OCDE - Towards a scoreboard to measure economic corridors’ connectivity

OECD Global Relations Policy Papers T owards a Scoreboard to Measure Economic Corridors’ Connectivity: The Case of the T rans-Caspian T ransport Corridor Volume 2026, Issue 2 OECD Global Relations Policy Papers Towards a Scoreboard to Measure Economic Corridors’ Connectivity: The Case of the T rans-Caspian T ransport Corridor While economic corridors are vital for the smooth functioning of globalised economies driven by international trade, the measurement of their connectivity—and thus their efficiency—remains an underexplored dimension. Y et this could help policymakers identify areas for development and possible actions. This paper offers a first attempt to measure economic corridors’ connectivity, using a systematic, indicator-base framework, with the Trans-Caspian Transport Corridor, also known as the Middle Corridor, as a case study.OECD Global Relations Policy Papers Towards a Scoreboard to Measure Economic Corridors’ Connectivity: The Case of the Trans-Caspian Transport Corridor PUBE2  TOWARDS A SCOREBOARD TO MEASURE ECONOMIC CORRIDORS’ CONNECTIVITY: THE CASE OF THE TRANS-CASPIAN TRANSPORT CORRIDOR © OECD 2026

The work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary -General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Member countries of the OECD. This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the te rms of international law. Note by the Republic of Türkiye The information in this document with reference to “Cyprus” relates to the southern part of the Island. There is no single authority representing

OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the te rms of international law. Note by the Republic of Türkiye The information in this document with reference to “Cyprus” relates to the southern part of the Island. There is no single authority representing both Turkish and Greek Cypriot people on the Island. Türkiye recognises the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Until a lasting and equitable solution is found within the context of the United Nations, Türkiye shall preserve its position concerning the “Cyprus issue”. Note by all the European Union Member States of the OECD and the European Union The Republic of Cyprus is recognised by all members of the United Nations with the exception of Türkiye. The information in this document relates to the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.

Photo credits: ©.Esin Deniz

© OECD 2026

Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. By using this work, you accept to be bound by the terms of this licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Attribution – you must cite the work. Translations – you must cite the original work, identify changes to the original and add the following text: In the event of any discrepancy between the original work and the translation, only the text of the original work should be considered valid. Adaptations – you must cite the original work and add the following text: This is an adaptation of an original work by the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed in this adaptation should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its Member countries. Third-party material – the licence does not apply to third-party material in the work. If using such material, you are responsible for obtaining permission from the third party and for any claims of infringement.

in this adaptation should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its Member countries. Third-party material – the licence does not apply to third-party material in the work. If using such material, you are responsible for obtaining permission from the third party and for any claims of infringement. You must not use the OECD logo, visual identity or cover image without express permission or suggest the OECD endorses your use of the work. Any dispute arising under this licence shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Arbitration Rules 2012. The seat of arbitration shall be Paris (France). The number of arbitrators shall be one. 3

TOWARDS A SCOREBOARD TO MEASURE ECONOMIC CORRIDORS’ CONNECTIVITY: THE CASE OF THE TRANS-CASPIAN TRANSPORT CORRIDOR © OECD 2026

Abstract Disclaimer While economic corridors are vital for the smooth functioning of globalised economies driven by international trade, the measurement of their connectivity —and thus their efficiency —remains an underexplored dimension. Yet this could help policymakers identify areas for development and possible actions. This paper offers a first attempt to measure economic corridors’ connectivity, using a systematic, indicator-base framework, with the Trans-Caspian Transport Corridor, also known as the Middle Corridor, as a case study.4  TOWARDS A SCOREBOARD TO MEASURE ECONOMIC CORRIDORS’ CONNECTIVITY: THE CASE OF THE TRANS-CASPIAN TRANSPORT CORRIDOR © OECD 2026

This paper complements and extends the work carried out by the OECD Global Relations and Co-operation (GRC) Directorate on enhancing economic corridors’ connectivity in emerging markets. It was first presented by Matthias Cormann, OECD Secretary-General, at the OECD Emerging Markets Forum on 10 April 2025 at the OECD Istanbul Centre. This paper would not have been possible without the support of the OECD Istanbul Centre. The paper was prepared under the guidance of Mr Andreas Schaal and Mr Karim Dahou, respectively

presented by Matthias Cormann, OECD Secretary-General, at the OECD Emerging Markets Forum on 10 April 2025 at the OECD Istanbul Centre. This paper would not have been possible without the support of the OECD Istanbul Centre. The paper was prepared under the guidance of Mr Andreas Schaal and Mr Karim Dahou, respectively Director and Deputy Director of the OECD Directorate for Global Relations and Co -operation. It was prepared by Mr Grégory Lecomte, Head of the Eurasia Division’s Central Asia Unit, in close co -operation with Dr Emrecan Erdoğan, Ph.D, who provided the first drafts of the various sections and helped finalise the paper. Substantial contributions were made by Ms Seda Sevgi, Deputy Head of the OECD Istanbul Centre, and Mr Cengiz Arikan, Statistician, in the Centre. The paper was reviewed by William Tompson, Head of the OECD Eurasia Division; Nejla Saula, Senior Advisor in the GRC Director’s Office; Céleste Laporte -Talamon and Mariia Vakulik, Policy Analysts in the Eurasia Division’s Central Asia Unit; Péline Atamer, Head of the Sustainable Infrastructure Programme in Asia; and Yaroslav Kholodov and Nick Caros, Policy Analysts and Modellers at the International Transport Forum. Further editing and support was provided by Robert Akam, Communications Lead in the GRC Director’s Office; Rozalia Harsanyi, Communications Officer in the GRC Director’s Office; and by Egor Polishchuk , Mariia Vakulik and Mariam Chkhikvadze, Policy Analysts in the Eurasia Division’s Central Asia Unit. Acknowledgements 5

TOWARDS A SCOREBOARD TO MEASURE ECONOMIC CORRIDORS’ CONNECTIVITY: THE CASE OF THE TRANS-CASPIAN TRANSPORT CORRIDOR © OECD 2026

Table of contents Abstract 3 Acknowledgements 4 Executive summary 7 Towards a scoreboard measuring economic corridors’ connectivity 7 The case of the Trans-Caspian Transport Corridor 7

Table of contents Abstract 3 Acknowledgements 4 Executive summary 7 Towards a scoreboard measuring economic corridors’ connectivity 7 The case of the Trans-Caspian Transport Corridor 7 Going forward 8 Context 9 Towards a scoreboard to measure economic corridors’ connectivity 10

Testing the scoreboard: the case of the Trans-Caspian Transport Corridor 13

Hard connectivity 13 Soft connectivity 15 Performance and outcomes in the four TCTC countries 17

Way forward: Expanding and adapting the approach to other corridors 19

Limitations and mitigation strategies 19

Case studies to be considered: the Lobito Corridor and the Bi-Oceanic Corridor 20

Annex A: List of indicators composing the scoreboard and reader’s guide 21

Hard Connectivity 21 Soft Connectivity 25 Performance and Outcomes 29

Annex B: Full case study of the Trans-Caspian Transport Corridor 30

Hard Connectivity 30 Soft Connectivity 36 Performance and Outcomes 41 References 44

Tables Table 1. Selected Indicators of Hard Connectivity 14 Table 2. Selected Indicators of Soft Connectivity 16 Table 3. Selected Performance and Outcome Indicators 186  TOWARDS A SCOREBOARD TO MEASURE ECONOMIC CORRIDORS’ CONNECTIVITY: THE CASE OF THE TRANS-CASPIAN TRANSPORT CORRIDOR © OECD 2026

Table 4. Road Infrastructure 21 Table 5. Railway Infrastructure 22 Table 6. Maritime and Port Infrastructure 23 Table 7. Digital Infrastructure 24 Table 8. Green Transport 24 Table 9. Governance and Transparency in Trade 25 Table 10. Procedural Complexity in Trade 26 Table 11. Border Management and Regional Co-operation 26 Table 12. Investment Climate and Regulatory Policy 28 Table 13. Digital Connectivity and Smart Systems 28 Table 14. Performance and Outcomes 29 Table 15. Road Connectivity Indicators 31

Table 11. Border Management and Regional Co-operation 26 Table 12. Investment Climate and Regulatory Policy 28 Table 13. Digital Connectivity and Smart Systems 28 Table 14. Performance and Outcomes 29 Table 15. Road Connectivity Indicators 31 Table 16. Rail Connectivity Indicators 33 Table 17. Maritime Transport Indicators 34 Table 18. Digital Infrastructure Indicators 35 Table 19. Green Infrastructure 36 Table 20. Governance and Transparency Indicators 37 Table 21. Procedural Complexity in Trade 38 Table 22. Border Management and Regional Co-operation Indicators 39 Table 23. Investment Climate and Regulatory Policies 40 Table 24. Digital Connectivity and Smart Systems Indicators 41 Table 25. Performance and Outcome Indicators 42

Figures Figure 1. Hard Connectivity: Sub-dimensions and Indicators 11 Figure 2. Soft Connectivity: Sub-Dimensions and Indicators 12 Figure 3. Performance and Outcomes: Sub-Dimensions and Indicators 12

Boxes Box 1. Roads: Policy Considerations 31 Box 2. Rail: Policy Considerations 32 Box 3. Maritime Transport: Policy Considerations 34 Box 4. Digital Infrastructures: Policy Considerations 35 Box 5. Green Infrastructure: Policy Considerations 36 Box 6. Governance and Transparency: Policy Considerations 37 Box 7. Procedural Complexity: Policy Considerations 38 Box 8. Border Management and Regional Co-operation: Policy Considerations 39 Box 9. Investment Climate and Regulatory Policies: Policy Considerations 40 Box 10. Digital Connectivity and Smart Systems: Policy Considerations 41 Box 11. Performance and Outcomes: Policy Considerations 42 7

TOWARDS A SCOREBOARD TO MEASURE ECONOMIC CORRIDORS’ CONNECTIVITY: THE CASE OF THE TRANS-CASPIAN TRANSPORT CORRIDOR © OECD 2026

Economic corridors are vital for enhancing trade connectivity, fostering economic integration, and

TOWARDS A SCOREBOARD TO MEASURE ECONOMIC CORRIDORS’ CONNECTIVITY: THE CASE OF THE TRANS-CASPIAN TRANSPORT CORRIDOR © OECD 2026

Economic corridors are vital for enhancing trade connectivity, fostering economic integration, and improving supply chain resilience. While global trade patterns of trade evolve, with protectionism and global chain disruption on a rising trend, well-integrated corridors still help reduce costs, optimise logistics, and support regional development. This report presents a preliminary OECD Scoreboard for Measuring Corridors Connectivity to measure the connectivity of economic corridors, using the Trans-Caspian Transport Corridor, which links Central Asia and the South Caucasus to Europe via Türkiye , as a test case. Towards a scoreboard measuring economic corridors’ connectivity With over 40 indicators , the preliminary scoreboard offers a first attempt to measure corridors’ connectivity systematically. It provides standardised metrics from a range of international sources to help policymakers track progress, identify challenges, and refine strategies . It evaluates corridors on three key dimensions: i) hard connectivity – physical infrastructure; ii) soft connectivity – policies, regulations, border efficiencies, and investment climate; and iii) performance & outcomes – flows, costeffectiveness, timelines and reliability. The case of the Trans-Caspian Transport Corridor The Trans-Caspian Transport Corridor (TCTC) , also known as the “Middle Corridor” has gained attention due to geopolitical shifts and increased demand for alternative trade routes. The case study presented here encompasses four of the TCTC countries: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Georgia, and Türkiye. The data collected in the scoreboard point to multiple conclusions.

1. Investments in transport infrastructure have expanded capacity along the corridor , but development remains uneven across modes and countries. Expanded infrastructure capacity is not yet fully translated into efficient corridor performance, as multimodal integration remains limited.

This is particularly important for the corridor, given that the Caspian Sea crossing requires multiple mode changes, causing higher costs and logistics inefficiencies. In parallel, low rail electrification,

development remains uneven across modes and countries. Expanded infrastructure capacity is not yet fully translated into efficient corridor performance, as multimodal integration remains limited. This is particularly important for the corridor, given that the Caspian Sea crossing requires multiple mode changes, causing higher costs and logistics inefficiencies. In parallel, low rail electrification, at around 26% in Kazak hstan compared with near -full electrification in Georgia , together with transport-related CO₂ emissions nearly three times the OECD benchmark, underscore persistent sustainability gaps.

2. Soft connectivity has improved across the corridor, particularly in digitalisation, trade facilitation, and regulatory harmonisation . Domestic paperless trade systems are now largely in place, reaching full implementation in Türkiye and close to 90% in Georgia and Azerbaijan , while core governance and trade facilitation indicators broadly align with OECD averages . Nevertheless, limited availability of trade -related information and relatively low external border co-operation continue to pose challenges . In parallel, cross -border paperless trade remains partial, at around 50% in Türkiye, Georgia and Azerbaijan, indicating that digital systems are not yet fully interoperable across borders, and that manual and paper -based procedures continue to co -exist Executive summary8  TOWARDS A SCOREBOARD TO MEASURE ECONOMIC CORRIDORS’ CONNECTIVITY: THE CASE OF THE TRANS-CASPIAN TRANSPORT CORRIDOR © OECD 2026

with electronic systems. To foster seamless trade operations, government - and business -led digitalisation efforts should evolve in parallel, ensuring a co -ordinated and mutually reinforcing approach.

3. Transport costs, including insurance, exceed global benchmarks , accounting for around 6-7% of import values . Port delays and inconsistencies in logistics timeliness remain significant problems, with TCTC countries performing below OECD averages. Addressing these challenges requires a balanced approach combining infrastructure and capacity enhancements with targeted soft measures to improve efficiency and competitiveness.

Going forward This Scoreboard is a first step toward systematic monitoring of such corridors’ connectivity. More work is needed to enrich the Scoreboard by addressing limitations related to data availability and regional

requires a balanced approach combining infrastructure and capacity enhancements with targeted soft measures to improve efficiency and competitiveness. Going forward This Scoreboard is a first step toward systematic monitoring of such corridors’ connectivity. More work is needed to enrich the Scoreboard by addressing limitations related to data availability and regional differences, by integrating qualitative assessments, using existing databases , and tailoring the scoreboard to specific regional contexts. 9

TOWARDS A SCOREBOARD TO MEASURE ECONOMIC CORRIDORS’ CONNECTIVITY: THE CASE OF THE TRANS-CASPIAN TRANSPORT CORRIDOR © OECD 2026

Efficient trade and transport networks streamline the movement of goods, minimise logistical bottlenecks, and reduce costs, allowing businesses to optimise their operations. For instance, the World Bank highlights the ways in which modern logistics systems, supported by robust infrastructure, can cut transport times and costs, a particularly important consideration for developing economies striving to integrate into global supply chains (World Bank, 2021[1]). Given growing interest in supply -chain resilience and efficiency, economic corridors have emerged as policy-driven initiatives that combine infrastructure investments and policy co -ordination in an effort to enhance connectivity and link production zones t o global markets. They are deliberate and strategically planned interventions aimed at creating integrated networks that will stimulate economic activity (Banomyong, 2007[2]) (ADB, 2011[3]) (ADB, 2013[4]). The potential benefits of well-functioning economic corridors include, in particular: • Enhanced market access: economic corridors streamline trade by reducing logistical bottlenecks, shortening transit times, and lowering transport costs. They connect production hubs with global markets (World Bank, 2016[5]). • Deeper regional integration : by linking countries through shared infrastructure and harmonised policies, corridors foster regional co -operation and promote economic interdependence and political stability and contribute to the countries’ macroeconomic resilience (Bosman and D’Angelo, 2011[6]) (World Bank, 2014[7]). • Greater resilience and diversification : by creating alternative trade routes, economic corridors

policies, corridors foster regional co -operation and promote economic interdependence and political stability and contribute to the countries’ macroeconomic resilience (Bosman and D’Angelo, 2011[6]) (World Bank, 2014[7]). • Greater resilience and diversification : by creating alternative trade routes, economic corridors enhance resilience to geopolitical risks and supply chain disruptions. Economic corridors are characterised by their multimodal nature . They require substantial investments in both hard infrastructure, such as roads, railways, and ports, and soft measures like regulatory alignment, trade facilitation, and institutional co-ordination. There are numerous economic corridor initiatives around the world. The International North-South Transport Corridor, for instance, has played a critical role in increasing trade flows and economic linkages between regions, particularly by reducing transport costs and time (Khan et al., 2024[8]). More recently, the TCTC, from East Asia via Central Asia to Europe, integrates rail, road, and maritime transport, offering an alternative to overland routes like the Northern Corridor through Russia (OECD, 2023[9]) (Barkanyi and Vasa, 2023[10]). The Lobito Corridor in Southern Africa connects mineral -rich regions to global markets via ports and railways, unlocking trade and investment opportunities (UNECA, 2024[11]). Similarly, the Bioceanic Corridor in South America links the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, enhancing intercontinental trade and regional integration (The Economist Impact, 2024[12]). A standardised, yet flexible, scoreboard for measuring economic corridors’ connectivity should help shed light on best practices and areas where policy changes could be relevant. Standardisation ensures reliable comparisons across countries, helping to uncover disparities. Regular monitoring of connectivity over time would also allow countries to track progress, refine policies and support strategic planning.

Context10  TOWARDS A SCOREBOARD TO MEASURE ECONOMIC CORRIDORS’ CONNECTIVITY: THE CASE OF THE TRANS-CASPIAN TRANSPORT CORRIDOR © OECD 2026

connectivity over time would also allow countries to track progress, refine policies and support strategic planning.

Context10  TOWARDS A SCOREBOARD TO MEASURE ECONOMIC CORRIDORS’ CONNECTIVITY: THE CASE OF THE TRANS-CASPIAN TRANSPORT CORRIDOR © OECD 2026

The scoreboard measures economic corridor’s connectivity through three key dimensions: hard connectivity, soft connectivity, and performance and outcomes. By integrating these three dimensions, the scoreboard recognises that infrastructure and policies must work together to achieve efficient and seamless trade and transport.

1. Hard connectivity focuses on physical infrastructure that enables the movement of goods and services.

2. Soft connectivity assesses policies and regulatory measures that ensure infrastructure efficiency.

3. The performance & outcomes dimension measures the performance of connectivity through outcome indicators such as trade flows, cost-efficiency, time efficiency, and system reliability.

Each dimension is further broken down into sub -dimensions with specific sets of indicators. Over 40 indicators in total were selected, based on relevance and reliability. The dimensions are shown in Figure 1, together with the indicator sources. Annex A: List of indicators composing the scoreboard and reader’s guide provides additional details on the scoreboard indicators, including a reader’s guide. Towards a scoreboard to measure economic corridors’ connectivity 11

TOWARDS A SCOREBOARD TO MEASURE ECONOMIC CORRIDORS’ CONNECTIVITY: THE CASE OF THE TRANS-CASPIAN TRANSPORT CORRIDOR © OECD 2026

Figure 1. Hard Connectivity: Sub-dimensions and Indicators

Source: OECD analysis12  TOWARDS A SCOREBOARD TO MEASURE ECONOMIC CORRIDORS’ CONNECTIVITY: THE CASE OF THE TRANS-CASPIAN TRANSPORT CORRIDOR © OECD 2026

Figure 2. Soft Connectivity: Sub-Dimensions and Indicators

Source: OECD analysis Figure 3. Performance and Outcomes: Sub-Dimensions and Indicators

Source: OECD analysis 13

Figure 2. Soft Connectivity: Sub-Dimensions and Indicators

Source: OECD analysis Figure 3. Performance and Outcomes: Sub-Dimensions and Indicators

Source: OECD analysis 13

TOWARDS A SCOREBOARD TO MEASURE ECONOMIC CORRIDORS’ CONNECTIVITY: THE CASE OF THE TRANS-CASPIAN TRANSPORT CORRIDOR © OECD 2026

The Trans-Caspian Transport Corridor (the TCTC, or Middle Corridor ), is a multimodal transport route that connects Central Asia and the South Caucasus to Europe via the Caspian and Black Seas and Türkiye. It is growing in prominence as a trade and transit route reflecting several converging factors. Geopolitical shifts and disruptions to established trade routes have underscored the necessity of alternative corridors. Additionally, economic growth in Centr al Asia and the South Caucasus has fuelled the demand for more efficient and dependable transport connections to global markets. Türkiye, Kazakhstan, Georgia, and Azerbaijan form the backbone of the corridor. Their role extends beyond logistics, as they are actively shaping the corridor's long -term success through strategic infrastructure investments, trade facilitation measures, and policy harmonisation . The scoreboard described in Section Towards a scoreboard to measure economic corridors’ connectivity was tested on these four countries. The key findings derived this exercise are outlined below, and Annex B: Full case study of the Trans-Caspian Transport Corridor provides further details. Hard connectivity Transport infrastructure across the four case -study countries remains uneven . Türkiye’s road network dominates freight transport, supporting strong trade flows but also leading to congestion and higher maintenance costs. Kazakhstan’s rail network serves as the backbone of long-haul freight transport, but limited rail electrificati on constrains efficiency gains. Azerbaijan and Georgia adopt a more balanced multimodal approach, leveraging road, rail, and maritime networks to support trade. However, despite ongoing port and rail investments, integration between transport modes remains inconsistent, leading to logistical inefficiencies that affect speed and predictability. The maritime segment, particularly across

multimodal approach, leveraging road, rail, and maritime networks to support trade. However, despite ongoing port and rail investments, integration between transport modes remains inconsistent, leading to logistical inefficiencies that affect speed and predictability. The maritime segment, particularly across the Caspian Sea, continues to face operational inefficiencies, affecting the reliability of east -west trade flows. Digital infrastructure is essential for supporting digitalisation efforts in the transport sector. Although internet access is widespread across the four countries, gaps in broadband capacity limit the seamless adoption of digital logistics, e -commerce, and intelligent transport systems . Strengthening digital infrastructure will be essential to enabling automation, smart freight solutions, and efficient cross -border trade. Relatively high transport -related CO₂ emissions underscore the urgency of decarbonisation efforts. While the OECD average for CO₂ emissions from transport is approximately 55.05 tonnes per one million USD GDP, the four countries’ average is nearly three times higher, at 147 tonnes. Despite having a more balanced mix of transport modes, Georgia records the highest emissions intensity (223 tonnes) among the four. Enhancing energy efficiency in transport and accelerating the adoption of green technologies will be critical to improving both environmental sustainability and long-term economic resilience for the Corridor.

Testing the scoreboard: the case of the Trans-Caspian Transport Corridor14  TOWARDS A SCOREBOARD TO MEASURE ECONOMIC CORRIDORS’ CONNECTIVITY: THE CASE OF THE TRANS-CASPIAN TRANSPORT CORRIDOR © OECD 2026

Table 1. Selected Indicators of Hard Connectivity Türkiye Georgia Azerbaijan Kazakhstan Road Road Network . Road Density per Land (km/100 square km) 33.93 (2023) 30.37 (2020) 23.16 (2023) 3.54 (2019) Road Network . Growth Rate of Road Network (%) (average) 1.10% (20132023) 0.91% (only available 2018-2020) 0.078% (20132023)

Road Network . Growth Rate of Road Network (%) (average) 1.10% (20132023) 0.91% (only available 2018-2020) 0.078% (20132023) -0.20%% (only available 2011-2019) Road Freight Transport. Share of road freight transport in total inland freight transport 96.23% (2023) 16.12% (2023) 53.83% (2023) 34.71% (2020) Railway Railway Network. Railway Density (km per one hundred sq. km) 1.38 (2022) 1.60 (2023) 2.58 (2023) 0.59 (2023) Railway Network . Growth Rate of Railway Network (average) 1.42% (20142023) - 0.16% (only available 2017-2023) 0.60% (20142023) 0.88% (only available 2010-2019) Railway Freight Transport . Annual Freight Transport (Tonne-kilometres per 1 000 US dollars) 11.84 (2023) 125.74 (2023) 93.15 (2023) 1 766.14 (2020) Railway Electrification. Railway Electrification Rate 52.55% (2022) 98.47% (2023) 53.90% (2023) 26.48% (2023) Maritime Container Transport . Maritime, Container transportTwenty-foot equivalent units 12.556.401 (2023) 701.442 (2023) 44.272 (2023) 22.000 (2020) Maritime Investment. Investment in GDP, approx. 0.0066% (2021) 0.089% (2019) 0.227% (2017) n/a

Maritime Investment. Investment in GDP, approx. 0.0066% (2021) 0.089% (2019) 0.227% (2017) n/a Fleet Condition. Average Age of Vessels (2023) 26 31 34 21 Digital Infrastructure The Network Readiness Index – Technology Access (2024) 81.72 72.24 66.36 68.65 Internet Penetration Rate (% of population using the internet) 86 (2023) 82 (2023) 88 (2022) 93 (2023) Fixed broadband subscriptions (per 100 people) 22.5 (2023) 29.3 (2023) 20.9 (2023) 14.3(2023) Green Infrastructure CO2 emissions from transport in tonnes per one million units of current USD GDP 109.23 (2021) 223.65 (2021) 140.25 (2021) 114.90 (2021) Average Annual Loss by climate (Million USD) 9.04k 504 431 2.41k

Source: OECD Analysis 15

TOWARDS A SCOREBOARD TO MEASURE ECONOMIC CORRIDORS’ CONNECTIVITY: THE CASE OF THE TRANS-CASPIAN TRANSPORT CORRIDOR © OECD 2026

Soft connectivity Soft connectivity measures, including trade facilitation and digitalisation, have progressed, although at varying speeds across the four countries (OECD, 2025 [13]). Effective governance and transparency are essential for trade facilitation, providing certainty for freight operators and enabling seamless cross -border trade. While the four countries covered here perform relatively well on trade community engagement, ap peal procedures, and governance impartiality —aligning closely with OECD averages—the availability of trade -related information remains significantly lower. Problems with access to such information hinder efficiency and decision -making and were also identi fied as a key limitation of this study. Addressing these gaps in future will be crucial for improving trade efficiency and ensuring

averages—the availability of trade -related information remains significantly lower. Problems with access to such information hinder efficiency and decision -making and were also identi fied as a key limitation of this study. Addressing these gaps in future will be crucial for improving trade efficiency and ensuring evidence-based policymaking across the corridor. Trade efficiency is closely linked t