Syed Abbas Shah
The recent review conducted by the Senate Sub-Committee into forestry regulation in Gilgit-Baltistan has drawn attention to a policy challenge that requires both administrative fairness and unwavering environmental caution. It is a dilemma that sits at the intersection of livelihoods, governance and ecology, and one that Pakistan can no longer afford to manage carelessly.
The grievances voiced by licensed forest contractors are not without merit. Delays in felling operations, security threats in remote working areas, cumbersome bureaucratic procedures and cases left pending for decades all point to a regulatory system in urgent need of reform. If sustainable forestry is to remain a viable economic activity, legitimate operators need a framework that is transparent, predictable and efficient. Businesses cannot function, nor can communities benefit, when approvals languish indefinitely and disputes remain unresolved across successive administrations. In this respect, the committee’s decision to review pending contractor cases, examine existing working plans and support lawful forestry operations is a step in the right direction and deserves recognition.
Yet this pursuit of administrative fairness must not come at the cost of weakening the safeguards that protect one of Pakistan’s scarcest and most valuable natural resources. Any reform agenda that follows from this review must place the fight against illegal logging at its very centre, not as an afterthought but as the organising principle around which all other changes are designed.
The stakes involved go far beyond commercial interest. Pakistan already possesses one of the lowest forest covers in the region, a fact that leaves little margin for error in how remaining forest resources are managed. Climate change has only heightened this vulnerability, particularly in the country’s mountainous north, where shifting weather patterns, glacial melt and unpredictable rainfall are placing unprecedented strain on fragile ecosystems. The forests of Gilgit-Baltistan are not simply a source of timber to be harvested and sold. They perform functions essential to the survival of the wider region: protecting delicate watersheds, preventing soil erosion, stabilising steep mountain slopes, preserving biodiversity and regulating the flow of water into the Indus basin, upon which millions downstream depend. When these forests are degraded, the consequences are not confined to the communities that live among them. They ripple outward, contributing to landslides, flash floods and broader environmental damage that can be felt across the country.
It is true that most of these forests are held under private community ownership rather than direct state control. But this arrangement does not, and should not, absolve the state of its responsibility to ensure their sustainable use. Ownership at the community level can coexist with strong regulation, provided that harvesting is guided by scientifically prepared working plans, subject to transparent monitoring and backed by strict enforcement when violations occur. Commercial timber extraction and environmental protection are not inherently opposed to one another. They can be reconciled, but only if ecological limits are treated as fixed and non-negotiable rather than as obstacles to be quietly worked around.
At the same time, the contractors’ complaints cannot be waved aside as secondary concerns. Administrative bottlenecks, unresolved security risks in the field and prolonged procedural delays represent real failures of governance that deserve a prompt and serious response. A regulatory regime in which disputes remain unsettled for decades erodes not only investor confidence but also public trust in the state’s capacity to govern fairly. Agreement-making processes should be made more consultative, and departmental procedures streamlined to reduce unnecessary delay. What must be resisted, however, is any temptation to treat efficiency as a justification for relaxed oversight or an expansion of timber extraction beyond sustainable limits.
The committee was told that those found guilty of illegal logging face penalties amounting to three times the market value of the timber involved, and that a number of vehicles used in smuggling operations remain impounded by the authorities. These are encouraging signs, but penalties on paper mean little without consistent enforcement on the ground. Illegal logging in Pakistan has historically flourished not because of an absence of laws but because of weak monitoring, official collusion and inconsistent implementation. Technological tools such as CCTV surveillance can strengthen oversight and improve accountability, but they remain instruments, not solutions. They cannot substitute for institutional integrity, sustained political will and a genuine commitment to enforcement at every level.
As this reform process moves forward, the guiding priority must be clear. Every tree felled should conform strictly to scientifically approved management plans, and every act of illegal logging should be met with swift, certain and visible consequences. Pakistan’s diminishing forests cannot absorb further regulatory complacency, nor can they wait for another decade of unresolved cases and half-hearted enforcement. Improving governance, facilitating legitimate business activity and safeguarding the country’s ecological capital are goals that can, and should, complement one another. But they can only do so if environmental sustainability remains the first and unshakeable principle underpinning forest policy in Gilgit-Baltistan and beyond.
The best-selling books of Republic Policy Think Tank, including the landmark book The Bureaucratic Coup, are available at Vanguard Books, Liberty Books, Readings, Kitab Sarai, Sang-e-Meel, Saeed Book Bank Islamabad, National Book Foundation, and others across Pakistan. Contact for home delivery: 0300 9552542.
