Governance of Transport Corridors in OIC Member States:
Challenges, Cases and Policy Lessons
128
proximity to each other and which have rather similar political systems. Once a set of measures has
been implemented successfully regionally, they may be spread across the whole region.
Based on the above, it can be concluded that there is no one-size-fits-all governance model. Indeed,
setting up a corridor governance system is dynamic and situational, depending on local and regional
circumstances. Having said that, a number of lessons can be learned from the case studies and
underlying conceptual framework developed, as will be presented in the next section.
8.1.4 Good practices
Finally, selected good practices in corridor governance have been identified, based on the corridors
reviewed. Results are presented i
Table 8.4 Good practices from corridor reviewed
Corridor Good practices
TEN-T  TEN-T consist of a clear system based on two pillars that separates ordinary
transport investments (the comprehensive network) from priority investments (the
core network);
 Priority investments are developed according of an underlying rationale, the nine
corridors, which represent the most crucial transport routes in Europe;
 As laid down in the legal framework of TEN-T, TEN-T’s governance institutions have
high influence over its member states. This facilitates transport development for the
‘common European good’ rather than national oriented investments;
 To ensure effective development of the nine corridors, a dedicated corridor
coordinator is appointed to each one of them. This shows how each level of transport
policy may require an institution to coordinate all the actors involved and to ensure
plans are transformed into action;
 There is an advanced system of monitoring the performance of TEN-T. Regularly
published Whitepapers, annual published corridor action plans, the KPIs, the
geographical information system TENtec and the statistical body EUROSTAT
contribute to keeping TEN-T’s objectives up-to-date. This self-monitoring systemhas
led to a complete revision and more efficient TEN-T in 2013;
 The EU itself is an extremely sophisticated political system, governing its member
states in many more domains other than transport. Before developing TEN-T, many
governance institutions, such as decision making procedures, financing rules or the
working principles of management bodies (like INEA) were already in place or could
be based on previously established procedures;
 With the EU Parliament having indirect influence in TEN-T policy, there is a certain
degree of democracy involved in TEN-T, making the content of TEN-T not merely the
outcome of decisions made by high level politicians;
 TEN-T’s transport projects are established based on the principle of co-funding,
meaning there is a high incentive to incorporate all relevant stakeholders (national-
and local governments, and private parties) as early in the governance process as
possible.
SEETO  SEETO was established by members that did not have any extensive political
cooperation project running between them. In this respect, the MoU from 2004 or
the treaty from 2017 can be used by other organisations as a starting point for
developing their own corridor. As many corridors operate based on a MoU, in
particular the Transport Community Treaty may be useful if corridor organisations
wish to elevate their corridor governance to the next level of integration;
 Upon looking at the content of SEETO’s annual action plans, a gradual shift can be
identified with respect to the nature of the proposed actions. Whereas in the initial
stages, the focus was on implementing hard infrastructure investment and
harmonized system of data collection, recent years saw the introduction of soft
infrastructure oriented measurements, such as common maintenance programs or