Governance of Transport Corridors in OIC Member States:
Challenges, Cases and Policy Lessons
5
case studies reviewed, both at OIC and non-OIC level, we have placed the corridors in the four defined
development levels, for all seven governance domains. The result of this exercise presents a wide
variety of patterns, for example with all governance domains of the TEN-T Corridor at level integration,
and the UN ESCAP corridor, which has just been initiated, at governance levels information exchange.
The other corridors reviewed are placed somewhere in-between.
The vast differences between the corridors reviewed are reflected in the descriptions below.
Corridor governance of the TEN-T programme is fully at an integration level. It should be noted that
this has developed over time, starting from a governance model based on information exchange in the
early 80’s to the fully integrated governance model of today. TEN-T, EU’s common transport
infrastructure policy, is the world’s most advanced system of corridors in terms of the integration of
governance institutions. TEN-T is a unique case, since a legal framework for the development of TEN-
T and its institutions was already in place before a common transport policy was agreed upon by the
member states. From the willingness of the member states for joint development of transport
infrastructure towards establishing governance institutions was a relatively small step. Although the
objectives of TEN-Twere established in the information exchange phase between 1985 and 1992, talks
on the governance and its legal basis were largely skipped. Considering the time it has taken the EU to
develop its governance structure, lessons can be learned in terms of the gradually developing legal
basis, the institutional set-up, with corridor coordinators, facilitating dialogue between the European
Commission and the member states, the funding structure, the monitoring system, the corridor fora
and TEN-T days organised to facilitate interaction with stakeholders and the support studies carried
out to strengthen the corridor performance. Good practices of this corridor are:
 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 system has 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;