This chapter assesses trade facilitation across the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) through the OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators. It shows that countries have made significant progress in improving customs systems, digitalisation and transparency, providing a solid foundation for trade and transport along the corridor. The main challenges lie in strengthening co-operation between countries and in making customs, regulators, ports and logistics actors work together. Greater interoperability of digital systems, customs procedures and border agencies will be essential to reduce trade frictions and support seamless cross-border flows across IMEC.
Measuring Connectivity across the India‑Middle East‑Europe Corridor
Abstract
Trade facilitation policies focus on streamlining and improving border procedures. They refer broadly to the simplification, modernisation and harmonisation of procedures involved in moving goods across borders. Trade facilitation concerns not only customs clearance, but also the transparency of trade-related regulations, the use of digital tools, co-operation among border agencies, mechanisms that reduce administrative delays, and compliance costs for traders. The WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA), which entered into force in 2017, provides a common framework for improving border processes to make trade faster, more predictable and less costly, while maintaining regulation by governments. It focuses on areas such as the publication of trade information, advance rulings, risk-based controls, pre-arrival processing, or enhanced co-operation between customs authorities and other border agencies.
Trade facilitation requires adaptation to a changing environment. Extreme weather events, geopolitical considerations and other disruptions to global logistics are all increasingly affecting how we trade. At the same time, new regulations linked to environment and social aspects – often enforced at the border – impact firms across their entire value chain. Against this background, better trade facilitation can contribute to agility, adaptability and alignment in three main ways (OECD, 2025[1]):
1. Enhancing agility in the face of more frequent, high-impact supply chain shocks and disruptions. This can be done by designing co-ordinated approaches between points of entry and exit, such as ports, in response to shocks or prolonged disruptions to logistics operations. These approaches need to rely on transparent and predictable trade-related information, streamlined border processes and co-operation between public and private stakeholders. Reducing costs and frictions through trade facilitation reforms will also support traders in identifying new suppliers or new buyers when confronted with disruptions.
2. Remaining adaptable to the growing number of social and environmental regulatory requirements that increasingly affect cross-border trade and border procedures. Firms are increasingly being requested to track and provide information to meet market demands aimed at ensuring that global value chains comply with environmental and social objectives. Trade facilitation policies can play an increasing role in meeting these requirements to prove compliance at the border.
3. Supporting alignment of stakeholders through enhanced consultations with traders and co-operation between agencies at the border. Trade facilitation measures, such as consultations with traders on new and updated border regulations, provide the necessary framework for informing industry about regulatory changes, as well as for compiling first-hand insights into recurring delays, inefficiencies, or inconsistencies at border crossings. Enhanced mechanisms for collaboration between border agencies – domestically and internationally – are also essential for streamlining processes and improving the predictability of shipments.
The OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators (TFIs) are an effective tool to support countries in identifying areas for reform. The OECD has developed this set of indicators to help governments improve their border procedures in line with the WTO TFA, and reduce trade costs, boost trade flows and reap greater benefits from international trade. The indicators help identify specific challenges and enable the assessment of potential impacts of reform, as well as tracking their implementation (Table 4.1); this is a key added value of TFIs. They cover the full spectrum of border procedures for more than 160 economies across different geographical regions and levels of income and development. The TFIs take values from 0 to 2, where 2 designates the best performance that can be achieved.
The TFIs are based on a detailed questionnaire, providing information that is geographically comparable and consistent over time. Data is collected from three types of sources: (i) publicly available information from websites of customs and other relevant border agencies, official publications such as customs codes, annual reports, or public databases; (ii) direct submissions from countries; and (iii) information compiled by the private sector (such as the Global Express Association Customs Capabilities Report). Discrepancies are verified by the OECD Secretariat, and economy datasheets are sent to capitals for validation.
Trade facilitation is increasingly important in an interconnected global economy. It has been a major driver of decreasing trade costs in recent years, while also helping supply chains adapt to major global disruptions. The ongoing implementation of the WTO TFA since 2017 is estimated to have reduced trade costs by almost 5% on average worldwide (OECD, 2025[2]). Trade facilitation is also becoming more important in the digital era and is a key enabler of going paperless along supply chains. For example, a 10% improvement in the bilateral TFI score for automating border processes, when accompanied by other TFA policies, is associated with an increase of up to 18% in global goods exports (OECD, 2025[3]).
Lowering trade costs is more significant for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Trade facilitation reforms can help SMEs in developed and developing countries alike to engage more in international trade and increase the value of their exports and imports: even modest improvements in a country’s trade facilitation performance – as measured by the OECD TFIs – can increase the probability of an SME starting to export by up to 3% (López González and Sorescu, 2019[4]).
This Chapter presents a diagnostic of the trade facilitation environment in eight IMEC countries (the six MoU signatories along the corridor, France, Germany, India, Italy, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and the two mentioned countries, Jordan and Israel). It begins with a snapshot of the trade landscape and trade facilitation co-operation in the region in Section 2. Section 3 then highlights trends and assesses performance against relevant benchmarks, as well as individual country profiles. Section 4 delves deeper on key challenges across policy areas. Section 5 includes a potential roadmap for trade facilitation reforms. Section 6 concludes.
Trade flows along the IMEC corridor reflect strong and long-standing economic linkages between India, the Middle East and Europe, with clear complementarities in sectoral composition.
Trade between India and Gulf countries is largely characterised by, respectively, manufactured goods and services on one side, and energy and resource flows on the other. Gulf exports to India are dominated by mineral fuels, alongside petrochemicals and fertilisers, while India exports a diversified basket including machinery and mechanical appliances, electrical equipment, vehicles, pharmaceutical products, and precious stones and metals.
Trade between Gulf countries and European IMEC countries is more diverse but also highly complementary. Gulf exports to Europe remain heavily concentrated in energy products but also include chemicals and aluminium. European exports to the Gulf are dominated by high-value manufactured goods, including machinery, transport equipment, electrical machinery and specialised industrial inputs.
Trade between India and European IMEC countries is the most diversified and increasingly driven by manufacturing and higher value-added sectors. Key exports from India to Europe include textiles and apparel, pharmaceuticals, organic chemicals and engineering goods. European exports to India are concentrated in machinery, transport equipment, and chemicals.
Across all corridor segments, trade volume and diversification is growing, but there are persistent structural patterns, namely energy exports from the Gulf and manufactured exports from India and Europe. Most of this trade is currently transported via maritime routes.
The IMEC initiative has the potential to transform the structure of trade along the corridor by promoting greater use of multimodal transport, particularly the integration of maritime and rail networks, which could impact transit times, improve reliability, and offer alternatives to traditional maritime routes. At the same time, the effectiveness of such multimodal solutions will depend not only on the physical infrastructure, but also on soft connectivity measures, including streamlined border procedures, interoperable customs and other border agencies systems, and co-ordinated border management.
Trade facilitation will rely on regional co-operation across IMEC, based on several layers of agreements and co-operation frameworks. The WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement provides the common baseline for IMEC countries, covering issues such as publication of trade regulations, advance rulings, appeal procedures, fees and charges, pre-arrival processing, electronic payment of duties and fees, Single Windows, risk management, authorised operators, border agency co-operation and customs co-operation.
The regional agreements linking various IMEC countries have evolved over time. Older agreements, such as the EU-Israel1 and EU-Jordan2 Association Agreements, provide an important legal base for customs co-operation but their design precedes developments in paperless trade and digital customs. More recent agreements increasingly treat trade facilitation as part of a wider digital and logistics agenda. The India-UAE Comprehensive Economic Partnership (CEPA),3 for example, includes customs provisions on transparency, risk management, paperless communications and advance rulings. The UAE-Israel CEPA4 goes further by combining a customs and trade facilitation chapter with digital trade provisions covering electronic authentication, electronic signatures and paperless trading. The UAE-Jordan CEPA5 also points in this direction, with customs facilitation, potential recognition of authorised operator programmes and co-operation on the use of digital tools. The most recent and emerging agreements no longer focus only on tariff preferences; they include the practical tools needed to move goods faster and with less paperwork. The EU-India FTA,6 whose negotiated texts include chapters on customs and trade facilitation as well as digital trade, is another example of this trend, although it will only become binding after the required legal and domestic procedures are completed, which is expected in early 2027. These agreements create useful building blocks for the corridor, as well as other alliances, such as the I2U2 comprising India, Israel, the UAE and the US, and aiming at promoting joint investments notably in the areas of transport and energy. However, they remain mostly bilateral or regional.
IMEC provides an opportunity to connect these separate initiatives into a more coherent corridor-wide approach, using existing agreements as a starting point for streamlined data and documentary requirements, electronic document exchange, stronger customs co-operation and better links between national Single Windows and logistics systems.
This section reviews recent trade facilitation policy developments along the IMEC corridor through the lens of the OECD TFIs. It includes a comparison of the IMEC average with selected regional benchmarks, providing a reference point for assessing the corridor’s relative performance across key dimensions of border efficiency. The analysis then turns to trade facilitation profiles of the eight covered IMEC countries to examine how trade facilitation performance varies between them and where specific reform priorities emerge.
The OECD TFIs point to a sustained improvement in average trade facilitation performance across IMEC economies (Figure 4.1). Progress is broad-based across all dimensions, with particularly strong gains in core border processes, such as formalities (documents, automation and procedures) and fees and charges. These trends suggest continued efforts to streamline documentary requirements, expand digitalisation and improve the efficiency and predictability of clearance processes. At the same time, improvements in information availability and governance-related indicators show that reforms have also extended to transparency and quality of the regulatory environment underpinning trade facilitation.
While the overall trajectory is positive, there are areas where average progress remains more gradual. The performance of indicators related to stakeholder engagement, advance rulings, appeal procedures, and both internal and external border agency co-operation, although improving, remains less advanced than that of formalities-related dimensions.
The growing alignment between countries across indicators up to 2024 suggests an increasingly balanced and integrated trade facilitation system, although further strengthening of co-operation mechanisms and predictability tools will be key for the corridor’s future performance.
Note: 2 is the maximum performance that can be achieved across each policy area.
Source: OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators (TFIs) database, 2025.
The IMEC average across all OECD TFIs sits below the OECD and the European Union averages, but broadly in line with, or slightly above, regions such as MENA and the Asia-Pacific (Figure 3.2). The gap in relation to the OECD and EU averages is most notable in border agency co-operation and governance and impartiality dimensions. At the same time, IMEC performs relatively similar to other regions in automating and streamlining procedures. Compared to Central Asia, IMEC shows consistently higher scores across all pillars, while its performance relative to European countries is only slightly lower. Overall, IMEC has established a solid foundation in core trade facilitation measures, but still faces a measurable gap with top performers, particularly in co-ordination mechanisms.
Note: 2 is the maximum performance that can be achieved across each policy area. Transparency and predictability is the average of TFI (A), (B), (C), (D), and (E). Automating and streamlining procedures is the average of TFI (F), (G), and (H). Border agency co-operation is the average of TFI (I) and (J).
Source: OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators (TFIs) database, 2025.
The differences in scores across individual IMEC countries are much greater in some areas than others (Figure 4.3). The largest differences are found in governance and impartiality, followed by external border agency co-operation and internal border agency co-operation. Relatively large differences are also visible in the simplification of trade-related documents and automation. This suggests some IMEC countries already have advanced border systems and governance frameworks, while others are still building or strengthening these capabilities.
By contrast, countries are more similar in areas such as the streamlining of border procedures, appeal procedures, and fees and charges. These procedural aspects of trade facilitation appear to have basic rules and practices well established across the corridor.
Involvement of the trade community and information availability fall in between: performance is generally improving, but differences remain in how these measures are implemented. Overall, the results suggest that many basic trade facilitation practices are already in place across IMEC. The main gaps relate to governance, digital maturity and, especially, co-operation between border agencies, both within countries and across borders. These areas should therefore be treated as priorities for making trade flows smoother along the corridor.
Standard deviation by indicator, 2025
Source: OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators (TFIs) database, 2025.
The trade facilitation profiles of the eight IMEC covered countries show some differences in performance. France, Israel, Germany and Italy have the strongest trade facilitation performance, reflecting highly developed customs, regulatory and digital systems (Figure 4.4). India and the UAE also perform relatively strongly and are close to the IMEC average, while Saudi Arabia shows a solid but more moderate profile. Jordan records the lowest performance, indicating that it may face more significant capacity and implementation challenges.
Looking at individual country-level performance, IMEC already benefits from strong trade facilitation capabilities at several key nodes, especially in Europe and Israel, but the corridor’s performance will depend on reducing gaps with lower-performing countries and improving the links between national systems (see graphs in Annex 4.A).
Note: 2 is the maximum performance that can be achieved across each of the 11 policy areas.
Source: OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators dataset, 2025.
France: Trade facilitation profile
France’s trade facilitation performance is particularly strong in governance and impartiality (2.00), fees and charges (1.92), advance rulings (1.91) and formalities related to documents (1.88), suggesting a highly developed trade facilitation environment characterised by transparency, predictability and streamlined border procedures. These results are consistent with a mature customs system supported by DELTA (the French electronic customs-clearance platform), which allows customs declarations to be submitted and processed digitally. France has also developed France Sésame, a digital platform designed to simplify border formalities and improve the co-ordination of controls for goods subject to sanitary and phytosanitary requirements. While scores remain high across all areas, relatively lower results for automation (1.62) and involvement of the trade community (1.75) indicate that further gains could come from completing digitalisation across procedures and continuing engagement with traders.
Most trade facilitation improvements were achieved during 2010-2015, followed by a phase of consolidation at already high levels of implementation. This pattern is consistent with the maturity of France’s framework and its integration within broader EU customs and regulatory systems. More recent developments show that modernisation is continuing. DELTA IE (import/export customs declaration system) is progressively replacing earlier clearance systems and enables the dematerialised submission and processing of customs declarations in line with the Union Customs Code.
For IMEC, France can serve as an important gateway at the European end of the corridor, providing access to advanced customs infrastructure, major ports and extensive logistics networks. Its experience with electronic clearance and co-ordination of customs and other border agencies controls could be particularly relevant for a corridor that will depend on reliable links between maritime gateways, inland logistics systems and regulatory authorities. Given its high level of domestic implementation, the next opportunity is to extend these strengths outward by supporting cross-border data sharing, promoting common information requirements, and improving the compatibility of digital systems with non-EU partners. This will also be shaped by the implementation of the broader EU Customs Reform agenda, which could provide an important framework for strengthening digital customs processes, data sharing and co-operation with non-EU partners.
Germany: Trade facilitation profile
Germany’s trade facilitation performance is particularly strong in governance and impartiality (2.00), formalities related to documents (1.88), information availability (1.86), involvement of the trade community (1.86) and fees and charges (1.86). This is consistent with a mature customs environment supported by ATLAS, Germany’s electronic customs system for processing import, export, transit and other customs declarations, and by the Customs Portal, which provides businesses with centralised and paperless access to customs services. The electronic customs tariff, EZT-online, further supports transparency by giving traders access to tariff and related customs information, while the Authorised Economic Operator programme provides a trusted trader framework within the wider EU customs system. As in several advanced economies, the relatively lower scores for appeal procedures (1.62), automation (1.69) and external border agency co-operation (1.73) suggest that the remaining opportunities lie less in establishing new basic systems and more in further integrating digital processes and strengthening links across agencies and borders.
Improvements in Germany’s trade facilitation environment were particularly pronounced between 2015 and 2019, after which performance continued to increase more gradually from an already high base. This trajectory is consistent with the continued modernisation of ATLAS and Germany’s implementation of the Union Customs Code, which has progressively expanded the use of electronic customs procedures across the European Union. Germany’s customs processes are also embedded in EU-wide digital systems such as the New Computerised Transit System, which supports the movement of goods under transit procedures, and the Import Control System 2, which uses advance cargo information to support risk analysis and more targeted controls. These developments illustrate Germany’s shift from basic customs digitalisation towards increasingly connected and data-driven border management.
Within IMEC, Germany is well positioned to act as a major logistics and distribution hub. Its strong performance across transparency, stakeholder consultation and border governance provides a solid foundation for supporting efficient trade flows between Europe and corridor partners. Germany’s experience with ATLAS, the Customs Portal, EU transit systems and advance cargo information could be particularly relevant for IMEC, where reliable links between ports, inland logistics networks and customs authorities will be essential. Given the maturity of Germany’s domestic systems, the next opportunity is to support practical connections with non-EU partners through compatible digital documentation, stronger pre-arrival data sharing, trusted trader co-operation and clearer interfaces between EU customs requirements and partner-country systems.
India: Trade facilitation profile
India recorded an overall TFI score of 1.60 in 2024, making it one of the stronger performers among non-OECD countries in IMEC, reflecting substantial progress in trade facilitation over the past decade. Performance is particularly strong in internal border agency co-operation (1.91), information availability (1.90) and governance and impartiality (1.88), indicating significant efforts to modernise border management, improve transparency and strengthen co-ordination among domestic authorities. These results are consistent with the development of ICEGATE, the Indian Customs National Trade Portal, and the Single Window Interface for Facilitating Trade, which connect customs processes with services provided by other regulatory agencies. India’s relatively strong performance in fees and charges (1.77) and automation (1.69) also reflects the wider use of electronic declarations, digital payments, e-Sanchit for paperless supporting documents, the Risk Management System, pre-arrival processing and the Authorised Economic Operator programme. However, lower scores for external border agency co-operation (1.18), advance rulings (1.30) and appeal procedures (1.42) suggest that opportunities remain to further enhance predictability and deepen international regulatory and operational co-operation.
India has recorded one of the most significant trade facilitation improvements among the covered IMEC countries over the last decade. The largest gains occurred after the entry into force of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement in 2017, when India established the National Committee on Trade Facilitation and launched a National Trade Facilitation Action Plan covering customs and other regulatory agencies. The plan sought to create a more transparent, risk-based, co-ordinated, digital and paperless clearance environment, while going beyond the minimum requirements of the WTO TFA. Progress has continued through more advanced reforms, including contactless customs processes, trusted trader arrangements and closer monitoring of cargo release times.
India occupies a pivotal position within IMEC as the corridor’s economic hub at the South Asian end. Its strong performance in domestic agency co-ordination, transparency, and digitalisation provides an important foundation for efficient corridor operations. India has also begun to develop tools with direct relevance for cross-border connectivity, including electronic exchange of origin data, electronic cargo tracking, Virtual Trade Corridors and mutual recognition of Authorised Economic Operator programmes (e.g., mutual recognition arrangement on certified traders with the United Arab Emirates). The next opportunity is to build on these foundations by expanding structured data sharing, linking ICEGATE and Single Window services more closely with IMEC partner countries’ platforms, and promoting compatible customs and risk management processes across the corridor.
Israel: Trade facilitation profile
Israel’s trade facilitation performance is particularly strong in formalities related to documents (2.00), automation (2.00), streamlining of procedures (1.96), fees and charges (1.92) and appeal procedures (1.92). These results are consistent with a highly digitalised customs environment supported by the Global Gate (or Shaar Olami) system, which facilitates electronic customs declarations and a range of online services for importers, exporters and customs agents. Israel also provides digital customs services such as online pre-ruling applications for tariff classification and an Authorised Economic Operator programme that offers facilitated procedures to firms recognised as reliable customs partners. Strong performance in internal border agency co-operation (1.91) and stakeholder engagement further suggests that Israel has developed effective domestic arrangements for supporting trade flows. In turn, comparatively lower scores for advance rulings (1.45) and external border agency co-operation (1.45) indicate that opportunities remain to broaden the practical use of predictability tools and strengthen operational links with trading partners.
Israel has demonstrated substantial progress over the past decade. While improvements were gradual between 2012 and 2019, a marked acceleration occurred between 2019 and 2022, consistent with the wider use of electronic customs processing and online trader services. Digital importer declarations, electronic import, export and transshipment declarations, and online customs support services have helped reduce reliance on paper-based procedures and improve access to customs processes. The continued upward trend since then indicates ongoing efforts to refine border management practices and expand the practical benefits of digitalisation for traders.
From a trade facilitation perspective, Israel occupies a strategically important position within IMEC, linking the European and Middle Eastern segments of the corridor. Its trade relationship with the European Union already provides an established framework for customs co-operation. The EU – Israel Association Agreement includes provisions on rules of origin and administrative co-operation, as well as mutual assistance between customs authorities, while Israel also participates in the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean system of preferential rules of origin. This experience provides a useful basis for supporting origin verification, customs information exchange and co-operation with European partners. Given the maturity of Israel’s domestic systems, the next opportunity is to translate these existing frameworks into more operational links with other IMEC participants by promoting trusted data sharing arrangements, supporting streamlined customs processes and strengthening digital connections between EU and non-EU corridor partners.
Italy: Trade facilitation profile
Italy’s performance is particularly strong in governance and impartiality (2.00), fees and charges (1.92), advance rulings (1.91) and formalities related to documents (1.89). These results are consistent with a mature customs administration supported by AIDA, the integrated information system of the Italian Customs and Monopolies Agency, and by a broad range of digital services for customs declarations, tariff information and supporting documentation. Italy has also developed the Sportello Unico Doganale e dei Controlli (SUDOCO), which seeks to bring customs and other border controls into a more co-ordinated process and allows the documentary and physical movement of goods to be monitored. The availability of Authorised Economic Operator arrangements and electronic document management further supports a trade environment characterised by transparency, predictability and well-established mechanisms for traders. Italy also performs relatively well in external border agency co-operation (1.73), an area of particular importance given its role as a maritime gateway connecting Europe with the Mediterranean. Lower scores for involvement of the trade community (1.50) and appeal procedures (1.50) indicate opportunities to improve stakeholder engagement and procedural clarity.
Much of the improvement in Italy’s trade facilitation environment occurred between 2012 and 2017, reflecting a period of significant reform and modernisation, followed by more gradual gains thereafter. This period coincided with the wider use of digital and logistics tools designed to improve the movement of goods through Italian ports. These include “clearance at sea”, which allows customs processing to begin while vessels are still travelling towards port, and Fast Corridors, which support the monitored movement of goods from congested port areas to inland logistics facilities. Together with the continued development of AIDA, electronic customs declarations and the customs Single Window, these initiatives illustrate Italy’s efforts to combine border control with faster and more predictable logistics operations.
Italy represents one of the principal entry points into Europe and a key maritime hub linking the Mediterranean segment of the corridor with wider European markets. Its strong performance in governance, advance rulings, documentary procedures and administrative transparency provides a solid foundation for predictable and efficient trade flows. Italy’s experience with AIDA, SUDOCO, clearance at sea and Fast Corridors could be particularly relevant for IMEC, where efficient connections between ports, customs authorities and inland logistics networks will be essential. Given the advanced state of its domestic systems, the next opportunity is to extend these strengths outward by supporting digital information sharing with non-EU partners, promoting more consistent data and documentary requirements, and helping connect maritime and inland logistics processes across the corridor.
Jordan: Trade facilitation profile
Jordan recorded an overall TFI score of 1.11 in 2024, lower than the OECD economies participating in IMEC but still showing significant progress in trade facilitation over the past decade. Performance is strongest in appeal procedures (1.70), streamlining of procedures (1.56) and fees and charges (1.38), due to efforts to improve the transparency and predictability of border processes. Jordan also performs relatively well in involvement of the trade community (1.29) and advance rulings (1.14). These results are consistent with the development of the Jordan Trade Facilitation Portal, which provides traders with access to laws, forms and step-by-step information on some of the main import, export and transit procedures, as well as the National Window and ASYCUDA World Systems used to process customs declarations electronically. Jordan Customs’ Golden List programme also provides a trusted trader framework. However, lower scores in external border agency co-operation (0.73), governance and impartiality (0.63), automation (0.85) and internal border agency co-operation (1.00) suggest that opportunities remain to strengthen institutional co-ordination, digitalisation and broader governance frameworks.
Jordan has made steady progress since 2012, with its average TFI score increasing from 0.68 to 1.11 in 2024. Improvements have been gradual but consistent, reflecting sustained efforts to modernise border procedures and align them with international trade facilitation best practices. Over time, Jordan Customs has expanded the use of the National Window, electronic declarations, electronic payments, electronic tracking and trusted trader programmes. More recent developments include digital platforms for prior approvals and licences, the continued modernisation of the Golden List programme, and work on ASY-express and ASY-maritime systems to strengthen the handling of express, air and maritime trade. These initiatives show that Jordan is continuing to build the digital and institutional foundations, but further work is needed to extend their use and improve links between the agencies involved.
Within IMEC, Jordan occupies an important position as a transit and connectivity hub linking the Middle East and the Mediterranean. Its geographic location gives it a potentially significant role in facilitating the movement of goods between Gulf logistics networks, land border posts and Mediterranean markets. Realising this potential will depend on strengthening the links between the National Window, customs systems and the other agencies responsible for approvals, inspections and controls. Jordan could therefore use IMEC as a platform to expand digital information sharing with trade partners, improve co-ordination between border agencies, connect trade and logistics systems more closely, and build on the Golden List programme as a basis for future trusted trader co-operation across the corridor.
Saudi Arabia: Trade facilitation profile
Saudi Arabia recorded an overall TFI score of 1.43 in 2024, reflecting substantial progress in trade facilitation over the past decade. Performance is strongest in fees and charges (1.62) and automation (1.62), followed closely by advance rulings (1.57), formalities related to documents (1.56) and governance and impartiality (1.56). These results are due to the development of Fasah, Saudi Arabia’s unified digital platform for import and export procedures, which brings together customs and other trade-related services and supports electronic declarations, payments, shipment tracking and services across sea, air, land and dry ports. They also reflect the availability of dedicated digital customs services, including an online advance rulings service covering tariff classification, preferential origin and customs valuation, as well as the Saudi Authorised Economic Operator programme.
The most significant gains in the trade facilitation environment occurred between 2015 and 2019, reflecting an accelerated period of customs modernisation and trade facilitation reform after the entry into force of the WTO TFA. Saudi Arabia developed initiatives aimed at reducing paperwork and accelerating clearance, including advancing the 24-hour clearance programme, which relies on the submission of customs declarations before goods arrive and closer links between customs, other government agencies and private operators. Progress has continued since then, although at a more gradual pace, suggesting a shift from foundational reforms towards more advanced institutional and operational improvements. Recent developments in the Saudi Authorised Economic Operator programme, including its expansion to SMEs, service providers and logistics operators, also point to efforts to broaden the practical reach of trusted trader arrangements.
Saudi Arabia is expected to play a pivotal role in the corridor’s logistics and transport architecture, including in connecting ports, inland logistics networks and land border posts across the Middle East. This role fits into the country’s National Industrial Development and Logistics Program, which seeks to position Saudi Arabia as a global logistics hub, improve clearance procedures and cross-border movement, strengthen tracking and tracing, and automate logistics operations. Saudi Arabia’s strong performance in automation, advance rulings and streamlined formalities therefore provides a solid foundation for efficient corridor operations. The next opportunity is to extend these domestic capabilities outward by linking Fasah and related logistics systems more closely with partner-country platforms, expanding structured data exchange between border authorities, promoting recognition of trusted trader arrangements, and supporting more consistent procedures across IMEC’s sea and land interfaces.
United Arab Emirates: Trade facilitation profile
The UAE recorded an overall TFI score of 1.55 in 2024, placing it among the stronger trade facilitation performers in the Middle East and reflecting sustained efforts to modernise border procedures and support its role as a global logistics hub. Performance is particularly strong in fees and charges (1.85) and automation (1.85), followed by formalities related to documents (1.75) and procedures (1.73). These results are consistent with the development of major digital trade platforms such as Dubai Trade, which provides a Single Window for trade and logistics services, and Abu Dhabi’s Advanced Trade and Logistics Platform, which digitally facilitates trade across sea, land, air, industrial and free zones. They also reflect the availability of electronic customs clearance, permits, or payments of duties and fees, as well as the UAE Authorised Economic Operator programme. The UAE also performs relatively well in stakeholder engagement (1.63) and information availability (1.62), indicating a generally transparent and business-oriented trade environment. However, lower scores for internal border agency co-operation (1.18) and especially external border agency co-operation (0.90) point to opportunities for strengthening co-ordination and interoperability across agencies and with international partners.
Improvements have been steady throughout the last decade, reflecting a sustained commitment to customs modernisation and the digital transformation of trade facilitation. Dubai Trade now offers round-the-clock access to a wide range of digital trade and logistics services, while Abu Dhabi’s Advanced Trade and Logistics Platform has brought together services across different transport modes and trade-related authorities. The UAE has also continued to develop its trusted trader framework through the national Authorised Economic Operator programme and mutual recognition arrangements with trade partners, including India and Saudi Arabia. These developments suggest that trade facilitation remains an important part of the country’s wider strategy to strengthen its position as a regional and global trade gateway.
Within IMEC, the UAE is expected to play a central role as one of the corridor’s principal logistics, maritime and commercial hubs. Its strong performance in automation, streamlined procedures and trader-oriented services provides an important foundation for facilitating efficient trade flows across the corridor. The presence of advanced platforms in Dubai and Abu Dhabi also creates opportunities to test practical links between ports, customs authorities, logistics operators and partner-country systems. The next opportunity is to extend these domestic capabilities outward by connecting Single Window and logistics platforms more closely with other IMEC participants, expanding structured data exchange between border authorities, building on existing Authorised Economic Operator mutual recognition arrangements, and supporting more consistent procedures across the corridor’s sea, land, and logistics interfaces.
The aggregate TFIs highlight that the corridor already has a strong base to build on. Furthermore, the country profiles show that several core elements of trade facilitation are relatively well developed across much of the IMEC corridor. Information availability, fees and charges, simplification of trade-related documents and, in several cases, automation of border processes are among the stronger areas. France, Germany, Israel and Italy perform at high levels across most of these indicators, reflecting mature customs systems and their integration with advanced trade facilitation regulatory frameworks and digital infrastructures. Among non-OECD countries, India performs strongly on information availability and internal border agency co-operation, while Saudi Arabia and the UAE show strong results on automation, fees and charges and streamlined border procedures.
These strengths should become the foundation for early corridor co-operation. Initial work could focus on electronic document exchange, common data requirements, mapping of existing digital systems and stronger links between national customs, logistics and Single Window platforms.
A key challenge is that performance is uneven. The aggregate indicators show this in several important areas, including advance rulings, appeal procedures, involvement of the trade community, governance and impartiality, and several aspects of automation and agency co-operation. Some countries have relatively advanced systems, while others still face gaps in implementation. India, for example, has made substantial progress overall but records weaker performance on advance rulings and appeal procedures. Jordan performs relatively well on appeal procedures but has lower scores in governance, automation and cross-border co-operation. Saudi Arabia and the UAE show strong results in digitalisation and formalities but weaker performance in agency co-operation. These differences matter because traders experience the corridor as a full route, not as a set of separate national systems. The IMEC countries could focus on narrowing the gaps that traders are most likely to experience. This includes work on advance rulings, appeal procedures, trader consultations, governance, automation and agency co-operation, supported by practical benchmarks and peer learning.
The biggest bottleneck is making border systems work together. The most consistent challenge across the aggregate indicators concerns inter-agency and cross-border co-operation. While many countries have improved their domestic trade facilitation systems, several still record weaker scores for external border agency co-operation, and some also face challenges in internal border agency co-operation. This suggests that the main bottleneck for IMEC may not be the absence of trade facilitation reforms within countries but the difficulty of making national systems work together across the corridor. Even where domestic systems are advanced, differences in data requirements, digital platforms, documentary formats and institutional responsibilities can create friction. The next step in improving trade facilitation could be to focus on day-to-day operational links between agencies. This can include streamlined data and documentary requirements, co-ordinated risk management approaches, as well as targeted support for Jordan spearheaded by stronger performers to strengthen domestic co-ordination and cross-border information sharing.
The reform momentum is tangible, but domestic progress should be turned into corridor-wide efforts. A positive finding is that the covered countries have improved their average trade facilitation performance since 2012. The gains are particularly visible in India, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, where reforms have contributed to stronger digitalisation, customs modernisation and procedural simplification. This is complemented by the advanced trade facilitation systems in France, Germany and Italy. It shows that trade facilitation remains an active policy priority across the corridor and that several countries have demonstrated the capacity to implement ambitious reforms over time. The next stage, however, is likely to be more demanding because many countries have already improved their own systems, while future gains will depend on making these systems compatible with one another and on turning national progress into a practical corridor agenda. This could include the exchange of electronic trade-related documents, customs-to-customs data sharing with appropriate safeguards, better links between Single Window systems, trusted trader information, and enhanced links between port, logistics and border systems.
In this section, individual trade facilitation indicators are analysed based on the average performance of IMEC participants and based on its diversity. Measures are grouped into four broad categories. Some measures already work well across most countries and represent existing corridor strengths. Others work well only in some countries, creating uneven experiences for traders. A third group contains indicators with weak performance, which may generate delays or uncertainty. Finally, some indicators are improving but still need better alignment across countries.
Many IMEC countries have practical tools that traders already use, such as frameworks for publishing trade-related information, consulting traders, making fees and charges more transparent, simplifying documentary requirements, and applying key procedures such as risk management, pre-arrival processing and Single Window initiatives. These strengths are particularly visible in OECD countries that are part of the corridor, but progress is also evident in India, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The challenge is therefore to ensure that these tools can connect and exchange information more effectively across the corridor.
Uneven performance is most likely felt by traders in the case of advance rulings, consultation mechanisms, automation tools, Single Window systems, governance arrangements and specific mechanisms for border agency co-operation. In many cases, the legal or institutional framework exists, but the quality, speed or practical use of the system differs across countries. This matters because traders experience IMEC as a full route, not as a set of separate national procedures. Even if one part of the corridor works efficiently, delays or uncertainty elsewhere can still affect the reliability of the whole.
The clearest operational risks are found in the handovers between agencies. Basic co-ordination mechanisms are often in place, but more advanced practices are uneven. These include sharing inspection results, co-ordinated risk management, joint controls, harmonised data requirements, interoperable IT systems and mutual recognition arrangements for certified traders. Other bottlenecks relate to the gap between formal rules and actual practices, including the timeliness of appeal procedures, the use of advance rulings systems, post-clearance audit practices, the treatment of perishable goods at the border or the actual use of electronic processing systems. These areas are the most likely to generate delays, paperwork and uncertainty along the corridor.
The most promising next steps are in areas where national reforms are already underway but remain too nationally focused and lack international co-operation. Domestic progress is visible in automation, digital tools, risk management systems, Single Windows, certified trader programmes, consultation mechanisms and border agency co-operation. However, countries may still use different systems, data requirements or procedures for similar tasks. The next phase of trade facilitation along IMEC should therefore focus on practical alignment. Electronic trade-related documents, interoperable Single Windows, trusted trader arrangements, co-ordinated risk management and cross-border data sharing could all provide useful opportunities for pilot projects and technical dialogue.
This section shows the broad performance patterns: where the corridor is already strong, where performance differs across countries, where the main bottlenecks appear, and where reforms are moving in the right direction. The detailed analysis of indicators then shows what these patterns mean in practice, by identifying the specific tools, procedures and operational gaps behind the aggregate scores.
The two angles of analysis highlight that co-ordinated trade facilitation across the corridor does not need to start from scratch. Most countries across IMEC already have strong trade facilitation systems, which improved over time. The main challenge is to turn these national reforms into a more reliable corridor-wide system. This means preserving what works, narrowing gaps between countries, addressing the most easily eliminated sources of delays, and building better links between agencies, digital systems and procedures.
Table 4.2 brings these findings together in a single framework focusing on challenges and potential priorities. It links each country-level performance pattern to the aggregate TFI findings, the detailed measures behind them and possible priorities over different time horizons. Short- to medium-term potential priorities could include practical solutions, pilots, peer learning and targeted support. Longer-term solutions could focus on deeper integration between systems, including interoperable Single Windows, shared data models, mutual recognition arrangements on certified traders and their implementation in practice, and stronger corridor-wide inter-agency co-operation mechanisms.
The analysis of the TFIs shows that IMEC already has good trade facilitation frameworks but they lack implementation and cross-border interactions. Most IMEC participants already have many of the basic tools to move goods efficiently, including customs websites and trade portals, customs and border digital systems at different stages of development, risk management systems in customs, advance rulings, consultation channels or procedures to simplify paperwork. The main challenge is therefore not the absence of trade facilitation instruments but their uneven implementation and lack of interconnection between countries. The corridor’s trade facilitation performance will depend in the near-term on making existing systems faster, clearer and better linked from one end of the corridor to the other.
IMEC has some strong participants but corridor performance will depend on the weakest links. France, Germany, Italy and Israel already have advanced trade facilitation systems. India has made major progress, while Saudi Arabia and the UAE have developed strong digital and logistics platforms. Jordan has an important role as a transit country but still faces capacity and implementation gaps. The priority is to use strong performers as anchors for knowledge sharing, pilot projects and practical support, while focusing early attention on countries, procedures or nodes where weaker systems could slow the whole corridor trade.
Transparency is broadly in place but traders still need clearer and faster end-to-end solutions. Most IMEC countries publish basic trade information, have trade portals and customs websites and available enquiry points and procedural guidance. However, firms need information that is timely, complete and easy to use before goods move. Gaps remain in the speed of enquiry point responses, the advance publication of new rules, and access to information on penalties, appeals, judicial decisions and advance rulings. A practical IMEC trade facilitation agenda could therefore focus on making the information that businesses need more reliable, user-friendly and comparable across countries.
Digitalisation is advancing but digital systems still need to be interconnected. IMEC countries have invested in electronic customs systems, automated processes and digital tools. Saudi Arabia and the UAE perform strongly on automation, OECD economies have mature digital systems and underpinning regulatory frameworks, and India has made important progress. Yet the real test is whether these systems can share information across borders and co-ordinate in real time. Harmonised data fields, interoperable systems (including Single Windows), exchange of digitalised trade-related documents and certificates, electronic payments and stronger IT infrastructure would be central for national digital systems to support corridor-wide efficiency.
Many trade facilitation tools exist but their practical impact remains uneven. Advance rulings, risk management, post-clearance audits and certified trader programmes are present in many IMEC countries but they are not always used effectively or consistently. These tools are meant to make trade more predictable and controls at the border more effective. Their benefits will remain limited if advance rulings are slow, audits are weak, or trusted trader programmes are unclear or difficult for firms to use, especially for SMEs. The next phase of reform should therefore focus on operational performance: making these instruments faster, clearer, more accessible and more useful for traders.
Border agency co-operation is the clearest corridor-wide bottleneck. Many countries have made progress in domestic co-ordination but deeper co-operation across agencies and borders remains weaker. Agencies do not always share inspection results, risk information or control decisions, and countries continue to differ in their data requirements, computer systems and border practices. This is where some of the largest corridor-wide gains are likely to come from. Strong national systems will not be enough if customs, ports, regulators and logistics actors do not work together in practice. IMEC could therefore prioritise shared approaches to risk management, sharing of control results, alignment of data and documentary requirements, and mutual recognition of trusted trader arrangements where feasible.
The short-term agenda should focus on practical improvements that have an immediate operational impact for traders, while the longer-term agenda should advance the corridor’s integration. In the short to medium term, this means clearer information, faster enquiry points, fewer documents, better use of electronic clearance, improved treatment of perishable goods and stronger sharing of inspection results. Over the long term, the focus should shift to more structural connections between systems, including linked Single Windows, common data models, collaborative risk tools, interoperable IT systems and compatible trusted trader arrangements across countries, helping IMEC to work as one reliable route.
The OECD stands ready to continue supporting the IMEC countries, its Steering Committee and working groups, to prepare more detailed diagnostics on specific issues and/or countries, develop a tailored trade facilitation policy roadmap identifying short- and medium-term priorities and opportunities for reforms, and organise expert workshops and dedicated joint activities.
References
[4] López González, J. and S. Sorescu (2019), “Helping SMEs internationalise through trade facilitation”, OECD Trade Policy Papers, No. 229, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2050e6b0-en.
[1] OECD (2025), OECD Supply Chain Resilience Review: Navigating Risks, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/94e3a8ea-en.
[2] OECD (2025), OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators: Monitoring Policies up to 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/fd6f27dc-en.
[3] OECD (2025), The digitalisation of trade-related documents and processes: Going paperless today, going paperless tomorrow, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/the-digitalisation-of-trade-documents-and-processes_64872f25-en.html.
Note: 2 represents the maximum performance that can be achieved for each TFI policy area and for the average performance.
Source: OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators database, 2025.
Note: 2 represents the maximum performance that can be achieved for each TFI policy area and for the average performance.
Source: OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators database, 2025.
Note: 2 represents the maximum performance that can be achieved for each TFI policy area and for the average performance.
Source: OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators database, 2025.
Note: 2 represents the maximum performance that can be achieved for each TFI policy area and for the average performance.
Source: OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators database, 2025.
Note: 2 represents the maximum performance that can be achieved for each TFI policy area and for the average performance.
Source: OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators database, 2025.
Note: 2 represents the maximum performance that can be achieved for each TFI policy area and for the average performance.
Source: OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators database, 2025.
Note: 2 represents the maximum performance that can be achieved for each TFI policy area and for the average performance.
Source: OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators database, 2025.
Note: 2 represents the maximum performance that can be achieved for each TFI policy area and for the average performance.
Source: OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators database, 2025.