The opening of new transport routes through Armenia could gradually reshape the logistics configuration of the South Caucasus, but the issue is already moving beyond simple competition between individual routes. As transit flows continue to grow, infrastructure capacity, border-crossing times, transportation costs, and coordination of procedures between countries are becoming increasingly important.

In an interview with CASPIA, Gia Tsipuria, President of the Association of International Road Carriers of Georgia, discusses the potential redistribution of cargo flows, the prospects for alternative routes, and the key constraints facing the Georgian transit corridor. In his view, the long-term sustainability of the Middle Corridor will depend not only on the development of roads, ports, and railways, but also on the ability of regional countries to turn a transit route into a broader system of trade, production, and economic ties.

— How seriously is Tbilisi considering the opening of transport routes through Armenia as potential competition for the Georgian route?

— I would not describe it as direct competition. The routes are different, although they do overlap to some extent. More serious competition could potentially emerge in terms of access to Turkish ports. If the relevant routes through Armenia are opened, Armenia would be on the way, and competition could then emerge between Georgian and Turkish ports.

As for what are sometimes referred to as the northern ports, they are already quite well developed, so it is difficult to say at this stage to what extent new routes could create genuine competition for them.

But there is another, very real problem. The volume of road transit has increased significantly: cargo traffic has exceeded three million, whereas previously we were working with a figure of around one million. There is simply a great deal of cargo, and some of it could eventually be redistributed. No one wants to spend a week or more sitting in queues and waiting.

The situation at Sarpi, the Red Bridge, and other border crossings demonstrates the scale of the problem. When delays become excessive, carriers inevitably start looking for alternatives. However, I am not sure that the Armenian route will become a full-fledged alternative in the near term. The first priority is to expand the existing infrastructure.

We already have sufficient cargo volumes. If new opportunities are developed, this could be particularly useful for rail transport: we know how to work with railways and can shift cargo between routes quite efficiently. So I do not think this necessarily has to be framed as competition. There are different branches and routes. If the development of alternative routes stimulates trade across the region, that would actually be a major positive.

A transit corridor is only the first stage. What matters much more is when it becomes an economic corridor — when it carries not only transit cargo from third countries, but also supports trade among the countries of the region themselves. We need to develop mutual trade, production, and economic ties.

— What should our countries do to expand infrastructure capacity?

— The situation in the Caspian is genuinely complicated, and not everything can be changed quickly. Azerbaijan's infrastructure is already at a relatively good level, but it needs to continue developing.

At the same time, we should not underestimate what the two governments have achieved in developing transport infrastructure despite the difficulties. Not everything has worked perfectly, but enormous changes have taken place over the past several decades. Think about what the route looked like for a truck in the past, for example from Poti to Baku or from Poti to Yerevan. We remember the 1990s and the early 2000s. There is simply no comparison with the situation today.

— If the war ends, will the Middle Corridor lose its importance?

— I do not think so. If the situation surrounding sanctions changes, some cargo could indeed return to other routes. But routes passing through countries subject to sanctions or facing certain restrictions will still be perceived as more complicated and problematic. That is one of the reasons the Middle Corridor experienced such a significant increase in cargo volumes — at one point, by roughly 500%.

However, I do not think that all this cargo will disappear once the political situation changes. Carriers consider not only distance, but also reliability, delivery time, border-crossing procedures, and their ability to plan shipments properly. The Middle Corridor will therefore retain its importance. The real question is how effectively and predictably we can make it operate.

— Which categories of cargo could be the first to shift from Georgian routes to Armenian ones?

— It is difficult to identify a specific category. Much will depend on how realistically Turkish ports can be accessed through the Armenian route.

As far as road transport is concerned, if the relevant opportunities become available, some cargo could indeed move through Armenia. But much will depend on the cargo's final destination.

It is important to look not only at formal regulations, but also at what happens in practice. For example, there are restrictions in trade relations between Türkiye and Armenia, yet freight transportation between the two sides still takes place. According to some estimates, this could amount to two or three thousand truck trips per year.

— Do government institutions or transport companies have calculations regarding the potential redistribution of cargo flows?

— Of course. If sanctions are lifted and more liberal conditions for transportation emerge, a significant amount of cargo could move along other routes. But the economics of each individual route must be taken into account.

For example, fuel is significantly cheaper in Iran than in most countries in the region, which makes road transportation more competitive. However, I do not think changes in routing will lead to cargo disappearing from our market. If, after the initial effect of the Middle Corridor stabilizes, volumes decline somewhat, that is normal. Growth of 500% cannot continue indefinitely.

The key is not to depend on a single mode of transport. If we develop multimodal transportation — railways, ports, maritime transport, and roads — and coordinate them properly, cargo flows will remain stable. We need to distribute them efficiently among different modes of transport.

— Is the government considering accelerating specific railway, port, or road projects in response to a possible redistribution of cargo flows?

— Such projects need to be developed. When it comes to ports, roads, and railways, this is already incorporated into development plans. Many decisions have been made, and there are dedicated infrastructure programs that are gradually being implemented. The same applies to road transport. The road network is developing, and sections that previously limited travel speeds are being modernized.

A route that previously took around ten hours even without major stops could, in the future, take five or six hours. There is a section of roughly 400 kilometers where technical speeds used to be significantly lower, while current conditions allow vehicles to travel much faster. Projects like these make a route competitive: they reduce delivery times and costs while increasing predictability.

— Which Georgian infrastructure assets would be most sensitive to such competition?

— I do not think there is a single specific asset that would immediately be threatened. Some cargo could be redistributed, but one key factor has to be taken into account: over long distances, maritime transport remains the most competitive mode.

When it comes to trade between China and Europe, it is difficult to imagine the entire volume shifting to overland routes. China remains the world's manufacturing base, particularly its southern regions, where a significant share of industrial production and exports is concentrated. Therefore, maritime transport will continue to play a major role in trade between China, Europe, South Asia, Korea, and other markets.

The Middle Corridor does not necessarily have to replace maritime transportation entirely. It needs to occupy its own niche and remain competitive where speed, flexibility, and faster delivery are particularly important.

— Could the Azerbaijan–Armenia–Türkiye route become economically competitive in terms of cost and delivery time?

— In theory, of course. The potential exists. But it would not be possible simply to transfer all cargo flows onto this route. For a route to work, it has to be convenient and economically viable for carriers.

We are already experiencing queues at borders and heavy traffic, which increases waiting times. So the main priority is to create normal conditions for movement. Cargo volumes, transit times, and infrastructure capacity need to correspond to one another. A route cannot be developed simply because sanctions or other restrictions exist. Carriers need to know how long a shipment will take, how much it will cost, and where delays may occur.

For example, a large, well-equipped port is a major advantage. If it can accommodate high-capacity vessels, that directly reduces transportation costs. The situation is completely different when a container first has to be transported to another port, for example Istanbul, and then wait two or three weeks for transshipment. If unnecessary stages are eliminated and direct, well-organized logistics are established, both costs and delivery times can be significantly reduced. Infrastructure development therefore needs to go hand in hand with the development of services.

— What would have to happen for major carriers to actually begin changing their routes?

— Routes are not changed that quickly. It happens gradually. A carrier evaluates a specific segment, cargo, and destination, and then makes a decision.

There is also another important factor: e-commerce. This market is growing and changing logistics itself. Many goods from China are shipped directly to end consumers in Europe, the Caucasus, and other regions.

A significant share of these goods originates in or passes through northern China. For smaller shipments, road transport can already become competitive. For smaller population centers, there may sometimes be only two realistic options — air or road transport.

That is why road transportation can play a significant role in e-commerce. Depending on the cargo and destination, multimodal solutions and road transport can serve as additional tools.

— How do you assess the possible opening of the Armenia–Türkiye border?

— Regional development and higher living standards inevitably contribute to trade. Closed borders, waiting times, additional inspections, and cargo reprocessing create bottlenecks and increase costs. Therefore, expanding trade links across the region could be beneficial.

At the same time, I do not think trade between Armenia and Türkiye would be large enough to fundamentally change the region's entire transit regime. Some additional volume would emerge — perhaps one or two percent, or somewhat more. That is a normal process.

The economic effect of expanded trade could well be more significant than the potential loss of several hundred trucks. Moreover, we currently need to reduce pressure on road infrastructure: roads and border crossings are already under significant strain. Therefore, an additional route does not necessarily mean a loss — it could help distribute the load more evenly.

— What advantages does Georgia have that cannot be quickly replicated through Armenia?

— I would not say that there is one unique advantage that cannot be replicated. But Armenia's infrastructure is still significantly behind Georgia's in terms of capacity and level of development. Therefore, creating a fully comparable system there in the near term would be difficult.

For certain types of cargo, infrastructure characteristics do matter. For example, when transporting oversized cargo in Kazakhstan, conditions may be easier because of the greater distances and road infrastructure.

But transportation itself is not the ultimate goal. Transport exists because there is demand, and demand exists because there is trade. Therefore, the priority should be to develop trade, production, and the exchange of goods. If there is something to produce, sell, and buy, there will also be a need for transportation.

— What is the main problem facing the Middle Corridor that official presentations tend to underestimate?

— I think insufficient attention is paid to the coordination of procedures between countries. If we look at the northern route — for example, the Russia–Kazakhstan–Kyrgyzstan–China connection — a relatively integrated system has historically developed there: common rules, a relatively unified customs environment, and fewer border procedures.

On the Middle Corridor — Türkiye, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan — we are dealing with different countries, customs systems, procedures, and fees. Every additional border crossing means additional costs and additional time.

This is precisely what needs to be coordinated as much as possible. The fewer customs barriers there are, the better the procedures are harmonized, and the less time cargo spends at borders, the more attractive the corridor becomes.

Fuel costs are another factor. In Kazakhstan and some other countries in the region, diesel has historically been cheaper than in a number of other markets. Therefore, fuel also plays a significant role in determining the final cost of transportation. All these expenses need to be considered as part of the overall economics of the route.

— Where is the most serious bottleneck on the Georgian section?

— Primarily at border crossings, particularly Sarpi and other crossings through which the main cargo flows pass.

Another problem arises on the route toward the Caspian. There are limitations in ferry capacity. The Caspian Sea itself creates certain constraints, including changes in water levels that affect navigation possibilities.

Therefore, the Caspian issue is not only about port infrastructure. There is a broader environmental and infrastructure factor that needs to be taken into account in long-term transport planning.

— How much does actual transit time differ from the officially stated time?

— This needs to be monitored continuously. Transit time is calculated formally, but actual waiting times are not always reflected in official figures. Carriers and companies know how long the route takes in practice. This can be seen from company data, industry associations, and the experience of carriers.

A truck may travel several thousand kilometers in a few days and then lose a disproportionate amount of time on a relatively short section because of waiting at borders and crossings.

This raises a logical question: what is the point of having a fast 3,000-kilometer route if the final 900 kilometers take a disproportionate amount of time? This is one of the central challenges to competitiveness.

— What additional costs make the route less competitive?

— The more different fees and taxes there are, the less attractive the route becomes. Road tolls and other charges are a normal part of any transport system, but optimizing them could provide an additional incentive for carriers.

The cost of diesel fuel is particularly important. For road transportation, it is one of the main cost components. Therefore, carriers inevitably take this factor into account when calculating a route.

— Which administrative and customs procedures create the greatest delays?

— The problem is not always customs itself. In many cases, customs procedures work reasonably well. A significant share of delays results from missing permits, incorrectly completed documents, errors in certificates, or the absence of an original document.

But when a delay occurs, everyone immediately says, “It's customs.” At the same time, customs authorities are required to comply with legal requirements. If, for example, a veterinary or other required certificate has been completed incorrectly, is missing, or is not presented in the original, the cargo simply cannot be cleared. So digitizing documents alone cannot solve every problem. It helps, but the procedures themselves and the requirements for documentation also need to be improved.

— What problems exist in coordination between Azerbaijan and Georgia? Which of them should be addressed first?

— One important issue is joint inspection. We have been discussing this for many years. The idea is for certain procedures to be conducted jointly rather than sequentially on each side. This would be a good practical example of coordination.

If joint inspections are implemented, they could significantly reduce border-crossing times. In addition, other crossings need to be developed. Geography provides opportunities for this, and Azerbaijan has good conditions for the necessary infrastructure.

At the same time, there are limitations: in some places, the available space is very narrow and the road runs through a confined corridor, so expanding the infrastructure requires significant solutions.

— What problems exist with tariff policies between our countries and along the routes?

— Overall, the sides have already reached agreements on many issues and are trying to create more liberal conditions for one another. This is particularly important for Azerbaijan and Georgia, which have developed strong professional and partnership relations over the years.

Sometimes, at commission meetings, we quickly reach an understanding of what needs to be changed. But then a question arises: when we ask to increase a particular quota or reduce a fee, we are told that these are tax revenues for the state budget. I believe we need to take a broader view. The economic effect should not be assessed solely by how much revenue the budget receives from a single truck.

Suppose a road toll is $180. If reducing it helps increase trade, the overall economic effect will be significantly greater: goods will move faster, trade will grow, and additional companies, services, and jobs will emerge. Therefore, we need to evaluate the economics of the entire route rather than an individual fee.

— What is the actual capacity of Georgian infrastructure in the event of a sharp increase in transportation volumes?

— The sharp increase has already happened. This is not a theoretical question — we have already gone through such growth. Infrastructure continues to develop: new road sections are being built, existing ones are being modernized, and a modern transport network is gradually taking shape. Many projects are approaching completion. Over the next year or year and a half, the quality of a significant part of the route should improve substantially.

Of course, this requires considerable financial resources. But roads are essential in any case: without adequate transport infrastructure, it is impossible to develop trade and the economy.

— Which investments could have the greatest impact over the next two to three years?

— I would return once again to production and trade. Investment by itself does not create sustainable cargo flows. If production and trade between our countries develop, demand for transportation will automatically emerge. For example, if you produce a construction material and there is demand for it here, we begin buying that product from you. This simultaneously creates trade and cargo flows.

Today, we are forced to purchase many goods from third countries — China, Russia, and others. But if the same high-quality product can be purchased from a neighboring country, that is beneficial both for businesses and consumers.

Take pomegranate juice, for example. There is demand for it in Azerbaijan. Once we found suppliers offering a quality product, the need to purchase such goods elsewhere gradually declined. We know where pomegranates grow better and where they can be processed more efficiently. It is these simple economic connections that ultimately create a genuine economic corridor.

Therefore, we should not think only about how many trucks or trains will pass through the corridor. We need to understand what exactly they will carry, between whom trade will take place, and what the countries of the region will be able to produce for one another. If there is production, there will be trade. If there is trade, there will be cargo. And if there is cargo, there will be a sustainable need for high-quality transport infrastructure.