Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on 'European Tourism Policy'
Date: 1999-03-24
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: European Union, advisory committee (EU), economic development, tourism

C 138/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.1999

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘European Tourism Policy’

(1999/C 138/02)

On 26 January 1999 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the second paragraph of Rule 23
of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an Opinion on ‘European Tourism Policy’.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 12 March 1999. The rapporteur was
Mr Lustenhouwer.

At its 362nd plenary session (meeting of 24 March 1999) the Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion by 80 votes to three, with six abstentions.

1.

Introduction

2. General comments

The development of a fully-fledged European policy
1.1.
for the tourism and leisure industry seems to have come to a
dead end. At its meeting on 7 December 1998, the Single
Market Council was (once again) unable to reach agreement
on the content or the budget required for a multi-annual
programme for the sector. The proposal for a programme of
this kind, originally named Philoxenia, already considerably
watered down by the Council presidency, would now appear
to be impracticable.

The Committee, which has always supported (1) the
1.2.
Commission in its endeavours to develop a pro-active EU
policy for the tourism-leisure industry and for the benefit of
consumers of tourism products, is extremely disappointed at
this state of affairs, but refuses to admit defeat.

1.3.
Since a coordinated policy underpinned by a multian-
nual programme now seems difficult, we must look into other
ways of taking account of the needs of the industry, and those
of its customers. There is still a risk that EU activities will only
be developed on an ad-hoc basis, without coordination
between the various Commission departments, and without
regard for the medium to long-term perspective.

1.4.
The Committee is aware that the special Directorate
for Tourism which the Commission recently set up in DG
XXIII has a difficult task ahead of it. The Committee lends its
full support to this venture, which must be launched and
implemented in close cooperation and consultation with
tourism, leisure organizations, and the social partners.

The Council’s negative stance must not however be allowed to
prevent the Commission’s own departments from considering
the needs of the industry and of its consumers in an integrated
way.

(1) Cf. inter alia: ESC Opinion on the Commission Green Paper on
the Role of the Union in the field of Tourism, OJ C 301,
13.11.1995; ESC Opinion on the First Multiannual Programme
to assist European Tourism (1997-2000), OJ C 30, 30.1.1997.

2.1.
The fastest growing industry in the European Union
(2,5 % to 4 % growth per year in terms of turnover, and 1 %
to 1,5 % in terms of employment opportunities) is — as is
widely-known, affected by EU activities in numerous areas.
Previous Committee opinions (2) have addressed this issue —
as indeed has the European Parliament (3). The Committee calls
on the Council and the Commission — despite the adverse
political climate — to make a real start on mainstreaming the
challenges facing the tourist industry into all Commission
policies. This approach is an important precondition for
harnessing the sector’s growth potential, which is particularly
important in view of the relatively secure future of the tourism
sector, as the tourism product does not run the risk of being
left behind by technological change.

2.2.
The most obvious areas for discussion include training
for entrepreneurs (often small, independent businesses) and
their staff; access to capital for investment in the future; the
uncertain and often problematic relationship between leisure
and environmental protection; implementation of new man-
agement technologies; employment terms and conditions; the
effect of the information society, and electronic commerce in
particular, on intermediaries; the impact of access development
the shortage of airline capacity); access to
(for example,
information and know-how on consumer trends, which are
important partly because of rapid changes in consumer
preferences; and — last but not least — taxation.

(2) Cf. for example the ESC Opinion on the Commission proposal on
Community measures affecting tourism (1995-1996), OJ C 19,
12.1.1998.

(3) Cf. European Parliament resolution on the Commission proposal
on Community measures affecting tourism, A4-0247/98 of
7 October 1998; cf. also European Parliament Resolution of
27 January 1999 on jobs with future prospects, rapporteur
Mr Mann, A4-0475/98, PE 227.966 final, points 19-20 and 21.

18.5.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 138/5

2.3.
The impact of European legislation and regulation is
particularly evident in the area of taxation. VAT legislation has
a considerable impact on the competitive power of the hotel
and restaurant sector and other tourism industries. But many
non-EU countries do not levy VAT on such services. The
current reduced rate for the hotel, restaurant and tourism
sectors should therefore be maintained. Furthermore, a lower
VAT rate on those labour-intensive services which currently
do not merit the reduced rate will enhance employment.

3. The High Level Group on Tourism

the EU must help to promote a
3.1. More generally,
more business-friendly legislative and regulatory climate. The
Committee welcomes the approach taken by the Commission
in setting up this so-called ‘High Level Group on Tourism’ (1)
and agrees with its conclusions when it says, for example, that
the recommendations made by the ‘BEST Group’ (Business
Environment Task Force) must be implemented in the short
term. The Committee is also interested in the ways the
Commission proposes to implement the conclusions of the
High Level Group. The report makes a number of important
recommendations which can make a substantial contribution
to promotion of employment opportunities in the tourism
and leisure sector.

3.2.
The High Level Group’s report also shows that a sector
which is predominantly engaged in cross-border activity
deserves a European policy with a stimulating, innovative and
pro-active approach to sustainable business development,
preferably within a consumer protection framework, and in
harmony with other requirements, such as those of
the
environment, for example.

3.3.
In order to upgrade human resource attractiveness in
the tourism industry, the High Level Group’s report calls on
the social partners in the other tourism and leisure sectors
(which must surely include small and medium-sized business
organizations) to follow the example of the hotel and res-
taurant sector to develop a sectoral social dialogue, particularly
on employment qualifications and working conditions. Such
consultations may help to improve the sometimes poor image
that exists of working conditions in this sector and make it
more attractive for job-seekers to look for work in the tourism
and leisure industry.

4. Specific comments

4.1.
As seen above, the difficult task ahead of the Com-
mission will — in the Committee’s view — only bear fruit as
part of a structured dialogue with tourism and leisure industry
representatives. The Committee therefore calls for the estab-
lishment of a (credible) European Advisory Committee on
tourism and recreation.

4.1.1.
The Committee applauds the fact that the Com-
mission’s recently published White Paper on Commerce (2)
makes the connection between tourism and the retail trade.
The Commission communication recognizes — rightly, in the
Committee’s view — that the retail and tourism industries
have a number of interests in common. The Committee would
emphasize that town centres in particular need to provide a
variety of shopping facilities, and must make room for small
independent businesses. A good variety of shops enhances a
town’s tourist appeal. The Committee believes that the retail
trade must also work actively to constantly improve this
appeal. After all, research has revealed the importance of the
retail trade. A greater proportion of the money spent by
tourists once they have arrived at their final destination is
spent in the retail sector than, for example, in the restaurant
and catering sector (a study in Amsterdam puts the ratio at
approximately 60 % : 40 %). The Committee feels that the
Commission’s intention to stimulate this cooperation by
organizing a competition with a prize is a creative way of
raising the profile of successful projects.

4.2.
Furthermore, the Committee notes that the presidency
of the Council has not planned any meetings of ministers
responsible for tourism — not even of an informal nature —
during the German presidency. This total lack of interest on
the part of the Council is frankly deplorable. The Committee
therefore calls on the presidency in office and on the forth-
coming Finnish presidency to put a Tourism Council meeting
on its agenda.

4.3.
The German presidency’s work programme quite right-
ly states that attention is being paid to the repugnant
phenomenon of ‘child sex tourism’. As the Committee has
pointed out in earlier opinions (3), no bridge is too far in
the battle against such degrading practices. The Committee
applauds both the Commission’s actions so far in this area,
and the fact that the industry has itself launched initiatives.
Tour operators and travel agents in several EU countries have
explicitly distanced themselves from such perverted practices
and introduced sanctions — including expulsion of any their
members who might be involved — to deter the active
involvement of EU companies. The same goes for initiatives
(like a code of conduct) taken by the international association
for the hotel and restaurant sector. It should also be noted that
this type of child exploitation and maltreatment has absolutely
nothing in common with tourism and risks spoiling the
industry’s image. The Committee invites the Commission to
continue and to further develop its actions in this respect.

(1) Conclusions and Recommendations of the High Level Group on
Employment and Tourism: New Partnerships for Jobs, European
Commission, DG XXIII, Brussels, October 1998.

(2) COM(1999) 6 final, 27.1.1999.
(3) OJ C 284, 14.9.1998.

C 138/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.1999

Input

from all players will be needed to get

4.4.
the
development of a European tourism and leisure policy back
on the agenda. The Committee therefore endorses the High
Level Group’s call for the holding of an annual tourism
summit. At its first meeting, the summit could set out and
coordinate a rolling programme of activities, which could be
assessed and adapted at subsequent meetings. By involving the
Commission, the European Parliament, the Member States,
industry and consumer representatives, the summit could map
out the multitude of challenges ahead which lead us to the
inevitable conclusion that: ‘Europe can no longer refuse to give
the recognition — politically and in terms of policy-making —
that the fastest-growing sector of its economy deserves because
of its economic and social position!’

5. Conclusions

5.1.
The Committee lends its full support to these efforts,
as witnessed also by the declaration made at the conference

Brussels, 24 March 1999.

held in Luxembourg on 4 and 5 November 1997 by the
former ESC president, Tom Jenkins: ‘The Economic and Social
Committee has, in several opinions, stressed the economic,
social and cultural importance of tourism for the European
Union, and called repeatedly for its role to be recognized, not
just from a social, economic, cultural and political standpoint,
but also as a means of integrating the Community’s different
peoples and geography.’

5.2.
The Committee urges the establishment of a long-term
EU strategy on tourism, endorsed by a Council decision, to
ensure the political recognition EU tourism deserves as a
leading player for growth and employment.

5.3.
Such a strategy would contribute towards ensuring the
effective use of Commission resources, whilst at the same time
the recognition of
the sector is the
the importance of
prerequisite for the achievement of the main Community
objectives, such as employment, regional policy, environment,
objectives related to enlargement, and the overall SME policy
objectives.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI