Governance of Transport Corridors in OIC Member States:
Challenges, Cases and Policy Lessons
129
Corridor Good practices
bilateral border crossing agreements. An explanation of this trend could be that hard
infrastructure investments and good data quickly yield measurable results, whereas
soft infrastructure effects are usually more indirect and visible in the long term.
While quickly observable results are not always the most efficient transport
interventions, they are helpful for gaining further support for developing the
corridor;
 Support from an international organisation has been essential for SEETO’s
development. From the start, the EU, in collaboration with other organisations, has
been a main driver behind SEETO’s development. The EU can not only draw on its
own experience with developing a regional transport policy, it also has the legitimacy
of an independent partner.
Maputo
Corridor
Logistics
Initiative
(MCLI)
 The MCLI is based on a collaboration between public and private partners; with
infrastructure investors, service providers and users included, all focused on the
promotion and further development of the Maputo Corridor;
 The MCLI provides a strong example where a number of corridor founders, which
were predominantly representatives from the private sector, have created a
successful initiative towards developing a transport corridor, with obvious broader
socio-economic impact, and is based on strong international collaboration, including
Mozambique, Swaziland and South Africa.
Northern
Corridor
 The Norther Corridor has created a strong legal basis (through the Northern Corridor
Transit and Transport Agreement), which established the foundation for regional
cooperation among the Member States on matters to do with transit transport. This
includes customs control; documentation and procedures; as well as the
development of infrastructure and facilities relating to sea ports, inland ports and
waterways, roads, railways, pipelines and border posts;
 A organisation (NCTTA) has been mandated by the Member States to oversee the
implementation of the agreement and to monitor its performance. The performance
monitoring can be seen as a strong asset, notably through the establishment of the
Northern Transport Observatory;
 The NCTTA has a strong financial basis, with multiple funding sources, including user
levies;
 The way information about the Northern Corridor and NCTTA is disseminated
through an accessible website is a good example for other corridor management
institutions;
 The institutionalisation of Joint Border Committees along the Northern Corridor.
Abidjan-
Lagos
Corridor
(ALC)
 Similar to SEETO and TRACECA, international organisations played a decisive role in
the establishment of the corridor. This once more showcases the importance of
having an international organisation facilitating the development process;
 Moreover, the project-based approach of ALC is an example of how to develop a
corridor from the bottom up rather than the top-down approach used in, for
example, the UNESCAP corridors, TEN-T, TRACECA and SEETO. Instead of defining a
broad range of objectives, ALC starts bottom up, creating institutions that facilitate
one specific project, leaving open the possibility of expending the institutions in the
future. In particular for the initial stages of corridor development, it should be kept
in mind that establishing the right governance is not only about creating governance
institutions for the sake of creating institutions. The governance model should fit
with the objectives and ambition of the members.
Jordan transit
corridor
 The Government of Jordan has actively pursued the development of trade and
transport facilitation and development of its transport corridors. In the absence of a
regional corridor governance body, a national institutional structure has been
developed with a broader regional development ambition, connecting Jordan to its
neighbouring countries. This process is supported by a series of multilateral and
bilateral agreements;