Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
A number of tourism studies in the early
1990s (e.g. Lickorish, 1991; Akehurst, 1992;
Akehurst
et al
., 1993) discussed the potential of
tourism involvement at the supranational level.
The need for more intra-regional cooperation
in tourism (Sinclair and Page, 1993) and the
necessity for an integrated, multi-year tourism
development plan, formulated in the context of
the overall regional policy which will coordinate
the demand and supply of tourism across the
space (Lickorish, 1991, 1994) have been stressed.
The importance of tourism to the EU economy
alone was considered an adequate justification
of the necessity of a supranational tourism
policy (European Parliament, 2002).
In addition, specific steps for the design of
a successful supranational tourism policy were
suggested in the early 1990s (Akehurst, 1992).
A number of potential issue areas where the EU
could be involved were also identified, but no
notable progress has been made since then
towards the establishment of a policy or a more
coherent framework of action. Primarily, this has
been attributed to a lack of interest (Åkerhielm
et al
., 1990) and to the fact that tourism policy
features in an area of weak common policy, the
production and delivery of services (Williams
and Shaw, 1989).
The main obstacles in formulating a more
solid approach to tourism were identified as
being the divergent views on tourism and in
particular, what constitutes an EU and what a
national issue (Davidson and Maitland, 1997).
The sharing of competencies between the
national and the supranational level is part of a
wider issue for the EU. Some members are
more willing than others to see greater EU
involvement but there is a strong sentiment that
a common approach to tourism may result in
more regulation (Downes, 2000). In addition,
the subsidiarity principle
1
has affected the trans-
fer of a tourism competence to the EU level. In
the past, suggested EU-wide initiatives such as
the Philoxenia programme (CEC, 1996), were
dismissed on the basis of the principle. More-
over, the existing reference to tourism in the
Maastricht Treaty is inadequate and offers no
basis for action. The implications are twofold:
first, there is no clearly defined role for the EU,
and second, any proposal made requires the
unanimous agreement of all member states.
Given the absence of a common vision for
European tourism among member states, the
situation is very complex and the inclusion of
ten new members in May 2004 has accentuated
such differences (see also Chapter 1).
The lack of agreement concerning the need
for a tourism policy has resulted in the adoption
of only a limited number of concrete actions
specifically aimed at tourism. Initiatives such as
the European Year of Tourism (1990) (CEC,
1990) and the Action Plan to Assist Tourism
(1993-1995) (CEC, 1991) are two such exam-
ples. Their priorities included: the improvement
of the seasonal and geographical distribution of
tourism; the improved use of financial instru-
ments; better information for tourists; improved
working conditions in the tourist industry, and
finally, increasing the awareness of the prob-
lems of tourism (Davidson and Maitland, 1997).
Overall, these initiatives were limited in scope
and were criticized for their large number of pri-
ority areas and their overall insignificant impact
(Davidson, 1998). Having failed to adopt the
Philoxenia initiative, tourism now features under
the Tourism and the Employment Process, the
main priority of which is to create and improve
employment in tourism (DG Enterprise, 2003).
Some criticisms have been expressed
concerning the Tourism Unit in the European
Commission, the administrative body of the EU.
The Unit aims to ensure that tourism interests
are fully taken into account in the preparation of
legislation and in the operation of programmes
and policies which are not directly related to
tourism (DG Enterprise, 2003). It tries to ensure
a proactive role where Commission activities do
not embrace tourism. Its role is limited in scope
yet of a significant breadth as coordinating
responses to legislation proposed by the Com-
mission is not straightforward in an area as
wide-spanning as tourism. However, it has been
argued that the Tourism Unit lacks influence
and clout because of its small size and the range
of functions it undertakes (Greenwood, 1993)
and consequently tourism interests are not
heard by the EU institutions. The absence of an
explicit EU competence in tourism affects the
ability
of
the
Tourism
Unit
to
perform
its
functions effectively.
The communication
Working Together for
the Future of European Tourism
(CEC, 2001),
which sets out the future direction and priorities
for
tourism,
indicated
a
move
away
from
