Directorate-General for Internal Policies
Directorate B - Structural and Cohesion Policies

[

This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and
Rural Development.
AUTHOR(S)
[XXXXX YYYYYYYYYYY
XXXXX YYYYYYYYYYY
XXXXX YYYYYYYYYYY]
RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR
XXXXX YYYYYYYYYYY
Policy Department Structural and Cohesion Policies
European Parliament
E-mail: poldep-cohesion@europarl.europa.eu
LINGUISTIC VERSIONS
Original: [EN]
Translation: [ES, FI, FR]
ABOUT THE EDITOR
To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its monthly newsletter please write to: poldep-cohesion@europarl.europa.eu
Manuscript completed in [Month Year].
Brussels, © European Parliament, [Year].
This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies
DISCLAIMER
The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament.
Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy.

[
Text should be between 30 and 80 words.
[IP/B/XXXX/XX/20XX_XX]
PE XXX.YYY
DATE
EN

[Title of the study/note]
____________________________________________________________________________________________
CONTENTS 3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF MAPS
LIST OF FIGURES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CHAPTER Level 1
1.1.
Chapter Level 2
1.2.
Chapter Level 2
1.2.1.
Chapter Level 3
REFERENCES
ANNEX
7
7
5
7
9
11
11
12
12
15
17
3

Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
4

[Title of the study/note]
____________________________________________________________________________________________
AGRI Agriculture and Rural Development Committee
ALDE Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe
BAS Brake-assist systems
CAP Common Agricultural Policy
CFP Common Fisheries Policy
CMO Common market organisation
CoR Committee of the Regions
CULT Culture and Education Committee
ECOSOC Economic and Social Committee
ECTS European Credit Transfer System
EPP-ED Group of the European People's Party and European Democrats
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
FPS Frontal protection systems
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GM Genetically-modified
Greens/EFA Greens/European Free Alliance
GUE/NGL Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left
IFI International Fund for Ireland
IND/DEM Independence/Democracy Group
5

Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
6

[Title of the study/note]
____________________________________________________________________________________________
TABLE 1
Key statistical data
TABLE 2
Key statistical data
MAP 1
Administrative map of Bulgaria
FIGURE 1
Financial Breakdown 2007-2013
13
14
12
12
7

Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
8

[Title of the study/note]
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Within the tourism sector, coastal tourism is by far the most significant in terms of tourist flows and generation of income. Among tourist destinations, coastal areas are most preferred by tourists, and the Mediterranean region is the world’s leading tourist destination: according to the World Tourism Organisation estimates it represents one-third of global income by tourism receipts.
Most of the economies of Member States with significant lengths of coastline are highly dependent on the income generated by sea-related activities, such as tourism, fishing, transport etc. However, the use of the sea for such different purposes generates increasing pressure, in particular:
 competition for space leads to conflicts between various activities (fishing, services, agriculture);
 the natural ecosystems that support coastal areas suffer degradation, especially because of the impact of climate change;
 there are large seasonal variations in population and employment.
The increase in coastal tourism flows, especially in the form of mass tourism, is coupled with emerging concerns about potentially negative impacts on regional development from an environmental, economic and social point of view. Structural Funds can play a role in fostering sustainable development principles while designing and implementing coastal tourism interventions.
The aim of the present study is to provide a comprehensive qualitative analysis of the impact of Structural Fund expenditure on tourism projects in coastal regions, in order to put forward recommendations and policy-relevant advices for decision-makers. The approach is focused on five main aspects where the impact of Structural Funds can be crucial for the delivery of successful regional development interventions. These are:
 Developing partnerships;
 Providing financial leverage;
 Revitalising the local economy;
 Reducing seasonality;
 Fostering environmental sustainability.
The methodology used comprised a twofold methodological approach:
 provision of a general overview about the coastal tourism sector and funding opportunities, based on the collection and processing of secondary data available from the vast literature on tourism, coastal regions and Structural Funds;
 analysis of primary data collected from fieldwork and case studies. Six target coastal regions have been selected, respecting the following mandatory criteria:
 representativeness of all the six macro-areas;
9

Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________


 inclusion in the sample of at least one island region; inclusion in the sample of at least one cross-border region; fair balance between “Convergence” and “Competitiveness and Employment” regions.
Joint action between the EU and Member States’ governments could strengthen an integrated and effective coastal management planning approach.
The main direct funding sources for tourism at the EU level are the Regional Policy
financial instruments, in particular the ERDF. In fact, although no policies and financial instruments specifically devoted to tourism at European level are anticipated, as tourism is primarily of regional and national responsibility, nevertheless tourism interventions are part of broader EU macro-policies which can have a considerable impact on the sector.
Most important coastal tourism destinations in Europe receive SF support through
regional operational programmes (ROPs) and, to a minor extent, sectoral national operational programmes (OPs). The interventions of direct support can include small tourism infrastructure, grant schemes to Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), beach renewal, urban regeneration, culture and artistic heritage support.
However, consideration should also be given to other EU thematic instruments, relating for instance to enterprise, transport, environment, employment, education and culture, which indirectly have relevant spillovers into the tourism sector (see Box 5).
The overall impact of SFs on regional development is varied. In qualitative terms
SF have had a positive impact, especially in terms of institutional building and enhancement of planning capacity. This is especially true for the new Member States, who were less used to participatory and bottom-up approaches in public planning.
EU policies concerning coastal regions (maritime transport, industry, offshore energy, fisheries, the marine environment and others) have been developed separately. Although recent evidence shows that concern for sustainable development of coastal regions is taking place progressively in Europe, 1 in most Member States government action in coastal management planning is still defined only by guidance documents rather than regulatory instruments, so that joint action between EU and Member States (at national, regional and local level) has been felt as necessary to provide effective policies to address the challenges that coastal regions are facing.
...
...
1 This is particularly true for the northern countries, where coastal zone plans concerning the protection of sites of natural and biological interest have been issued and information campaigns on coastal protection have been organised, usually by NGOs.
10

[Title of the study/note]
____________________________________________________________________________________________
KEY FINDINGS
 The tourism industry benefits from various assistance schemes offered by the
EU, even though there is no direct policy or funding mechanism.
 The main financial resource affecting tourism enterprises is represented by the
SFs, in particular by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).
 In qualitative terms, SFs positively affected coastal tourism, especially in terms of
institutional building and enhancement of planning capacity.
Bulgaria is a unitary state composed of municipalities (obshtina), administrative
districts and regions (oblast).
The administrative setup of the country is in essence designed to meet the EU requirements in the course of the accession process. Level NUTS2 includes 6 planning regions, which are not a part of the administrative structure, but are formed mainly for the purposes of economic planning. At level NUTS3, the administrative breakdown comprises
28 oblasti. The next level includes 262 obshtini, which are the smallest administrative units with local self-government.
At local level there are 260 municipalities (obshtina). The municipal council (obchtinski savet) is the deliberative body of the municipality. Its members are elected by direct universal suffrage for a four-year term. Members of the municipal council (between 11 and
51 councillors) elect their president from among themselves. The president convenes and chairs the council, and coordinates the commissions' work.
The mayor is the executive body of the municipality. He/she is elected by direct majority universal suffrage for a four-year term. His/her role is to manage, coordinate, and implement policies adopted by the municipal council. The mayor is also responsible for the administration and represents the municipality.
The municipality has the following competences:
 Secondary educational establishment
 Health
 Social services
 Culture
 Public Services
 Sports and leisure
 Water supply and sewage
 Household refuse
11

Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
1.2.1.
Chapter Level 3
Map 1: Administrative map of Bulgaria
Figure 1: Financial Breakdown 2007-2013
1%
24%
Source: Website of Bulgarian Ministry of Regional Development
21%
2%
22% 15%
15%
Regional Development
Administrative Capacity
Transport
Human Resources
Environment
Source: Author
Technical Assistance
Economic Competitiveness
12

[Title of the study/note]
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 1: Key statistical data
MONTANT
€
TITRE
ACTIVITE
PARLEMENTAIRE
The gap between producer prices and the prices paid by the consumer
Rapport d'initiative
Reflection on the possibilities for the future development of the CAP - the rural development perspectives"
Rapport d'initiative
Reflection on the possibilities for the future development of the CAP
Rapport d'initiative
State of biogas plants in European agriculture Rapport d'initiative
The future of milk quota: different scenarios
Rapport d'initiative/ proposition du HC
The future of the sheep and goat sector in
Europe
Rapport d'initiative
Administrative costs for farmers and forests owners with lands in Natura 2000 areas
Etude préparatoire en vue d'une future législation
9.950
4.900
6.660
2.000
3.975
4.000
9.450
Source: EUROSTAT (2008)
13

Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 2: Key statistical data
Area
Population
Population density (per km 2 )
Official language
Currency
GDP per capita (PPS)
Growth rate
Unemployment rate
Inflation rate
Public debt
Level of citizen's confidence in EU institutions
Transposition of Community law
110 910 km
7 718 750
68,9
Bulgarian
2
Lev (1€ = 1.95 levs)
38.1%
6.2%
6.9%
7.6%
18.2% of GDP
46% (2006)
99.9%
Source: EUROSTAT (2007)
Box: Text box Success Story
SUCCESS STORY
New life in the old city of Bielsko-Biała
The city of Bielsko-Biała is situated in the south of the Silesia Voivodship. From the 1960s until the 1990s it was the second most important centre of the Polish textile industry.
Today, Bielsko-Biała is better known as a tourist centre, based largely on the city’s rich architectural and cultural heritage, from which it derives the name “Little Vienna.”
The successful implementation of the project demonstrated the capacity of public-private partnership to deliver real benefits to the city and its inhabitants. In particular, the project attracted substantial investment from private investors.
However, revitalisation of the old city was not limited to infrastructure. The city of Bielsko-
Biała also implemented the “Against helplessness” project through which assistance was provided to unemployed citizens from the old city district.
Source: Website of DG REGIO
14

[Title of the study/note]
____________________________________________________________________________________________
 Ascherson N., 2007. Black Sea, the birthplace of civilisation and barbarism. Vintage
Books London, 306 pp.
 Caddy J.F., 1993. Contrast between recent fishery trends and evidence for nutrient
enrichment in two Large Marine Ecosystems: The Mediterranean and the Black Seas. In:
K. Sherman, L.M. Alexander, B.D. Gold (editors), Large Marine Ecosystems: Stress,
Mitigation and Sustainability, AAAS Washington D.C., U.S., 137-147.
 Daskalov G.M., Grishin A.N., Rodionov S., Mihneva V., 2007. Trophic cascades triggered
by overfishing reveal possible mechanisms of ecosystem regime shifts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104/25, 10518-10523.
 Dimitrakopoulou C., 2006. Winter season tourism trends 2005-2006. Eurostat Statistics in focus 30/2006, Bruxelles.
 European Commission, 1999. Commission Communication concerning the SF and their coordination with the Cohesion Fund: Guidelines for the programmes in the period
2000-2006, COM(1999) 344 final, Official Journal C 267.
 European Commission, 2000. Communication from the Commission to the Council and
European Parliament on Integrated Coastal Zone Management: A strategy for Europe,
COM(2000) 547 final, Brussels.
 European Commission, 2006. Green Paper: Towards a future Maritime Policy for the
Union: A European vision for the oceans and seas, COM(2006) 275 final, Brussels.
 Heileman S., Parr W., Volovik G., online. Black Sea: LME#62, http://www.lme.noaa.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=108:lme62
&catid=41:briefs&Itemid=72
 Kideys A.E, 2002. Fall and rise of the Black Sea ecosystems. Science 297 (5586), 1482-
1484.
 Knudsen S., Zengin M., 2006. Multidisciplinary modeling of Black Sea fisheries: a case
study of trawl and sea snail fisheries in Samsun. First Bilateral Scientific Conference
Black Sea Ecosystem 2005 and Beyond, 8-10 May 2006, Istanbul Turkey.
 Panin N., Jipa D., 2002. Danube River sediment input and its interaction with the north-
western Black Sea. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 54/3, 551-562.
15

Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
16

[Title of the study/note]
____________________________________________________________________________________________
17

Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies
____________________________________________________________________________________________
18

[Title of the study/note]
____________________________________________________________________________________________
19