Opinion on Tourism (94/C 393/25)

On 22 February 1994 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the third paragraph of Article 23 of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an Opinion on Tourism.

The Section for Regional Development and Town and Country Planning, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 26 July 1994. The Rapporteur was Mr Lustenhouwer.

At its 318th Plenary Session (meeting of 15 September 1994), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion with 2 votes against and 1 abstention.

1. Introduction

1.1. On 13 July 1992 the Council adopted a three-year action programme to support tourism (). This programme runs until the end of 1995 and so is now at its halfway point.

1.2. Shortly before the Commission submitted its proposals for the action programme the ESC had issued an Opinion on its own initiative in which it advocated such a programme.

1.3. In its ensuing reaction the ESC said it was very pleased with the Commission's proposals but the programme was only a first step in the right direction ().

However, the action programme which was finally adopted by the Council was clearly more limited in scope than that proposed by the Commission and supported by the ESC. So, there is some sense of disappointment.

1.4. With this own-initiative Opinion the ESC wishes to contribute right now to the discussion about the place of tourism policy in the legal framework of the Maastricht Treaty. The ESC also expects that what follows will be reflected in the Green Paper on Community tourism policy which was recently announced by Commissioner Vanni d'Archirafi and which is due to appear sometime this year. The ESC would refer once again to the Opinions which it has issued in the past on this subject, which contain many wishes that have still not been acted upon.

The Intergovernmental Conference announced for 1996 will be able to cover this subject in its deliberations. In issuing this more political message the ESC hopes to give some impetus to positioning the tourism sector in a new Treaty and to the continuation of tourism policy after the end of the current action programme in 1995.

The need to integrate the interests of the European tourism industry better into the various areas of EU policy is all the more pressing since the industry is now facing particularly stiff challenges from increasing competition and external threats such as environmental issues and the recession.

2. Background

2.1. At the end of 1993 the European Parliament adopted a report entitled 'Tourism on the Road towards 2000' (). In this report a number of bottlenecks which the EU tourist industry has to combat were placed on the agenda and proposals made concerning areas where the European Parliament feels that too little account is taken of the interests of both the tourist industry and the European consumer.

2.2. The fact that the European Parliament has come out with a number of recommendations so soon after the adoption of the Commission's multi-year programme shows that some questions can already be asked about the way in which the measures announced in the multiyear programme are to be implemented.

2.3. As preparation for an informal meeting under the Greek Presidency of ministers responsible for policy regarding tourism, the Commission sent the Council, the European Parliament and the ESC a report on Community measures affecting tourism (). This outstanding assessment report offers the ESC a good opportunity to speak out about European tourism policy at a time when thinking on the subject is in a state of flux. However, as has already been explained in point 1.4 above, the ESC's main aim in the present Opinion is not to present an all-embracing vision of the content and direction of a European tourism policy.

3. The task and role of the European Commission and its departments in formulating and implementing a European tourism policy

3.1. When expressing a view on Community policy for the tourist industry one must always bear in mind that the primary responsibility - including that for taking any initiatives in this important economic sector - lies at national or local level, depending on the set-up in the Member States. It is for this reason too that the Community has only limited powers in this area and that the Commission has been burdened with a highly limited mandate by the Council in the action programme. As a result, only a very limited budget is available directly for tourism policy and so the Tourism Department within DG XXIII is very limited in scope.

3.2. Any plea for an extension of current activities will have to be seen in this light and will inevitably require an expansion of available budgets and manpower. However, the ESC thinks that this is absolutely essential if serious work is to be done to maintain and improve the framework conditions for one of the best performing sectors in the European economy.

3.3. The Commission's Tourism Department should see that more is done to incorporate the interests of the sector into Community policy in a host of other areas such as regional policy (e.g. as regards infrastructure financing), transport policy, the environment, consumer protection, indirect taxation, education and training. Only in this way can extra bureaucracy be avoided, the subsidiarity principle properly respected and a framework created in which local and regional initiatives by both market operators and governments can come to fulfilment.

3.4. The economic importance of the industry requires that tourism policy really be given greater emphasis. For tourism provides around 6 % of all the jobs in the EU, which means that an estimated 9 million people are employed in the sector. In the hotel, restaurant and catering sector alone some 1.2 million, mostly small firms are active. Moreover, tourism is one of the leading sources of income in Europe (providing an estimated 5.5 % at least of GNP).

3.5. Clearly too, such a massive sector also faces the problems resulting from its size. The impact of tourism on the environment and on the cultural identity of people who live in tourist areas can even be threatening. Solutions will have to be found for these and other questions, and the Community can play an essential role here.

4. The different points in the multi-year programme for tourism 1993-1995

4.1.

Improved knowledge about the tourist industry

4.1.1. The ESC noted in its Opinion of 19 December 1991 () that not enough was known about the importance of the tourist industry because of the lack of proper information. The ESC then called upon the Commission to undertake a thorough study of the European tourist industry assessing its impact on jobs, output and investments.

4.1.2. From the final report of the Commission on the two-year programme (1991-1992) for developing Community tourism statistics () it emerged that the Commission played a major role in developing an interconnecting complex of information. Priorities were established on the basis of surveys among the leading users groups. The Commission works in this field in close collaboration with the Member States, the WTO and the OECD.

4.1.3. The ESC thinks that the Commission's efforts at collaboration with the parties involved to improve the quality of tourism statistics should be supported. It calls upon the Council to give these activities priority, not just verbally but also by providing the necessary financial resources in the Eurostat budget.

4.1.4. The ESC also notes with approval that the Commission itself attaches importance to improving knowledge about tourism as a product, as is clear from its call for tenders and proposals for study in 1994 (). The ESC once more stresses the importance of the findings of such studies being widely disseminated and discussed with the industry at congresses or in the advisory committee on tourism. This committee, which in the past met only rarely, should be activated so that it can better perform its task as a sounding board for the Commission.

4.2.

Staggering holidays

4.2.1. The ESC supported the Commission in its efforts to bring about more staggered holidays so as to help reduce seasonal peaks from the point of view of time and geographical concentration. The ESC especially pointed out that it was also important to extend tourism to new destinations. The development of new tourist resorts and attractions in Europe should reduce the pressure on existing resorts and thus make a positive contribution to both the environment (see too point 4.6.1) and the cultural heritage, which often suffers heavily from mass tourism. The cultural identity and the way of life of the local population also suffer greatly from the negative effects of too much tourist traffic.

4.2.2. Since the conference under the Dutch Presidency, little or nothing has been achieved as regards more staggered holidays.

The EP asks the Commission to establish an international platform without delay for a geographical spreading of tourism in tune with the seasons. A number of suggestions ought to be studied such as better co-ordination of holiday dates, especially in neighbouring Member States, and the introduction of optional school holidays. The EP welcomes the Commission's study on spending patterns and consumer behaviour in the tourism sector in order to gain a better insight into the issues involved.

4.2.3. In view of the complexity of this issue and the fact that even the Member States do not always have the powers to enforce staggered holidays, the ESC realises that the EU has only limited room for manoeuvre here. But the Commission too must encourage discussions about staggered holidays and take the lead. Governments and private organisations (companies, schools) will be able to get to know each other in each other's own countries. The ESC also supports the EP's call for an international platform on staggered holidays and hopes that the planned conference on this matter under the German presidency can provide some impetus here.

4.2.4. But the ESC would point out here that staggered holidays alone cannot solve the problem of concentration in time and geographical space. The tourist product itself must also come into the argument. Supply can be diversified by more product differentiation to appeal to different population groups (older people!) and by developing other products (health holidays, spas, cultural trips). Such a move towards new product/market combinations will make Europe more competitive and promote a better use of natural sources and human resources.

4.3.

Transnational measures including support for co-operation in border regions

4.3.1. The ESC has stressed in a number of Opinions the importance of cooperation between governments and companies in border regions. This also applies to activities in the tourism sector.

In a number of border regions initiatives have been taken in recent years to raise the profile of the region as such as a tourist destination, and consequently across national borders. Support has been given to this from, among other things, the Community's initiative programme INTERREG.

The EP too draws attention to the importance of cooperation between Member States and calls upon the Community to encourage such cooperation.

4.3.2. The ESC thinks that the initiatives taken can only be called very limited. Administrations in the Member States must become much more aware than hitherto of the disappearance of internal frontiers in the EU and adapt their policies accordingly. The advent of Euro-regions is of great importance here. Euro-regions can help private organisations, companies and semi-state bodies to set up cross-border structures for cooperation in the tourism sector.

4.3.3. Finally, there is a need for more co-operation with regions outside the EU such as those places in countries around the Mediterranean or in Eastern and Central Europe which have historical links with European culture. One matter which deserves closer attention here is that of how to allow European investors from the tourist industry the possibility of being active in non-European countries. Such questions should be looked at more closely in the GATS referred to in point 7.2 below.

4.4.

The tourist as consumer

4.4.1. Protection of the tourist as consumer has always been just as important to the ESC as the healthy economic development of the tourism sector.

In a number of areas the Community has clearly made progress in improving the legal position of the consumer but this matter should continue to receive attention. As a result of the more intensive consumer policy the legal position of the consumer in general, but also as a tourist, has improved tremendously. Examples of this are the fairness of terms in contracts, the banning of dubious practices in the field of time-sharing and the improvement of consumer information.

The EP devotes considerable attention to protecting the consumer-tourist. It stresses the importance of good information, the difficulty of covering sickness and hospital expenses, the question of crime and, more generally, the quality of the tourist industry's product.

4.4.2. The ESC thinks that tourism is the classic example of a sector where service to the consumer is of the highest priority. Only if the consumer is satisfied with the whole product will he express this satisfaction or even return. Bearing in mind what has already been achieved by means of Community regulation, and in view of the unique consumer-oriented nature of the industry, the ESC feels that some reticence should be shown as regards new rules in this area. It therefore considers the recent Opinion of the European Parliament on the matter of 'long-distance purchasing' particularly unsettling. Payments in advance when booking are accepted general practice in the tourist industry and differ completely from the dubious practices in distance selling. The example shows that general points of departure for consumer protection in the tourist industry have entirely different effects and can therefore lead to undesirable results. Instead, attention should be paid to experiences in the Member States with independent complaints commissions and ombudsmen, which have already proved their worth in resolving conflicts.

The tender referred to in point 4.1.4 lists as one of the items the preparation of a practical guide for tourists. The ESC considers the development of a user-friendly handbook of this type a good and concrete step towards improving information for the tourist-consumer.

4.5.

Cultural tourism, tourism for the socially-disadvantaged, tourism for young people

4.5.1. In the interests of diversification, the ESC has called for the development of new tourist products so as to get a higher proportion of the European population involved in one form or another of tourist activity.

In response to this the Commission has supported a number of projects which provided something new and were able to help achieve the goal of closer integration of tourist activities for less financially well-off groups.

The EP too points to the importance of developing activities for young people, older people and the disabled, as well as the value of the European cultural heritage.

4.5.2. The ESC cannot avoid the impression that there has not really been a structured policy in these areas. The projects supported, although agreeable, have been mostly on a small scale and often lacking in educational content. It is here especially that the limited nature of Community resources becomes evident, as activities even in the near future will remain restricted in scope. The question is arising more and more of whether enough thought has been given to the way in which money from the Structural Funds is to be used for tourism in accordance with declared objectives. The ESC fears that the aims set out in the action programme for tourism will, in practice, have little or no influence over decisions on Structural Fund projects. Here too, it seems, there is little talk of coordination.

4.6.

Tourism and the environment

4.6.1. The idea that tourism and the environment do not have to be incompatible is, for the ESC, an important starting point.

In tune with the ESC's vision the Commission has developed a policy which seeks to reconcile these two interests. While tourism can be a great threat to the environment (e.g. take the question of seasonal peaks referred to in point 4.2.1 and the resulting problem of the mass tourism of the alpine winter season and of the summer season on the Mediterranean coast), the environment can also derive great benefit from the tourist's interest in it since environmental infrastructure can be financed out of the revenue from tourism.

The EP wants environmental damage to be put right and tourists to be made more aware and respectful of the environment.

4.6.2. The ESC thinks it is of the greatest importance to bring environmental policy and tourism policy together. Failure to meet environmental standards is one reason why the number of visitors is falling in a number of tourist areas in Europe. Clean water only comes from meeting standards, not from lowering them! The ESC is also pleased that tourism has been given priority in the 5th EC environmental action programme (). But this priority will have to be prompted by the idea of helping to create an environment in which tourism develops and not that of imposing unnecessarily restrictive conditions on firms in the tourist industry.

On this understanding the ESC therefore fully supports the Commission in its attempts to improve the environmental features of European tourism from the point of view of quality.

4.7.

Tourism in the countryside

4.7.1. The ESC thinks it is important to promote tourism in the countryside for a number of reasons. As farm incomes have fallen as the result of CAP reforms, switching set-aside farmland to tourism could boost the rural economy in the area concerned. It could also relieve the pressure on well-known resorts by giving a greater geographical spread to tourism. Certain isolated regions with an agrarian tradition could become more attractive and accessible through the development of tourism, which should boost their economic performance (especially in the public and retail sectors) and enable them to link up with more developed areas (as regards improved infrastructure networks, business co-operation, access to sources of financing, etc.) ().

A number of rural tourism investments have received support from the EAGGF in combination with the ERDF and the ESF. This has helped considerably in diversifying rural activities by providing support for the farms themselves and, more generally, for infrastructure or the building of nature parks, for example.

Funds for rural tourism projects have also come from the LEADER programme.

The EP has stressed the importance of spreading tourism over more areas, including the countryside, thereby providing a more varied product.

4.7.2. The ESC is pleased with the growth of tourism in the countryside in recent years. Bearing in mind the need to ensure fair competition (especially tax-wise) and comply with basic health and safety requirements for tourist attractions and hotels, tourism in the countryside can provide an attractive alternative for the 'urban' tourist alongside more traditional forms of tourism.

4.7.3. The ESC particularly welcomes such initiatives because they help provide tourist activities for those people who to date have not had such opportunities. Moreover, in Wales, for example, this geographical 'spreading-out' also helps to stagger holidays as people take a short second or even a third holiday. The ESC

believes that if tourism in the countryside is to develop in a healthy manner there must be fair competition so that short-term subsidies are no longer necessary.

4.8.

Training

Quality of service will be the watchword for the future. This requires everyone working in and for the tourist industry to have a high level of up-to-date skills, above all a knowledge of foreign languages. The Community has realised this and supported a number of projects to improve the skills of industry workers including such people as travel agents and tour operators. Tourists are becoming less stereotyped and so their expectations have grown and are changing from group to group. Training and certainly continuous training, must be given absolute priority because of new technologies and management methods. Above all, if the non-EU tourist is to be attracted, the quality of services must be noticeably improved. The ESC therefore heartily welcomes the setting-up of training networks in different Member States and the exchange of best practices between governments, training institutes and the business world. The tourist industry's image as an employer can be improved considerably. Those working in the sector should draw attention to its working conditions, as this will improve the jobs situation and make a career in tourism more attractive.

4.9.

Promotional activities in non-EU countries

Over the last 10 years Europe's share of the world market has certainly fallen by 10 %. Competition from tourist destinations in non-EU countries is particularly fierce and Europe is consequently losing ground. Even the actual number of visitors from Japan and the USA has fallen. The ESC thinks that the Commission should carry out an analysis of this trend immediately so that all the parties involved (market and government) can take the appropriate steps to curb it. Europe is even encouraging this trend by spending large sums of money on building tourist infrastructure in non-EU countries. But with proper promotion (e.g. exploiting the market for 'congress-tourism') non-EU tourists can be attracted to Europe. The ESC has learnt with disbelief that the budget authorities have scrapped the relevant item from the 1994 budget. This seems to show once again that the economic role of the tourist industry is not taken seriously in a number of cases! Any promotion of the European Union as such in non-EU countries must adopt a professional approach and be of a structural nature if it is to have any impact.

Such a promotion scheme will have to be closely co-ordinated with the activities of the various national and regional tourist offices and should be given an adequate budget to highlight the diversity which is so much a feature of Europe.

5. Integration of tourism policy into the other activities of the European Union

5.1. In May 1992 the Commission published a communication on Community policy and measures of interest to tourism (). It summarised to what extent, if at all, firms in the tourist industry would have to cope with EU measures in a host of areas, such as the single market and its impact, communications policy, social policy and environmental policy.

In fact this communication is an initial response to the ESC's call for the integration of tourism policy into the whole complex of EU policies. Its 'horizontal' approach means that the interests of the industry and those of the consumer are to become an integral part of the decision-making process in all relevant policy areas. The economic, social and cultural importance of tourism makes such integration both desirable and right in every way.

5.2. The above-mentioned Commission report of April 1994 on Community measures affecting tourism continues this line. It reports on activities in policy areas outside the direct scope of the action programme where Community measures or financial resources geared to tourism are applied. But the ESC thinks that the common thread is too often missing. It sees one prime cause for this: the lack of an adequate legal basis in the Treaty for a full-blown Community tourism policy.

6. From a horizontal and specific tourism policy to an express basis for a treaty

6.1. In its Opinion of 19 December 1991 the ESC said that tourism should be given a proper place of its own in a future revision of the Treaty of Rome. The Treaty of Maastricht has been a disappointment in this respect as tourism has been given only a very limited place - in Article 3(t) - as one of the EU's fields of activity. A place which is totally out of keeping with the sector's actual and potential importance to economic development. As well as this prosperity aspect, one must not overlook the welfare aspect which is so characteristic of the tourist industry.

6.2. The European Parliament has also spoken out on this matter. It calls upon the Commission to draw up a White Paper on how tourism policy can best be incorporated into the European Union Treaty when that Treaty is next amended.

It is well-known that such amendments may be made as early as 1996 at an Intergovernmental Conference. It may be thought extremely useful to give right now the political signal that is needed if a place is to be found for a tourism policy in a future treaty. The industry has a right to a priority place in policy and the opportunity which now presents itself once again must be seized now.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The tourist industry in Europe is in a better position than other sectors of the economy. It is constantly creating new directions, it earns a major part of Europe's GNP and it offers a product/market combination which, because of its broad variety and its accessibility to a major proportion of the European population, makes a special contribution to the prosperity of the EU's citizens.

7.2. As has been already noted, as well as the trump cards which Europe can offer on the world market there are also a number of dangers waiting in the starting blocks to unleash heightened competition. Thus, further liberalisation of the services sector, including the tourist industry, can be expected as a result of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) concluded as part of the Marrakesh agreement of 15 April 1994. This means more access to the European market for suppliers from non-EU countries and an increase in non-European investments in the sector; but it also offers opportunities for European investors to acquire more tourist interests outside Europe and so cut down on their activities in Europe. Worldwide competition with all its opportunities and dangers will therefore increase.

Against this background a specific European tourism policy must be formulated alongside the completion of framework conditions (such as the importance of completing the EU internal market and moving towards an economic and monetary union with all the advantages of a single currency).

At this stage it would be presumptuous to try and decide on the contents of such a policy, but apart from projecting a European brand image and European cultural values abroad it could cover the preserving, in the European interest, of certain sites as well as what remains of the shoreline (as part of a European land-use planning policy, for example) and include measures to encourage people and businesses to comply with high standards as regards building or environmental protection.

7.3. The ESC has already expressed its disappointment at what the Community has done for the tourist industry over the years. All the good intentions and commitment of those concerned have produced nothing more than a patchwork of measures and an input of money and projects which have been very limited in scope, disappointing in their impact and completely ill-conceived in their structure.

The Tourism Department in DG XXIII is very limited in size and resources. Tourism is affected by the activities of a host of other DGs. But despite the difficulties there is scarcely any talk of coordination. As an example one may mention the policy on VAT, where the possibility of Member States being able to tax overnight stays in hotels and, preferably, spending in restaurants at the low rate plays a more important role than any subsidy!

Many of the ESC's past wishes are still unfulfilled and even the European Parliament in its recommendations does nothing more than refer to what should have been done years ago. The European tourist industry is rapidly losing its share of the world market and such band-aid measures as strewing out subsidies are no longer of any help.

7.4. The ESC therefore cannot escape the conclusion that tourism should be given a legal basis in a new Treaty. Consequently the ESC calls upon the Member States to press for its inclusion in a new Treaty both on this basis and on that of the industrial policy as set out in Article 130!

Done at Brussels, 15 September 1994.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Susanne TIEMANN

() OJ No L 231/26.

() OJ No C 49, 24. 2. 1994.

() PE 206.166/fin., Rapporteur Mr P.A.M. Cornelissen.

() COM(94) 74 final, Brussels, 6. 4. 1994.

() See footnote 2.

() COM(93) 345 final, Brussels, 1. 9. 1993.

() OJ No C 122 + S 86, 4. 5. 1994.

() COM(92) 23, 27. 3. 1992.

() An interesting view on this can be found in par. 24 et seq. of Commissioner Millan's report entitled 'Europe's Territory After Maastricht' to the informal Council of Ministers responsible for land-use planning held in Corfu on 2 June 1994.

() SEC(92) 701 final, 27. 5. 1992.