One Year of Pak-Afghan Border Closure, What Is Achieved?

By Zia-ul-Haq Sarhadi, Peshawar (Sitara-e-Imtiaz)

One year has passed since the closure of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border on October 12, 2025. Relations between the two countries remain almost frozen, but the key question is: what has been achieved through this year-long closure?

Pakistan's primary objective was to pressure Kabul into taking action against the banned Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Immediately after the closure, cross-border attacks declined during November and December 2025. According to a report by the think tank CRSS, attacks decreased by around 9 percent in November and 17 percent in December compared to previous levels. Security forces experienced some relief.

However, this decline proved temporary. Violence resurged during 2026. In the third quarter, deaths resulting from violence increased by 83 percent, particularly in Balochistan. The TTP and its allied groups remain active. Pakistan conducted multiple air strikes, but no verifiable and substantial action against the TTP has emerged from the Afghan side. Relations have deteriorated further, with both countries continuing to exchange accusations.

The closure has not only affected bilateral trade between Pakistan and Afghanistan but has also severely impacted Afghan transit trade, transport operators, clearing agents, warehouses, border markets, and the livelihoods of thousands of workers.

Statistics show that during fiscal year 2022-23, some 102,886 containers moved under the Afghan Transit Trade framework through Pakistan, carrying goods worth approximately $6.7 billion. By fiscal year 2025-26, this figure had fallen to just 11,592 containers with a value of around $367 million. This represents an approximately 89 percent decline in container traffic compared to fiscal year 2022-23.

Interestingly, the downward trend had begun even before the border closure. In fiscal year 2024, transit container traffic stood at 54,114 containers, while in fiscal year 2025 it declined to 42,959. The volume of 11,592 containers recorded in 2025-26 was therefore around 73 percent lower than the previous fiscal year.

According to the Pakistan-Afghanistan Joint Chamber of Commerce and Industry, more than 1,000 containers crossed daily under Afghan Transit Trade before the suspension of transit activities in October 2025. This movement came to an abrupt halt. Large numbers of containers became stranded in Karachi, Peshawar, Quetta and border regions, while traders suffered losses related to perishable goods.

A February 2026 report noted that approximately 500 to 700 cargo and passenger vehicles used to cross through Torkham each day. These movements were effectively paralyzed by the prolonged closure.

Various estimates have been offered regarding the financial losses suffered by traders and business organizations. In September 2026, Khyber Chamber of Commerce and Industry President Yousaf Afridi claimed that the border closure had caused overall losses of approximately $2.5 billion, including $1.644 billion in export losses and $817 million in import losses.

Earlier, officials of the Pakistan-Afghanistan Joint Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PAJCCI) also estimated losses resulting from the decline in transit activities. One estimate released in June 2026 suggested Pakistani exporters had suffered losses of nearly $1 billion over an eight-month period alone.

However, these figures are based on different methodologies and periods of assessment, and therefore should not be regarded as a single officially verified amount.

According to the Pakistan-Afghanistan Joint Chamber of Commerce and Industry, around 10,000 transit containers remained stranded in Pakistan between October 2025 and April 2026. Afghan importers reportedly had to pay an average of around $120 per container per day in fines, demurrage and detention charges, adding further financial pressure.

The prolonged closure also forced Afghanistan to diversify its trade routes. It increased trade via Iran's Chabahar Port and through Central Asian corridors. According to Reuters, Afghanistan's total trade reached around $13.9 billion in 2025, while the use of Iranian and Central Asian routes expanded significantly.

World Bank-linked data indicates that Iran became Afghanistan's largest source of imports during fiscal year 2025, with a significant share of Afghan imports arriving either directly from Iran or through transit routes connected to the country.

For Pakistan, the issue extended beyond Afghan trade. Pakistani exports to Central Asian markets through Afghanistan were also disrupted. This route generated millions of dollars annually in transport and related service revenues for Pakistan, and these earnings were adversely affected by the prolonged closure.

Truck drivers, conductors, loaders, clearing agents, warehouse employees, customs-linked businesses and small traders operating in border markets have all suffered as a result of the crisis.

On the other hand, Afghan exports destined for Pakistan and other countries were also affected. Reverse transit trade of Afghan goods through Pakistan experienced a dramatic decline. The value of reverse transit trade stood at approximately $454 million during fiscal year 2025, but fell to only $7 million in fiscal year 2026.

Nearly one year of border closure has fundamentally altered the traditional trade corridor between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The decline in transit traffic from 102,886 containers to 11,592, trade losses worth billions of dollars, thousands of stranded containers and Afghanistan's shift toward alternative trade routes all demonstrate that the impact of the closure extends far beyond trucks stopped at the border.

Its consequences have been felt across the entire trade and transport network, from the ports of Karachi to Peshawar, Khyber, Chaman, Afghanistan and Central Asia.

The fundamental question now is whether trade between Pakistan and Afghanistan can return to previous levels, or whether alternative routes developed during this one-year closure will permanently reduce Pakistan's traditional role as a regional transit hub.

Officials from both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan Joint Chamber of Commerce and Industry argue that reopening the border alone will not be sufficient. Restoring confidence within the business community will also be necessary. They advocate a review of the Pakistan-Afghanistan Transit Trade Agreement and the creation of a legally binding framework ensuring that trade and transit activities are not suspended during periods of political disagreement. Such a framework should include stakeholders from both countries.

Pakistan's Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar has stated that the closure of trade routes and border crossings has caused greater economic damage to Afghanistan than to Pakistan. He noted that continued trade and transit between the two countries remains important for both sides, but Islamabad imposed restrictions on cross-border movement due to security concerns.

According to a report by the Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE), Pakistan's exports also declined significantly after the border closure in October 2025. Meanwhile, reports based on World Bank data indicate that Afghanistan has sought alternative trade routes through Iran and Central Asia instead of relying on Pakistan. However, the longer distances and higher transportation costs associated with these routes are placing additional economic pressure on Afghan traders.

What is needed is a verifiable security mechanism between the two countries that clearly defines responsibilities, provides an effective monitoring system and establishes procedures for handling violations. Rather than merely closing borders, both countries should work toward a system that strengthens security, effectively combats terrorism, allows legitimate trade to continue, protects businesses and livelihoods, and preserves Pakistan and Afghanistan's role as the most effective gateway to global and Central Asian markets.

The border closure, which has now continued for more than a year, should also be assessed objectively. The key question remains: has this policy improved the welfare of people in the region, or delivered any meaningful and sustainable progress in combating terrorism?

While no decisive solution to the security challenge has emerged, the policy has undoubtedly inflicted severe damage on trade.