1Introduction- 1 -
2Destination Development Principles- 1 -
3Destination & Product Development Framework- 2 -
3.1 Proposed Destination & Product Development Framework- 2 - 3.1.1 Destination Framework- 2 -
3.2 Prioritizing Tourism Interventions in the SCDs- 6 -
3.2.1 Northern Philippines- 7 -
3.2.2 Central Philippines- 7 -
3.2.3 Southern Philippines- 8 -
3.2.4 Implications For Setting Development Priorities- 8 -
Although previous tourism plans had tried to focus destination development and marketing on a few selected priority tourism destinations, these have generally been unsuccessful and slow to develop, while leaving many stakeholders largely excluded. As a result, the destination and product development and marketing process and related investments that have taken place in the past has generally been organic rather than planned, as is amply illustrated by the ad hoc, unplanned, poorly managed, and underfunded approach that has defined the way in which Philippine tourist destinations have evolved.
Given the above situation, the purpose of this paper, is to set out a logical framework to guide the DOT and LGUs in the planning, development and regulation of tourism; help other national government agencies to converge their investments in infrastructure, human resource development and capacity building; and assist the private sector in determining the location of viable tourism investments.
Destination Development Principles
A key discussion point in the regional stakeholder consultations was the need to have a logical framework for destination development going forward that would provide the stage on which the NTDP strategic directions and their related programs and projects could be implemented in order to achieve the NTDP’s overall goal, vision, and targets between 2011 and 2016. The principles adopted by the stakeholders in defining the logical destination framework were:
the destination development framework needed to be as inclusive as possible—all main stakeholders at the national government, LGUs, and private sector level as well local communities, need to see that they are included;
the destination framework needed to be responsive not only to international market demand, but also to the much larger domestic market demand;
the framework should help to identify and align priorities for public sector planning, investment in infrastructure, marketing and promotions, as well as institutional organization and human resources development; and
the framework should guide the type and location of private sector investment as well as PPP-based infrastructure investment opportunities.
This approach recognizes that not all destinations in the Philippines can be international destinations, and the reality that it is the more flexible domestic market that will drive most tourism investments and generate most of the economic benefits including poverty reduction. While it is true that much of the economic benefits of tourism will accrue to those destinations able to attract both international and domestic markets, the primary rationale for having a broader and more inclusive destination approach is that domestic market development even at a modest scale outside the main destinations requires less investment, can have significant income, employment, and poverty reduction effects, and have lower environmental and social mitigation costs.
In this context, the stakeholders adopted a destination framework that would support destination development throughout the Philippines, while at the same time giving priority to key destinations with the capacity to increase international and domestic tourism volumes quickly. The stakeholders believed that while many areas of the Philippines may not attract international tourists due either to the lack of necessary attractions or access, facility and safety and security limitations, this...