Governance of Transport Corridors in OIC Member States:
Challenges, Cases and Policy Lessons
130
Corridor Good practices
 Corridor promotion and stakeholder consultation is actively promoting by
organising a series of events, including periodic regional workshops, also including
neighbouring countries.
Central
Corridor
 With UNESCAP being its main driver, the Central Corridor has support of an
international institution that has longstanding experience in interacting with actors
in the region. At the same time, UNESCAP has the legitimacy of being an independent
partner;
 The Central Corridor is being developed adjacent to UNESCAP’s Northern Corridor
and UNESCAP’s Southern Corridor, with the intention to apply the same MoU and
erect the same governance institution to each corridor. This makes corridor
development efficient, while also indicating that governance principles are to same
extent transferable between corridors;
 The UNESCAP corridor is rooted in extensive transport research. The objectives of
each corridor is based on decade long transport analysis undertaken by UNESCAP.
ASEAN
maritime
corridor
 The strong foundation for regional cooperation, provided by ASEAN, with a clear
policy (ASEAN Connectivity 2025) and legal basis;
 The alignment of national initiatives (Indonesian Sea Toll Road project) and regional
interventions (ASEAN Master Plan on Connectivity) as complementary and
reinforcing activities. Both initiatives are linked to the Maritime Silk Road, as part of
China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
TRACECA  The EU was the main driver behind the establishment of the corridor, providing
knowledge and resources. This showcases that value of incorporating international
organisations the development process of the corridor;
 With respect to its legal framework, TRACECA is marked by a series of legal
agreements for which the member can decide individually whether to sign it or not,
Source: consortium.