AsDB, 2008, Logistics Development Study of the Greater Mekong Subregion North–South Economic Corridor

Logistics Development Study of the Greater Mekong Subregion NorthSouth Economic Corridor

Summary

Copyright 2008 Asian Development Bank.All rights reserved. Published 2008. Printed in the Philippines. Publication Stock No. 101307. 1. Logistics Analysis 2. North-South Economic Corridor 3. Greater Mekong SubregionThe views expressed in this book are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) or its Board of Governors or the governments they represent. ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use.Use of the term country does not imply any judgment by the authors or ADB as to the legal or other status of any territorial entity.The Asian Development Bank (ADB) encourages printing or copying information exclusively for personal and noncommercial use with proper acknowledgment of ADB. Users are restricted from reselling, redistributing, or creating derivative works for commercial purposes without the express, written consent of ADB.

This document is a summary of a full unpublished report, Logistics Development Study of the North South Economic Corridor, prepared by Mr. Ruth Banomyong, Centre for Logistics Research, Faculty of Commerce & Accountancy, Thammasat University, Thailand. Mr. Banomyong based the study on analysis of the trade and transport logistics development of the NorthSouth Economic Corridor, carried out from September 2006 to May 2007, with assistance from national consultants Mr. Chuntai Zhang (Peoples Republic of China), Mr. Viraxay Phonekeo (Lao Peoples Democratic Republic), Mr. Apichat Sopadang (Thailand), and Ms. Trinh Thi Thu Huong (Viet Nam). Mr. Ronald Antonio Q. Butiong, Senior Regional Cooperation Specialist and Task Manager for Asian Development Bank Regional Technical Assistance No. 6310: Development Study of the NorthSouth Economic Corridor, provided overall guidance and support. Ms. Charisse Tubianosa, consultant for the RETA, also provided assistance to the various activities related to the conduct of the study. Queries relating to this document should be addressed to [email protected].

LogisticsDevelopmentStudyoftheGMSNorthSouthEconomicCorridor


Introduction

Background

The six Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) countries have a shared vision of becoming a prosperous, integrated, and harmonious subregion. To achieve this vision, they have adopted strategies to enhance connectivity and improve competitiveness. The members of the GMS are Cambodia; Yunnan Province and Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region (Guangxi), Peoples Republic of China (PRC); Lao Peoples Democratic Republic (Lao PDR); Myanmar; Thailand; and Viet Nam.

In particular, the members are committed to efforts in three priority geographic areas: the GMS NorthSouth Economic Corridor (NSEC), which has three subcorridors running between Bangkok and Kunming, Haiphong and Kunming, and Nanning and Ha Noi; the EastWest Economic Corridor (EWEC), running between Mawlamyine in Myanmar and Da Nang in Viet Nam; and the Southern Economic Corridor (SEC), linking the southern areas of Thailand, Cambodia, and Viet Nam (see map). The focus of this summary is the NSEC, which embraces the area along the main northsouth transport routes that link the economic hubs in the northern and central areas of GMS.

The ultimate goal in developing the NSEC is to enhance economic development in the area and thereby help improve living standards of the people both in the corridor and elsewhere in the GMS. Various infrastructure investments are already being undertaken by GMS countries in the NSEC and more are planned. The recent completion of more than 200 kilometers of road between Houayxay and Boten in the Lao PDR, together with the scheduled completion of a bridge over the Mekong River between Chiang Khong in Thailand and Houayxay in 2011, will allow goods to be transported by road from Bangkok to Kunming in 30 hours. The improved infrastructure, coupled with


Note: The NorthSouth Economic Corridor encompasses three subcorridors: KunmingBangkok, KunmingHaiphong, and NanningHa Noi.

Map Greater Mekong Subregion economic corridors


enhanced institutional arrangements (particularly cross-border cooperation), will accelerate the process of integrating the NSECs economic structures into the rest of the GMS and the rest of the world.

Yet to reap the NSECs substantial potential benefits, the GMS countries involved need to have a clearer understanding of the opportunities and challenges that will arise from the economic integration process. One aspect of such understanding is an analysis of the NSECs major development issues, particularly because many countries in the subregion currently have inadequate transport infrastructure and weak institutional arrangements, which are constraining economic development and integration. Consequently, at the request of the GMS governments, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) arranged for a logistics development study to be undertaken (Banomyong 2007), as a basis to help identify the development issues and to lay a foundation for constructing policy responses. This document is a summary of that study.

Purpose of the study

The main purpose of the study was to provide a succinct analysis of logistics in the NSEC on the basis of data gathered in the field and to lay a basis for policy recommendations. This summary presents the main outlines of the study as follows. The next section, Corridordevelopment, presents a general discussion of four types of corridorsfrom the simplest, namely transport corridors, through multimodal and logistics corridors, to economic corridors. Statisticalmatters then touches on border and transit trade statistics, including issues in data gathering. Next, Logisticscorridoranalysis outlines a logistics analysis of each corridor within the NSEC, including the methodology adopted, and reveals the substantial cost and time savings to be made between 2000 and 2015. The final section, Corridorassessment, determines how advanced the three subcorridors discussed in this document are.


Infrastructure

Logistics System

ServiceProviders

Institutional Framework

Shippers,Traders,Consignees

Source: Banomyong (2007).

Corridor developmentDecision makers in most countries have little understanding of the concept of logistics and how a logistics policy can be developed. The most common error seems to be viewing a logistics development policy as nothing more than a transport investment infrastructure plan. Logistics is difficult to define, though, because it is an evolving concept. It no longer refers only to the physical movement of goods (e.g., procurement, transport, consolidation, transshipment, storage, and packaging) but also to the facilitation of this movement through the processing of documents, coordination among participants, monitoring of activities, and financing of transactions.

Logistics from a policy perspective therefore requires an overall approach involving four main elements (Figure 1): shippers, traders, and consignees; public and private sector logistics and transport service providers; transport and communications infrastructure; and national and provincial institutions, policies, and

Figure 1 Logistics system framework


rules (the institutional framework). How they interrelate determines the performance of the logistics system, as measured in terms of cost efficiency, responsiveness, reliability, and securityin a word, competitiveness. These performance indicators reflect on both the level of integration and the services capability within a logistics system.

The aim of a logistics policy is to enhance this competitiveness.

A logistics corridor is the third of four stages of corridor development (Table 1). In its earliest manifestation, a transport corridor physically links areas, and is frequently a route between hub centers where sea, inland water, land, rail, and air transportation systems converge.

A logistics corridor moves beyond the physical link and requires a facilitating institutional framework. This framework is particularly important for helping remove bottlenecks at border crossings, a common feature in both transport and logistics corridors (as seen clearly in the figures in the section below, Logisticscorridoranalysis).

Table 1 Stages of corridor development

StageType of corridor

Definition

1 Transport Corridor that physically links an area or region

2 Multimodal Corridor that has more than one mode of transport that can physically link the corridor, i.e., road and rail

3 Logistics Corridor that not only physically links an area or a region but also harmonizes the corridors institutional framework to facilitate efficient flow and storage of freight, and movement of people and related information

4 Economic Corridor that attracts investment and generates economic activity along the less-developed areas in the corridor; requires physical links and institutional framework



The ultimate form of corridor, an economic corridor, does not concentrate economic development in its large towns. Investment and economic development are directed to smaller towns and rural areas along the corridor. This requires harmonization of incentives among the corridors countries to attract private sector investment into economic activities in its less-developed areas. Success depends on the ability to attract investment, which in turn relies on an infrastructure and institutional framework that are appropriate. (The section Corridorassessment, below, analyzes the NSEC in terms of these four levels.)

Statistical mattersGMS trade data are generally presented in value terms only, and consistent (that is, harmonized) regional trade statistics in terms of volume or weight remain, for now, an unachieved goal. However, some customs departments in the GMS tabulate transborder flows at individual crossing points in terms of both value and volume. This provides an indication of the volume of

regional transborder movement by land. But, despite a general increase in intra-GMS trade value, the total is still marginal for most GMS countries, which trade predominantly with North America, Northeast Asia, and Europe.

It is also hard to gather data on the true level of GMS cross-border trade because a large and probably significant shareby its nature impossible to quantifyis informal, that is, trade that bypasses appropriate customs procedures. Formal border trade, conversely, refers to transactions conducted through appropriate customs procedures at the border in accordance

with rules, regulations, and agreements of the governments involved. Where applicable, customs tariffs are collected.


Inconsistencies in trade statistics from different countries or relevant agencies are also common. There is clearly a need to adopt a platform to define and collect regional and national trade data. Harmonized trade statistics, providing not only the value but also the volume of goods flowing within the NSEC, are necessary to provide policy makers with reliable information to formulate appropriate policies for boosting trade.

With these caveats, recent intra-GMS trade statistics are given in Table 2.

Table 2 Trade statistics, million US dollars, calendar years

Exports

From To 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Lao PDR Thailand 81.0 85.0 94.3 104.3 204.4 475.5 431.5

Viet Nam 61.8 56.9 55.2 67.5 88.6 109.5 130.8

PRC 6.8 8.8 10.2 11.4 23.2 45.1 74.8

Cambodia Viet Nam 24.5 32.4 39.2 42.4 46.0 75.0 89.6

PRC 16.7 8.3 6.5 12.6 14.2 15.5 45.5

Myanmar Thailand 735.4 831.2 827.0 1,230.3 1,623.0 2,135.7 2,104.9

PRC 122.0 124.5 154.1 187.7 249.5 229.7 325.1

Thailand PRC 2,862.7 3,552.9 5,707.2 7,097.6 9,105.1 11,810.4 14,834.0

Viet Nam PRC 1,417.4 1,518.3 1,883.1 2,899.1 3,228.1 2,259.9 2,850.5

Imports

To From 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Lao PDR Thailand 451.7 444.0 501.5 639.5 846.2 1,125.4 1,442.8

PRC 59.9 59.7 108.1 108.8 115.9 185.6 175.6

Viet Nam 70.8 71.2 57.0 75.2 76.1 94.1 112.3

Cambodia Thailand 503.9 238.4 216.0 231.3 290.6 415.0 1,491.1

PRC 86.9 197.8 223.4 341.8 423.5 523.9 915.4

Viet Nam 109.5 98.4 119.2 168.7 181.6 269.9 322.2

PRC Thailand 4,712.8 5,598.5 8,827.1 11,541.6 13,993.7 17,961.7 21,965.8

Myanmar PRC 547.3 797.3 998.7 1,029.2 1,028.4 1,328.0 1,834.1

Thailand 390.5 355.9 483.3 665.4 777.3 837.9 1,054.6

Thailand PRC 3,710.7 4,928.2 6,066.9 8,181.8 11,153.3 13,800.9 16,382.0

Viet Nam PRC 1,606.2 2,158.8 3,138.6 4,595.1 5,899.7 8,215.2 12,383.5

Thailand 792.3 955.2 1,282.2 1,858.6 2,374.1 3,403.2 4,183.1

Source: Statistical Database System, Asian Development Bank (downloaded 17 June 2008).

10 LogisticsDevelopmentStudyoftheGMSNorthSouthEconomicCorridor

Logistics corridor analysis

Methodology

To formulate adequate logistics development policies, a methodology is needed to describe the current situation in the NSEC. (Box 1 gives a summary view of current infrastructure characteristics in the GMS.) Ideally, a logistics system scorecard based on the four components of a logistics system described above (infrastructure, institutional framework, traders, and service providers) would have been prepared and used as a starting point in terms of the data required for evaluation purposes.

However, it was impossible in the study to gather all the necessary data in the study, and a logistics cost/distance and time/distance model was developed, constructed on the basis of a simplified logistics activity map of specific products moving within the NSEC.

The model was adapted from Beresford and Dubey (1990), and Banomyong (2000). This model describes graphically the cost and time components of movement from origin to destination along different routes, and illustrates the delays at borders or other inspection points up to the point of destination.

Time spent at border crossings and transshipment between transport modes (or both) is represented

Box 1 Infrastructure characteristics of the NorthSouth Economic Corridor

Infrastructure in certain segments of the NorthSouth Economic Corridor is still lacking and needs to be upgraded to bring all sections up to a similar standard. The table presents an overall assessment of the infrastructure.

Table Infrastructure characteristics

Road PortInland water

transportAirport Railway

Guangxi (PRC)

Fair/Good Fair Fair Good/Fair Good

Yunnan (PRC)

Fair/Good Fair Fair Good/Fair Good

Lao PDR Fair/Poor Poor Fair/Poor Poor Not applicable

Myanmar Poor Poor Fair Poor Fair

Thailand Good Fair Fair Good/Fair Good

Viet Nam Fair/Poor Fair Fair Fair Fair


LogisticsDevelopmentStudyoftheGMSNorthSouthEconomicCorridor 11

by a step up the cost curve (see Figures 2, 3, and 4, below). Examples include document fees, transit charges, and cargo clearance costs. The height of the step is proportionate to the amount of the charge. In this regard, bottlenecks at points of transshipment can be analyzed as part of the overall logistics corridor.

The data used for this graphical model were based on costs, quotes, or transit time components that were obtained in interviews with traders, transit and transport service providers, and government officials. These data are not usually publicly available but are of critical importance for assessing logistics corridor efficiency.

The information needed to build the graphical model includes the origin and destination of the cargo; the full routing from origin to destination, with an indication of the places where the cargo is essentially stationary (such as border crossings and points of intermodal transfer); mode of transport for each leg; distance involved for each leg; transit time for each leg (in days and hours); and costs or quotes for each leg.

The cost data gathered are then plotted against the distance for each leg of the journey. The figures show the relative costs of each leg (or mode, where applicable), as well as indicate the approximate proportion of nontransport costs in relation to transport costs. These data can highlight areas for action by policy makers.

Similarly, with time plotted against distance, the relative speed of transit transport for each leg can be compared, and the bottlenecks at transshipment points can be identified. The higher the step, the more likely the border crossing (or nodal link) is a bottleneck.

BangkokKunming subcorridor

The BangkokKunming subcorridor, primarily Route No. 3 East, is expected to become an important link in the GMS, functioning as a land-bridge between southern PRC and other GMS countries, particularly Thailand. Historically, the overland links between Bangkok and Kunming have been limited.

From Bangkok, the subcorridor runs north to Chiang Rai,


where it splits into three branches (see the map above). All branches meet again either at, or beyond, Jinghong:

Route No. 3 West (R3W): Chiang RaiMai Sai/TachilekKengtungMengla/DaluoJinghong;

Via Mekong River: Chiang RaiChiang SaenMekong RiverJinghong; and

Route No. 3 East (R3E): Chiang RaiChiang Khong/HouayxayLouangnamthaBoten/Mohan(beyond) Jinghong.

The subcorridor then continues through Puer and Yuxi to Kunming.

The infrastructure characteristics of the BangkokKunming subcorridor are summarized in Table 3.

Most merchants and logistics service providers are reluctant to use R3W, because of major obstacles in Myanmar, including political uncertainty, transit fees of up to 90% of the value of goods transported, and the quality of the road itself.

The route via the Mekong River has the lowest total costs but takes the longest time.

With the completion of the stretch of road between Houayxay and Boten in the Lao PDR this year, R3E is almost complete. Once the bridge between Chiang Khong and Houayxay is built, probably in 2011, the BangkokR3EKunming route is expected to be the

major land route for transportation between Bangkok and Kunming, overshadowing R3W and the route via the Mekong River.

Using 2000, 2006, and projected 2015 data, the panels in Figure 2 illustrate how cost and time decrease along the three logistics corridors of the BangkokKunming route.

Costs are projected on 2006 prices with no allowance for inflation; and of course, they did not predict the recent huge run-up in oil prices. It is also assumed that the GMS Cross-Border Transport Agreement, or CBTA, will be operating effectively by 2015. These comments also apply to the Haiphong

Kunming and NanningHa Noi figures.The figure panels show the US dollar costs of moving

1 ton of para rubber from Bangkok to Kunming, by the three routes (R3W, via the Mekong River, and R3E), in


2000, 2006, and 2015. The lines on the cost/distance charts and the time/distance charts show the given cost or time at a given distance from Bangkok.

The steps show the high costs entailed in crossing borders (or transshipping goods). The efficiency of a given corridor is very much dependent on how costly and how quickly borders can be crossed. The gradual implementation of the CBTA, which came into force at end-2003, and of its implementing guidelines, is expected to play a crucial role in reducing border-crossing cost and time.

The figure panels clearly show that the total cost and time involved in shipping goods between Bangkok and Kunming fall substantially.

Table Basic characteristics of three BangkokKunming routes

Route Logistics infrastructure R3W (km)

Via Mekong River (km)

R3E (km)

R3W, Via Mekong River, R3E

BangkokChiang Rai 4-lane highway 830 830 830

R3W Chiang RaiMai Sai/Tachilek 4-lane highway 60

Mai Sai/TachilekKengtungMengla/Daluo

2-lane highway 253

Mengla/DaluoJinghong 2-lane highway 140

JinghongKunming 4- and 6-lane highway 534

Via Mekong River

Chiang RaiChiang Saen 2-lane highway 60

Chiang SaenJinghonga Mekong River and port 360

JinghongKunming 4- and 6-lane highway 534

R3E Chiang RaiChiang Khong 2-lane highway 110

Chiang Khong/HouayxayBoten/Mohan

2-lane highway 228

Boten/MohanKunming 2-, 4-, and 6-lane highway

688

1,817 1,784 1,856

Note: Distances take account of all ongoing and planned infrastructure investment projects completed in 2008.a Jinghong port has been earmarked for passenger transport, while Guanlei port, 7580 km south of Jinghong, is becoming a dedicated freight terminal.Source: Banomyong (2007).


100

200

300

400

500

200

400

600

800

1,00

01,20

01,40

01,60

01,80

02,00

0

Cost

Distanc

e

Ban

gkok

600

Kunm

ing

700 0

$107

1,83

4 km

$210

1,90

6 km

$269

1,86

7 km

Men

gla

Dalu

o

Chia

ng R

ai

Houa

yxay

Chia

ng S

aen

Tach

ilek

Chia

ng K

hong

Mai

Sai

Jing

hong

Mohan

Boten

2015

100

200

300

400

500

200

400

600

800

1,00

01,20

01,40

01,60

01,80

02,00

0

Cost

Distanc

e

Ban

gkok

600

Chia

ng R

ai

Mengla

Daluo

Houayxay

Boten

Mohan

Chia

ng S

aen

Jing

hong

$406

1,83

4 km

$563

1,90

6 km

$639

1,86

7 km

Kunm

ing

Tach

ilek

Chia

ng K

hong

700 0

Mai

Sai

2000

100

200

300

400

500

200

400

600

800

1,00

01,20

014

001,60

01,80

02,00

0

Cost

Distanc

e

Ban

gkok

600

Kunm

ing

700 0

Mengla

Daluo

Boten

$470

1,86

7 km $2

711,

834

km

$392

1,90

6 km

Mohan

Chia

ng R

ai

Mai

Sai

Houa

yxay

Chia

ng S

aen

Chia

ng K

hong

Jing

hong

Tach

ilek

2006

102030405060708090100

110

120

128

hour

s1,

834

km

78 h

ours

1,90

6 km

77 h

rs1,

867

km

130

Chia

ng R

ai

Chia

ng S

aen

Jing

hong

200

400

600

800

1,00

01,

200

1,40

01,

600

1,80

02,

000

Bangkok

0

Time

Kunm

ing

Distance

Men

gla

Dalu

oM

ohan

Bote

nTa

chile

kM

ai S

ai

Chia

ng K

hong

Houa

yxay

2000

102030405060708090100

110

120

88 h

ours

1,83

4 km

51 h

ours

1,90

6 km

46 h

rs1,

867

km

130

Chia

ng R

ai

Chia

ng S

aen

Jing

hong

200

400

600

800

1,00

01,

200

1,40

01,

600

1,80

02,

000

Bangkok

0

Time

Kunm

ing

Distance

Men

gla

Dalu

oM

ohan

Bote

nTa

chile

kM

ai S

ai

Chia

ng K

hong

Houa

yxay

2006

102030405060708090100

110

120

70 h

ours

1,83

4 km

30 h

ours

1,90

6 km

30 h

rs1,

867

km

130

Chia

ng R

ai

Chia

ng S

aen

Jing

hong

200

400

600

800

1,00

01,

200

1,40

01,

600

1,80

02,

000

Bangkok

0

Time

Kunm

ing

Distanc

e

MenglaD

aluo

Mohan

Boten

Tachilek

Mai

Sai

Chia

ng K

hong

Houa

yxay

2015

Legen

d:

All

route

s; R

oute

No.

3 W

est;

Via

Mek

ong R

iver

; Route

No.

3 E

ast.

Dis

tance

s ar

e in

kilo

met

ers,

tim

e in

hours

. Cost

s, in U

S d

olla

rs,

are

those

rel

ated

to t

ransp

ort

ing 1

ton o

f par

a ru

bber

.

Fig

ure

2

Co

st a

nd

tim

e v

s d

ista

nce

, B

an

gko

k

Ku

nm

ing

, 2

00

0,

20

06

, 2

01

5

Source:

Ban

om

yong (

2007).


HaiphongKunming subcorridor

The transport infrastructure in the HaiphongKunming subcorridor of the NSEC is currently undergoing rehabilitation and the physical links are expected to be completed soon. The PRC and Viet Nam have signed an agreement to establish a one city, two country arrangement at their border towns at Hekou and Lao Cai. This is expected to provide the impetus for enhanced border cooperation between the countries.

The panels in Figure 3 illustrate how cost and time fall along the HaiphongKunming corridor over the three years, 2000, 2006, and 2015. The data used in this section are based on the movement of a laden container based on freight all-kind rate.

Here too, border crossings are again the biggest bottleneck initially in the efficient movement of goods, as shown by the steep steps for 2000 (and 2006 to a degree), though they are not as pronounced as for BangkokKunming.

Figure 3 also indicates that the shares of cost and time of transport in the total gradually increase a little, as the shares of ports, borders, and transit generally decrease, once more revealing the importance of efficient border crossings. This, of course, is in a context of sharply falling total corridor cost and time.

NanningHa Noi subcorridor

Most traffic at the border gates involves trading between Viet Nam and the PRC. Transit trade, such as reexport activities at Lang Son and Mong Cai to Thailand and Cambodia, is still very limited. The four-lane expressway linking Nanning to Youyiguan has been completed, making it possible to reach the border within 1.5 hours from Nanning. New facilities at the border crossing have been constructed and a new PRC logistics park is being expanded to serve the potential increase in border traffic. The panels in Figure 4 illustrates the cost and time components.


Figure 3 Cost and time vs distance, HaiphongKunming, 2000, 2006, 2015

400

100 200 300 400 800 900

Cost

Distance

Haiphong port

$772

$1,579

$1,904Kunming

2,000

0

2000

600

800

200

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

500 600 700

2006

2015

Ha Noi

HekouLao Cai

HekouLao Cai

HekouLao Cai

20

100 200 300 400 800 900

Time

Distance

Haiphong port

26.5 hours

58 hours

85 hours

Kunming

0

2000

30

40

10

50

60

70

80

90

500 600 700

2006

2015Ha Noi

HekouLao Cai

HekouLao Cai

Hekou

Lao Cai

Note: Costs, in US dollars, are those related to transporting a laden container, based on freight all-kind rate, 885 kilometers.Source: Banomyong (2007).

The data used for this corridor are based on the movement of a 30-ton full truckload (FTL) of steel products from Nanning to Ha Noi.

The figure points to a larger relative drop in cost and time associated with crossing the border than for transporting goods.

Corridor assessmentIn the logistics analysis of the NSEC, the infrastructure along the corridor is improving, and should be in place by 2015. The institutional framework, such as the CBTA, is also in place but actual implementation is still weak with regard to trade and transport facilitation measures. This is reflected in delays for export and import as well as the number of documents required.


Figure 4 Cost and time vs distance, NanningHa Noi, 2000, 2006, 2015

400

50 100 150 200 400 450

Cost

Distance

Nanning

$270

$790

$1,080Ha Noi

0

2000

600

800

200

1,000

1,200

250 300 350

2006

2015

Lang SonPingxiang

Lang Son

PingxiangLang Son

Pingxiang10

50 100 150 200 400 450

Time

Distance

Nanning

c. 8 hours

c. 19 hours

37 hours Ha Noi

0

2000

15

25

5

35

40

250 300 350

2006

2015

Lang SonPingxiang

Lang Son

Pingxiang Lang Son

Pingxiang

30

20

Note: Costs, in US dollars, are those related to transporting a 30-ton full truckload of steel products, 440 kilometers.Source: Banomyong (2007).

Border crossings are the weakest link in the NSEC corridors and special attention must be made to deal with border issues. Time is essential as the infrastructure is progressing faster than the institutional arrangements between countries. This is also a reason that transit trade is currently minimal relative to border trade.

The level assessment conducted on the various subcorridors of the NSEC, based on the proposed classification in Table 1 earlier, shows no level 4 (economic) corridors in place along the NSEC (Tables 4, 5, and 6).

The overall level assessment is based on the weakest link in the corridor. At present, therefore, the NSEC is still primarily a transport corridor. Some logistics corridors exist, but only within a country, not at GMS level. Thus the corridor continues to forgo vast potential for attracting investments in employment-generating economic activities. However, if border


crossings are improved, transport corridors along the NSEC will possibly evolve into logistics corridorsand, with further progress, eventually transform themselves into fully fledged economic corridors.

Table Level assessment of the BangkokKunming subcorridor

From To Level

Bangkok Chiang Rai 3

R3WChiang Rai Mae Sai/Tachilek 3Mae Sai/Tachilek Mengla/Daluo 1Daluo Kunming 3

Via Mekong RiverChiang Rai Chiang Saen 3Chiang Saen Jinghong 2Jinghong Kunming 3

R3EChiang Rai Chiang Khong/Houayxay 3Chiang Khong/Houayxay Boten/Mohan 1Boten/Mohan Kunming 3

Overall level 1


Table Level assessment of the HaiphongKunming subcorridor

From To Level

Haiphong Ha Noi 3Ha Noi Lao Cai/Hekou 1Lao Cai/Hekou Kunming 3

Overall level 1



Table Level assessment of the NanningHa Noi subcorridor

From To Level

Nanning Pingxiang 3Pingxiang Lang Son 1Lang Son Ha Noi 3

Overall level 1


References

Banomyong, R. 2000. Multimodal Transport Corridors in South East Asia: A Case Study Approach. Ph.D Thesis, Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, United Kingdom.

. 2007. Logistics Development Study of the North South Economic Corridor. Asian Development Bank, Manila.

Beresford, A.K.C. and R.C. Dubey. 1990. Handbook on the Management and Operations of Dry Ports. Document RDP/LDC/7. UNCTAD, Geneva.

Asian Development Bank6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City1550 Metro ManilaPhilippineswww.adb.orgPublication Stock No. 101307ISBN 978-971-561-714-7

About the Asian Development BankADBs vision is an Asia and Pacific region free of poverty. Its mission is to help its developing member countries substantially reduce poverty and improve the quality of life of their people. Despite the regions many successes, it remains home to two thirds of the worlds poor. Nearly 1.7 billion people in the region live on $2 or less a day. ADB is committed to reducing poverty through inclusive economic growth, environmentally sustainable growth, and regional integration.

Based in Manila, ADB is owned by 67 members, including 48 from the region. Its main instruments for helping its developing member countries are policy dialogue, loans, equity investments, guarantees, grants, and technical assistance. In 2007, it approved $10.1 billion of loans, $673 million of grant projects, and technical assistance amounting to $243 million.

Printed in the Philippines

As one plank in their strategy for realizing a prosperous, integrated, and harmonious subregion, the six countries of the Greater Mekong Subregion are developing a modern transport infrastructure.

The NorthSouth Economic Corridor (NSEC)with its three subcorridors between Bangkok and Kunming, Haiphong and Kunming, and Nanning and Ha Noiforms a major element in this infrastructure.

Using cost and time charts, this document analyzes the likely benefits generated by the NSEC, with a focus on the split between the cost and time involved in transportation and in border crossing and transshipment. It also assesses the degree to which the NSEC, as it moves away from being purely a transport corridor, is becoming a fully integrated economic corridor.

ISBN 978-971-561-714-7

9 7 8 9 7 1 5 6 1 7 1 4 7

Documents

AsDB, 2008, Logistics Development Study of the Greater Mekong Subregion North–South Economic Corridor