
1 2
5
Date
Name of Forest
Multan Division
Pirowal
Manga
-do-
07- Jun -2018 Bhawalpur
LSNP Division
LSNP Sub Division
-do-
07- Jun -2018 Bhawalpur
Ladam Sir-ll
Ladam Sir-ll
-do-
07- Jun -2018 Bhawalpur
R.Y Khan
Abbasia Plantation
6
-do-do-
08- Jun -2018 D.G. Khan 08- Jun -2018 D.G. Khan
Layyah Layyah
Machu Inayat
7
Canal Side Plantation -do-
09- Jun -2018 Sargodha 09- Jun -2018
Bhakhar Mianwali
MLLC RD 0-131 L&R MLLC RD 131172/L&R
8
Road Side Plantation
11- Jun -2018 Bhawalpur
Bhawalpur
9
Increase in Existing 12- Jun -2018 Lahore/Skp Cover of Belas Forests 10 Restoration and 21- Jun -2018 Rawalpindi Improvement of Scrub Forests
Karol
BahawalpurHasilpur Road KM 11-95/LR Raising of P. bag Nursery 737,000
Attock
Construction of Water 21- Jun -2018 Rawalpindi Harvesting Devices in Scrub Forests
Attock
11 Construction of Water 22- Jun -2018 Rawalpindi Harvesting Devices in Coniferous Forests Coniferous Forests 22- Jun -2018 Rawalpindi
North
12 Construction of Water 23- Jun -2018 Rawalpindi Harvesting Devices in Coniferous Forests
Murree
North
Kali Dali Jand Beet (Twani – III) Jalwal Fatuwala Bhangal Chonoyan Khanwas Kahuta Talater Jhila Chirarah Page | 123
13 Coniferous Forests -do-
23- Jun -2018 Rawalpindi 23- Jun -2018 Rawalpindi
14 Rehabilitation of 25- Jun -2018 Rawalpindi Guzara and Protected Forest 15 Protection and 26- Jun -2018 Rawalpindi Augmentation of dry temperature forests (Pothwar) -do-
26- Jun -2018 Rawalpindi
North North Guzara
Hanaser Gohi, Patriata Hokeria Ker Kahuta, Kallar Seydan Lehtrar
South (Jhelum)
South (Chakwaal)
Neeli 2 Neeli 2 Bareli 1 Sur Lateen Rakh Miro Pilo
Page | 124
Annexure-IV ADP Allocation, Release and Utilization
Page | 125
Annexure-V Procured items (Water Pumps)
Page | 126
Annexure-VI
Cost
Breakup
of
Expenditures
per
Acre
Afforestation for Irrigated plantation
Page | 127
Annexure-VII Rough Cost Estimate of Rain Water Harvesting (RWHD)
Page | 128
Annexure-VIII GPS Coordinates Sr. No
Forest Name
Coordinates by Pak Cpt # Green
Coordinates by Forest Department
Coordinates From PC-l
N32 26.133 E73 11.654 N32 26.319 E73 11.648
N32.438443 E73.198992 N32.438606 E73.194145 N32.435445 E73.194222 N32.435473 E73.199009
N32.4373 E73.1966
N32 26.449 E73 11.085 N32 26.453 E73 11.315 N32 26.611 E73 11.083
N32.443546 E73.191762 N32.443530 E73.184724 N32.440796 E73.184756 N32.440894 E73.191841
N32.4422 E73.1883
N32 26.278 E73 09.592 N32 26.433 E73 09.590 N32 26.281 E73 09.800 N32 26.431 E73 09.799
N32.438024 E73.163327 N32.440664 E73.163331 N32.442225 E73.159691 N32.442221 E73.157756
N32.4403 E73.1603
N32 26.440 E73 09.587 N32 26.534 E73 09.577 N32 26.531 E73 09.465
N32.441670 E73.154800 N32.441093 E73.154854 N32.440655 E73.159725 N32.437907 E73.159844 N32.424254 E73.167041 N32.424188 E73.161785 N32.421632 E73.161707 N32.421659 E73.161701
N32.4230 E73.1644
100
N32 25.422 E73 09.993 N32 25.428 E73 09.996 N32 25.430 E73 10.016 N32 25.426 E73 10.016
N32.406255 E73.195724 N32.406388 E73.192216 N32.402774 E73.192202 N32.402812 E73.195640
N32.4055 E73.1939
140
N32 24.482 E73 11.670 N32 24.488 E73 11.672 N32 24.484 E73 11.668 N32 24.478 E73 11.671
N30.304602 E72.355676 N30.303265 E72.355676 N30.302907 E72.354426 N30.304595 E72.354402
N30.5106 E72.5972
129
N30 30.562 E72 35.906 N30 30.557 E72 35.901 N30 30.560 E72 35.894 N30 30.549 E72 35.908
N30.301577 E72.333828 N30.30574 E72.333859 N30.30571 E72.333242 N30.301573 E72.333239
N30.5248 E72.5727
185
N30 30.116 E72 33.563 N30 30.115 E72 33.554 N30 30.127 E72 33.554 N30 30.127 E72 33.567
168
N30 30.592 E72 33.650 N30 30.598 E72 33.649
N30.305443 E72.335072 N30.303521 E72.335058
N30.5125 E72.5624
78
30
Gujrat
17-A Daphar
Chichawatni
17-B
Page | 129
N30 30.592 E72 33.648 N30 30.588 E72 33.653
N30.303514 E72.333831 N30.305439 E72.333818 N30.331643 E72.44611 N30.33657 E72.44609 N30.33654 E72.435332 N30.331601 E72.435368
N30.5550 E72.7333
21-B
N30 33.113 E72 43.983 N30 33.156 E72 43.892 N30 33.115 E72 43.910 N30 33.115 E72 43.925
N30.331637 E72.441861 N30.33706 E72.441835 N30.33327 E72.44642 N30.331634 E72.44634
N30.5518 E72.7367
23-A
N30 33.098 E72 44.122 N30 33.091 E72 44.122 N30 33.096 E72 44.131 N30 33.101 E72 44.129
N30.341266 E72.461185 N30.334617 E72.461226 N30.334642 E72.455929 N30.34707 E72.455920
N30.5663 E72.7683
42
N30 33.771 E72 46.013 N30 33.776 E72 46.025 N30 33.781 E72 46.057 N30 33.793 E72 46.056
Page | 130
“Revival of Forestry and Wildlife Resources in Pakistan”
Green Pakistan Programme - Reclamation and Development of Forest Areas
SAVE THE GLOBE
Page | 131