Sustainable Destination Management
Strategies in the OIC Member Countries
18
Focus on local communities and associations first is recommended while working with
international organizations on a more strategic and supporting level. Local universities have
been seen as competent partners in tourism activities for cross-border corridors. The Mekong
Tourism Coordinating Office works with various universities on their activities. They publish
showcase studies of best practice social enterprises in collaboration with Mahidol University
to allow other businesses to learn.
Capacity Building: Capacity building is an essential component of corridor development, the
building of tourism standards, and ensuring inclusive growth (chapter 1.3.5). It is crucial for
the effective management of MDTCs to ensure unified standards and seamless tourist
experiences. For this, educational institutions, such as universities and training centers, need
to be involved. Policies to ensure common standards and joint capacity building initiatives are
recommended in any tourism corridor. Often, capacity building can be conducted in
partnership with international development or training agencies. The Abraham Path, for
example, provided training through the private sector and partner organizations with funding
from the World Bank.
UNWTO works with several educational partners. Countries may consider using domestic
training centers, asking international providers to provide training, or arranging for knowledge
transfer from international providers to the country. This depends on the tourism sector
development in the country. Corridors with a high variance in HR development benefit from
inviting the leader in this area to provide knowledge exchange to the other countries.
Funding: It is further advised to create a financial framework for collaboration. The financing
should be created with sustainability in mind and can come from various sources, public or
private (chapter 1.3.6). Membership fees, whether from public or private entities, are an
important source of funding, especially as they promote a sense of ownership. Assistance from
external sources, whether international or regional, can be sought out to complement internal
funding. However, it must be ensured that a tourism corridor is not over-reliant on external
funding, as this might influence its sustainability in the long term. It may also be decided to
change the financing framework over time. For example, a corridor could be launched with
shared public financing to build a critical mass of participating stakeholders, and it can then be
transferred to private-sector stakeholders to manage.
An example of a mixed financing framework would be the Mekong Tourism Coordinating Office
(MTCO). The operations of the MTCO as secretarial of the six governments involved are
financed through fixed annual governmental contributions. However, for any initiative the
MTCO is conducting, a separate public-private partnership framework is created. For their
Mekong Moments initiative, for example, private and public partners become “founding
partners.” This financed the launch of the program. It is being made sustainable by charging
affiliation fees to participating businesses in the future.
Financial sustainability should be kept in mind at the initiation of a corridor and throughout
ongoing operations. Many international projects face challenges when financing is based on a
single source. An example of this is Baltic Tourism, which, even though initially successful, faced
challenges when public financing was stopped. A well-balanced business plan is required to
ensure the long-term sustainability of the corridor. A mixed model is recommended with
development funds and government contributions as well as private-sector funding of
initiatives or commissions for direct sales generated.