RATIONALE FOR A ONE VOICE EUROPEAN TOURISM INDUSTRY

There are not very many instruments at the disposal of EU institutions to support tourism. Some of these lie within other policies. Others, of greater or lesser impact, depending on the political will and the good will of all, are within DG Enterprise acting in co-operation with other DGs. They can be called:

• pragmatic approach, confidence and convergence building between all Member States and partners, recognition of similarities, capacity for working together and open co-ordination between Member States,
• participation, co-operation; consultation with all stakeholders,
• definition of a knowledge-based strategy,
• integration into other policies.

The Commission, the Parliament, the Council and the Presidencies have made considerable efforts to involve the tourism industry in the various events, analysis, recommendations and working processes. At the same time, the Commission has highlighted on a number of occasions, that the tourism industry should speak with one voice. There is too much fragmentation and too many different associations and networks that do not coordinate their messages. The tourism industry is far more important than the automotive industry in terms of GDP contribution, but the automotive industry has a powerful lobby; hence the decision to launch a European Travel Advocacy Coalition (ETAC).

The European institutions have an interest in intensifying the dialogue and creating a better interface with the tourism industry at large. First of all, such an interface will be fertile in bringing to the EU institutions the in-depth knowledge, not in fragments but in complexity, that only the industry is able to provide and which is indispensable to build the knowledge-based strategy and to understand the impact of other policies and measures on tourism. Moreover, a single interface will help to overcome differences and divergences within the industry.

1. There are common issues which obviously can be expressed by one voice.
2. There are different specificities which do not raise problems for other part of the sector. This can be solved showing solidarity between the various sub-sectors and taking on board the concerns of the others for the sake of tourism.
3. There are divergent interests because of the relative position on the market of the various sub-sectors. It is the role of the industry to solve, or at least try to solve possible divergences or conflicts within itself. It is not the role of the Commission to make ‘arbitrages’ between different private interests, but rather to seek the public interest and the balance between different types of stakeholders, citizens, consumers, workers, environmental NGOs, the private sector and all levels of public authorities.

It is also in the interest of the EU institutions to deal with one articulated structure, either in making policies or for practical co-operation arrangements, in order to save their scarce own resources. This will result in the best possible management of taxpayers resources.

It is also in the interest of the industry to help the EU institutions to better know the sector, the relationship between its components, the market trends and the problems it can face. Finding one voice on common issues and, when, possible, on different and even divergent issues will give more weight and visibility to the industry itself, which will be considered as a real, mature, influential force, operational in solving possible issues. All that will give the tourism industry, and tourism in general, a much stronger visibility and therefore, the enhanced political recognition that it deserves. Such co-ordination between the sectors of the tourist industry may also help to develop fair co-operations in the tourism chain between the different providers of tourist services.

For the tourism industry to speak "with one voice" does not necessarily require a formal association; this can also be achieved with other arrangements (e.g. the formation of a coalition). It can be an articulated, flexible structure, referring to various sectors. Of course, all existing sub-sector federations will continue to be very useful and will retain their proper personality and the Commission will not refuse to keep a sufficient dialogue with these.

Various ways of achieving, perhaps progressively, what is possible could be examined as, for example,

• a common platform on an agreed list of issues of common interest for the main European Tourism industry federations;
• or a system of rotating spokespersons;
• or a mixture of both.

 Examples of common issues:

• The image of tourism as a whole : There is a fragmented approach to tourism but the industry does not do much to overcome it;
• Proving the tremendous economic and social impact of tourism by drawing a unifying line around all tourism-related activities;
• The access and pooling of information, a common portal giving access to many sites, data bases, studies and services. Economic forecasts will also benefit from a common availability;
• All international issues, from the impact of enlargement on competition to the GATS issues;
• A common and strong approach on EU taxation policy related to Tourism;
• A common approach to improve the tourism industry’s contribution to a balanced, sustainable development, through wider initiatives on CSR and Environmental Responsibility.

It is up to the industry to organize itself but the European Commission and the European Parliament believe that it is in the industry’s interest to have a better, more powerful voice vis-à-vis the EU institutions.