Forest Depletion and Biodiversity Loss in Pakistan: Causes, Impacts and the Way Forward
Outline
Introduction
Pakistan’s forests and biodiversity as strategic natural capital
Low forest cover and continuing depletion
Population pressure and growing demand for timber and fuelwood
Poverty and livelihood dependence on forest resources
Agricultural expansion, urbanization and infrastructure development
Illegal logging, weak enforcement and governance failures
Overgrazing, forest fires and unsustainable resource extraction
Climate change as a multiplier of ecosystem degradation
Habitat destruction, fragmentation and biodiversity loss
Environmental impacts: soil erosion, watershed degradation and climate vulnerability
Economic impacts: loss of ecosystem services, agriculture and livelihoods
Social impacts: poverty, displacement and resource insecurity
Sustainable forest management instead of plantation numbers alone
Community-based conservation and alternative livelihoods
Protected areas, wildlife corridors and biodiversity-sensitive land-use planning
Restoration through native species and ecosystem-specific approaches
Technology, scientific monitoring and stronger enforcement
Mainstreaming biodiversity into economic and development planning
Conclusion
Essay
Forests are often measured in hectares, but their true value extends far beyond the number of trees standing on a landscape. They regulate water, stabilize soil, store carbon, provide habitats for wildlife, support agriculture and sustain the livelihoods of communities that depend upon timber, fuelwood, fodder, medicinal plants and other natural resources. Pakistan possesses extraordinary ecological diversity, ranging from the mangrove forests of the Indus Delta and riverine forests of Sindh to the temperate forests of the Himalayas, alpine ecosystems of the north and dry forests of Balochistan. Yet this natural inheritance is under persistent pressure. According to the Pakistan Economic Survey 2025–26, forests cover only about 4.11 million hectares, or approximately 4.7 percent of Pakistan’s land area, while around 11,000 hectares of forest are being lost annually. [1] The problem, therefore, is not merely insufficient tree cover but the degradation of interconnected ecosystems and the biological diversity that depends upon them. Pakistan must treat forests and biodiversity as productive national assets, addressing the poverty, energy insecurity, weak governance and unsustainable land use that drive their destruction while shifting from short-term plantation campaigns towards permanent ecosystem conservation.
Pakistan’s ecological diversity makes the stakes particularly high. Its mountains, deserts, wetlands, rivers, coastlines, forests and agricultural landscapes support thousands of plant and animal species. Pakistan’s Sixth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity recorded around 198 mammal species, 700 bird species, 177 reptile species, 198 freshwater fish species and more than 6,000 species of flowering plants, including hundreds of endemic species. [2] Several globally threatened species—including the snow leopard, musk deer, Himalayan brown bear, Kashmir markhor and Asiatic black bear—depend upon these ecosystems. Biodiversity loss therefore represents more than the disappearance of individual animals or plants; it weakens the ecological networks upon which agriculture, water security and human wellbeing ultimately depend.
The first major cause of forest depletion is mounting pressure from population growth and increasing demand for timber and fuelwood. Forests located near settlements are frequently treated as readily available sources of household energy, construction material and commercial timber. The Pakistan Economic Survey identifies rural poverty, natural-resource dependence, changing land-use patterns and population-driven demand for timber and fuelwood among the pressures contributing to annual deforestation. [1] Where natural gas, electricity or other affordable energy sources remain unavailable or unreliable, cutting trees is not simply an environmental choice; for many households it is part of daily survival.
Poverty consequently lies at the heart of the problem. Forest-dependent communities cannot reasonably be expected to protect resources if conservation removes their principal source of heating, fodder or income without providing alternatives. A detailed study of households in Pakistan’s Naltar Valley found that forest resources contributed substantially to household incomes and that firewood was the most important component of forest-derived income because it served as the primary source of domestic energy. The researchers concluded that alternative livelihood opportunities and energy sources such as hydropower and biogas are essential for reducing pressure on forests. [3] Forest conservation must therefore address human deprivation rather than treating nearby communities simply as offenders.
Agricultural expansion, urbanization and infrastructure development constitute another major driver. Forests and natural habitats are frequently converted into farms, settlements, roads and commercial developments. Research examining long-term changes in Pakistan’s dry temperate forests found that conversion of forest land to agriculture, expansion of settlements, fuelwood collection, timber extraction and livestock grazing were among the principal drivers of forest decline. [4] Development is essential for a growing population, but development that fragments ecologically sensitive landscapes without environmental safeguards creates costs that may exceed its immediate benefits.
Habitat fragmentation can be as damaging as outright deforestation. A forest may appear to survive statistically while roads, settlements and agriculture divide it into disconnected patches. A national remote-sensing study examining Pakistan from 2001 to 2021 found that although overall forest cover showed some gains during the study period, fragmentation at forest edges and isolated patches worsened, while areas at high risk of deforestation were associated particularly with urban and agricultural expansion. [5] This distinction is important. Biodiversity cannot be protected merely by increasing the total number of trees if wildlife habitats remain isolated and ecological corridors are severed.
Weak governance further accelerates forest depletion. Illegal logging becomes profitable when monitoring is inadequate, penalties are uncertain and enforcement institutions lack resources or political support. The Ministry of Climate Change and Environmental Coordination itself identifies poverty, weak controls and lack of awareness as factors contributing to the over-exploitation of Pakistan’s forests. [6] Rules that exist only on paper cannot protect forests from organized timber extraction, encroachment or unauthorized land conversion. Forest governance therefore requires transparent land records, professional forest departments, effective prosecution and public accountability.
Overgrazing creates another form of gradual degradation. Livestock feeding beyond the carrying capacity of forests and rangelands prevents regeneration, compacts soil and removes young plants before they mature. Research conducted in the dry temperate forests around Chilas identified uncontrolled livestock grazing alongside unsustainable fuelwood and timber extraction and settlement expansion as dominant drivers of deforestation. [7] Similar pressures affect plant biodiversity in arid regions; IUCN reported in 2025 that threatened flora in Tharparkar faced pressures from overgrazing, unsustainable agriculture and excessive extraction of commercially and medicinally valuable plants. [8] Biodiversity loss is therefore caused not only by spectacular acts of deforestation but also by continuous overuse of ecosystems.
Climate change intensifies virtually every existing pressure. Rising temperatures, altered rainfall patterns, prolonged droughts, floods, glacial changes and extreme weather can weaken forests and change the distribution of species. UNDP notes that ecosystems in Pakistan are being fragmented or eliminated and that species are declining or being pushed towards extinction as environmental and climatic pressures intensify. [9] Climate change and forest depletion also reinforce one another: degraded forests store less carbon and offer weaker protection against floods and erosion, while climate extremes make forest regeneration more difficult.
The ecological consequences are profound. Forests slow surface runoff, stabilize slopes and protect watersheds. Their removal increases soil erosion and the sedimentation of rivers and reservoirs, while mountain communities become more exposed to landslides and flash floods. Trees also create habitats for insects, birds and mammals that perform functions such as pollination, seed dispersal and pest control. When forests are reduced to isolated fragments, species populations may become too small or disconnected to remain genetically viable. Thus, forest depletion gradually converts biologically complex ecosystems into landscapes less capable of absorbing climatic and environmental shocks.
The relationship between forests and disasters became particularly visible during Pakistan’s catastrophic 2022 floods. The official Post-Disaster Needs Assessment warned that flood damage to forests, rangelands, topsoil and biodiversity would disproportionately affect poorer communities dependent upon natural resources and could subsequently increase pressures such as timber extraction, hunting and agricultural encroachment. [10] The lesson is that environmental degradation and poverty interact in a destructive cycle: damaged ecosystems increase human vulnerability, while vulnerable communities may become more dependent upon the remaining natural resources.
The economic consequences are equally significant, though conventional national accounts often underestimate them. A 2026 national assessment using satellite data estimated that Pakistan’s forests remove approximately 2.53 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually, assigning that carbon-sequestration service an estimated value of about US$78 million per year under the study’s assumed carbon price. [11] This represents only one ecosystem service. Forests also protect watersheds, provide timber and non-timber products, support tourism and reduce disaster risks. Their destruction therefore creates hidden economic liabilities even when the value of the cleared timber appears immediately profitable.
Mangroves demonstrate the same principle particularly clearly. They provide nurseries for fish, protect coastlines against erosion and storm surges, store carbon and supply resources for local communities. Research on mangrove-dependent households in Balochistan found substantial direct economic value from these ecosystems and concluded that poorer households were especially dependent upon their resources, making degradation particularly harmful to them. [12] Forest conservation is thus not an obstacle to economic development; in many regions, forests themselves constitute economic infrastructure.
The social effects of depletion fall most heavily upon communities with the fewest alternatives. Women and children may travel farther to collect fuelwood, pastoral communities lose fodder, small farmers experience declining water and soil quality, and households dependent upon forest products lose supplementary income. Traditional knowledge associated with medicinal plants and local ecosystems can disappear alongside biodiversity. Conflict may also increase when shrinking forests and rangelands leave communities competing for increasingly scarce resources.
Addressing these problems first requires Pakistan to move from the narrow concept of tree plantation towards sustainable forest management. Planting trees is valuable, but a plantation cannot automatically recreate an ancient natural forest. Natural forests contain multiple species, soils, fungi, insects and ecological relationships developed over long periods. Pakistan should therefore follow a hierarchy: protect surviving natural ecosystems first, restore degraded ecosystems second and establish appropriate plantations where necessary for timber, urban greening and rehabilitation. The Ministry of Climate Change’s sustainable forest-management approach itself emphasizes protecting forests while generating livelihood, carbon, soil, water and biodiversity benefits. [6]
Second, forest communities must become partners rather than passive subjects of conservation. Community-managed forests can provide local residents with a direct interest in preventing illegal logging, fires and poaching. Controlled access to non-timber forest products, ecotourism revenues and sustainable harvesting can make standing forests economically valuable. Pakistan’s experience with community-based wildlife conservation shows that benefits shared with local populations can align livelihoods with conservation objectives. The government should therefore link forest protection with alternative energy, vocational skills, small enterprises and payments for ecosystem services.
Third, Pakistan must strengthen its system of protected areas while connecting them through ecological corridors. Protected parks that function as isolated islands cannot adequately conserve migratory or wide-ranging species. Land-use planning should identify critical wildlife habitats before roads, mines, tourism projects or settlements are approved. Pakistan’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for 2017–2030 already emphasizes conservation of priority sites, prevention of wildlife trafficking and illegal timber trade, and the integration of biodiversity into agriculture, climate, health and economic development. [13] The principal challenge is therefore less the absence of policy ideas than consistent implementation.
Fourth, ecological restoration must use the right species in the right places. Native forests should be restored with species adapted to local soils, rainfall and wildlife rather than pursuing plantation targets through ecologically unsuitable monocultures. Mangrove restoration belongs on coastal wetlands; riverine forests require functioning floodplains; high-altitude forests require indigenous mountain species. Restoration should be measured through sapling survival, canopy development, soil recovery and biodiversity return rather than the number of seedlings planted on inauguration day.
Fifth, technology can radically improve forest governance. Satellite imagery, drones, geographic information systems and digital forest inventories should be used to detect encroachment, illegal cutting, forest fires and changes in canopy cover. FAO’s Global Forest Resources Assessment 2025 demonstrates how modern monitoring increasingly combines national reporting and geospatial information to track the condition and management of forests. [14] Pakistan should create publicly accessible forest-cover dashboards so that civil society, researchers and provincial governments can independently track changes rather than waiting years for fragmented statistics.
Sixth, enforcement must become credible. Illegal logging networks, wildlife trafficking and encroachments should carry penalties large enough to eliminate the profitability of environmental crime. Forest and wildlife departments need adequate staffing, modern equipment and specialized training. At the same time, enforcement should distinguish between organized commercial exploitation and subsistence dependence. Punishing a poor household for gathering fuelwood while allowing large-scale illegal extraction to continue would neither protect forests nor command public legitimacy.
Finally, biodiversity must be incorporated into mainstream economic decision-making. Roads, housing schemes, mines, dams and industrial projects should undergo meaningful environmental impact assessments before approval rather than environmental clearance becoming a procedural formality. National and provincial budgets should recognize forests, wetlands and biodiversity as natural capital whose destruction creates measurable economic losses. Pakistan’s NBSAP explicitly calls for biodiversity to be mainstreamed into sectors such as agriculture, poverty alleviation, climate change, health, governance, economic growth and trade. [13] Environmental policy cannot succeed while the rest of development policy continues to treat ecosystems as empty land awaiting conversion.
Conclusion
Pakistan’s forest depletion and biodiversity loss arise from a complex interaction of population pressure, poverty, dependence on fuelwood, agricultural and urban expansion, illegal logging, overgrazing, weak governance, infrastructure development and climate change. These causes are interconnected; therefore, isolated plantation campaigns cannot provide a permanent solution.
The environmental consequences include habitat destruction, soil erosion, watershed degradation, declining carbon storage and greater vulnerability to floods, landslides and climatic extremes. Economically, Pakistan loses timber and non-timber resources, tourism opportunities, fisheries support, carbon sequestration and other ecosystem services whose real value rarely appears in conventional accounts. Socially, the burden falls disproportionately upon poor rural, mountain and coastal communities whose livelihoods are most directly tied to natural resources.
Pakistan must consequently view forests not as unused land but as natural infrastructure. A forest protects water and soil just as a dam or embankment does; a mangrove belt protects coastlines while supporting fisheries; a biodiversity-rich mountain landscape sustains tourism, livelihoods and ecological stability. Destroying such assets to obtain short-term economic benefits is therefore frequently equivalent to consuming national capital.
Effective conservation requires protection of remaining natural forests, ecological restoration with native species, better protected-area management, wildlife corridors, modern monitoring technologies and stronger action against illegal logging and wildlife crime. Yet enforcement alone cannot succeed. Forest-dependent communities must receive affordable energy, alternative livelihoods and a genuine share in the economic benefits generated by conservation.
The most important change must be conceptual. Pakistan should stop judging forest policy principally by how many trees are planted and begin judging it by how many ecosystems survive, how much biodiversity recovers, how effectively watersheds are protected and whether neighbouring communities become better rather than worse off because of conservation.
Pakistan’s forests occupy only a small proportion of its territory, which makes each surviving ecosystem more valuable rather than less important. Forest depletion and biodiversity loss are therefore not peripheral environmental concerns; they are questions of water security, food security, climate resilience, poverty reduction and long-term economic stability. Protecting nature is ultimately not a choice between the environment and development. For a climate-vulnerable country such as Pakistan, protecting nature is itself an indispensable form of development.
References
Government of Pakistan, Finance Division. Pakistan Economic Survey 2025–26. View source
Government of Pakistan / Convention on Biological Diversity. Pakistan: Sixth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity. View source
Hussain, J. et al. “Dependence of Rural Livelihoods on Forest Resources in Naltar Valley, a Dry Temperate Mountainous Region, Pakistan.” Global Ecology and Conservation, Vol. 20, 2019. View source
Ali, A. et al. “Carbon Emissions With Forest Cover Change and Wood Harvest in the Dry Temperate Region of Pakistan Between 1908 and 2015.” Frontiers in Environmental Science, 2022. View source
Environmental Technology & Innovation. “Assessing Deforestation and Degradation Risks in Pakistan (2001–2021): A Machine Learning and Remote Sensing Perspective,” Vol. 40, 2025. View source
Ministry of Climate Change and Environmental Coordination, Government of Pakistan. Sustainable Forest Management to Secure Multiple Benefits in Pakistan’s High Conservation Areas. View source
Frontiers in Environmental Science. “Deforestation Perspectives of Dry Temperate Forests: Main Drivers and Possible Strategies,” 2023. View source
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). “Pakistan’s First-Ever Flora Conservation Station Set Up to Protect Threatened Plants in Thar Desert,” 2025. View source
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Pakistan. Resilience, Environment and Climate Change. View source
Government of Pakistan, Asian Development Bank, European Union, United Nations and World Bank. Pakistan Floods 2022: Post-Disaster Needs Assessment. View source
Land. “National-Scale Economic Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services in Pakistan Using Sentinel-2 Data,” Vol. 15, No. 2, 2026. View source
Adhikari, Bhim, Saima Pervaiz Baig and Usman Ali Iftikhar. “The Use and Management of Mangrove Ecosystems in Pakistan.” Environment and Development Economics/Environmental Practice, 2010. View source
Government of Pakistan / Convention on Biological Diversity. National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2017–2030. View source
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2025. View source