Governance of Transport Corridors in OIC Member States:
Challenges, Cases and Policy Lessons
131
8.2 Recommendations towards improving governance of transport corridors
8.2.1 General recommendations
The governance framework enables us to describe each corridor along two dimensions: (i) the topics
that are covered in the governance of a corridor and (ii) the depth of these topics. Moreover, if each
corridor is inserted in the framework, it can operate as a benchmarking tool to identify areas upon
which to improve the corridor. The assumption here is that the higher the degree of integration
between the corridor participants, the more efficient transport flows along the corridor. Of course, this
depends on political will and the ambition of policy makers and business representatives. In general,
if corridor managers seek to improve the performance of a corridor, the framework can be used to
identify specific topics to address to improve the governance of a corridor. Transcending the
framework, the following recommendations have been identified which are independent of the
transport corridor governance level.
First, the general rule is that the governance domains should be developed in harmony with each other .
Ambitious objectives without a strong legal basis to commit the members to carry through reforms
(including sanctions in case of non-compliance) makes it difficult to achieve reform-demanding
objectives. Widespread corridor promotion without a performance monitoring system and data to
justify investments in the corridor makes it difficult to convince potential investors and other
stakeholders. In other words, if the governance domains are developed according to the governance
level of the whole corridor, they are complementing to each other. Typically, once all domains are
brought into balance, evolution to a deeper form of integration is worthwhile.
Second, it was observed that international organisations played a key role in carrying forward corridor
development, especially in getting the process of the ground . With ACL, theWorld Bank played a key role
in initiating the corridor and the support of AfDB and ECOWAS supported further progress. Both for
SEETO and notably TRACECA, the EU had a prominent role in bringing together the member states,
negotiating the legal framework, commissioning studies, hosting training sessions and more. For the
Eurasian Central Corridor, UNESCAP is playing a similar role by publishing strategic documents and
performance studies to justify the establishment of governance institution on a corridor level. The
independent nature of such an institution facilitates the communication between countries. The initial
efforts of international organisations are required to convince the member states of the merits of joint
corridor development. For TRACECA, the EU withdrew funding for the corridor secretariat. But after
already a decade of cooperating, the member states found enough common ground to continue in joint
corridor governance.
Third, the establishment of a corridor secretariat significantly speeds up the development of a corridor.
The main objectives are discussed during ministerial meetings and steering committees – but a
separate institution is required to facilitate the surrounding process. A corridor secretariat takes up
tasks such as preparing meetings, ensuring communication between nations is maintained and
transforming the objectives discussed by national transport representatives into action, essentially
functioning as the glue between the member states. When the corridor is maturing, the corridor
secretariat may be expanded with a technical assistance team.
Fourth, developing a sound legal basis is crucial for plans to be converted into actions. The corridor only
works smooth if transport systems are coordinated between the member states. Domestic reforms are
difficult to justify when there is little guarantee that neighbouring countries will adjust their transport
system as well.