Destination Development and
Institutionalization Strategies
In the OIC Member Countries
140
Table 28: The OIC Country Examples:
Phase Discovery/ Exploration phase Developed phase
Country/
Destination
Azerbaijan (National) Nigeria (National) Turkey (National)
Public
sources:
In Azerbaijan, only public
funds are available for
destination development
by theMinistry of Tourism.
In Nigeria, the Cross-River
Tourism Bureau relies on
government grant funding,
totaling $1.3 million for
cultural tourism sectors in
the nation in 2017.
There is also a 3% tax
levied on consumer
spending, but admittedly,
this tax has been
challenging to collect.
Overall: Turkey does not use
city taxes to fund DMOs,
however, direct funding from
government and local
Chambers
Private
sources:
Government plans to enact
a new law to encourage
public-private partnership
funding.
Private sponsorships from
industry stakeholders to
fund operations. In
addition, the tourism
board has issued licenses
and memberships to
tourism operators.
Turkey’s DMO membership
fees support the local DMOs
operating costs. For example,
Belek DMO is funded by 47
private hotel members with an
annual budget of over $350,00.
ICVB example: Direct
Contribution from the Istanbul
Chamber of Commerce.
Source: DinarStandard Analysis
5.6 How the OIC Countries Compare in Terms of Legislation
In the tourism sector, government regulations are developed to ensure best practice and protect consumers
or develop sustainable resources. Regulations are typically developed by national tourismbodies and agencies
and DMOs are typically established through legislation. Legislation regarding tourism typically entail
destination’s entry visa requirements and taxation regulations, which have a major impact on DMO
capabilities and activities. Visa requirements impact accessibility and tourist taxes impact competitiveness.