Governance of Transport Corridors in OIC Member States:
Challenges, Cases and Policy Lessons
26
Table 2.7 Evaluation of financing mechanisms available for corridor management
Mechanism Advantage Disadvantage
Self-financing Reveals commitment of
participants and pressure to
achieve tangible benefits.
Equal contribution may not be in proportion
to benefits; government or private parties can
lag behind in payment when under budget
constraints.
Usage levies Directly linked to traffic volumes;
sustainable income.
Complexity; extra costs to transporters.
Corridor
champions
Funds in proportion to
beneficiaries.
Difficult to determine relation between
benefits and contributions.
Donor funding Useful to cover start-up costs. Not sustainable for long term.
Source: Kunaka & Carruthers (2014).
Financing principles are laid down in the agreement between the participants. This includes how each
member contributes, for which expenses the budget is used, and the deadline for which next years’
budget is to be determined. In the case of TEN-T, for example, the financing is laid down in EU
legislation concerning the general financing rules of EU administrative bodies. For SEETO the financing
rules are laid down in the MoU.
Planning and programming
The planning and programming depends on the rules laid down in the agreement. National
representatives formulate broad guidelines after which the corridor management publish multi-
annual or yearly action plans on the development of the corridor.
In addition to the standard infrastructure projects, the participants may declare that certain projects
have a higher priority than others. This system is used to ensure that projects of significant importance
to the development of the corridor as a whole are completed faster.
2.2.5 Corridor performance monitoring and dissemination
Monitoring corridor performance is crucial for determining the right course of action. Moreover, being
able to back up corridor objectives with the right performance indicators helps to gain support.
Monitoring is not only crucial for the corridor, it is also relevant for evaluating corridor management
performance.
Monitoring system of corridor management
An evaluation process of the functioning of the corridor management can be agreed upon by the
participants. For example, TEN-T prescribes an evaluation of its management agency every five years
to be conducted by an independent party. Having a system of evaluation integrated in the corridor
management ensures effective and efficient management.
Monitoring of corridor performance
Kunaka & Carruthers (2014) describe three main uses for tracking corridor performance
 assessing how well a corridor is performing and where the main deficiencies are;
 tracking changes in corridor performance over time and determining whether changes made to
improve performance have had measurable impact;
 determining performance relative to other corridors serving the same or different origins and
destinations of traded goods.