Wie nutzen Banken den LEI? Dies ist ein manueller, zeitraubender Prozess, da die eindeutigen Kennzeichnungen weder in den SWIFT-Nachrichten noch in den eingereichten Doku- menten enthalten sind, die zwischen den Banken ausgetauscht werden. Sie verschlanken regulatorische und administrative Prozesse: Je nach Land gelten unterschiedliche Identifizierungsmerkmale und Regeln als verbindlich, in Deutschland z. Das findet bereits heute praktische Anwendung und ebnet Unternehmen den Weg zu neuen Finanzierungsquellen.
Das wird dem internationalen Handel nochmals Auftrieb verleihen. Ob Forderungsverkauf, Finetrading oder Exportfinanzie- rung: Innerhalb der Einfach online: Wenn alles okay ist oder erforderliche Korrekturen vorgenommen worden sind, erteilt sie den LEI. Oder wenden Sie sich an den Service des Bundesanzeiger Verlags unter: Wir sind die Mittelstandsbank. Bei einem sensiblen Umgang mit Fremdsprachen sowie mit geeigneten Vertragsklauseln und Vertragstechniken kann dieses Risiko reduziert werden.
Bei den in der Praxis verwendeten englischsprachigen Vertrags- klauseln werden Rechtsbegriffe aus dem angloame- rikanischen Rechtskreis verwendet, ohne dass den Parteien — trotz sicherer Sprachkenntnisse! Danach wird allerdings lediglich das Auslegungsstatut geregelt. Bei der Vereinbarung des deutschen Rechts gelten die Auslegungsregeln des deutschen Rechts. Aufgrund der System- gebundenheit juristischer Fachbegriffe gibt es keine juristische Fachsprache, in der Rechtsbegriffe internati- onal die gleiche Bedeutung haben.
Reduzierung des Sprachrisikos durch Sprachklauseln Tipp: Reduzierung des Sprachrisikos durch Vertragstechniken Tipps: Entlang beider Korridore sollen zahlreiche neue Projekte zur Verbesserung der Transport-, Energie- und Kommunikationsinfrastruktur verwirklicht werden.
Dazu sollen Kommunikationsnetze erweitert und auf den neusten Stand gebracht werden. Beide Banken wurden in den letzten Jahren neu geschaffen und von China mit initiiert. China ist der EBRD als Zum einen das am 8. Oktober in Kraft getreten ist. Es bleibt abzuwarten, wie China die Verfahren vor den neuen Gerichten gestalten wird und wie diese in das bestehende internationale Recht eingebettet werden sollen. Zudem hat China am Auch wenn es dieses noch ratifizieren muss, hat China damit einen ersten wichtigen Schritt zur Vollstreckbarkeit seiner Gerichtsurteile im Ausland unternommen.
In Frage kommt hier insbesondere Schiedsgerichtsbar- keit an einem neutralen Ort und unter Anwendung eines neutralen Sachrechts. Besser sind hier eine durchdachte, detaillierte Vertragsgestaltung sowie die Wahl eines Rechts aus der kontinentalen Rechtsfamilie. Auf welchen Faktoren beruht die Entscheidung zur Wahl eines Schiedsstandorts? Was ist aus Sicht der Unternehmen wichtig? Diese beruhen auch auf sog. Haben sich Parteien bzw. Deutschland, so die vorherr- schende Wahrnehmung, spielt als Schiedsort keine Hauptrolle. Dieser Vergleich zeigt, dass der deutsche Schiedsort keineswegs hoffnungslos ist, sondern im Wettbewerb durchaus bestehen kann.
- La fontaine aux mille amphores (Poetes des Cinq) (French Edition).
- Product details.
- Travel maps!
Auf der anderen Seite liegt auf der Hand, dass der deut- sche Markt noch viel Entwicklungspotenzial hat. Dieses Potenzial zu realisieren ist keine triviale Aufgabe. Buch der ZPO versammelten Transformationsnormen. Das geltende Recht ist bereits in guter Verfassung. Zudem wird das deutsche Vertragsrecht von kompetenten Gerichten konkretisiert und fortgebildet, wodurch der Ausgang von Rechtsstreitigkeiten vorhersehbar und berechenbar wird. Fazit Vor dem Hintergrund dieser Realien ist es sinnlos, Deutschland als glitzernde Alternative zu den eta- blierten Schiedsorten etablieren zu wollen.
Enterprise 2.0 oder Soziale Medien erobern die interne Kommunikation
Germany is Your place for Arbitration! Juni in das jeweilige nationale Recht umzusetzen ist. Deutschland ist durch die lange Zeit der Regierungsbildung in Verzug. Deshalb gilt es, keine Zeit zu verlieren, wenn es darum geht, sich auf die neuen Vorschriften einzustellen. Objektiv erforderlich ist dieser kommerzielle Wert nach deutschem Recht aber nicht.
In den Worten der Richtlinie: Der Gesetzgeber wird den Unternehmen dabei wahrschein- lich wenig helfen. Die Gerichte werden Einzelfallent- scheidungen und in diesem Zuge — hoffentlich — auch zur Verallgemeinerung geeignete Beurteilungskriterien entwickeln. Was heute als angemessen gilt, kann morgen schon zu lasch sein. Schranken des Geheimnisschutzes Was die Schranken des Geheimnisschutzes betrifft, an dieser Stelle nur kurze Hinweise: Es steht den Unternehmen aber weiterhin frei, Verbote des Reverse Engineering vertraglich miteinander zu vereinbaren.
Es beginnt schon damit, dass er einen hinreichend bestimmten Klageantrag stellen muss, der die geheime Information beschreibt. Auch kann es dem vermeintlichen Verletzer eines Patents gelungen sein, ein alternatives Verfahren oder eine neue Vorrichtung zu entwickeln, die das Patent nicht verletzt, die er aber geheim halten will. Ziel der Dokumentation ist es, schriftlich oder auf andere Weise dauerhaft niedergelegte Infor- mationen Dokumente gezielt auffindbar zu machen. Diese sollten an den Einzelfall angepasst sein und keine sog.
Das Unternehmen erhob daraufhin Klage vor dem Arbeitsgericht Essen. Das Landes- arbeitsgericht hat den Rechtsstreit mit Beschluss vom Januar nunmehr an das Landgericht Dortmund verwiesen. Die Entscheidung des Landesarbeitsgerichts ist vielfach kritisiert worden. Der Ausgang ist offen. Jeden- falls in Deutschland ist die Situation anders.
Dabei handelt es sich keinesfalls um ein theo- retisches Risiko. Um das Risiko einer kartellrechtlichen Haftung sowohl des Unternehmens als auch des Managers zu vermeiden, kann es daher aus Unternehmens- und aus Managersicht nur eine Strategie geben: Beruht der Mangel auf fehlerhafter Planung, kann der Besteller den Architekten unmit- telbar in Anspruch nehmen.
Such progress will suffer if tourism is not managed and developed in a sustainable way, i. Tourism products and services are consumer driven. The role that tourists as consumers can play in reducing the impact of the problems through a more sustainability-oriented demand illustrates the potential of consumer awareness of sustainable tourism to trigger changes in the product offered. Enterprises and destinations need to pay more attention to environmental issues in the future [6]. So far, environmental care is a major issue for the big players in the tourism market who also use the marketing potential of environmental care for their businesses.
In addition to the price and quality offered, consumers have started considering the environmental effort of the company as a determinant of choice. There is still much to be done to increase sustainability awareness among tourists.
Selbstorganisation und Vernetzung
How far the willingness to pay more for sustainable products and services could go is still an issue subject to debate [7]. Changes in the demographic structure of Europe may have an influence on new tailor-made tourism products and services. The European population is getting older but staying active longer.
Thus, older people will become more important to the tourism market, increasing the overall number of tourists and potentially demanding different types of tourism. Currently, SMEs, because of low consumer awareness, mostly consider that these issues are unimportant, but a trend towards higher awareness is taking place. SMEs need to build further on these experiences.
Industry representatives recognise that there is an increasing trend for developing new forms of tourism, especially those related to nature and wildlife, rural areas and culture, and that these are influencing traditional package tours [9]. This type of tourism is expected to grow faster than any other market segment. New Paths for International Tourism' Ethical issues are also gaining importance for tourism enterprises.
Research suggests that, following the trend in other economic sectors, social responsibility and corporate citizenship are expected to increase in importance in the tourism industry [11]. This means implementation of adequate CSR practices for tourism value chain services and enterprises of all kinds and sizes, and looking at the sustainable methods and products available.
However, a few large companies manage a significant proportion of the volume of trade, particularly at an international level. Optimising the synergy between producers and travel organisers and between different modes within a sub-sector of the tourism industry is likely to remain very important to competitiveness. However, the uptake of IT has not yet achieved an optimal threshold [12]. Positive social impacts arise mainly through tourism's contribution to employment, worker training and the development of SMEs. The sector employs a significant proportion of women, minorities and young people.
In developed countries, unemployment levels are especially high for unskilled labour, thus additional demand for low-skilled labour is of high economic and social value. The seasonal concentration of demand results in high numbers of staff without continuous employment who may suffer poor conditions, with negative effects on qualification levels and service quality.
This in turn has an impact on the competitiveness of the supply chain, as quality in the tourism product cannot be achieved without the skill and motivation of the workforce. In addition, the industry has serious shortages of skilled workers [13]. Tourism can support economic development and is an important element of many countries' economies. The inflow of revenue to tourist destinations creates business turnover, household income, employment and government revenue. Tourism can be more effective than other industries in generating employment and income in less-developed, often peripheral, regions with limited alternative opportunities for development.
Tourism affects the economy beyond the industry itself. A proportion of the sector's income is respent in the destination's wider economy, thereby creating further economic activity. These indirect effects can exceed the initial direct effects tourism income not only creates jobs in the tourism industry itself but also in associated industries, such as agriculture, transport, manufacturing, etc.
SMEs believe that inadequate public infrastructure hinders their growth, as recent analysis shows [14]. Infrastructure issues are becoming more acute with the continuing increase in passenger travel. However, increased environmental concerns may affect infrastructure development; for example, proposals for airport expansions are often fiercely disputed.
Tourism can also contribute to better infrastructure such as improved water supply or waste treatment, leading to greater environmental protection. Cultural assets are a basic resource of tourist destinations. However, tourism risks contributing to the homogenisation of global products and services that lack local identity.
Local identity is at particular risk where the ratio between tourists and locals is high. The impact of terrorist attacks in the recent past has focused more attention on tourism safety and security issues. As part of the image of destinations these are key issues in tourism and destination marketing which need to be addressed at decision-making level. The need for marketing organisations to demonstrate that destinations are safe for tourists has become increasingly important since consumer awareness is growing rapidly.
Similarly crisis and risk management in the tourism industry has become important for all tourism stakeholders. Natural resources are a basic resource of a tourist destination, and sustainable destination development requires the protection of both the environment and natural resources. Thus, environmental degradation can threaten the viability of the industry. Negative impacts from tourism see table 1 occur when the environmental carrying capacity of a destination is exceeded. Sound environmental destination management can reduce the environmental impact of tourism especially in fragile ecosystems.
EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
However, tourism can also raise awareness of the value of environmental assets and contribute financially to the creation and conservation of natural parks and protected areas. The relationship between tourism and the environment is complex and varies according to a range of factors including the number and seasonal variation of tourists, the concentration, the recreational activities they pursue, the type of environment affected and the infrastructure and management in place.
A no-policy change scenario would fail to reverse the unsustainable trends in European tourism and fail to cope with the issues and problems of tourism sustainability. Continuing growth of tourism would over-proportionally augment the risks inherent in the situation which are marked by its partially unsustainable patterns of consumption and production, and make them materialize. More sustainable consumption and production patterns in the tourism sector would not be encouraged, and there would be no possibility of measuring and reporting on the impact of tourism in today's society in a transparent and reliable manner.
This scenario would lack a strong and cooperative partnership between the public authorities, trade organisations and unions, the private sector and society, and which would allow responsibility for delivering and ensuring tourism sustainability to be shared. It would mean that governments neither integrate tourism concerns into the overall set of related policies, nor set up, in consultation with all stakeholders, a capacity-building framework with realistic objectives to facilitate an uptake of existing and future guidance for the implementation of sustainability management practice.
Without sustainable development, European tourism's quality and future competitiveness, and its potential to create employment, would be severely damaged. Overall progress in sustainable development would suffer as well. In Europe, certain tourist destinations would enter into a phase of decline that they could not overcome, with important negative effects on the entire local economy and social tissue linked to it.
In conclusion, although the potential for a sustainable growth of European tourism exists, it would be jeopardised if policy did not change. The overall policy objective of the Communication is to promote further progress towards the sustainability of tourism in Europe and world-wide, stimulating multi-stakeholder efforts to this end across all territorial and administrative levels and to outline how the Community and the other stakeholders can further contribute to them.
This overarching objective is expected to be achieved through the following three specific objectives:. The Communication takes into account relevant policies and documents at EU and global level that focus on sustainable development and sustainable tourism see Table 2. The approach developed builds upon existing Commission and third party initiatives and sets up new ones, in order to tackle the challenges and achieve the objectives without duplicating efforts, in a broad partnership with all tourism stakeholders.
The Communication addresses objectives such as sustainable consumption and production patterns, quality development and the competitiveness of the industry, the case for the production of new jobs and improvement of working conditions in existing employment, the protection and restoration of the environment and natural resources as well as respect for the carrying capacity, and corporate social responsibility.
The results of the consultation that the draft has undergone confirm the objectives set and support the fact that the horizontal objectives might be further broken down when dealing with implementation at the appropriate level. Through the chosen cooperative approach, sustainable tourism is expected to contribute to the overall EU sustainable development strategy by providing better integration and coherence between territorial levels and more effective action at management level with adequate monitoring. In addition, through the link to the Sustainable Development Strategy, the Communication links to existing approaches in the Member States and to relevant EU milestones, such as the 'Lisbon Process', designed to make the EU the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, and the 'Cardiff Process' on integrating environmental issues into other areas of policy.
The Sixth Environmental Action Programme will also play an important role, setting binding environmental objectives for the EU over the decade to Finally, the Communication also responds to the outcome of the Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on sustainable development regarding tourism through the development of a transparent multi-stakeholder process.
It adds that good governance is essential to achieve sustainable development. European Tourism - New partnerships for employment: The basic approach for reaching the objective of further promoting progress towards sustainability of tourism in Europe and world-wide depends on the policy option chosen. The following policy options were considered:. What are the trade-offs associated with the proposed option? What "designs" and "stringency levels" have been considered? This option means the strongest Community involvement in the development of a genuine Community policy in the field of tourism.
It would include the formulation and implementation of tourism-specific actions, requiring a greater input of resources from the Commission. The Commission favoured this option until a few years ago, and many consultation respondents supported it. However, given the reality in the field of tourism and the position of some Member States on such an approach, this option cannot be considered feasible for achieving rapid progress towards sustainability in European tourism. Furthermore, any legislative approach would be opposed by the tourism industry.
Bearing in mind that the European tourism industry involves many different public and private stakeholders with very decentralised competencies, often at regional and local levels, it can be considered that this option would not be compatible with the principle of subsidiarity. Solutions to issues that can best be dealt with at the local level do not benefit from a generalised European framework. A 'top-down' approach cannot be expected to demonstrate identifiable or quantifiable added value.
The concerns of SMEs which dominate the industry can be better addressed otherwise. A wide range of stakeholder initiatives and contributions address various aspects of sustainable tourism at different levels, although consideration of the current challenges faced by the European tourism sector suggests that the existing initiatives and contributions by the different stakeholders have not yet achieved a sustainable managed European tourism. Under the 'non-action' scenario, the Commission would rely on these activities without taking any further action, either in terms of general policies that may affect tourism or specific tourism measures.
This would represent a reduction in European-wide action compared to the current situation and to the measures provided for in the different Community policy fields. Consultation responses demonstrate that experience to date has shown that 'bottom-up' environmental initiatives can work effectively, and there is strong support for voluntary initiatives, particularly from industry representatives.
However, they also suggest that this is not sufficient. Given the importance of the tourism sector to the EU economy and the associated magnitude of both social and environmental impacts, it can be considered that certain Community-level action in this field is needed. In general, most stakeholders consider this option unacceptable.
Some stress that although voluntary schemes are an important step towards more responsible tourism. However, owing to their proliferation, their benefits and effectiveness are not sufficiently clear, particularly to consumers. In addition, even if voluntary measures were to gain acceptance, they would not be enough to prevent negative impacts from tourism. 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. The latter aspect distinguishes it from the 'non-action' scenario B , with a significant Community activity, but not one targeted on tourism.
It would not further stakeholder initiatives through specific Community support and involvement from the tourism point of view. The principle of subsidiarity would be respected: The tourism sector benefits from a number of EU-wide initiatives to promote sustainability in general. With regard to the Community contribution to the sustainability of European tourism, this option relies exclusively on these policies and measures, excluding any tourism-specific Community activities to improve sustainability.
It does not allow for any human or financial resources to be used by the Commission in the sphere of tourism. But this option fails to address the specific challenges faced by the tourism industry adequately. Some stakeholders emphasise the importance of ensuring that general Community measures take account of tourism sustainability, but few of them consider this to be sufficient.
Building on the previous options, Option D strengthens the existing framework for action by reinforcing existing stakeholder initiatives, other than those of the Community, in this field, and further involves the Commission by:. This approach enables stakeholders to take action at the appropriate level and acknowledges the important role of the tourism industry in the move towards sustainable development. Thus, the principles of both subsidiarity and proportionality are potentially respected. It coincides with a repeated call for the Commission to strengthen the coordination between Community policies affecting tourism.
A double approach was identified, which favours using the full potential of a range of Community policies and organising coordination and cooperation with all stakeholders on subjects of common interest. This option has received strong support from stakeholders who advocate explicit guidance towards sustainable tourism rather than a reliance on other guidance affecting tourism practices by default. Stakeholders believe that the Commission should be more active when reinforcing the existing framework for action, in order to act in proportion to the magnitude of impacts.
Enterprise 2.0 – von wegen “Star Trek”
The main challenge this policy option has to address is the question of how coordination at a European level can make efforts at a local level more efficient or effective. How are subsidiarity and proportionality taken into account? Options A and B could have been discarded at an early stage, owing to a lack of Member State support or to being politically incompatible with the general Community approach to sustainability. Nevertheless, to get the widest possible picture, all options were assessed in terms of the extent to which they address challenges and objectives.
The different policy options relate to several degrees of intensity in dealing with sustainability at Community level, and therefore take subsidiarity and proportionality into account differently, as indicated above for each of the options see table 3. The reliance on subsidiarity decreases from Option B to C to D to A , whereas proportionality increases in the same order, together with the level of resources needed to implement them, but is combined with a high degree of uncertainty for option A.
The latter option also risks going beyond the reality of the tourism sector, which often operates at regional and local levels. Its lower reliance on subsidiarity is not matched by a true perspective of significant additional benefits. There is greater confidence that Options D and A will meet the objectives of the proposal. Options B and C reflect either a general withdrawal from the sustainability policy or one sector, i. They have no potential of significant improvements in currently unsustainable trends and would be a step backwards compared to the current situation.
Assessment of the policy proposals with regard to the subsidiarity and proportionality principles. What are the impacts - positive and negative - expected from the different options identified? Since the nature of the issues and of the options presented means that quantification of the impacts is not feasible, techniques such as cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis were not used.
The assessment of the impacts was therefore carried out on the basis of a Multi-Criteria Analysis that made it possible to measure, at least in a qualitative sense, how well the options were expected to perform against each criterion. The selected criteria see Table 4 were deemed complete, operational and satisfactory for the assessment of the policy options in a manner that permitted the impacts to be assessed without creating difficulties in assessing input data and making communication of the analysis more complex.
How large are the additional 'marginal' effects that can be attributed to the policy proposal, i. The Assessment Summary Table AST in Table 6 presents the impact information in a consistent and transparent manner that highlights the most important impacts of the selected options. No details exist as to how a comprehensive genuine Community policy on tourism would be adopted in practice.
It can be assumed, however, that it may have the overall effect of integrating the currently dispersed direct and indirect Community actions. It could also be assumed that it would facilitate action towards addressing specific tourism-related challenges that may not be addressed elsewhere. Option A could improve performance against criteria, where other options are potentially less comprehensive, through the adoption of specific measures to address particular challenges.
Areas where this might be necessary include ensuring provision of sufficient infrastructure, increasing access to tourism for all citizens, promoting sustainable inter- and intra-destination mobility, increasing the availability of skilled staff, and ensuring community well-being in destinations. In other areas, Option A may perform less well than other options. For example, although Option A could have an integrating effect on Community actions, it may potentially reduce coherence and integration between policies and approaches, as tourism aspects would be assumed to be addressed under the comprehensive policy and thus might be neglected under other policies.
Areas of conflict, or 'grey areas', may arise where a comprehensive tourism policy required action beyond that specified by existing policies. Examples might include sustainable inter- and intra- destination mobility or environmental carrying capacity e. There might also be difficulties in defining tourist destinations and activities subject to a comprehensive policy, whilst recognising the diversity of the sector.
Stakeholder action is essential for addressing challenges relating to environmental and social factors, for example ensuring community well-being, maintaining the cultural heritage and respecting the environmental carrying capacity of destinations, where local solutions are needed. However, the Bathing Water Directive provides an example where specific areas i.
Similarly, Natura sites require local authorities to manage part of their area differently, and in accordance with stricter requirements, from the remaining area. Adopting a tourism policy may provide greater support to addressing the challenges for both destinations and enterprises. 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.
ICC Germany-Magazin 06
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. 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.