Greening trees should be open and transparent, exposed to the sunlight of oversight
A government greening tender in a certain place in Hebei abandoned locally grown poplar trees and introduced "super ginkgo" trees from the south: each tree cost several thousand yuan "ex-factory," with a landed price as high as 50,000 yuan, and a landscape design that cost a few hundred thousand yuan actually incurred a design fee of 20 million yuan. Jiangxi's landscaping "One Large, Four Small" project planted trees indiscriminately regardless of season or location, spending tens of billions of yuan, and was even named and criticized by a central inspection team for "craving grand achievements" and "resorting to fraud"... In just the past 3 years, more than 20 greening corruption cases have appeared in public reports, many of them group cases. What has happened to greening trees?
In recent years, as urbanization and ecological civilization construction have accelerated, some local governments have craved grand achievements and launched large-scale landscaping "image projects." Planning often invites "famous masters" to do the work at the slightest excuse, while formulation and changes are quite arbitrary, and the farce of "short-lived greening" - "dig and plant, plant and dig" - plays out from time to time; in pursuit of "tall, large, and upscale" and to achieve "a forest in a day," cost and price are ignored, and large numbers of big trees, ancient trees, and precious trees are brought into cities.
People in professional departments with professional common sense naturally know clearly in their hearts how unscientific these practices are. What is spent is all public money; the more spent, the more "short-lived" the project, the more interests departments can intercept, and the more opportunities there are for rent-seeking - why not do it? On such "soil," one can imagine what kind of trees will grow.
Sorting through every link of landscaping in greening corruption cases: planning and design simply reflect the will of superiors; bidding is seriously formalistic; much is done through backroom operations; seedling procurement is full of muddled accounts, and pricing is far too arbitrary; technical links such as acceptance inspection are often mere formalities... The entire process lacks an open, transparent, effective oversight mechanism and binding system.
To prescribe the right remedy and curb corruption in greening, it is urgent to lock power in the cage of institutions and expose it to the sunlight of oversight.
Institutions must set up safeguards. Corresponding systems should be established and improved throughout the entire landscaping project process to better ensure the standardized exercise of public power. Specifically, for example, project decision-making must be supervised, and the accountability system for decisions needs further improvement; electronic bidding, which can effectively reduce violations such as accompanying bids, negotiated bids, and bid rigging, can be promoted with greater force; fiscal expenditures must be strictly audited...
Sunlight is the best "preservative." Seize the two "vital points" of planning and funding, make information public throughout the landscaping process - whether planning is reasonable, where the money was spent, how much was spent at each stage... all of this must accept social and public opinion oversight.
In fact, these oversight mechanisms and binding systems are also being vigorously built and improved in various places at present, but there is still a certain gap between the actual effect and the public's psychological expectations. Landscaping engineering is highly technical, and the value of planning and seedlings is relatively vague. For example, ancient and famous trees vary greatly as individuals, and it is also very difficult to "shop around," so pricing is relatively arbitrary, easily leaving large room for rent-seeking. Due to a lack of professional knowledge, the public's "asymmetric oversight" is in fact also relatively difficult to turn into real, substantive restraint. Therefore, consideration can be given to introducing professionals to conduct review and oversight throughout the entire process: whether planning is scientific and reasonable, and whether it offers value for money; whether there is false price reporting in seedling procurement; whether the effect of the greening project meets expectations and is sustainable... Once professional forces are introduced, decision-making will be more scientific and more prudent, and the space for rent-seeking will be greatly squeezed.
On this basis, landscaping can consider making greater use of government purchase of services, turning government departments from the most direct participants into regulators, better leveraging professional and managerial strengths, and standing in the position of public service providers to join with the public in restraining and supervising market-based public service providers. In this way, the market plays a decisive role in resource allocation, and the government better plays a guiding role. Combining the two can both effectively prevent and control corruption and increase the people's ecological welfare.