Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
tourism-generating markets, and their absolute
levels of consumption and production have
been predicted to grow dramatically (Coles and
Hall, 2004; NIT, 2004).
Greater forecast wealth in the new member
states, accompanied in some cases by greater
freedom of movement, is likely to stimulate
greater outbound travel, as well as changing
patterns of domestic tourism, business and VFR
travel, especially in the short term. Changes
within their tourism sectors may have knock-on
effects in adjacent states, those both within and
outside the EU.
The accession states are, of course, as indi-
cated above, far from representing a homoge-
nous group. Although there are similarities
among them, there are also important differ-
ences. Disparities exist not only at the inter-state
level, but there are also notable intra-state vari-
ations, as detailed in subsequent chapters. Simi-
larities and differences are of course evident in
their tourism products and resources - natural
and cultural, as well as the organization and
structure of demand and supply. The 2004
accession states included both relatively long-
established destinations such as Cyprus and
Malta, and (re-)emergent ones such as Slovenia
and the Baltic States. Among them are destina-
tions primarily identified with mass tourism
and the 'sun, sea, sand' formula, noticeably
the Mediterranean entrants. There are largely
unspoilt wildernesses in the Tatra mountains in
Slovakia, the Julian Alps of Slovenia and the
lakeland environments of the Baltic states, hold-
ing substantial appeal for the growth markets of
nature and adventure tourism (Behr
et al
., 2004).
Other destinations offer high quality assem-
blages of cultural heritage, notably Prague,
Budapest and Kraków, but with increasing
competition. For more than a decade and a half
Prague, Budapest and Warsaw have been
important city-break destinations, and now
Ljubljana, Tallinn, Riga, Vilnius and Bratislava
are making concerted efforts to capture market
share (Behr
et al
., 2004; Hudson, 2004).
within the EU, and the role of tourism within the
Commission's large spending programmes. In a
major paradox of EU policy, tourism is identi-
fied as one of the most significant and vibrant of
economic activities, in terms of job, income and
wealth creation in local communities in each
member state, and also for the social benefits it
offers and the potential it provides as a frame-
work for the stewardship of distinctive cultures
and
environments
(European
Commission,
2002, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c).
Yet, despite such acknowledgement, there
is no separate EC commissioner for tourism: it
represents just one unit within the Enterprise
Directorate-General in Brussels. Here it com-
petes for resources and influence with demands
from such diverse sectors as aerospace and
automotives, cosmetics and defence, pharma-
ceuticals, and textiles and clothing (Coles and
Hall, 2004; European Commission, 2004a).
However, this is little more than reflecting
practice in a number of member states' national
governments, where it often seems that tourism
does not have a loud voice. If it is explicitly
named at all, 'tourism' may be located within
different state departments and ministries in
different countries, and may even be moved
from one to another, in some cases frequently.
This perhaps reflects three realities:
that governments and bureaucracies view
the role of tourism in different ways and
from different perspectives, reflecting tour-
ism's multi-faceted nature - encompassing
employment, regional development, trade,
foreign
●
policy,
social
welfare,
leisure,
culture, transport, environment;
that, as a corollary, tourism does not
present a coherent image or functional role
within government, and as a consequence,
it is seen as ancillary or even marginal; and
●
that as a consequence of such marginality
and ephemerality, the politicians finding
themselves in the roles of handling tourism
within government tend to be second rate
functionaries and at best low level minis-
ters, such that the voices of the tourism
industry may not be best heard, interpreted
and relayed through their offices (Hall and
Brown, 2006).
●
Key Themes
A major overarching issue concerns the rela-
tionship between tourism development and EU
governance, the structural position of tourism
In the case of the EC and EU, such appar-
ent marginalization of tourism is compounded
