Elemente einer erfolgreichen internen Kommunikation in Tourismusunternehmen (German Edition)
Contents:
Option A bears a particular risk of additional administrative burden on local authorities and enterprises SMEs that is not matched by its added value. Moreover, the challenges facing tourism are acute, and it is unlikely that a comprehensive policy can be adopted and implemented within a sufficient timeframe to ensure action in the short to medium term. In the longer term, and assuming that issues concerning the definition of the tourism sector and potential overlaps with other policies are effectively dealt with, a comprehensive policy may provide greater stability and recognition for the European tourism sector.
A non-action scenario relies exclusively on the existing initiatives and contributions that stakeholders other than the European Community undertake at various levels, ranging from international to local, and those that they might still develop. During the last decade, an increased stakeholder dialogue, in both the private and public sectors, has resulted in mainly voluntary initiatives to address and diminish social and environmental impacts, while enhancing the economic benefits of tourism activities.
These initiatives have taken various forms and represent all sectors of the travel and tourism industry. Significant issues such as better governance, seasonal spread and sustainable transport are addressed only to a very limited degree by existing initiatives. They require a level of coordination and initiative that is difficult to achieve by many of these stakeholders, or they remain at too high level to have an effect on the ground.
Initiatives undertaken by global organisations to encourage action by local stakeholders, for example the Tour Operators' Initiative and World Tourism Organisation guidance for tourism managers and local authorities, may be too far removed and general to encourage uptake by local stakeholders. While these initiatives deal to some extent with environmental and social issues, economic issues related to the quality of supply receive less consideration. This risks, in turn, prolonging the degradation of the environmental and cultural environment as the bulk of enterprises concentrate their efforts on attracting customers.
Past stakeholder initiatives to develop consumer awareness and promote the use of environmental management tools illustrate the problem of lack of efficiency due to a lack of coordination. Tourists cannot know all of them, compare them, and assess their information value. When focusing on one aspect of sustainability, uncoordinated initiatives bear potential for conflicts with other objectives. For example, a one-sided local action that aims to limit tourist numbers so as to respect the local carrying capacity may not be compatible with the social objective of favouring tourism for all, i.
It could also shift tourism to other destinations where it is not managed sustainably, increasing concentrations and thus exacerbating negative trends. Whilst the effect of the many individual initiatives launched and provided for by stakeholders other than the European Community cannot be assessed in detail, it can be assumed that the current unsustainable trends highlight areas where Option B would fail to address the objectives of the proposed Communication.
Overall, relying on Option B to deliver progress on sustainable tourism at the European level could increase uncertainty that the objectives would be met, since the relatively uncoordinated nature of existing, largely voluntary, initiatives means that they could end at any time and with no alternative approach in place. Option C provides additional benefits to Option B in those areas where a higher level, coordinated approach to address the issues more effectively can be achieved under established Community policies and measures.
For example, the Transport White Paper provides a more coherent approach by promoting the overall concept of sustainable mobility. Consideration is given to the provision of infrastructure, as part of trans-European networks and through structural funds, and environmental protection is promoted through a large number of Community measures and legislation. For example, the introduction of an EU eco-label for tourism accommodation in may in due course provide added value as consumer awareness is improved.
However, many established Community measures appear too general to address the specific challenges of the tourism sector. Therefore, Option C is limited in the extent to which it will effectively meet all of the criteria, particularly in the medium-term. For example, broad policies integrate sustainability concerns across a range of sectors at a high level, but it is unlikely that this alone will facilitate the integration and coherence of policies and approaches at lower levels.
Another key issue for the competitiveness of the tourism industry, and thus economic sustainability, is the availability of skilled and qualified staff. The effect of seasonal concentration or spread has a significant influence on this issue, in addition to the other factors affecting it. Thus measures to increase the skills of the European workforce in general are not sufficient in the tourism sector without addressing current seasonal concentration.
Option C provides some additional economic, social and environmental benefits compared to Option B , but many of the existing initiatives and Community policies and measures are too broad for their impact on tourism to be assessed with any accuracy. Instead, they provide a coordinated approach to issues that would otherwise be addressed in isolation at the local level, for example transport. Option C corresponds more or less to the current situation regarding Community involvement in the issue of tourism sustainability.
The fact that, nevertheless, unsustainable trends in tourism do not change would suggest that this existing framework is not sufficient to make adequate progress in this field. In reinforcing the existing framework Option C , Option D provides added value related to the majority of criteria. This results from a greater degree of coordination, increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of action and potentially achieving benefits faster and in a more targeted way by being adapted to the specific problems than might occur under the existing framework.
A good example of this is consumer awareness. Despite some evidence of already increasing awareness and demand for responsible tourism, sustainable consumer behaviour is so vital to progress towards sustainable tourism that action taken under Option D could advance this trend and provide benefits sooner than may otherwise be expected. In this context, the promotion of sustainable tourism consumption and production patterns, and corresponding proactive best practice dissemination can be a core action of Community involvement for dealing with the major challenges affecting tourism.
Option D makes it possible for the Commission to participate in specific measures for addressing these challenges, including that of seasonal spread. Such measures can provide considerable added value to efforts to reduce the unsustainable trend in tourism activity insofar as this trend is not driven by strong forces such as climate and lifestyle, which may be beyond the control of the Commission, irrespective of any policy option.
It is, therefore, important that activities as those designed to address sustainable inter- and intra- destination mobility, are supported by measures to raise consumer awareness to ensure the best possible chance of improvements. A reinforcement that aims to specifically address the sustainable development of tourist destinations can be expected to provide a wide range of significant economic, social and environmental benefits by supporting industry, the local community and the environment.
It would assist the identification of specific local impacts which may be on air, water, land or local communities that may not be sufficiently or specifically addressed by stakeholder initiatives or existing Community policies under Options B or C. In this way, Option D provides the flexibility to address the regional diversity of the tourism sector and enables individual solutions to be found for destination challenges. It adds clear value, not only for sustainability in the tourism sector, but in general.
The provision of sufficient infrastructure such as transport networks, waste management and water treatment facilities , the availability of skilled, qualified staff, respecting and maintaining the diversity of cultural heritage and increasing access to tourism for all citizens are the criteria least improved by Option D. This reflects an emphasis on operational aspects, such as better governance, and environmental aspects of sustainability rather than the socio-economic aspects. However, again, this option has the potential to better fine-tune non sector-specific Community policy measures in the above-mentioned fields, so that they become more effective for the tourism sector, and through this in general in the areas where sustainability problems are biggest.
Given the significance of the current situation regarding the availability of skilled and qualified staff, further specific measures to address this shortage and improve working conditions can substantially improve the value of this option and its likelihood of achieving progress towards sustainable tourism. Better coordination and use of the different Community policies and measures affecting tourism, an enhancement of this effect, and stakeholder participation when assessing their impact, is particularly important potential of this option.
It will be crucial in optimising the benefits of Community action in general on tourism sustainability. It will also foster governance at all levels and facilitate integration and coherence between policy areas, ensuring that the views of, and impacts on, SMEs are properly addressed in this process. The Communication also points out the need to encourage stakeholder synergies and cooperation among stakeholders.
Option D provides the opportunity for enhancing cooperation with other major players in the field of tourism sustainability. Likewise, it makes it possible to set up a multi-stakeholder group that steers the actions that the various stakeholders concerned undertake for achieving further progress towards the sustainablity of European tourism, and monitors this progress. Both steps can be seen as an important move towards supplementing the commitments to be included in a European sustainable tourism agenda a future Agenda 21 for European Tourism , and the transposition into Europe of the tourism-relevant parts of the Plan of Implementation adopted at World Summit on Sustainable Development.
Given that all the options aim to address the same challenges, all of them experience the same potential areas of conflict, but to a different degree. A substantial issue is ensuring that tourism is accessible to everyone, whilst protecting the cultural and environmental resources of destinations.
Likewise, provision of infrastructure may conflict with environmental objectives. However, because of its very nature, i. None of the options considered is based on the assumption of restricting tourism growth: Option D makes it possible for the Commission to participate in specific measures for addressing the issues of seasonal spread and carrying capacity, which are vital in reducing negative social and economic impacts of tourism growth, while at the same time strengthening a bottom-up approach and the key responsibility of local and industry stakeholders.
Therefore, this option is also most likely to minimise conflict between economic, environmental and social impacts in the shortest possible term and in the most targeted and effective way. Nevertheless, it remains fully compatible with the existing Community policy framework regarding related policy fields. The analysis suggests that there are three specific categories that may be particularly affected:.
SMEs as a specific group is dominant in the tourism sector. They may currently lag behind larger companies in terms of their use of new technology and communication and may experience greater staffing problems as well as paying less attention to the environmental and social impacts of their activities. All these factors may reduce the quality of the service offered and thus their competitiveness. However, the increasing market for cultural and natural tourism provides a good market opportunity for SMEs, where tourists are likely to favour small, locally-run enterprises over the larger, global brands.
The policy approach selected will have the potential in particular to assist SMEs in meeting consumer demand for quality. Local communities as tourist destinations are significantly affected by tourism activities. Although tourism provides economic benefits, social discontent may arise from so-called mass tourism, especially where this may not sufficiently respect local cultures. The policy option selected is particularly well placed to avoid current trends exacerbating these issues through measures to address sustainable destination development and management.
It facilitates an improved social environment for local communities, particularly through multi-stakeholder processes involving communities to a greater extent than at present. Measures to manage tourism patterns, and particularly transport options, may disproportionately affect peripheral regions, above all islands. Their tourism business largely depends on air travel and benefits significantly from the increase in cheaper air travel that do not internalise environmental costs.
Thus any measures that would result in discouraging or limiting air travel is likely to impact heavily on the tourism economy of peripheral regions. This example emphasises the need for a flexible approach which recognises the diversity of the European tourism industry. Under the selected policy option, greater consideration of corporate social responsibility, and actions to improve access, can address this issue.
Measures to be taken with regard to the sustainability of European tourism are intended to bring equal benefits across Europe and, as far as possible, world-wide. The policy option selected was, among other reasons, chosen because of its capacity to allow optimal adaptation of concrete measures to the specific geographical conditions, including those above and beyond the current EU of 15 Member States.
Overall, there are no negative external impacts expected from these measures. However, managing tourist patterns may result in certain geographical shifts in tourism. It might be that, at least temporarily, for price reasons or because of not wanting to change patterns, a part of the market will favour tourism activities at places that do not address sustainablity issues, thus increasing pressures on vulnerable destinations and fragile resources, including those outside the EU. It is not possible to assess the degree to which this might occur. On the other hand, the fear may exist that more sustainable tourism consumption patterns might mean Europeans travelling less to non-EU and distant destinations.
Assessment of Option D: It promises better synergies and close dialogue with relevant stakeholders, and makes it possible to assist SMEs in meeting both consumer demands for quality and local communities, peripheral regions and candidate countries with a flexible approach that recognises the diversity of the European tourism industry and destinations. A major risk is that of incompatibility between safeguarding natural and cultural local resources as well as the community identity and their tourist use and the need to build a consensus among the different supply stakeholders and coordinate their actions. This option uses a two-fold approach based on both building on the activities of other stakeholders and the effect of established Community measures on the sustainability of tourism. Likewise, provision of infrastructure may conflict with environmental objectives. In bestimmten Regionen, z. Local government must be involved in the preparation and implementation of the agreement via associations such as the Council of European Municipalities and the Regions.
Those locally responsible for these destinations need to recognise the fact that tourism which is viable and sustainable in the long-term cannot depend excessively on long-haul tourists, as is currently the case for many of the non-European destinations that have recently emerged.
Some of the more-advanced developing countries have therefore started to pay particular attention to neighbouring and domestic tourism markets. Even the least-developed countries have an interest in gradually doing the same. What are the results of any scenario, risk or sensitivity analysis undertaken?
Certainly, European tourism needs time to achieve sustainability. Nevertheless, the objective is that progress in this field is, in the medium-term, bigger than the quantitative growth in the sector, according to the scenario for the future of tourism, and its sustainability, as summarised in Annex 1 of the Communication; this objective is also known as "decoupling". One reason why existing initiatives may currently be unsuccessful is that many have been implemented relatively recently and may not yet have reached their full potential.
Thus, over time, relying on them could prove to be more effective than today. However, it is unlikely that, even in the long term, issues of better governance, seasonal spread, sustainable transport, etc. Likewise, many of the Community policies and measures addressing sustainabilty issues are relatively new and thus greater benefits may arise from these actions at some time in the future, the tourism sector being no exception. However, given the scenario for the future of tourism, and its sustainability, there is no time to lose. Thus, one of the major reasons for selecting the policy option of tourism-specific reinforcement and best use of the existing framework for action was that this is the best way to provide benefits sooner than may be expected from the other options that were considered, with effects increasing over time.
The desired achievements can also serve as a sector-specific contribution to the programme in support of European initiatives to accelerate the shift towards sustainable consumption and production, as provided for in the Plan of Implementation adopted at the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development.
- Ad Hoc and Inadequate.
- Enterprise oder Soziale Medien erobern die interne Kommunikation.
- Costa Rica - Natures Paradise (Uncle Bucks Travel Tips and tricks Book 3).
- Cowboys and Their Toys.
- Weight Training For Dummies.
- Travel maps.
- What If God Were One Of Us?!
On the basis of the policy option selected, the Communication foresees a general concept of future action for implementation ranging from global to local, both in the international context and within Europe, in order to address the need for sustainable consumption patterns and sustainable tourism production. According to their different level of responsibilities, the need for local stakeholders to formulate their own Agenda 21 at the territorial or sub-sector levels has been stressed. The selected policy option sets out the framework for delivering, on the basis of a multi- stakeholder voluntary process, specific hints and guidelines.
Thus, implementation will be based above all on the initiatives of directly responsible and specialised stakeholders and on activities under those Community policies and measures which affect European tourism. To ensure that these initiatives and activities for European tourism are effective as possible, the Communication proposes to put into concrete form the further European Community contribution to implementing tourism sustainability in the international context and within Europe through a number of provisions.
The implementation of this general concept of future action by the European Community needs to take into account the fact that the level of tourism activity and the dependence on tourism vary across Europe's vast and diverse territory, as do the intensity and specific nature of challenges for the tourism industry and for sustainability. This great diversity of European tourism, the principle of subsidiarity and the lack of a specific competence mean that the European Community itself can only undertake guidance and complementary activities and further the practical application of the sustainable tourism concept.
The Communication highlights the role of the Impact assessment as an instrument to aid the integration of sustainability concerns into related Community policies with an impact on tourism. As acknowledged in the Commission Internal Guidelines on the IA procedure, in undertaking an extended impact assessment a wide range of possible economic, environmental and social impacts should be considered as well as identifying who is affected and when the different impacts will occur. Thus, any policy should be assessed in terms of its economic, environmental and social impact on tourism policies.
Furthermore, it is proposed to prepare and implement a Commission internal work programme for enhancing the effect of the various community policies concerning European tourism in supporting the sustainability of the sector. This work programme should be the result of an open coordination process and will emphasise policies and measures aimed at meeting the challenges of sustainable tourism supply. A guide addressed to tourism stakeholders on support for sustainable tourism is planned as additional aid. One element is a cooperation agreement with the World Tourism Organisation in the field of sustainable tourism.
The second, crucial element is launching a Tourism Sustainability Group. Its first task will be to allocate specific activities and responsibilities to the various tourism stakeholders, and to steer, monitor and evaluate the implementation of the agreement see below. Ad-hoc multi-stakeholder targeted actions are planned to raise awareness, appraise the evolution of the identified major challenges and provide tailor-made tools and guidance.
They will focus on tourism consumption patterns tourists as responsible consumers , on good governance and the CSR practices of tourism sector enterprises, on sustainable tourist destination development and management, and on information tools and networks in support of the other measures. In some cases, such as the promotion of governance principles and sustainable tourist destination development and management, the Commission will further work through already existing instruments such as the European Multi-stakeholder Forum on Corporate Social Responsibility and explore the feasibility of target-based tripartite agreements.
It is planned to begin the gradual implementation of the measures adopted in , in cooperation with the Council, the other Community Institutions and with international bodies active in this field, as well as with the active participation of the tourism industry and civil society representatives.
Strategische Partner
Furthermore, the Commission will report back to the Council and the other Community Institutions in the autumn of on the progress of implementation, in a sufficientlydetailed manner for an Agenda 21 for European tourism to be drafted no later than Monitoring and evaluation of these instruments is an essential part of the policy itself, and these tasks will be performed as part of the work of the above-mentioned Tourism Sustainability Group. The group will be asked to set up and manage a "European-level system to monitor the sustainability of the tourism sector", delivering an annual report to measure the progress achieved.
This instrument is intended to monitor progress over time and to ensure the overall consistency both of EU policy and instruments and of national policies and will feed back into the policy decision-making process at the right level. With a view to monitoring and reporting sustainable tourism and providing a tool to fulfil Community commitments undertaken in the international context, the Commission will continue, together with other public and private stakeholders, the work undertaken in the field of sustainable tourism indicators. The group can also guide the use of the Local Agenda 21 tool in tourist destinations and the preparation of a model for local destination monitoring and indicator systems to ensure that destinations make use of the same principles of monitoring and deliver comparable results.
It can also encourage the bottom-up development of tools and good examples of tourism sustainability adapted to local conditions. Since these "Basic orientations for the sustainability of European tourism" are the Commission's input at this stage to a broad Agenda 21 process for sustainable European tourism which is open-ended, no specific ex-post evaluation is foreseen. The process will continue and evaluation is expected to take place within regular monitoring of these instruments.
The Tourism Sustainability Group will be responsible for regularly evaluating implementation of the measures provided for in the action framework. The Commission started drafting the document on the basis of the results of a working group to promote environmental protection and sustainable development in tourism [16].
The purpose was to speed up the development of Agenda 21 in Europe with the guidance provided by an external steering group [17], under the chairmanship of the Commission, composed of experts from international bodies, national administrations and other tourism stakeholder groups, including environmental NGOs. During the process of implementation of this measure it emerged that the European Agenda 21 for Tourism required a step-by-step process where the Commission would mainly play a facilitator role and the prime responsibility would be based at the level of other stakeholders.
The Commission has regularly reported on the results of the work undertaken with the help of this steering group to all interested European stakeholders. In April , the Commission service responsible for the work finalised a document for public consultation, which was based on the work done so far and developed the policy options, the approach, and the possible measures and other considerations discussed above and now to be found in the Communication. Between 25 April and 31 July, the Commission invited all interested parties to actively examine, contribute to and submit their comments on the consultation document.
In so doing, they could also refer to any other relevant document, whether mentioned in the document or not, and comment on it. European citizens and tourists, private sector enterprises, European tourist destinations and public authorities, and civil society stakeholders were called upon to deliver their views regarding the policy options, the concept of action and the Community contribution, the measures that the Commission could envisage, and the vision of what other stakeholders should do.
From the Internet open consultation, the Commission received reactions from a total of nearly organisations and individuals.
The outcome of that consultation and the summary of comments received are appended to this document. All reactions can be consulted on the site http: In addition, the European Commission actively identified and asked for comments from its usual interlocutors in regular consultations with tourism stakeholders, in particular representatives of national administrations responsible for tourism policy, at a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Tourism in early September An Inter-Departmental Steering Group [18], set up to oversee the preparation and running of the Extended Impact Assessment, provided an opportunity to facilitate and smooth the task of assessing the impacts of the Commission Communication with the assistance of relevant Commission services.
The Commission took account of the majority of comments received see appendix. However, some of them largely went beyond the scope of the subject matter, targeting general or global sustainability issues, or they represented obviously an extreme minority view, so that a feed back was not possible or not appropriate in this context. A number of comments also resulted from the fact that messages put into the document had not been well understood, although they corresponded to the concerns expressed in the comment.
Generally, the language of the document was improved to make better readable for end-users and to avoid biased terms and expressions. The Commission acknowledges that there are many models for achieving sustainable tourism development. Therefore, it also continues an approach that targets as many stakeholders as possible, favouring consensus-building. With regard to the challenges, views and objectives formulated in the consultation document, the comments confirmed the need to recognise that tourism and its sustainability is primarily consumer driven.
No customer reviews
Moreover, the Communication now more clearly acknowledges that economic success is essential for achieving sustainability. The consultation also resulted in a reinforced recognition of the territorial land use dimension, and of issues linked to climate change, for sustainable tourism. On the other hand, it added evidence to the fact that certain issues of tourism sustainability can hardly be dealt with. Although, to some extent, seasonal spread is one of them, the Commission does not follow the minority position that this is a minor challenge or should not be considered in a European context.
In the light of little success of voluntary instruments developed for sustainable tourism, which was recorded as state of the art, some comments asked for regulatory instruments. This idea was not specifically taken on board, although in exceptional cases regulation cannot be principally excluded, if it is part of a recognised Community policy. A number of comments referred to insufficient co-ordination and integration of the various existing Community policies affecting tourism sustainability.
In particular, unconditional liberalisation was seen as not appropriate. These comments resulted in expressing, in a clearer way that leaves no doubts, the Commission's position and intention in this respect in the Communication, and to be more cautious with certain statements, e. Regarding the policy options, some comments doubted the evidence provided with regard to them, and questioned whether some of them are valid to be considered or allow a neutral choice.
On the other end of opinion, comments continued to ask for a fully-fledged Community tourism policy. However, the overwhelming majority supported the policy option taken-up in the Communication, and that also was confirmed by the Extended Impact Assessment. A number of comments wanted the conception of action and the Community contribution being extended. Most of them required, in one form or another, specific Community funding for sustainable tourism or measures that would need considerable financial commitment.
The Communication does not give follow-up to these requests. Whereas the Communication provides for reinforced integration of sustainability concerns into Community policies and initiatives affecting European tourism, and for enhancing their effect on European tourism in order to support the sustainability of the sector, it also follows the line of dealing with all aspects of sustainability, and not only the entrepreneurial ones.
The measures that the Commission could envisage were the subject of the biggest proportion of comments. Partly, it was criticised that they were not sufficiently precise. Although the approach followed for these basic orientations is that measures will be gradually shaped during the process still to follow, the Communication tries to be as concrete as possible with regard to them. However, all together, the comments very much supported the suggested measures, and added further details or precision that could be taken on board. In addition to the requests of making the denomination and description of this group easier to understand and clearer, its usefulness was questioned, whereas other comments confirmed that such a group, with the mandate that had been roughly indicated, is key to any other measure and to the success of efforts.
While it was strongly supported that local and regional authorities must also be represented in this group, strong opposition arose against it being led by the tourism industry. Even the tourism industry itself largely seems not to want this. The Communication continues to see the creation and work of this group being a crucial measure, but takes account of the other comments with regard to it.
It also largely integrates the comments with regard to the other measures, but leaves it to the process still to follow, how they will be shaped and implemented in detail. Finally, regarding what other stakeholders should do, a number of detailed comments requested to include further stakeholder groups, and to put even more emphasis on consumers, including the importance of education in this respect.
The role of those stakeholders that operate on the ground was particularly emphasised, whereas the importance of international stakeholders was seen with some reservation. This chapter also gave rise to continuing some controversial debate known from other occasions, such as with regard to so-called mass tourism and the market dominance of big tour operators, and the polemic concerning environmental taxes, in particular at tourist destinations.
For the major part these comments were used to enrich, to revise and to fine-tune this chapter. The final Community policy choice made for these 'Basic orientations for the sustainability of European tourism', which are an important input to a broad Agenda 21 process for sustainable European tourism, is to reinforce the existing framework for action and to use it to the best advantage. In practical terms this policy will rely on:. This cooperative and pro-active multi-stakeholder approach aims to bridge the remoteness of the Community from the players on the ground as the right road to sustainability for European tourism.
It is expected to address the challenges that need to be tackled to ensure tourism sustainability alongside the current benefits that tourism can bring. Given the cross-sector nature of tourism, areas such as employment, regional development, environment, consumer protection, health, safety, transport, taxation and culture will be touched upon. In the current situation, a reinforced framework for action provides a feasible, and the most appropriate, approach with regard to the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity.
It is capable of dealing with the objectives and challenges identified in a suitable manner by means of an integrated approach within the European Union and in closer cooperation with all stakeholders. A more ambitious option, i. Moreover, the challenges facing tourism are acute, and it is unlikely that a comprehensive policy can be adopted and implemented within a sufficient timeframe to ensure action in the short to medium term, in particular because of the need for the agreement of all Member States.
A less ambitious option, i. This would fail to provide the specific Community contribution needed to trigger sufficient changes in favour of the sustainability of European tourism and to address the objectives of this Communication, and is therefore to be ruled out. There are no trade-offs associated with the option chosen. It is fully compatible with the existing Community policy framework regarding related policy fields. Currently existing limited data and knowledge of the tourism sector hinder an accurate quantitative analysis of the impact of tourism.
However, despite this weakness, the perceived economic, social and environmental sustainability issues and problems of European tourism, which are both linked to its current consumption and production patterns, and to its further quantitative growth, suggest continuing unsustainable trends of the sector. They show the need to take a decision now on the basic orientations to follow and on initial measures to be launched, and not to put the decision off until better information is available. The Commission Communication 'Working together for the future of European tourism' identified the need for further work on improving tourism information, communication and statistics on tourism.
The Commission has already started to mobilise existing competence and support centres for the development of knowledge and observation regarding tourism, in order to increase the availability of the necessary knowledge and tools for all stakeholders. Likewise, the Commission has taken the necessary steps, in coordination with the public and private stakeholders concerned and with their support, to introduce Tourism Satellite Accounts TSAs in order to improve current statistical information as it exists in Europe regarded as insufficient from both the qualitative and the quantitative points of view and to fully reflect the impact and economic importance of tourism as an economic sector.
At the current stage, it is too early to launch additional or accompanying measures to further increase the positive impacts of the policy option chosen. The plan is for them to be defined by the proposed Tourism Sustainability Group and implemented through the planned Commission internal work programme for enhancing the effect of the various Community policies and measures affecting European tourism to support its sustainability.
The reference of this summary is the document published for public consultation on the Internet http: The summary lists those comments that demand added or improved formulations in relation to the consultation document, or disagree or request deletion. Comments made by different organisations and individual may contradict each other.
Details can be accessed via http: The font size and layout should make the end-user want to read the text. An effective policy can only be arrived at if we try to influence the major driving forces. CSR and the social dialogue merit further emphasis. Abandon the idea of pleasing all stakeholders 'citizens are the basis of power in a democratic society, stakeholders are the basis in an oligarchy'. Put the emphasis on changing attitudes and demand patterns, as well as on implementation at local level. Legislation should not be discarded. The real problem is the 'intra-seasonal fluctuations' in visitor numbers that put uneven pressure on tourism systems and resources.
Although it is good to have general statements, declarations and basic guidelines, the situation and the nature of the challenges demand responses that integrate the legal, economic and governance points of view. Whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, local stakeholders are the ones with main responsibility for tourism. SMEs' concern is to meet the needs of their customers.
The Nordic countries, the Alps and coastal regions as well as the need for integration of the regional objectives. If services are provided in another country, the workers posted there should benefit at least from the labour standards and working conditions applicable in that country. Further liberalisation should not affect 'service quality, consumer protection, labour standards and public safety'. Do liberalisation of trade and sustainable trade occur at the same time in tourism?
Assess whether competition is working against local communities in the opening up of tourism markets in developing countries.
EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
Analyse whether the GATS decision may overrule other international agreements such as the international Biodiversity Convention. Although funding for tourism purposes is available, the lack of an ad-hoc tourism programme hinders synergies. Present information in a practical and user-friendly manner, with good practices being disseminated as 'guidance' rather than 'compulsion'. Support regional tourism observatories. This measure should allow the involvement of all stakeholder groups in the impact assessment.
Present the most significant developments regarding tourism-related IA annually. Exploit the advantages of the synergy between tourism, agriculture, forestry, environmental politics and small and medium-sized companies. This measure needs realistic targets and achievable actions, and should improve the capacity and leadership of local authorities, encouraging the latter to take up the principles of governance within these decision-making levels and sustainable tourism planning.
The action plan should include issues of equal access to the tourism product and the benefits of tourism, and also equal opportunities within the tourism industry. The Commission might undertake an analysis of skills and labour transfer in the sphere of tourism to facilitate transnational cooperation between regions and hence it being taken account of in the national action plans for employment.
Study the role of immigrants as a working force for tourism and its impact on local economy. Laying down European standards for the mutual recognition of tourism qualifications would be valuable and would help create employment opportunities through the placement of employees regardless of their nationality. Local authorities and destination managers would welcome a comprehensive guide to all Commission policies, programmes and studies which relate to sustainable tourism, and to identifying potential funding support for projects in this field.
Study the relationship between biggest TTOO and local tourism suppliers and its effects on competition. Favour local partnerships to counterbalance Tour Operators' market dominance. Further assess the impact of the accession of new member states in terms of tourist numbers, labour force and new market destinations. Local government must be involved in the preparation and implementation of the agreement via associations such as the Council of European Municipalities and the Regions.
There are other UN agencies that have been substantially involved in sustainable tourism initiatives that should also be included in the scope of this measure. EC-WTO agreement could also expand to sustainable development cooperation in third countries with a particular focus on poverty alleviation strategies through tourism support a Community-based tourism development in developing countries. To add value such a group supported also by the WTO must have specific and deliverable objectives.
The Commission, not the industry, should lead it, and all stakeholders should be part of all similar groups e. Research, measurement and monitoring must enable both the private and public sectors to adapt to changing needs and demands and better manage demand and supply. Study whether this group can be set up within a Europe-wide network of universities with tourism development units committed to working with non-academic institutions in the private and public sectors in the field of sustainable tourism policy 'this would accord well with the principles of the 6th RTD framework programme which seeks inter alia to support the creation of 'knowledge societies' in a wide swathe of policy areas'.
Therefore consider including the last measure within this measure. The development of sustainable tourism information, policy tools and best practice do need further development to facilitate benchmarking and the analysis of information relating to sustainable tourism needs to be developed in a manner which can accommodate the requirements of all different types of destinations.
However, work in this field should respect the principle of subsidiarity and build on work already undertaken within Member States. Getting businesses involved in reporting is challenging, but essential, so the system has to be user-friendly and not too technical. It would be preferable to see workable national systems in place before setting up a European-level system. If, in the future, a European level system is seen to be feasible, we would need to ensure that the European and national systems dovetail and the relevant expert groups in Member States consulted.
Non-tourism stakeholders have a critical role to play in the sustainability of tourism. They can best represent the sustainable development goals and objectives of the host or resident population. Therefore they may also be part of this measure and the following one. This initiative could focus on the two core problems regarding sustainable consumer choices in leisure tourism, i. The European round table of stakeholders obviously has to be more than just a talking shop and should look into whether realistic action can be taken. Build on consumer information to ensure market forces are exerted to promote sustainable management.
The business case is not sufficiently won since we need to convince business that acting sustainably helps it to save money, that there are markets looking for sustainable products and that the public sector will help them to find them. Inform tourists on how to prevent damage and harm to the environment, the landscape and agriculture.
With regard to seasonality, illustrate the benefits of staggering holidays in the private and public sector and the impact of pension reforms on the tourism sector in the long term. Improve the quality of tourism-related products and services and expand the transport and economic infrastructures to improve the accessibility of tourist areas and to facilitate crossing borders and the local public transport with the objective of lengthening the season and the duration of tourist visits.
Take account of the changes in the demographic structure and design tailor-made programmes catering for special groups e. The Commission could provide guidance on the principles of good governance and CSR, but these principles will be best promoted to tourism businesses via member state and regional tourism bodies who can set such guidance within a national or regional context. Consider whether it is possible to do this with large transnational corporations, since for micro-enterprises and SMEs it will be quite difficult.
The platform of European tourist destinations for dealing with issues of sustainable tourist destination development and management should be open to all destinations in order to facilitate the exchange of good practice and allow for benchmarking and skills transfer between resorts. IQM provides a tool to achieve it.
All the other measures mentioned should be incorporated into the IQM process. The idea of a consumer awareness campaign should be developed further before judging whether action at a European level could be effective, although a consistent message across Europe could have an effect. It could be effective and useful if seen as a pan-European issue and if one message is seen by tourists all over Europe.
It would achieve economies of scale if resourced nationally or at a European level. There is certainly a need for greater coordination of current initiatives and a need to encourage sharing of experience in what works and what does not in influencing consumer choice. Support the demand for sustainable tourism products and subsequently give an ad-hoc follow-up to public initiatives to support enterprises. Tri-partite agreements also need further development and evaluation that might be done via pilot initiatives.
Assess whether this measure make a link to the ESDP might be funded by the 6th RTD programme, ensure that the management of cultural heritage sites is included in this programme, and study whether Local Research Bodies can be considered beneficiaries of the Community framework programme and could be covered under the last measure.
Disseminate information through the internet, reliable representatives and networks and consider the coordination of the policies and best practices identified.
Elemente einer erfolgreichen internen Kommunikation in Tourismusunternehmen (German Edition) [Steffi Meier] on www.farmersmarketmusic.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying. Elemente einer erfolgreichen internen Kommunikation in Tourismusunternehmen (German Edition) on www.farmersmarketmusic.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers.
Action regarding exchange of best practices should follow this circle: Therefore avoid references to vague action plans. Caution if the Commission intends to impose an action plan on communities. Refer to the role of tourism and hotel companies in making extensive use of energy, water and waste efficiency and saving measures; the need to favour soft mobility and transport means and take up sustainable technologies. This site uses cookies to improve your browsing experience. Would you like to keep them? Skip to main content. This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website.
EU case law Case law Digital reports Directory of case law. Need more search options? Share your thoughts with other customers. Write a customer review. There's a problem loading this menu right now. Learn more about Amazon Prime. Get fast, free shipping with Amazon Prime. Get to Know Us. English Choose a language for shopping. Explore the Home Gift Guide.
Amazon Music Stream millions of songs. Amazon Advertising Find, attract, and engage customers. Amazon Drive Cloud storage from Amazon. Alexa Actionable Analytics for the Web. AmazonGlobal Ship Orders Internationally. Amazon Inspire Digital Educational Resources. Amazon Rapids Fun stories for kids on the go.