Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Community measures affecting tourism (1995-1996)'
Date: 1997-10-30
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU action, EU programme, report, tourism policy

C 19/116

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21. 1. 98

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Report from the Commission to the
Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee
of the Regions on Community measures affecting tourism (1995-1996)’

(98/C 19/30)

On 8 July 1997 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 23(2) of its Rules of
Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on the above-mentioned report.

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
21 October 1997. The rapporteur was Mr Lustenhouwer.

At its 349th plenary session (meeting of 30 October 1997), the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 52 votes to three, with six abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The Economic and Social Committee noted with
interest the Commission report on the measures affecting
tourism taken at EU level
in 1995 and 1996. The
Committee takes note of the fact that the Commission
has also issued a separate working document (1) on the
various measures developed in the same period under
the Commission’s specific policy for tourism. Against
the background of its comments on the Green Paper
on tourism (2) and the Commission proposal for a
multiannual programme for tourism entitled ‘Philoxe-
nia’ (3), the Committee will in this additional opinion
confine itself to a number of comments of a more
fundamental nature.

The Commission’s

1.2.
report on Community
measures which influence tourism shows once again
that EU policy impinges on the tourism sector in many
areas.

This is only natural given the fact that what is usually
referred to as the tourism sector involves in practice a
large number of types of enterprise in many branches of
activity, distributed all over Europe. After all, tourism
is noteworthy for its diversity of enterprises.

1.3.
The Committee welcomes the fact that the
Commission, by publishing this report, makes it clear
that the European Union does concern itself, through a
number of measures, with the tourism industry and
those working in it. The Community’s activity in the
sector would indeed appear very limited if the measures
under the specific tourism policy — which have only a
very modest scope — were the only ones to be considered.

1.4. However, the Committee does find the report
rather too general. In the Committee’s view the Com-
mission ought to indicate more precisely — not just in
the above-mentioned working document but also in this
report, which carries more legal weight and is circulated
widely — which financial resources directly benefit the
sector. The Committee also urges the Commission to
measure in greater detail the effects of the various
measures in terms of job creation in the sector or
improving the quality of the tourism product. Impact
analyses of this kind would make it easier to determine
the future direction of policy and where it needs to be
stepped up.

2. Tourism policy in relation to environment and

consumer policy

(1) Community actions affecting tourism, Commission staff

working paper, Brussels, 11. 7. 1997, SEC(97) 1419.

(2) Economic and Social Committee, Opinion on the European
Union’s role in the field of tourism — Commission Green
Paper (COM(95) 97 final) — OJ 301, 13. 11. 1995.

(3) Economic and Social Committee, Opinion on the first
multiannual programme to assist European tourism (1997-
2000) — Philoxenia (COM(96) 168 final) — OJ C 30,
30. 1. 1997.

2.1.
As the Committee concluded in earlier opinions
on tourism, the sector is of worldwide importance in
economic terms. Despite the very positive growth of the
tourist industry, including in employment terms, its
market share continues to be under pressure. Data
from the European Commission, the World Tourism
Organization and the OECD show that competing
destinations outside the European Union have increased
considerably in popularity in recent years, and this trend
is likely to continue.

21. 1. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 19/117

2.2.
Although it is primarily the firms themselves
which determine the attractiveness of the tourism
product, it follows from the nature of the product that
local and national authorities, and increasingly the
European Community authorities, also have an
important part to play in maintaining the attractiveness
of Europe as a tourist destination.

thereby increasing the administrative burden upon
tourism entrepreneurs. In contrast to the situation with
other types of product, in tourism the consumer always
goes to the product and not the other way round. When
setting off, the consumer needs to be reassured about
his/her legal position, particularly when the destination
is outside his/her own country. The tourist/consumer’s
financial security will be enhanced by the introduction
of the euro.

2.3.
The tourism product amounts to more than just
the quality of the transport mode (aircraft, train etc.) or
hotel:
it depends above all on the quality of the
surroundings in which the product is offered. This
involves precisely those aspects on which public policy
can have considerable influence — such as accessibility,
safety and quality of life in the widest sense (e.g.
environmental pollution!).

2.4.
The Committee therefore regards it as essential
for the European tourism industry that a balance
be found between (a) Community objectives such as
sustainable growth and cohesion, and (b) the objective
of promoting the tourism sector for reasons of continuity
and employment.

2.5.
It is not only the authorities which are concerned
with finding this balance: the industry itself has an
interest in matters such as clean surroundings and
improving accessibility. The Committee takes the view
that even more account must be taken in European
environment policy of tourism-related issues. The EU
must make a greater effort to develop a better balance
than prevails at present between environment policy
and promotion of an entrepreneurial spirit in the sector.
The Committee points out that this effort must take as
its starting-point both the practical capabilities of the
enterprises in the sector and environmentally desirable
policy objectives and measures. Past experience has
shown that norms or standards drawn up from a
purely environmental viewpoint are sometimes totally
unattainable for industry, for a variety of reasons
(technical and/or commercial).
In EU programmes
designed to promote the tourism sector in non-member
countries, care must be taken to ensure that European
environmental protection standards are respected.

2.6.
The Commission report is right to point out that
EU policy is formulated on the basis of a number of
different objectives. One of them is of course the
promotion of a favourable climate for tourism enter-
prises, while concern for the environment has already
been mentioned. But it is also right for the position of
the tourist/consumer to receive attention in EU policy.
The EU, too, can contribute to creating basic conditions
of safety and security for the tourist/consumer without

3. Employment and tourism

As stated above,

3.1.
tourism’s contribution to
employment is impressive and still growing. About 6 %
of the working population, i.e. about 9 million people,
are employed in the sector. This percentage is expected
to rise to 9 % by the year 2010 (1). In the United Kingdom
it is predicted that by the year 2000 tourism will be its
biggest industry. All the more reason, against the
background of the still problematic employment situ-
ation in the European Union, to devote special attention
to job creation in tourism/recreation. The Committee
feels that every measure in the fields of labour market,
education and promotion of job-creating investment
must pay special attention to its impact on tourism
enterprises. Further economic growth is to be expected
here if certain conditions, mentioned by the Committee
in the above-mentioned opinions, are fulfilled; and in
this case it leads directly to job creation. The tourism
sector is exceptionally labour-intensive and will remain
so in many of its activities, even after the application of
new technologies, provided that measures are drawn up
— at all appropriate levels — which will help to increase
competitive capacity. The Committee notes that recent
concentration trends can set in train important changes
in the sector, which must be examined critically in the
context of competition policy.

3.2.
The Committee is pleased that the Luxembourg
Presidency and the Commission have taken the initiative
of organizing, for early November 1997, a conference
on tourism and employment. The Committee hopes that
this conference will produce practical recommendations
to Member States and the Union itself which will lead
to more, and qualitatively better,
jobs in tourism
enterprises and more concern for continuity in the
sector. Precisely because this sector is one of the few
growth areas in the Union in employment terms, the

(1) WTTC, Travel and Tourism — Jobs for the Millennium,

London 1997.

C 19/118

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21. 1. 98

Committee hopes that the recommendations of this
conference will also serve as an ‘input’ for the special
European summit on the employment situation in
Europe. When discussing employment in terms of labour
market adjustments, flexibility and atypical forms of
work, experience in the tourism sector (best practice
exchange in line with the new Article 5 under the new
employment heading of the draft Treaty of Amsterdam)
could serve as an example for other sectors where these
developments are still in their infancy.

3.3.
The Committee also thinks that the recommen-
dations made recently by the World Tourism Organ-
ization must receive sufficient attention at the conference
and can be put into practice. In the Madrid Declaration
on Tourism Human Resources Development (1) the
WTO sought to:

be an incentive to take on new staff. The ‘wedge’
between total employer’s costs and the employee’s net
wages will therefore have to be significantly reduced,
without, however, affecting wage levels or endangering
the financing of the social security system. However,
any measures taken must not be restricted to individual
sectors. Such an approach, coupled with an improvement
in working conditions, will also help to reduce ‘moon-
lighting’, a phenomenon which in some regions of the
Union increasingly involves non-EU workers who are
illegally residing in the Union. On the other hand,
Member States must continue to be allowed to tax
overnight stays and catering services (food and drink)
at the low VAT rate.

— urge all actors to give the highest priority to the

development of human resources;

4. Conclusion

— advocate new paradigms which consider general
tourism education and skilled training which best
respond to changing environments;

— acknowledge that education and training provide the
foundation underlying the development of tourism
professions;

— consider the development of universal standards,
certification and accreditation to strengthen existing
programmes and guide formulation of new education
and training systems;

— recommend the integration of new technologies and
information systems into tourism education and
training;

— recognize the importance of quality and professional-
ism as essential factors in both education and service
deliveries.

Given the labour-intensive nature of the mainly
3.4.
small and medium-sized enterprises in the sector, the
conference will need to debate fully the possibilities for
reducing labour costs. Taxes on the labour and social
security contributions component often still cause the
final costs for the employer to be too high for there to

(1) WTO Conference ‘Human capital in the tourism industry
of the twenty-first century’, Madrid, 21-23 January 1996.

In earlier opinions (2) the Committee expressed
4.1.
its majority support for including a separate article on
tourism in the Treaty on European Union. The
Committee notes that the Treaty of Amsterdam did
include such a provision. The Committee is
not
disappointed that, as far as it knows,
there was
no substantive response at
the Intergovernmental
Conference leading to the Amsterdam Treaty to this
wish expressed by both the Committee and the
European Parliament (3).

4.2.
The Committee also regrets that, a full year after
its presentation by the Commission, no agreement has
yet been reached by the Council on the proposed
multiannual ‘Philoxenia’ programme for tourism. The
Committee is pleased that at all events the European
Parliament has made available ECU 4 million in the
1997 budget, and calls upon the Parliament to continue
this for tourism policy in the coming years. The
Committee takes the view that the Council cannot
continue to frustrate the wish of the Committee and the
European Parliament to see a fully-fledged Community

(2) Economic and Social Committee, Opinion on the European
Union’s role in the field of tourism — Commission
Green Paper (COM(95) 97 final) — OJ 301, 13. 11. 1995;
Economic and Social Committee, Opinion on the first
multiannual programme to assist European tourism (1997-
2000) — Philoxenia (COM(96) 168 final) — OJ C 30,
30. 1. 1997.

(3) See (most recently) Resolution on tourism, European

Parliament, 12. 6. 1997, PE 260.312.

21. 1. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 19/119

tourism policy (1). The Committee therefore welcomes
the announcement by the President-in-Office of the
Tourism Council (2) that the Luxembourg Presidency

(1) See inter alia the EP Resolution, 24. 4. 1997 on the
Commission Communication on the integrated programme
for SMEs and the craft sector, OJ C 150, 19. 5. 1997. In
point 21 of the resolution the European Parliament ‘Regrets
the fact that enhancing the competitiveness of one very
important category of SMEs, namely those in the tourism
sector, is not deemed to be important enough to merit
specific Community actions, let alone a specific Community
policy’. See also observation by Mr L. Harrison (PSE),
European Parliament, Verbatim report of proceedings,
10. 6. 1997: ‘Whenever we mention tourism to the Council,
or indeed to the Member States,
it seems that they
collectively all go on holiday. Mention tourism and they
leave their brains to broil on the beach. Speak about
Europe’s biggest industry and our decision-makers become
indecisive. They sink back deeper in their deck chairs and
tan themselves in complacency believing Europe’s most
successful industry needs neither help nor understanding.’
.

(2) Presentation of Community tourism and the Luxembourg
Presidency’s programme by Mr Fernand Boden, President-
in-Office of the Tourism Council, Minister for Trade and
Tourism of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, at a meeting
of the European Parliament’s Transport and Tourism
Committee on 3 September 1997.

Brussels, 30 October 1997.

has taken the initiative of putting Philoxenia back on
the agenda. The Committee urges the Council to take a
decision before the end of this year on all aspects of the
Commission proposals, and to ensure that such a clear,
positive signal
is translated into practical measures
which will benefit the sector, those working in it and
consumers of the tourism product.

4.3.
Be that as it may, the Committee takes the
view that in any case the points from the Philoxenia
programme on coordinating tourism policy with overall
EU policy and on exchange of information on develop-
ments in the Member States must be implemented as
soon as possible. Of course the first point — ‘integration’
of tourism policy into activities in other policy fields
(consumer protection, environment, transport, structur-
al funds, technical and scientific research etc.) — lacks
a specific heading in the Treaty and is therefore more
than ever a political task falling to both the Commission
and the Council.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS