Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on 'European Tourism Policy'
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