Sustainable Destination Management
Strategies in the OIC Member Countries
99
H. Evaluation of the Corridor
Infrastructure and SMEs: Especially the promotion and support of infrastructure at
secondary destinations and SMEs in tourism through recent development projects were
highlighted.334
Standards: No common service standards are applied in the six regions to build up consumer
confidence (lack of willingness or interest to implement Mutual Recognition Agreements for
several tourism and hospitality services) 335.
Institutional level: In terms of positive aspects on the institutional level. it is important to
realize that six countries support such a program for about 15 years with a limited budget but
with high commitment and strong ownership (e.g., joining on a regular basis the biannual
meetings)336. Furthermore, with the focus on public-private partnerships, especially with the
current marketing activities, added value has been created for the stakeholders: The countries
provide support to the MTCO, and the MTCO creates at the same time credibility. It was
mentioned that despite the commitment to attend meetings on a regular basis, engagement of
a high level is quite often missing337. However, the MTCO is still able to attract cooperation
with donor agencies/development partners, which is an additional value for current and future
development of responsible tourism in the GMS Tourism Corridor.338
All interview partners acknowledged the valuable work accomplished by the MTCO, especially
that carried out by the current Executive Director through his excellent cooperation with the
private sector over the years. Since he will be leaving this post by the middle of 2020 at the
latest, the participants expressed worry about the professional stature of his successor and
whether the management of the GMS Tourism Corridor can be improved. The one potentially
weak aspect of the management structure is its institutional framework, which is based not
only on the dedication of two staff members but especially on the quality and commitment of
the Executive Director.
Product Development: Although the interview partners spoke highly of the MTCO’s current
work (especially in terms of its marketing activities), the lack of concrete product development
along the Mekong or of cross-border products was seen as a problem. In terms of border
regulations, more efforts are needed; for example, there are still too many barriers to
promoting the whole region as one product (e.g., crossing borders by car is possible only if one
obtains a special permit, which can take up to six months to be issued. 339
Funding: It was acknowledged that the MTCO had achieved a lot despite the limited financial
resources available. Although all the interview partners expressed the need for more funding
sources, they were unable to offer any concrete suggestions to remedy this problem. However,
334 Interview with Head of Project and Administration, ADB
335 Ibid.
336 Interview with Unit Head of Project and Administration, ADB
337 Interview with Executive Director of MTCO
338 Ibid.
339 Interview with chairwoman of Myanmar Tourism Marketing