Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
opinion was again apparent. Four types of
involvement were suggested: no competence,
sponsorship, framework-policy and common
promotion.
No competence
Some interviewees mentioned that having an
explicit reference in a treaty was not necessary,
as there are already enough competencies in
the European Union and tourism is handled
efficiently at the national level. Tourism is
regulated through existing measures from other
policies such as consumer and environmental
protection and, therefore, there is no need to
have specific legislation. It was further suggested
that establishing a formal competence would
only make things worse for tourism as, gener-
ally, common policies had not been successful.
This position argued very much in favour of the
continuance of the current status quo.
Fig. 2.1.
The vicious circle of EU tourism policy.
the European Parliament is one of the institu-
tions that encouraged dialogue with industry
(Lickorish, 1991) and argued that tourism
should constitute a common policy with a legal
basis and a chapter of its own in the revised
Treaty (European Parliament, 1997). Despite
this positive outlook, it was suggested that
only a relatively small number of Members
of European Parliament (MEPs) are actively
involved in tourism because it falls under the
auspices of member states. MEPs were frugal in
investing their time and resources in tourism
because they knew that any recommendations
they made were not binding for member states.
Consequently, there were gradually fewer and
fewer MEPs actively interested in tourism and in
return, fewer voices in favour of tourism.
The lack of a framework at the EU level dis-
ables dialogue among interested parties whilst
establishing conditions of a vicious circle.
Figure 2.1 demonstrates how the vicious circle
is created. The cause of all these complexities
is the lack of a clear definition of what the
involvement in tourism should be. Stakeholders
are finding themselves handicapped in their
decision-making process. Ultimately, involve-
ment in tourism remains in a state of limbo;
stakeholders are not involved because there is
no legal basis and then there is no legal basis
because there is not enough interest in tourism.
Sponsorship
In this position, there is a clear preference to a
laissez faire
approach and against the bureau-
cratic interference a Treaty reference could
create. The fear that a competence would lead
to legislation is predominant. There are many
items of legislation, it is argued, that are regulat-
ing the industry already so there is no need for
further supranational legislation as it will only
make things worse and affect tourism competi-
tiveness. However, a sponsorship situation was
welcome. This would bring people together to
discuss the impact of legislative proposals on
tourism, promote Europe as a destination and
enable actions in favour of tourism. It was
stressed that this would not constitute a policy
as policy is more regimented and could lead to
more legislation. This position did not object to
a treaty reference outright, but stated that
although it did not lead to additional legislation,
it would be welcome.
Preferences on Type of Involvement
Framework policy
Interviewees also commented on their preferred
type of EU involvement in tourism. Diversity of
According to this view, tourism should feature as
a distinct Community policy. Europe's declining