Sustainable Destination Management
Strategies in the OIC Member Countries
106
countries. The Danube Competence Center cooperates with national tourism boards as well as
private and non-governmental entities of member countries. 348
The key drivers of this process were first and foremost national tourism organizations,
although regional tourism organizations also played a role. On the one side, there are
continuous activities assumed by all members, and on the other, there are project-related
activities under different perspectives. Typically, closer cooperation mechanisms tend to
involve just a few countries that often have geographic proximity. In general, because of their
weight as the main institution on the national level, NTOs have been a driving force with regard
to participation in marketing activities or EU projects. In addition, they also have a certain
lobbying power that regional destination management organizations typically do not have.
Apart from the national DMO’s and NTOs, the importance of regional DMO’s depends a lot on
their location. Germany 349 and Austria,350 for example, have fully institutionalized Danube-
focused associations that assume a strong role as do those regional DMOs that represent cities
on the Danube like the Bratislava Region,351 or at least a certain proximity to the Danube like
Odesa,352 the Ukrainian gateway to the Danube Delta which is located approximately 200 km
from the Delta.
Not all Danube countries have properly established ministries of tourism, one such case being
Ukraine, that has a Department of Tourism within the Ministry of Economic Development 353.
The role of ministries depends on the importance of the Danube in each country’s context. Much
of Serbia is influenced by the Danube. Therefore, the Serbian National Tourism Organization
NTOS plays a substantial role within the Danube context. In contrast, the Danube region in
Bulgaria and Romania is at the margins of national tourism development; therefore, the
ministries do not focus as much on the Danube and don’t have the same weight in the context.
In the case of Austria, because of the strength of the regional destination management
organization, there is not much involvement from the national level. In the case of Croatia,
again, the Danube regions are not of high importance within the national context. Therefore,
the involvement from the ministry is not strong. In the case of Germany, apart from an already
established Danube Association, Petra Hedorfer, the head of the German tourism board, is a
member of the Board of Directors of the Danube Competence Center, which highlights the fact
that the role and influence can also be driven by institutional or political considerations. All in
all, the panorama is heterogeneous and influenced by an intricate of factors in each case,
reflecting the complexities and disparities of the Danube region, and reflecting as well constant
change in emphasis of involvement from either the national or regional level.
Apart from national and regional destination management organizations, other stakeholders
include the private sector, both in the form of associations as well as individual members and
348 Interreg Central Europe. 2016. Good Practice Catalogue of Existing Certified Cultural Routes.
349 "Deutsche Donau," Deutsche Donau, accessed October 13, 2019, .
350 "About Us," Donau Oesterreich, accessed October 12, 2019,
351 "Mountains, Wine Cellars, Castles and Great Food," Capital City of Slovakia - Bratislava, accessed October 12, 2019,
352 "Helpful Info," Odessa City Counsil Department of Culture and Tourism, accessed October 12, 2019,
353 "The Structure of the Central Administrative Office of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Ukrainе,"
Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Agriculture of Ukraine, accessed October 12, 2019,
35839afc3810&title=ClassifiedRecordsDirectorate.