THE DIS-UNITED EU TOURISM INTEREST GROUPS

Fragmentation makes it harder for tourism interest groups to form a strong lobby and the lack of co-ordination between stakeholders is apparent at the regional, national and the supranational levels. Tourism interests at the EU level are not as well organised as those of other policy areas, such as the pharmaceutical sector. The absence of better organised tourism interests reflects the diversity of the tourist activity.

Tourism interest groups’ members have limited participation in the activities of Euro-associations and umbrella groups. Most of these groups are of small size, have a restricted budget and a narrow membership base.  The large majority of interest groups do not have sufficient resources to deal with the array of diverse issues that emerge from the EU and which are influential to tourism.

The existence of many groups with varied agendas and priorities present further problems to the EU institutions other than just keeping in regular contact. Tourism interest representation is far too fragmented and should be better organised. The interests of tourism at the moment form a choir of soloists where everyone sings their own song and as a result they cannot make music together. Voices for the establishment of a single voice for tourism has gained some momentum because experience from other sectors shows that where Euro-associations come forward with broadly united and coherent positions, they can greatly assist the Commission by allowing it to deal with aggregated sectional views. Coherent positions predispose the Commission and Parliament positively about the sector but agreement can only be achieved in those sectors where identification of common issues and the establishment of a joint agenda are possible.

There is a clear divide between the views of representatives from the EU institutions and those of the industry on the issue of single voice. The necessity of such an organisation is justifed in terms of improved communication. Through improved communication and co-operation tourism interest groups would gain a better understanding of their own agendas and reap greater benefits. Tourism businesses, however, find it difficult to speak with a unified voice because their respective interests can be diverse, or even conflicting. The new conditions that the establishment of an umbrella group brings about might give prominence to a rival organisation and thus endanger their own presence. Interest groups are naturally wary of one another. Some argue that tourism interests are too wide and too diverse to be placed under the same banner. Tourism is a composite of a whole range of industries bundled together, which end up being called tourism. Different sectors have different interests.

Interest groups suggest that presenting a common voice on certain issues rather than a single voice for all issues is a more relevant and realistic proposition. In brief, the common voice approach supports a system of common and individual representation depending on the issue at hand while dismissing the single voice as being unrealistic.

There have been several attempts to establish coalitions of interest between groups based on the common voice and loose cooperation principles, but most have been short lived and largely undocumented.

The diversity and fragmentation of tourism as an economic activity, the overlap of representation by some organisations and the competition and rivalry between different interests are reasons why the sector has traditionally failed to organise better. There is also the absence of leaders within the tourism interest groups who will join the diverse stakeholders of tourism behind a common issue. Relationships among interest groups seem to be characterised by competition and even antagonism. While some recognise the benefits of closer cooperation, their failure to attract the support of a wider range of groups impair their attempt to establish an industry-wide coalition driven by the tourism representatives.

Tourism interest groups are reactive to the initiatives and changes instigated by the EU institutions and are involved in a type of hazard manage-ment rather than a strategy towards the EU institutions. Instead of a policy, a strategy or a framework for tourism, they simply wish to exert some control over the impact of policies and legislation stemming from the institutions. Groups are unable to push forward a framework for tourism largely by choice, rather than because of immaturity or naivety. Their priority is damage limitation rather than agenda setting. Their main quest is a greater recognition of ‘tourism interests’ when policy making is taking place. However, the attitudes of the institutions towards the groups imply that tourism interest groups are having problems in expressing what these interests are, let alone in getting these recognised. It is evident that joined up thinking would be necessary for groups to improve access to the institutions. In this setting, access is not just a matter of getting their views heard but expressing them in a way that they are actionable. This is what ultimately affects the effectiveness of tourism interest groups’ involvement.