Governance of Transport Corridors in OIC Member States:
Challenges, Cases and Policy Lessons
9
potential can be translated to concrete action and policy reform. Currently the Central Corridor is still
in the knowledge exchange phase and a long road is still ahead. The corridor objectives are based on
extensive research and well grounded, but aligning views and actions of nations is another challenge,
especially since the corridor is so large. Significant effort is required by international institutions, with
UNESCAP in the lead, to push the developments for the Central Corridor. Good practices of this
corridor are presented below:
 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 has a very strong legal framework and the ASEAN Charter, which entered into force in 2008
and was renewed in 2016, provides binding rules and regulations for the ASEAN Member States. This
process was reinforced by the establishment of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) in 2015, which
was an important step towards further regional economic integration. The major problem of ASEAN
however is the reality that few ASEAN Member States have transposed the ASEAN Charter, the
constitution of the ASEAN Economic Community, the ASEAN Strategic Plans, and the ASEAN Master
Plans into national legislation. National legislation in the Member States of ASEAN is often still in
contradictionwith ASEAN rules and regulations; and if national legislation is harmonized, enforcement
of this legislation is often lacking as well. The positive aspect is that in ASEAN the legal and regulatory
framework is conducive for regional integration, improvement of connectivity and international
governance and management of economic and transport corridors, with an emphasis on improving
maritime connectivity. This later is an important pillar in the ASEAN community as it addresses not
only regional economic development issues, but also international, regional and national safety and
security on the oceans, seas and rivers in the ASEAN community. Good practices of this corridor are
presented below:
 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.
Despite a withdrawal of funding by the EU, the TRACECA programme can still build on a strong basis
in Central Eurasia for joint development of the transport sector. The gains are well laid out in the most
recently developed multi-annual LOGMOS Action Plan (2014), which was adopted as the strategic
document for TRACECA for the period of 2016-2026. Recommendations are specifically made for
improving the corridor governance infrastructure, which is conceived to be vital for further corridor
development. Measures relate to each of the seven governance domains and include more private
sector involvement, corridor branding and other promotional activities, training of TRACECA officials
and more. Expending the institutional infrastructure in terms of resources and more political power is