The scope of supranational tourism policy and planning has grown substantially in recent years (Timothy 2003; Hall 2005a). The increased in- ternationalisation of the world’s economy and policy making has led to the development of re- gional trade alliances and groupings, e.g. NAFTA
and APEC, while international groupings have developed in all manner of human affairs. Indeed one of the outcomes of economic globalisation has been not only increased awareness of the im- portance of the local but also increased attention to regional groupings of nations within which problems, which are now recognised as being in- ternational in scope (e.g. economic development, pollution, natural resource management), can be addressed. Tourism has also been strongly influ- enced by the development of such international bodies. However, the scope of such organisa- tions is substantial, ranging from government membership only (e.g. ASEAN) through to public–private partnerships, e.g. Baltic Sea Tourism Commission, and fully international non-government organisations, e.g. ECPAT (also operating as Childwise in some jurisdictions).
Furthermore, the goals of supranational organi- sations may range from being solely concerned with tourism, e.g. the Pacific Asia Tourism Asso- ciation, through to a policy portfolio of which tourism is only a small part, e.g. the European Union. Nevertheless, the actions of such organi- sations may be extremely significant in tourism policy and planning terms. While policy and planning occurs at the supranational level, the ef- fects of policy decisions will often be enacted at the local level, leading to significant outcomes for the processes of tourism development and for local communities. This section will discuss two examples of tourism within supranational organ- isations, the European Union and the Organiza- tion of American States.
The European Union
The European Union is frequently regarded as the most developed form of supranational organ- isation in the world today (Held et al. 1999).
Tourism is an area of great economic significance to the European Union. In 2005 about 900 mil- lion holiday trips, almost evenly distributed between short (one to three nights) and long holidays (four and more nights) were made by EU tourists. Tourism expenditure and receipts were nearly in balance for the EU as a whole. Ex- penditure stood at €235.6 billion, while receipts
from tourism stood at €232.6 billion (Eurostat 2007). Although Europe’s market share, in terms of both arrivals and revenue, of international tourism is tending to diminish in relation to other world regions, notably the Asia-Pacific region, Europe is still a major force in world tourism, with increased ease of travel between the EU member countries encouraging greater integra- tion and therefore ongoing tourism growth. In 2005, 87.5 per cent of all nights spent in collec- tive accommodation were spent by either resi- dents of the country (59.1 per cent) or by residents of other EU member states (28.4 per cent) (Eurostat 2007). According to the European Commission tourism in Europe creates more than 4 per cent of the EU’s GDP, with about 2 million enterprises employing about 4 per cent of the total labour force, representing approximately 8 million jobs. ‘When the links to other sectors are taken into account, the contribution of tourism to GDP is estimated to be around 11%
and it provides employment to more than 12% of the labour force (24 million jobs)’ (Commission of the European Communities 2006: 2).
Although the European Parliament has been relatively slow in establishing policies for tourism relative to other economic, social and environ- mental areas of interest, partly as a result of not being included in considerations of the first European Treaties, the extent of EU involvement in tourism is not as insubstantial as may be sug- gested by the comments of the UNWTO Secre- tary-General quoted earlier in this chapter. As HOTREC, the organisation that represents ho- tels, restaurants and cafés in Europe, has argued with respect to discussions of a new European Treaty since the mid-1990s,
the presence or not of the word tourism in the Treaties has had no influence whatsoever on the ap- plicability to the sector of measures on VAT, protec- tion of the consumer, protection of the environment and social affairs, which are based on specific arti- cles of the Treaties relating to these issues. (2003: 1) Indeed, the EU has a substantial impact on tourism development in Europe if not by direct virtue of tourism-specific policies then by a wide range of other measures, with HOTREC
identifying over 250 EU measures that directly impact on the EU’s hospitality and tourism in- dustry (Corbalan et al. 2005). These measures have been developed in a number of Directorates- General (DG) of the European Commission, including Agriculture (farm and rural tourism), Environment (impact assessment, climate), Trans- port (Single European Sky) and Enterprise (entre- preneurship and innovation policy) among others (Corbalan et al. 2005).
The responsibility for tourism policy in the European Commission lies with the Tourism Unit of DG Enterprise. The European Parliament has a Committee for Tourism and Transport.
There is also a European Parliament intergroup for tourism, which brings together members of the European Parliament who share an interest in tourism issues.
Tourism has become a significant part of EU planning and policies for a number of reasons (Commission of the European Communities 2006):
• Tourism is now recognised as an important economic activity (D. Hall 2004).
• The transnational character of some tourism businesses has necessitated the development of a European-wide policy framework.
• The cultural impacts of tourism have raised concerns over the retention of cultural identity while at the same time attempting to promote the concept of Europe.
• The movement of pollution across national boundaries and the possible movement of capital to locate where environmental standards and costs are lowest. Indeed the environmental dimensions of tourism have developed as a major EU concern in the tourism area (European Commission 1995;
Bramwell et al. 1996; Church et al. 2000).
• Concerns over the social dimensions of poverty and unemployment, particularly in disadvantaged regions, give impetus to the use of tourism as a tool for employment generation and economic development at a regional level (Jenkins et al. 1998; D. Hall 2004; D. Hall et al.2006).
Nevertheless, as early as the early 1980s, the European Parliament and the Council had adopted resolutions concerning the development of a policy for tourism. However, the EU’s first tangible action in favour of tourism was the Council Decision of 21 December 1988 declar- ing 1990 the ‘European Year of Tourism’ (EYT).
The objective of the EYT was to exploit the inte- grating role of tourism in the creation of a citi- zens’ Europe and to stress the economic and social importance of the tourism sector (EU 1998: Sec. 8).
In 1994 the European Court of Auditors based in Luxembourg carried out a horizontal audit of tourist policy and the promotion of tourism. On the occasion of its first on-the-spot audit at the Commission, the Court found that there had been serious irregularities, leading to the suspension of two members of DG XXIII’s staff (DG XXIII is responsible for enterprise, trade, tourism and social economy policy), and that the Commission had not released any infor- mation on this matter. However, the report by the Court (EU 1998) provides a valuable account of EU tourism, particularly with respect to expenditure and problems of coordination.
In 2006 the Commission of the European Communities released a communication with re- spect to a renewed European tourism policy, the main aim of which is ‘to improve the competi- tiveness of the European tourism industry and create more and better jobs through the sustain- able growth of tourism in Europe and globally’
(4). The extent to which tourism is a multi-level governance field within the European Union can be seen by the Commission’s statement ‘Partner- ships amongst all involved stakeholders are . . . necessary at every level of the decision-making process related to tourism. Partnerships must be a central component of action at all levels (Euro- pean, national, regional and local; public and private)’ (2006: 4).
EU tourism measures can be divided into di- rect measures that are provided for in the general budget and indirect measures in which tourism plays an instrumental role towards the realisa- tion of other objectives. However, in the late
1990s it was estimated that the financial volume of the direct measures represents less than 1 per cent of total EU expenditure on tourism (EU 1998). The importance of tourism in relation to indirect expenditure is primarily reflected in EU funds allocated to implement regional develop- ment and social cohesion policies (Commission of the European Communities 2006). As the EU has enlarged so the extent of regional disparities within the Community has also expanded. In re- sponse to problems of regional disparity the EU established a series of ‘structural’ funds, e.g. the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the Cohesion Fund and Community Support Frameworks, many of which have been utilised for tourism development purposes (Commission of the European Communities 2006). Many of the programmes conducted under the structural funds arrangements provide a direct link from the EU to the local level of governance. In addi- tion there is direct European Investment Bank (EIB) financing (individual loans and loans from global loans) in the tourism and leisure field (D. Hall et al. 2006).
Under the EU monies are being reallocated for development purposes as a result of policies that are being pursued at the supranational level and which, in turn, interact with policy settings at the national and regional level. Tourism planning at the local level in the EU member states is there- fore clearly embedded within institutional arrangements and interests at higher levels.
Indeed the power to act is also constrained by the authority that lies not only at the national and re- gional level, but also at the supranational level of the EU. To many people living in the EU area such a statement may be regarded as reasonably self-evident given the very visible range of EU regulations and development programmes. How- ever, supranational institutions also play an im- portant role in areas where the supranational organisation does not have the degree of legisla- tive power accorded to it by member states, which is the case for the EU. The next section will look at the role that the Organization of American States plays in tourism planning and policy in the Americas.
The Organization of American States and tourism planning and policy
The American parallel to the European Union is the Organization of American States (OAS). The OAS is the world’s oldest regional organisation, dating back to the First International Conference of American States held in Washington, DC, from October 1889 to April 1890, which ap- proved the establishment of the International Union of American Republics. The Charter of the OAS was signed in Bogota in 1948 and en- tered into force in December 1951. The Charter was subsequently amended by a number of pro- tocols. As of 2007 the OAS has 35 member states (although Cuba has been suspended from partic- ipation since 1962) with Permanent Observer status granted to 59 states and the EU. The basic purposes of the OAS are:
• to strengthen the peace and security of the continent;
• to promote and consolidate representative democracy, with due respect for the principle of non-intervention, to prevent possible causes of difficulties and to ensure the pacific settlement of disputes that may arise among the member states;
• to provide for common action on the part of those states in the event of aggression;
• to seek the solution of political, juridical and economic problems that may arise among them;
• to promote, by cooperative action, their economic, social and cultural development;
• to achieve an effective limitation of conventional weapons that will make it possible to devote the largest amount of resources to the economic and social development of the member states.
In the Declaration of Principles and in the Plan of Action from the 1996 Miami summit the OAS also agreed to establish the Free Trade Area of the Americas, in which barriers to trade and invest- ment will be progressively eliminated, and to guarantee sustainable development and conserve the natural environment for future generations.
A body with similar functions within the OAS to the EU Tourism Unit within the Entrepreneur- ship Directorate-General of the European Com- mission is the Tourism Unit, which is responsible for matters directly related to tourism and its de- velopment in the hemisphere. The Unit was cre- ated in June 1996, in recognition of the growing importance of tourism in the hemisphere, and in order to strengthen the tourism group of the Organization of American States and its activi- ties. The functions of the Unit are to:
• provide support to member states in the area of tourism services as they relate to trade, competitiveness and sustainable development;
• provide support to other areas of the General Secretariat engaged in activities related to tourism;
• formulate, evaluate and execute technical cooperation projects in the area of tourism and sustainable growth and development;
• facilitate the exchange of information and promote public/private sector cooperation in the area of tourism as it relates to trade;
• conduct research and analysis of the tourism sector and its relationship with trade;
• provide support to the Inter-American Tourism Congress, the main forum for formulating hemispheric tourism policy;
• collaborate with international, regional and sub-regional bodies as well as non-
governmental organisations and the private sector in the area of tourism.
• identify and promote best practices in the use of information and communication
technologies and Internet-based resources to enhance the competitive performance of small and medium enterprises (OAS 2007).
At a development and land-use planning level the Unit has been responsible for a range of tech- nical cooperation activities and projects within the developing countries of the region. Indeed the Unit is directly charged with facilitating and sup- porting national and regional tourism develop- ment programmes and activities, and promoting mechanisms for external support and horizontal collaboration between member states. The Unit’s activities include programmes relating to hotel
quality systems, security, disaster preparedness, tourism capacity building, sustainable develop- ment and ecotourism. Even though the tourism activities of the OAS are tiny when compared to the EU what is significant is the extent to which decisions and undertakings at the supranational level with respect to tourism planning and devel- opment will have a regional and local impact.
Similarly, the resolutions of the conferences and meetings of the OAS, although being examples of soft international law, may have substantial in- fluence on overall international policy direction.
For example, the Declaration of San José from the XVII Inter-American Travel Congress, San José, Costa Rica (OAS 1997) referred to sustain- able development as an important element in tourism but, as with the WTO, also makes reference to the significance of public–private partnerships and trade liberalisation. The Final Act and Declaration of Guatemala City of the 2003 XVIII Inter-American Travel Congress in Guatemala covered similar fields but also em- phasised the importance of security and the need to prevent trafficking for sex tourism. In addition an annex for a ‘Plan of Action for Sustainable Tourism Development in Collaboration with the Private Sector’ emphasised multi-layered gover- nance when it reported on an initiative to
‘promote horizontal and multilateral coopera- tion with the support of international, regional and sub-regional organizations and in particular the OAS’ (OAS 2003). Such measures become important stepping stones in the world of inter- national diplomacy and negotiation towards more formal agreements while, with the gradual development of a free trade zone throughout the Americas, tourism is also being signalled as a significant component of international trade in the area through such measures as an ‘open-sky’
policy with respect to international aviation.
Summary
This chapter has discussed some of the issues of governance and institutional arrangements sur- rounding tourism planning and policy making at the international and supranational level. It has
concentrated on the organisational component so as to illustrate the role and influence of hard and soft international law on the various levels of governance that lie below the international scale.
Examples have also been provided of the activi- ties of the UNWTO, the EU and the OAS as well as the role of international conservation law through the World Heritage Convention. The key theme of the chapter has been the extent to which outcomes at the local scale, what most people conceive of tourism planning in terms of land use, are often the outcome of policy and planning decisions that have occurred at the international and supranational scale of gover- nance. It should be noted that the relationship is not just top down. There is also a flow of infor- mation, influence and desire to affect outcomes between stakeholders from the local through to the global. However, such flows do not mean that supranational and international organisa- tions are democratic in the same sense that there is a direct connection between individual voting behaviour and the capacity to change a govern- ment within a democratic state. The EU is the one exception to this. Instead, their power is
‘given’ to them by the national state. The next chapter will look at the national level in this ongoing process of relationship and interaction.
Questions
1. What are the implications of differences between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ international law for tourism planning and policy?
2. How does international trade policy, particularly with respect to services, affect tourism?
3. How has the development of international conservation and environmental law affected tourism planning and policy?
4. Identify the various international and
supranational tourism organisations of which your country is a member. Discuss their significance for tourism planning and policy.
5. What are the key features of the concept of
‘governance’?
Important websites and recommended reading
Websites
UNESCO World Heritage Centre:
http://whc.unesco.org/
Tourism Section: Organization of American States:
http://www.oas.org/tourism/
World Travel and Tourism Council:
http://www.wttc.travel/
UN World Tourism Organization:
http://www.world-tourism.org/
Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Secretariat:
http://www.aseansec.org/
Europa: The European Union online:
europa.eu/
Recommended reading
1. Pierre, J. and Peters, B.G. (2000)Governance, Politics and the State,Macmillan, London.
Provides an excellent account of the issues of participation in tourism and how this relates to sustainability, ethical and quality of life concerns.
2. Rhodes, R.A.W. (1997) Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability,Open University Press, Buckingham.
A highly influential work with respect to notions of governance and their connection to networks.
3. Aa, B.J.M. van der, Groote, P.D. and Huigen, P.P.P. (2004) ‘World heritage as NIMBY: the case of the Dutch part of the Wadden Sea’, Current Issues in Tourism7(4–5): 291–302.
Examination of the influence of an inter- national agreement at a local level that also raises significant issues with respect to implementation (see Chapter 10).
4. Fyall, A. and Leask, A. (eds) (2006)
Managing World Heritage Sites,Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.