Statement: Most development plans remain “on paper” and are not implemented on the ground.\nCourses of Action:\nI. Instruct responsible officers to supervise field work regularly and report progress.\nII. Reduce the supply of paper to these departments.

Introduction / Context:
The statement points to an implementation gap: plans exist in documents but not in execution. Valid courses of action must address accountability and monitoring rather than make sarcastic or irrelevant gestures (like restricting stationery) that do not influence field outcomes.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Planning occurs, but execution lags.
• Supervision and accountability are likely weak.

Concept / Approach:
Regular field supervision (I) is a direct lever to close the execution gap: site visits, milestone verification, third-party audits, geo-tagged photos, and time-bound corrective action. Cutting paper (II) is not only irrelevant but counterproductive for record-keeping and transparency; it does not cause better implementation.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Target the root cause: weak oversight in the field.2) Mandate routine supervision with documentation, dashboards, and escalation matrices.3) Reject II as facetious; it neither follows logically nor improves outcomes.

Verification / Alternative check:
Program-management best practices emphasize monitoring, evaluation, learning (MEL), and on-site checks.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II, Either, and Both mischaracterize the problem; Neither ignores a clear, practical remedy.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing documentation volume with execution quality; believing symbolic constraints improve delivery.

Final Answer:
Only I follows.