EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/50

(2004/C 88 E/0053)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1923/03

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(3 June 2003)

Subject: EU funds for the Caribbean tourism sector (follow-up to the reply given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission to Written Question P-0743/03)

The reply given by the Commission on 26 March 2003 (to Written Question P-0743/03 (1)) was quite vague and, hence, thus disappointing.

Furthermore, two comments call for an immediate response:

— The objective of ‘achieving poverty reduction’ is not valid in relation to most islands of the Caribbean, since they are economically as prosperous as some European countries.

— The statement that ‘the Caribbean is a specific tourism destination, which means that it is unlikely to be a direct competitor to most European markets’ demonstrates a total misunderstanding of the tourism business. Furthermore, the entire paragraph from which this sentence is extracted contradicts the acknowledgement by the Council in its Resolution of 21 May 2002 on the future of European tourism (2)‘that the leading position occupied by Europe as a tourist destination at world level is slowly weakening’.

Could the Commission reassess the two statements set out above, and could it explain clearly how it can, on the one hand, express concern about the decline in the competitiveness of the tourism sector in Europe and, on the other, help competing destinations?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 2003)

The Commission reaffirms its commitment to supporting tourism development as a way to achieve economic development and poverty reduction. Reference should be made, in this respect, to the Cotonou Agreement, where the role of tourism is clearly stated: (Article 24: ‘Co-operation programmes and projects will support the efforts of ACP countries to establish and improve the countries legal and institutional framework and resources for the development and implementation of sustainable tourism policies and programmes, as well as, inter alia, improve the competitive position of the sector, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), investment support and promotion, product development including the development of indigenous cultures in ACP countries, and strengthening linkages between tourism and other sectors of economic activity’). These are the areas in which the Commission supports the efforts of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries.

With specific reference to the Caribbean region, the average gross domestic product (GDP) per capita is about EUR 4 500 and two countries fall in the category of Least Developed Countries (LDC). The poverty level is high in countries like Haiti, Guyana, Dominican Republic and Jamaica, representing more than 85 % of the regional population. The countries in the upper middle income category of developing countries, on the other hand, represent only 3,5 %. Furthermore, the Caribbean economies are highly dependent on tourism, which represents directly and indirectly about 900 000 jobs; their income from tourism is very volatile and their economies are very fragile.

The Commission considers that an effective support to tourism development in ACP countries, and in this specific case in the Caribbean region, can contribute to socio-economic development in these regions, and then to a more inclusive and cohesive world economy. Its present policy for tourism development in the Caribbean is aimed at that target.

The limited resources made available by the Commission for tourism development in the Caribbean, presently representing only 3 % of total tourism arrivals, and still a niche market, do not seem such as to undermine the perspectives of European destinations. These perspectives need to be strengthened by means of adequate efforts, undertaken both by private and public actors, to innovate, improve the quality and differentiation of the products offered, market the products in an effective way, and certainly not simply by protecting the sector and limiting our support to developing countries.

(1) OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 76.

(2) OJ C 135, 6.6.2002, p. 1.