DR PHẠM HÀ
Founding President and CEO, LuxGroup®
Vice President, Vietnam Green Tourism Association
Resolution No. 26-NQ/TW has opened a new development space by recognising tourism as an integrated economic ecosystem founded on culture, with identity and the quality of the visitor experience as its competitive advantages. According to Dr Phạm Hà, the Resolution will make a real difference only when it is translated into a Government Action Programme guided by the principle of the “five clarities”: clear tasks, clear responsibility, clear deadlines, clear resources and clear outcomes.
How do you assess the role and significance of Resolution No. 26-NQ/TW for the development of Vietnam’s tourism industry in this new context?
In my view, the greatest value of Resolution No. 26-NQ/TW, dated 22 August 2026, lies not only in reaffirming tourism as a spearhead economic sector, but also in redefining the very nature of the tourism economy.
Tourism is no longer regarded simply as sightseeing, accommodation or leisure. The Resolution places tourism within an integrated economic ecosystem capable of driving transport, commerce, agriculture, cultural and creative industries, healthcare, sports, the digital economy, the night-time economy and cultural diplomacy.
This represents an important shift in thinking. A spearhead economic sector cannot be defined solely by the number of visitors it attracts. In my opinion, it must meet at least four criteria: generating high added value; achieving strong productivity and international competitiveness; creating spillover benefits for other sectors and localities; and demonstrating resilience in times of crisis.
In 2025, Vietnam welcomed nearly 21.2 million international visitors and 137 million domestic travellers. Total tourism revenue reached approximately VND 1 quadrillion, while tourism contributed nearly 8.8% directly to GDP. These are commendable achievements, but they remain below the potential offered by the country’s natural assets, strategic location and cultural depth.
The Resolution sets a target for tourism to contribute directly between 10% and 12% of GDP by 2030, welcome 45–50 million international visitors, serve 160 million domestic travellers and generate total revenue of US$80–90 billion. By 2045, tourism’s direct contribution is expected to reach 14–15% of GDP, placing Vietnam among the world’s 30 most competitive tourism economies.
To achieve these goals, we must move from pursuing “more visitors” to attracting “higher-value visitors”. However, this should not be understood simply as replacing lower-spending travellers with higher-spending ones. The quality of growth is also determined by length of stay, return rates, visitor satisfaction, the amount of value retained within the Vietnamese economy and the extent to which benefits reach workers, small businesses and destination communities.
If visitor numbers increase while stays remain short, economic benefits flow out of local communities, SMEs remain excluded from the value chain, infrastructure becomes overloaded and natural resources are damaged, that cannot be considered sustainable success.
We must ask not only how many visitors Vietnam receives, but also: How much value does each visitor leave behind for the country—and what lasting impression does Vietnam leave in their hearts?
The Resolution refers to a State-supported risk insurance mechanism for the tourism industry and the piloting of urgent matters not yet regulated by law. How do you assess these policies?
These are two progressive policy approaches that demonstrate a more proactive response to market volatility.
Tourism is one of the first industries to be affected—and often one of the last to recover—when natural disasters, pandemics, conflicts or economic downturns occur. Revenue can virtually disappear within a very short period, yet businesses must continue maintaining their employees, vessels, vehicles, facilities, technology systems and financial obligations.
Without an effective risk-sharing mechanism, a single crisis can destroy capabilities that businesses and society have spent many years building.
However, State-supported risk insurance should not become a blanket “rescue” mechanism. It must be designed around shared responsibility among businesses, the insurance market and the State.
A three-tier protection system could be established: businesses would retain responsibility for part of the risk; commercial insurance would cover ordinary losses; and the State could subsidise premiums or act as a reinsurer for catastrophic risks exceeding the market’s capacity.
Eligibility conditions must be transparent and based on verified data and losses. Businesses seeking support should be required to have risk-prevention plans, business-continuity arrangements and compliance with safety standards. In this way, the policy would strengthen resilience while reducing dependency.
As for the pilot mechanism, it could be the key to resolving situations in which business reality develops faster than the law. Waterway tourism, cruising, the night-time economy, remote workers, long-stay visitors, cross-border platforms, and cultural and entertainment complexes are currently governed by several different legal frameworks. Many of these models already have market demand, yet businesses remain reluctant to invest because the regulations are unclear or applied inconsistently.
Nevertheless, “piloting” must not mean arbitrary deregulation. A well-designed pilot programme must clearly define the problem, geographical scope, timeframe, accountable authority, success criteria, risk limits and termination conditions.
Every pilot should include monitoring, post-implementation review, public disclosure of data and a sunset clause. It must also provide a pathway for translating successful results into formal policy. Breakthroughs require room for experimentation, but innovation is sustainable only when accompanied by accountability.
How should the Government design its Action Programme to translate the Resolution’s objectives into measurable economic outcomes?
The Resolution has opened the way, but opening the way is only a necessary condition. Whether businesses have the means to move forward, whether the rules are clear and whether the entire system advances in the same direction will determine whether the policy becomes a reality.
Tourism’s greatest bottleneck is that many of the factors determining the quality of a journey fall outside the direct authority of the tourism sector. Visas involve immigration authorities; aviation, railways, roads and ports come under transport; while land, taxation, commerce, the environment, healthcare and education are managed by different agencies.
The traveller, however, experiences only one integrated journey. Visitors do not care which ministry, sector or locality is responsible for the problem they encounter.
The Government’s Action Programme therefore should not be a mechanical collection of separate sectoral plans. It must be a national inter-agency coordination programme implemented according to the “five clarities”.
First, clear tasks. During the first year, the Government should map the bottlenecks involving visas, tax refunds, land, credit, the night-time economy, riverside and coastal economies, ports and terminals, cruising, passenger transportation, public–private partnerships, cross-border platforms and heritage utilisation. It must determine which issues require legislative amendments, which can be addressed through decrees or circulars, and which should be piloted immediately.
Second, clear responsibility. Each task must have one lead agency and one person bearing ultimate responsibility. If a policy merely calls for “enhanced coordination” without specifying who has the authority to decide, it can easily fall into an inter-agency vacuum. The State Steering Committee for Tourism should operate as a body that coordinates implementation and removes obstacles—not merely as a forum for periodic meetings.
Third, clear deadlines. The programme should establish milestones for the first 100 days, the first year and the period leading to 2030. Procedures that can be simplified should be addressed immediately. New business models should be placed within controlled regulatory sandboxes, while major infrastructure projects should have public roadmaps and milestones.
Fourth, clear resources. Every objective must be accompanied by a budget, a public–private partnership mechanism or an appropriate financial instrument. Vietnam should make effective use of credit guarantee funds, cash-flow- and contract-based lending, and medium- and long-term financing for tourism vessels, accommodation facilities, digital infrastructure and green transformation.
Fifth, clear outcomes. A national tourism dashboard should be created, with implementation progress made publicly available. In addition to visitor numbers and total revenue, it should measure average visitor spending, length of stay, return rates, domestic value retention, job quality, the proportion of procurement from Vietnamese businesses, resident satisfaction, environmental carrying capacity and carbon emissions.
A sound policy must not only answer the question, “What has been done?” It must demonstrate, “What has actually changed?”
What are the principal infrastructure and regional connectivity bottlenecks that need to be addressed?
One important feature of the Resolution is its approach to multimodal infrastructure, encompassing roads, railways, aviation, passenger ports, marinas, waterways and digital infrastructure.
If airports are gateways in the sky, passenger ports, marinas and inland-waterway terminals must become gateways on the water. Vietnam will find it difficult to become a major cruise destination in the Asia–Pacific region as long as passenger vessels must share infrastructure with cargo ports, dedicated terminals remain unavailable and connections to destination centres remain inconvenient.
A tourism port should not merely be a place where passengers embark and disembark. It should be an experience centre offering convenient immigration procedures, cultural spaces, cuisine, shopping, performing arts and green transport connections.
Vietnam could establish a coastal and trans-Vietnam tourism corridor linking Hạ Long, Hải Phòng, Huế, Đà Nẵng, Nha Trang, Ho Chi Minh City and Phú Quốc. International seaports could then connect visitors to rivers, cities, heritage sites, craft villages and inland ecological areas.
In southern Vietnam, itineraries could extend from Ho Chi Minh City along the Saigon River to Củ Chi, Tây Ninh, Đồng Nai, the Mekong Delta and onward to Cambodia. In central Vietnam, seaports could connect with the Huế–Đà Nẵng–Hội An–Mỹ Sơn heritage corridor. In the north, waterways could link Hanoi, Hải Phòng, Quảng Ninh and Ninh Bình with the cultural landscapes of the Red River Delta.
Regional linkages must be designed around the visitor journey rather than stopping at administrative boundaries. A genuine tourism corridor requires shared products, a common events calendar, shared data, a convenient booking system, a joint promotion fund and a destination management organisation with sufficient authority and capacity to coordinate the entire network.
When this is achieved, rivers will no longer be treated as the backs of cities but will become their cultural and economic frontages. Coastlines will no longer be regarded simply as places to build resorts, but as corridors connecting Vietnam’s destinations.
What issues should Vietnam prioritise regarding tourism products, human resources, national branding and digital transformation?
Vietnam does not lack resources. What it lacks is the capacity to transform those resources into products that can be purchased and sold—products with compelling stories, clear standards and the ability to generate sustainable profits.
Product diversification does not mean every locality should build the same pedestrian streets, night markets, light festivals or social-media check-in attractions. Replication dilutes identity and ultimately forces destinations to compete on price.
Vietnam needs a three-tier national product architecture: iconic products that position the country internationally; signature products reflecting the identity of each region; and community-based products that deliver income directly to local people.
Every product should pass five tests: Is it distinctive? Can it be booked conveniently? Can it operate throughout the year? Is it commercially viable? Does it contribute to the preservation or regeneration of culture and the environment?
The human-capital challenge cannot be solved simply by opening more courses. Vietnam must shift from training according to what educational institutions are able to provide to training for the capabilities the market actually requires. Dual education involving both schools and businesses should also be promoted.
In addition to professional expertise and foreign-language proficiency, tourism professionals need skills in data, artificial intelligence, revenue management, experience design, cultural storytelling, green operations, safety and crisis management. A spearhead economic sector must provide good incomes, career-development opportunities and a sufficiently attractive professional environment to retain talented people.
A national tourism brand is not a logo, a slogan or a promotional film. A brand is a promise delivered consistently at every touchpoint—from visas, airports, seaports, taxis, hotels, tour guides and public toilets to the way we respond to visitors online.
Tourism promotion must also shift from short-term campaigns to maintaining a continuous presence in priority markets. Effectiveness should not be measured only by views, media coverage or the number of trade fairs attended, but by increases in search interest, booking enquiries, conversion rates, visitor spending, length of stay and intention to return.
Data must become part of the tourism economy’s essential infrastructure. It should not merely serve retrospective reporting. It must help forecast demand, manage capacity, design products, determine pricing, target promotion effectively and respond to crises.
From the perspective of a travel enterprise, what enabling conditions would you like to see introduced to help tourism businesses operate more effectively?
What businesses need first is not short-term incentives, but a transparent, stable, predictable and equitable business environment.
Procedures concerning visas, passenger transport, event organisation, ports and terminals, waterway routes and the night-time economy should be simplified, digitalised and interconnected. A tourism project should not have to pass through an excessive number of agencies applying different interpretations of the law.
Tourism businesses experience seasonal cash flows. Their assets include not only land and buildings, but also brands, customer data, future contracts, distribution systems and the capacity to design and deliver experiences.
If banks assess loans solely on the basis of tangible collateral, most SMEs will remain excluded from credit, even when they have viable markets and sound business models.
The banking sector needs to develop specialised products, including lending based on cash flow, contracts and booking data; credit guarantees for SMEs; medium- and long-term capital for tourism vessels, accommodation facilities and destinations; and interest support for green and digital transformation.
Banks should not merely stand by the roadside providing capital. They need to become genuine partners throughout tourism’s development journey.
The State must also ensure fair competition between domestic businesses and cross-border platforms with regard to tax obligations, data protection, price transparency, consumer responsibility and dispute resolution.
You have repeatedly emphasised inclusive tourism and described tourism as an economy of happiness. How should these ideas be reflected in the Government’s Action Programme?
Tourism can be regarded as an economy of happiness because its final product is not merely a room, a meal or a voyage. It is a memory, an emotion and a human connection.
But an economy of happiness cannot focus solely on satisfying visitors. It must create happiness for three groups: travellers, who enjoy memorable experiences; employees, who receive fair incomes, dignity and opportunities to grow; and local communities, which are able to participate, benefit and take pride in the places they call home.
Inclusive tourism therefore means more than creating additional jobs. It means ensuring that women, young people, rural residents, ethnic minority communities, people with disabilities, artisans, household businesses and SMEs all have opportunities to participate in and own a share of the value chain.
Major projects should include targets for employing local people and sourcing local goods and services. Households should be supported in meeting the standards required to enter tourism supply chains. Space should be reserved for OCOP products, traditional crafts, local cuisine and indigenous arts, while mechanisms for sharing benefits with communities should be publicly disclosed.
If visitor numbers and revenue increase while residents are displaced from their living spaces, workers become exhausted, culture is commercialised, SMEs remain outside the value chain and the environment deteriorates, that cannot be considered success.
Large corporations can serve as the locomotives, but SMEs are the tracks and networks that carry tourism deep into every locality. The State does not need to design every product on behalf of businesses. Its role is to remove bottlenecks, invest in public infrastructure, establish standards, develop national data and branding, safeguard fair competition, and ensure that local people can participate and benefit.
Tourism is a form of on-site export. International visitors come to Vietnam, use services, enjoy Vietnamese cuisine, purchase handicrafts and spend foreign currency within Vietnamese territory. Yet tourism’s greatest value is not measured in foreign currency alone. Tourism also brings Vietnam’s culture, people and way of life into the memory of the world.
The Resolution has opened the right path. The decisive next step is to translate its eight groups of tasks into an Action Programme governed by the “five clarities”, ensuring that every objective has an accountable person, a deadline, sufficient resources and measurable outcomes.
Only when institutions are unblocked, capital reaches the right recipients, data becomes infrastructure, ports and terminals are properly connected, businesses are given opportunities and communities share in the benefits can Vietnamese tourism truly become a spearhead economic sector—one that generates foreign currency, high-quality employment, soft power and inclusive happiness.
“We do not export our heritage. We invite the world to Vietnam to experience it—and to carry Vietnam’s story home.”
