24 Annual Review of Territorial Governance in the Western , II, 2020, 24-45 https://doi.org/10.32034/CP-TGWBAR-I02-03

Tourism Development in the Western Balkans: Towards a Common Policy Enrico Porfidoa

Summary

Tourism is one of the fastest-growing sectors of the global economy. Most countries are relying on it for their economic growth, including Western Balkan countries, which are investing in tourism and considering it as key-sector for their development. In the last decade, several initiatives have been undertaken by national governments, such as reviews of tourism strategic plans, tourism communication campaigns, and the creation of national tourism brands.

This contribution aims to provide a complete framework of public tourism policies in the region through the comparison of the strategies undertaken by each country. Later, countries will be then grouped by policies’ characteristics and analysed according to additional indicators, such as amount of investments, policies’ evaluation and implementation, and tourism numbers trends.

Preliminary findings indicate that Western Balkan countries are adopting similar tourism policies in terms of objectives, products, and investments. This fact may lead policymakers to consider the differences and unique features of their respective territories and generate competition among neighbouring countries, which are consequently obliged to contend for the same tourism market. In such a context, the conclusions and recommendations of this work point to the possibility of a common tourism policy in order to join efforts and to jointly address the region’s competitiveness on a global scale.

Keywords: Balkans, Regional Policy, Tourism, Tourism Policies

Contact

a [email protected] pais(vi)agem collective, Barcelona-Paris Sealine Research Center, Ferrara University, Italy Institute Habitat Tourism Territory, UPC Barcelona – UMA Malaga, Spain Tourism Development in the Western Balkans: Towards a Common Policy 25

Introduction: Tourism in the Western The Balkan peninsula contains countries Balkans that are at different stages of tourism development. “Indeed, besides the long- Over the past decades, tourism has established tourist destinations along the experienced continued growth and Croatian coast, also other, more remote deepening diversification to become one and rural areas are becoming hotspots for of the fastest growing economic sectors tourism” (Lehmann and Gronau, 2019, p. in the world (UNWTO, 2019). In the last 46). This difference is mainly caused by their twenty years, it also grew rapidly in the diverse economic, political, and historical Balkan region, growing from less than 4 backgrounds. million foreigner visitors in 1999 to more than 27 in 2018 (see Table 2). Due to its There are several variables along which the position and complex history, the region Balkan peninsula countries can be grouped has been considered “between stagnation and analysed. Already from a geophysical and progress, between the past and the point of view, the region can be defined future, between preserving the existing in three ways according to various natural state and a revolution for far too long” borders: the Sava-Danube line, the Trieste- (Dragicevic-Sesic and Dragojevic, 2004, p. Odessa line, and the Carpathian and Balkans 19). In particular, the climate of insecurity line (Hajdù, et al., 2007). caused by conflicts (most recently resulting Figure 1. Balkan Peninsula: Geo-physical from the dissolution of Yugoslavia between Vision 1991 and 2001) delayed the mass tourism boom that other Mediterranean countries have enjoyed since the 1970s.

Due to the region being ‘undiscovered’ and ‘unknown,’ today the entire Balkan region is going through a golden age of tourism growth. The increasing importance of tourism in the economic structure of Balkan countries is undeniable (Cvetkoska and Barišić, 2017). Lonely Planet – the colossus of travel guides – awarded Albania the best destination of 2011. In 2016, the Bay of Kotor in Montenegro was ranked as a must- Sava-Danude Line Trieste-Odessa Line visit city, while Transylvania in Romania Carpathians and Balkans Line was ranked as the best region in the world Source: Author, based on Hajdù, et al. (2007). to travel to (Butler, 2015). The region of the Julian Alps in recently entered From a political economy point of view, the its rankings, winning third place in the discussion is even more complex. There category, ‘Best Destination of 2018’ (Lonely are at least four different groups to which Planet, 2018). Western Balkan countries belong according to organizational reports and other Göler and Doka (2018) have divided the documents mentioned in this study. region into three main typologies of tourism development: (i) the ‘traditional For the purpose of this study and the Mediterranean holidays resorts’ of mission of the journal, the analysis has been and Turkey; (ii) the ‘restructured post- narrowed to the so-called Western Balkans socialist model of tourism and leisure and since most of the documents activities’ in Bulgaria and Romania; and (iii) analysed consider it part of WB though the ‘well-functioning remainders of the it is already a member of the EU. Bulgaria, liberal model of a socialist market economy’ Greece, Romania, Slovenia, and Turkey are in Croatia and Montenegro. not part of the study1. 26 Enrico Porfido

Table 1. Tourism-Economies Groups according to the documents mentioned in this study

Organization Name Countries Albania, Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, United Nations World Cyprus, Greece, Israel, Italy, Tourism Organization Southern/Mediterranean Malta, Montenegro, North (UNWTO) Europe , , San Marino, , Slovenia, Spain, Turkey Albania, Bosnia and Organization for Economic Herzegovina, Kosovo, Co-operation and South-East Europe Montenegro, North Development (OECD) Macedonia, Serbia Albania, Bosnia and 2 European Union (EU) Western Balkans (WB) Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Montenegro, , Serbia Austria, , Bulgaria, World Travel and Tourism European Union Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Council (WTTC)3 (sub-region) Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, , Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden Albania, Armenia, Other Europe Azerbaijan, Belarus, (sub-region) Bosnia and Herzegovina, , Iceland, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Russian Federation, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine

Source: Author, based on EU (2008), (2018) OECD (2018), UNWTO (2019), and WTTC (2019).

Observing the tourism numbers of the EU in 2013, which opened its borders to Western Balkans countries – Albania, Bosnia Schengen countries (OECD, 2016), among and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, others. Kosovo, the Republic of North Macedonia, and Serbia – important gaps are already In order to compare the WB countries, the evident. Out of the seven Western Balkans table above includes a ‘Tourism Growth countries, Croatia stands out with 16.649 Index 2017/2027’ in the last row (Table 2). million tourists in 2018 (UNWTO, 2019), This index is calculated according to the data followed by Albania, Montenegro, Serbia, included by the World Travel and Tourism Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Council (WTTC) in its annual Country North Macedonia, and Kosovo, for which Reports. The average growth for this time updated data are not available. This is frame is 35%, with Croatia, Montenegro, predictable due to the long and historic and Serbia above the average, and Albania tourism tradition of Croatia (Beyer, et al., slightly under the average, followed by the 2013; Orsini and Ostojić, 2018; Lehmann Republic of North Macedonia and Bosnia and Gronau, 2019) and its admission to and Herzegovina. These tourism growth Tourism Development in the Western Balkans: Towards a Common Policy 27

Table 2. International Tourist Arrivals (in million per year)4

Year ALB BIH HRV KOS5 MKD MNE SRB 1990 0.03 N/A 7.049 N/A 0.562 N/A N/A 1999 0.039 0.089 3.443 N/A 0.181 N/A N/A 2010 2.191 0.365 9.111 0.0 34 0.262 1.088 0.683 2015 3.784 0.678 12.683 0.079 0.486 1.56 1.132 2017 4.261 0.733 14.353 0.086 0.529 1.879 1.272 2018 5.340 1.053 16.649 N/A 0.707 2.007 1.711 20276 6.25 1.018 26.033 N/A 0.754 2.978 2.095 Tourism Growth Index 31.84% 28% 44.87% N/A 29.84% 36.9% 39.28% 2017-20277

Source: Author, based on UNWTO (2000, 2016, 2017, 2019), WTTC (2017) and Kosovo Agency of Statistics (2020). rates confirm that the entire region has importance of the tourism sector is also become an important international tourism confirmed by its contribution to national destination over the last two decades. The GDPs (Table 3).

Table 3. Tourism sector contribution to GDP by country in 20198

Country 2019 Contribution to GDP Growth 2018-2019 Albania 21.2% +8.5% Bosnia and Herzegovina 9.8% +6.9% Croatia 25% +4.1% Kosovo - - Montenegro 32.1% +6.1% North Macedonia 6.2% +3.8% Serbia 5.9% +5.0%

Source: Author, based on the WTTC Country Reports: ‘2020 Annual Research: Key Highlights’ [available at https://wttc.org/Research/Economic-Impact].

Tourism assumes an essential role in Yet, tourism’s strict interdependence with boosting socio-economic growth, especially other sectors such as the environment, in developing countries. This industry in education, health, and transport, makes it this region is a significant factor in the even more challenging to reach the goals democratization process, acting as a driver countries’ have for the sector. For example, for EU integration of the region (Priniotaki- the tourism sector strongly relies on local Ioannis and Kapsis-Stavros, 2008). Indeed, human capital, which means that tourism “given the proximity to major European and hospitality employees should be markets and the secular growth of tourism, correctly trained for specific jobs (education it is plausible to assume that the tourism sector) and that mobility should be facilitated sector could be another key sector to drive both in terms of infrastructures and public the Western Balkans’ catching-up process” transport (transport sector). Tourism is (Benner, 2019, p. 1). Therefore, tourism indeed a largely service-based sector, policies and their implementation are which ranges from travel, accommodation, central for WB countries. 28 Enrico Porfido

transportation, activity planning, and food The comparative analysis, supported services, but also resource protection, with data and best practices, results conservation, and valorisation. into a concluding paragraph that opens doors for future research. An additional Tourism is influenced by many other recommendation paragraph is included, variables, which go far beyond a single which focuses on the possibility of national strategy or policy. On the one hand, introducing a common policy for the WB natural disasters are unexpected triggers, region. such as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami which strongly impacted tourism in Thailand The methodology adopted in this study is (Birkland, et al., 2006) or the ongoing based on scientific literature and a review of COVID-19 pandemic, which is affecting official documents (listed in Table 2). These tourism at a global scale (Gössling, et al., documents are compared along a number 2020). On the other hand, international and of criteria. national economic and political crises can also impact the tourism industry, such as Tourism Policies across the Western Bal- Thomas Cook Airlines’ bankruptcy in 2019. kans: A Road Trip The tourism sector is likely to have a considerable influence in the policy arena Planning for tourism policy, or tourism and to liaise with other policy areas to make policy-making, is a lengthy process that necessary changes (Chaperon, 2017). This is is almost always led by the national why it is so important to develop resilient government and involves public sector tourism policies that can stand up to several agencies that play a tourism-related role emergencies and unexpected changes, and who act as advisors to the government building a tourism system with a long-term (Chaperon, 2017). vision and perspective. The tourism industry is integrated into Objectives and Methodology WB government structures, falling under the jurisdiction of different ministries This overall objective of this article is to (Metodijeski and Temelkov, 2014). Croatia is provide a broad framework for national the only country with a ministry dedicated tourism strategies and policies in the region explicitly to tourism, while the others and to open a debate about future scenarios. combine it with other sectors such as The analysis will focus on public tourism the environment, trade, economy, and policies, which are “a statement of intent” sustainable development. aiming to set out “desired future conditions and presenting the guiding principles for All countries have established national decision-making” (Chaperon, 2017, p. 427). tourism agencies or organizations (Tables 4 and 5) except Kosovo (Demokraci për In the first section, a literature review of Zhvillim, 2017). It is worth noting that a WB’s national tourism strategies will create tourism agency is a “central administrative a table of the visions and priorities for each body with administrative responsibility for country, easing comparison among them. tourism at the highest level” (Jeffries, 2001, p. 10). At the same time, an organization The central discussion focuses on three main or association is an “autonomous body aspects of tourism policies, presented as a of public, semi-public or private status, comparative analysis: (i) tourism policies’ established or recognized by the state as objectives and products promoted in each the body with competence at the national country; (ii) the amount of investments level for the promotion – and in some promoted by each government; and (iii) cases, marketing – of inbound international a contextualized reflection about policies’ tourism” (Jeffries, 2001, p. 10). Albania and evaluation and implementation, related North Macedonia have national agencies, to the analysis of tourism trends in each while other countries have established national strategy. Tourism Development in the Western Balkans: Towards a Common Policy 29

Table 4. Latest Tourism Policies and Promotion Campaigns by Country

Latest Tourism Strategies Country and Policies Latest Tourism Campaign Strategy for the Sustainable Development of Tourism 2019- Albania 2023 (Ministry of Tourism and Albania – Go your own way Environment, 2019) Strategy for the Development of Tourism in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia and Herzegovina for the period 2008 – 2018, Bosnia and Herzegovina – and Republika Srpska Tourism The heart-shaped land Development Strategy 2010-2020 (OECD, 2018) Tourism Development Strategy of the Republic of Croatia until 2020 Croatia (Government of the Republic of Croatia – Full of life Croatia, 2013) No national tourism strategy Be in Kosovo – the young Kosovo approved or drafted. Europeans (unofficial) Montenegro Tourism Development Strategy to Montenegro 2020 (Ministry of Tourism and Montenegro – Wild beauty Environment, 2008) National Strategy on Tourism Development 2016–2021 North Macedonia (Government of the Republic of Macedonia Timeless Macedonia, 2016) – only drafted. Tourism Development Strategy of the Republic of Serbia 2016-2025 Serbia (Government of the Republic of Serbia - The place to be Serbia, 2016)

Source: Author. organizations, associations, or boards. The Proda (2017) and Ciro (2019) have noted in case of Kosovo deserves special attention their contributions, there have been several because several tourism associations exist official tourism policies and strategies and operate in the territory but none of them promoted by the governments since the have been established by the government collapse of communism. (Ministry of Trade and Industry, 2014). In the following paragraphs, the tourism policies Almost all tourism strategies of the Albanian adopted and promoted by each country will government have been discontinued for be presented individually to be compared different reasons. This happened in 1993, and evaluated later. 2002, 2006, and 2007, while the 2014 strategy remained a draft. The “Strategy for Albania the Sustainable Development of Tourism 2019 – 2023 […] marks the first approved In the last few years, Albania, which has a strategy in a series of attempts” (Ciro, 2019, long tradition of tourism though at a smaller p. 75). The term ‘sustainable development’ scale (Porfido, 2019), has invested significant was included the title but was not resources in this sector and represents elaborated on in the body of the text. Other a “laboratory for tourism development” sectorial strategies have developed upon (Göler and Doka, 2018, p. 89). As Kapllani- the term however, such as the National 30 Enrico Porfido

Table 5. Government Bodies Responsible for Tourism Policy Development in Western Balkan Countries

The government body National Tourism Country responsible for tourism policy Organization or Agency / development Web page Ministry of Tourism and Environment (former Ministry National Tourism Agency - Albania of Tourism, Culture, Youth and Kombëtare e Turizmit / akt. Sports) gov.al and albania.al SFederation of BiH - Ministry Tourism Association of of Environment and Tourism / Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia and Herzegovina Republika Srpska – Ministry of - Udruženje za turizam / Trade and Tourism bhtourism.ba Croatian National Tourism Croatia Ministry of Tourism Board - Hrvatska turistička zajednica / croatia.hr Kosovo Tourism Association, Kosovo Alternative Tourism Ministry of Trade and Industry - Association Kosovo Department of Tourism Tourism, Association of the southern region, Association PRO IN / beinkosovo.com National Tourism Organization of Montenegro Montenegro Ministry of Sustainable - Nacionalna turistička Development and Tourism organizacija Crne Gore / montenegro.travel Agency for the Promotion and Support of Tourism in the Republic of North Ministry of Economy - Macedonia - Агенијата за North Macedonia Department of Tourism and промоција и поддршка на Hospitality туризмот во Република Северна Македонија / tourismmacedonia.gov.mk Ministry of Trade, Tourism and National Tourism Telecommunications Organization of Serbia - Serbia (former Ministry of Finance and Туристичка организација Economy, Department of Tourism) Србије / srbija.travel

Source: Metodijeski and Temelkov (2014, p. 235), adapted and updated by the author.

Strategy for Development and Integration p. 84). Therefore, the Strategy 2019-2023 2015-2020 which “set forth two strategic represents the first real tourism policy objectives focusing on sustainable tourism oriented towards sustainability. It places development” (Ciro, 2019, p. 75). a fundamental importance on “orienting the development of one of the strategic With the exception of this last document, priority sectors crucial to the economic a small number of initiatives have been development of the country” (Ciro, 2019, p. undertaken to initiate a discussion on 77). sustainable tourism development in Albania. Nonetheless, “current conditions This policy document is articulated around for sustainable tourism in Albania are four strategic goals to achieve through five rather unfavourable” (Nientied, et al., 2018, policies groups: (i) the promotion of public Tourism Development in the Western Balkans: Towards a Common Policy 31 and private investments; (ii) improvement of Bosnia and Herzegovina for the period of tourism services; (iii) consolidation 2008 – 2018,’ but it was never adopted. The and development of tourism products; Republika Srpska approved and adopted (iv) re-orientation of promotion towards the ‘Republika Srpska Tourism Development tourism potentials; and (v) supporting the Strategy 2010-2020’ (OECD, 2018). management of destinations (Ministry of Tourism and Environment, 2019, pp. 17- Unfortunately, it was not possible to 20). Each policy counts three sub-specific directly access and consult the official goals, which describe in more detail draft document of the Federation of BiH’s the actions to undertake. Besides being strategy. Therefore, this study includes vaguely described, the policies span from only a review of the ‘Republika Srpska macro-themes such as basic infrastructure Tourism Development Strategy 2010-2020 implementation to concrete and specific - Стратегија Развоја Туризма Републике ones, themes such as an evaluation model Српске за Период 2010–2020’ (University to classify accommodation and services. of Banja Luka, 2009).

What emerges from an assessment of these This strategy is organized in two parts: five policies is that the Albanian governments the first deals with general tourism is focusing on three main typologies of development factors, while the second tourism – marine, natural, and cultural – in focuses on the vision, strategic goals, and terms of services, products, and promotion policies adopted. “The purpose of the (e.g. creation of marine infrastructure to Republika Srpska tourism policies is to build generate future activities). It is also worth the competitiveness of its tourism clusters9” noting that attracting strategic, private (University of Banja Luka, 2009, p. 82). The investors and developing an educational policies embraced stress investments, program in tourism are considered two spatial and urban development, standard main priorities, while no attention is paid quality improvement (in terms of services, to domestic tourism, which “makes up an accommodation, and statistics system), important tourism contribution because of and the definition of a branding/marketing its year-round seasonality and continuous strategy. Education also appears as a priority. demand” (Ciro, 2019, p. 85). Unlike other countries, the Republika Bosnia and Herzegovina Srpska government means to create regional touristic clusters and to promote In the last 20 years, the tourism industry place-based tourism initiatives instead of in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) has been coordinating at a national level. In this regard, affected by exceptional circumstances such the document states that governments as war, aggression, refugees, and transition should support the building of clusters and (Özlen and Poturak, 2013). Despite this, the boost their competitiveness through various country is not new to international tourism, investments in infrastructure (University starting from the organization of mega- of Banja Luka, 2009). Many scholars agree events such as the Winter Olympic Games about the impacts on different aspects of of Sarajevo in 1984 and maintenance of tourism development caused by the lack the world-renowned pilgrimage site of of a coordinated national tourism policy Medjugorje (Osmankovic, 2017). (Radovic, et al., 2013; Berjan, et al., 2014) and urge the inclusion of long-term perspectives BiH is organized in two federal entities – in various strategies (Šarenac, et al., 2019). the Federation of BiH and the Republika Srpska, which have developed their own Croatia tourism strategies – and the Brčko District (a self-governing administrative unit). The According to the WTTC (2020), the Federation of BiH drafted the ‘Strategy for contribution of tourism and travel to the Development of Tourism in the Federation Croatian GDP amounts to about 25%, which 32 Enrico Porfido

is the highest rate among WB countries year long; education and skills in tourism; studied here. The importance given to and destination management, among the tourism sector by the government is others. evident, from the extremely organized governmental structure to the detailed Croatian tourism policies are, without a strategies and policies. doubt, the most thorough among the cases included in this review. Even though the The Croatian Ministry of Tourism has four document seems accurate, in the last couple directorates working on international of years some representatives of the private cooperation, competitiveness, tourist board tourism sector have blamed the ministry systems, and legal affairs. The Croatian for producing inefficient tourism policies. National Tourism Board deals with all A shortage of skilled labour, inadequate tax promotional activities. Also, at the regional policy, and the necessity of legal changes level, most county administrative offices for work in the tourism sector are among have a department responsible for tourism the main issues (Kolar, 2019). Another hot (OECD, 2016). topic is the government's focus on the ‘sun and sea’ tourism model, which has led to The ‘Tourism Development Strategy of the high seasonality with a significant impact on Republic of Croatia until 2020’ reflects this various infrastructures (Orsini and Ostojić, accuracy in its contents, setting clear and 2018). reachable goals, efficient strategies, action plans, and including economic analyses for This last point inevitably forces a reflection long-term periods. Besides, this document on the importance of monitoring policy should “ensure Croatia's integration into a results to guarantee their effectiveness. consolidated tourism policy of the European Union” (The Government of the Republic of Kosovo Croatia, 2013, p. 3). Currently, “Kosovo does not have a “The main aim [of the strategy] is to increase comprehensive strategy on tourism, and the attractiveness and competitiveness the current law on tourism is not fully of tourism by 2020” (OECD, 2016, p. 326) implemented” (Demokraci për Zhvillim, through the fulfilment of set priorities: 2017, p. 7). Therefore, it is not possible to improvement of accommodation quality, include it in this study. development of new attractions, food offer branding, creation of a modern visitors Despite this, it is worth mentioning that centre, and the establishment culturally- Kosovo's government is working on a themed routes. The ministry supports the Tourism Strategy as part of a broader development of tourism infrastructure with Private Sector Development Strategy. The thematic grants allocated to both public strategy will include a series of policies and private institutions. aimed at boosting the hospitality sector and improving the quality of accommodation. The strategy includes detailed descriptions Also, when dealing with promotion, Kosovo of the 26 tourism policy measures, already “engages in a range of promotional which measures progress towards the activities, including participation in following topics: diversification and quality international events and fairs” (OECD, 2018, improvement of the tourism offer including p. 614). new products such as nautical, health, cycling, adventure and sport, and cultural Montenegro and business tourism; promotion of ICT initiatives from Wi-Fi access in tourism Montenegro is going through the destinations to information accessibility negotiation process for EU membership. improvement; facing seasonality through Aligning their economies and policies to EU pilot projects aimed at attracting visitors all standards represents a significant challenge Tourism Development in the Western Balkans: Towards a Common Policy 33

(European Commission, 2018). In this of six touristic clusters, whose “scenic framework, tourism is a critical sector for and cultural traits differ from each other” achieving membership. (Ministry of Tourism and Environment, 2008, p. 66). These clusters are connected through The ‘Montenegro Tourism Development tourism corridors in order to create a unique Strategy to 2020’ (Ministry of Tourism and experience, ranging from the coastal areas Environment, 2008) is the latest strategy of to the hinterland. the national government related to tourism, which was preceded by a ‘Masterplan for North Macedonia Tourism in 2001’ and an action plan in 2008 (OECD, 2018). The latest strategy aims at The North Macedonian government positioning Montenegro as a “high-quality drafted the ‘National Strategy on Tourism destination and defines goals such as Development 2016–2021’ in 2016 upgrading accommodation infrastructure, (Government of the Republic of Macedonia, raising service quality, diversifying the 2016), but it was never officially adopted. offer […] and linking tourism with other Therefore, the “country has no valid long- industries” (Benner, 2019, p. 2). term strategy for tourism development” (UNECE, 2019, p. 21). The document is organized in three main sections: an analysis of the present situation, Previously the Former Yugoslav Republic the strategic orientation for Montenegrin of Macedonia implemented a tourism tourism development (including vision, strategy for the period 2009-2013, but there objectives, and policies), and the expected is no evidence of its evaluation, or whether outcomes. any relevant insights from that strategy informed the current one (OECD, 2018). The strategy counts five objectives with The 2009-2013 strategy envisioned that 20 detailed policies to achieve them: (i) Macedonia would become a “famous travel ‘quality instead of quantity’ improvement and tourism destination in Europe based of touristic infrastructures; (ii) the creation on cultural and natural heritage” (Petrevska, of a unique, integral tourism destination; 2012, p. 118). (iii) diversification of the tourism offer to face seasonality; (iv) strengthening the Although it remains a draft, the latest institutional and legal framework; and (v) strategy (2016–2021) forecasts significant local communities’ involvement in tourism improvement, with a focus on urban, activities. cultural, and lake tourism (Petrevska and Among all detailed policies, two are worth Collins-Kreiner, 2019). It also envisages mentioning because of their novelty: investments in ‘special tourist development the establishment of a “clean image of zones’ (UNECE, 2019). The document Montenegro” (1.7); and all policies under the drafted by Kohl and Partner consulting fifth objective of involving local communities company counts eight key objectives, (Ministry of Tourism and Environment, 2019, focused mainly on improving the awareness p. 43). The first links the touristic image of the and attractiveness of Macedonia as an country to the critical waste management international tourism destination (Kohl and situation, aimed at its improvement through Partner, 2016). an awareness campaign and the creation In the meanwhile, the government of new infrastructures. The second aims to is financing programs for tourism encourage entrepreneurship in domestic development managed by the Ministry of tourism, raising awareness about the Economy and the National Agency for the tourism sector’s importance for the country. Promotion and Support of Tourism (UNECE, As in the case of BiH and Albania, the national 2019). government sustains the establishment 34 Enrico Porfido

Serbia obstacles for economic development in the Western Balkans (Krešić, et al., 2017). The Republic of Serbia is also going through the negotiation process for EU membership. Finally, an action plan outlines priority Like Montenegro, tourism represents a measures aligned with the strategy’s priority sector for the national government objectives (OECD, 2018). The 21 measures within the integration process. Despite proposed are grouped into six typologies: (i) its importance, tourism growth was been the coordination of tourism activities among slightly under the regional average until actors; (ii) improvement of the statistical 2017 (Gajić and Vujko, 2017); new data offer monitoring system; (iii) improvement of more promising figures (see Table 2). tourism infrastructure; (iv) introduction of new ICT technology; (v) support activities Since the first strategic document related to dedicated to local stakeholders for funding tourism – the ‘Tourism Strategy of 2006,’ the applications; and (vi) improvement of Serbian government has adopted a cross- destination management. As in Montenegro, sectorial approach, integrating tourism the local communities’ involvement is with other sectors such as the environment. relevant for the government, as it can Natural resources and protected areas are provide support for funding applications. considered fundamental for tourism as well as rural development. Indeed, the 2006 In the final section, the strategy focuses tourism strategy addresses “social issues on the importance of indirect and in rural Serbia such as unemployment, direct measures for supporting tourism depopulation and the disempowerment of development. The indirect measures include women and the youth” (Orlović-Lovren, et lowering the VAT rate for tourism businesses al., 2013, p. 50). and promoting incentive programs for local agencies and tour operators, among others. This first document set the basis for the Direct financial instruments include grants, following strategy, ‘The Serbian Tourism loans, venture capital funds, and public- Strategy 2016-25,’ adopted in November private partnership projects applied directly 2016 (Government of the Republic of Serbia, or through financial intermediaries. 2016). This strategy is an excellent example of collaborative preparation, with inputs Discussion: A Comparative Analysis of from tourism experts, relevant associations Tourism Policies and organizations, local authorities, individuals from academia, and business Based on the review of each country’s and NGO representatives (OECD, 2018). strategy, it is evident that WB national governments and policymakers have The strategic document 2016-2025 opens certainly recognized the importance of the with a thorough review of the current tourism sector. Five out of seven countries situation, including a comparison with have structured tourism strategies, some of tourism-competitive countries. It then which also include long-term perspectives defines the vision and sets objectives and detailed policies. North Macedonia’s for 2025, which include the sustainable Ministry of Economy is currently “updating development of tourism, strengthening the draft for another round of consultations the sector’s competitiveness, increasing with other ministries” (UNECE, 2019, p. 22), the sector’s employment trends and GDP while Kosovo is working on the first draft of contribution, and the improvement of a tourism strategy (OECD, 2018). Serbia’s overall image in the region, Europe, and globally (Government of the Republic In the following paragraphs, national of Serbia, 2016). It is worth mentioning policies are compared in order to have the use of the term of ‘grey economy’10 in a clearer picture of the region’s policies, the objectives (which the strategy aims to objectives, and products (4.1), investments reduce), as it is considered one of the main and funds (4.2), and evaluation and Tourism Development in the Western Balkans: Towards a Common Policy 35 implementation programmes, as well as described in each country’s tourism their impact (4.3). strategies. Investment attraction, promotion, quality standards improvement, Tourism Policies’ Objectives and Product and destination management represent the lowest common denominators of all Table 6 summarizes the tourism policy strategies. objectives and the tourism products

Table 6. Policies highlights and tourism products by country

Tourism Policies – Objectives’ Marine, natural, and cultural Country Highlights tourism. Investment promotion, tourism services improvement, consolidation and development National Tourism Agency - Albania of tourism products, promotion, Kombëtare e Turizmit / akt. and destination management gov.al and albania.al support. Investment attraction, spatial and urban development, standard Rural, mountain, transit, Bosnia and Herzegovina quality improvement, and religious, health, and urban branding/marketing strategy tourism. definition. Diversification of tourism products, ICT initiatives Sun and sand, nautical, promotion, seasonality, health, cycling, adventure Croatia education and skills in tourism and sport, cultural and busi- improvement, and destination ness tourism. management. Kosovo - - Touristic infrastructure improvement, creation of a Nautical, mountain, golf, unique tourism destination, congress and other events, Montenegro diversification of tourism offers, wellness, camping, cultural, seasonality, institutional and legal natural parks and UNESCO framework strengthening, and sites, and agritourism. local community involvement. North Macedonia - -

Ministry of Trade, Tourism and Business events, mountain Telecommunications and lakes, urban, health, Serbia (former Ministry of Finance and nautical, touring, and rural Economy, Department of Tourism) and transit tourism.

Source: Author.

Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian improvement, weak legal and legislative strategies stand out for their completeness, frameworks, and non-existent monitoring which is also reflected in the types activities, Croatia, Montenegro, and of objectives set. The introduction of Serbia introduced themes that represent innovative ICT initiatives, diversification challenges for the most developed tourism of tourism products, and the topic of destinations worldwide. seasonality represents an essential element for evaluation. While all countries are facing obstacles such as tourism infrastructure 36 Enrico Porfido

Figure 2. Countries grouped by Typologies of Tourism Policies

Investments promotion Basic services Destination management and attraction improvement improvement

Introduction of ICT Diversification of Facing seasonality innovative initiatives tourism product issues Source: Author, based on Table 6.

Tourism products, nature, and cultural impact on national economies in terms of heritage represent the leading resources for investments promoted and funds allocated, the Western Balkans. Albania and Croatia policy evaluation and implementation, and bet on a more general natural and cultural the possible impact on tourism numbers. tourism, while Montenegro has decided to target specific groups by focussing The amount of funds allocated to tourism on nautical, golf, congress, and wellness investments in each country is a determining tourism. Bosnia and Herzegovina and factor in the future development of tourism Serbia invest more in rural, mountain, and industry. Albania has included a specific lake tourism. Nevertheless, considering the “Tourism Development Program” in the common starting points in terms of natural National Strategy (Ministry of Tourism and cultural heritage, the risk of competing and Environment, 2019, p. 22), which around the same tourism products is high. directly allocates almost 1.5 billion EUR Coordination is needed to avoid this from of public funds over four years to tourism happening and to improve the states' development initiatives. Attracting private cooperation. investments is mentioned as Policy Goal 1 and Economic Output 3, for a total of around Investments and Funds 2.5 billion EUR. The average investment per year is circa 1 billion EUR. Besides the typology of tourism policies and products included in each strategy, it is Croatia’s tourism vision allocates 7 billion also important to reflect on their concrete EUR in investments during the period 2013- Tourism Development in the Western Balkans: Towards a Common Policy 37

Figure 3. Countries grouped by Tourism Prodwucts

Sun, sand and sea Cultural and Rural, mountains and lake traditional model religious toursim toursim

Natural resources Adventure and sportive Business, congress Ecotourism Health tourism toursim

Source: Author.

2020, which means an average investment greenfield investments to be started in 2008 of 1 billion per year (Government of the and finished in 2020 (12 years), for a total Republic of Croatia, 2013, p. 31). The sum of 10.5 billion EUR (Ministry of Tourism document has detailed the typologies of and Environment, 2008, p. 87). This means investments, but it does not explicitly refer to an average private investment of 0.9 billion/ the origin of the funds, or mention if they are year. to come from public or private sources. The national government has also developed a Serbia’s tourism strategy 2016-2025 allocates national catalogue of investment projects, a total of around 2 billion USD (in euros 1.85), which identifies and presents public 20% of which are invested by the public projects for which the Republic of Croatia sector. This amount has been estimated by seeks investors (e.g. construction of new the use of the Growth Model, which means hotels and resorts; investing in newly that the economic effects of tourism (or realized tourist attractions such as golf whatever other activity) are based on the clubs, conference centres, etc.; and investing country’s economic growth projections. in other tourist infrastructure). In the case of Serbia, the tourism numbers used as a reference are those published by In the case of Montenegro’s strategy, there the WTTC. The investment per year amounts is no direct reference to the total to 0.2 billion USD (for a ten-year strategy). investments planned, public nor private. However, Section 3.6 – “Expanding bedding Data for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, capabilities” –includes a detailed table of and North Macedonia are not available. As 38 Enrico Porfido

shown in Figure 4, no great differences exist The investments of Serbia, however, are among the other Western Balkan countries. considerably under average (estimated Although resource origins might be split around 0.2 billion USD/year). This last figure differently between private and public seems contradictory to the number of funds, Albania, Croatia, and Montenegro policies promoted and the solid structure allocated an average of 1 billion EUR/ of the Serbian strategic plan itself and may year to their respective tourism industries. need to be updated in light of new numbers.

Figure 4. National Governments’ Investment Plans in the Tourism Sector, (in billions EUR)

Source: Author, based on Ministry of Tourism and Environment – Republic of Albania (2019), Government of the Republic of Croatia (2013), Ministry of Tourism and Environment – Republic of Montenegro (2008), and Government of the Republic of Serbia (2016). Evaluation, Implementation and Impact represent an important change of direction of Policies in the evaluation and implementation of tourism policies. Policy evaluation and implementation represents a sore point for all WB tourism The Albanian government set a range strategies. This reflection already emerges of indicators for each specific goal. from several evaluation reports and articles The “Performance Evaluation Matrix” (OECD, 2018; UNECE, 2019; Kolar, 2019; provides precise figures on a yearly base, Ciro, 2019), which stress the need for categorized as general economic outputs monitoring and implementation activities. and policies objectives (Ministry of Tourism If not adequality evaluated during and after and Environment, 2019, pp. 26-28). The their action periods, tourism policies and evaluation is entrusted to a focus group strategies are almost useless. on Tourism and Culture Development, led by the Deputy Minister and including BiH, Croatia, and Montenegro’s strategies the regions’ responsible prefectures and a end this year (2020) and none have been number of observer members belonging to implemented or evaluated to date. The local, national, and international authorities, Croatian strategy included a detailed universities, and civil society associations. Its calendar of implementation by year, but recent approval in 2019 makes it impossible no evaluation reports have been issued to to discuss its evaluation further, since no confirm its accomplishment. Montenegro evaluations have been done of previous only mentioned monitoring as a priority strategic documents. of the strategic objective concerning the creation of an appropriate institutional and Serbia represents ta best practice in legislative framework. the region in terms of evaluation and implementation. The strategy 2016- Albania and Serbia’s strategies, which end 2025 includes a section dedicated to the in 2023 and 2025 respectively, seem to evaluation and implementation of the Tourism Development in the Western Balkans: Towards a Common Policy 39 previous strategy (2006-2015), providing Tourism Organization of Serbia the task of a detailed description of the results implementing annual plans concerning accomplished, although they represent promotional activities. “only a part of the expected” ones (Government of the Republic of Croatia, Finally, measuring the impact of tourism 2013, p. 52). Among the ‘unaccomplished’ policies on tourist numbers is difficult, issues, the implementation of international especially since the time periods of each quality standards, the share of the grey country policy are out of sync. Table 5 economy, and monitoring of tourism represents an attempt to relate policy sector performance are mentioned. effectiveness through a comparison of According to the new strategy, the Tourism tourist numbers by year and forecasts Ministry is responsible for the evaluation included in the strategies, when mentioned. and implementation of tourism policies, The table includes only the countries whose while has assigned to the NTOS – National strategies provided specific forecasts.

Table7. Comparison between Real Tourist Numbers and Forecasts (R= real arrivals number; F = forecasted arrivals)

Country 2018 R 2019 F 2019 R 2020 F

6,406,038 6,401,160 interna- Albania international tional arrivals arrivals 106 86 Croatia million overnight million overnight stays stays 3,689,983 3,689,000 Serbia international international arrivals arrivals

Source: Albania (Ministry of Tourism and Environment, 2019, p. 28; INSTAT Albania, 2020), Croatia (Government of the Republic of Croatia, 2013, p. 62; Ministry of Tourism Republic of Croatia, 2019), Serbia (Government of the Republic of Serbia, 2016, p. 49; Републички завод за статистику, 2020).

Albania accomplished its 2019 objectives, ‘Game of Thrones’ shooting that generated although it is risky to attribute this to the a strong and solid niche of tourism (Tkalec, promotion of its tourism policies since et al., 2017). In the case of Serbia, the 2020 they were approved in the same year. target of 3.69 million arrivals was reached in (The effectiveness of policies can only be 2019. evaluated after a certain amount of time has passed since their approval (Dutch If one judges a policy’s effectiveness based Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2009)). Croatia on the accomplishment of targets set by has forecasted 86 million overnights stays a policy itself, it is possible to say Albania, for 2020, though it already exceeded one Croatia, and Serbia met their objectives hundred million stays in 2018. Indeed, this and that the policies promoted paid off. fact results from the great tourism promotion But this final reflection also emphasizes the campaign that the Croatian governments difficulties in analysing the effectiveness started after the official entrance in the EU of tourism policies, especially in the short- area, the arrival of low cost airlines such as term. The tourism industry is affected by Ryanair, Vueling and EasyJet that connected many variables that go far beyond each the country to the main European capitals, country borders, such as global market and the indirect promotion related to events trends, international tourism companies’ such, for example, the famous TV series investment strategies, and unpredictable 40 Enrico Porfido

natural disasters or economic crisis (such as great attention paid to the valorisation of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic). each country’s specific resources, and the similar objectives stress the fact that the Conclusions: Prioritizing the Tourism starting points and opportunities are the Sector in WB countries: Challenges and same for all WB countries. Indeed, sharing Opportunities common objectives and being aware of their territorial specificity means that the sector In conclusion, it is clear that all WB countries can be more efficient, gaps at national level are prioritizing tourism in their political can be overcome, and countries can learn and economic agendas. The comparison from each other’s experiences. of the tourism policies promoted, the tourism products identified, the amount of Yet, the comparative analysis reveals that investments in the sector, and the policy the amount of tourism investment across results illustrates that the region is going WB countries is small, averaging 1 billion in the same direction, both in positive and EUR a year (in Albania, Croatia, Montenegro negative ways. and Serbia). Another weakness is the poor attention dedicated to tourism policies’ Indeed, what emerges from the discussion evaluation and implementation. In most section is that, although WB countries are cases, the evaluation is not even mentioned not synchronized in the tourism destination among the activities of the strategies (BiH, development phase, the objectives, North Macedonia) or it is cited but not challenges, and opportunities of the sector implemented (Croatia and Montenegro). are similar for each of them. In addition, the The great attention paid to this theme in strong and weak aspects of national tourism the most recent strategies incite hope, such policies are common to all WB countries. as the case of the Albanian and Serbian strategies, which include detailed policy When dealing with policy objectives, WB evaluation systems. countries can be grouped into two main categories: those creating basic services for These two last elements are definitely tourism (Albania, BiH, North Macedonia, and the weakest of the entire comparative Serbia), and those addressing issues of more analysis and represent the most important advanced tourism destinations (Croatia and challenges to deal with moving forward. Montenegro). This difference is not reflected To prioritize tourism as an economic sector however in the typology of tourism and to develop a consistent and sustainable products promoted. Indeed, there is a first model of development, all countries need obvious distinction between the countries make an effort to increase investments and facing the sea and promoting the sun, sea constantly monitor their effect. and sand model, and the ones inland that are focusing on mountain and adventure In addition, many fundamental aspects of tourism. But there are also other categories tourism go unaddressed in the strategies of tourism products that can impact these analysed. One is the huge importance given assets, such as business event tourism (a to international tourism to the detriment common target of Croatia, Montenegro, and of the domestic. Indeed, “the Balkan Serbia) and religious tourism (promoted countries exchange among themselves in the coastal countries). Finally, it is clear significant tourist flows which support the that the promotion of natural resources development of the tourism industries represents a priority for all WB countries. mainly in the neighbouring countries” (Vasileva and Preslavsky, 2017, p. 43), but The diversity of the tourism products domestic tourism is not treated in any promoted by each country and the similarities national strategy, with the exception of in their objectives represent the strongest Montenegro, which sets a specific objective aspects of WB tourism policies. Indeed, the dedicated to its promotion. diversity of tourism products highlights the Tourism Development in the Western Balkans: Towards a Common Policy 41

The second aspect is a critical and more and politics (e.g. changes in political assets general reflection. In the current historical among countries), among others. Indeed, period characterized by the COVID-19 none of the strategies included in this study pandemic, which has imposed strong refer to any of these topics. limitations on travelling, the global tourism industry has proven not to be ready to Therefore, each government should adopt face such challenges. Few countries were local and national tourism policies that prepared for such dramatic events, including can respond to local, regional, and global the WB. Indeed, none of the documents phenomena, including natural catastrophes. presented in this study consider the effects The adaptability and resilience of the of natural disasters or economic crises. In tourism sector can be achieved through addition, climate change, resilience, health strengthening local policies and institutions, issues, and political crises are completely and by building strategies and initiatives ignored. Vulnerability and uncertainty are that make use of place specificities and common risk factor of tourism worldwide. diversity, while being complementary. This Considering them in national policies can be emphasises the idea of a regional policy, a good starting point to design and develop which does not override national efforts a more solid and sustainable tourism model. and initiatives, but enhances their impact and efficiency. Recommendations: Towards a Common Consequently, a possible solution is the Tourism Policy for the Western Balkans in establishment of common tourism policies times of Global Crisis among neighbouring countries. “Common tourism strategies and actions could support The recent events related to the COVID-19 the momentum for regional cooperation pandemic show that the measures emerging from recent initiatives” (OECD, adopted until now by most countries 2018, p. 619). Several scholars and worldwide are not versatile nor flexible. institutions have agreed that the creation The tourism industry is completely blocked of common regional initiatives is of crucial as a consequence of the global lockdown importance (Hammer and Siegrist, 2008; (Gössling, et al., 2020). This will have Denga, et al., 2019). enormous consequences on future tourism development, in both short and long term11. Following the findings of this study, similarities among Western Balkan tourism Western Balkan countries, whose tourism policies are evident. The establishment almost fully relies on international fluxes, of the macro-regional strategy EUSAIR have been strongly affected by such an – the ‘EU Strategy for the Adriatic and event. Six months after the beginning of the Ionian Region’ – and the Transnational worldwide lockdown12 and the slow lifting Cooperation Programme ‘Interreg ADRION of restrictions, many WB countries are still (Adriatic Ionian),’ which enhance and on the ‘black-list’ for tourism, in the sense promote sustainable tourism initiatives in of both entering and leaving. Croatia is the this specific regional framework, represent only exception and opened its borders to all a first step towards the development of tourists in the beginning of July. common goals. Indeed, the EUSAIR strategy included ‘Sustainable Tourism’ as its fourth This reflection emphasizes the urgency pillar (and involve Albania and Croatia). of designing resilient tourism policies, which can deal with several unexpected To conclude, Metodijeski and Temelkov events related to many fields including: the (2014) make a step forward stating that the economy (e.g. crisis); the environment (e.g. “next step [for WB countries] should be a climate change and its effect on consolidated joint presence on the international tourism tourism destinations); health (e.g. the market as well as mutual promotion” above mentioned COVID-19 pandemic); (Metodijeski and Temelkov, 2014, p. 239). 42 Enrico Porfido

Considering the significant similarities in this study to calculate the Tourism among opportunities and challenges Growth Index from 2017 to 2027. for tourism sector development in each WB country, the creation of a commonly 7. The ‘Tourism Growth Index 2017/2027’ functional set of tourism policies and is calculated on the percentage ratio strategic alliances may represent an between the international arrivals opportunity for the entire region. Such registered in 2017 and the 2027 initiatives will not substitute local or forecasted by WTTC (2017), for each regional authorities, whose importance is country. evident, but rather integrate them within a multi-level governance structure. 8. Once again, for guaranteeing the same data collection and elaboration methodology, the data included in Notes this study refers to the WTTC Country Reports. Also, in this case, data should be 1. Throughout the text, the WB countries considered with caution. The Albanian are always mentioned in alphabetical case is illustrative. The national INSTAT order. office registered a percentage tourism contribution to GDP of 2.5% in 2017 and 2. EU official documents have generally 2.8% in 2018, while the WTTC already adopted the term ‘Western Balkans’ estimated a contribution of 21.2% in for the countries that are currently not 2019. members but are either candidates or in negotiation process to join. This means 9. Translated by the author from Serbian: that Croatia was considered in this group “Политике у туризму Смисао until 2013, when it officially became a туристичке политике Републике member. Српске своди се на изградњу конкурентности њених туристичких 3. Kosovo is not included in the WTTC кластера” (University of Banja Luka, reports, neither in the sub-region 2009, p. 82). ‘European Union’ nor the ‘Other Europe.’ 10. For ‘grey economy’, the author intends 4. Tourism data collection and elaboration that economy sector which escapes methodologies are different for each taxes payment – committing tax evasion WB country, especially concerning the and/or fraud - and which is difficultly definition of international tourist and monitorable by local and national visitor. Therefore, all official data should governments. It is often referred as be considered with caution. informal sector, shadow economy, underground economy, among others. 5. Data concerning Kosovo are not available in the UNWTO because it is not 11. For more on COVID-19’s implications on part of the United Nations system. Data tourism in the Western Balkans see the used in this study belong to the Kosovo article of Nientied and Shutina in this Agency of Statistics [available at https:// issue. ask.rks-gov.net/en/kosovo-agency-of- statistics] and is only available from the 12. The 9th March 2020 is assumed as the independence declaration of 2008 until start of the lockdown, when the Italian 2017. Government announced the beginning of restrictions in its national territory, 6. Until 2017, the WTTC Country Reports which was followed by many other included the forecast of international governments in the following days. visitors for each country for up to ten years. Indeed, this data has been used Tourism Development in the Western Balkans: Towards a Common Policy 43

References Cvetkoska, V. and Barišić, P., 2017. The efficiency of the tourism industry in the Benner, M., 2019. Tourism in the context Balkans. Proceedings of the Faculty of of smart specialization: the example of Economics in East Sarajevo, 14, pp. 31-41. Montenegro. Current Issues in Tourism, pp. 1-7. Demokraci për Zhvillim, 2017. Development of Tourism Through Effective Policies and Berjan, S. et al., 2014. Rural Tourism in the Legislations, Pristina: Demokraci për Zhvillim. Republika Srpska: Political Framework and Institutional Environment. Turkish Journal Denga, T., Hu, Y. and Ma, M., 2019. Regional of Agricultural and Natural Sciences, 2, pp. policy and tourism: A quasi-natural 1805-1811. experiment. Annals of Tourism Research, 74, pp. 1-16. Beyer, E., Hagemann, A. and Zinganel, M. 2013. Holidays after the Fall. Seaside Dragicevic-Sesic, M. and Dragojevic, S., Architecture and Urbanism in Bulgaria and 2004. Intercultural mediation in the Balkans. Croatia. Berlin: jovis. Sarajevo: OKO.

Birkland, T., Pannapa-Herabat, M., Little, R. Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2009. and Wallace, W., 2006. The Impact of the Evaluation policy and guidelines for December 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami on evaluations, The Hague: Ministry of Foreign Tourism in Thailand. Earthquake Spectra, Affairs. 22(3), pp. 889-900. EU, 2008. Western Balkans: Enhancing the Butler, A., 2015. Lonely Planet Best in Travel European perspective {SEC(2008) 288}, 2016: countries, cities, regions revealed. Bruxelles: European Union. [Online] available at: https://www. lonelyplanet.com/news/2015/10/27/ EU, 2018. A credible enlargement perspective lonely-planet-best-in-travel-2016-revealed- for and enhanced EU engagement with botswana-japan-usa-kotor-quito-and- the Western Balkans COM(2018) 65 final, dublin-top-lists/ [Accessed 26 November Bruxelles: European Union . 2020]. European Commission, 2018. A credible Butler, R., 1980. The Concept of a Tourist enlargement perspective for and enhanced Area Cycle of Evolution: Implications for EU engagement with the Western Balkans. Management of Resources. Canadian [Online] available at: https://ec.europa. Geographer, 24(1), pp. 5-12. eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/ communication-credible- enlargement- Chaperon, S., 2017. Tourism Policies. perspective-western-balk [Accessed 10 In L. Lowry (Ed.) The Sage International April 2020]. Encyclopedia of Travel and Tourism. London: Sage, p. 427–430. European Union, 2012. Sustainable tourism in the Mediterranean, Bruxells: European Ciro, A., 2019. Tourism Governance in Union. Albania: An Assessment of the Policy Framework for the Tourism Sector in Albania. Göler, D. and Doka, D., 2018. Tourism and Annual Review of Territorial Governance in the Transition in the Western Balkans. Albania Western Balkans, I, pp. 69-85. as a Laboratory for Tourism Development. Südosteuropa Mitteilungen, 58(4), pp. 88-97. Cole, S., 2015. Space tourism: prospects, positioning, and planning. Journal of Gössling, S., Scott, D. and Hall, C., 2020. Tourism Futures, 1(2), pp. 131-140. Pandemics, tourism and global change: a rapid assessment of COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, p. 1-20 https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09669582.2020.1758708. 44 Enrico Porfido

Gajić, T. and Vujko, A., 2017. Tourism as business in the Western Balkans, London: potential agents of economic development: a European Bank for Reconstruction and report from Serbia. Vrnjačka Banja, University Development. of Kragujevac. Lehmann, T. and Gronau, W., 2019. Tourism Government of the Republic of Croatia, development in transition economies 2013. Tourism Development Strategy of the of the western Balkans. Zeitschrift Für Republic of Croatia until 2020, Zagreb: The Tourismuswissenschaft, 11(1), pp. 45–64. Government of the Republic of Croatia. doi:10.1515/tw-2019-0004 .

Government of the Republic of Lonely Planet, 2018. Best in travel 2018. Macedonia, 2016. National Strategy on [Online] Available at: https://www. Tourism Development 2016–2021, : lonelyplanet.com/best-in-travel Government of the Republic of Macedonia. Metodijeski, D. and Temelkov, Z., 2014. Government of the Republic of Serbia, 2016. Tourism policy of Balkan countries: Review Tourism Development Strategy of the Republic of national tourism development strategies. of Serbia 2016-2025, Belgrade: Government UTMS Journal of Economics, 5(2), p. 231–239. of the Republic of Serbia. Ministry of Tourism and Environment, Hajdù, Z., Illes, I. and Raffay, Z., 2007.South- 2008. Montenegro Tourism Development east Europe: state borders, cross-border Strategy to 2020, Podgorica: Government of relations, spatial structures. Pécs: MTA RKK. Montenegro.

Hammer, T. and Siegrist, D., 2008. Protected Ministry of Tourism and Environment, Areas in the Alps: the Success Factors of 2019. Strategjia Kombëtare për Zhvillimin Nature-Based Tourism and the Challenge for e Qëndrueshëm të Turizmit 2019-2023 Regional Policy. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives (National Strategy for Sustainable for Science and Society, 17(1), pp. 152-160. Tourism Development 2019-2023), Tiranë: Government of Albania. INSTAT Albania, 2020. Lëvizjet e shtetasve në Shqipëri - Dhjetor 2019, Tiranë: INSTAT Ministry of Tourism Republic of Croatia, Albania. 2019. Tourism in figures - 2018, Zagreb: Ministry of Tourism. Jeffries, D. J., 2001.Governments and tourism. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Ministry of Trade and Industry, 2014. Tourism Sector Profile, Pristina: Republic of Kapllani Proda, O., 2017. Tourism Kosovo. Development Strategy and Its Impact in Number of Tourists and Albania Economy. Nientied, P., Porfido, E. and Ciro, A., 2018. International Journal of Economics and Sustainable tourism development in Albania Business Administration, 3(5), pp. 38-44. in times of liquid modernity. In Enhancing Sustainable Tourism in Adriatic-Ionian Region Kolar, N., 2019. Crisis in Croatian Tourism: through co-creation: the role of Universities the end of ‘the sea and the sun’ paradigm of and Public-Private Partnerships. Macerata: tourism policies after the negative outcomes eum edizioni università di macerata, pp. 73-91. of tourist season 2019. China-CEE Institute, 21(2), pp. 1-4. OECD, 2016. Croatia - OECD Tourism Trends and Policies 2016, Paris: OECD Publishing. Kohl and Partner, 2016. National Tourism Strategy for Macedonia - Draft, Villach: Kohl OECD, 2018. Competitiveness in South East and Partner. Europe: A Policy Outlook 2018, Paris: OECD Publishing. Krešić, A., Milatović, J. and Sanfey, P., 2017. Firm performance and obstacles to doing Tourism Development in the Western Balkans: Towards a Common Policy 45

Orlović-Lovren, V., Crnčević, T. and Milijić, Републички завод за статистику, 2020. S., 2013. Tourism development in Serbia - Статистика угоститељства и туризма On the way to sustainability and European 2019, Број 20 - год. LXX, 31.01.2020, Београд: integration. SPATIUM International Review, Републички завод за статистику. 30, pp. 47-53. Šarenac, N., Rebić, M. and Bojat, M., 2019. Orsini, K. and Ostojić, V., 2018. Croatia’s Instruments for Sustainable Tourism Tourism Industry: Beyond the Sun and Sea, Development in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the Academica Turistica, 12(2), pp. 207-217. European Union. The Government of the Republic of Croatia, Osmankovic, J., 2017. Bosnia and 2013. Tourism Development Strategy of the Herzegovina. In L. Lowry (Ed.) The Sage Republic of Croatia until 2020, Zagreb: The International Encyclopedia of Travel and Government of the Republic of Croatia. Tourism. London: Sage, pp. 159-161. UNECE, 2019. North Macedonia: Özlen, M. K. and Poturak, M., 2013. Tourism in Environmental Performance Reviews. Bosnia and Herzegovina. Global Business and Geneva: United Nations. Economics Research Journal, 2(6), pp. 13-25. University of Banja Luka, 2009. Republika Petrevska, B. and Collins-Kreiner, N., Srpska Tourism Development Strategy 2010- 2019. From a town to an attraction: the 2020 - СТРАТЕГИЈА РАЗВОЈА ТУРИЗМА transformation of , North Macedonia. РЕПУБЛИКЕ СРПСКЕ ЗА ПЕРИОД 2010–2020, Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos Бања Лука: Republika Srpska. Españoles, 83(2808), pp. 1-30. UNWTO, 2019. International Tourism Petrevska, B., 2012. The Role of Government Highlights - Edition 2019, Madrid: UNWTO. in Planning Tourism Development in Macedonia. Innovative Issues and UNWTO, 2019. Tourism – an economic and Approaches in Social Sciences, 5(3), pp. 118- social phenomenon. [Online] available 133. at: https://www.unwto.org/why-tourism [Accessed 16 July 2020]. Porfido, E., 2019. From the Grand Tour to Social Media: The metamorphosis of Vasileva, V. and Preslavsky, K., 2017. The touristic landscapes representation in the place of Balkan countries in world tourism. case of Albania. In R. e. a. Pié (Ed.) Turismo Sociobrains, 29, pp. 33-43. y Paisaje. Valencia: Tirant humanidades, pp. 96-109. WTTC, 2019. Travel and Tourism: Economic Impact 2019, London: WTTC. Priniotaki-Ioannis, M. and Kapsis-Stavros, D., 2008. Democratization process and tourism Acknowledgements industry at the region of west Balkans: tourism as a sociopolitical force. Annals of This contribution is based on the author’s doctoral the University of Oradea. Economic Science dissertation titled, ‘From Isolation to Pleasure Periphery: The Series Issue, 17(I), pp. 450-462. Albanian Riviera’, defended in the framework of the IDAUP PhD joint program of Ferrara University and POLIS University Radovic, G., Pejanovic, R. and Radosavac, of Tirana in 2019. I would like to thank the editors of TG-WeB A., 2013. Role of the state in rural tourism journal Ledio Allkja and Rudina Toto for their support during development in the Republic of Srpska. II the writing process and the reviewers for their useful and International Symposium and XVIII Scientific constructive comments. All errors, omissions, and points of Conference of Agronomists of Republic of interpretation remain with the author. Srpska, March 26-29, 2013, Trebinje, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.