CDS Northern Corridor Fact Sheet

8/2/2019 CDS Northern Corridor Fact Sheet

1/4

East Africa Corridor Diagnostic StudyNorthern and Central Corridors

NORTHERN CORRIDOR

EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE

Te Northern Corridor connects the

Port o Mombasa to markets in Kenya,

Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi as well as

southern Sudan, parts o eastern Demo-

cratic Republic o Congo (DRC), and

parts o northern anzania. It also links

the East Arican Community (EAC) tostates on its periphery: South Sudan,

DRC and Ethiopia. It is strategic be-

cause o the importance o the Port o

Mombasa to the region.

Mombasa Port

As a multipurpose port, Mombasa handles container-

ized cargo, general cargo, dry bulk, and liquid bulk. In

2009 the total throughput o the port was 19.1 million

tons; ollowing an average annual growth rate o 8.8 percentrom 2002 to 2009. Te predominant trac is imports, which

represent 86.6 percent o total trac. For imports, 38.9 percent

is liquid bulk, 28.1 percent is dry bulk, 24.7 percent is contain-

erized cargo, and only 8.2 percent is general cargo. In 2009,

transit trac was around 5 million tons, o which 80 percent

was or Uganda.

Road System

Te trunk road network o the Northern Corridor main axis

that stretches rom Mombasa to Bujumbura via Malaba is

1,970 km and to Goma is 1,846 km.

Rail System

Te Northern Corridor rail system operates within Kenya and

Uganda as a narrow gauge (1,000 mm) system, compatible

with the anzania Railway Limited (RL) system on the

Central Corridor in anzania. Te line extends rom the port

o Mombasa to Nairobi, and urther to Malaba, connecting to

the Ugandan rail system serving Kampala and on to Kasese close

to the DRC border. Tere are several spurs, the most important

being the line to Kisumu on Lake Victoria, and the spur to

Magadi Soda south o Nairobi. Te rail link to anzania is

closed, because o low trac demand.

Border Crossings

Border crossings in the region are characterized by poor inra-

structure, inadequate coordination and congestion. Te busiest

and most congested border on the route is at Malaba between

Kenya and Uganda. One stop border post (OSBP) operations

are being introduced on all the Northern Corridor borders

with support rom the World Bank and Arican Development

Bank as part o the East Arica rade and ransport Facilitation

Project. Te regional OSBP legal ramework being developed

by the East Arica Community with support rom the Japanese

International Cooperation Agency (JICA) provides the legal

jurisdiction and structure, operating principles and methods o

coordination.

Cargo clearance can be done at the border, but in most cases is

done at inland clearance centers (ICDs), most in capital cities.

Where clearances are done at the ICDs, the border clearance

is generally done in a ew hours. Nevertheless, the clearance

process is not complete and the 1-3 day nal clearance at inland

centers is part o the overall process. Most o the trucks operat-

ing on the route are Kenyan-owned since it is easier or them to

arrange cargo rom the port and then seek return hauls in the

other countries. Nevertheless, the cargo is signicantly imbal-

anced in avor o imports and many return hauls are empty.

Freight orwarders are represented by national and regional as-sociations. Tese associations will be important co-drivers or

more eective transport acilitation measures on the Corridor.


2/4

CURRENT PERFORMANCE

Te CDS analyzed the price, time and reliability o each o

the destinations rom the port o Mombasa or imports o

dierent handling types o cargo served by road. wo trans-

port alternatives were considered or the segments between

Mombasa and Nairobi, one via road and one via rail. Figure

1 shows that the rail alternative is less expensive and aster

than the road alternative. Tis is mostly due to how the

customs clearance at the port is handled. Te containers thatare transported by rail are identied when ofoaded rom the

ship and immediately transported to the rail yard or loading

into a train with the maniest. Customs is cleared at the ICD

in Nairobi given that the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA)

allows direct bill o lading to the ICD.

In terms o total cost (including reight orwarding and extra

inventory costs) the rail connection to Nairobi is 19 percent lower

than road. In terms o time rail is 20 percent quicker that road.

Te combination o port and ICD costs account or 50 percent in

the road option and 34 percent in the rail option; the remaining

costs o both alternatives are related entirely to the surace trans-port cost. ime at the port and ICD or containers transported by

road is 97 percent o the total time, while via rail is 69 percent.

Tere are also two transport alternatives between Mombasa and

Kampala, one via road and one via rail. Te rail connection is

slightly less expensive considering the higher extra inventory

cost associated with the unreliability o rail service. In terms o

time, the rail alternative takes 43 percent longer than road.

In terms o distribution o cost and time, the ports share o

the total cost is reduced compared to that shown or Nairobi.

Te port now represents 14 percent o the cost or the road

connection and 14 percent or rail. With respect to time, theport represents 67 percent and the Malaba border post 8 percent

or the road connection while the port represents 47 percent or

the rail connection. Tis is due to the increased cost and time

taken up by the longer land transport component to Kampala.

Figure 2 presents the results or destinations served only by road.

When looking at the total cost, the most expensive destination is

Nimule due to higher rates to account or security risks betweenNimule and southern Sudan. Another expensive destination is

Bujumburawhere trucks are required to wait or up to a week

while the cargo is cleared. For the MombasaKigali pair, the port

only represents 8 percent o the transport cost while still taking

up most o the time with a 58 percent share. Tis cost distribu-

tion is very similar or Bujumbura, Nimule, and Kasindi. In

terms o time, the port share decreases in cases where the border

and inland clearance takes longer. Tus the port share o total

transport time to Bujumbura is 53 percent and to Nimule is

57 percent. Te delays also have signicant cost implications

because the trucks are required to remain loaded while theclearance is completed. On the graph, border represents both

the time spent at the border and at the inland clearance oce.

Kampala (Road)Nairobi (Rail) Kampala (Rail)Nairobi (Road)

ICD27%100%

RoadBorder

8%

100%

Rail31%100% 100%

ICD27%100%

RoadBorder

8%

100%

Rail31%100% 100%

ICD27%100%

RoadBorder

8%

100%

Rail31%100% 100%

ICD27%ICD42%80%

100%

Road25%

Border8%

80%

100%

Rail31%80%

100%

Rail53%80%

100%

ICD27%ICD42%80%

100%

Road25%

Border8%

80%

100%

Rail66%Rail31%

80%

100%

Rail53%80%

100%

RoadRoad3%

ICD27%ICD42%

60%

80%

100%

Road86%

Road25%

Border8%

60%

80%

100%

Rail66%Rail31%

60%

80%

100%

Rail86%Rail53%

60%

80%

100%

Road50%

Road3%

ICD27%ICD42%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Road86%

Road25%

Border8%

60%

80%

100%

Rail66%Rail31%

60%

80%

100%

Rail86%Rail53%

60%

80%

100%

Road50%

Road3%

ICD27%ICD42%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Road86%

Road25%

Border8%

60%

80%

100%

Rail66%Rail31%

60%

80%

100%

Rail86%Rail53%

60%

80%

100%

Port

Road50%

Road3%

ICD27%ICD42%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port67%

Road86%

Road25%

Border8%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port

Rail66%Rail31%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Rail86%Rail53%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port55%

Road50%

Road3%

ICD27%ICD42%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port67%

Road86%

Road25%

Border8%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port69%

Rail66%Rail31%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port

Rail86%Rail53%

40%

60%

80%

100%

PortPort55%

Road50%

Road3%

ICD27%ICD42%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port67%

Road86%

Road25%

Border8%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

PortPort69%

Rail66%Rail31%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port47%

Rail86%Rail53%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port23%

Port55%

Road50%

Road3%

ICD27%ICD42%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port14%

Port67%

Road86%

Road25%

Border8%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port34%

Port69%

Rail66%Rail31%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port14%

Port47%

Rail86%Rail53%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port23%

Port55%

Road50%

Road3%

ICD27%ICD42%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port14%

Port67%

Road86%

Road25%

Border8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port34%

Port69%

Rail66%Rail31%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port14%

Port47%

Rail86%Rail53%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port23%

Port55%

Road50%

Road3%

ICD27%ICD42%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CostUSD/ TEU T imeHrs.Port14%

Port67%

Road86%

Road25%

Border8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CostUSD/TEU TimeHrs.

Port34%

Port69%

Rail66%Rail31%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CostUSD/ TEU T im eHrs.Port14%

Port47%

Rail86%Rail53%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CostUSD/ TEU Ti meHrs.

Port23%

Port55%

Road50%

Road3%

ICD27%ICD42%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Port67%

Road86%

Road25%

Border8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CostUS D/TEU TimeHrs.

Port34%

Port69%

Rail66%Rail31%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CostU SD/T EU T im eHrs.Port14%

Port47%

Rail86%Rail53%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CostUSD/ TEU Ti meHrs.

Port23%

Port55%

Road50%

Road3%

ICD27%ICD42%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Port67%

Road86%

Road25%

Border8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CostUS D/TEU TimeHrs.

Port34%

Port69%

Rail66%Rail31%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CostU SD/T EU T im eHrs.Port14%

Port47%

Rail86%Rail53%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CostUSD/ TEU Ti meHrs.Elements

Cost TimeElements

Cost TimeElements

Cost TimeElements

Cost Time

USD/TEU Hrs. USD/TL Hrs. USD/TEU Hrs. USD/TL Hrs.

Port 315 217 Port 315 217 Port 297 217 Port 297 217

Road 701 11 Road - - Road 1,801 80 Road - -

Border - - Border - - Border - 26 Border - 2

Rail - - Rail 620 99 Rail - - Rail 1,762 243,

ICD Lake - - Lake - - Lake - -- - - - - -

Transport 1,396 396 Transport 935 316 Transport 2,098 323 Transport 2,059 462

Freight Fwd. Fee 300 - Freight Fwd. Fee 300 - Freight Fwd. Fee 300 - Freight Fwd. Fee 300 -

Extra Inventory 619 - Extra Inventory 632 - Extra Inventory 621 - Extra Inventory 632 -

Total Total Total Total, , , ,

Source: Nathan Associates Inc.

FIGURE 1. Cost and Time for Destinations Served by Road and Rail Transport, 2010

(imports of light containers)


3/4

CAUSES OF INEFFICIENCY

Te perormance o the Northern Corridor is aected by numer-

ous operational, policy, procedural, and administrative issues.

Ship waiting in Mombasa is oten three to our days. Crane

productivity at the specialized terminal is about 10 moves/

crane-hour, with berth productivity o 15 moves/berth-hour.

Berth productivity at the conventional terminal is not much

dierent than that at the specialized terminal, at 1314 moves/

berth-hour. Te reasons or the low productivity indicated by

Mombasa lines are yard congestion, trac jam inside the termi-

nal, equipment breakdown, shortage o equipment, lack o mod-

ern erminal Operating System (OS) and labor motivation.

In Kenya, vehicles licensed or transit cannot carry domestic

cargo and must use prescribed transit routes. Tis has the eect

o many return trips being empty. Similarly in anzania, the

Revenue Authority licenses trucks or transit or domestic with

the same eect.

Domestic road transport policies in all EAC states are aimed

at deregulating market access, which has had some positiveeects, but the lack o qualitative regulation has also had

several undesirable consequences. Tese include low entry

barriers leading to cutthroat competition, low saety levels

and poor service quality.

Existing overloading control strategy is aimed at achieving 100

percent inspection o all commercial vehicles. Te high intensity

o checking increases journey times and provides an added in-

centive or corruption. Dierences in national limits complicate

cross-border operations. Tere is also no regional consistency

in terms o the requency o checks as some states (Burundi,

Rwanda) have no existing weighbridge inrastructure.

Te Northern Corridor suers rom serious delays caused by

inormal stops and check points on the route. Some are ocially

sanctioned and some are created to collect payments or police,

transit authorities and local communities. Without sucient

law enorcement vehicles, stationary control points are essential

to check or driving licenses, vehicle registration, vehicle roadworthiness certicates, and to inspect vehicles or contraband

and tracking. Nevertheless, unocial stops delay transit trans-

port and add cost to transport which is passed on to the shipper.

In other cases, they are payments to avoid regulatory control,

such as payments to avoid overloading regulation.

Insucient use is made o customs tools to expedite processing.

Clearance modernization is being implemented at the national

level and the extent o implementation is varied. ools include

risk management, authorized economic operators, customs

bonds and control points and preclearance.

Failure to implement an eective transit regime impedes transit

movement in terms o cost, time and reliability. Many aspects

o a transit regime exist, but have not been ully implemented.

Common vehicle regulations have been issued, but also not ully

implemented and there are current eorts to change again. Road

worthiness standards have been promoted, but there is lack o

trust in the systems o other EAC partner states. Customs dec-

laration have been simplied and harmonized, but each country

still requires its own orm under national insignia.

FIGURE 2. Cost and Time for Destinations Served Only by Road Transport, Imports, 2010 (imports of light containers)

Kigali (Road) Nimule (Road) Kasindi (Road)Bujumbura (Road)

Border14%

80%

100%

Border19%

80%

100%

Border13%

100% Border10%

100%Border

14%

80%

100%

Border19%

80%

100%

Border13%

100% Border10%

100%Border

14%

80%

100%

Border19%

80%

100%

Border13%

100% Border10%

100%Border

14%

80%

100%

Border19%

80%

100%

Border13%

100% Border10%

100%

Road

Border14%

80%

100%

Border19%

80%

100%

Road

Border13%

80%

100%

Road

Border10%

80%

100%

Road28%

Border14%

80%

100%

Road28%

Border19%

80%

100%

Road30%

Border13%

80%

100%

Road32%

Border10%

80%

100%

RoadRoad28%

Border14%

60%

80%

100%

RoadRoad28%

Border19%

60%

80%

100%

Road

Road30%

Border13%

60%

80%

100%

Road

Road32%

Border10%

60%

80%

100%

Road92%

Road28%

Border14%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Road94%

Road28%

Border19%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Road94%

Road30%

Border13%

60%

80%

100%

Road94%

Road32%

Border10%

60%

80%

100%

Road92%

Road28%

Border14%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Road94%

Road28%

Border19%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Road94%

Road30%

Border13%

60%

80%

100%

Road94%

Road32%

Border10%

60%

80%

100%

Port

Road92%

Road28%

Border14%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Road94%

Road28%

Border19%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Road94%

Road30%

Border13%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Road94%

Road32%

Border10%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port58%

Road92%

Road28%

Border14%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port53%

Road94%

Road28%

Border19%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port57%

Road94%

Road30%

Border13%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port58%

Road94%

Road32%

Border10%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port58%

Road92%

Road28%

Border14%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port53%

Road94%

Road28%

Border19%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port57%

Road94%

Road30%

Border13%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port58%

Road94%

Road32%

Border10%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port8%

Port58%

Road92%

Road28%

Border14%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port 6%

Port53%

Road94%

Road28%

Border19%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port57%

Road94%

Road30%

Border13%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port58%

Road94%

Road32%

Border10%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port8%

Port58%

Road92%

Road28%

Border14%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port6%

Port53%

Road94%

Road28%

Border19%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port6%

Port57%

Road94%

Road30%

Border13%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port6%

Port58%

Road94%

Road32%

Border10%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Port8%

Port58%

Road92%

Road28%

Border14%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CostU SD/T EU Ti meHrs.Port6%

Port53%

Road94%

Road28%

Border19%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Port57%

Road94%

Road30%

Border13%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Port58%

Road94%

Road32%

Border10%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CostUSD/TE U TimeHrs.Port8%

Port58%

Road92%

Road28%

Border14%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Port53%

Road94%

Road28%

Border19%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Port57%

Road94%

Road30%

Border13%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CostUSD/T EU Ti meHrs.Port6%

Port58%

Road94%

Road32%

Border10%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CostUSD/TE U TimeHrs.Port8%

Port58%

Road92%

Road28%

Border14%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Port53%

Road94%

Road28%

Border19%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Port57%

Road94%

Road30%

Border13%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CostUSD/T EU Ti meHrs.Port6%

Port58%

Road94%

Road32%

Border10%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CostUSD/TE U TimeHrs.Elements

Cost meElements

Cost meElements

Cost meElements

Cost me

USD/TEU Hrs. USD/TEU Hrs. USD/TEU Hrs. USD/TEU Hrs.

Port 297 217 Port 297 217 Port 297 217 Port 297 217

Road 3,604 105 Road 4,653 114 Road 5,087 114 Road 4,522 119

Border - 54 Border - 80 Border - 50 Border 5 36

Rail - - Rail - - Rail - - Rail - -- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

Transport 3,901 376 Transport 4,950 411 Transport 5,384 381 Transport 4,824 372

Freight Fwd. Fee 300 - Freight Fwd. Fee 300 - Freight Fwd. Fee 300 - Freight Fwd. Fee 300 -

Extra Inventory 622 - Extra Inventory 623 - Extra Inventory 623 - Extra Inventory 618 -

Total Total Total Total, , , ,

Source: Nathan Associates Inc.


4/4www.t.

The easT africa corridor diagnosTic sTudy is a projecT of:

proposed projecTs

Improving the eciency and reliability o the Northern

Corridor will require the adoption and implementation o an

integrated Action Plan to simultaneously address inrastruc-

ture constraints and bottlenecks and operational ineciencies,

policies and procedures. Te CDS proposes projects that can

improve corridor perormance immediately or within the next

fve years.

Table 1. Proposed Northern Corridor

Infrastructure Projects

iMproVed perforMance

Implementation o the CDS proposed projects will have a sig-

nifcant impact on Northern Corridor perormance. Generally,

the price to serve Northern Corridor destinations by road could

decrease by 25 percent and those destinations served by rail by

11-14 percent. In terms o time, the destinations served by rail

could enjoy an average reduction o 53 percent in shipment

time, while destinations served by road could have a reduction

in time ranging rom 21-33 percent.

Te proposed road projects are concentrated on the Northern

Corridor (and not on its eeder roads) and are expected to

reduce signifcantly the price and time as well as the variation in

time (reliability). Te higher savings on road transport are due

to the implementation o projects that increase the road capacity

and rehabilitate the road surace. Tis reduces congestion and

vehicle operating costs.

Te proposed rail rehabilitation projects, as indicated by Rit

Valley Railways (RVR) representatives, are expected to mainly

have an impact on time and reliability. Te projects are ex-

pected to concentrate in reducing derailments (improve saety)

and improving reliability o locomotives. Te impact o port

improvements on road and rail alternatives is also important,although its impact is greater when considering the time due to

its larger share o it (with port accounting or about 70 percent

o the total time).

Te proposed port projects (integrated ICDs, new port termi-

nal, etc.) are expected to reduce the port costs by 24 percent and

more importantly reduce port time by 39 percent. Te proposed

projects have an even greater impact on reliability with gains in

reliability o more than 60 percent. Tis signifcant improve-

ment in the overall reliability o the road and rail transport is the

result o the reduction in variations o time caused by conges-

tion and potential accidents on the road and the improvemento rail operations and reductions in the number o derailments

and locomotive breakdowns.

Port ProjectsMombasa Short-term Container Handlin Ca acit 35.0

Mombasa New Container Terminal Ki evu West 342.5Mombasa New Petroleum Facilit 55.8Mombasa Dr Bulk and General Car o Facilities 1.7Lamu Corridor New Port and Associated Infrastructure 7.0

Subtotal 442.0

Rail ProjectsRVR Infrastructure U rade 1 - 3 ears 250.0

RVR Locomotive Rehabilitation -3 ears 20.0

RVR Infrastructure U rade 3 - 5 ears 150.0

RVR Mombasa Intermodal Yard and E ui ment 20.0RVR Kam ala ICD Develo ment 10.0Reconstruction of Tororo-Gulu- Pachwach Railwa 325.0

Subtotal 775.0

Road Pro ectsNorthern Corridor Capacity Upgrades 234.5Northern Corridor Road Rehabilitation 362.9Northern Corridor Upgrade to Paved 143.7

Subtotal 741.1

Total All Infrastructure Projects 1,958.1

Source: Prepared by Nathan Associates Inc.

NameCost

(US$ mil.)

Documents

CDS Northern Corridor Fact Sheet