Improving Transnational Transport Corridors
In the OIC Member Countries: Concepts and Cases
75
Central Asia is increasingly influenced by overlapping institutions with a strong Asian identity,
that coexist with the region’s Western institutional references as is thoroughly investigated by
Contessi (2016). Another option for long-term funding is that China steps in as part of the
ambitions with One-Belt One-Road initiative29 (OBOR). TRACECA seeks a Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) with Chinese Silk Road Chamber of International Commerce and hope to
sign in the autumn of 2017 and TRACECA has sent its list of potential investment projects.
According to Ismayil (2017), China works intensely to build markets and if EU won’t continue
with TRACECA support, eventually the Chinese will. So far, however, it seems that China is
more interested further to the east, in the western parts of the China-Europe land bridge and
particularly on the TRACECA routes studied in detail in this case study, the transport system
already works rather well. Lack of infrastructure and insufficient transport quality are not the
critical problems in the west.
TRACECA also seeks a MoU with CAREC, but diplomatic negotiations are slow (Ciopraga,
2017). In addition it is expected to sign a MoU with Crans Montana Forum30 during 2017. It
will add a discussion forum for TRACECA focusing on inter-regional affairs.
TRACECA coordinates with some other adjacent corridors like CAREC, but so far it lacks active
cooperation with the North-South Transport Corridor that crosses TRACECA in Azerbaijan.
Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (TCITR) is an initiative between transport
operators along TRACECA. It involves state owned railways, ports and ferry lines but does not
include road transport. There are no private participants so far, but Romanian actors including
the private sector have shown an interest. TCITR cooperates well with TRACECA but through
the national contacts rather than between the two corridor layers, infrastructure and
operations.
Both Ciopraga (2017) and Ismayil (2017) emphasize that TRACECA is open for new members
and likes to expand. Turkmenistan, Pakistan and Afghanistan are close to become members
and Greece is close to join as observer. Ismayil (2017) would also like to see deeper
involvement from some existing member countries. Iran, for instance, has some special
legislation that is problematic in a corridor perspective and has ratified some international
agreements in its own way.
Transport Strategies and Planning
Corridors are mentioned and analyzed in different extent in the transport plans of the core
countries of the TRACECA study. Whereas TRACECA is mentioned 120 times (!) in Azerbaijan’s
Transport Development Strategy (Asian Development Bank, 2006), 14 times in Georgia’s
Transport Sector Assessment, Strategy, and Road Map (Asian Development Bank, 2014b), it is
not mentioned at all in Armenia’s corresponding document (Asian Development Bank, 2011).
Corridors are mentioned as a factor for developing the transport system, but it only refers to
2
3