Governance of Transport Corridors in OIC Member States:
Challenges, Cases and Policy Lessons
18
As such, governance and management are closely related elements. When referring to governance in
this study, the management aspects are often incorporated. For example, in the case of a corridor
secretariat managing day-to-day transport corridor functions.
Corridors and governance
Although the policy dimension of corridors is widely acknowledged, there is little known on how
corridors are to be governed, especially for corridors that cross borders. In 2003, Priemus and
Zonneveld already noted institutional fragmentation is a major problem in the development of
corridors. A decade later, Witte et al. (2013) conclude little progress has been made towards
developing a fitting governance structure for transnational corridors. Outside the European continent,
Srivastava (2011, p.1), reporting to the Asian Development Bank, suggests a similar situation:
“While regional cooperation initiatives have clearly recognized development of regional corridors as
central to enhancing their effectiveness and impact, the discussion of corridor development is often
characterized by fairly general formulations that are frequently difficult to pin down in terms of
content or implications. […] the corridors are expected to evolve into various stages through
improvements in trade facilitation and provision of logistical services, but this transformative
process is not informed by any explicit framework. The absence of a coherent framework is
further intensified by the fact that regional corridor development intrinsically encompasses a
broad spectrum of activities and stakeholders.”
It is fair to conclude that a framework for the governance of transport corridors is largely absent from
literature, although the subject is addressed in the Trade and Transport Corridor Management Toolkit
by Kunaka and Carruthers (2014). As an illustration, this toolkit presents an overview of different
types of corridor governance bodies, as shown i Examples of corridors are included in the
table, which also reflect our selection of case studies included in this project, both at OIC and non OIC
level.
Table 2.1 Type of corridor governance bodies
Level Description of characteristics
Regional Where a network of trade routes exists, it may not be feasible for each corridor to have a
separate management structure. Instead, decision making is entrusted to a regional entity
with oversight of all corridors. Typically, the regional body has a planning and monitoring
role rather than a detailed management one. Corridor interventions are left to national
players. In each country, responsibility is assigned to one ministry or to a
multidisciplinary structure composed of line ministries, public agencies, and the private
sector. Examples: TEN-T, CAREC, SEETO, UN UN-ESCWA/ESCAP, TRACECA.
National Corridor management is typically the responsibility of a national trade facilitation
committee, which brings together public and private sector stakeholders concerned with
international trade who serve as champions for change. These actors have the incentive to
create, step by step, more constructive working relations with border control agencies
and to join with them in seeking durable solutions. Examples: Jordan National Committee
for Trade and Transport Facilitation, Bangladesh National Trade and Transport
Facilitation Committee.
Corridor A single corridor structure reflects a need to concentrate on improving very specific trade
routes, usually routes serving landlocked countries.
Different models exist6:
 Government-led arrangements. In most instances, governments take the lead in
corridor development and cooperation. Their role reflects both the international
nature of corridors and the weakness of the private sector in collaborating and
6 A combination of the mentioned levels is also possible, for example an arrangement consisting of public and private partners.