Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the 'Proposal for a Council decision on a first multiannual programme to assist tourism - Philoxenia (1997-2000)` (97/C 42/04)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council [COM(96) 168 fin - 96/0127 (CNS)] ();

Having regard to the decision taken by the Council on 24 June 1996, under the first paragraph of Article 198c of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult the Committee of the Regions on the matter;

Having regard to its decision on 8 March 1996 to direct Subcommission 2 'Tourism and Rural Areas` to draw up the relevant Opinion;

Having regard to the Draft Opinion CdR 302/96 rev. adopted by Subcommission 2 on 9 October 1996 (Rapporteurs: Mrs Segersten-Larsson and Mr Lafay),

adopted the following Opinion at its 15th Plenary Session on 13-14 November 1996 (meeting of 14 November).

1. Background

In its Opinion (16 November 1995) on the Commission Green Paper on the role of the Union in the field of Tourism (), the COR highlighted the following points concerning the objectives of future Community action ():

- The COR stresses the need to clarify and fix Community objectives for tourism, and to explore ways of attaining these objectives, through coordinated measures under current policy programmes;

- The COR feels that the Community's objective in the field of tourism should be to help to achieve economic, cultural and environmentally-sound growth which, even in the long term, will benefit tourists, the economy and the local population;

- The COR sees it as vitally important that the tourist industry, in line with other industries, should be provided with a clear legal framework, and backed up by those elements of economic policy which are likely to further competitiveness, growth and employment;

- The COR would point out the need for the Community to provide early support and stimulus for those local and regional players - i.e. business and local authorities - which are chiefly responsible for developing tourism.

Prior to its evaluation of the Philoxenia Action Programme, the COR took into account an evaluation of earlier action plans (Report on the evaluation of the Community Action Plan to assist Tourism 1993-95, Council Decision 92/421/EEC) () and the remarks contained in the COR Opinion on a Policy for the Development of Rural Tourism in the Regions of the EU (2 February 1995).

2. Context and scope

General remarks

2.1. The COR feels that the Commission has put forward a good, well-drafted proposal on the new Action Programme for Tourism (Philoxenia).

The COR notes with satisfaction that the proposal has taken on board many of the recommendations made by the Committee in connection with the Green Paper on Tourism and previous COR statements on the development of rural tourism ().

2.2. The COR sees as a virtue the fact that EU action in the proposed Philoxenia Programme concentrates on a few, essential measures calculated to enhance national, regional and local action.

2.3. The COR would point out that a strong, comprehensive 'EU policy` provides 'added value` for national, regional and local action.

2.4. An 'EU policy` (on tourism) should be capable of reflecting the diversity of approaches which different Member States may wish to adopt, and incorporate broad principles relating to the protection of the environment and cultural heritage.

2.5. Under the terms of the Treaty, the EU is to strive to protect and improve the environment, and incorporate environmental concerns in other EU policies. Tourism is one of the areas pinpointed in the fifth action programme for the environment.

2.6. The COR has, inter alia, in its 12 June 1996 Opinion on Agenda 21 () emphasized that efforts in the field of the environment must incorporate the environment, the economy, culture and social welfare.

2.7. It is the COR's view that the measures for tourism should be framed so as to help provide a clear coherent benchmark or 'consensus` to accompany tourism action plans, year in, year out, regardless of any changes in the objectives or measures chosen.

2.8. The COR believes that clearer, more comprehensive Community measures would make it easier for users and beneficiaries of the action programme for tourism to understand why the European Union decides, for example, to give precedence to certain measures in action programmes.

2.9. Bearing in mind the wide dissemination to which a new action programme is subject, the COR feels that it would be useful for educational and policy-making purposes if the Philoxenia Programme could include a clear reference to this.

2.10. The COR wishes to emphasize that this EU policy must be of such a nature as to be easily implemented according to the various national, regional and local needs and conditions.

2.11. In this context, the COR would point out the benefits of the policy-creating effect which EU initiatives, within the framework of previous action plans, have had in highlighting the importance of culture in tourism, and the clear dependence on both public and private initiatives.

2.12. The COR welcomes the Commission proposal for continued support for cultural tourism, since much remains to be done in working out procedures generally, and in getting more companies to see culture as providing 'added value` to business trips, or arousing their interest in the attractions of rural tourism. The same holds good for health tourism.

2.13. Finally, the COR would point out in general that tourism, in the long run, will be better served if support is planned as an integral part of a local or regional strategy for growth and employment, in which EU support helps to create a more level playing field. As a body representing the local and regional level, the COR is striving to increase awareness of this, in order to contribute to the 'tourist-friendly environment` the Commission would like to see.

OBJECTIVES AND PROPOSED ACTIONS

3. Improving knowledge in the field of tourism

3.1. The COR has on various occasions pointed out that the tourist industry urgently requires a common approach to both procedures and know-how.

3.2. The Committee therefore particularly welcomes the proposed Community measures to improve basic information on tourism; this will make it possible to provide a better assessment and comparison of the situation and developments in the Member States. This is vital to improve decision makers' understanding of tourism and its specific needs, etc.

3.3. The Committee of the Regions feels that the declared final objective of the action plan, i.e. 'to stimulate the quality and competitiveness of European tourism, in order to contribute to growth and employment`, can best be evaluated in the light of better basic information, such as comparable statistics and quality standards.

3.4. The COR welcomes the call to make the data which the Member States are introducing and collecting in accordance with the 1995 Statistics Directive more accessible and user-friendly. Attention must be paid to keeping administrative work to a minimum.

4. Pooling tourism information from other sources

4.1. The COR feels that the EU can usefully take responsibility for creating an effective pooling and dissemination of the information currently held by various organizations at many different levels.

4.2. The COR assumes that the proposed Research and Documentation Network will be set up in close consultation with the users - both tourist operators and public organizations - on matters such as designing the actual information database and the advisory service, so as to obtain maximum benefit.

4.3. The COR believes that the new information and communication technologies should facilitate better dissemination of this information and make it easier for the public (specialists, tourists, schools, universities, libraries, etc.) to access it. The INFO 2000 Community Programme, which aims to boost the information industry, should intervene here.

5. Facilitating the assessment of Community measures affecting tourism

5.1. The COR considers it essential to achieve better coordination for tourism initiatives and measures within individual DGs and under the various Community programmes. Accordingly, the COR welcomes the Commission initiative for an improved overview and insight into how other EU initiatives affect the tourist industry. For instance, consistency must be ensured with Structural Fund support for the development of tourism and regional attractions under priority objectives and Community initiatives such as Interreg II.

5.2. The COR also hopes that improved internal coordination will lead to improved information for the movers and shakers of tourism. This might take the form of a readily accessible guidebook, to make it easier for tourist operators and public representatives to find the right programme and funding for their specific needs, and also serve to shed light on the total resources available for tourism under other programmes and funds outside the Philoxenia programme.

6. Improving the legislative and financial environment for tourism

6.1. The COR feels it important to highlight, at both national and EU level, the need for the service sector to be subject to the same conditions as manufacturing industry, which, in many respects, enjoys more favourable terms when it comes to energy tax, etc.

6.2. The COR considers it essential that the Commission should map out the legal and tax situation for tourism in the Member States and in third countries which are major competitors. This would provide Member States with a better basis on which to debate the need for change.

7. Reinforcing cooperation with Member States, the industry and other stakeholders

7.1. The COR endorses the Commission's view that there is a clear need to stimulate cooperation and coordination. Like the Commission, the Committee feels that cooperation in the form of public/private partnerships is likely to promote tourism best.

7.2. The COR feels, however, that national tourism programmes in the Member States should emphasize the need for coordination and cooperation in partnership. The EU could stimulate this cooperation by highlighting this need in the Philoxenia Programme, together with the need for regional partnerships.

7.3. The COR would also like to raise the question of how the EU might help to stimulate cooperation between established tourist resorts and new ones - a sort of 'mentorship` between places with similar backgrounds. This could provide a valid support instrument, not least to former Eastern bloc countries. Moreover, specific support measures should be encouraged for the implementation of projects to boost tourism in third countries in the Mediterranean area.

7.4. The COR doubts whether regular general meetings are the best way to promote effective cooperation between the Member States.

The COR feels, on the other hand, that subject-specific meetings and working parties with experts from various organizations are well placed inter alia to ensure that sections of the proposed Programme can be implemented.

RAISING QUALITY IN EUROPEAN TOURISM

8. Promoting sustainable tourism

8.1. The COR would emphasize the need for the EU, in the long term, to suggest measures to raise the general public's and the tourist industry's awareness of how natural and cultural resources can be sensibly safeguarded. This is a basic, global problem which urgently requires EU support.

8.2. The quality of tourism depends mostly on the visitor's overall impression of the area s/he is visiting and of the people s/he meets. Local and regional representatives have a special responsibility to make tourism a stimulating experience for tourists and locals alike, for tourism makes its mark - whether positive or negative - in the local community.

8.3. The COR therefore endorses the Commission proposal to support exchanges of experience between local initiatives and networks which increase know-how of, inter alia, methods of achieving sustainable, environmentally-friendly tourism.

8.4. On the subject of the requirements of the tourist industry, the COR would particularly highlight the rising number of study centres dedicated to outdoor education, nature and cultural studies. An increased interest in adventure, nature and cultural experience requires some knowledge of what the environment will put up with, and knowledgeable guides/supervisors who can stimulate tourists to experience nature and culture with all five senses. The Committee would emphasize that an increase in knowledge and skills is an important part of product development, and essential where nature holidays are concerned, in order to avoid conflict with the local population. In countries where an 'open countryside` policy gives legal right of access to private land, tourist operators must show understanding and use their expertise to ensure that commercial exploitation does not give rise to conflict with the landowners.

8.5. Whilst the COR would commend the aims of the European Prize for Tourism and the Environment, it does have some reservations concerning the arrangements for the competition, as these will require considerable administrative input from the Member States. It would therefore be helpful if the EU could find another way of rewarding the best initiatives which can give a lead and act as a benchmark.

8.6. The COR would point out in general the need for the EU, in evaluating the projects to be supported, to give greater consideration to the potential benefits and added value than to the size of the individual projects. This could, for example, be relevant in the case of projects with a knock-on effect in rural areas and tourist areas in the proximity of cities.

9. Removing obstacles to Tourism development

9.1. The COR believes that added value would be provided if the EU could help to identify clear concepts which can be applied in all Member States. Rural tourism provides a good example, with the slogan 'stay on a farm`, and cross-border cooperation projects such as 'cultural circuits` and 'back to our roots` campaigns.

9.2. Measures which further the development of policy but are unlikely to yield immediate corporate profits should not be disdained. Initiatives for cultural tourism, eco-tourism and rural tourism, and tourism for the disabled have provided inspiration in previous action programmes and been extremely useful for policy-framing in many Member States. Improved Member State cooperation in pursuance of a common principle could also bring about that groundswell for tourism which is needed to make a low-profile product profitable.

9.3. The COR feels that an EU initiative could help to analyse the options and problems involved in focusing more on the potential growth areas of health tourism, business tourism, cultural tourism and rural tourism. However, it is particularly important to develop appropriate solutions using new technologies.

9.4. The COR would particularly emphasize the need for the EU to support exchanges of experience on tailoring tourism to the needs of the disabled.

9.5. Tourist options for the disabled are dependent upon the local community's overall efforts to remove obstacles to various forms of disability.

9.6. It is the COR's view that tourist operators and tourist organizations have a special responsibility to provide proper information as to how far the tourist destination and its facilities are accessible to people with varying types of disability. Important tasks include establishing criteria for different types of disability and accessibility, and designing instantly recognizable symbols for use in tourist brochures and display beside the facilities.

9.7. The COR would particularly stress the benefit of harmonizing symbols for disabled access, and of sharing experience with regard to guide services for disabled people and insurance matters.

9.8. The COR would point out another corner of the market which can help to raise the quality of tourism. It is the Committee's view that there are both economic and qualitative reasons for looking more closely at how tourism as a product can be tailored to the needs of the ever-increasing number of single women who travel both for business and for pleasure. Safety issues are important for women and children in particular, and the COR feels it should be the duty of the EU to address these issues. In this respect, coordination on insurance for the victims of crime requires urgent attention.

9.8.1. The COR points out that, in order to remove obstacles to the development of tourism, it is also necessary to take efficient action to influence other EU policies. In this context the COR refers to competition law, which frequently does not cover the regional requirements of tourism.

9.8.2. The COR would draw attention to the problem of holiday period scheduling, which is an obstacle to the development of tourism, and recommends that ways of staggering holiday periods be explored.

9.9. In the COR's experience, the wording of the heading for the objective 'Removing obstacles to Tourism development` is open to misinterpretation and can be associated with removing tax barriers and the like.

9.10. The Committee therefore suggests that the heading should read: 'Tailoring the market to different issues and target groups`, which the Committee feels is a clearer description of the Commission's intentions.

INCREASING THE NUMBER OF TOURISTS FROM THIRD COUNTRIES

10. Promoting Europe as a tourist destination

10.1. The COR notes the Commission's declared objective to draw thematically on the great diversity and pluralism of Europe and present the many opportunities which exist for visitors from third countries.

10.2. As the COR sees it, marketing Europe as a tourist destination will act as a back-up for initiatives which the EU supports in other ways, e.g. highlighting border areas such as Inner Scandinavia and the Baltic countries. Marketing strategies such as these also achieve the objective of staggering visitor flows, and are in line with other EU procedures for levelling out differences and pooling resources. The COR would emphasize that local and regional representatives must be allowed to have their say in framing the forthcoming marketing campaign for Europe, which should be planned from a bottom-up perspective. The COR assumes that initiatives will be followed up and assessed carefully.

11. General comments on the proposed budget

11.1. The COR has no cause to discuss the Philoxenia budget in detail. The Committee assumes that funds other than those available under the Philoxenia programme will also be better harnessed for tourism than was previously the case, thanks to the recommended enhanced coordination between other strategic programmes and funds for tourism.

11.2. The COR believes that the initial period of the new action programme should give priority to measures for improving knowledge in the field of tourism. The COR considers that practical work on statistics, research and database compilation, together with technical and subject-specific measures, should take precedence over more general information initiatives and meetings at EU level.

11.3. The COR feels that marketing initiatives should be stepped up so that they are at their height when other measures to improve the quality of European tourism have already had some effect.

CONCLUSIONS

The COR welcomes the new Philoxenia action programme

- The chosen measures provide added value for national, regional and local activities;

- Tourism is a positive element, and is of 'common value` since it incorporates everything which affects the environment and local surroundings;

- Cultural tourism, rural tourism and business tourism have - both individually and collectively - great potential for growth;

- Education and research, and exchanges of information and statistics are prerequisites for an understanding of tourism;

- Member State cooperation should be underpinned by a level playing field, both legally and economically;

- Exchanges of experience and best practices are of considerable importance to the sustainable development of tourism throughout Europe;

- Tourism must be organized so as to meet disabled people's need for easy access and instantly recognizable symbols;

- Safety issues should be highlighted for all travellers, and for women and children in particular;

- Europe should be promoted as a tourist destination;

- A strong local and regional influence is essential to the success of the programme.

The proposals contained in the report are a very constructive contribution.

Brussels, 14 November 1996.

The Chairman of the Committee of the Regions

Pasqual MARAGALL i MIRA

() OJ No C 222, 31. 7. 1996, p. 9.

() COM(95) 97 final.

() OJ No C 126, 29. 4. 1996, p. 24.

() OJ No L 231, 13. 8. 1992, p. 26.

() OJ No C 210, 14. 8. 1995, p. 99.

() OJ No C 337, 11. 11. 1996, p. 34.