Research proposal

Title: Socio-ecological considerations of CPEC’s Economic Zones

Research Question
How CPEC’s Economic Development has socio-ecologically effected communities in the allied
Economic Zones?

Abstract
Scenario/ details
Along with its numerous economic implications, the proposal of nine Special Economic Zones along
the M1 protrudes as another financial checkmate from the CPEC cabinet. Hence, through the
following extract, we shall investigate how these mega projects are interlinked to numerous chains
and figures of the society.
The SEZs proposal aims to inculcate the entire length of China’s dissection as an economic hub.
Resultantly, vast acres of land have been/are being acquisitioned under the SEZS Act 2012 (2016
revised). These areas are to be demarcated into industrial and commercial land-use. These will cater
Textile, Packaging, Merchandise, automobiles, electronics, IT, Construction, etc. Tech-institutions
will facilitate the upcoming generation (youth) for a better share in today’s cutting-edge world of
technology.
The Prime Minister, BOI (board of approval) and sponsoring bodies have considered these zones as
an advent of streamlining remote areas. Through such channels, foreign/direct investment will be
attracted; employment opportunities will be created; wider economic reforms will be catalyzed;
Approach testing for economic development will be made possible, (invest.gov.pk/sez);
Consequently, addressing the inflation rate and economic deprivation on a macro scale.
Although the brief states its significance as a beacon for development for the surrounding
communities, the transparency of the project is inevitably in shear darkness and sustenance;
questionable.
According to the laws passed under this proposal, Chinese Government will setup major industrial
units in the allocated regions. A minimum of 50 acres is required for investment, with no maximum
limit. Tax exemption for 10 years for enterprises and 5 years for investors is granted as
concessional initiative.
Review(s)
The press had a mixed response; (The News 27/07/18) “CPEC: Myths & Realities -youth would
have a better chance to get employment in CPEC projects- it is a mere allegation that Pakistani
markets would be flooded with Chinese products”, Dawood Hassan Butt (PD CPEC). (DAWN
23/12/19) “Not so-Special Economic Zone - SEZ investors complain of cumbersome procedures
and inadequate concessions”, Nasir Jamal. (Tribune 10/03/20) “SEZs: Chasing success or failure?
-A lot needs to be fixed when it comes to special economic zones in Pakistan”, Hasaan Khawar.
Implication(s)
 Environmental costs out-weighting economic benefits
  Infrastructural boost will adversely affect ecological footprint
 Resource depletion will contradict social and environmental ethics
 Agricultural land will be lost during implementation
 Crops, fertilizers, allied food chains will be affected
 No feasible alternatives are figured out by the monitoring bodies
 User inclusivity is negated during the design process
 Corporate monopoly aligning the project’s spine
 Foreign Markets exploiting cheap labor and skill services
 Long-term sustenance is eradicated
 Low-stake share in overall opportunity
 Burdening road networking/ transports/ cargo etc.
 Branding/competition of foreign goods on local market
 Construction firms will benefit from increased project demand (materials, labor, bid & tender)
 Steel mills will benefit through industrial setups (scaffolds, formwork, reinforcement)
 Urban planners will be recognized during these macro projects

Analysis
Clearly the contradicting reviews are a reflection of the conflict theory (Marx) accounting the
project’s feasibility. It may seem to project as an economic epitome but we can’t shed light from its
exclusivity.
Initial free market opportunity serves the corporate sector with unaccountable power. The factor of
class distinction and selective clientele is evident in its law-making polices. The planning
department is blinkered to its user group which consists mainly of agriculture sector. How can
these promised beneficiaries sustain such costs when their stature projects from middle- and low-
income groups?
Therefore, an irony is created within the project’s claims and applied mechanisms. Hence one
ponders upon the idea whether these colossal proposals are truly acting for the community’s stake
or have a vested economic motive.
The Government seems to abide by these authoritative sponsors turning a blind-eye to people. Due
to high capital requirement (min 50 acres) this domain is undeniably beyond the layman’s catch. It
may provide jobs to thousands of households but who will scale out the wage criteria and working
standards?
The architectural field is a prioritizing trajectory in these zones since erection of factories,
provision of resource requirement (electricity, water, gas etc.) is penned out through this field.
Deployable structures, maintenance parts and allied stake-chains will benefit from such schemes.
And because these proposals occupy a macro position, urban planners will reserve a primary seat
in the cabinet. I wouldn’t say ecologists, due to the obliteration of environmental concerns.
Acquiring these lands would mean a loss in tree cover, alluvial plains, water distributaries, channel
irrigation, aquifer contamination; contributing as ecological detriments.
Such drastic measures have resulted in geographical deterioration. And its indicators are a stark
reminder of the inhumane principles/processes the society is going through.
Aman Tair
343