Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
share of world arrivals, it was argued, necessi-
tated collective action in order for it to remain
the world's most visited region. The existence of
distinctive policies across Europe without coor-
dination and the absence of synergy worked
against the competitiveness of the sector. A
common tourism policy would not promote
harmonization but rather establish the founda-
tions for greater cooperation in areas of rele-
vance to all member states. Harmonization of
policy at the supranational level would work
against tourism, as variety is its major element.
Rather than a single policy for the whole of
Europe, this view argued in favour of a com-
mon or joint policy that will evolve in conjunc-
tion with member states' existing tourism policies
and set out the parameters along which intra-EU
cooperation can be developed. This idea of a
competence is to work on measures that will
develop tourism further within Europe where
member states cooperate more actively. Mea-
sures that strengthen the image of Europe as a
single destination, such as cross-border and
transnational tourism projects, would be the
focus of any joint attempts. In short, member
states should be working towards the establish-
ment of enabling strategies across Europe from
which the various components of the sector
could benefit.
protected by national tourism organizations
(NTOs) who wish to control the projected image
of the country and who believe that joint pro-
motion efforts are irrelevant as their countries
already possess a well-established image. Further-
more, competition is so intense between mem-
ber states that it has been impossible to launch
regional initiatives, for instance, the promotion
of the Iberian Peninsula as one destination to
third countries. Interviewees described this as a
very myopic form of competition that failed to
recognize
the
potential
benefits
of
greater
cooperation.
However, this type of involvement appears
to be gaining ground as it is the least taxing in
terms of a transfer of competence and appears to
be popular among all stakeholders. A recent
Council of Ministers meeting (European Council,
2002) gave the green light to the Commission to
consider common promotion as a possible area
for future action. This change of heart may be
interpreted in light of the significant cut-back of
promotion budgets in recent years by several
member states (WTO, 1997), making joint efforts
economically sound and of good value for
money. It is, therefore, very likely that there will
be common promotion campaigns in the near
future.
Opting for this type of involvement would
constitute a lowest common denomination
approach as it will not address any of the chal-
lenges that the absence of a framework for tour-
ism creates. As 85% of international arrivals to
the EU area are intra-regional tourists (WTO,
2002), the significance and relevance of focusing
resources and time on the minor part of the tour-
ism market whilst ignoring the major part can be
questioned. Given the increasing tendency of
Europeans to travel further away for their holi-
days, sustaining the high levels of intra-regional
tourist
Common promotion
Finally, almost all interviewees identified com-
mon promotion in overseas markets as a poten-
tial competence area. The basic premise of this
view is that in the eyes of overseas visitors
Europe is perceived as a single destination.
Establishing a common visa for non-EU visitors
and the introduction of the euro as legal tender
have enhanced freedom of movement across
the EU area and have further reinforced the
image of Europe as one destination. Therefore,
common promotion campaigns of Europe as a
single destination were feasible, if not neces-
sary, but member states' unwillingness and
intraregional competition had ruled this out.
Establishing a brand Europe would work
towards reversing the losses in world tourism
arrivals and re-establishing Europe's competitive
advantage (Åkerhielm
et al
., 2003). However,
tourism marketing and promotion are jealously
numbers
might
become
a
challenge
earlier than might have been expected.
A number of observations can be made
concerning the range of approaches discussed
here. The common thing among all the app-
roaches is the unwillingness to establish a com-
mon policy that will replace national policies and
the preference for some additional actions that
are taken in parallel to what is happening at the
national level. The main difference between
these positions is the degree of authority transfer
that interviewees suggested would be necessary
