RIVERMAN’S VISTA: The promise we keep missing from Mindanao

QUEZON CITY (MindaNews / 28 December) — From Mindanao, the failure of Philippine tourism is even more glaring. This island holds some of the country’s richest tourism assets: long coastlines, living indigenous cultures, biodiversity hotspots, faith traditions, and rivers and mountains that remain largely intact. Mindanao should be central to any serious strategy to decongest Luzon, spread opportunity, and build a more inclusive tourism economy. Instead, it remains marginal.

The regional comparison is sobering. In 2024, Thailand welcomed more than 35 million foreign tourists, Malaysia around 25 million, Vietnam over 17 million, Singapore about 16.5 million, and Indonesia close to 14 million. The Philippines attracted only about 6 million, and Mindanao accounted for only a small share of that already modest number. This gap is not explained by lack of attractions. It is explained by cost, access, and credibility. For many travelers, the Philippines, and that incudes, Mindanao is simply too expensive for what it offers compared to equivalent destinations in Thailand or Vietnam. It does not help that there are frequent travel advisories warning about traveling to Mindanao.

Gateways that still bypass Mindanao

Mindanao does have an international airport in Davao City, and that should have been a turning point. In reality, access remains limited. International routes are few, frequencies are thin, and connectivity to major tourism markets is weak. For most foreign visitors, Mindanao is still effectively reached through Manila, with all the added cost and uncertainty that implies.

This problem is worsened by infrastructure choices that reinforce Manila centric access. The privatization of NAIA risks higher passenger charges and a focus on commercial returns rather than national tourism goals. Mindanao bound travelers pay for this twice, first at entry and again on domestic flights. The new airport in Bulacan does not correct the imbalance. It adds distance, time, and expense, and deepens dependence on a single congested gateway, while introducing environmental risks related to reclamation, flooding, land subsidence, and loss of coastal ecosystems.

Mindanao needs a multi hub strategy instead. Cagayan de Oro should anchor northern Mindanao, linking river, adventure, and highland tourism to Bukidnon. Zamboanga City should serve as a western hub for heritage and island routes in the Sulu Sea. Camiguin’s volcanoes and dive sites remain constrained by limited and costly access, despite proximity to Cagayan de Oro. In the Bangsamoro, cultural, faith, and nature-based tourism could support peace and livelihoods, but only if access improves and confidence is built through consistent policy rather than episodic promotion.

Costs, prices, and environmental credibility

The cost problem becomes clearest when travelers compare actual expenses. A beachfront room in Siargao or Samal that is modest by international standards often costs the equivalent of 120 to 180 US dollars a night. In Thailand, the same amount can secure a higher quality beachfront resort in Krabi or Koh Lanta, with better transport links and more reliable utilities. In Vietnam, 120 dollars can buy a luxury room in Da Nang or Phu Quoc, often with airport transfers included.

Food tells the same story. In many Philippine destinations, a simple restaurant meal easily costs 10 to 15 US dollars, and far more in resort areas. In Thailand or Vietnam, the same amount buys a full meal for two, or a high-quality street food experience that is safe, varied, and deeply embedded in local culture. In places like Chiang Mai or Hoi An, visitors can eat well for 3 to 5 dollars without sacrificing quality. In Mindanao, even local food becomes expensive once electricity, transport, and supply chain costs are factored in.

These price differences matter. Tourists compare total trip value, not just beauty. When accommodation and food are more expensive than in Thailand or Vietnam, but access is harder and infrastructure less reliable, the decision is easy. High prices combined with uncertainty drive travelers away.

Environmental governance failures further erode confidence. The state’s failure to consistently support conservation efforts like Masungi signals that protection is optional. The destruction of Manila Bay through reclamation shows how ecosystems can be sacrificed for short term gain. The degradation of Zambales beaches through dredging reinforces the sense that coastal environments are expendable. Mining projects in or near protected areas send the same message. From Mindanao, these examples matter because they shape national credibility. Visitors assume that what happens in Luzon can happen here.

Mindanao is now repeating these mistakes. The Samal Island Bridge is promoted as development, yet it threatens coral reefs and marine ecosystems that underpin Samal’s tourism appeal. Easy access that destroys what visitors come to see is not progress. It is self-sabotage.

Against greenwashing, for a Mindanao just transition

There is growing talk of sustainable tourism and ecotourism in Mindanao. This is welcome, but it carries risk. When ecotourism is reduced to branding, exclusive resorts, or controlled access that sidelines communities, it becomes greenwashing. It hides extraction behind green language while costs and risks are pushed onto local people.

Mindanao needs a just transition in tourism. Communities must lead, not merely participate. Indigenous peoples, fishers, farmers, and river communities must be recognized as stewards and primary beneficiaries. Secure land and water rights, real decision-making power, and fair sharing of revenues are essential. This is especially true in the Bangsamoro, where tourism can support peace only if it respects culture and autonomy; in Bukidnon, where landscapes and farms can anchor low impact tourism; and in Camiguin, where carrying capacity must come before volume.

From a Mindanao lens, competitiveness will not come from privatized gateways, reclaimed airports, or reef-destroying bridges. It will come from lowering real travel costs, expanding direct access to hubs like Davao City, Cagayan de Oro, and Zamboanga City, making prices competitive with Thailand and Vietnam, protecting places like Masungi, Manila Bay, Zambales, Samal, and Bulacan as lessons in what must never be repeated, and grounding tourism in environmental integrity and community leadership. Until then, Mindanao will remain rich in promise, visible in brochures, and missing from itineraries.

[MindaViews is the opinion section of MindaNews. Dean Antonio Gabriel La Viña is Associate Director of Manila Observatory where he heads the Klima Center. He is also a professor of law, philosophy, politics and governance in several universities. He has been a human rights lawyer for 35 years and a member of the Free Legal Assistance Group. He is currently the managing partner of La Viña Zarate and Associates, a development and social change progressive law firm that provides legal assistance to the youth student sector, Lumad and other Indigenous Peoples, desaparecidos and their families, political detainees, communities affected by climate and environmental justice, etc. Dean Tony is a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague and Chair of the Jurisprudence and Legal Philosophy Department of the Philippine Judicial Academy. He is founding president of the Movement Against Disinformation and the founding chairs of the Mindanao Climate Justice Resource Facility and the Mindanao Center for Scholarships, Sports, and Spirituality (MCS³).]