a A recent European study A study on sustainable transport links with Central Asia concluded that the Central Trans-Caspian Network (CTCN), crossing southern Kazakhstan, provides “the most sustainable transport links between Europe and Central Asia”, particularly when its “two-tiered catchment” area extends over Distance 300 metres. 600 km north and 600 km south of the basic route – which touches all five Central Asian countries – is taken into account. This so-called Middle Corridor includes four of the five most populous cities in Central Asia (Tashkent, Almaty, Bishkek, and Shymkent).
the studyFunded by the European Commission, with the aim of implementing both 2019 EU Strategy for Central Asia And the Global Gateway Strategy 2021The Climate Technology Center and Network – The Climate Technology Center and Network – Provides suggested actions for developing the pathway, including aspects of soft connectivity (i.e. enabling environment) and hard connectivity (i.e. physical infrastructure). Regarding hard connectivity, the study identified 33 needs for infrastructure investment in the region; Regarding flexible communication, seven coordinated actions have been identified.
In determining the expected benefits of further cooperation, the study relied directly on clear European experience:
As we saw in the successful example of linking the 27 EU Member States to the development of the Trans-European Transport Network, a regional plan to implement and develop a Central Asia-wide transport network could fill the gaps in infrastructure and transport networks across Europe. Facilitating communication, removing bottlenecks and technical barriers, and enhancing social, economic and regional cohesion in the region.
However, the study noted two conditions that are necessary “to realize the benefits of broader regional development,” and these may pose significant obstacles for Central Asia: “All countries provide equal and fair access to their network to all their peers and regional actors,” and “Countries invest in strengthening their local network.” , In line with international corridors, and cross-border communications in a coordinated manner.”
In choosing the “most sustainable” route, the study surveyed existing routes across Eurasia and then delved deeper into the three routes that make up the so-called Middle Corridor. The three options – north, centre, and south – were evaluated against each other in several key areas: traffic, infrastructure, social and environmental issues, country conditions, and in terms of economic integration. Central Asia came first.
The task of achieving the desired connectivity within Central Asia, and with Europe, as is the focus of the study, would be enormous, but to the study’s credit it sets out in detail the necessary steps. Perhaps most importantly, the study notes that it became clear during its implementation that “in many cases, the main issues regarding transport links in the region were not related to funding or the lack (or poor condition of) existing infrastructure, but rather the challenges of resilient connectivity.” “. “.
As mentioned above, the study identified 33 needs for investment in physical infrastructure, but for now I want to focus on the concept of “soft connectivity”. The study identified key actions in resilient connectivity as “actions that support greater freight movement and capacity development throughout the CTC catchment area and network… (and) focus on services required to maintain the economic integrity and sustainability of the network.” The study identified five “comprehensive regional communication actions” in addition to seven “coordinated actions”.
With a focus on strengthening the international institutional governance of the Climate Technology Center and Network, proposed comprehensive actions include the establishment of a formal network management institution with a decision-making body; the separation of policy making, oversight, licensing and operations in each country; dismantling various business lines of state-owned enterprises; improving coordination between major transportation infrastructure projects and key economic sectors; Putting transport decarbonisation policies at the heart of planning and implementing connectivity projects.
As for coordinated actions, the study proposes: digitization of transport documents; Increase interoperability; Strengthening the public-private partnership environment; Facilitating trade in line with World Trade Organization recommendations; market liberalization; Improvements in tariff setting mechanisms; and increased funding for asset management. In most of these areas, comments tailored to the five Central Asian countries are provided; In many cases the advice is similar.
For example, when it comes to the PPP environment, the study suggests that the general PPP framework could be strengthened in all Central Asian countries, with the exception of Turkmenistan (which does not allow PPPs). When it comes to increasing interoperability, interestingly, four of the five states have harmonized truck weights and dimensions; The exception is Uzbekistan, whose standards are closer to European standards than the rest of the region.
All this may seem far-fetched, but this is precisely what is needed to guide efforts to increase connectivity between Central Asia and Europe. The study concluded that if business as usual continues, the volume of vertical transport containers in the climate technology network is expected to “increase from an estimated 18,000 TEUs in 2022 to 130,000 TEUs by 2040.” But that number could rise to 865 1,000 TEUs in the TEU by 2040 if “investment projects and facilitated connectivity measures are implemented to achieve a 13-day free transit time between the EU and Asian hubs and container transport would boost this figure.”
The study estimates that around €18.5 billion in total investments will be needed to improve the climate technology center and network, especially investments in “rehabilitation and modernization of railway and road networks, expansion of rolling stock, enhancement of port capacity, improvements (border crossing points), and multiple logistics services.” “media”. Centers and auxiliary network connections.”
Many aspects of soft connectivity are arguably less expensive but more dependent on local political will. And here’s what the study didn’t say out loud: This is a great plan, but Europe and Central Asia’s grand connectivity dreams depend on the region’s governments prioritizing transformations in how they do business with their neighbors and other countries. Outside the region.
