viii. Coordination. This relates to the lack of alignment on the project approach (for example, harmonising signalling systems for crossborder rail projects); a lack of coordination with other initiatives where there may be important inter-dependencies (such as integrating sea and road transport links); and alignment across government departments. Coordination issues were most challenging on infrastructure projects in ASEAN. For example, it is not uncommon for over 15 distinct decisionmaking entities to be involved in a typical transport infrastructure project, with limited accountability and mechanisms to attain consensus.10 ix. Regulatory structures. A lack of regulatory structures to support implementation (such as lack of relevant standards or protocols or absence of defined property rights) can act as a barrier. For example, a major issue preventing infrastructure development is the need for a clear process for securing regulatory approvals in many ASEAN Member States. In contrast, legislation in Malaysia and Singapore allows government to acquire land for projects that are deemed to be in the public interest, and the government assumes responsibility for acquiring the land. Further barriers can include the absence of established framework agreements for negotiating commercial terms for projects (such as the cost-benefit sharing of cross-border infrastructure projects). However, this was not considered an issue in energy projects, where there is a strong track record internationally and some agreed basic templates. Nonetheless, it was considered to be more of an issue with other projects where there is less of an international “norm”, such as railways. 10 Lifting the barriers roundtable: Infrastructure, power and utilities, CIMB ASEAN Research Institute (CARI) and McKinsey & Company, 2013. 26 MASTER PLAN ON ASEAN CONNECTIVITY 2025