When the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) was conceived, many saw it as a chance for rapid economic growth, infrastructure renewal, job creation and regional connectivity. Over time, however, as construction has advanced in roads, energy, ports, and industrial zones, communities along the routes as well as environmental experts have raised serious concerns. This article examines three interlinked concerns: displacement of communities, environmental degradation, and cultural impact. Each of these carries implications for wellbeing, local ecosystems, governance, and social cohesion.
Displacement: Communities Resettled and Dislocated
Large infrastructure projects often require land. Roads, power plants, dams, industrial zones and port extensions inevitably encroach on land used by people: for homes, agriculture, grazing, fishing or other livelihoods. Under CPEC, there have been multiple instances of displacement and resettlement.
One illustrative example lies in dam projects connected to broader energy or water infrastructure. The Diamer-Bhasha Dam, although not always described purely under CPEC, often gets associated with Pakistan’s broader infrastructure push. That dam is expected to affect about 35,000 people. Approximately 28,000 of them will be resettled into model villages. The dam will submerge about 31 villages and around 4,100 houses. Agricultural land of around 6.1 square kilometres will be submerged; total reservoir area is about 100 square kilometres.
Beyond dams, the building of roads and highways under CPEC has led to encroachment into farmlands, grazing lands and forests. In the Siran forest division of Mansehra, for example, 10,075 trees were cut from 28 villages along one route. In parts of Upper Hazara, districts Oghi, Darband, Kohistan and Torghar, about 13,784 trees were removed for building roads and related infrastructure.These deforestations are often accompanied by displacement of people who rely on those forests for fuel wood, grazing, small-scale agriculture or non-timber forest products.
In many cases, the displaced are rural, poorer, and often less able to participate in decision-making. While official figures for displacement caused directly by CPEC projects are unevenly documented, community surveys in provinces such as Balochistan show that locals perceive high risk of losing land, homes or traditional rights. In a study involving 495 respondents in Balochistan, many expressed concerns about land acquisition, loss of community resource rights, and disruptions to their livelihoods.
Resettlement compensations in Pakistan often fall short of restoring the income or social networks lost. When people are moved, they may lose access to ancestral lands, common grazing grounds, water sources and customary rights. Infrastructure projects under CPEC seldom replace these intangible or community social assets adequately. Interviews from Gilgit-Baltistan reveal that many bystanders of CPEC express that even when physical displacement is avoided, economic displacement occurs: rising property prices, changing land use, restricted access to former livelihood zones all contribute to de facto displacement.
Environmental Degradation: Ecosystems, Air, Water, Species
The second major concern involves environmental harm stemming from CPEC infrastructure, energy and transport projects. These effects are increasing in severity according to multiple studies and span deforestation, carbon emissions, soil and water pollution, loss of biodiversity, and vulnerability of fragile ecosystems.
Deforestation and loss of flora
As roads and highways are built or expanded, forests are cleared. According to a study, more than 54,000 trees have been cut for road infrastructure along CPEC routes. In forests like those in Upper Hazara and the Siran division, the removal of thousands of trees has disrupted watershed protection, soil stability and forest microclimates.
Carbon emissions, air pollution
Coal-fired power plants under CPEC are a central environmental concern because of high CO2 emissions. Transport developments, especially with many more trucks and heavy vehicles moving along new roads, contribute additional emissions. One study estimated that traffic of up to 7,000 trucks per day on the Karakoram Highway alone could produce roughly 36.5 million tonnes of additional CO2 emissions.
Another quantitative study of the environmental footprint of CPEC showed that local perceptions of environmental concern are strong predictors of CO2 emissions and climate and public health effects. The research suggests that without mitigation, rising emissions will increase respiratory illnesses, and exacerbate climate change effects in already vulnerable regions.
Water, Soil, Ecosystems
Large infrastructure such as dams, power plants and ports often disrupt natural water flows. In Gilgit-Baltistan, for example, glacier retreat (which contributes to water supply) is observed, and environmental changes are accentuated by construction activity. Pollution from construction and industrial zones may contaminate local water bodies, upstream and downstream.
Soil erosion is another serious effect. With deforestation and large surface disturbances from construction, rainfall causes soil to be washed away, reducing agricultural productivity and lowering land fertility. Fragile ecosystems, especially in mountainous and semi-arid regions, are particularly vulnerable. Safety risks like landslides or increased flood risk may also be exacerbated by land use change.
Cultural Impact: Traditions, Identity and Social Fabrics
Cultural impact refers not only to the physical changes in land and environment but also to how communities’ ways of living, sense of identity, traditions, languages, local social norms and roles are affected.
One area where this is visible is in Gwadar, Balochistan. Local traditional fishing communities feel squeezed by port development, restricted access to the sea, altered coastal access, and regulatory or physical barriers. Such developments threaten traditional livelihoods passed down over generations. The demographic changes, including influx of workers from outside and new infrastructure, shift the social environment. Locals report feeling excluded from decision-making.
In Gilgit-Baltistan, rapid infrastructure development has brought increased economic opportunity, but also cultural shifts. Traditional crafts, languages and communal practices intersect with increased trade, migration, external influences. Some young people are drawn towards newer job opportunities; traditional forms of life, local festivals, forms of dress or vernacular architecture may lose influence.
Also cultural identity is challenged by changes in land use. When land held communally is converted into industrial zones or roads, community rituals or spaces used for social gathering, worship, or traditional practices might be displaced. In the Balochistan study of 495 people, cultural, educational, and social benefits were seen, but also concerns: many respondents felt that while roads or schools improved, aspects like local traditions or way of life might erode if change is too rapid or imposed from outside.
Balancing the Pros and Minimizing Harm
It would be inaccurate to say that all impacts are negative or that no mitigation is attempted. Some studies show that many local people recognize benefits: improved infrastructure, better health or educational access, some increase in income or jobs. But many of these benefits are uneven, limited, or overshadowed by longer-term environmental or social cost.
To reduce displacement impacts, better resettlement planning is essential: fair compensation, restoration of livelihoods (not just land), participatory decision-making with affected communities. Environmental impact assessments (EIAs) must be rigorous, transparent, and enforced. Some surveys suggest that existing assessments are weakly implemented, or done perfunctorily, especially for coal projects or large road expansions.
Protected ecosystems, forests and areas with high ecological value need zoning and protection. For example, enforcing buffer zones, reforestation, biodiversity conservation plans, pollution controls. Cultural heritage, language, traditional livelihoods require legal protections and social programs. Governance matters: local voices, provincial governments, civil society need space to influence decision making.
Conclusion
CPEC represents enormous potential for Pakistan’s development: roads, energy, connectivity and investment. But that potential comes with costs. Displacement of communities, environmental degradation affecting forests, water, air and ecosystems, and cultural shifts challenging traditional identities are real and significant. Without careful planning, inclusive participation and strong environmental and social safeguards the negative impacts may undermine not only the wellbeing of local people but also the long-term sustainability of the Corridor itself.
Policymakers, implementers and oversight bodies need to ensure that economic gains under CPEC do not come at the expense of local ecosystems, cultures, and livelihoods. Local voices must be heard, environmental integrity preserved, cultural identities respected. Only by balancing infrastructure with inclusion and conservation can CPEC fulfil its promise in a just and sustainable way.
