Commentary
Strengthening Mindanao Tourism’s Engagement on Adverse Travel Advisories
DAVAO CITY — I’m taking my time off to write on an important matter on why there seems to be a tepid response from Mindanao’s Tourism Sector in response to adverse travel advisories. These are my own views being a longtime resident of Mindanao. Mindanao tourism is growing rapidly in 2026, supported by stronger public-private partnerships, expanded travel circuits, and rising traveler confidence. The Department of Tourism (DOT) has promoted the island as a leading domestic and international destination, with Davao City reporting record arrivals and further growth driven by the MICE sector and major festivals.
First of all, I think there is a structural reason for this, instead of simply a lack of concern by Mindanao’s tourism sector. The striking point is that the issue is now being acknowledged again by the Mindanao Development Authority (MinDA). On August 24, 2026, MinDA officials said foreign travel advisories continue to affect Mindanao’s engagement with foreign governments, development institutions and investors, and argued that some advisories are based on outdated security information.
Why hasn’t Mindanao tourism made this a major advocacy issue?
1. Tourism organizations in Mindanao tend to promote destinations, not deal with the geopolitical narrative around them.
The Davao Travel Agencies Association (DATA), for example, states its mission primarily in terms of strengthening travel-agency relationships, promoting inbound travel and connecting with airlines, resorts and tour operators.
That is a legitimate operational mandate—but it is different from asking:
“What is the foreign government’s perception of Mindanao, where did that perception come from, and how do we systematically change it?”
That second question is essentially economic diplomacy and strategic communications.
2. Mindanao’s Tourism Industry appears to have accepted the advisories as something external rather than something it can influence.
This is perhaps the biggest missed opportunity.
A travel advisory can affect:
- MICE and international events
- visitor confidence on the peace and order condition
- airline decisions to expand their activities
- hotel investments on additional expansion to new locations
- foreign investments are wary of adverse travel conditions
- insurance perceptions on high risk areas
- university student and faculty exchanges
- diplomatic engagement such as international conferences
- Mindanao’s international reputation
MinDA has explicitly linked the advisories to Mindanao’s engagement with foreign governments and investors. Mindanao’s tourism sector could reason that fair and geographically accurate reporting of Mindanao is an economic-development issue, not merely a public-relations issue.
3. Davao City has actually demonstrated that direct embassy engagement can work—but it hasn’t been institutionalized.
This is where the situation becomes particularly interesting.
In 2018–2019, Davao’s investment promotion office was already meeting embassy officials and presenting them with information on investment opportunities, tourism activities and the actual peace-and-order situation. The city said the meetings were well received and intended to replicate them with other embassies. This was very evident during the Davao Investment Promotion Conference held in 2019 which saw the participation of 11 European Embassies represented by their ambassadors and charge d’affaires.
And the Department of Tourism in Manila subsequently brought representatives of countries with travel advisories to Mindanao through the Philippine Experience Program so they could see conditions themselves. In addition, the strong participation of the foreign chambers in Mindanao especially from the European Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, Japanese Chamber of Commerce of Mindanao, American Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines in the investment conference showed the strong partnerships that can be developed between the foreign chambers and their local counterparts.
The Model therefore exists.
What appears to be missing is a sustained private-sector-led diplomatic engagement mechanism. I’ve reiterated this in my previous articles that the foreign chambers and the diplomatic community must take a more active role in getting out the correct Mindanao narrative instead of being invited to ceremonies as guests. The presence of the diplomatic and foreign chambers community is a strategic asset which can be used to help Mindanao in promoting its location as a safe and viable investment destination.
4. There is a tendency to defend Davao City rather than advocate for Mindanao.
This distinction matters enormously.
The current U.S. advisory, for example, specifically exempts Davao City, Davao del Norte, Siargao and Dinagat Islands from its broader Level 3 warning for Mindanao.
That creates an unusual situation:
Davao can say, “We are safe.”
But the stronger strategic argument would be:
“Davao is safe, and the general perception of Mindanao needs to become more geographically differentiated and evidence-based.”
The second position benefits the whole island, including tourism circuits connecting Davao with other destinations. That requires leadership beyond destination marketing.
5. The Mindanao Tourism Sector may also be reluctant to counter travel advisories.
There is a diplomatic calculation involved.
Tourism operators depend on foreign markets, airlines, embassies and travel intermediaries. An individual tourism association may therefore hesitate to publicly say:
“Your travel advisory is unfair or outdated.”
It may fear being perceived as confrontational.
But there is a much more sophisticated way of doing this:
Don’t attack the advisory. Challenge the information underlying it.
For example:
“We understand and respect your government’s responsibility for the safety of its citizens. We would like to provide updated, independently verifiable information on the security situation and the geographical areas covered by your advisory.”
That’s economic diplomacy, not confrontation.
And this is where I think Davao City is missing a strategic opportunity
The city already has something most Philippine cities don’t have:
a concentration of foreign chambers, honorary consulates, international business organizations and diplomatic contacts.
That could be turned into a permanent Mindanao Tourism–Diplomatic Dialogue.
Rather than asking government alone to lobby embassies, the private sector could convene:
and establish an evidence-based mechanism to:
- monitor foreign travel advisories;
- identify factual/geographical inaccuracies;
- prepare quarterly Mindanao security and tourism briefs;
- engage embassies privately through security with the quarterly studies that MinDA has been regularly preparing.
- invite diplomats and foreign journalists to experience Mindanao firsthand;
- promote geographically differentiated travel guidance;
- measure changes in foreign perception;
- communicate improvements internationally.
That would be much more sophisticated than another tourism promotion campaign.
The irony
Davao’s tourism industry is already doing the downstream work—marketing destinations, developing itineraries, attracting visitors and working with airlines. It is also working with the City Government on the planning of cultural and sports events as well as investment conferences in partnership with business support organizations.
But the problem may be upstream:
Who is changing the narrative that determines whether foreigners even consider coming to Mindanao?
That is where diplomatic engagement becomes important.
And the evidence tells us, this isn’t an imaginary problem. MinDA is again publicly raising it in August 2026, while the U.S. advisory still maintains a broad warning for much of Mindanao despite specifically exempting Davao and several other destinations.
So I would characterize the gap Not as “Mindanao Tourism doesn’t care.”
I would characterize it as:
Mindanao tourism has not yet developed the institutional capacity to treat international perception, travel advisories and diplomatic engagement as strategic tourism infrastructure.
That is a considerably more serious issue—and potentially a major opportunity for whoever is willing to build that capability.
If done properly, the foreign chambers and honorary consular corps in Mindanao could be the bridge between the tourism industry and the embassies, rather than leaving the advocacy entirely to government.
The current Canadian advisory, for example, still distinguishes between large parts of Mindanao while maintaining substantial warnings. The UK’s current advisory similarly continues to advise against travel to western and central Mindanao and against all but essential travel to much of the remainder. Even if Davao City itself is relatively protected from the direct effect, Mindanao’s collective brand is not.
This is where I see the real paradox
The organizations and people speaking most forcefully about the problem tend to come from:
- business and foreign chambers
- Mindanao development organizations
- regional development leadership
- political leadership
- investment promotion agencies
Yet the sector whose commercial interests are most directly affected—tourism—has not visibly emerged as the principal organized advocate for changing the underlying narrative. That is difficult to explain away as merely a communications problem. Why shouldn’t the tourism industry itself be one of the strongest voices demanding that those advisories be accurate, updated and geographically specific?
It doesn’t require addressing adverse travel advisories.
In fact, the smarter approach is diplomatic:
“We understand and respect your responsibility to protect your citizens. We respectfully ask that your assessments reflect updated, independently verifiable conditions and distinguish between areas of genuinely different risk.”
That is a completely legitimate tourism-industry position.
There is a potentially powerful international ecosystem sitting in Mindanao—foreign chambers, honorary consuls, international businesses and diplomatic representatives.
Yet the tourism sector doesn’t appear to be systematically connecting itself to that ecosystem around travel and safety advisory advocacy. Instead, someone from the business/diplomatic community ends up making the argument.
That is almost backwards.
The tourism industry should be leading the advocacy, while the foreign chambers and diplomatic community can help it navigate the diplomatic system.
If that doesn’t happen, complacency becomes institutionalized: “Davao is okay; tourists are still coming; therefore there isn’t a problem.”
But Davao City being okay is precisely why Mindanao’s Tourism Industry should be able to make the stronger argument for geographic differentiation across Mindanao.
In my opinion, the main concern isn’t simply unfair travel advisories anymore.
It is who has the strategic ownership of Mindanao’s international tourism narrative.
And right now, the evidence suggests that Mindanao Tourism’s sector has yet to claim that role.
(MindaViews is the opinion section of MindaNews. Antonio “Tony” S. Peralta is a business and civic leader who serves as the Honorary Consul of Finland in Mindanao and Chairman of the European Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines–Southern Mindanao Business Council, as well as Corporate Secretary of the Japanese Chamber of Commerce of Mindanao. His background is in banking, finance, and regional development, and he is involved in promoting foreign investment, sustainable growth, and educational links between Europe and Mindanao. He also serves as Vice Chair of the Davao City Media-Citizen Council, participates in development initiatives through ECCP SMBC, and supports projects related to rural development, media engagement, business cooperation, and international partnerships in the region.)
