Focus on one destination

Rather than exhaust resources to cover the whole country, an economist suggests picking just one

FOR the Philippines to grow its tourism arrivals, it should concentrate on developing one key destination, an economist said yesterday in a forum.

While the Philippines is blessed with promising tourism destinations, economist Andrew Masigan thinks it is more viable for the country to concentrate on developing one key tourism destination to attract more foreign tourists, similar to Indonesia’s move of developing Bali, which now contributes 80 percent of Indonesia’s total arrivals.

“If I were them (DOT), they should concentrate development in Region 7 because it is easier to develop tourism infrastructure in one locality. Let’s make Cebu-Bohol seamless and a world-class twin destination,” said Masigan during a forum hosted by the Cebu Business Club at the City Sports Club Cebu.

Masigan noted that while the “It’s More Fun Campaign” was well received globally and has attracted foreign tourists here, arrivals since the past year contracted and its growth rate is decelerating fast.

From a 9.6 percent growth in arrivals in 2013, it went down sharply to 3.2 percent, barely hitting the five million target. This year, the tourism growth rate is at zero to negative, placing the Philippines the lowest among its Asean peers, after Thailand which, is facing political problems.

“The whole program could have been planned better,” said Masigan, noting that despite the adjustment from 10 million tourists to six million tourists by 2016, the revised target is still not achievable.

The columnist cited infrastructure bottlenecks, expensive, long and inconvenient inter-island routes and expensive hotel room rates (due to supply-demand issues) as among the factors that make the Philippines “an expensive country to visit.”

“We aren’t like Laos and Cambodia, which are accessible by land. People come here because they want to come here. But if you are a tourist, would you subject yourself to all these high cost of travel, high room rates, and long transfers, among others?” Masigan said, relat- ing his trip to Siargao Island in Surigao del Norte where had to take about five transfers before reaching his destination.

Masigan believes it is more realistic for the government to pour in infrastructure projects in one key tourism destination rather than pour in the $42.3 billion infrastructure projects from Aparri to Jolo, which “can’t be done.”

Moreover, while the country generates $10.63 billion in tourism receipts from foreign tourists spending here, Filipinos, on the other hand, according to Masigan, spend $8 billion when they travel abroad, which means total real revenue being plugged into the system is only around $2.6 billion.

Meanwhile, in a separate business forum held here last month, economist Bernardo Villegas said the continued growth in tourism would help the country achieve the six to seven percent gross domestic product (GDP) growth eyed in the next three to four years.

Villegas identified that today there are about 40 million Filipinos discovering the numerous tourist destinations spread out all over the country, which will continue to sustain growth of the country’s tourism sector—providing livelihood to local communities and helping rural areas generate revenues.

Villegas encouraged local entrepreneurs to place investments in tourism especially in Cebu, whose charm still continues to captivate more and more tourists.

The economic professor specifically pointed out Siquijor, Camotes, and Malapascua, among others as ideal destinations for tourism investments. He noted the enhanced air connectivity between the country and overseas as well as the presence of nautical highway will spur more travel and tourism-related businesses.

Villegas said the country has a young population that is determined to spend and travel. KOC