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)'
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